Overall, the consensus from the "ideas" round indicates the permission should be easy to get, with a fairly low threshold to discourage single purpose accounts and inexperienced reviewers. It was also deemed that the permission could be revoked only after discussion; not by an individual admin. The "straw poll" section indicated a threshold of around 500 non-auto edits to en.Wiki, and an account registered for 90 days. Overall, it seems that the right would either take the form of a requestable permission edit filter, or community standard, pending another RFC and technical information from WMF. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[AFC reviewers] must have demonstrated that they understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD, and WP:Notability, and are able to interact with other users in a polite, friendly, and helpful manner. --Kudpung, 18 October 2013
This RfC discusses suggestions for the threshold of experience for users to demonstrate that they are adequately versed in the policies and guidelines involved for an article that can exist uncontentiously in mainspace.
This RfC does not discuss how this threshold will be granted and/or implemented. That will be the topic of a further discussion, when the threshold itself has been established.
This RfC is not a vote. Participants are invited to discuss what would be a reasonable threshold. The closer will assess the outcome based on the discussion.
Consensus has been reached for this permission, this RfC is not for rediscussing whether a permission is needed.
Reviewer (Pending Changes Reviewer): Quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content. The threshold is deliberately low but Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article. They are expected to have a reasonable editing history, distinguish what is and what is not vandalism, and be familiar with basic content policies.
Reviewer permission are specified as follows:
You have an account, and routinely edit.
You have a reasonable editing history – as a guide, enough edits that a track record can be established.
Rollbacker: While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Users with 200 edits (generally discounting those to their own user space) can apply for training to the WP:CVUA. Admins rarely grant the tool for less than a clear run of at least 100 reverts of clearly identifiable vandalism without errors. Significant experience is needed to identify the kind of edits that may not appear to vandalism at first sight e.g. inappropriate edits missed by the bots and abuse filters.
Permission is granted by an admin.
Stiki: The account must have either: (1) the rollback permission/right, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or be approved after discussion with the developer.
Huggle: Requires rollback permission in order to function but does not otherwise have an approvals system.
AWB: Users must be added to a whitelist in order to use AWB. Only admins can edit the whitelist, and admins automatically have access. As a general rule, only users with more than 500 mainspace edits will be registered, and admins tend to only give access if a user has specified a task they want to use AWB for.
I'll start the ball rolling here with a fairly low threshold. Having seen plenty of the kind of errors that are made by editors who review AfC, I suggest that the minimum should be based on candidates having the choice of satisfying either of these two criteria (but not a lower mix of each).
1. Must have both Reviewer and Rollbacker rights, and have demonstrated that they have used these correctly within a minimum of 500 mainspace edits, and a minimum of one month tenure.
or
2. Must have patrolled at least 200 pages at WP:New pages patrol without recent error and demonstrated that they are a) familiar with the tags and deletion criteria offered by the Page Curation Toolbar without error. b) made significant use of the 'message to the creator' tool.
3. Above all, candidates must have demonstrated that they understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD, and WP:Notability, and are able to interact with other users in a polite, friendly, and helpful manner.
Does Page Curation need to be singled out? Don't a lot of users do NPP with other tools, like Twinkle? I think you should refer to NPP-related tags and criteria in general. Also, I think reviewer/rollbacker would be fine with one-or-the-other, rather than needing both. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
NPP should only be done nowadays with the Special:NewPagesFeed which does not use Twinkle. There may be a few editors still using the old page feed, but that system has been redundant now for a long time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I happened to just ask Dragonfly67 on IRC the other day, and he doesn't use the curation tool... Not implying one way or the other whether or not he would want AfC reviewer (yes, I obviously realize as an admin it doesn't really make much difference), just wondering if someone like him that doesn't use page curation but has patrolled thousands of pages should really be excluded. TL;DR, I think that saying that curation tool use is a requirement of proper page patrolling is inaccurate. Technical 13 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ditto... I patrol off WP:SCV and #wikipedia-en-spam. What we are looking for are speedy deletion accuracy and PROD/AFD nominations getting deleted. MER-C 05:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
MER-C, That's probably what you do, and naturally you are perfectly free to pick and choose how, what, and when you do, but patrollers should be aware of the recommendations at WP:NPP otherwise they are not really helping the project. I, for example, generally only look for blatant candidates for ultra speedy - and some of them I then summarily delete already - leaving the rest for other patrollers to figure out and learn from; I certainly don't plod systematically through the list, well, not these days - three years ago I cleared about 20,000 from the backlog in as many days, but I guess I was still full of Wikithusiasm. IMHO the new page feed and its curation tool is a brilliant piece of software; the only problem is that it's only any good in the hands of users who know what they are doing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see a certain number of articles created, perhaps 20, as a criterion for this user right. This would allow a fair assessment of the user's understanding with regard to article creation in my opinion. Additionally, I think the right could be bundled with autopatrolled just as well as sysop.—John Cline (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
While I like the idea of requiring some article creation experience I'm afraid 20 is far too high a threshold. I had been active here for 5 years and logged about 20,000 edits by the time I created my 20th article. Many of the most suitable candidates for AfC reviewer are those editors who have a lot of "wikignome"-editing experience - they generally don't create many articles. In any case "articles" is not a very useful unit of measurement - because both a 50-word stub about a village in Uzbekistan and a comprehensive GA-rated article about an obscure disease count as "1". I would give the right to the creator of one comprehensive article before I give it to a stub-mill with hundreds of three-sentence stubs, that just barely scrape past the minimum standards, on their scorecard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Dodger67, for 'Autopatrolled' the default criterion is 50 articles. However, admins review these carefully, discount redirects and dab pages, and and don't generally accord the right to '100 stub wonders'. 1-line stubs about one specific topic area do not demonstrate a sufficiently broad knowledge of policies and guidelines, especially the mass creators who use AWB or their first stub as a template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
When I saw the topic, I was going to suggest article creation as a possible prerequisite. If as high as 20, I'd recommend that it replace one or more other requirements. If standalone, I would recommend a lower threshold, perhaps 5, but those articles must demonstrate knowledge of notability, reliability, independence, etc. If more than 5 articles are created, not all need to pass this criteria (some should could be stubs), but there must be 5 that do, and there must not be recent creations that demonstrate lack of knowledge in the critical areas. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That largely echos my thinking. Article creation is good, but expansion of a stub to a full-blown article may be worth as much or more.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
While creating content within an existing article is an important measure, it presumes the existence of a notable article, rife for improvement. Article creation better demonstrates the all important ability of identifying notable subjects. AfD participation is perhaps another good way to gage clue in this regard.—John Cline (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Question as I'm seeing a lot of numbers or other rights being required here, which would be a major hurdle for many existing reviewers without of "grandfathering" of some kind. I'm not saying that these requirements are necessarily bad, just that they may be overzealous. Along the same lines as WP:CVUA for Rollbacker, I would like to think that a user without any of Reviewer or Rollbacker or 500 mainspace edits or 200 WP:New pages patrol or 20 created articles but who has demonstrated that they understand all of the proper policies (especially WP:Notability) via an AfC specific training program would be eligible. Technical 13 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Above all, candidates must have demonstrated that they understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD, and WP:Notability, and are able to interact with other users in a polite, friendly, and helpful manner.
You nailed it right there.
Any counts or other criteria we come up with are just ways to tell those who have done this from those who haven't, without having to spend hours wading through prospective reviewer's wiki-histories. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I hope you don't mind, I turned it into the {{tmbox}} at the top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I mind. Promoting one person's comment above all others with a big flashy spotlight is not conducive to consensus-building. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a lot of concern during the previous discussion that this would be a privilege which would be bestowed on some editors by others. This is how I envision the process working:
The Afc helper script be changed to only function for those on the Wikiproject AfC reviewer list.
The list could be on a protected page so that someone with regular reviewer rights would be needed to add names.
On request, an editor would automatically be added if they had reached a certain level of editing (for example, 2000 edits and one year of experience).
Editors wanting to review sooner or with less experience would have to meet the lower numbers of edits and time served mentioned above, and also convince a reviewer to add them to the list by demonstrating such items as Kudpung has mentioned above.
Names could be removed if problems cropped up (such as frivolous or frequently incorrect reviews).
The reason I suggest the addition of an automatic pass level is that I believe that many of the people who supported the previous Rfc only did so because they believed that it would be an automatic rather than requested permission. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus not to implement, due to concerns about threshold being too high. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There were absolutely no mentions in the proposal on the previous RfC that the right would be automatically conferred. Criteria for the right, and how it would be granted were deliberately left open for further discussions. This discussion is to determine those criteria. What was clear on that RfC was the typical phenomenon on Wkipedia discussions that many people, especially those commenting later, do not fully read the preamble and proposition correctly and the following discussion and go off at half-tack - even introducing items that were expressly not required in the discussion.
I didn't mention it above, but but I would assume that current active reviewers who have not demonstrated any controversial issues with their reviewing would be grandfathered in.
I think requiring 20 article creations would be setting the bar too high. This is not required for NPP which has a similar need for knowledge of policies and practice but which does not require a permission (yet) and still suffers from the same problems: not enough patrollers, and often too little experience. I know I keep drawing these comparisons with NPP but I do feel it's relevant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose criteria 2 New pages patrol is quite tedious and many users that could do it choose not to. I have to believe that asking people to do 300 NPPs will deter a ton of people from asking for AfC reviewer permission because there are plenty of other things most people would rather do than spend 20 hours doing NPP. Sven ManguardWha? 06:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree it is tedious. I did some quite some time ago and hated it. That said, it is eye-opening, and I wouldn't mind inclusion at a much lower level. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the exceedingly limited use of pending changes, what does reviewer actually signify? I agree with Sven's comments regarding NPP, as a long-standing patroller: 300 reviews is exceedingly high, both as something for the candidate to achieve and as something for anyone reviewing the candidacy to actually triage and check. Ironholds (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, I don't see anywhere that anyone has suggested 300 new page patrols. Perhaps if people would read discussions before they participate. I disagree most strongly that at NPP it is so difficult to attain a number of patrolls, I have done thousands and so have you. At the rate at which some patrollers review new articles, 200 patrols can be done in 200 minutes - alebeit probably as slipshod as some of the reviewing at AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
As usual, I'm going to ignore the pointless (and pointed) elements of your comment. To the remainder: the argument seems to boil down to "hey, you did it", which would be great if I wasn't the most active patroller for a solid two years by an order of magnitude I was even in a research study, how about that - "you can do it and I can do it" simply proves we can do it, not that it's achievable by anyone else. You know full well that our work on NPP is non-standard even for patrollers.
Sure, it's possible in a few hours, or days, or weeks if you actually want to put some effort in: that's not the point. It's a lot of work to put in to an activity you may actually have zero interest in - your interest is in AfC, not in NPP. It'd be like saying that for someone to be autopatrolled, they need to have extensive experience patrolling articles: sure, it's indicative of knowing what makes a good or bad article. It's also something that may bore them silly. I'm not entirely sure how excluding the people who don't enjoy NPP is going to help improve the quality or frequency of AfC work. I'd appreciate if you could address the reviewer comment as well. Ironholds (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
There are dozens of patrollers who have made 200 or more patrols - if you only do one a day that's about half a year, so please let's keep this in perspective. If the task is as thankless and boring as some have pointed out (which IMO it is), armed with that qualification they may find AfC more rewarding. No one is excluding those who have not done NPP - but you probably missed the alternative qualifications that were suggested. Whilst I see many parallels in the work of AfC and NPP, I see little or no correlation with PC reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Then I'm rather confused as to why you've recommended 'reviewer' as part of a qualification to get this right, since it's a PC-centric userright (unless someone can explain other uses it has, other than AFT5). Ironholds (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, it should be quite obvious that these are listed as examples of criteria for permissions that are accorded based on prior general experience and as incremental stages of user experience that demonstrate some metrics of knowledge of guidelines, policies, and practice for the purpose of access to different levels of meta tasks. We naturally have to start somewhere. You appear to be confused that we are discussing a MedWiki 'user right' according to the semantics of the Foundation, rather than a 'permission' as applied to this exercise. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't that obvious. I had to read it twice, after being initially puzzled that these were being designated as prerequisites. Then I realized they were examples of other rights, along with the criteria, so people could see example of criteria which could be used to think through the criteria for this right.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Sphilbrick. The text is indeed pretty confusing. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support except for criterion 2 - but only because I have never done NPP at all. I've just thought of a way to imlplement "Criterion 3". Basically it ammounts to putting new reviewers "on probation". We use a mechanism similar to the "re-review" that is currently used as a "quality control" check during backlog elimination drives. Thus someone who meets the (deliberately low) technical threshold has their first reviews logged at a special page from where they are rechecked by experienced reviewers. The "probation" is lifted once the new reviewer has demonstrated comptence to the satisfation of the other reviewers.. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Dodger67, that's why aspiring candidates can choose between the two sets of criteria that fits their situation best. They don't need to satisfy them both. Essentially however, exactly what we are trying to do here is to avoid having to monitor the work of new reviewers as much as possible. This is currently being done on an ad hoc basis, but only when issues come to light. It would be impossible to do a double-control on all new reviewers - AfC resources are stretched too far already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think RogerDodger67 has the right mindset ... but I agree with Kudpung that manually reviewing past work, by having existing AfC folks manually monitor some please-check-me-for-accuracy queue, is not the way to go. Methinks the only approach that can put new reviewers on probation, and also automatically check their competence *without* requiring any additional effort from existing AfC folks, is to use an auto-test setup ... where the candidate AfC reviewer attempts to pass judgement on a stream of submissions, which some existing AfC folks have already judged. If the candidate gives the same answers as the existing folks, then the candidate has proven their worth. See my detailed suggestion-section, below. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose rollback requirement. There are other ways to revert vandalism, for example by using Twinkle's rollback function. I find Twinkle's rollback feature superior to the standard rollback feature as it allows specifying an edit summary, and for that reason, I haven't even seen any need to apply for rollback permission on this project, although I occasionally use the rollback function on Commons. A user's choice to use alternative tools shouldn't affect the chances of becoming an AfC reviewer. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose setting the bar wildly higher for WP:AFC than for WP:NPP as both largely compete for attention of the same volunteers. The requirements for both, while not identical, should be close. It's reasonable to ask that a reviewer be someone who has written an article or two which didn't get deleted, and understands the basic policies (particularly notability and sources), but set the bar arbitrarily high and the only result is to make an already-bad AFC backlog worse. That does no one any favours. K7L (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironically there is no bar for NPP. That's why they have problems there too. I campaigned for years for a solution for the control of new articles which accumulated in the ill fated WP:ACTRIAL, and for improvement of NPP, and that was why we ultimately got the Page Curation system, but it still did not address the two issues: too few patrollers, and too little experience - and there is still an unacceptable backlog with some less easy articles not getting patrolled for months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Despite "Consensus has been reached for this permission, this RfC is not for rediscussing whether a permission is needed." I still think that this is an incredibly bad idea and will ultimately complicate a process that is already so heavily bureaucratized and understaffed that it has had to come and beg people to help multiple times.
That being said, my suggestion is that rather than make the criterion based on vandalism fighting, we make it based on content creation. The permission would be given to:
Autopatrolled (automatically, by making adding it to the autopatrolled package)
Anyone with at least one GA or at least two DYKs
Anyone that has a track record of positive work doing AfC reviews (before the RfC)
Admins should feel free to assign the permission to anyone that qualifies. Rather than set up a request board, the AfC instructions should instruct people looking for reviewer permission to ask an admin already involved in AfC.
Finally, and I can't stress this enough, the AfC reviewer userright group should never be used to determine recipients for mass messages. AfC has, in my opinion, a shockingly bad track record when it comes to soliciting participation from people that don't want to hear from AfC, and no matter what the ultimate decision about what the AfC reviewer criteria is, plenty of people are going to be given the userright despite having no interest in AfC reviewing (not least because admins will get the right automatically, as they do with almost every other right).
I'm still confused as to why we're talking about a userright. What technical privilege would it confer, and has anyone taken the time to ask the developers if this would actually be possible or even desirable as MediaWiki functionality? Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
We can restrict use of the AfC tool. I'm not sure if that conforms to the definition of a userright. Re: "Has anyone taken the time..." Would you mind being a bit less combative? In the previous RfC, linked above, someone with (WMF) in their sig, who seemed to know technical stuff chimed in. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ahh. Me or Sven? Sorry if I'm coming off as combative; that's not the intent. Userrights are software-recognised things that permit or restrict MediaWiki actions; admin is a userright that allows access to things like Special:Block, autopatrolled lets MediaWiki automatically mark a page as reviewed, so on and so forth. From a MediaWiki point of view, AfC does not exist; it's not special functionality, just a set of pages. So I'm trying to ascertain if people have actually spoken to the developers and asked if this makes sense as a technically-implemented userright. If not, some of the comments above (rolling it in with autopatrolled, for example) seem unnecessary, and people might want to use less confusing terminology. Userright == MW-recognised status that grants access to special functionality. AfC is not software-recognised functionality.
The WMF-person I can see is Steven Walling; his statement was "I have no idea whether it will be even possible to fulfill the request from a technical perspective". So, this probably needs further investigation before rather than after criteria are established. Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying userright. We should probably determine what level of competence a person needs to have demonstrated before being permitted to review AfCs, before discussing whether we need to enforce it with a technical fix. I proposed earlier in this discussion that we use Wikipedia:Reviewer as a marker for adequate competence, and use social control to enforce it along with changing the AFC tool script to prevent anyone not on Special:ListUsers/reviewer from using the tool. But I pulled it, wondering whether that's setting the bar too low. Regardless, we can probably do what we want here without involving MediaWiki development. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the plans for how to implement this, but a user right does not necessarily need to give access to extra special pages. For example, Commons has the OTRS-member, and the only difference between "OTRS-member" and "autopatrolled" is that an "OTRS-member" can add certain templates to a page without triggering Commons:Special:AbuseFilter/69. This user right could potentially be used in a similar abuse filter to prevent addition of certain AfC templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Once again, as there is little likelihood that a MedWiki solution will be granted - or even asked for, the question is moot. Some non MedWki methods have already been suggested and even by Brandon himself with whom I had a lengthy (and exceptionally friendly) discussion in Hong Kong. It's been mentioned dozens of times that permissions are needed for several MedWiki-independent actions. They are however listed at WP:PERM as the portal for permissions that are granted by admins. So again, we are discussing something that is not on the agenda of this RfC. Implementation/deployment comes later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I am befuddled by this counsel! Considering notes 1 thru 3 of the original RfC, how can one say another's suggestion is moot upon its rendering? Otherwise, this is not a request for comment, but instead, a request for support; of ideas apparently already decided.—John Cline (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not, John. This is a think tank with an objective to define some criteria of experience for reviewing articles submitted to AfC. As stated in the previous RfC, what these criteria would be are for discussion (now here), and how it would be implemented will be discussed when the criteria have been established. One of the reasons that Wikipedia RfC fail or become overly convoluted is that there is often a tendency to discuss tangential issues at the same time, or ones that are not yet up for debate. Ironholds has made it perfectly clear that he will resist any suggestions to make this a MedWiki based 'user right', but has mistakenly assumed that that was the intention (on both this and the previous RfC). That said, if indeed any of the senior staff at the WMF decide that this 'permission' is of significant interest to entertain a MedWiki solution, we would be most pleased to hear about it, but we are not aware of any such offers as yet - in fact a closer look at my comments will reveal that I concur entirely with Ironholds that this is not a MedWiki operation, hence such suggestions are off topic as being evidently unworkable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion it would greatly serve this discussion if there was a definitive answer regarding MediaWiki support. If the entire modification is to be implemented at the WikiProject level, then yes, we are straying off topic by suggesting a new userright, whether automatic or granted; and should therefore focus the eye of our brain storm locally. That said, the best solution to my eyes involves MediaWiki support, and I for one wish we had garnered that support already. Otherwise I think Graeme Bartlett is correct that a blacklist is the way to segregate bad apples and I suppose we could use discretionary sanctions to ban individual involvement where cause has been shown. Notwithstanding, I am optimistic that better ideas are forthcoming, provided we don't stifle the creative flow of ideas by the heavy hand of pessimism.—John Cline (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming back to this John, but I think Ironholds (whichever hat he is wearing) has made it already abundantly clear. We're essentially discussing a set of criteria for a 'permission' rather than a 'User Right' per per Foundation semantics. I had an interesting in-depth discussion on this very topic with Brandon Harris, Erik Möller, and Steven Walling in Hong Kong and although they made some very interesting suggestions how we could approach an improvement to the AfC process, I do not believe there would be a spark of optimism for a MedWiki solution unless this were to have a cross-Wiki rollout. Personally I think it's best for us to find our own solutions locally. There is a faint chance that if they see we're making a superb effort in the right direction ourselves (as they did with NPP) they may step in towards the end bearing gifts, but I wouldn't bank on it. That said, although we want to avoid hat-collecting, I'm very suspicious that one of the reasons why NPP performs badly is that it ironically doesn't have a hat to collect although it demands far more knowledge than PC Reviewer or Rollbacker. Only today I came across a blatant long copyvio synthesis of multiple academic papers completely wrongly tagged by a 14-year-old patroller, who even apologised to the creator and removed the tag again! How many 100s of users would we need to blacklist before we have a few dozen reliable AfC reviewers left? A blacklist only shuts the barn door after the horse has bolted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
What were their suggestions? And this isn't a Foundation POV, this is a software POV - the two are very much distinct. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Their suggestions are for a different discussion. As to WMF vs Software, you are best placed to know these things, but as far as the community is probably concerned, the Foundation holds the keys to development priorities, the human resources, the servers, and the funds. Please note that I support your theory that this is most unlikely to be accepted as a MedWiki request and I'm doing my best to stifle any sidetracking on the assumptions that it will. That said, from what I have heard from the Foundation staff and from competent programmers among the volunteer community, it won't be too difficult to find a local en.Wiki solution, whether a social one or one governed by some kind of script(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If all that we want from this is to limit who uses the Afc Helper script, I don't see why any WMF changes are needed. The script is developed by our volunteer coders here. As I mentioned in my suggestions above, to enforce this all that would be needed is (1) The list of reviewers on the "Participants" page would be protected so that someone with Reviewer status would be needed to add a username, and (2) The script would check the list and only work for a username on the list. Whatever criteria we decide to use, this combination should prevent random new users from coming along and adding themselves to the list. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
And what does that solve? The AfC Helper script is just a helper. There's no requirement to use it. It provides no functionality that a user can't do without it. AfC went a long time without having it, so I'm not sure what restricting it from some users accomplishes. If this whole RfC is about limiting a helper script, we really don't need an RfC at all. Just code it. However, the initial RfC made it very clear that this isn't just about the script. So, if it isn't a bit and it isn't just the script -- what is it? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to redirect this deep thread to ShinmaWa's question-section at the bottom. Agreed that there is no software-enforced requirement that only threshold-approved official AfC folks are permitted to perform AfC actions... but we can make that the *default* way that AfC is handled, and folks doing it *outside* the default way (with exceptions made to grandfather-in people with 10k edits that are using old-school tools or their own custom workflow or whatever) will therefore stick out. This makes it easier to see who is 'officially' doing AfC within the threshold-limits, of course... and if needed, we can tell people doing it *badly* outside the threshold helper-script world to please stop, right? I think enforcement without no cracks in the security is *not* the goal here, because WP:AGF. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In my eyes, an AfC reviewer should experienced enough that they would easily qualify for the rollback tool. Putting that aside, I would agree that having at least 1000 mainspace edits is a good idea for an AfC reviewer. I would not say that the conventional reviewer right was enough; it's one thing reviewing and rejecting vandalism, and a whole other one reviewing a whole article. I don't see how GA/DYK/FA count should be relevant. The "autopatrolled" bar is too high for the AfC reviewer right; and as I've said before, you can be a great article writer but very poor at reviewing other's works. Having to patrol 200 things at NPP is excessive, although I agree that some experience is required (maybe 25-50?), due to that being one of the more relevant comparisons. I'll come up with my own proposal later, if I have time. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 07:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"Rollback" is a vandalism tool; it allows multiple edits to be undone quickly where a vandal has randomly hit multiple articles. "Autopatrolled" is intended to keep extremely prolific but otherwise harmless new page authors from flooding WP:NPP. Neither necessarily infer a better AFC reviewer, although they normally are given to someone who is doing no harm. A good or featured article usually has multiple contributors instead of being WP:OWNed by one primary author; someone who'd submitted a pile of stubs in 2002 on valid topics, left the project for a decade and then returned to find some were expanded to GA/FA level would be given more credit than due. An editor which pulls a topic off the WP:AFD pile and rewrites it to WP:FA status, conversely, is not credited with creating an article. All of these metrics have their limitations - preview nothing before you save it and you can run up edit count more quickly, for instance. Experience writing valid articles or bringing existing articles up to some standard (off AfD to viable, off stub/start to B/A/GA, ordinary article to FA) is valuable but collecting privilege flags or edit count just for the sake of doing so does not always guarantee a better reviewer. K7L (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
We should consider what we are trying to achieve here:
Firstly we want to build the encyclopedia. So such a person should show that they can recognise the useful content for Wikipedia. The person should be able to understand what is and is not a suitable topic. They should be able to find a duplicte topic.
Secondly we want to encourage the contributors, so we want the candidate to be able to talk to the contributors to explain what is needed to improve or to make an acceptable article. The person should be civil in their communication.
Thirdly we want to keep it legal, so the candidate should be able to recognise a copyright infringement, or an attack page.
Fourthly some nice to have features: The person can add categories and stub tags. The script seems entirely cabable of adding the almost useless orphan tag, so I hope our person can also show that they can edit articles to link to pages, including use of piped links.
Pretty accurately sums up what I said in my suggestion, Graeme. What we're looking for now are some metrics that define those qualities for the purpose of according the permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
So I am not so demanding in predefined standards, but the candidate should be able to show these capabilities. If a person is asking for it they can show diffs that illustrate these capabilities. I do agree that NPP is quite a useful precursor experience for AfC reviewer. The other flags such as rollback and reviewer are not directly relevant, but certainly would show that the editor is constructive. If the person does not want to do 400 NPP items, perhaps they could do some apprenticeship work, perhaps checking AFC contributions and giving feedback to a mentor that would prove that they are on the right track. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I see that 200 has grown to 300 and now to 400. Sounds a bit Falstaffian ;) Mine were but the first suggestions to get the ball rolling and I knew it would entrain some discontent; let's lurk awhile and see what others may suggest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I like Graeme's ideas, and as a submitter I would love to work with an AfC person who met all these criteria... but I am very hesitant that some of them can be decided without fawning, interviewing, role-playing sessions, and other expensive overhead. (Yes, we are all volunteers for the most part, I'm talking about opportunity cost here... every minute an existing AfC person spends interviewing an AfC candidate, is *two* minutes that those people could have been actually whittling down the AfC queue backlog.)
In particular, Graeme's point#2 about being an encouraging person, explaining things well, invariably civil, good looking, well dressed... okay, not those last two. But I hope the point is clear: there is no way to automatically test and verify those things. Just because somebody is good with those things in a one-hour interview is also no guarantee they will be that way *every* day, to more or less *every* contributor they happen to work with. Some people have a naturally sunny, cheerful, helpful disposition: I've met a few librarians like that, and many teachers. But for every one of those, I've interacted with hundreds if not thousands of fast-food clerks, waiters in restaurants, checkout clerks at the grocery store, floor assistants in retail stores, tech support folks via telephone or IM, and so on and so forth. It is *hard* to be consistently nice, consistently helpful, explain intricate details fully, and all that. Such people are diamonds in the rough, not grains of sand lying on the beach. If we *do* get a gemstone in AfC, I'd recommend we use them as a second-tier, for when contributors have trouble with their first tier person for whatever reason, they can be passed to the sunny cheery natural teacher sitting in the tier-two chair.
Since point#2 took so much verbosity, I'll hit point#3 super-lightly: don't we have copyvio bots? And aren't BLP articles a specialist niche, given their legal-kryptonite-status, which ought be directed to *only* the AfC folks most experienced with such things? Point#1 methinks we *can* auto-test, see my 74-whatever comment below, and some of point#4 is also either auto-testable, or demonstrable in a three-minute (as opposed to three-hour) interview process. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
74 it sounds like you are raising the quality bar on the point 2, I was not expecting the behaviour always, but enough to do the job and encourage the contributors. The idea was not to have just gamers that can only push buttons. BLPs are most of what we have (may be companies too) so we need people to handle them too. But perhaps also we need people who can recognise their own limitations and not attempt something the mess up. So even someone that can decline a joke or vandalism can be useful if they just stick to that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Well... I'm not really trying to raise the bar, so much as point out that cheerfulness is a spectrum, but with some pretty well-defined focus-areas. I'm actually trying to lower the bar, if anything. I think we want the tier-one AfC candidates to be the equivalent of the sales-associates at the designer clothing store: efficient-n-quick with straightforward purchases, at least minimally friendly, but do not really have time (and thus do not really need to have the skillset) for solving difficult sticky-wicket cases. If you are trying to create an article about a BLP, who was formerly a relatively unknown business owner, but just announced their candidacy for the mayorship of a large city, and leapt to frontrunner status in the polls, then the sales-associate can send your article on through. If your little brother has a garage band, and the school newspaper mentioned their name once, and that is it so far, then the sales-associate can politely tell you WP:NOTNOW.
The grey areas are more tricky, where something is borderline-Notable, but requires more depth in the sources, or whatever. I want those types of grey-area cases to be quickly glanced over by the first-tier sales-associate, and then passed back to the second-tier cheerful-librarian-associate. If the second-tier folks cannot solve the issues in a timely fashion, I want the third-tier to be, that the submitter is redirected to the WP:TEAHOUSE to find help doing the rewrite, and their AfC submission goes to the back of the queue. TLDR, rather than insist that our sales-associates aka AfC reviewers *must* be "interviewed for cheerfulness and tested on how sunny their disposition is", methinks we just need to remind everybody to be WP:NICE, which is required of *all* wikipedians anyways. If we happen to run across somebody that is *naturally* cheery and sunny, then we should then 'promote' them to tier-two work, where their special skill is extra-applicable: handling grey-areas. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
We have copyvio bots, but they probably can't be used until AfC submissions are made on a namepage e.g; 'Draft', instead of a talk page or sub page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User:MadmanBot already scans AFCs (it misses at least some copyvios) when it's working. Patroller recognition of copyvios is still a must. MER-C 04:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay... and how do we test whether an AfC reviewer-candidate possesses that special skill, ability to sniff WP:COPYVIO? There is a tool for analyzing whether URL#1 and URL#2 have copyvio problems. And there are bots that detect plagiarism, kinda-sorta. But short of glancing over the output of such tools, can humans really detect COPYVIO? I guess some things will be obvious, like a submission that says "copyright New York Times" at the top or the bottom of the text, or more subtly, text that has a bunch of internal links that are not wikilinks, but look like they came from a view-source-cut-n-paste job. But baretext submission, that was cut-n-pasted from the middle of some obscure website? Seems unlikely an AfC reviewer will detect the plagiarism with their spidey-senses. Maybe it's not that hard, because the plagiarized portion sticks out as a different 'voice' from the other portions of the AfC submission? (If there is a knack to copyvio-sniffing, methinks the parallel-primary-criteria scheme is useful training.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose any creation of a new right that resembles a "collectable hat" in any way, or that makes editors of this, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" more dependent upon bureaucracy.
We have a vandalism problem that ab initio editors can pop up, trash an article, post spam links and wander off. We have no checks on this. We allow unregistered editing and we allow unregistered editors to wreak all manner of havoc on established articles. I thus fail to see why we should start narrowing down AfC in particular to a subset of editors willing to jump through hoops.
In particular, making AfC review dependent upon a discretionary permission like rollback. I don't have rollback. I did have, and it was removed for a disagreement over regarding this edit / User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2009_September#Reversion as vandalism or not. Ever since then I've made a point of never asking for such a discretionary permission, lest it be pulled by some teenage admin with an axe to grind.
I can see some virtue to restricting AfC review (and think a lot more things, up to basic editing) should be restricted. But can we please keep this to a very lightweight, automatically-granted permission, not one dependent on cliques and fawning. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This idea of a automatic permission, or one that is very easy to get, appears to have overall support. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To clarify a point raised off-line, there is a genuine concern that "editors who can't accurately review" shouldn't have this permission (that being it's point). We can attempt to judge this before granting it (which seems difficult to judge) but we can just as readily judge it after it has been awarded. If awarding the permission is a simple edit-count as a first filter, then it's easier to judge real skill by seeing some AfC reviews (and most editors just won't get involved anyway).Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I support these sentiments.—John Cline (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. AfC is desperately understaffed as it is, and unless the permission is automatic this already understaffed project will become a huge bottleneck for the encylopedia. At the very least, everyone who has previously done favourable work at AfC (10 or more good reviews) should have this permission from the outset. --LukeSurltc 10:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support this view. Any limitation on Articles for Creation will end up shutting out more good contributors than bad, and AfC is horrible backlogged already. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Where are the hoards of volunteers 'without' a criteria who are already prepared to step in and review AfC submissions competently? AfC is indeed desperately understaffed as it is, and does not have the person-power to review every reviewer's work. That would only make the bottleneck worse. Some are obviously getting it wrong and yet others blatantly abuse the system for their own ends. We either want reviewers or we don't, but appointing them through some arbitrary automated selection method without any real control would probably lead to greater disaster. The permission has been created by consensus. This is an RfC to determine the criteria for that permission and not to re-debate the need for it. Once the criteria have been established, it will be further discussed how to implement them specifically in a way that it does not become a trophy for the hat-collectors, with as little 'cliques and fawning' as possible, and avoid being pulled by the (fortunately) ever dwindling corps of teenage admins with an axe to grind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think getting more AfC candidates is a job for WP:RETENTION, and similar anti-WP:BITE organizations like the teahouse. Bluntly, it is very difficult to *increase* the percentage of editors that will want to get involved with AfC work, by demanding they first meet some threshold-criteria. (That is not strictly the case, which is why I said 'very difficult' and not flat impossible... one could imagine threshold-criteria like 'willing to accept USD$100/hour from wikimedia foundation for their AfC work' that would *dramatically* increase the pool of editors willing to fight for an AfC slot, but as a class those tend to be unrealistic).
I think what Andy and LukeSurl are trying to say is that the point of the threshold-criteria is to keep from accidentally reducing the number of AfC candidates *too* much, while still satisfying the basic goal that the threshold-criteria gives us a usable metric from separating the wheat from the chaff. We want the threshold to prevent COUNTERPRODUCTIVE folks from becoming AfC workers, where their net contribution is negative, because they make so many mistakes which other folks end up needing to clean up later on. But if we require fawning, or non-automatic AfC-permbit acquisition, or tons of paperwork, or running the gauntlet ("in order to get the AfC-permbit you must undergo RfA -- even if you already have the admin-bit"), or significant friction-slash-overhead, we shoot ourselves in the foot. Too much friction, and the overall benefit of having a threshold (eliminating N counterproductive candidates) will not outstrip the overall disadvantage of having a threshold (eliminating M productive candidates!). Agreed that we don't want an "arbitrary automated selection method without any real control" ... but we do need it automated, preferably non-arbitrary, and with as little bureaucratic friction as possible, both to keep from tying up existing AfC folks in resume-review-and-interview stuff, plus also to keep from tying up AfC candidates in fawning-and-paperwork. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we do need a human assessment rather than an automated one. Perhaps it can be easy to get but then easy to remove if there are stuff ups. Perhaps a list such as for AWB can be useful, and alternative could be that we just have a black list. The kind of hat that people would not want to collect is a possible. The hat could be "restricted from AFC review" and only stop people from doing it. We could have other bits for vandals or clueless or copyright infringers. Then these are the people that don't get to operate it. for the axegrinders, we need an axeginder bit too! Though I think I am stretching this to non-seriousness here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The Eric Corbett CIVILity-inapplicable bit. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
For the axegrinders we need an angle-grinder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
support as best idea I've seen thus far. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
So far the suggestions have mentioned edit count, rollback, AWC, etc. as prerequisites. However none of those things truly show that one can review articles well. What is a better way to prove your worth at reviewing articles, than reviewing articles? I propose that every candidate find 5 pending articles they would decline, and 5 they would accept and they would have to explain their reasoning, citing policy. They should also be able to explain WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, etc. An admin would then review their responses and choose whether to accept them as a reviewer. Thoughts? Ross Hill (talk) 16:30, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC) 16:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to find acceptable articles...how about 5-8 articles total, whether acceptable or not? Howicus(Did I mess up?) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose "admin would then review". I don't see any reason why administrators are required for this process, unless there's a technical implementation requirement for them to be. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't really focussing on any specifics. I don't care if it's an admin, or an experienced reviewer. 5 articles, or 3. I just want feedback on the idea. Ross Hill (talk) 23:52, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC) 23:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Of course, how feasible this suggestion is depends upon the implementation (which is why it is folly to attempt to separate criteria from implementation). However, given all the social-based implementation ideas presented so far, including AfC mentoring, elaborate testing, and the like, this one is the best so far, I think. However, it would need to be fleshed out quite a bit on the specifics of who gets to review, based on what objective criteria, and -- to beat the dead horse -- how approving an applicant would be implemented. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I have fleshed out an implementation plan for Ross Hill's idea, which I believe is the only truly fair (and predictive) basis for 'testing'. (My answers to ShinmaWa's questions are nobody, based on the objective performance of existing trusted AfC folks, and automatically based on the specified X-and-Y values at the time -- or perhaps retroactively.) The other criteria being discussed (editcount/etc) are all secondary criteria, which might be useful as a way to pass-the-test-without-testing, but cannot replace the trial by fire of AfC work itself. Rather than choosing articles at random, and let possibly-biased editors make the call on whether the candidate judged correctly, I suggest using real articles that are really going through AfC. If the candidate gets right answers (where 'right' is defined by the answers the actual AfC person gave) on enough of the articles, they too become an official AfC person. See here -- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/RfC_for_AfC_reviewer_permission_criteria#Suggestion_by_74-whatever
support this. If we must have a 'crat allocated privilege, then at least let's bind it to the real task in hand. Candidates review some (clarification needed) unreviewed AfC candidates, of which at least a couple must be judged pass/fail as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It's distracting to separate criteria from implementation here, since they are closely tied together. (The criteria you use affect how you can implement it, and v-v.) So here's a joint suggestion:
Simple option
Maintain a list of reviewers on a wikipage. Let anyone add themselves; remove those who aren't working out yet. Add a feature to one of the popular review-tools that checks to see if new articles on an AfC topic are created by users who aren't on the list -- a flag that someone else should doublecheck the work.
Tying this right to 'edit count' or 'rollback' seems like a terrible idea to me. The number of people willing and able to do this work is tiny; you can interact with them all personally. Instead, tie it to a single back-and-forth welcoming interest and asking people if they feel comfortable they know what a good article looks like [with pointers].
Future technical option
Combine this with the Reviewer flag. Make this the Flagged-Revs workflow for the very first rev of an article. Make it something that is given automatically to people meeting certain threshholds, and to anyone else who asks. Allow it to be removed for misuse; but most granting of the right should be automatic, other than time spent welcoming new collaborators.
The flag should allow access to tools that make AfC work streamlined and easy, and that update any special pages that track requested articles. (In comparison: anyone, with or without this right, can browse the AfC requests and create articles based on them. But it won't be checked off of the queue until a reviewer checks that work.)
Aside: it seems to me that the impact of the Reviewer flag has been weakened by the requirement that admins apply the right, with no automatic way to get the flag. This is unlike basically every other reputation-ladder I know of. Our lack of automatic activity-based rights (other than autoconfirmation) is a waste of energy, and seems self-perpetuating.
– SJ + 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree. I am still against a user right for this, and reading over what is written here, it looks like what we need is a "reviewer block" for bad reviewers, not an extra reviewer right. All of the criteria I have read above just reinforces my scepticism, because whenever someone talks about "grandfathering in" they really mean "let's keep this cabal small, trusted and among ourselves". We really need to start trusting newbies again like we did back in 2006, or the editor retention rate is going to drop more and more rapidly as the "grandfathers" start to drop off, for whatever reason. Jane (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to cut right to the chase. I think that in order to get the reviewer right, you need to get past this. The mentoring program is currently a work in progress, but when it's done, it would be the perfect solution for the new AFC reviewer right. buffbills7701 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This should be one way to get the access to the AFC Helper Script. It should not be the only way (e.g. most very experienced editors with good reputations shouldn't have to "go to school" to get access to the tool). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a great way to open a hatshop for the currently inexperienced. No, or at least very few, long term editors would go near it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I'm sure Buffbills meant 'one way' as David expanded. Every single user right from Confirmed through to Bureaucrat is a millinery in our information mall, but generally only on the lower floors - anyone who has worked extensively at WP:PERM and WP:RfA knows this. However, the systems of scrutiny that accord those rights generally function well but there will always be a tiny few who loose their flags - especially admins who have an axe to grind. At the lower levels, it is even more rare for PC reviwers, Rollbackers, File Movers, Autopatrolled, etc. to be demoted, but it does happen. I've never been subject to sanctions, but as one who was bullied by two teenage admins early in my Wiki career, and completely bullied away by an admin (now desyoped) from one topic area, never to return, where I had most to offer the encyclopedia, I do follow the ANI/AN, RfC/U, and Arbcom rituals very closely even if I don't participate much there. As an admin however, I don't have any axes to grind.
Let's not get too uptight or paranoid about the occasional hat-collector slipping through the net, a system of control over who can process AfC submissions is far better than none at all or one that is accorded automatically based simply on editcount/tenure, etc. Possibly those who work regularly at AfC and its maintenance are more aware of the issues than those who don't, but what we are here to do is ask the broader community for their opinion on, and to suggest, a set of criteria that would largely contribute to improving the quality of AfC reviewing, ensure that all reviewers are singing from the same page, and are friendly to the the submitters. The permission does not grant any further rights or hamper the work of article creators who know what is expected from an article that will survive legitimately in the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with David here. We have a need to solve the current problem of poor quality reviewing. I believe we need this right, but it should be very low, based on a simple mileage count – then if needs be, withdrawn from poor reviewers, based on the quality of their reviews. Secondly we can achieve this by encouraging experienced editors to take more part (AfC review is not rocket science) and anything that could be seen as "patronising" is hardly likely to achieve that. How many 5+ year / 10s of kedits editors want to be "mentored" by someone who has maybe 6 months of springy-tailed editing inbetween school? I spent a chunk of last week being lectured on 1950s motor racing history by someone who's barely old enough to have a driving licence, but here they have the free time to do a lot of typing, so they get to shout loudly and often. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Buffbills7701, editors with only double digit edits regularly add their names to WP:WPAFC/P list and due to the immense workload we're not always quick enough to do something about it. Last week one registered with the sole purpose of passing their own articles. One of our concerns therefore is for the grey area of editors who review, but whom we are not aware of. I support the idea of a school for aspiring reviewers and I'm currently working with other editors to set one up. I don't believe genuine hat-collectors are very interested in going through the rigours of our various training systems (I completely redesigned the WP:CVUA from the ground up and also set up an NPP school) . One of our standard answers at WP:PERM (Rollbacker) is "Hi, I appreciate your enthusiasm but with only 46 edits to mainspace I don't think you have sufficient experience yet. When you have made at least 200 edits, you may wish to enroll at the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy to learn more about it."Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I don't understand about all this. You've brought up this editor who registered an account to "pass his own articles" on a number of occasions. So. What. You act as if this is some kind of real crime against the project. In reality is that once he's a registered user, he has every right to create his own articles in mainspace as much as every other user does. If he wants to clear the duplicate article out of AFC in the process, there might have been better ways to do it, but overall, he didn't hurt the project at all and he certainly didn't hurt AFC one bit in doing so. That argument is completely a red herring and I do wish you'd stop using it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
temporarily delayed as my suggestion is for auto-testing and auto-confirming *technical* competence at AfC specifically, and kudpung is after *moral* competence and ethical commitment to wikipedia generally
Kudpung and Anne and others have suggested various secondary criteria for the threshold: edit-count, NPP, and so on. Lukeno pointed out that some secondary criteria (like participation bringing something to GA status) have little relevance, because most of the AfC stuff is nowhere *near* that status. Several people have pointed out an automatic-grant-the-bit solution is the best way to minimize bureaucracy, but other people have countered that the human element is crucial, for most secondary characteristics do not really tell us if the candidate will be any good at judging AfC submissions. It is important that they be good at this task, because too many false-negatives will cause a dramatic amount of work downstream, and of course a lot of drama if an 'accepted' article is then speedy-AfD'd the following week. I believe there is a way AfC folks can have their cake and eat it too. We should judge the worth of potential AfC folks, based on how they would do on real-world AfC submissions, compared to current AfC folks on those same submissions.
Candidates wishing to get the authorized-for-AfC bit test their skills against real-world AfC submissions
Threshold should be an X% success rate on a minimum of Y real-world AfC decisions
Example test: on Wednesday evening, Anne Delong judges ten AfC submissions from the queue; I do the same, without seeing any of her decisions
Example math: Anne's answers were yyNNyyNNyy to those ten, and my answers were yyNNyyNNNN , which means I made two mistakes (Anne is perfect -- good work Anne :-)
Example fail: if the threshold chosen is X>=90% and Y>=10_decisions, I satisfied my_Y>=10 but I failed to satisfy my_X>=90.
Example learn: determined to get there, I study Anne's answers (now visible to me after my test-session), and keep trying.
Example win: in my next test-session, I judge ten more of Anne's cases in parallel, and make no mistakes. Now my_Y=20 and my_X=18/20, which means I just auto-passed with my_Y>=10 and my_X>=90%.
Disadvantages:
the test-session itself is duplication of 'real' work (Anne is working -- I'm only *simulating* work she already did)
somewhat difficult to explain the concept of auto-testing in parallel (cf verbosity of this proposal)
may be *quite* difficult to implement the concept of auto-testing in parallel, since Q&A with the submitter is not something we can simulate
likely impossible slash infeasible to really make the 'blindness' of the auto-test secure (if Anne emails me the answers I *will* pass)
even if we posit that security is not a big deal, and Q&A can be elided, still need a dev to write some code for auto-testing (not true of e.g. simplistic editCount>=1000 threshold or similar)
hard to pick the initial Y ... make it too high, and nobody will try, make it too low, nobody will fail
hard to pick the initial X ... make it too high, and *existing* AfC folks will be eliminated, unless grandfathered in
just because you crammed, and memorized the policies long enough to pass a test-session, does not mean you really are good at AfC later on
"Kudpung: Last week one registered with the sole purpose of passing their own articles." Somebody could cram for the test-session with that purpose in mind, too. Only an admin can catch that.
scoring well on the auto-test does *not* necessarily make you a good AfC judge... it depends on whose answers you correctly mimic'd!
Advantages:
threshold is real-world *primary* criteria, not secondary
although no humans are involved with granting the bit once I pass, a real human is doing the testing (Anne is testing me)
as with anything in wikipedia, WP:IAR means that even if I auto-pass, some admin can always *manually* remove my authorized-bit later on
fair nature of the automated testing means no complaints about bias/fawning/etc
easy to auto-grant the permbit when the threshold is met , with a database table of people-who-passed-the-automated-testing
easy to auto-warn an 'official' AfC person when their ongoing work falls below the testing-threshold at any point
easy to retroactively adjust the threshold-values of X and Y upwards to improve quality, or downwards to improve reserve-troop-strength
difficult to explain 'on paper' but in practice easy to explain... watch what Anne does today, tomorrow do what Anne does, if you do well you pass, if you don't you can try again.
p.s. Forgot to mention that I agree that *some* sorts of work should automatically be given the AfC-permbit. Have three years and 10k edits with no blocks in the past year? You get the AfC-permbit without needing to pass the X-out-of-Y-auto-testing-threshold. 42 edits on enWiki, but 10k edits on deWiki? Prolly you have to take the auto-test, as a real-world check on your ESL skill. Have 333 NPP credits? Ditto. Have 10 new articles in existence, each older than a month without being deleted? Ditto. Member of arbcom, passed an RfA (regardless of whether you still hold the admin-bit), surname Wales? Ditto ditto ditto. But these secondary criteria should be, well, secondary. What matters is not your edit-count, but how your judgement matches up against Anne Delong's judgement. Our existing AfC personnel should be the gold standard, both now, and five years from now. Auto-testing is a self-reinforcing metric of 'goodness' methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
And in particular, one group that should automatically get the AfC-permbit was mentioned by Anthonyhcole (besides the 1500 admins), namely, the 6000 people with the Reviewer-permbit. Much like I'm suggesting here, there is a trial period. However, the threshold-criteria for Reviewer-permbits are not numerical and automatic, but require an interview process: knowledge of the reviewing-guide & vandalism-policy, familiarity with WP:COPYVIO / WP:BLP / WP:NPOV / WP:OR / WP:V / WP:NOT, and finally "have an account with track-record of routine editing". 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The above suggestion that at first the new reviewer would review "in parallel" seems overly complicated, but there would be a simple way to implement this. A new reviewer could pick out a submission to review, and instead of actually reviewing it, leave a message on the Afc talk page saying something like "I think that XXX is ready to be accepted" or "I think that XXX should be declined with this decline reason ___ and I would leave this message:___". Then any of the regular reviewers could say "Looks good to me, go ahead". That way we'd all be "mentors" and the new reviewer would safely get practice. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Anne, similar ideas have been posited above in other sections. I personally do not support any solutions that will: eiher increase the workload of other reviewers or project editors working at AfC, and/or slow down the reviewing procerss; What this RfC asks for is not alternative solutions, but for a set of criteria of experience. Although the rights Rollbacker, reviewer, template editor, File mover, etc., may in some instances not be a good parallel, thier granting system is not dependent on any form of probation or monitoring of their progress. I think we need to look for a similar, simple 'granting' process here based on experience than can be quickly investigated (edit count, type of edits, talk page comments, block logs, etc.,) rather than look towards implementing a more complex and time consuming process. An AfC Academy has now been developd and any aspiring reviewers who fall short of the criteria that we will set here can be referred to that for training if they are serious about becoming reviewers in much the same way as we have a CVU school and an NPP school - bearing in mind that this latter is generally only used when NPPers (who don't need any quals at all) persistently get their patrolling wrong and are asked by an admin to stop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've already given my opinion about the qualifications above, but you didn't like that either, so I will go back to reviewing now. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again Anne, thanks for the comments. Yes, my suggestion is obviously quite complex, to understand and to implement, whereas your mentor-by-humans approach is straightforward and easy to implement. But the worry for Kudpung is that you and the other AfC regulars are *already* overloaded, so mentor-by-humans is going to pull expert AfC reviewers into mentoring (and thus necessarily out of AfC work), and I share that worry. My complex review-in-parallel scheme is designed to let the computer be the mentor, so that a beginning AfC candidate can test their mettle against your known skill, *without* you needing to directly mentor them. Once the top candidates were known, then mentoring would be the next phase. Anyways, as Kudpung points out, my solution is not what this RfC is for... this RfC is for coming up with a bunch of secondary criteria, that can be used for autogranting the AfC kinda-sorta-like-a-permbit-yet-not-really. (My scheme attempts to dispense with secondary criteria, and directly measure How Good The Candidate Is At AfC Work Itself.) Appreciate the criticism, danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
While this RfC is primarily about the criteria, which I fully recognise, some thought into implementation needs to take place lest we paint ourselves into a corner that can't be implemented. A lot of discussion is about a UserRight bit, which has technical issues which Ironholds discussed above. There's also been a lot about restricting scripts and tools. However, while there are a number of scripts and tools available to assist with AfC, they are 100% optional. Everything done at AfC can be done without a single tool in place and was for a very, very long time.
When boiled down to its essence, AfC requires that users be able to 1) Move pages from the "Wikipedia talk" namespace into article space and/or create new pages in article space and 2) Edit existing pages in the Wikipedia namespace. That's it. Every autoconfirmed user on the planet has the capability to do this. Restricting the tooling will just restrict the tooling. It won't actually keep a single user from participating in AfC.
So, the question is this: For this criteria/permission/etc to be meaningful, failure to meet this criteria somehow has to prevent users from creating articles nominated in AfC (which has all kinds of bad second-order impacts) and prevent users from editing articles in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace that "belong" to AfC (ditto). Just how are we going to go about this? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"if it isn't a bit and it isn't just the script what is it?" From what I understand, it is a community standard, used by enWiki, to see who is 'qualified' to be an AfC person. It is like the ISO standard for papersizes, where there are tolerances plus-and-minus a few micrometers, but if you are within the tolerances you can say you are ISO-standard-sized A4 paper, or whatever. That does not mean that *every* piece of paper is ISO-standard, nor even that ISO-standardized paper is the best (arguably vellum is the best). It just means that, if you have satisfied whatever threshold this discussion ends up recommending, that you become a Recognized Official AfC Member In Good Standing, subject of course to other admin-actions that might keep you from acting on your over-the-threshold qualifications. Maybe someday it will be a 'real' permbit like the admin bit, where security matters... for at present, methinks it is just metaphorically an AfC-permbit, loosely enforced by community standards rather than strictly enforced by software. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"For this criteria/permission/etc to be meaningful, failure to meet this criteria somehow has to prevent users from creating articles nominated in AfC" (emphasis added). I think the 'somehow' is going to be, by manual admin intervention. If you have not satisfied the threshold, and you keep submitting perfect articles as AfC, which always pass with flying colors, who cares? If you have not satisfied the threshold, and you 'manually' create articles without the AfC helper-script, sooner or later an admin will make it their business to care, and call you out for disruption. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
So, a completely social-based implementation. How does criteria play into this then? This approach winds up being a no-op and bringing us right back to where we started. Specifically, "If you don't meet our criteria, you can't play in our sandbox" just becomes "If you are being disruptive, an admin will intervene". However, that's already the case. We don't need an RfC or a bit or criteria or any of that to have admins deal with disruptive users. So, I'm quite confused as to what that accomplishes realistically. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Those who do not meet the criteria will be slowed down significantly, and those who make mistakes and are warned and continue to make mistakes can rightfully be called disruptive. Likewise, those who have been given access to the tool and had it later revoked and who come back and "do it by hand" in a substandard way can also rightfully be called disruptive. Wikipedia already had mechanisms for dealing with disruptive editors. Revoking access to the tools for editors who are merely incompetent can slow them down enough to encourage them to think about what they are doing, which will hopefully mean they will have a higher rate of competent reviews. Let's suppose Joe Novice Wikipedian is trying to help out and somehow gets access to the tools and makes 30 reviews in 2 days, but botches half of them. He gets access to the tools revoked but he is determined to help out. Over the next 2 days he does only 10 reviews because he's been slowed down for lack of access to the tools. At worst, we have 10 reviews to re-review and 5 to clean up. But hopefully he'll be more accurate becuase he's working slower (and gaining experience as he goes) and only flub 2 or 3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I can certainly respect that. In fact, I even support this approach. It doesn't take the gun away, but it removes the fully automatic selector switch. There's certainly precedence for this with Twinkle and the like. However, this begs the question if this actually meets the consensus formed in the original RfC. While I opposed that RfC, many people didn't, and I suspect some supporters might see restricting just the script as being a half-measure. *shrug* Thanks for responding, davidwr. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There are some very relevant comments in this thread, and I'll just reiterate that the consensus in the previous RfC was There is community consensus for the introduction of a requestable permission which will be required to review articles at Articles for Creation. - nothing more, nothing less, and that is what was asked for. Firstly, I believe even a half-measure is better than none at all, to the exclusion of any arbitrary automated granting of the access. Having a list of users who are 'authorised' to use the script is also a kind of 'half way' that we already have, but as I mentioned somewhere above, we need to get all reviewers on a list. Naturally if they get their flag removed, under the current technological aspect of the process, there is nothing to stop them continuing to do manual reviews; it would certainly slow them down, but we would know who they are. Secondly however, with a couple of thousand submissions in the queue, we don't know who is actually doing the reviews at all - we just don't have the person-power to do a double check on every submission that gets declined, moved to mainspace, or CSDd under an appropriate criterion. But we are diverging here - we need to set the criteria for permission first - and that shouldn't really be too difficult (we have enough examples cited above for the granting of various user 'rights' that do need official WMF approval) , then see how they can be technically or socially implemented. 06:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
As mentioned by me and several other people, it is folly to attempt to separate the criteria from the implementation and it is awkward to attempt discuss one without the other. One impacts the other at a fundamental level. Further, many of the suggestions demand a certain implementation and/or precludes others. So, if we can't talk about implementation, then our criteria options become severely limited to stuff like edit counts and other similar statistics. In essence, the "no implementation" restriction steers down a very narrow set of options -- namely the options that you suggested at the top at the RfC. I think we need to look beyond that scope. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
What Shinmawa raises is a fundamental flaw, this RfC is invalid[edit]
A userright represents the ability to use a technical feature. Since this userright won't place any technical restrictions on anyone, there is no point at all in creating it. Access to the common scripts could be toggled with or without a userright. But they could still load the same exact script via their custom JS interface, and we can't stop them from doing that. So in my mind, the prior consensus is irrelevant because it is not possible to implement.
If there is a desire to create a socially enforced white or blacklist, then we should be talking about creating a process for that, and this RfC should be closed and reframed properly, with first a discussion about whether it should be a whitelist or a blacklist, before any criteria are proposed.
A blacklist makes the most sense to me, because there is nothing at all stopping someone who isn't whitelisted from processing AfCs, and if they do it correctly, are we going to really block them for failing to participate in the bureaucracy? Gigs (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion by Davidwr - Leave access to "AFC Comment" unrestricted[edit]
Leave the "Comment" button on for everyone by default.
If an editor abuses it, they can be blacklisted.
The kinds of comments editors leave are probably the best judge of whether they should get access to the rest of the buttons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that new people will bother activating the tool jsut to get the comment button. However I don't think that being able to comment is harmful. After all it is not that hard to edit the article and add a comment, even using the correct afc comment template is not that hard to do. Blacklisting against adding comments I suspect would be about equivalent to a topic ban. Since it is so easy to bypass I would not suggest implementing a comment blacklist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion by Davidwr - Make it a "throttle" like AccountCreator[edit]
Tweak the AFC Helper Script so everyone can use the full set of tools on no more than a handful of different submissions in a rolling 2-3 day period.
Those who abuse the tools can be blacklisted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I assume that you do not want to rate limit it for every one, so the users with the permission can review faster. Although I suspect our bulk and speedy reviewers do make some errors too, such as we can see by the number of AFDs and prods that pop up. Also the stuff declined for a weak reason will not show as a problem that way, but just drive away contributors and content. However I do like the idea to do a rate limit for the people with no permission, but then also add their work to a special list for extra review by others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion by Davidwr - many routes to full access to the tools[edit]
There shouldn't just be one route to get access to the full AFC Helper Script.
I'd give access to these buttons to anyone requesting them who:
is a long-time Wikipedia editor with no recent relevant problems
is grandfathered in because of significant recent AFC participation and no recent relevant problems
demonstrated competence through intelligent, accurate AFC comments or direct feedback to editors over an extended period of time and a significant number of articles
demonstrates competence through intelligent collaborative content-improvement in other areas of Wikipedia over an extended period of time and over a significant number of articles
is under the training or sponsorship of another experienced AFC editor, editors, "acadamy," or similar, or has been declared to be competent to have the tools by their sponsor
while not clearly making the cut on any one of the above, goes through a short (1-3 days?) discussion period and get the rights if there is a consensus to give it to them.
Revocation should be relatively easy, with the typical "appeal" taking the form of the 1-3 day discussion period outlined above.
Even after adoption, this list should not be cast in stone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This idea has overwhelming support. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This sounds like a reasonable idea. It is better than a hard list of requirements that may seriously limit the numbers of new reviewers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I particularly like davidwr's mentorship idea. When I started reviewing I hardly knew how to do anything, so I just started out asking questions and reporting problems on the Afc talk page and at the Teahouse, and other more experienced editors (usually Huon), would take action and I would see what was done and know what to do next time in that situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The mentorship idea is just a special "private tutoring" case of Buffbills7701's school idea (see "his" section above). I'm not sure if the original idea of a training program is Buffbill7701's or someone else's, it's been floating around for weeks if not months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This is entirely reasonable. MER-C 04:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support This "many routes" idea sounds like the best suggestion yet. (I assume that, aside from the sixth or "discussion" option, the right could be awarded by any administrator.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Complete and total support - This is the greatest idea I've seen. While there should be some kind of sieve to limit inexperienced or even malevolent editors from reviewing articles and destroying things, you cannot ignore the major backlog of AfC articles. Writing up a rigid list of requirements that admins must dig through edits to find is laborious for all parties involved and will make the backlog worse. The new "right" should be more to keep bad reviewers out than let good reviewers in. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, per Brambleberry; this is a really good idea. APerson (talk!) 02:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. At this point, it does not seem likely that any one of the proposals at the foot of the page will gain sufficient support for a consensus to emerge; instead, I'll endorse this "open access" or "flexibility" principle as the way forward. If a software-based AfC Reviewer permission is not going to be technically feasible, perhaps restrict access to the reviewing script dependent on being added to an official whitelist, in a manner similar to how access to AWB is currently regulated. SuperMarioMan 02:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Implementation detail suggestion by Davidwr - preventing moves[edit]
Withdrawn per "law of unintended consequences" as pointed out below by stefan2 at 13:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC). How did I miss that possibility? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should there be a consensus to prevent non-approved editors from accepting articles, one way to do this is to bot-move-protect the WT:AFC page shortly after creation, then allow the AFC Helper Script to trigger a bot to do any required moves. This would not require any changes to MediaWiki software. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this suggestion. Isn't there more than one way to skin a cat, as ShinmaWa's question-section above points out? Use of the helper-script is optional, and I guess I don't understand why bot-move-protecting the WT:AFC page will add security. Is there really no other way to get an article created (or take an existing stub and get it renamed) without going through WT:AFC at all? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oy vey... All of these unproductive subheadings and then multitudes of comments about stuff in other subheadings... I can't follow the thread of any of these discussions and this page has gotten way TL;DR overnight. Unless someone who has been following can create a convenience break with an overview summary of all the ideas in one section or get rid of all of the subsections above or re-arrange comments so that comments are in the proper section headings (very bad wiki-etiquette, please don't), I'm afraid I can't contribute to this discussion at this time. I just don't have two days to try and piece mail all of the badly fragmented discussions back together. Technical 13 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose If moves are made more difficult, then we are likely to get more copy & paste moves which violate the attribution requirement. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with encumbrances necessitated by the weakest link or worst-case scenario. We ought instead to fortify an imaginable breech with effective countermeasures; which do exist.—John Cline (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware of the existence of the previous RfC and I suspect that many others were not aware either. Consensus can change, so there is no reason why we cannot now discuss whether any new permissions are needed at all. James500 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Well alternatives could be a whitelist or a blacklist of those who can or those who can't. Other ideas were a series of awards to indicate progress or achievement. And there should be hat for the hat collectors. We already have barnstars and a listing of project participants. Perhaps someone can vet the newly added names to see how they are going. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That's been dicussed further up. The problem is that currently, no reviewers are obliged to enter their names on that lit, hence we do nots always even know who is reviewing until problems come to light and are brought to the AfC talk page. Most issues are handled locally on the reviewer's talk page: 'Why did you decline my submission?' which begs the question: Why was the creator not provided with more detailed information?.
Hat collecting is an unavoidable but necessary evil. We get plenty of them at WP:PERM but we are fairly good at filtering them out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The 'why did you decline my submission' enquiries occur even if you do explain the reasons when declining. Particularly troublesome are autobiography and WP:COI as a decline (even on material previously declined by another reviewer) often gets a flood of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "but I worked so hard" pleas as to why the author really deserves to have their own article. This will continue even if you create roadblocks to entry for new reviewers. K7L (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't like any of the proposals that have been made, but I think that a blacklist of those who have demonstrated that they are incompetent, compiled by human beings, would be the least worst option. James500 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Of all the solutions, I found Ross Hill's solution to be the most practical and useful, and hence I propose the following steps for selecting the AFC reviewers, based on a few adjustments I think should be made on it
A selected few active and/or trusted reviewers will be grandfathered in. The exact details of how it will be done will be decided later.
Anyone who wishes to become an AFC reviewer would be submitting their reviews of at least 10 articles currently at AFC. This would be done at a special requests page for
The review must be clear on why it is rejected, and any other such comments.
There must be at least 3 declines and 3 approvals among those submitted reviews
The reviews should be among pending submissions at the time of submission
Once any particular review is submitted, there should be no changes to it.
These reviews are all open for comment from any current AFC Reviewers, who may choose to "Endorse" or "Disagree" with a particular review.
Any article among the list which gets rejected or accepted externally would auto-count as an endorse or disagree by itself.
After a period of time/ after all the reviews have been looked into, a designated person (the qualifications of which will be decided in future discussions) would close the request as pass or fail. In general, 8 or more correct reviews would count as pass, and 6 or less correct ones would be a fail.
[Additional proposal under discussion] Any sufficiently trust candidates who have demonstated enough competence might not be required to go through this process, but handed over the tools directly on request.
This is the general schematic of how I think it should proceed. Every specific point in this suggestion is open for discussion, and would be altered as per consensus and common sense. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Because reviewing skill is what matters, so that should be what we test. Ross Hill (talk) 00:59, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC) 00:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as ONE way Oppose as THE ONLY way. Anyone who comes in having already demonstrated competence regarding content guidelines/policies and who doesn't have anything negative should be given a pass on this. Basically, any editor who has an edit history that would make them a credible candidate at RfA (I didn't say he would pass, just that he wouldn't be WP:SNOW-closed or otherwise fail miserably) and who doesn't have any thing negative in their recent history should not be required to do more than ask for access to the tools. The same goes for editors who might fail miserably at RfA only for reasons not relevant to AFC work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I failed to notice this point. I agree that WP:IAR should apply to obviously trusted candidates and they shouldn't have to go through the entire process. But at the same time, I wonder if there is any harm in having them go through this simple enough process. If others also agree to the additional proposal, I'd be willing to add it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Overall those points look good, however the no more than "7/10 one direction" rule is going to jump up and bite a lot of hopefuls. Hasteur (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the intent is for the candidate to have at least 3 approves and at least 3 declines among the 10 reviews, so that his competency on both approvals and declines can be evaluated. A person may be fine when evaluating an article that should be declined but he may routinely over-decline and mis-evaluate things that should be approved, or vice-versa. Too many errors in either direction is counter-productive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem I was trying to indicate is ast least in my experience, I do about 80 to 90% decline simply because it takes a lot of effort to get a submission up to the level that I would pledge my reputation to the submission by accepting it. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Even then, I am of the opinion that there should be some limit of this sort to check for both sides of whether the reviewer knows the policies. If your concern is indeed correct, maybe we could lower it to at least 2, but I wouldn't want to remove it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, we need proof that the person can approve at least 3, and decline at least 3, and we want to have at least 10 example-decisions to look over. Rather than saying that they must have ten cases, and they must approve 3 of *those* ten, and decline at least three of *those* ten, instead make this the rule: There must be no more than 7 declines or approvals among those 10 reviews The ten selected example-reviews *must* include at least 3 approves, and at least 3 denials; note that the reviewer-candidate often may actually need to review more than ten actual cases, to achieve 3 of each type... but only ten selected cases (including at least 3 approves and at least 3 denials) will really "count" when determining whether the reviewer-candidate passes the examination. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@74 Does the current wording of the proposal make more sense, or should there be further rewording on it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks fixed to me. I noticed a spelling error and fixed it, while I was here. That said... I think your idea, like my own suggestion elsewhere on this same page, is testing the "wrong" thing for what Kudpung is really trying to accomplish. See my TLDR explanation below. At this time, I've collapsed mine, for resubmission as part of a future RfC discussion.
The motivating problem (unstated in the RfC-intro-text which was a mistake) seems to be that Kudpung only want editors that are Ethically Committed To Wikipedia's Values to be able to perform AfC-review-approvals. There are incidents where a spammer will create an account, 'review' a small set of AfC submissions -- often given *randomized* answers which is awful for both the submitters and for the NPP folks that have to clean up the mess later -- and then approve ten of their own blatantly promotional submissions. This is particular bad when socking is involved, because without checkuser (which everybody is rightly *very* hesitant to go handing out all over the place), you end up with what looks like one username submitting to AfC, another seemingly-unrelated username adding some cites, a third username reviewing-and-approving using the AfC-helper-script, and then several 'other' usernames which make more changes to the article once it is in mainspace. But it is all the same person, or same spambot!
Very tough to fight, right now. Even worse, the sockpuppet could pass *your* quiz, though, right? Because it only takes 8 out of 10... and then they are free to approve several hundred spamvertisments, before they finally get caught. The same problem applies to my suggestion: a motivated spammer can pass my ten-or-more quiz, just like yours. Anyways, long story short, it turns out this RfC is not about passing the 80%-correct-mark... though that skill is still crucially important, it is orthogonal. This specific RfC is about moral-n-ethical *secondary* criteria (e.g. min-edit-count to prove you love wikipedia), whereas what you and I are testing is technical-n-policy *primary* criteria (e.g. ability to get 8 out of 10 reviews correct). Suggest we submit our ideas to another, future RfC. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I worry that asking potential reviewers to conduct trial reviews leaves too much room for 'instructor creep' and who will assess their performance? One person or more than one? The idea strikes me as fertile ground for creating a 'priesthood of gatekeepers' or turning the process into pseudo-RfA. I think we need to keep the process as simple as possible with a fairly black and white set of metrics to work to. Also, whatever form this permission takes, it should be transparently requestable via a noticeboard in the same way as other permissions. In my involvement at AfC, I have found that reviewers need to be able to demonstrate the following essential qualities:
Must be able to judge what constitutes vandalism, attack pages, and wholly negative unsourced BLPs
Must be able to identify copyright violations
Must be able to recognise WP:ARTSPAM and blatant hoaxes
Must demonstrate a sound understanding of notability, verifiability/reliable sourcing, and the BLP policy
Must be able to communicate with patience and clarity with new editors
I believe that these qualities would be best evidenced against the following criteria:
Must have carried out at least 50 good vandalism reverts -- a common threshold for granting of rollback (includes the speedy deletion of pages as blatant vandalism).
Must have correctly identified more than 5 attack pages or wholly negative BLPs, by whatever means.
Must have correctly cleaned up 20 articles with copyright concerns or correctly nominated 15 pages for speedy deletion as blatant copyright violations.
Must have copy edited/cleaned up at least 20 articles to make them NPOV compliant or correctly nominated 15 pages for speedy deletion as blatant spam/advertising.
Must have participated in at least 20 AfD discussions and !voted/commented with correct policy-based observations that demonstrate knowledge of notability, verifiability and reliable sourcing.
Must have demonstrated a sound knowledge of BLP Policy issues, by whatever means. For example, working at the BLP noticeboard.
Must have demonstrated an ability to help and work patiently with newer editors. For example, tea house host, adoption, help boards, user talk page assistance.
These minimum criteria could be assessed by any administrator patrolling the noticeboard, but should be rigidly applied. In the case of the right/permission being abused, any administrator may remove the right as a discretionary sanction in the same manner as other rights. Pol430talk to me 18:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been an editor and AFC-participant for many years and I don't think I meet all seven of the items on the bottom list, and I know that I have weaknesses in notability in certain subject areas and an inability to communicate with patience and clarity with certain editors. I'm also not as good at detecting advertisements disguised as articles as I would like, but I am getting better at that with experience. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you have made 50 good reverts in your Wiki career and most of the CSD criteria would be easily evidenced by someone who spent a few months patrolling new pages. Equally, participation in 20 AfD discussions is not hard for most long-serving Wikipedians to evidence. Knowledge of BLP policy can be demonstrated by various means and I think your interaction with users on your talk page demonstrates point 7 just fine. I think notability is an area that AfC can sometimes get a little hung up on. In terms of notability, AfC's job is to keep out articles about obviously non-notable subjects; this includes cases where a very solid policy-based argument for not including a subject can be made. Where notability is borderline, then articles need to have the opportunity to receive community discussion about their inclusion in Wikipedia, this means accepting a submission without prejudice to it being nominated at AfD. In cases where notability is difficult to establish because of the specialised nature of the subject area then help may be forthcoming from a relevant Wikiproject. If not, we still have an obligation to AGF and accept a submission without prejudice to an AfD nomination -- that is where the responsibility for ruling definitively on a subject's notability lays. Pol430talk to me 16:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Huh? First you said "keep it simple" and then you came up with the most complicated possible process. You laid out seven specific numerical criteria which you think should be "rigidly applied". Who in the world (either applicant or administrator) is going to go through histories counting how often someone has cleaned up copyvio or identified attack pages? This process would be unworkable, and furthermore it is not based on any evidence that these things would matter. I agree with "keep it simple", namely, let administrators review the person's contributions and decide if they seem competent enough for the task. Period. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with trying to search my 30,000+ contributions to check that I pass all seven "must have" criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I recognise that cross-checking those seven criteria would be laborious, but I thought the purpose of the exercise was to ensure high standards rather than dish out a new hat as quickly and widely as possible. I have struck out the criteria that were so evidently wide of the mark. Thanks for your feedback. Bellerophontalk to me 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (formerly Pol430)
The list of articles waiting to be reviewed is backlogged enough, so while I agree that we do need something to make sure reviewers are qualified, those standards should not be so high that only a select few can access them. I think that the criteria should be rather vague, leaving it up to a case-by-case basis. There can be a few strict ones, like a certain amount of article space edits, but things such as "must have rollback and/or reviewer rights" seem a bit too constricting and would be thoroughly unconstructive to the main purpose: reviewing articles to add to Wikipedia. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 23:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this. The process should be simple, not stringent; we are simply trying to stop the current situation where unsuitable and/or inexperienced editors are trying (mostly in good faith) to review at AfC without sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies. IMO the AfC Reviewer right should be awardable by any administrator who believes the user has sufficient relevant experience to know an acceptable Wikipedia article when they see one. We trust administrators to make far more difficult/controversial decisions than this, and I don't really think Wikipedia will suffer any harm from letting them use their judgment in awarding this right. The qualifications for Reviewer, as listed at the top of this discussion by Kudpung, would serve equally well as qualifications for AfC Reviewer, but the one should not be a prerequisite for the other. As for Rollbacker, that right is both trivial and annoying; personally after having it (and cussing at it) for six months I asked that it be removed. Presence or absence of a Rollbacker right does not in any way reflect the user's ability to review submitted articles. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Part of the reason for the backlog is that many experienced users will not participate. One reason is the many useless, complicated ,and counterproductive procedures in the AfC process, for which see my user talk special archive. But the main reason is that unless most reviewers are moderately competent, what a good reviewer can contribute will be wasted. there's no point in contributing to processes which work poorly and on which one can not make an impact. Otherwise there is a much higher priority for anyone who knows what to do--which is checking their work, and trying to teach those who most need it. Ten good people without interference from the unqualified can do the process better than ten good ones trying also to cope with fifty unqualified.
If we cannot get high standards, we will need to see this only as a first screen, and the accepted articles are going to have to go into NPP so they will be checked a second time. As for the wrongly rejected, they will mostly continue to be lost to us. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If the commonly used tools do not maintain a log page, they could be modified to do so. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
DGG, a very accurate summary, and so much of it applies equally to NPP. Allowing them through to NPP would be counter productive, the NPP system has the same kind of flaws as AfC and there is no guarantee that the patrollers, who need no qualifications at all, will pass or tag such an article correctly. Most worrying of course, are the 'lost' incorrectly rejected articles, while a significant concern is whether articles are correctly checked for spam or copyvio etc. (BTW: I have taken the liberty of correcting the link to your talk page archive - that thread is very important and although long, I would recommend the participants here to read it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A quick note regarding wrongfully rejected articles – that is also an editor retention issue ... if newcomers are being encouraged to send articles to AfC under the guise that "an experienced reviewer will double-check everything before sending it to mainspace" (which is usually what they are told at places like the Teahouse, and I at times am the one telling them that), then that is a problem. I think DGG's comment regarding sending pages to NPP may have a valid point, however agreeing with Kudpung, NPP draws inexperienced reviewers as well, but at least if you have two chances to catch a problem, that is better than only one. Nevertheless, the more I read about this and think about this, the more I am convinced that the new AFC academy is a good idea if people actually use it and have a desire to do things correctly, and frankly, perhaps a user right is in order. I would think anyone trusted with reviewer or autopatrolled would have necessary qualifications to review new articles, but I don't know for sure. I know user rights mean more bureaucracy, and a manufactured debate over the haves and have nots, but at the end of the day, bad reviewing of AfC and NPP has ramifications on copyright, editor retention, and, perhaps most importantly, missing content that can fit into the breadth of the world's knowledge; that is what we need to protect in these discussions. We can discuss whether someone should have 500 edits or 750 all day long, but that is not what is important. We need people who simply know what they are doing, and if they are doing things wrong, we can firmly, yet gently suggest they utilize training of some kind, and if they refuse that, they simply must be told to stop, as they hinder progress. I think the best way to maintain our NPP and AFC processes would be if experienced editors – article writers, content gnomes, admin, etc. – would all simply commit to reviewing x articles per week, and keep up with it. That would prevent massive backlogs, improve the quality of the reviews, and reduce potential ensuing burnout from one person trying to simply bust the backlog on their own. GoPhightins! 10:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Another very appropriate comment. However, have you tried herding cats? It works, but you have to give them something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the technical details of a right, how it is implemented, what the threshold is, etc. But I am worried, in general, about the impact of AfC on new users. The difference between a constructive, welcoming review -- even if the article isn't really up to par, a constructive review can still be made -- and a snarky or brusque one (made for whatever reason, including working fast because of the backlog) is huge for a new contributor. If a right can help with standards-setting among AfC reviewers on interacting with new users -- and maybe even make AfC a more attractive place to participate for experienced editors -- then I'm all for it.
I am well aware of our backlogs and the huge amounts of spam etc. But AfC is also a touchpoint for hundreds of new contributors who if they make it to AfC in the first place are generally also well-meaning and interested enough to perhaps be converted into active editors. Currently, AfC is sort of a Wikipedia backwater, and I feel like it should be front-and-center as a place for us to triage and work. I think a right if done well *might* help with this -- so to the extent it does, I'd support it. (If, however, it turns into simply 'one more collectible thing' as someone else pointed out, or somehow limits participation in AfC by existing helpful reviewers, then I wouldn't). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that it should be a 'front-and-center' operation and akin to the importance of NPP which was granted a complex set of tools by the Foundation. However, alone the 60,000 abandoned G13 drafts, of which I have physically deleted several hundred, demonstrate that what comes through AfC includes a vast amount of totally unacceptable junk, often far worse that what comes through NPP, and the fact that the creators have gone through the Article Wizard or AfC does not prove at all, unfortunately, that they are all good faith submissions. At AfC there is a cohesive and supportive dedicated team driving things forward; NPP has nothing of the kind bar its instruction page, has a talk page that sees a message once in a blue moon, needs no qualifications, and suffers from the same ailments as AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
NPP has one advantage over AFC: By definition, every page they looked at was created by an autoconfirmed or confirmed editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
by G13 drafts you mean random userpage drafts, right? 1) If so, I don't know why you or anyone else would delete these; userpages are meant for drafts, and perhaps except in extreme libel situations or similar are doing no one any harm even if they're not destined to be good articles. 2) Not sure how this relates to the good-faith-edness of AfC. When I teach people how to edit, I tell them to start in their sandboxes. By your measure, if their userpage drafts aren't up to speed they're not contributing in good faith? That makes no sense; these are two different measures. Good faith is largely unrelated to whether the article is complete, referenced, notable, etc. And I've looked at enough AfC submissions myself to be pretty sure they're not all "Johnny sucks" or similar. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
SeeWP:CSD#G13, a relatively recent speedy deletion criterion which specifies that AfC submissions which have not been edited at all (not even a keystroke) in more than 6 months may be deleted. DES(talk) 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are many good (or eventually good) submissions to Afc. As well as beginning editors, it's also widely used by COI editors who want to make sure that their articles won't be deleted as advertising. Afc reviewers help tone these down. To date there have been over 34,000 successful accepted submissions, and most of them left Afc in far better condition than when they arrived. Here are the ones accepted this month: CatScan report Also, articles eligible for deletion under the G13 criteria aren't always deleted; there are a number of editors who are checking through them and picking out ones to improve. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the CatScan tool Anne. That's very useful. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey all. I don't have an opinion about the RFC in question, at least in an official WMF capacity. However, my team is just barely beginning to explore potential improvements to article creation. As a part of this, myself and our research scientist are working on measuring the current state of article creations and creators each month. That includes the volume at AfC, which though unique to English Wikipedia, is obviously an important route for new authors here. If you can help us think of strategies for accurately measuring the number of submissions, as well as decline/accept rates, that would be most welcome. Our notes are at Research:Wikipedia article creation. Many thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As one Foundation staff member has emphatically suggested that AfC is niether in the interest of nor within the remit of the WMF, I'm rather surprised to see this. AFAICS, the community has therefore accepted to investigatigate the possibilities of its own local solutions for improvement to AfC. However, any research that can save volunteers' time would be most welcome. That said, the project you linked to may appear to be a duplication in part of the buried(?) project here and here which, along with Page Curation, was offered as an olive branch to WP:ACTRIAL; it saw no further development. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I don't mean to suggest that we're interested in making software updates to AfC as it exists now. Rather, that any new article creation software support we build needs to take in to account lessons from AfC, and the beginning of that is understanding the volume of submissions, the success rate, and so on. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
@Steven (WMF): The feedback from en's AFC team to you would probably be best done in a central location. Where would you like us to do it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
@Steven (WMF): - then perhaps you should take a look in your talk page archives at the thread you allowed to die out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Stevan, we do not want or expect the WMF to know how to improve page creation, except by implementing whatever requests for technical features the community here decides on. But it is always helpful if people new to a problem take a look at it, because they may well see things those of us who have been specializing in it may miss. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that A) many people at the WMF are community members B) we spend countless hours doing research in to the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of activities like article I think you probably would be surprised how much we know about activities like page creation. ;) We're not just janitors sweeping things up and taking requests these days. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
What if, were this change to be implemented, we only allowed people with the AFC reviewing userright to view the AFC submissions, not just review them? Because they can be potential copyright violations, and, given that anyone can create one, may also contain defamatory material. Jinkinsontalk to meWhat did he do now? 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This would "break the wiki" - even if those who had edited the page before were allowed to see it, if I submit an article with a dynamic IP address then come back the next day with a different IP address, I would be unable to improve the submission, defeating the whole point of AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Back on track, or partly - because there are mixed opinions whether an MedWiki-independent solution could be achieved, there is something for our resident programmers to look at: here. Other ideas may be coming soon, but I still feel that a set of criteria comes first, then to see how they can best bee implemented. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In looking at your question to this user, you specifically asked We are having a discussion on how to implent[sic] a local user permission system for a script that is used at WP:AfC. (Emphasis mine.) I'm sorry, but when did this discussion get reframed to be just the script? That is a broad departure and narrowing of the stated purpose of both this RfC and its predecessor. Additionally, you keep saying that we should not be talking about implementation (even though 3 of the 5 of your own examples at the top speak directly to implementation), but then you frame this RfC as an implementation discussion (and specifically, your preferred implementation) to people like West.andrew.g. Frankly, this RfC is fundamentally flawed and really needs to be blown up and redone. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't agree. This RfC is about setting a suitable criterion or criteria for permission to review article submissions at AfC. You have incorrectly interpreted the examples of permissions cited in the preamble as being suggestions for the creation of a MedWiki solution, which the Foundation has clearly stated will not be entertained anyway. I have repeated many times that when those criteria have been agreed on, then we should look at how they could be technically or socially implemented. Any preemptive research into possible local or non MedWiki technical solutions has nothing to do with setting the criteria. And BTW, there is more research going on than only the message to Andrew. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
"You have incorrectly interpreted the examples of permissions cited in the preamble as being suggestions for the creation of a MedWiki solution". No, I didn't. Not once. Not in thought, not in words. That's a complete fabrication on your part. I was actually referring to the fact that your background examples include implementation details such as admin interaction, script developer interactions, and whitelists, which conveniently enough seem to overlap with the implementation solution that you are "preemptively researching". Funny that. However, in addition to completely fabricating my words and intent, you have also failed to address my main point that you have framed this discussion externally as how to "implement a local user permission system for a script" while at the same time insisting that no one else discuss any competing implementation ideas, which seems to me that you are using this RfC as nothing more than a thin facade of consensus building to force the implementation of your preferred solution. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a preferred solution other than hoping that the community will come up with some criteria for sufficient experience for reviewers. All I have done is cited some examples as possible leads, but they are absolutely neither my recommendations nor preferences, I simply made the first suggestion to get the ball rolling, and I am as entitled to make a suggestion there are you are. Having reviewed every further comment I have made, I don't see me insisting on them; more to the point, I have simply attempted to keep this discussion on track. I stress again that any possible implementation of such criteria should/would come later. There is no harm whatsoever in looking into how permissions for Stiki, Huggle, or AWB are locally implemented - it's called 'gathering knowledge'. I don't see how you or anyone can suggest I have claimed otherwise. I am tempted to view your accusations as lacking in good faith. If you have some suggestions for criteria, please make them, but this RfC is not for redebating whether AfC needs competent reviewers or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Where have I redebated whether AfC needs competent reviewers? Again, you are putting words in my mouth. While I came to this discussion assuming good faith, you have shaken that assumption. I am moving on to other things and will no longer participate here as this RfC is not a request for comments but a request for confirmation. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
ShinmaWa, methinks I can understand the ongoing back-and-forth here. I was personally confused about what Kudpung was trying to accomplish, myself, also, but believe I'm on the same page with them now. (Due to my confusion, earlier, my suggestion-by-74 above absolutely positively demands a very specific implementation -- very different from what Kudpung envisions I will not -- but more importantly solves a completely different problem!) See deeper explanation below. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, *this* discussion, on *this* page, is about trying to find consensus for a reasonably *specific* set of secondary criteria (like edit-counts) that are specific to helping guarantee that editors that sign up to be AfC reviewers are morally competent for that role. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The motivation is, reading between the lines, there are plenty of examples -- of increasing frequency if I correctly read between the lines -- of new editors with WP:COI difficulties signing up as AfC-reviewers, and then approving the blatantly-policy-violating-articles of their buddies, or in some cases of themselves. To stop such shenanigans, we need to agree on a set of secondary criteria (minimum edit-count being the most obvious). Then, once we have got consensus on the thing we will be using to secure the AfC process against abuse, there would be a discussion about how to best implement -- in software or in human-administered-policy or whatever -- some sort of security mechanism that *enforces* those secondary criteria.
The mechanism itself, Kudpung does not wish to get bogged down in, as yet... but that topic is supposed to be the very next RfC, right after this one! Also, since Kudpung is not a programmer, that makes it hard for them to be the host a mechanism-oriented discussion (as opposed to this current policy-oriented RfC). But the point is, that the nuts-n-bolts implementation mechanism... although it will clearly have *something* to do with software that *some* sort of programmer will have to mess with at least some of it... would ideally be out of scope (aka "off track" or perhaps rather "cart ahead of the horse" or somesuch homely metaphor), at least until we decide upon what specific secondary-criteria we are actually trying to secure! Note well the careful use of ideally. Furthermore, we do have a few relevant facts, that are "implementation" facts, but which may influence our discussions here about "criteria-slash-policy" decisions.
First, the WMF will not be footing the bill. That means, the implementation has to be simple enough that volunteer hackers, here on enWiki (like perhaps User:mabdul) to implement on a spare-time no-pay basis. That is why suggestions to modify mediawiki are out of line: we do not want to fork mediawiki just for enWiki's use!
Second, *most* of the folks already working in AfC today, are already using the existing javascript-based AfC-helper-script-gadget (which is maintained by User:mabdul and others), and it makes sense that whatever secondary-criteria-security-solution we come up with, should interface with our existing wiki-tools. That is the 'script' that Kudpung speaks of, nothing more, nothing sneaky going on here.
Third, and finally, it is a plain-and-indisputable-fact that we would like whatever 'implementation' mechanism is chosen to be low-bureaucracy-required, because there are literally thousands of AfC-submissions pending in the queue, and anything that takes our AfC reviewers away from that queue, is a Bad Thing. That is why any solution involving laborious additional tasks for the existing AfC reviewers is seen as strongly counterproductive; they are already under too much pressure now, and adding these criteria cannot help, and might easily hurt.
Finally, in terms of out-of-scope discussions, we have my own suggestion, which I now understand is "off topic". The separate issue, which I concentrated on in my suggestions, is whether it is possible to assess *primary* criteria, namely, whether a given AfC-reviewer-job-candidate is actually any good aka technically-competent at performing reviews (without later getting reverted for mistakes). This is my main concern... but this question is utterly orthogonal to the question of whether an AfC-reviewer-job-candidate is any Good aka morally-competent at performing reviews (without later getting banned for abuse). Both types of competence are important, sure... but only the morally-competent secondary-criteria are under discussion here. Well, that is to say, those are what ought to be under discussion here.
Kudpung tried valiantly to explain what was going on, but most people misinterpreted the actual intro of the RfC, which used examples in a way that looked like preferred-outcome, and which failed to inform newcomers like myself that the motivation for the whole shebang is prevention of WP:PUPPET folks abusing the AfC queue. Stopping that sort of behavior requires moral-competence, and technical-competence is a distinct issue. Most discussions above are trying to solve all three problems simultaneously: implementation details, technical prowess at AfC duties via primary/secondary criteria (in the relevant decision-areas), and moral competence at AfC duties via secondary-criteria (in terms of ethical-commitment-to-wikipedia-metrics).
Anyways, while I disagree that Kudpung has tried to ramrod some particular implementation down our throats, I cannot disagree that the current RfC is in trouble. Either we need to have an arbitrary-section-break, with a rewritten-motivation-and-examples section, so we can then copy the proposals down there that *specifically* address the moral-competence and the ethical-commitment-to-wikipedia angles (only!), or alternatively, maybe even take ShinmaWa's suggestion to deploy the WP:TNT, and reopen round-two of this RfC with the rewritten-motivation-and-examples. I will ping ShinmaWa about this long-winded explanation, and hope that they return to assist us. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It's outlived its usefulness and is run by a clique of editors who treat it like a personal fiefdom operating under its own rules, ignoring rules that govern the project as a whole, and beat away those contributors who think differently (despite being well-supported by those ignored policies and guidelines). If anyone wants to create an article, let them open an account and create the article already--let speedy deletion or AfD deal with it if it should be deleted. Clear out the backlog, get rid of the endless drama and fiefdom-ownership politics, and let this dinosaur finally die. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We've had the discussion, now it's time to gather consensus. To reiterate, the above discussion was about setting criteria for allowing users to review pages submitted to AfC. There was no mention in the proposal that the methods of implementation or other methods of reviewer control were up for discussion. It was stated that the criteria should come first, then the community can discuss how best to implement them. This straw poll is not for discussing the implementation either. The criteria mentioned in the preamble were cited strictly as examples only and were not suggestions either for what we should do, nor for a traditional 'user right' implementauion.
There are two major issues concerning reviewing at AfC:
To review pages at Articles for Creation, users should have made a minimum of 500 non-automated edits to en.Wikipedia mainspace, with an account registered for at least 90 days.
Support - a sensible amalgamation of the aforementioned ideas. Not too stringent, not too lenient. Ultimately, I think this is the best way to go. GoPhightins! 01:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Let's take into account that before this, there was basically no requirement. This proposal screens out obvious new users and does not create an opportunity for a backlog to occur of those seeking the AfC reviewer permission and is objective, not subjective. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose any requirement on second thought. If someone wants policy-violating material in the mainspace, they can simply create it themselves. autoconfirmed to move the page is enough and is more than the requirement to create articles the normal way. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - It's simple, unambiguous and straightforward, and anyone who doesn't meet the criteria can do so with time and experience. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Support - I like it because it assumes good faith and allows everyone with a little experience to take part. There needs to be a way to prevent misuse, but there is already the "topic ban", which could be used in case of problems with specific editors. I assume that these would be 500 undeleted edits, so that spam and copyvios wouldn't count. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as I feel this is too lenient. See proposal 3 below (as much as I hate to make another proposal splitting up the votes...) Technical 13 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. It's a low bar, but at least it's a bar. The documentation should indicate somehow that this is not an entitlement to review. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Support - A nice bar that will allow anyone with good faith and a decent handle on Wikipedia to work. Will prevent an insane backlog from forming. Nice and simple. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 16:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Support, as the lowest proposed bar. Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Support low bar with minimal "overhead". All it requires is a "filter" to be added to the AFCH script that simply checks the user's mainspace edit count and registration date. It doesn't add to the workload of the existing reviewers. This criterion will also be easy to carry over to whatever review mechanisms will be implemented for the upcoming Drafts namespace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Support- minimal standard. Rankersbo (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support with one addition, namely this: any two approved-at-the-time AfC reviewers X and Y, can by mutual agreement, appoint a third person Z, thereby making Z an AfC reviewer, despite Z not meeting the criteria. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is certainly not burdensome, and if anything is too lenient. I think the second proposal, just below, would create additional workload for whoever does the reviewing, and the third proposal really isn't a significant improvement on this one, so I support this one as a step in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Support, This is the only practical workable proposal I see. Alanl (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Quite simple, users with these requirements show knowledge in the policies and guidelines. ///EuroCarGT 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose . A good idea, but would overload an already hugely overloaded existing pool of reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung There is no overload on the existing pool of reviewers, if you look at the proposal carefully. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Too complex and someone still needs to control it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
My now-collapsed proposal is very similar to what OriginalSoni proposes, except fully automated (no burden on existing AfC folks at all)... but therefore dramatically more complex (adds burden to mabdul/Technical_13/Theopolisme/etc who are the AfC devs right now. See below, suggest we finish implementing the Kudpung approach, and then later open another RfC about the OriginalSoni approach, as complementary (not conflicting). This is not a zero-sum-game, we can actually have our cake an eat it too, in this rare case. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Too stringent and long and creates the opportunity for a backlog to form. It is also subjective, and not objective. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as I feel this is too stringent. I agree that it requires too much reviewer time UNLESS there is someone (like me) that doesn't spend a lot of time on reviews and focuses on AfC project management (like helper script development) that has the time to go through and review these users. See proposal 3 below (as much as I hate to make another proposal splitting up the votes...) Technical 13 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we start a new proposal for a "reviewer reviewer" hat? Noooo..... —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Defer proposal#2, for consideration as a future RfC. The point of OriginalSoni's proposal is to grade potential reviewers on the *merits* of their technical proficiency at reviewing. If they are good at it, they will get 9 out of 10 correct, on the quiz. This is not only different from, but orthogonal to Kudpung's proposal, which is primarily intended to prevent *abuse* of the AfC reviewer infrastructure, by folks that are not committed to the long-term goals of wikipedia. 500 edits and 90 days is a security-system, in other words. Getting 9 out of 10 correct is a competence-check. As Technical_13 points out below, it is theoretically possible to perform 6 spelling-corrections each day for three months, and thus "pass" the security-system, yet still be Not Very Good at correctly reviewing submissions.
But my suggestion is that we should be careful to neither confuse nor conflate the two goals. Testing competence at correctly reviewing submissions should be *ongoing* and not just an "interview" which means there is a need for what OriginalSoni is proposing, that directly test competence in actual reviewing-work. At the same time, plenty of COI sockpuppets will be able to pass the 10-question-quiz with flying colors, so we also need some sort of morality-quiz that proves a minimal dedication to the five pillars. This necessarily will have to be a secondary criterion: 90+ days editing, and 500+ edits, seems like a reasonable proxy-for-commitment. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose . A good idea, but alas we don't have enough experienced reviewers doing AfC to devote to do the auditing. Alanl (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Technical 13 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I think this is too restrictive. Spelling fixes may be marked as minor edits, but they're most definitely helping the project. What's "regular activity"? I took a Wikibreak in April this year - would that count against me? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of a 90 day requirement if the user creates an account, makes a couple hundred punctuation fixes, goes away for 85 days, comes back and gets their edit count to 500 fixing spelling and what not. There are no significant edits and they have maybe 10-15 days of editing. I think we gain nothing by this, and this minor adjustment to P1 rectifies this. Technical 13 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that's a likely scenario? Anyone can game the system if they want. You can run for RfA the minute you score 500 on Scottywong's tool - it doesn't mean you'll succeed! For those people, we can simply nudge them in the right direction, and topic ban them if necessary. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
When I first had 500 mainspace edits on the English Wikipedia, I would've had no place reviewing AfC submissions. I think it is a very likely scenario. If there are going to be count and time restrictions, let's make sure they actually do something other than look pretty. Technical 13 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment (edit conflict) - I don't think that this proposal is significantly less lenient than Proposal 1, since the user chooses whether or not to mark edits as "minor". Please explain why you think that evenly spaced edits are better than bunched-up ones. I suppose that you are hoping to ensure that they are five hundred substantive edits (rather than, say, adding a piece of spam to 500 articles...) —Anne Delong (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Anne, I do believe you misunderstood what I wrote about minor edits. I did not mean necessarily edits marked as minor, I meant edits that qualify as minor in that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. Whether or not the editor knows how to properly mark such edits may be out of scope (other than I would question a user with the first 500 sequential edits and having none marked as minor as really having any CLUE about policies and how to review articles). Technical 13 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, after the above explanation. Not because I disagree with with anything you've said above, but I wouldn't be willing to do the work of measuring the value and complexity of hundreds of edits, so I can't !vote to put that work on someone else. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Administrators already do this at WP:RFPERM to hand out rights like reviewer and rollback. (Personally I don't think any rights should be necessary to review AfC nominations. If you wish to clamber through Wikipedia's crap pile to find the odd gem, have at it. Rather them than me.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
OpposeAnybody at all can create articles. Anybody. So why would you think someone would try to game the system as you said above and accept or deny a review if they can go ahead and create an article. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposal 4: Piggy-back on rollback or PC reviewer[edit]
We already have two user rights we give out to people who have reached minimal competence with Wikipedia: pending changes reviewer and rollback. Because of the potential for hat collecting, it seems generally preferable to not duplicate entities beyond mere necessity. At a time when we have few enough people willing to delve through the ever-regrowing crap pile not only at WP:AFC but at a wide number of backlogs across the 'pedia. The main problem with AFC isn't bad reviewers, it's no reviewers. Adding another layer of gate-keeping on the front of an already backlogged process seems rather pointless. Instead, use the existing permissions structure: rollback, or pending changes reviewer. This isn't unheard of: when Article Feedback Tool v5 was still in operation on English Wikipedia, we reused the "reviewer" permission for reviewing AFT5 comments.
The advantage of this: administrators don't have to start handing out new permissions. The number of hats on offer is kept to an absolute minimum. We neatly sidestep the addition of more bureaucracy. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support As proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: This RfC does not discuss how this threshold will be granted and/or implemented. That will be the topic of a further discussion, when the threshold itself has been established. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung, I do not think Tom made any statement towards that context. All he stated was to use a simple Reviewer or Rollbacker as the required permission threshold. (Correct me if I'm wrong on the reviewer-rollbacker part.) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support This proposal neatly sidesteps any possible hat-collection issues we had, while still solving our basic competence requirements, like Proposal 1. It also makes it technically simple to implement any such requirements. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Question. What is being suggested here, exactly? That we dramatically reduce the count of viable candidates for AfC duty? Or that we dramatically increase the count of people with the R&R userRight?
explanation of my question
Proposal#1 sets the low-but-not-too-low bar of 500+edits and 90+days, not to increase hat-count, but to keep out spammers that approve their sockpuppet's spam, and buddies who approved their friend's non-Notable garage-band. It is basically a minimum-morals qualification-criteria, indicating some level of commitment to wikipedia's goals. It is one step up from autoconfirmed. Now clearly, the current user-rights of reviewer && rollbacker *are* morally qualified. But currently, it is a *lot* more effort than 500 edits, and a lot more time invested than 90 days, before an editor is "whitelisted" by being given the R&R bits. Are we setting the bar too high, for being an AfC reviewer, if we demand only R&R-quality folks and above?
How many of our existing hard-working AfC reviewers have the R&R bits, right now today? More pragmatically, I will point out that we already have plenty of folks with R&R bits... and any of them, or all of them, would be welcomed with open arms, if they showed up to help with the AfC queue tomorrow morning. And yet, there are still well over 1k articles in the main queue, and well over 10k in the G13 backlog. If we want those backlog-numbers to decrease, we would need to vastly expand the number of people who are given R&R bits. I think there are two possibilities for what proposal#4 means.
Possibility#1, Tom_Morris is putting forth Proposal#4, and saying that only existing R&R bit-holders ought be allowed to become AfC reviewers... in which case, I oppose proposal four, on the grounds that there are simply not enough existing R&R bit-holders to solve the AfC backlog. 5992 reviewers and/or 4981 rollbackers, with significant overlap, plus 1423 admins that have those powers and more. Only 45% of admins are "active" aka ~15+edits/mo... conservative assumptions about overlap & activeness, means we might have 2700-to-3700 active R&R folks today, plus 600 active admins... aka roughly one R&R-or-admin for every 7 active editors. We also have 3000 very-active-editors making 100+edits/mo,[1] and an educated guess is that these 1-to-9-folks are the basically the *same* editors as the 1-to-7-folks that already have the R&R user-right.
Possibility#2, Tom_Morris is suggesting that we dramatically increase the number of people who are given R&R bits... and in fact, might even be saying that every person with 500+edits and 90+days should automagically be given the pending-changes-reviewer bit, which could then also double as the AfC-submission-reviewer bit. Possibility#2 is something I could support... but as Kudpung says, that is an implementation question (we could also implement the 500-n-90 restriction purely as a jscript hack inside AFCH or as a custom server-side PHP kludge or as a pure social system using moral suasion or in various other ways). It's not clear that it will be easy to gain consensus for dramatically lowering the traditionally-pretty-dern-high level of experience that R&R bits have demanded in the past, to just 500-n-90. Therefore, if possibility#2 is the aim, in that case I would suggest deferring proposal#4 as an implementation-question, to the next phase of this RfC-sequence. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
My point is that "500 edits + 90 days" (plus a quick manual check to make sure they aren't mad as a hatter) is about the rough guideline that admins use to hand out rollback or reviewer. I'm simply saying that we already have a process to determine whether or not new users are sensible enough to start reviewing (and indeed rolling back) other people's edits. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember that anybody can create articles with an account. Suggesting that you need rollback and reviewer is kind of too much. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ramaksoud2000, this discussion is for who can review AFC submissions. I think a large number of our current AFC reviewers will have either of these priviledges, and almost all of the rest would be given the permission should they request it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying what's the point of making the requirement so high when they can just create the article another way. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ramaksoud2000, AFC Reviewers do not write the articles. The articles are written by newcomers, and reviewers "review" them, thus approving or declining the article. As I said, most current AFC reviewers alaready have this right. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In all fairness, there is no difference in principle between accepting an AFC submission and creating a new page from scratch. James500 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposal 5: Maintain consistency with rights to create articles from scratch[edit]
Any registered user can accept an AFC submission. Only users with either the reviewer or rollbacker user right can decline an AFC submission.
Support as proposer. It would be absurd to prohibit users who can create new pages in the mainspace from accepting an AFC submission. It would not be consistent with existing user rights at all. James500 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC) In fact you could argue that, in order to be completely consistent, only admins should have the right to reject an AFC submission, because they are the only ones who, at present, have the authority to remove an article from the mainspace by deletion or otherwise. James500 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as that is entirely inaccurate. Any autoconfirmed user can move a page from mainspace to a subpage of a user's space or to Draft: effectively removing from mainspace. Allowing any user to accept, is also counter productive as AfC is intended to help new users create an article with out it getting speedily deleted half a dozen times for simple issues like promotional tone or lack of indication of importance, allowing all users unable to see these things or whom are unfamiliar with the policies/essays/guidelines that can give constructive feedback is a bad idea. Technical 13 (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagee. What WP:USERFY actually says is "Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it is generally inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process". The recommended process is AfD. So, assuming the essay you have linked to is accurate, a non-admin cannot userfy an attempt at a proper article that someone else has created. James500 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC) And the other limb of your argument is absurd. James500 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC) And "promotional tone" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. What is required is blatant advertising. James500 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Any confirmed user can move an article out of Afc and into mainspace to create an article (at risk of being reverted, or course). The above proposals 1-4 won't prevent that. They are only about limiting the use of the Afc reviewing tools and Afc review templates which give the appearance that the person placing them is an experienced and knowledgeable editor, and not someone who joined Wikipedia last week. There are exceptions, of course; a use with a new account could have been editing under another name, or as an IP, for years, but as usual the application of the criteria will be tempered by common sense. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, a page move from AFC to the mainspace cannot be reverted without a deletion process (such as AfD), except in very limited circumstances. James500 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC) If the proposals above are only about access to scripts and templates, their wording needs to be made much clearer. I can't actually find a project page that defines the meaning of "review" and "reviewer" in this context. It sounds like "move into the mainspace". It is clear to me from the foregoing discussion that I am not the only one who thinks this. James500 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope some others will weigh in about the meaning or "reviewer". And yes, you are right; I shouldn't have said "revert". The more likely (and more serious) results of an inexperienced editor moving a draft prematurely to mainspace would be: (1) speedy deletion under a number of categories from which the draft submissions are protected so that the problems can be fixed, and (2) being dragged to Afd. In either case the poor draft creator, usually a beginning user, could be very bewildered and have an unnecessarily negative experience, all so that some other new user can have the freedom of creating an article out of someone else's draft without having to take the time to learn any of Wikipedia's policies. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Prohibiting "inexperienced" users from moving drafts into the mainspace might help deletionists in their mission to prevent the creation of perfectly valid stubs. James500 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as already detailed by Anne and Technical13. The need for this RFC is to make sure AFC performs better in making sure it's articles survive Mainspace, not the other way round. The current proposal is detrimental to the AFC process, and will work against getting better articles out of here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. It is clear to me that AFC reviewers are rejecting submissions that would survive (and have survived) an AfD. In any event, if you are worried about articles on valid topics surviving in the mainspace, what you need to look at are the deletion processes, because that is where the problem will be. James500 (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I seriously doubt any AfD proposal will survive, and there been many attempts over the years. There are enough orphaned stubs out there in mainspace, and as a mature project, the whole point of AfC is to improve the quality of new articles. If you allow this, then you might as well disband AfC altogether. Alanl (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Proposal 6: Complete consistency with other deletion processes[edit]
Any registered user can move an AFC submission into the mainspace, whereupon it will be treated like any other article. Only users with either the reviewer or rollbacker user right can use AFC scripts and templates. Subject to the following exception, only users with the admin user right can decline an AFC submission. The exception is AFC submissions that are clearly not intended to be articles (ie those that , if created in the mainspace, could be legitimately userfied by a non-admin). Non-admins can nominate an AFC submission for rejection, using a template created for this purpose.
Support as proposer. This is probably my first choice on grounds that rejecting an AFC submission is equivalent to deleting an article from the mainspace. James500 (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This isn't even consistent with deletion processes as your title claims. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is proposal is exactly consistent with deletion processes. In what way is it not consistent? James500 (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely Oppose the proposers completely erroneous claim that "rejecting an AFC submission is equivalent to deleting an article from the mainspace" only shows that the proposer has no clue at all about how AFC actually works. An AFC rejection is simply: "this draft isn't ready yet because of this problem, here is a guideline on how to fix it. When you've fixed it please resubmit it. If you need further assistance you can get it here". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
My claim that "rejecting an AFC submission is equivalent to deleting an article from the mainspace" is based on similar reasoning in WP:USERFY, and I don't believe that there is any difference in principle. Bear in mind that rejection also facilitates CSD G13, so we don't want it done in error. G13 does not, in express words, require the admin to vouch for the correctness of the rejection. It seems to me that he could just rubber stamp it. So, if you allow reviewers and rollbackers to reject submissions you are potentially giving a user with 500 edits the power in effect to speedy delete large numbers of articles at his discretion with no questions asked. James500 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Amend CSD G13 so that it authorizes the speedy deletion of a rejected AFC submission only if that submission was correctly rejected.
Support as proposer. This would remove what is, in my view, a potentially serious problem with allowing non-admins to reject AFC submissions. See my comments under proposal 6. James500 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus is clearly to keep the article, regardless of the technicality of whether the subject passes GNG. Since there are enough reliable sources for the resulting article to pass WP:V, I see no justification or policy-based reason to override the overwhelming consensus to 'keep' that formed in this discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this simple and just look at the sources. I think the article is artfully written, but it is stretching references that just aren't there. Let's go through them.
Reference #1: Is this one from the Theodore Roosevelt Center. It's just a simple listing of the poem itself with a brief description, just like the site lists all the other letters and things written by famous people. It doesn't really confer anything to notability at all.
Reference #2: Is this from the Presidential Collections. And it's basically just a copy of the Roosevelt reference, it links to it and everything. Nothing to do with notability here.
Reference #3: Is this from an old 1903 printing of the poem in the Dispatch. It's just a printing of the poem with no commentary at all. It adds nothing to notability.
Reference #4: Is this book that has a single sentence on the poem. Very much trivial coverage.
Reference #5: Is this book, which does't appear to mention the poem at all or even obliquely, unless i'm mistaken.
Reference #6: Is this book, which also doesn't appear to mention the poem at all.
Reference #7: Is this book, with yet again no reference to the poem.
Reference #8: Is this book, which is actually the best reference so far, with a full three sentences on the poem. Which is pretty much nothing and really still just trivial coverage.
Reference #9: Is this news article, which is actually directly about the poem. It is a 1929 article from the Evening Tribune. But it is far more about the incident of it being read and then struck from the record than any real commentary about the poem. That and the datedness of the source really just makes it seem like a minor event.
Reference #10: Is this news article, which is paid-locked, so I can't judge it on quality. But the title has nothing to do with the poem, so I can only assume the coverage in it is trivial. And, again, it is a dated 1929 source.
Reference #11: Is this, which is the same as reference #1, just in image viewer format.
Reference #12: Is this, which is the same reference as #1 and #11.
Do note that the article is subject to change. So the references align with this version of the article, which is the one I was reviewing.
Now, onto the Bibliography section.
Number 1: Is this book, which is not in a readable format. But when I put the name of the poem into the search bar, nothing comes up. It doesn't appear that the slur "niggers" is even used in the book.
Number 2: Is this article in JSTOR that is about the White House dinner that the poem was a response to. But the poem is not mentioned in this article at all.
Number 3: Is this article, another from JSTOR about the dinner. Again, no mention of the poem at all.
Numbers 4, 5 and 6: I'm not going to read, because they're pretty long. But they both appear to be about the dinner as well. If the poem is actually mentioned in them, please let me know, but i'll assume it's not.
External link #1: Is this article, the one and only external link and actually a recent news source! That doesn't mention the poem at all. Okay, moving on then.
So, in total, we have a bunch of sources that don't mention the poem at all, a few sources with a single sentence on the poem, and then a tie between the dated 1929 news article on the poem that is more about the incident and the three sentence bit about the poem in a book. You pick which one you think gives more notability.
But, all in all, there doesn't appear to be any notability of significance here. Maybe enough to have a single paragraph in another article, but certainly not enough to have one all on its own. Thus, I think this article should be Deleted.SilverserenC 06:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure: although the sources seem to be of poor quality, it seems to me that the article is on important history of the US, and thus possibly notable. Why not slap it with a refimprove instead, and give the creator a chance to find better sources? HandsomeFella (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I of course wrote the above before I read Bonkers' mature input on the talkpage of the article. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I have access to the NY Times article "White House Tea Starts Senate Stir". New York Times. June 18, 1929 (reference 10 mentioned in the AfD nomination, and currently reference 9), and it does note that this poem was included in the Senator's racist motion, and its inclusion was directly criticized by two other senators and eventually struck from the record of proceedings after a debate, so it is relevant to the topic of the article and provides substantive coverage (about six paragraphs) on the poem and its reception. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close as keep For the love of all things nigger... but seriously, we do not expect this to have staggering coverage. Just this much coverage is enough to warrant a decent article. Furthermore, it passed a stringent DYK review and is currently on the main page. You can't go against us. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that the DYK nomination was unusually "stringent". The reviewing editors did their jobs well, but there wasn't anything beyond the norm. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
However I feel that most DYK noms are stringent, and some drag for weeks before they can get approved! ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And what coverage is that, exactly? Almost all of the sources don't even mention the poem or have a single sentence on it. SilverserenC 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I'm surprised the dinner that set this in motion does not have an article itself. Is there a section on it somewhere? I distinctly recall learning about the dinner in high school, and given how long ago that was, it must have been covered to quite an extent. If it turns out the dinner is notable enough for its own article, then this poem may fit better as a section therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
But this poem surfaced at two dinners. Not just that dinner, so it would not seem right. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Notability is not temporary (regarding the old sources), and by gosh there's a heck of a lot of controversy. This goes into some detail as well, as does Life. Likely quite a few offline articles as well. This reminds me of "Langit Makin Mendung" in a way: a controversial work of literature that is terrible as literature, but notable as a social artefact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is all of that coverage is about a single event and barely about the poem at all. SilverserenC 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. I have added another reference. There are lots out there, and it is a significant historical artefact. StAnselm (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You added a single reference about an event. It's certainly better than all the other sources, but there is no evidence of ongoing coverage or any critical coverage at all or discussion of the poem outside of the event itself. This gives the event notability, not the poem. SilverserenC 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - it appears notable, sadly, and has been preserved by the Library of Congress. GiantSnowman 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain how it's notable, exactly? Especially when almost all of the sources don't even mention the poem or have a single sentence on it? SilverserenC 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
AbstainWeak delete While notability is not temporary, I don't see how article meets the lasting effects, geographical scope, depth and duration of media coverage criterias from WP:EVENT guideline. It seems to be century old WP:SENSATION. Article has serious issues with sources, including citations to material that does mention the subject matter at all. Unless refimprove'd, I'm inclined to delete per nomination. jni (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, even a mention (not a citation) 70 years later (1996) is already better than most newspaper publications get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Still marginally important subject but sources have improved somewhat so I'll capitulate before the keep-camp. jni (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. The poem appeared in several places (including, temporarily, the record of the US Senate), and the Baltimore Afro-American printed (most of) the poem in covering the Jessie De Priest incident, along with commentary on the abhorrent racism displayed by the poem. This seems to be a small, but significant, item in U.S. history, and helps to build a picture of US Society in the early 20th century, with numerous sources mentioning it (some in the article, some noted on this page, and also others). Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. -- 101.119.29.159 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Expand and rename into an article whose main topic is that White House dinner with Booker Washington itself, which appears to be a lot more notable, and to which the existence of the poem is basically just an historical footnote. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I would be perfectly fine with that. There's certainly enough coverage for the dinner to be notable, but the coverage of the poem is severely lacking. SilverserenC 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Due to Bonkers' very mature comments relating to the article, I wish it could be deleted. It's notable, though, so it has to stay. Future Perfect at Sunrise brings up a decent point also, but we can discuss at talk. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain why it's notable? Almost none of the sources even mention the poem at all. SilverserenC 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, per Crisco, I think this is a historically notable subject and should be kept. Personally I think that the poem's unmitigated dreadfulness on every conceivable level makes it a subject worth keeping a record of. Removing record because of fear of causing offence also contributes to these things being forgotten. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't explained why it is notable, especially when most of the sources don't even mention the poem. Just because you think it is of historical import isn't a policy-based argument of any kind. SilverserenC 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, historically notable, passes GNG, possibly expand and rename per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestion. Cavarrone 15:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It passes GNG because of articles from 1929 that are about an event? That gives the event notability, not the poem. And there is no evidence of all of enduring notability or continuing coverage separate from the reactionary coverage just after the event. SilverserenC 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Expand and rename as per Someguy1221's and Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestions. Not notable enough in its own right to merit an article, but a legitimate component of an article on the actual event. Awien (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep and topic ban Bonkers from articles related to race for lack of competence. The amount of commentary on this more than 100 years olf poem establishes notability fine. SilverSerens argument that the coverage is not substantial is not convincing, clearly it is not comparable to the amount of coverage expected for high literature but for the kind of satirical/racist poem it is it is clearly substantial. Its not as if we could expect someone to write a book about it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think asking for a single article on the poem itself and not on the event is asking too much. Or evidence of non-trivial ongoing coverage beyond 1929. SilverserenC 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep this is obviously a notable historical item, and well worthy of an article. Technical 13 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet you give no explanation on why it is notable. You don't discuss the references, you don't refute the statements made in my nomination. You haven't called forth any policy argument whatsoever. SilverserenC 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep deletion serves no purpose but to hide information that is valuable and of real historical interest. I see no reason why it should be renamed. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet another non-policy based argument that doesn't address the nomination statement or any actual policy reason for keeping the article. SilverserenC 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The poem is only marginally notable, for sure, but there is no reason not to err on the side of inclusion for the reasons I gave. We are not a bureaucracy. And, frankly, I doubt anyone believes this would have been listed for deletion were it not for the title and content of the poem, even though your nomination does not say so. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep -there's work being done on it AWS, and it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the article up to scratch. Basket Feudalist 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not an argument at all. You haven't addressed the nomination argument, you haven't brought up a single policy or reference to back up your claim of keeping it. SilverserenC 17:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You go ahead, girlfriend. Another non-policy based and pro-'I don't like nathty wordth'-based criticism... How many time do you wet yourself when Boyz n the Hood comes on?!?! LOL if you don't hack the lingo bredren Cheers! Basket Feudalist 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
What the hell? I didn't even make a single argument about censoring. It has nothing to do with that, but the utter lack of good references. SilverserenC 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I sense your frustration Silverseren! I think this is going to be one of those times you'll regret expending so much good effort on folly; but I think you've undertaken a fool's errand. I didn't include a bunch of interlinks to policy because it is my nature not to template an editor as regular as you; and I didn't link fool's errand either for the same respect in your competence. Frankly, I don't want to delve into this subject beyond the cursory review I'd done in proximity of the article's creation. And I do remember seeing enough to warrant the subject's inclusion as having met the burden of wp:gng.
12 online accessible links from wp:rs and 6 book citations is overkill in suggesting it relates to the threshold of significant coverage. Personally I think three solid references are sufficient to secure verifiable notability for a subject, and the additional references are for verification of the article's content; which I'm certain that you know the threshold for content inclusion is less stringent than the threshold for notability.
I'll keep an eye on the emerging consensus in this discussion and if deletion becomes viable by some measure, I'll compile a more specific argument; but this discussion answers itself from a rudimentary level, and I think you know this as well. I also took a very close look at your AfD contributions and do get a sense that a politically correct element exists within this nomination. And I think you mean well by your manner; but it's folly I tell you, and avoiding folly is a divine utterance to my understanding.—John Cline (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Addendum - By the way, I agree with Maunus that Bonkers The Clown is disrupting the discussions I've seen regarding this topic and I wouldn't suggest suffering his malfeasance much longer.—John Cline (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you realize that Bonkers is the original creator of this article? Too bad he disrupted us by creating content. Not everyone here cares if someone uses the nigga word in talk. jni (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes I realize "Bonkers is the original creator of this article" and I did not attempt to speak for everyone, particularly by prefacing my comment with "I agree" and "I wouldn't suggest".—John Cline (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Do not attempt to remove history. Most here agree the name is abhorrent and John Cline has rightfully pointed to the folly of whitewashing everything in the name of political correctness. I do disagree about topic banning our court jester as throughout history black comedy has been used to draw attention to issues we may have other wise ignored. Bonkers in his demented way has accomplished that here. 172.56.11.197 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Notable, WNC, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, really? Is it that hard to make a policy based argument or at least discuss the nominator's argument? You do know that the closer is meant to disregard any non-policy votes, right? SilverserenC 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And you know that having the nominator respond sarcastically to every "Keep" is rude and annoying, right? As for your complaint WP:NOTCENSORED and [WP:NOTABILITY]] are policy-based !votes, and that you, as nom, don't get to limit the grounds on which other editors based their decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge to an article about the dinner itself, the one given by TR with BTW as a guest. The dinner itself is the important thing. The "poem" is reaction to this event. The effect of this article is to give undue weight to the negative views while just barely mentioning the positive. BayShrimp (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep per nom. And yes, this is what I meant to say: the nominator's given multiple reliable sources that cover this poem sufficiently — the nominator's tone, together with the "hurry let's get it down immediately" tone of the WP:AN thread that brought me here, make it appear as if the nominator's ultimately motivated by dislike. Citations such as #9 are from established news media, and unlike WP:NOTNEWS-violating stories on the latest events, this article uses news media from years later to demonstrate that the poem remained a topic of interest decades later. "Datedness" is no reason to reject a source, unless it's something scholarly that's later been shown to be wrong; this would have passed our notability criteria eighty years ago, so it remains notable now. Meanwhile, the nominator's making irrelevant objections about certain sources not discussing the subject at all: they're given for background purposes, and they don't hurt the article. We have enough coverage to write about the poem itself, and we have enough background information to place it in context, so let's allow it to remain a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that any of the sources that discuss the poem in a non-trivial manner are the 1929 ones about the Senate event. That would give notability for the event, not for the poem. There is no evidence at all of enduring notability here. And please keep your assumptions about my motives to yourself. SilverserenC 18:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, delete this article or bury it in the test of another article where no one will find it. No one wants to point out the Jim Crow racist history of the "Democratic" Party and make it easy to find for those interested in non-revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — 74.83.124.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge this poem is by an anonymous author written over 100 years ago and is of no historical significance except as a reaction to the dinner hosted by teddy roosevelt for booker t. washington. It belongs in a section labeled as "reactions to the dinner." Agree with Bayshrimp. — Dadahorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
Keep. Please assume good faith about my DYK review. I resent suggestions that I failed to review the sources. I did review the sources, and I agree that some added context without directly discussing the poem. As others point out, however, the poem is discussed directly in multiple sources from the article. Is that level and amount of discussion up to Silver seren's standards? Obviously not, but the detail in coverage necessary for an article (per WP:GNG) is something that reasonable people can (and frequently do) disagree on (and consequently a prime ground for discussion and consensus-building). Bonkers has behaved embarrassingly throughout this process and I would support a topic ban if anything like this continues (Silver seren himself is starting to bludgeon the process as well). Nevertheless, the poem is notable. Others have mentioned a merger, but there is no article to merge to yet, and that discussion should wait until there is such a target. The fact that the poem was republished for a second historical event makes this seem unlikely. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't explained how it is notable. I clearly pointed out how, out of the 12 references, 4 are just a catalog listing of the poem, 1 is just a reprinting of the poem itself, 3 don't mention the poem at all, 2 have trivial 1-2 sentence coverage of the poem, and 2 have coverage of an event in the Senate in 1929 that has more to do about the event than the poem itself. So, where is the notability? SilverserenC 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's simply not true; several references discuss the poem, particularly in the context of it having been read in the US Senate in 1929. And I would strongly oppose making the article about the dinner, since that means erasing the Senate episode from the article. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Which one(s), 101.119.28.204? Awien (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Comment I totally agree with Silver Seren: in all the references that mention the "poem" at all, it is as a passing glance in coverage of the actual events. None of them (barring oversight on my part) are about the "poem" itself, which is what would be required to demonstrate notability. Awien (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete. "Of course there is satire... The white presidential family and the niggers are heavily ridiculed in the poem. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ " If there is a valid topic here, the article needs to be deleted in its present form as a racist attack page and re-written from scratch by disinterested authors. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)— 86.181.17.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Fortunately, the article has been largely rewritten. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge into article about the dinner. I agree with FutPerf. The dinner was the notable incident that got most of the attention. The poem is historically significant and deserves to have its own section in the main article, but the main article should be on Teddy Roosevelt's invitation to Booker T. Washington. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, a merge is not ideal per reasons laid out by IronGargoyle above. Also by merging content definitely will be swamped. Let it stay as an article on its own and perhaps include a "See also" link to this article if there is an article on the Washington/Roosevelt dinner. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
KEEP The article is well sourced and is notable because it demonstrates the level of Racism in the United States at that time and 30 years later when it again raised its ugly head. The varying reactions of the notable politicians of that time also establish notability. We cannot delete history because we do not like a word no matter how inappropriate it sounds. Deleting the article would be foolish from a sociological and historical perspective. I am sure the reason to delete is well intentioned (but misdirected) but we all know the expression about good intentions. It is simply to important in the history of racism in America to try to bury it. The tone of the article does need to be watched carefully and possibly the article needs to be locked down. My opinion is some articles (due to their controversial nature) should only be edited by vetted academics with expertise in the subject area. That would not hinder submissions but additional editing. The problem with wiki is any fool or agenda pusher (and there are many) can edit but that should have no influence on whether to keep an article or not. That is why wiki's credibility as well sourced, academic tone and neutral point of view have yet to be established. 172.56.10.211 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, while I wish we could delete the horrible racism from this period of American history, that is unfortunately not a possibility. This is an artifact of that history that received significant coverage and attention on several occasions from the US Congress. It's a subject we can have an encyclopedic article on, and we should. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A simple request - Can anyone show me a single reference that has non-trivial coverage of the poem that is not printed directly after and is not about the 1929 event? That's all i'm asking for. SilverserenC 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Restructure -- The incident, about which the peom was written, was clearly notable and we should have a WP artilce on that. The amount of reaction to the WP article makes clear that this touches a raw nerve with a lot of people who do not like it. I would prefer to see an article written mainly about the events that generated the poem, with the poem discussed near the end of the article, rather than an articel on the poem, which would merely be a fork of that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Enough non-trivial coverage about the poem itself from independent sources. You can't exclude all coverage of the poem just because it was written when the poem was of public interest, especially when that was 20 years apart.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Except that the coverage of the 1929 Senate event is mainly about the event. The mentioning of the poem is not about the poem so much as it being read in the Senate. So, as an event, that might be notable. But the poem by itself is not. There is no critical commentary whatsoever that's been shown about the poem. And there is practically non-existence coverage of the poem when it was first made, other than a sentence or two in articles or books that are otherwise discussing the White House dinner. Again, all i'm asking for is a single article that is actually focused on the poem itself and not the Senate event. Finding a single article shouldn't be that hard if the subject is actually notable. SilverserenC 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I will repeat the above warning: I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. 208.54.40.240 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Repeating yourself doesn't actually make you more right or more convincing. You can ask for whatever you want, but I'm free to decide that policy doesn't demand that I give it to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete or merge into an article discussing the dinner. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria... 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." Coverage is trivial. No "keep" voters have addressed this fatal flaw, and none has given a reason to ignore the guideline. It doesn't surprise me in the least that so many here would vote to keep an article with this title that clearly fails GNG. yuk! Awesome! heh heh! Niggers in the White House! Woah! heh heh! NOTCENSORED! Yay! "Nigger nigger nigger!" "We can so we will!"
Well, this time you can't. It doesn't pass GNG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Added "or merge" 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Attributing childish motives to keep editors is utterly unsupportable, (with, I concede, the possible exception of "Bonkers the Clown"). The childishness exists only in your own last sentence. On the contrary, the reason that "keep" voters have repeatedly given is the fact that this is a significant and striking aspect of US history. The poem was printed and discussed in numerous newspapers from 1901-3 and in 1929. If this were an event happening now - some brouhaha in current newspapers about comments made by a US senator - there would be no doubting we'd have an artiocle on "X's comments controversy", of which there are many such. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Or do you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) forms part of its reception history by sources. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) was as a mere footnote to a larger incident? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. It was involved in two quite separate incidents, which is why it is not a good candidate for merging into an article about the dinner. Of course such an article does not exist, so the suggestion that it should be merged into it is really rather meaningless. If such an article is created, a possible merger might be discussed then, though there are, as I have said, good reasons to oppose such a move. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Then mention it in both articles on those topics (if either or both topics pass GNG) or simply delete it. Sorry. This poem doesn't pass GNG. If the one or two incidents around it don't have sufficient coverage for their own articles, then that just reinforces the poem's insignificance. Sorry. Go spray it on a fence somewhere, not on Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This argument is nonsensical. There is no doubt that the dinner could have its own article (there are whole books about it as well as an opera by Scott Joplin!). The fact that no-one has created one yet is not an argument that an article on a topic related to it should not exist. That's like saying we should delete an article on the deputy prime-minister of country X because no-one has yet created an article on the prime-minister. Many editors diagree with you about GNG, so just reasserting your belief more dogmatically, but with no coherent argument, does nothing of value. Your last childish sentence just indicates that GNG is not the real issue for you. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Great. So write an article about the notable dinner and, if you like, mention the otherwise non-notable poem. As for many editors disagreeing with me: eh? This place is full of fools and bigots, many of whom will flock to an AFD like this for the lulz and worse. That's why these things are not a vote. This poem does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, hence it is not notable. By all means mount an argument to support ignoring WP:GNG in this instance, but so far no one has chosen to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Referring to editors who have given coherent arguments as fools and bigots is both foolish and bigoted. No-one with half a brain can believe that the people who support the existence of this article are doing so from bigotry. The only "bigotry" and prejudice I see on this page comes from the opposite POV. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
No, we are fools and bigots. You can never win a fool or a bigot in an argument, Anthony, so just drop it. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're not all fools and bigots. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete (or merge into an article about the dinner(s)). I find no compelling arguments here as to the notability of the poem. As has been mentioned many times, the references that support this article at best demonstrate the notability of the dinner that inspired this poem. The keep votes here appear to be, without exception, ignorant of either the notability guideline or the content of the references. This forum of course has the power to carve an IAR-based exception to the GNG (this is how little hamlets got kept at AFD for years before they were explicitly declared notable) - but it's tiring to see people pretend that this topic meets the guideline when it plainly doesn't. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The "keep" !voters here are quite aware of the sources and of the GNG. We have the subject of the article discussed repeatedly over a substantial period of time, with a substantial discussion in, among other sources, the Baltimore Afro-American. I find it very disturbing that some editors want to refocus the article to be solely about the dinner, thereby removing the perhaps even more significant 1929 Senate event. One can't solve racism in the present by pretending that racism in the past didn't happen. -- 101.119.29.15 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Not a single person on this page is pretending that racism in the past did not happen, so I have no clue why you are trumpeting that line. You are also disturbed about something that isn't happening, since no one has suggested that the article be solely about the dinner - rather, the consistent suggestion is that the article on the poem become a part of an article on the dinner. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, and since the 1929 Senate event involves the poem but is completely unrelated to the dinner, it would get quietly swept under the carpet. -- 101.119.29.17 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
We now have an article on the 1901 dinner, and an article on the 1929 tea party/Senate reading. Both cover the poem, and that is where it belongs. There is significant coverage in multiple sources of those two events. There is not significant coverage of this poem in multiple sources. It is mentioned once, in a footnote, of a biography of an African American Evangelist. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. There's obviously enough sourced material here about the poem in particular, on multiple occasions, that it can't be merged into an article about a dinner, and of course we should not consider deleting it. Yes, there is a deep racial ugliness to it - conveying the truth, however, is our mission here. I wish that we had made more progress faster against racism, so that by now this would be a "Yankee Doodle" that folks of all races at the White House could sing over 'sparkling wine' to mutual laughter. But the time will come... Wnt (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
What sourced material about the poem in particular? Give me a single piece of critical commentary on the poem itself. SilverserenC 05:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
How's this for critical commentary (from the article): "Republican senator ... Hiram Bingham (from Connecticut) ... described the poem as 'indecent, obscene doggerel' which gave 'offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and [...] to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.'" -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep It does seem to just meet the bare minimum for WP:GNG with reference eight being compelling as a source mentioning the poem a hundred years after it was published. A merge doesn't seem appropriate since one event associated with the poem doesn't concern the only viable merge target.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 05:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: additional references to the 1929 reading of the poem can be found in Pan-African chronology III: a comprehensive reference to the Black quest for freedom in Africa, the Americas, Europe and Asia, 1914-1929 (Everett Jenkins, McFarland & Co., 2001) and The New York Times. -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Where? I've searched the text of that book and can't even find a mention, let alone significant coverage. What pages? Do you have a citation for the New York Times's significant coverage of the poem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - has passed a DYK review. enough sourced material. I see no reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy KeepWP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid rationale for deletion. (I don't like it either.) If it didn't meet WP:GNG at the time of this nomination (which I believe it did), it certainly meets it now.Joefromrandb (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
And since neither article is a superset of the other or has rightful claim to be the article on this poem, that indicates that we should have an article on the poem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The poem itself isn't notable. It was reproduced several times in 1901-3; one newspaper article discussed it in detail in 1903, and it is mentioned in the footnote of a biography of an evangelical minister. There isn't significant coverage in multiple sources addressing the poem. All of the "further reading" and most of the citations in the article cover the White House dinner and tea party without mentioning the poem at all. This is a puffed-up piece of trollery. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You left out several sources, such as the mention in the Joplin book, and did you perhaps forget about the poem's 1929 reading in the Senate? That received widespread coverage in 1929, and is also discussed in books on Afro-American history. I'd add Life Magazine's coverage to the article, except that someone would claim it was WP:OR when I pointed out that they're being sarcastic when they call it "a pretty little poem," and call Blease himself "chivalrous." This is a notable event in US history, though one I guess many people would prefer to forget. -- 120.144.24.102 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The Joplin book says, in total, "The Sedalia Sentinal printed a poem on page one entitled 'Niggers in the White House,' which concludes with a black man marrying the president's daughter." That's it. That is a trivial mention. We're looking for significant coverage.
Where is the Life article? I am open to persuasion, you know. Just show me some actual significant coverage. The 1903 Baltimore Afro-American article I alluded to above is the only significant discussion of the poem per se that I've been shown. Bring a few more like that to the discussion and you'll have made the case. I've been looking very hard and have found nothing. Every source, except the Afro-American article, is either trivial or about a single event - the reading of Blease's Senate resolution - not the poem, per se.
The 1929 reading in the Senate is an event, centering on the behavior of the notable Coleman Bleaze, and it is dealt with, in detail, at Coleman Livingston Blease#Blease as Senator, where it belongs.
What "books on Afro-American history" give significant coverage of the poem, and why aren't they cited in the article? If they exist, why are you edit-warring to keep a list of books in the "Further reading" section that don't even mention the poem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It's going to be kept. At this point we would all do better to focus on improving the article rather than continued bickering here. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
If you remove that list of "Further reading" that doesn't even address the poem, that would be a start. Then perhaps you could find one source, other than the Afro-American article, that critically addresses the poem (more than one sentence from an outraged legislator.) I've been looking, and failed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Removing the "Further reading" section is a matter to be discussed at the article's talk page (I have commented there). As for finding more sources, that would be wonderful, but there's certainly consensus here that the article, as it stands, meets WP:GNG. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
That's been asserted, but anyone who's been challenged to point to the exact sources that contain significant coverage of the poem as opposed to trivial mentions (apart from the Afro-American article) has failed to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Failed to do so to your standards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The significant event is the dinner, the poem is a bit of historical detritus connected to that, but insignificant itself. This is original research synthesis, stringing a bunch of sources together, many of which don't even mention the actual subject of this article, to create a facade of notability. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete. As per nom and Gamaliel's points above regarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The references do not establish notability for the poem in of itself and amount to merely trivial coverage at best. Perhaps merge some content to the article on the dinner as appropriate. As I understand it AfDs aren't straight votes per se, but based on the arguments made as well, so the point being asked above about what supports significant, non-trivial, coverage seems valid. Also think the assertions that the nom is merely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT to be a bit against WP:AGF when there is a reasonable rationale and argument provided as the basis of the nom. Number36 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I cannot agree with the nominator's discounting pre-1930 sources, since notability is not temporary. If anything, readily available sources for a century-old subject are likely just the tip of the iceberg. So I think this does edge past the notability bar. But if it is the dinner that is truly notable, it may be best to redirect this to an article about the dinner, merging a small amount of relevant content. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Just on the point about Notability not Being Temporary, reading WP:NTEMP that wouldn't appear to necessarily mean that early coverage of that nature (and as you say it's in the context of the dinner in any case) necessarily establishes notability. As per the example there "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (Reading 'subject' for person, and 'article about that subject'), this would seem to be applicable in this case where it was mentioned only in the context of a single event. So I agree with your point regarding redirecting and merging with the article on the dinner.Number36 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hold on. This article will survive or not on the basis of whether there is significant coverage of the poem in multiple sources. I've read, I think, all of the sources for this article now and don't believe it passes GNG. I will collate them - those that actually mention the poem (the vast majority just talk about the dinner, the tea party and the senatorial rebuke) - with a transcript of every word addressing the poem, and hopefully that will make the question of notability clear, one way or the other. Presently the above consists of a lot of disputed claims regarding the nature of the sources. However, I won't be able to get to this for a day or so. So I would appreciate it if anyone contemplating closing this could wait a bit until that's done. (Anyone who wants to make a start is welcome to do so.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next day or so. I'm traveling. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep or merge into articles about dinner - the article as stands, presents a reasonably good analysis per the sources. Generally, it meets notability beyond the momentary coverage. However, the arguments towards upmerge also suggest a much better (and more thorough) article should subsume this one, Sadads (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As noted above, a merge is not ideal, as the poem was involved in two significant events at the White House. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there is room, though, for the article about one dinner to hold the main discussion and the second to have another section referring with a See also, to the original section. Sadads (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Silverseren's nomination statement does a very good job of dismantling the referencing. The title is utterly horrendous, and the DYK hook that was tied to it even more so. Beyond that, there is a serious issue here that most of the keep !voters haven't even attempted to look at the sourcing properly; they've looked at the number of citations, and concluded that this must be notable. Notability isn't temporary, that is correct; however, the notability is for the dinner (which has its own article at present) and the tea, not the poem. Now, what we're left with is a poem that has a lot of mentions, but that's all they are; passing mentions. The events are notable, but the poem is not. For obvious reasons, the title is not appropriate for a redirect. I seriously hope that the poor sod who eventually has to close this can see through the non-policy based !votes on both sides, and give us a proper result one way or another; one that isn't no consensus. There may be some content that is worth merging into one of the relevant articles, and if there is, that should be done. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There are in fact multiple sources describing the poem and its being read out in the Senate (including sources in the article, other books, and Life Magazine of 1929); this is a separate issue from the dinner and tea (though done in reaction to the tea). The title is indeed horrendous, but WP:NOTCENSORED. There's no point whitewashing the past: someone did write this poem, multiple newspaper editors decided to print it, and a US Senator read it out aloud in Congress. No doubt many US editors are ashamed of this, but Wikipedia's job is to present the historical facts in a WP:NPOV way. -- 119.225.153.211 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Cut the bullshit about "not censored" and "whitewashing." The notable things here are the events, not the poem. The sources have been completely and utterly taken apart by a very accurate nomination statement, and it is clear that the mentions are only in passing, and that there is no independent notability whatsoever. And I'm not a US editor, so playing that card is wrong. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want us to cut the "bullshit" about not censored, cut the bullshit about "the title is utterly horrendous". That's censorship talk, pure and simple.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not "censorship talk", racism is NEVER acceptable. Regardless of that, the IP was using the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored as a reason for keeping the article; the issues extend far beyond the title. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 08:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who begins a "delete" vote with, "The title is utterly horrendous", has no business telling anyone to "cut the bullshit". That's an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" vote, plain and simple. Especially when it's followed by the baseless and false, "For obvious reasons, the title isn't appropriate for a redirect". Niggers in Paris is a redirect. Nigger Jack is a redirect. And we have other unpleasant redirects, such as James the Shit, which redirects to a featured article about a very well-known king. WP:NOTCENSORED is often misapplied, but it applies perfectly here. Get over it. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Fuck off is it a "IDONTLIKEIT" vote. Unlike the majority of people in here, I've actually used some policy-based arguments. Which you are either blind to, or just want to ignore. Read what I wrote properly, or go away. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 10:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote; so will others, which is obviously why you're so upset. So, no thank you. You are free to "fuck off and go away", though. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No wonder you got RFC/Ued... You clearly didn't read any of what I actually wrote, other than the bits you wanted to. Otherwise you would know full fucking well that it wasn't an IDONTLIKEIT vote. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 10:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Repeating that again and again won't make it true. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Question: On a scale from George Washington to Barack Obama, how much did the word "nigger" influence your decision? If the answer is any higher than Andrew Jackson, you probably have racism and language on your mind. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia has very extensive articles on the words "nigger" and "fuck". It is possible to have a valuable article that educational, historical, and profane. Just because the title makes schoolchildren laugh does not mean that it's bad. —Zenexer [talk] 10:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
For some of these people, it's higher than George Washington. It's John Hanson. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Despite what some people are trying to portray (and my attempts to close the conversation have been spitefully and pathetically reverted, not that I expected anything else from that user; it's their modus operandi), it is very much a tertiary factor. The simple fact of the matter is that the referencing is an attempt at "look, we have loads of references, it must be notable" when, in fact, many don't mention the poem, and even those that do usually do it in passing. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 10:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
For me, it's the motive of the guy who wrote it - he knew that if he put "nigger" in the title of an article it would get lots of hits when it appeared on Wikipedia's front page (and he'd lined up 2 more "nigger" articles for the front page), and the fact that it's not notable - there is only one source that gives the poem itself significant coverage (the Afro-American journal mentioned above). Tomorrow, I swear, I'll summarise the sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for coming out and admitting that your dislike of the article's creator is the real reason you want it gone. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't dislike the author. In fact over the last couple of hours I've warmed to him considerably. He was trolling, though: referring to African Americans as "niggers" in conversation and wearing that swastika. No, I'm beginning to think he might be quite something, actually. It remains to be seen of course. I think he may have actually been genuinely oblivious to the degree of offense that behaviour would cause.
I'm not worried that white or Asian schoolkids would have sniggered at seeing the title, Zenexer. I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering. But this is closing the door after the horse has bolted. It's already had its day in the sun. If the thing was worth keeping, I really wouldn't be bothering with this. It's just that there is the notability problem. So it was the obvious dubious intent of the author that got my interest, but it's the notability problem that's kept me here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering." That is, IMO, a fundamentally misplaced view. Absolutely. Black children hear the word "nigger/nigga" all the time, especially in the music many of them choose to listen to. This is not a question of "protecting" vulnerable people. This article epitomises what Wikipedia should be about. This is the kind of article that will help children, black or white, who are studying the history of racism. It is an article that they and their tutors can use to explore the difference between the White House of Roosevelt and Obama. It draws atention to a moment of cultural history in a way that a more conventional article would not. The article brings together disparate moments of history is a way that makes them 'live' more vividly. It matters not one jot what motivated Bonkers. Maybe the person who created the "penis" article did so because they got a thrill from writing the word "penis". Who knows? It doesn't matter. All that really matters is whether it is useful, properly referenced and informative. This article gives the context clearly. Ironically, this whole outrage is topsy-turvy. Anyone could upload the poem without any of the cultural context and commentary to Wikisource (since it was published befiore 1923), and there would be no "policy based" arguments for deletion at all. It would be there in all its "glory" for anyone to read. Yes, its notability is borderline, but we should err on the side of inclusion in cases such as this, since the historical significance of the topic is clear. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
All good points. That tally of sources is looking borderline now - and I haven't finished.
I'm merging the articles about the dinner and the tea into an overview about blacks in the White House from the Haitian ambassador in 1798(?) to Sammy Davis Jr. under Nixon (presently clumsily-named White House hospitality toward African Americans). I suppose if everything worth knowing about this poem can be comfortably contained in that article, it may make sense to merge Niggers in the White House into it, but that will only be clear once the full inventory of sources is done, and we know how much there actually is to say about the poem itself. (There is a lot of repetition.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. I do find the insinuations on the page that the nominating editor and people voting to delete/merge could only possibly be motivated by IDONTLIKE a little irritating and condescending though, and a needless distraction, there are plenty of policy based arguments here with supporting points/evidence provided, WP:AGF applies.Number36 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
DeleteWP:N requires that the subject of the article be notable; per WP:GNG, this means that the subject have received detailed coverage in multiple independent sources. As Silverseren has clearly pointed out, this subject (the poem) has not been discussed in detail in multiple independent sources. It's been mentioned a few times, and even reprinted, but that is not itself sufficient per our notability rules. Of course, should some of the editors looking into this dig up more sources with significant coverage of the poem (i.e., not the dinner), then this could be kept or recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment You can see a scan of the poem here. Also, in your searches, remember to use "white house", not "whitehouse"--they bring up very different results. Remember, primary sources cannot be references, so that image is not a valid reference. The rest of the page could be, I suppose, though I'd avoid it. —Zenexer [talk] 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There appear to be an acceptable--though perhaps minimal--number of potentially reliable sources scattered about various archives. Whether they establish notability is another question. —Zenexer [talk] 14:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have gone off track, because I see angry mastodons. Discussions are meant to be objective, not personal. I'm creating this area for bulleted, specific facts. I plan to enforce objectivity in this section. Participation is obviously optional, but your contributions will help newcomers quickly pull out the facts. —Zenexer [talk] 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Each relevant policy should have a bullet. Under each policy's bullet will be a sub-list describing the ways in which the policy applies. Such descriptions can have further sub-bullets giving concrete examples (for example, specific references that are problematic). Do not sign the bullets; these are not comments. Avoid using shortcuts (WP:EXAMPLE) for policy bullets without adding descriptive text. Information on relevance should be short and sweet.
Example:
* [[Wikipedia:Policy 1]]
** How it applies
** Another application
* [[Wikipedia:Policy 2]]
** Relevance
*** Concrete example 1
*** Concrete example 2
*** Concrete example 3
A personal remark discredits a fact. Any personal or biased comments should be removed, and a note should be left on the author's talk page. Be sure to retain any objective material. Try to salvage as much as possible. Do not add any new information or change any existing information; you should be removing only, without changing the meaning of anything. Do not add your signature. If the meaning of the contribution must change to make it acceptable, remove it entirely.
If an edit war occurs, any controversial text should be enclosed in a <s>strikethrough</s> tag, unless the text is clearly true and objective, particularly to third parties. Further discussion should occur only on the talk page.
You should not be drawing any conclusions within this section. Such analysis is left to the reader. There is one exception: there can be a "Serious problems" pseudo-policy bullet which addresses issues not outlined by a policy. For example, if a large number of zero-edit users suddenly support an AfD, that is a serious problem. Serious means serious: these are problems that must be addressed by bureaucrats, and cannot logically be solved through discussion, or that outright break the discussion process.
In the U.S. Senate, Coleman Blease, a South Carolina Democrat, introduced a resolution of criticism that included a doggerel poem titled "Niggers in the White House" that was so offensive it was immediately expunged from the Congressional Record—but not before it had been read aloud on the floor of the Senate.
The resolution was read and Senator Hiram Bingham (Rep., Conn.) described the poem as "indecent, obscene doggerel ... [designed to give] offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and to give offense to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution."
Edge and Bingham, supported by King, Walshand and Borah, objected, made points of order and asked for it to be tabled
Blease withdrew the resolution - because it offended Bingham, not because it offended negroes - and it was expunged from the Record.
Quotes part of the resolution and 10 stanzas of the poem.
In Joplin's adopted home town, the Sentinel splashed on its front page a poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House." In its final line a black marries the President's daughter. The inspiration for this invective might have been drawn in part from the fact that Roosevelt's daughter Alice often asked the Marine Band to play "Maple Leaf Rag" at White House Parties."
The Sedalia Sentinel printed a poem on page one entitled "Niggers in the White House," which concludes with a black man marrying the President's daughter.
Incorporated in the resolution was a lengthy poem entitled "Niggers in the White House," which was severely criticised by Senators Edge and Bingham, both Republicans.
Edward J. Robinson, To Save My Race from Abuse: The Life of Samuel Robert Cassius, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 2007, p.183
The Greenwood Chronicle published a derisory poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." A stanza of the poem went: [12th stanza]
Cole Blease, chivalrous Senator from South Carolina, read into the Record a pretty little poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House"...
Nicholas Von Hoffman, Organized Crimes, Harper & Row, 1984, p. 23 [3]
The matter reached the floor of the Senate today when Sen. Coleman T. Blease (D, S.C.) read a poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." After several of his colleagues requested, Sen. Blease agreed to have it struck from the Congressional Record, not, as he said, "because I am ashamed of my verse or consider myself an inferior poetaster, but out of deference to the misconceived feelings of some of the other members of this chamber...
Comment - The extent of likely copyrighted material replicated here is such that I'd prefer deleting it to be safe. No copyvios please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the two extensive quotes. The remainder I think conform to Wikipedia:Non-free content and WP:QUOTE. If I've got that wrong, please revert. I'll include summaries of the two deleted extensive quotes soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. These are from the article and this page. Are there any other reliable secondary sources that address the poem (not just reprints)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that's it. I think that's the sum total of the coverage in reliable secondary sources over 112 years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Almost certainly there are also other, offline, sources, but even what's in the table is IMHO enough for notability. -- 101.119.14.207 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's just stick to what we have been able to find. I haven't participated in enough of these debates to know what usually passes for significant coverage in multiple sources but the above looks trifling to me. Hopefully an experienced closer will know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment If Anthonycole is right that what he has tabulated is the sum total of the coverage of the text, what it amounts to is a number of mentions, but nothing that constitutes an analysis of the text as such. Today's (Sept 27, 13) Featured Article Whaam! is a classic example of what an actual analysis of a work consists of: sections dealing with the background and the history, a description of the work, its reception, a thorough analysis and interpretation of the work AS SUCH, and a discussion of its legacy. Niggers in the White House has apparently never been the object of such a study of the text IN ITS OWN RIGHT, and therefore clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines. Awien (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Whaam! is one of the most famous of all 20th century works of art, so the comparison is pointless. Obviously Whaam! is much better known and far more widely written about. The question is whether it passes a basic threshold of notability, not whether it's famous. There are other sources, by the way. For example, it is discussed in David Day's article, for example. No doubt there are other instances of its discussion in 1901-3, 1929 and in recent scholarship. It does not have to have literature uniquely dedicated to it and it alone. We have separate pages dedicated to every single one of Shakespeare's 154 sonnets, and yet very few of them have books or articles dedicated to that sonnet alone. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Closer. I don't know if the above table represents "significant coverage in multiple sources" for these purposes but you should be aware that we now have Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House and Jessie DePriest tea at the White House which together contain most of the information in the table, and I am in the process of merging those two and adding prior and later history to make White House hospitality toward African Americans. When finished, it will comfortably accommodate all of the noteworthy information in the table. I'll be doing that over the next couple of days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Enough evidence for historical significance. Even if the information is used elsewhere, the sone is significant in its own right and needs an article .he requirements listed by Awien for an article on a literary work are excessive here --they're the requirements for GA, not just for passing AfD . (I can not exactly see the argument for making a parallel with Shakespeare's sonnets, each individual one of which does in fact have all this information available from good sources--but the individual sonnets are world-famous, not merely notable .). Notable is enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Interior (talk·contribs) – I am honored to nominate The Interior for adminship; indeed I am humbled. I first interacted with The Interior in March 2011; believing he was not only an administrator then, but one of the corps very best as well. I had observed his collaborations with others, becoming impressed by his competence, and respectful manner of conduct. We are both active in the DYK wikiproject and our first writing collaboration was on Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin when it was a DYK nomination. The Interior is an excellent colleague and, I learned, a masterful writer as well. He well knows about the effort an editor expends to create encyclopedic content; demonstrated by his creation of Illecillewaet Glacier and persistence improving it to GA class. His AfD participation reflects the composite of his good qualities. His !votes are thoughtful, policy based, and without condescension and he has on occasion provided the sourced verification necessary to establish a subject's notability. He has 220 UAA reports and 79 AIV reports with exceptional accuracy on both noticeboards. And there are more attributes that reflect The Interior's qualifications, but listing them affects readability with excess verbiage. They are apparent in his contributions however, and seven days of scrutiny can only show how fortunate our community is to have The Interior volunteer more of his faithful service, for our benefit.—John Cline (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I am very delighted to co-nominate The Interior for adminship. I could write paragraphs of material expounding upon the editing skills, DYK work and AIV/AFD/UAA batting average of the candidate but I fear it may miss the point as to why I believe that The Interior is so well-suited to the administrative role. Although his editing statistics are indeed impressive, it’s the more intangible qualities that make The Interior such a fantastic candidate. He’s patient and kind. Understanding and honest. Intuitive and clueful. And he truly seems to “get” what this crazy project is all about and is able to nurture this same excitement for learning and knowledge in the editors he works with, both newbies and experienced editors alike. This combination of qualities, along with a sound understanding of policy and his willingness to roll up his sleeves and help out where needed, make The Interior a stellar candidate for the mop and bucket. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a great pleasure to recommend The Interior for adminship. I would be hard-pressed to think of any other editor who is more balanced, trustworthy, and ideal for this position. I first came into contact with him in discussions around the Education Working Group (since, the Wiki Education Foundation). One of the few long-term Wikipedian editors in the group, The Interior's contributions to any debate were always well-informed, eminently sane, and well-reasoned. He repeatedly showed his capacity to respond and listen to the points of view expressed by others. I have also seen The Interior intervene in the midst of heated debates and controversial topics, such as a flare-up a couple of months ago at Adrian Dix. Again, he showed excellent common sense, presence of mind, and unflappability in what was otherwise (however briefly) a rather tense situation in which accusations were flying both here and in the local press. Finally, I have had the pleasure of meeting The Interior a number of times in real life and can report that off-wiki as much as on he demonstrates not only his passion for the project, but also an enviable level of dedication, thoughtfulness, openness, and even wisdom. He will be an excellent addition to the admin ranks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I first met The Interior in person at the GLAM Bootcamp in April. For the first few hours, I had no idea what his name was, only that when he spoke, he made some seriously good points. I eventually spent something like fifteen minutes poring over the list of participants, trying to figure out who this guy was. Two and two eventually got together, and I realized that we had actually met before (online) when he was the driving force behind an excellent Q&A in the 18 March Signpost. The positive interactions I had with him then were bolstered after my obligatory Facebook-like stalking of his contributions—I discovered that The Interior is a fantastically helpful and productive editor. Some of the specific stats can be read above, but I've found that interactions like this or this are common. In short, his attitude and temperament demonstrated in discussions around the encyclopedia are ideally suited for the admin role. I ask that you give The Interior your support. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words, folks. I accept the nomination. The Interior(Talk) 04:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: In short, I intend to help out in areas I'm familiar with. I believe I've seen enough vandalism, and how we deal with it as a community, to help respond to reports at AIV. I have a good grasp of promotional usernames and the grey areas around them to action those type of reports at UAA. I understand the philosophy and mechanics behind page protection. With almost three years of experience at DYK, I can help with requests at WP:ERRORS, hopefully decreasing the amount of problematic DYKs hitting the main page. Although not a prolific "prep-maker" on the DYK queue, I know enough to competently swap out hooks or construct decent hook sets. I'm not a heavy participant in AfD discussions, so I don't see this being a major focus of my admin work. I would, however, feel confident deleting speedy requests in the areas where I have done tagging in the past, namely {{db-spam}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-catempty}}, {{db-album}}, {{db-song}}, {{db-vandalism}}, as well as blatant copyright violations. I would also be available to do revdel requests on our worst cases of vandalism. While I may move into other areas in the future (requested moves, categories for deletion, and histmerging all interest me), I would not do so until making significant amounts of non-admin edits in related discussions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: "Best" is very subjective when talking about one's own work, but I'll talk about the work that has made me feel good about being a Wikipedian. I really enjoy exploring the province where I live, and working on articles like Adams River (British Columbia), Glacier National Park (Canada) and the Kitlope Heritage Conservancy enriches the experience of visiting those places. Researching these topics provides a connection with history and physical place that is impossible to describe, but very fulfilling.
I've very much enjoyed my work with various "outreach" initiatives, such as the Education Program, Wikipedia Loves Libraries, and the GLAM project. There are many energetic, optimistic and wildly smart folks working in these areas, and I'm lucky to be working with them. I believe these projects can help save Wikipedia from its own insularity, and connect it with the knowledge communities, high quality resources, and the new editors we need to keep the project going into this decade and the next. I'm proud of my contributions in these areas, both behind the scenes and through active roles like online ambassadorship.
Most of all, it is the collaboration and knowledge sharing with fellow editors that keeps me coming back. I'm very pleased when I can help bring people together to work on content. I have met some of the most interesting, intelligent, hardworking and altruistic people I know on the pages of WP. They are the reason this project has gotten to where it is, and they are its greatest resource.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: A frank and vigorous exchange of ideas is important in any intellectual endeavour. These exchanges can cause stress, and I'm not immune. It's important to remember that stress isn't all bad; there is the concept of eustress, the "good" stress that drives you to dig deeper into the sources, compose better sentences, and explore your opponent's viewpoints. I've been in the middle of quite a few heated debates, and have learned some lessons the hard way. I've set some guidelines for myself regarding disputes, such as:
never post angry - if a comment has really gotten your goat, step back for a few hours (or days) until you can approach it at least semi-rationally.
don't personalize - avoid personal criticisms except when truly unavoidable.
forgive and forget - don't carry old disputes with colleagues into new discussions and forums.
And most importantly, always try to search for solutions to the underlying problems, rather than the total annihilation of your perceived antagonists. These are ideals - I don't always live up to them. But I like to think I try, and I will continue to try in the future. ;)
4. How would you respond if, after becoming an admin you, came across an article tagged G11, with "Company X is a sprocket manufacturer headquartered in Small Town, USA. In the last year it has received multiple industry awards for innovation in sprocket design" as its contents.
A:The wording for g11 is "exclusively promotional", and here we have a description with a location, which is a start, a proto-stub. The awards claim would have to be sourced, but it may well be true. It should be rewritten to refer to the specific awards, preferably. It's a matter of sources from there. I wouldn't delete this as a g11. If the sources are very thin, or are all related to the organization, it would be a prod/AfD candidate.
5. As one of your intentions is to work in the UFAA department, I'd like to ask you a question based on the following usernames. What administrative actions would you take on the following three cases?
User:Satellitedirect who removes the redirect from Satellite Direct and creates a promotional page.
User:BigBlackCockerel who made a single vandalism edit on Rooster
User:Bottoman who edits constructively
A:
User:Satellitedirect: This username matches the target page, and the editing is promotional. Depending on the severity of the promotion, I would either warn with {{Uw-coi-username}} or block with {{Uw-softerblock}}
User:BigBlackCockerel: Again, depending on the severity of the edits, I would either warn the user that the username is unacceptable, or block as a vandalism-only account.
User:Bottoman: Not an unambiguously offensive username. If this was reported, I'd advise the reporting editor to either ignore, or start a discussion about it if they feel strongly about it.
Addendum: Minimac has pointed out myon my talk page that User:Bottoman could be confused with a bot, which was the purpose of its inclusion in the question. My understanding of the bot situation in regards to misleading usernames is that we prohibit usernames that could be "easily misunderstood" as being bot accounts. I would consider this editor to be in the clear in this regard - the string "b-o-t" as it appears in this name would not lead users to assume it is a bot account.
A: I've had that page watchlisted for quite a while. I find it's a good spot to keep up to date on the various "hot topics" being discussed on the project. I post very rarely though. I'm not sure how much more I can elaborate on this; I read it mostly out of idle interest.
7. In your work at DYK and AfD, how have you dealt with problematic, inexperienced, or otherwise inept editors?
A: A DYK review can be an excellent opportunity for newer editors to learn the finer points of article building. There's no question that a fair amount of substandard content gets through the gates at DYK, and I wish more of our good writers would participate. All too often, the reviews are too brief, and only take a superficial glance at the content. The "carrot" of main page exposure means that the newer editor is often willing to make major adjustments, if you let them know what direction they should be going in. I try to keep recommendations for improving the article clear and concrete and encourage editors to shoot for higher quality (I sometimes go beyond the strict interpretation of the DYK rules in my requests, but people rarely call me out on it ;)). I usually avoid the fail symbol in my reviews unless the article is irredeemable - I feel it discourages further work.
With AfD it can be more difficult - the process is inherently more confrontational, especially for the article's author. The same approach as above can work on occasion - if you lay out some easily followed steps (i.e. work on more neutral language, visit your local library and talk to a librarian about better sources, rewrite this paragraph using WP:RELEVANTPOLICY as a guide, etc.), sometimes you see improvement in the editor's work. Sometimes userfying the content and letting the editor tinker at it without the pressure of a deletion discussion hanging over them is a good approach (although this often leaves a problematic article mouldering away in userspace for an indefinite period of time). You can't win them all. Sometimes people don't want help, and just leave the project. For others, unfortunately, the next stop is usually one of our more dramatic noticeboards. Avoiding these two outcomes is something I think about when participating in discussions over problem content, in those venues you mention, and anywhere else on WP.
8. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using any other user names? If so, what were these?
A: Yes, I have. User:PEarley (WMF) is me. Other than that, no. There's a handful of IP edits over the years, all the result of not noticing I was logged out.
9. This is more an open-ended philosophy question... Do you feel there are structural problems with the Mainpage-Did You Know approval process? If so, what changes would you advise?
A: There is definitely room for improvement in the DYK system. DYK is based around several somewhat arbitrary thresholds (1500 characters, 5 days old, etc.). There is potential for improving content quality by tweaking those thresholds. Personally, I would prefer a slightly higher character count (2000 or 2500) and a ten day window for submission. I feel the higher count would lessen the number of "scraped-together" submissions, and the longer window would result in better research and copyediting. I would also support a DYK rule specifically regarding sourcing, requiring the reviewer to look at reference quality before passing the article. There is a justifiable fear of "instruction creep" in the DYK community - the more complicated the submission requirements, the less accessible the project is to new/casual participants. But we should be open to trials of different configurations. Although it was opposed by some of my colleagues, I think the introduction of GA articles to the mix will be an improvement, both in terms of content quality, and participation by experienced article writers.
10. After analyzing our CSD policy, you reach the conclusion that there is a definite space for a new CSD criteria. Propose the same here, giving logical support and reasoning.
A:Okay, I'll preface this with saying that I don't really see the need for a new criteria at this time. One of my pet peeves is people, usually professionals, using their Wikipedia article as a online c.v. or resume. This cheapens our brand, and gives other professionals the wrong idea (bigwig to his assistant: "Roscoe at SystemsTech has a Wikipedia c.v., why don't I? Get on it!"). So I propose raising the "reads like a resume" template to full CSD status. Criteria could read, "article is only a listing of positions held, awards won, alma maters, and laudatory quotes. References are exclusively primary in nature. Complete rewrite would be needed to transform into an encyclopedic article." It would be a cousin to g11, designed especially for people. We'll call it g12 g13 - Misplaced Resume.
11. "Disclaimer: Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, contributions under this account do not necessarily represent the actions or views of the Foundation unless expressly stated otherwise. For example, edits to articles or uploads of other media are done in my individual, personal capacity unless otherwise stated." Kindly provide diffs of "unless otherwise stated" and please show how have you clarified to editors in the past that certain edits to articles by you have been official ones. Thanks for your offer to stand in for administration.
A: The vast majority of my edits with the PEarley account are user talk messages soliciting volunteer translators to work on VisualEditor's interface translation, testing for bugs on our smaller wikis, and translating the Help documents for the new editor.([4]) I believe for those edits, the nature of the requests, the signature, and the blurb on my userpage are enough to make clear that the edits are done by a WMF contractor in his professional capacity. The account also does test edits on the smaller wikis, but these don't usually get past "preview". If they are saved, they are quickly self-reverted. There is also a small number of en.wiki article edits all involving removal of bad code introduced by VE, such as the unwanted nowiki tags.([5]) (although I now see two test edits with dabs that I neglected to roll back ...) In retrospect, my edit summaries for these edits should have included some indication that they were done in a work capacity.
The boilerplate you quote above (its presence on my userpage was required by WMF legal) I believe was designed more for WMF employees who have a single account, and may make personal edits from that account on occasion. This is not the case for me, all edits by PEarley (WMF) are purely work-related, and all edits by The Interior solely represent my volunteer work.1 I will add a note to the work account's userpage blurb page to clarify this.
Q5 was edited by the questioner after the original version was answered. I think this is misleading, and have reverted to the original version of the question. --Stfg (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The Interior is one of the most qualified candidates for adminship I have ever had the privilege to support. Convincing him to run was a formidable task as he doesn't appear to expend much energy assessing his own value; instead, simply demanding his own best; in all matters, at all times—being satisfied for giving that of himself. Reviewing the talk page efforts to convince The Interior to run is good reading for anyone interested in knowing more about how this RfA came to be.—John Cline (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - As a fellow Wikipedian from the same city, I've had long-term positive observations of the candidate on variety of namespace. Calm, civil and consistent, excellent work with Canadian and Vancouver-related projects. Did you know? project would also certainly benefit with an additional mop from one of the most qualified candidates that I've also had the honour to support. Alex ShihTalk 05:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – Candidate is quite familiar with Admin-related noticeboards (in particular UAA and AIV); has demonstrated their tenacity and maturity through the clear-cut processes they follow when dealing with conflicts; has an impeccable reputation as evident by their thought-out answers. All the best The Interior! —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, an exemplary editor, in word and action. –Quiddity (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The Interior is the rare contributor who manages to do a lot of good work without causing drama or otherwise attracting attention to himself. We've interacted at DYK on-and-off and I've had his talk page watchlisted for some time now (for reasons I don't recall) and I can't recall seeing him say or do anything that would cause concern -- to tell the truth, I guess I assumed he was already an administrator. --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is such a no-brainer that I can't even come up with an adequate support rationale to do him justice. So I'll just link to some examples of gorgeous interior design! Of the images I've seen thus far, my favourite would have to be this one. :-) Kurtis(talk) 05:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I haven't run across them before, but they seem like an excellent candidate to me. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Response to the CSD question is reasonable enough, which was my only concern in light of the lack of recent CSDing. Monty845 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support no issues. --Rschen7754 05:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Has the temperament, judgment, and knowledge of policy to be an awesome admin. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per noms, a thoughtful, clueful candidate. Graham87 05:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. It's actually easier to find reasons not to support than reasons to support if they are to be qualified with more substantial rationales than 'Why not?'. In view of the strong, and almost unprecedented number of co-noms, I looked even harder, and all I can come up with is 'Why not?' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per the number of nominations. No issues and all the best towards your passing. Jianhui67Talk 08:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - saw this page at creation and have been waiting a week for transclusion. It's about time. Absolutely no reservations whatsoever here. GoPhightins! 10:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - net positive most likely Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Great contributor, see no reason not to. buffbills7701 11:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I see no issues here. Deb (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I haven't encountered The Interior before, but looking around, I see a great style of communication and a lot of competence. Answers to the questions so far are excellent. I like how he responds to people who express stress by advising them to step away from the debates and edit an article. Oh, and he writes well. --Stfg (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A host of nominations and no opposes... difficult choice. Rcsprinter(deliver) @ 16:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per my co-nomination statement.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't he a former admin or something? Very rarely do I see a (thought he was an admin candidate), which basically means extremely strong support. Secretaccount 16:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sweet, finally a candidate so uncontroversial that it might finally drop "you have too many co-nominators" from the list of terribly stupid oppose rationales that are still used. Sven ManguardWha? 17:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per having too many co-nominators. ;) Actually, if Wictionary has an entry for "having a clue", Interior's picture should be attached to it. Resolute 17:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Too well qualified. 069952497a(U-T-C-E) 17:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support All looks fine to me. Widr (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Well-qualified, experienced in both administrative areas and content creation, and civil editor. Full support. theonesean 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Nice involvement in content contribution areas, unafraid to use Talk pages, appropriate involvement in admin areas. Friendly, helpful and clueful interactions with others. Zad68 20:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Distribution wonderful. OK Q1-3 show knowledge and deliberation. Mentions AIV and UAA and significant number of reports in both. Looked at some AfD misses and they are not an issue. Cannot spell "barnstar", but that is not a reason to oppose. Glrx (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: For last few months, I have been working with this editor, and that's how I am aware of his works and behavior. He is a very friendly editor and understands his responsibilities very well. I see no issue. I am confident that he'll be a great admin. --Tito☸Dutta 21:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an extremely competent well thought editor. NativeForeignerTalk 23:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Yes please! Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: Answers to the question were well written with great knowledge and insight of Wikipedia. Edit history shows routinely good contributions. ///EuroCarGT 01:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Yes! A fellow British Columbian! Welcome aboard :) -- Ϫ 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – no need to pile on to what's already been said. Good luck with the mop. Deadbeef 01:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, as possibly the best-qualified candidate I've seen in my time here. Miniapolis 01:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per noms, his contributions, and common sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are all satisfactory so far. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Adequate tenure and adequate edit count, with a nice mix of mainspace to other areas. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Seems an excellent candidate for the tool box... Carrite (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support well qualified and ready for the mop Royalbroil 05:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Agree with much of what has already been said; strong candidate for adminship. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 07:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Per nominators. Looks like a WP:RIGHTNOW to me .... Pedro : Chat 10:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - seems to be a solid candidate with enough experience in all the right areas to be fine with the tools. GiantSnowman 10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I am uneasy about CSD closure, but AIV work should be helpful. Axl¤[Talk] 10:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
support checking logs reveals trying out most of the functions available as well as diverse participation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sure, no reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support but no need for nominators to feel delighted, humbled or honoured; you haven't won an Oscar, just indicating that this editor is capable of blocking vandals. Regarding the candidate I have no concerns Jebus989✰ 11:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Why not?--Pratyya(Hello!) 14:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per the "Fallacies of relevance" box on the user page Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Clueful responses. Gobōnobō+c 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Fully qualified candidate. In fact, so well qualified that I think the project should hire an assistant for him, who would be referred to as the Secretary of The Interior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit; I cracked a smile at this. Move over Sally Jewell. GoPhightins! 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
To keep things Canadian, we'd have to be referred to collectively as the Ministry of the Interior. The Interior(Talk) 02:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I already thought this editor was a sysop. Mkdwtalk 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I rooted through your talk page and lots of your contribs. Everything I saw looked very good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Very qualified candidate. TCN7JM 01:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, although I must admit that my review was only cursory. Xrt6L (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Interesting idea for DYK, your a very good candidate for the mop. Whispering 02:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Why not? Seems like a good candidate, StevenD99Talk | Stalk 03:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I see no reason why the candidate would not be suitable for admin. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. The Interior is an enormous asset to our community. He's an eminently reasonable, level-headed, thoughtful guy with a fantastic personality to boot. I've met him in person and his calm and inquisitive demeanor was both reassuring and authoritative. He has a useful library sciences background, he gets policy debates, he takes a neutral stance in complex topics, and he also wants to do meaningful outreach to cultural institutions. We should empower all of his future pursuits with the bit, which I'm sure he'll use to great ends! Ocaasit | c 15:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. One of the rare editors who has absolutely no potential RfA ghosts in the closet. Will wield the clue-bat well. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I've not had anything to do with either account, so far as I know - which could be a good sign... Good answers, and comments. Looks good to me. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Because I haven't had much interaction with The Interior, I waited this out a couple days to see if any Oppose votes seemed to click. However, it's been two days and there are still zero oppose votes, so I see no problems here. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 18:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Strongest Support - HOO YAH. I've been waiting for this for a LONG time. YEA! PumpkinSkytalk 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problems. Good nom, good answers to questions, good content contributions, no reason to suppose he will abuse the tools. --John (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - A pleasure to work with. A responsible wordsmith who will make an excellent Admin. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - You've got great contributions. I've noticed that you have the ability to become an admin. Well good luck for that. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Per above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Nothing to oppose. A.amitkumar (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, I don't think there is much else to say. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, will make an excellent Mountie. -- Hillbillyholidaytalk 10:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Highly impressed. I generally refrain from piling on, unless it is a vote of support and I want to shout it from the rooftops. :::virtually shouting::: I am fully confident that The Interior is now and will continue to be an asset to the project. Thanks for stepping forward! Best regards, Cindy(talk) 15:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support based on answers to questions; seems level-headed. ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. No problems at all. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Mop wisely, and use environmentally-friendly chemicals. KrakatoaKatie 04:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I disliked the answer to Q10 but he has been helpful to me in the past when I was misinformed. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – My interaction with the candidate on DYK has been nothing but positive, and he has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is capable of handling the mop. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Always helpful to have Main Page admins; will definitely be helpful there. SpencerT♦C 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per KrakatoaKatie. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per nom and per above. Begoontalk 14:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per the overwhelming supports and my own assessment of the candidate. Have never encountered this editor, but appears to be ready for some of the most thankless tasks we have. My deep appreciation and best wishes in the times ahead! Jusdafax 18:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support See no concerns has been editing regularly since May 2010 and good content contributor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is an easy support, and I agree with pretty much everything that has already been said. I feel like taping the answer to Q3 to my computer monitor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No evidence tools or position will be misused. Appreciate user's contributions to geographical articles, and his recent work in bringing Glacier National Park (Canada) to GA.--MONGO 23:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. From what I've seen, looks good. Good at communicating, which is key. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Good article work and rational, level-headed contributions at AFD (not a lot of AFD, but what's there is good). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, no concerns. --Laser brain(talk) 12:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support The editor has created 42 articles, with good referencing in all but the earliest couple. AFD participation has apparently been in less than 100 instances, but there is a healthy mix of Keeps and Deletes, with good reasoning showing familiarity with relevant guidelines, while being articulate and civil. Thousands of edits, mostly to articles, showing good dedication to actually improving the encyclopedia. Seems a well qualified candidate for the mop. Edison (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I know his work, and i trust it. (I do not think I agree with him about his proposed CSD criterion, because such material can be easily rewritten if worth the trouble, but the question of how much rewriting of improperly handled material we are prepared to do is a dilemma with no clear solution.) DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Tolly4bolly 08:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Has plenty of positive edits, good understanding of how things work, and has survived through edits/discussion related to Rob Ford and Rick Santorum???!?!? Definite support! ES&L 11:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Good editor --cyrfaw (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Wholeheartedly support! I would not be the autoconfirmed editor I am today had it not been for The Interior! A patient instructor. A thoughtful writer. A meticulous citer. And someone who will stop the car to take pictures for articles. WP needs more of that! :) Anna KovalTalk 15:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support with all of the dotted is and crossed Ts Technical 13 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - A Trusted editor. Clear need for the tools demostrated as can be seen from their answers. Rest everything looks good. ~TheGeneralUser(talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Moral Support - I agree to the comments as per above. I also checked his/her contributions, and I seen it 100% constructive, so I guess its time for him/her to become an admin. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 02:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Collect (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) per [7] wherein he dismisses WP:BLPCRIME as policy IMO. Could move to support if he makes a strong statement of support for BLP concerns (I am not posing a question as such, as they tend to get answers found to be "tried and true" in the past <g>) .
@Collect: please could you explain how that diff "dismisses WP:BLPCRIME as policy"? It's hard to see the mayor of Toronto as "relatively unknown". Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
He stated there that his belief was that the "theoretical authoritative biography" of the living person should include the allegations made of criminal activity. The issue was use of a gossip site (Gawker) as a source for criminal allegations based on a video which now appears not to exist at this point. I considered such sites to not meet the strong requirements of WP:BLPCRIME while he averred that Ford was a sufficiently high public figure as he has a Wikipedia article for such allegations to be included. No police action has been taken, nor is any likely, for the alleged crime. For some odd reason, I consider allegations that a person was smoking crack cocaine to be a contentious claim about a criminal act, and suggest further that the WEIGHT given to a gossip site for such a claim should be de minimis. I note that I hold a strong view about that policy, and would like him to elucidate on why it does not apply in the case at hand, and where he would find it applicable to a person sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia BLP. If no one with an article is "unknown" that that part of the policy is, frankly, meaningless. Collect (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If Gawker had been the sole source in that ugliness, I would have been right beside you in opposing mention of the incident. However, the involvement of the Toronto Star, and the fact that two of its reporters stood by their story that they had viewed the tape, complicates matters. I believe it was the reputation of the Star that led many other reliable sources, such as the New York Times and the Guardian, to also report on the story. When faced with those sources, it was very hard for me to support your position re: BLPCRIME. In general, I’m usually quite conservative about including these sort of allegations when the sourcing is not a strong as it was here. The Interior(Talk) 20:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually only the Star and Gawker were sources on the day of our colloquy -- we still are at a point where we have "strong sourcing" that the allegation was made, but absolutely zero sourcing for the truth of the allegation, and strong sourcing that no charges were filed. Thus the question still remains - was Ford sufficiently notable that the mere presence of an allegation of criminal activity was sufficient for it to be placed in his BLP, based only on Gawker and the Star reporting on the Gawker story, lacking any of the later sources now used? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Not to hassle you, but just to add my 2c. on this particular incident, mostly for other readers. I have to say that, like Stfg, I don't read The Interior as dismissing WP:BLPCRIME in that comment. Not even close. In fact, he had just shown that he had read WP:BLP rather carefully. On the particular point you raise, the claims a) were initially raised not only in Gawker but also in a broadsheet that is Canada's highest-circulation daily newspaper; and then b) were reported by every other media outlet in Canada, as well as widely in the rest of the world. But not to continue that debate. More to the point, I like The Interior's approach in this instance, and I like his more informal explanatory gloss or rule of thumb on WP:BLP: "What we really should be thinking about is if the theoretical authoritative biography of this man, when all is said and done, would include this incident." This is a sane approach, and I wish more Wikipedia biographies of living persons would follow it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Collect: thanks for explaining your position. I don't want to take sides on that discussion here, but suffice to say that it seems to be an issue of how the BLP policy applies to the case, rather than a dismissal of the policy itself. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Collect, I wrote BLPCRIME, and I particularly don't see Interior's analysis of the issue as being faulted. Your diligence in the issue is appreciated, and should be continued in BLPs; at the same time, perhaps the usage of Exceptional (which demands multiple exceptional sources for any exceptional claim) would have provided you a stronger basis for your debate at that time. Irrespective, I believe The Interior would and is learning from their exposure to BLP editing and should be an asset to the project. WifioneMessage 19:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is at what point disputed allegations against a highly notable (not a borderline) individual become significant enough to be reported because the allegations themselves are influencing real world events. This is a significant and recurring BLP-laden area that requires difficult line-drawing by responsible Wikipedians, just as it does by responsible newspapers and others. (Michael Kinsley first drew this issue to my attention in an excellent article on this point, long before Wikipedia, in the context of Gary Hart and the 1984 US presidential campaign (the article is reprinted in his book Curse of the Giant Muffins)). For more examples, framed as hypotheticals but all with actual biographies as inspirations, see my essay Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Final (86/35/8). Ended @ 13:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC). Closed as successful by WJBscribe following bureaucrat discussion @ 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
For the past six months or so, I have been a participant in the conversion of several of the Citation Style 1 templates from {{citation/core}} to the Lua-basedModule:Citation/CS1. The module's primary author and another editor (both admins) have chosen to pursue other interests. There is still work to be done on Module:Citation/CS1 and its associated support files and documentation pages. This is work I am interested in doing. However, because these module pages are protected, it is difficult for me to do this work now that I no longer have a readily available, interested, and actively participating admin who can synchronize the protected pages from the sandboxes where I have made and tested changes and fixes.
I seek administrator privileges so that I may continue to do this work.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Technical, especially Module:Citation/CS1 where I have a continuing interest in seeing that the Citation Style 1 templates work properly and consistently, but also other templates that over time I have noticed could do with a bit of a tweak. This does not mean that I intend to set about fixing every template just because I can. Where there are obvious deficiencies or (here's a real world example) parameters like |first=yes where it isn't at all clear what that parameter is really supposed to do, I'll think about making changes.
My skill-set doesn't include conflict resolution except where something technical might be a way to resolve a problem. In general, I will stay away from interpersonal conflict because my skill-set isn't a good fit there. I will be available to editors who are in a position similar the one I now find myself in – fixes or enhancements have been or need to be made to a template or a module and an admin is needed to take it the final step.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In April 2013 I hit upon the idea of linking error messages emitted by CS1 citations to anchor points in Help:CS1 errors – anyone else could have done this, I just got there first. That help link in those red error messages that you either love or you hate, was my idea; most of the text in Help:CS1 errors is mine. Each section of Help:CS1 errors contains a link to the category page related to the error message. Help text from Help:CS1 errors is transcluded in the category pages so that the message about the error is consistent for editors. When help text needs to change, that change is made in only one place which eases the maintenance burden.
Addendum: I do gnome work: typos, grammar, spelling, overlink reduction; I insert {{convert}}, {{clarify}}, and other templates; I fix dead links, unify citation formats, correct CS1 parameter misuse. This last is what got me involved with the CS1 migration to Module:Citation/CS1. Currently I'm working my way through Category:Ship articles without infoboxes adding infoboxes. I have done enough content creation to know that my interests lie elsewhere.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes. I don't particularly care to be reverted. I think that the work that I do is constructive and improves the encyclopedia so it irritates me when that work is reverted. Over time I have learned to abandon articles where my help isn't wanted. If I feel a need to say something, I take my time getting around to it and will often sleep on the problem before I write a response. On talk pages I take care to keep my writing impersonal – I think I'm mostly successful at that. I think that I rarely use personal pronouns of any sort except when identifying myself or another editor and then, it is almost always as Editor <name>. I tend to write as if I'm addressing a broader audience than just a single editor. Doing that helps me stay detached and so limits my stress.
4. Thanks for nominating yourself, and for seeking to resolve what must be a frustrating conundrum in which you find yourself. As you mentioned, you don't have skills that many "typical admin" have or should have, namely conflict resolution. Should you be granted the tools, do you ever see yourself expanding your use of them beyond what you outlined in question one to expand in to conflict resolution or deletion? Thanks.
A: No, I do not foresee myself expanding into conflict resolution or deletion. While others have those skills that I do not, likewise, I suspect that I have skills that they do not. And so, we're balanced. It's possible that over time I could grow into other aspects of the typical admin, strange and unexpected things do happen, but I think it unlikely. That just isn't me, and never has been. I'm very content doing the things that I do and have done and wish to continue to do. Thank you for asking.
5. Why do you "no longer have a readily available, interested, and actively participating admin" to edit protected templates? (In other words, was there interpersonal conflict involved?)
A: If by that you mean any interpersonal conflict involved between the two admins and me, then the answer is no. We, of course, had our differences of opinion but they were only that, differences of opinion. Though it has not been said, I suspect that the Module:Citation/CS1 primary author left because the fun bits of the work had been wrung out of it and there was fun to be had elsewhere. The other admin, after years of unacknowledged toil, had finally had enough and resigned from the CS1 project. As far as I know, neither departure had anything to do with me.
6. In Q3, you said I don't particularly care to be reverted. I think that the work that I do is constructive and improves the encyclopedia so it irritates me when that work is reverted. Over time I have learned to abandon articles where my help isn't wanted. Given that your interest is focused on working on templates/technical work, what happens if your work is reverted or otherwise challenged on these fronts, say on Module:Citation/CS1? If the conflict is interpersonal, would it be appropriate to abandon this line of work as well?
A: It's a different world over there in module and template space. When I see a need for a change to a template or module, I make the change in the sandbox version first and very often publish an example of the change on an appropriate talk page after I've tested it to see that the change works (and that I didn't break something else). This gives other editors an opportunity to comment and criticize before the change is taken live. I think that because I have put the work out there in sandbox form expressly to be challenged, that a reversion is much less likely than it would be in article space. Those examples also serve to show editors who have raised issues about the template or module that their concern has been heard and addressed – even if only to the sandbox phase.
Being reverted and told that my help isn't wanted in some particular main-space article doesn't stop me from contributing elsewhere. That kind of rejection appears to come mostly from editors who mantle over their articles like a hawk over a mouse. Because I work first in the sandbox, such a module or template "owner" can see what I'm doing as I do it without necessarily feeling threatened; the "owner" can see the test cases, the example, the explanations for what I've done in the talk page and all before a change is actually implemented. You asked specifically about Module:Citation/CS1 and an interpersonal conflict. I'm finding it remarkably difficult to imagine a scenario like the one you suggest. At Module:Citation/CS1 there isn't anyone mantling over the project. I think it would take a strong, pushy, knowledgeable, opinionated editor – one who figures out how to push my buttons – to come to work on the project and intentionally cause me a fair bit of heartburn before I'd move away from that project.
7. At some point in the future a significant and persistent administrative backlog could occur in areas outside your expertise. If this RfA is successful, and you were to be called on at such a point in time to contribute to clearing the backlog, what do you think you'd you do? -- Trevj (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
A: If the backlog is outside of my competence, then I have no business working on it. What I can do, is work on things within my competence to relieve others for work in their areas of competence.
8. Outline the efforts you made to fill the Admin. resource void in the area where you require assistance before you decided that seeking to become an Admin. yourself was the way forward.
A: Little. I realized that I had been spoiled. A readily available, interested, and actively participating admin is one who comes to the project to work on it because of the desire to work on it; is one who contributes materially to coding, to code review, to testing, to discussions about all aspects of the project. That is much different from an admin who agrees to be on-call for activation of new code. An on-call admin would be little more than my own private {{edit protected}} handler. Because there is still a lot to do, at some point, I would begin to feel that my requests for admin intervention were an imposition which, if it were, could lead to bad things. Better, I thought, to seek sufficient userrights to edit protected pages myself. Were there a more path to only those userrights, I would have taken it.
9. What are your thoughts on administrator recall? (Note, I'm not asking if you're open to it, as that's generally not a fair question in an RFA since any answer to that question is technically non-binding.)
A: Baffling. Climbing up this side of the admin mountain, the RfA trail is organized, disciplined, and seems to have been designed to be that way. It perplexes me that processes for accusation, for finding of fact, for determination of guilt or innocence, and the like don't seem to have been similarly formalized and codified. But that wasn't your question. I'm not all that comfortable with the idea that admins who stand for recall can set their own thresholds for accusation. I acknowledge that those who do stand for recall are probably not going to face recall. But, in the best of all possible worlds, I would rather see a uniform process with standardized procedures from accusation to judgment that are the same for all in the community regardless of whether one is a pauper or a prince; where the accuser's and accused's rights are defended and they are each held accountable for their actions. It doesn't appear that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for administrator recall; the last edit to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall was in January of this year and that was the addition of a {{clarify}} template.
10. What do you think of the recently introduced "|accessdate= requires |url=" cite template error which ignores DOIs, PMIDs, PMCs etc? [8] How would you fix it? Honestly I don't even know where to report it.
A: I think the error messages are a good thing. We can't fix things if we don't know that they're broken. Templated citations by their very nature cannot be free-form. That means that with the benefits of templates there are also limitations. The limitations are documented in the various Citation Style 1 template documentation pages. |accessdate= is specifically intended to identify the date that an editor consulted an undated, or ephemeral on-line source that is linked with the value in |url=. The identifier parameters to which you refer are used to produce external links to stable, dated journal articles. Because these types of sources are stable, and were published in dated journals, the correct parameter to use with them is |date=. |accessdate= in these situations is meaningless because there is no |url= and because the sources are not ephemeral.
While the words in the error message are mine, the decision to detect, identify, and report these errors was made by several of us at Module:Citation/CS1. The code is working as it was designed to work. The correct fix is to repair the citations where the error has been detected. Further information about things to watch for when repairing this particular citation error is at Help:CS1 errors.
11. Would you still seek adminship were a proposal along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right to pass, which would give you the ability to make the template edits you wanted to, without the full package of admin tools?
A: I would not have pursued this RfA had there been another way to acquire the requisite user rights.
12. Sort of a follow up to #11. Assume that your RfA has passed and then another option becomes available that allows edits to protected templates becomes available that meets the needs for the type of work that you want to do, what would you do?
A: Without appearing to count the chickens before they hatch, I'm optimistic that RfC/Template editor user right will pass. After the dust has settled around the RfC and its policies and procedures are in place, I have every expectation that, it meeting my needs, I will ask to be reclassified to template editor. Given the assumptions stated in the question, I intend the interim period to show that those who have voiced trust in me here, were correct in their assessment, and so leave a record should I ever decide to seek administrator rights in future.
I am concerned that this RfA is or might be jeopardized by the mere presence of the RfC. I ask that those who will be !voting remember that template editor user right does not and may never exist; that if the decision is taken to create template editor user right, it will reach final implementation at some unspecified time in the future.
Support Sounds reasonable. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is the most unusual RfA that we have had recently. I believe that this is a legitimate reason for requesting the tools. Trappist's use of the editing tool will benefit Wikipedia. I am prepared to assume good faith that he will not use the other tools such as blocking or article deletion. I agree with Kudpung that a little information on Trappist's user page about the nature of his activity in Wikipedia would be helpful. [As an aside, I am intrigued to see that "Clitoris" is his most edited article, although that has no bearing on my !vote.] Axl¤[Talk] 09:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Joefromrandb, but I'll also add, the candidate is a longterm uncontentious editor who has been here for four years and has a squeaky clean blocklog. I checked a sample of their deleted edits and saw nothing of concern. When I assess a candidate at RFA I look for a diversity of involvement, and though the self nomination implies a narrow focus the edits show an editor who has contributed usefully in various areas of the pedia. I also look for clear, civil communication skills, and looking at both the edit summaries and the talkpage contributions I consider that this candidate passes that test. I would suggest that Trappist expands their Q2 answer to include a couple of articles to which they've added reliably sourced content, I found enough such activity in their edits to satisfy me, but many RFA !voters like to see that skill evidenced in Q2 or by a list on their userpage of articles created or expanded. I would happily trust this candidate with the whole toolset, that they have no immediate intention of using more than the tool that they are most qualified to use is in my view a positive. ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I rarely provide content. To suggest otherwise at Q2 could easily be disproved and so deep-six my RfA. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Some RFA !voters look to see what the candidates main focus is, and a few expect a main focus on content. I'm not bothered if an otherwise well qualified candidate only rarely provides content, but I do want to see that a candidate has mastered the art of citing information to a reliable source. An addendum to Q2 to the effect that "My main focus is not on content, but I have done x,y and z" would not be misleading, and I believe would have demonstrated that you meet most people's minimum criteria for content. There are some !voters who have higher content expectations than I do, it will be interesting to see if they make an exception for your template work. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This is exactly why we need unbundling. Usually I would oppose a nomination like this, because it involves giving powerful tools to editors unable to make the best use of them. But we can't afford to deny ourselves the contribution of editors with key skills because we don't have a way to give the right permissions without the wrong ones. We're in cloud cuckoo land with having this all-or-nothing approach and then requiring all-round perfection. In this case I have the impression that Trappist knows himself and doesn't intend to overstep. I've read some stuff he posted at Talk:Clitoris and I don't find it excessively terse; it's constructive and perfectly courteous, and he's shown he can accept being proved wrong. I trust him. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Seems okay with me. Jianhui67Talk 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WSC. This is the way RfA's should be. —Soap— 12:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is an entirely credible reason for needing the sysop bit, which will benefit the project. Unbundling would be good, but in the mean time we need to be pragmatic. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No problems --cyrfaw (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Net positive. No reason to think that Trappist, who I've seen around a fair bit, will abuse any of the tools. As Guy says above, we should be pragmatic about requests of this type. Also, who knows, in time he may become interested in doing admin work, and will teach himself how to. — Scott•talk 15:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - As not all admins are expected to use every administrative privilege or administrate every area, I don't see how this differs from any other RfA. Triplestop (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I asked Q4 Q5 because while I don't think any of us like being reverted, the candidate (who would have access to the block button) made a point of saying so. However, I'm generally satisfied with their answers and am assuming good faith per Scott, who has seen them around. Think they will be a net positive. Miniapolis 16:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A reasonable request for a modest purpose. I like their answers to questions - not pretending or aspiring to anything beyond their current focus. I have no fear that they will abuse the tools, and I believe granting them the tools will help the Wiki. I commend them for their willingness to work in an area that apparently has no-one else monitoring it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Ideally he should get an unbundled template-coding privilege, but seeing as that's not currently possible... There are many avid coders with hands tied on full-protected templates, the number of which is on the rise recently, as the bar for full protection seems to be getting lower and lower. If we continue making it difficult for the relatively few avid template coders to edit the most used templates, we all suffer. This person appears to have a good head on their shoulders, judging from the communications I've seen thus far (I've always been deadset against the tradition of judging admin candidates on article content contributions, so I'm really not concerned there), so until there's an ideal solution, I'm comfortable with this less-than-perfect one. equazcion(talk) 17:24, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Support A reasonable request for a tool to do something very important for WP; if we could give permission for this alone, the ed. would undoubtedly just have asked for this, but this is the only available route. The question for this particular tool is whether he would misuse edit-protected for other purposes, and there's nothing to suggest that he would. The question more generally is whether he would use the other tools, and everything he has done indicates he would be careful not to , and furthermore I suppose we must ask what would he do if hedid use the buttons by error, and I see nothing to indicate that it would be a disaster.
But a question. There is a "protect" permsision that gives only the ability to edit protected pages, and protect & unprotect & move them.. We do not grant it by itself, but it seems technically possible to do so. IAR applies everywhere, and here is an occasion to use it to benefit the encyclopedia. we make the rules by consensus, and, by consensus, we can make exceptions. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support As already mentioned above, this request comes as a very unusual one, but I do not think that should deter us from handing him the mop if the request is reasonable enough. If there can be some way to allow Trappist to continue their work without getting adminship, I would definitely support it. However, in case that is not possible, I support this nomination. Also, I request them to create a user page with just the essentials of babel and possibly the articles/topics they've been editing in/are experienced in editing in. It would also simplify having to figure out personally if they're the go-to guy if I have any requests on those topics. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support due to the lack of an alternative available option for editing fully protected templates and modules that has found consensus. This user is trustworthy (IMO) and there is no reason to stymie his good intentions to improve an invaluable set of technical entities. Technical 13 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - It seems like a reasonable request. The requests for babel boxes are rather frivolous. I and many other admins don't use them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support If a trustworthy user wants to help cut down on the protected edit request queue I don't see why we should stop him. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This user has a great technical know-how of citation templates and his knowledge would greatly benefit the project. Browsing through some of his commentary on the citation module talk page enlightened me on citation parameters I never even knew about, and Trappist has shown his ability to work with the consensus rather than against it. I do not believe user pages are a sine qua non for the mop, though Trappist is welcome to make one at any time he wishes. Altamel (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: Competent user willing to help maintain our template collection. I trust him not to jump in and try to administer areas outside his area of expertise, just like we all should do. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: A clearly stated purpose by a trustworthy and rational user is good enough for me. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. States reasonable request for the bit. Glrx (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This is a perfectly rational request for adminship. The user has stated exactly what he wishes to do with the toolset and it does not seem to me like he will abuse them. I don't understand how the community can oppose an RfC about unbundling the protected page editing tool and then oppose RfAs like this. That makes it nearly impossible to gain the ability to edit the pages you have expertise in editing unless you prove that you can correctly perform tasks that have absolutely nothing to do with editing protected pages. Support all the way. TCN7JM 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support ... At WP:ADMIN one can read "..Administrators...are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on English Wikipedia...". Since we don't have any real form of unbundling (except rollback) I'm therefore minded to support. I don't find the arguments that the editor should understand all the admin tools persuasive, if they're not intending to use them. As an example, I haven't got a clue how to properly do IP range blocks so I ....just don't do them. Simples!. Pedro : Chat 20:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - An unusual request, but I firmly believe that TTM will be a benefit to Wikipedia if he has the tools. I confident that he is competent enough to not make a mess of things, and also confident that he won't stay from the area he wants to work in. I also suggest that, if the consensus is to grant TTM adminship for a specific use only, the closing bureaucrat makes that clear in the close to give the community an easy way of removing the admin bit in the unlikely event that TTM is not true to his word. I would want to see a second RfA if TTM wants full use of the admin bit. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 21:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
We supported administrators who needed the tools for a specific reason which later passed RFA, contrary to buffbills statement. They were either working with the spam blacklist, or editing protected templates, such as this case. Secretaccount 21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, User legitimately requires the toolset to continue work which will benefit Wikipedia as a whole. — -dainomite 00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per the answer to my question ... he doesn't plan to use the tools in ways not suited to his skill set, on which he seems to have a firm grasp. The manner in which he would use the tools is somewhere that is suited to his skill set, and will benefit the encyclopedia. Really, this doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. Adminship is no big deal, and if he proves to abuse the tools, we can take them back, but I highly doubt that will be necessary, as he has a clear purpose for them. GoPhightins! 00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - the editor has very specific reason, and that is understandable. I see no problem here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I see no reason why you shouldn't be given the tools, as any need is a valid one in my eyes, no matter how much of a need there is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support There is a clear problem—the withdrawal of two admins from their work on these templates—and a solution to this problem exists—granting the admin tools to Trappist the monk. I'm slightly concerned by "It's possible that over time I could grow into other aspects of the typical admin, strange and unexpected things do happen, but I think it unlikely", because I think that if there is any chance this editor will "grow into other aspects of the typical admin", he should show knowledge of the relevant policies before being granted the bit; however, that appears to be a sufficiently unlikely outcome. In addition, while I have no faith in the community's ability to desysop people, I have complete faith in the community's ability to stop any administrator who is causing harm to the project through their use of the tools. I would like to see Trappist the monk discuss any expansion of his use of the tools in a community forum of some sort, should he choose to expand their use. These future possibilities aside, I think the project would benefit by handing Trappist the monk the tools and that benefit greatly exceeds any harm that might occur. I'd normally be concerned about the lack of a userpage, but I don't think a userpage is important to the nature of Trappist the monk's role here. RyanVesey 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. That's what I was trying to say above. :-) GoPhightins! 10:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No problems here. StevenD99Talk | Stalk 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as a fellow specialist admin with no interest in dispute resolution or deletion. I'm confident that he won't misuse the tools. Graham87 05:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I'm sure he's smart enough not to use those parts of the toolset he doesn't need or understand. Yintan 09:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Editor has a legit need for part of the toolset and there's no evidence they would abuse the rest of it. NE Ent 10:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. An unusual request but a reasonably made one. I'm the mirror image of this candidate - I have no skills or knowledge in his area, haven't used the tools in this setting and never will. I restrict myself to conflict management work of the sort that this candidate says he will never do. Between us we have complementary skillsets and I think that's how this works. If he ever moves out of the gnoming on templates and starts misusing the tools it will be pretty obvious and we can use this RfA as evidence should there be a call for de-sysoping. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 10:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Has a valid reason for needing the admin tools, very similar to my own. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, I have some concerns about giving block/delete buttons to a user who doesn't want/think he can effectively use them, but these concerns are far outweighed by the good he can do by editing major templates. From what I've seen there, his work is excellent. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I have seen that this user is indeed heavily involved with technical work, and feel that they are committed to helping the project, and, as such, that the project would benefit if they were granted the tools. It Is Me Heret / c 14:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support If the candidate wants to concentrate on a specific area, let them. It's not going to take anything away from other admins. Bigger concern for me would be the admins that get the mop and disappear right after. Continuing to work for the project in one way or another is always net positive for us all. Widr (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Yes, we need to unbundle the tools, but that won't happen. We have had a discussion to create the protected page editor usergroup twice, and it failed twice. Now, blocking any possible unbundling and stopping a very productive technical user from being productive because of our own unwillingness to change is cynical and egoist. Trappist the monk is a candidate that, from my perspective, is very aware of his strengths and weaknesses, and acts accordingly. Therefore, I am confident that he won't use any of the tools he feels not prepared enough to use, and will make excellent use of those he's prepared to. — ΛΧΣ21 19:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Specialist admins are OK. Nothing but good can come of this. Dlohcierekim 19:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support He says he's going to do what he does best, and I'm sure he does that extremely well. Knowing what he isn't happy doing makes him, I think, a better candidate than many. Jamesx12345 21:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I am going to AGF here and take him at his word regarding his intentions, and his editing history lends credence to this. I agree that this would be better if the mop was unbundled, but it is not, so I have to vote for the way things are, not for what should be. If this adminship is granted, and it causes great consternation such that it effects change in that area, all well and good. I would gently ask the Monk to keep Benea's oppose in mind, as admins are and should be held to a higher standard, even when not performing "admin" work. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to editorialize in the middle of the !voting but if you believe it "would be better if the mop was unbundled", surely oppose would be more effective? Looking at the current support !votes, these users also said that they would prefer to see unbundling:
TCN7JM says (in !support #25) "I don't understand how the community can oppose an RfC about unbundling the protected page editing tool and then oppose RfAs like this." I see it the other way around: I don't understand how the community can support this RfA having already opposed unbundling the ability to edit protected pages. When our rules don't work, surely we should revise them, rather than create special case exceptions? In the long term we'll get a better result if this RfA fails so we are forced to re-examine unbundling instead. - Pointillist (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
If there were some indication that a failed RFA would motivate the necessary change, I probably would've opposed. Past experience has shown otherwise. In the meantime we need to do what we can with what we have, and this is the next best option if we want to keep people editing what they're good at editing. I'm actually working on an RFC you might be interested in though: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor userright. equazcion(talk) 23:35, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
@Pointillist: Exactly what Equazcion said. That's how Wikipedia works. If this request fails, it will be moved to the long forgotten archives of declined single-use requests and then nothing would happen. The fact that this is passing means that the community is aware that an unbundling won't happen anytime soon and that it's way better to give Monk the solution he seeks with what he wave. — ΛΧΣ21 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand your position, but equazcion's RFC is just the sort of thing what I was hoping for. Whatever the result of this particular RFA I hope all of us here will support a fresh look at unbundling, at least for the template namespace. - Pointillist (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My point here was that some people said at the RfC that if people really wanted the ability to edit protected templates, they could run at RfA. If those same people opposed RfAs like this, that would be hypocrisy. TCN7JM 01:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Pointillist: I'm with what Equazcion said, too. Also, it's not at all clear to me whether opposing or supporting would be more likely to help a move towards unbundling -- it depends whther those opposed to unbundling are more irritated by a support that gives unnecessary tools or by an oppose that denies necessary tools. In any case, supporting or opposing in the hope of getting unbundling in motion looks pretty unrealistic, and would be tactical voting. I supported because I think it useful for Trappist to get what he is requesting. P.S. Should this discussion be moved to the talk page? --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support They seem to be here for the right reasons, and every time I've seen them around it's been a positive experience. Though their inexperience in some areas is of concern, I trust them enough to be careful and not do stupid things. I also like their style, in that they are bold enough to not have a user page and to self-nom. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A net plus for the project. SpencerT♦C 00:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
weak support Lack of user page bothers me a little. Lack of content creation bothers me a little. But I agree that he's a specialist and that we're not going to unbundle anytime in the foreseeable future. The guy seems to know what he doesn't know, and he should stay out of trouble. KrakatoaKatie 01:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Don't see a problem with this narrow RfA. If the Trappist (by the way, that's a registered trademark, and I'd like to have the Monk explain this) goes outside the parameters set by this RfA then they will no doubt quickly be blocked on the suspicion of having been hijacked. FWIW, I would like to see a (simple) user page that has a link to this RfA and a sentence or two explaining that users are dealing with a specific kind of admin. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. So is Apple and, I would suspect, many others. I originally conceived of trappist_the_monk (all lower case with underscores) when I needed a user name for something almost 20 years ago. I had been researching Trappist ales, having just become a homebrewer. When the need for an online identifier arose, trappist_the_monk just popped into my head. Though I have made minor edits at Trappist beer, I do not use my username to advocate for or promote or denigrate the Trappist's business activities or religion. —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just kidding, Trappist®. And if you send me a case of Orval, I can reassess my opinion that it's the least of them. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This really comes down to whether you can trust the candidate to only do what they say they will. I see no reason why they cannot be trusted in this regard. AIRcorn(talk) 01:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Trappist has an obvious need for the tools, and I trust him to use them responsibly. Kurtis(talk) 02:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am indenting my support. Although I don't think Trappist would abuse or even misuse adminship, there are too many concerns with his communication skills outlined in the oppose section for me to feel comfortable throwing all my weight behind this request. I wish the candidate the best of luck going forward. Kurtis(talk) 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Having tried (and failed) to make a rational, specific, limited request for use of tools myself, I'm favorably disposed to this rational, specific request on general principles. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I view the granting of the tools to the candidate as a net positive. The opposition has valid arguments that might even persuade me in a less unusual case. This single use is specialized. This candidate is known, experienced and has a good reputation. I don't see a few terse interactions as especially troublesome; they do not appear to be argumentative or confrontational. I believe the candidate is not likely to venture irresponsibly into other areas, as might be more of a concern in a different case. I think the project suffers if Trappist the Monk cannot easily continue valuable work. I do not think a support ivote requires supporting all single purpose candidacies. I don't think it is helpful to oppose this candidacy to make a point that can be made otherwise. The dilemma presented here might be cited as a reason to bring the matter up yet again but I don't think it requires an oppose vote. Donner60 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support The users who used to do the highly specific technical work here have left. Adminship is a bundle, yes, and the need to see fully protected pages does not mean that the user ought to block users or delete pages. However, the admin bundle means more features, which means that even if the editor here is bored with the technical things, he will be less likely to leave and more likely to do other things like vandal catching or page protection. His contributions are wholly positive. No reason to deny, as he lacks specific faults.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I do not find the reasons for opposing convincing; i'm actually baffled by those referring to a lack of user page (which probably says more about the different ways we behave here than anything else); i don't see language use or style which reach the level of incivility in the candidate's interactions (either in Kudpung's diffs or in mine own explorations), simply a user who perhaps uses words a tad more bluntly than some others do; the fact that it's a single-use request...meh, so what? On the other side, i am one who isn't lining up to try and unbundle the tools, and i support this request as a necessary consequence. I think that my basic position means i trust the user, as they have shown no reason not to be trusted; his answers, in fact, show evidence of honesty, integrity, and self-awareness, all good traits in a mop-wielder. The only potential downside i see is the possibility that he might move into other areas of admin usage, perhaps to gain advantage in disputes; he's been clear he won't, i'm leaning to believing him. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support (moving from neutral). I'm not going to be expanding into his area of work, and he's probably not going to expand into mine. Not without studying things first (a lot more work in that for me than for him...). There are a lot of specialised areas. Why should he have a user page? A lot of those with user pages are as anonymous as he is. If that and being a bit blunt are the worst things to be found, I'm not going to object to giving him a mop. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support He appears to have a valid plan for using some of the tools, and has been clear about he doesn't intend to use. I can't see any evidence that he is likely to act irresponsibly - he seems trustworthy. I don't expect our admins to be able to contribute in all areas of the wiki equally (few are going to be able to write featured articles, carry out advanced research, copyedit, solve disputes, conduct technical work etc. with equal skill!) and therefore I trust that they will focus on their areas of competence if appointed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
While I would feel more comfortable supporting if I had a more concrete assurance that TTM would not wander into "enforcement" areas in the future without a new RFA, a perusal of his contributions seems to indicate someone with clue, who appears to be trustworthy, and who appears to have no desire to enforce anything. So I'll take him at his word. I also note that opposes based on the idea that we should be able to unbundle the admin tools instead is unfair to TTM. I strongly agree, the tools should be unbundled, but they aren't, and he's pursuing the only option available to him. It's easy to sacrifice someone else's adminship to push for unbundling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - "With this guy it seems to be pretty much all out on the table" per Editor equazcion @ Oppose 12. I like his answers and his responses here---clear and decisive. I trust him to limit his tool use to the area he knows best. Don't most admins wind up doing what they are best at? Seems honest and competent. Terse? Maybe a bit. But I sense a person willing to work on that side of his talk persona. But, the exchange cited seems like a teaching situation and telling the student, "Yes, you do know!" is bold. Its too bad the student choose to get angry rather than listen. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Based on the answer to Q12 I am going to support. Willingness to give up the admin bit if a better solution comes along is the key detail for me as it means I can judge my support / oppose based on just the intended use. PaleAqua (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - the thoughtful voices of opposition notwithstanding, it is my view that the candidate is mostly harmless. BenMacDui 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I don't find the oppose arguments too narrow a need for the tools/unbundling and a lack of a user page very convincing. The important question is "will the candidate make a good admin?". I think he will. PumpkinSkytalk 21:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Current consensus of 87% opposes forcing those red-error messages in wp:CS1 cites (see: WT:CS1#RfC about suppressing messages), so if Trappist uses admin power to force the red messages into 60,000 pages, then I expect some admin to respect the consensus and revert any such protected-edits by Trappist, and not allow a wp:WHEEL-war over the Lua script cites which reformat 2.1 million pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because Trappist has an opinion about something doesn't mean he's going to use the tools to go against consensus. I have an opinion about a lot of things and I don't go around ignoring consensus.--v/r - TP 11:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Trappist twice pushed cite error messages against consensus: I know it might be hard to believe, but after we discussed the horror of showing thousands of red messages in major articles, it was Trappist who activated *all* those controversial red-error messages in the /sandbox version (see: dif582), which User:Gadget850 installed causing an uproar in 60,000 pages and then Gadget850 quit the cites in frustration. Acknowledging the consensus, Gadget850 re-hid the messages as merely warning categories (dif519), but Trappist reverted admin Gadget850's hiding of excessive red-error messages (dif768). Please understand we discussed how the Lua cites should auto-correct trivial problems or quietly put tag "[fix cite]" and not flood a page with numerous red messages. Now, Google has indexed those excessive error messages (surprise) into 69,300+ pages (Google site-search for "'accessdate= requires' url" will list 783 of them). Red messages are not the way-of-the-future in live typesetting, which should omit proofreader's marks in live pages. If non-admin Trappist would revert Gadget850 in 15 minutes, what would admin Trappist do? I think Trappist can make helpful suggestions now, but more power might be too much temptation. -Wikid77 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You're talking about a sandbox. We use sandboxes to test such thing. Gadget850 moved the change to live against consensus, not Trappist as you've demonstrated. Is the consensus against using the red messages in the sandbox as well? If so, let him branch, but it's not an abuse or against consensus to experiment in a sandbox.--v/r - TP 15:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Genuine, if narrow reason for needing the tools, and no evidence of problematic editing that would suggest giving him them would be a concern.--KorruskiTalk 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please read above "Trappist twice pushed cite error messages against consensus" and reconsider. -Wikid77 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Trappist had no part in what I did or did not do— any actions I have taken were my own. I have no idea what consensus you are talking about, except perhaps the ones in your head. The long, rambling and frequently divisive discussions made me realize that the citation project was causing me heartache and I was no longer having fun. I dropped out and unwatched 1000 citation related pages (yes, there are that many) before I got pissed off and did something stupid. I don't know how to be more mature than that. I have never understood half of your discussions, so I have pretty much ignored you and I intend to continue, except where you make such defamatory statements. Out. --Gadget850talk 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry you are so upset. See consensus to suppress cite messages in Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC (WT:CS1#RfC). I made no "defamatory" statements, but rather listed the diff-links as the edits were made. Thank you for admitting that you were ignoring me (and possibly others), as that explains why consensus was not understood as changes were forced into pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, that consensus is for the cite template, not the sandbox. Trappists actions involve the sandbox and Gadget850 himself has clarified that Trappist had nothing to do with the production rollout of the cite messages. Sandboxes are for experimentation.--v/r - TP 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Long-term editor, sensible responses to questions and sincere need for the tools. Not sure what all the fuss is about Jebus989✰ 22:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I see no reason why this user would not do what they said they would do. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support. I don't know what to say. --SoftFeta (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Seems like he can be trusted with the tools. Insulam Simia (talk·contribs) 07:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I don't think the conversation that Benea pointed out shows anything all that bad. As long as Trappist sticks to the areas of adminship that they say they will - and I don't see any reason to think that this might not be the case - then I don't forsee any problems. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Based on Trappist's answers to the questions as well as a view of his contribs/interactions with others, I think he can not only be trusted with the tools, but he will also use them to do good for the encyclopedia that he currently can't without them. I see no indications that he will abuse the tools. Per his answers to Q4 and Q7, Trappist is clearly aware of where his strengths lie, and plans to stick to that area. Moreover, if Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right passes (and is subsequently implemented in the software), Trappist has stated that he will promptly request desysopping and reclassification to "template editor" instead. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This user can be trusted with the tools. Mediran (t • c) 05:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I don't see anything here that would be cause to not trust the user. In fact, I find some of the oppose arguments to be greatly lacking in WP:AGF. — ChedZILLA 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Benefit in one area is benefit enough. Ishdarian 10:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - trust sensible use of tools, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no reason to doubt Trappist the monk: They intend to keep out of admin areas unrelated to protected template editing, and should a new userright allowing non-admins to edit protected templates materialize, they have said that they will hand in their adminship for that right. Unless I'm much mistaken, the other single-purpose RfAs that passed worked out well; I see no reason why this one will be different. The only concern that I agreee with is the redlinked user page; I think at least turning the redlink into a redirect to the talk page would be fair. Acalamari 12:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This candidate obviously knows what they are doing; should we really consider letting the regrettable politics around the way administration works get in the way of helping them do just that ? Simone 13:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
How much damage can they really cause if they decide to block, protect or delete a page ? Nick (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Err, are you implying that there shouldn't be any scrutiny of candidates? That wasn't how it worked in your RfA, was it? - Pointillist (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I don't require other admins to be able to develop citation templates, nor do I require Trappist to be able to update the DYK queues. Admins should broadly keep within their areas of competence and I trust that Trappist will. It is worth bearing in mind that, for some people, brusque comments from an admin may come over as rather more intimidating than from other editors so especial care is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
support per Pedro and others. — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WSC. Legoktm (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Per TP and Hahc.Unbundling the tools doesn't seem possible at the moment.Lsmll 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Trappist has been doing sterling work at CS1, and I admire his dedicated and level-headed approach to problem-solving. His quality of argumentation I also rate highly, and he has caused me to change my mind about for example the desirability of the error message (as opposed to outright removal) in relation to template errors. Here in this nom, we will be creating a highly specialised admin who is quite happy to seek out the nerdy stuff that few others are interested in. I don't see why we should expect or force an admin to venture outside their area of interest or expertise or comfort zone, and I see his specialisation as a gain for the community. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support His answers are reasonable and not "boilerplate RfA answers." I see absolutely no reason to oppose here at all. Collect (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC) BTW, the idea that somehow he should be singled out for "non-admin but flagged for moves" is outré. Collect (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No reason for an admin to work in every area. Who does that anyway? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that you are asking for admin tool access for something very specific (access to fully protected pages) where we do not have (yet) any possibilities for unbundling the tools. While your need may be justified in order to avoid making numerous edit requests, the problem is that I need to see sufficient experience in most meta areas where the admin tools can be applied if used, and that they would be used judiciously. Put another way, admin candidates need to have demonstrated that they can inspire confidence to use all the tools in the set whether they say they will use them or not. You have already stated that you do not like being reverted and on that, a review of your interaction with others - which is also sparse - leans towards being terse at times - a random look at some of those messages demonstrates to me at least that they could have been friendlier for someone aspiring to be an admin.[9],[10]. I see that you have created a certain number of articles about ships/yachts, but some of them are very thin on references while some have dead links and others have no references at all. While content creation is not obligatory for adminship per se, I feel that any creations should be free of major issues (I'm not aware of any special notability dispensation for ship articles). There is also the question of your user page - although it's not obligatory, I can't think offhand of any admins who don't have one - having a user page with at least some basic information would demonstrate some willingness to being accountable as an admin. The bottom line is, although you do excellent content improvements and appear to have a good grasp of WP:MoS, you do not check all my boxes even on aggregate, so I cannot see this singular request as demonstrating sufficient experience to be granted all the admin tools and the responsibility of non-tool judgement that comes with the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I view this RfA to be very similar to Jason Quinn's RfA a while back. I think that if we believe that Trappist the monk isn't going to abuse the tools xe is given, and will use the tools for a productive purpose (helping with Lua modules), we should give them the tools. Since you mentioned it, User:JzG is probably the best example of not having/needing a user page. Legoktm (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This has no similarity whatsoever with Jason Quinn's RfA. Jason wanted, out of boredom (as he stated), move away a little bit from content creation and instead march into a variety of admin areas. Besides, although he created a new interpretation of the verifiability guideline ("Articles do not need sources appended, info is verifiable if the reader can google for it."), it was possible to establish a "track record" from his user page, talk, content creation and RfA discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have never aspired to be an admin. I am taking this path because there is no other.
You have focused-in on what was the most frustrating interaction I've had with admins. As far as I was concerned, the issue was finished as soon as my request for speedy deletion declined. Two weeks after the fact, another admin created that post on my talk page. Yes, I was irritated and I reacted strongly.
As you can see, article creation isn't at the forefront of my work at Wikipedia. The ship and yacht articles were created from existing articles to fill in some of the holes in the {{Natick class tug}} nav box and the America's Cup Challengers and defenders table. I make no claims that these articles should be exempted from the notability criteria. I have repaired the cites tagged with {{dead link}}.
I don't understand how a user page can demonstrate some willingness to being accountable as an admin. Doesn't the demonstration of willingness to be held accountable come through this RfA? At the end, when a candidate is successful, along with the privileges come the responsibilities and the knowledge that the successful admin will be held to account for actions taken and judgments made.
I have a redlinked user page because people behave differently when they know there are admins around. I get much closer to the generic behaviour people display towards others, sometimes that's bad, sometimes it's good. Deleting my user page made a significant difference to my experience when editing, and I recommend all admins to try it from time to time. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
However, it's still obvious who admins are when using Equazcion/ExperiencedEditorPack (unless they use complicated background colours in their sigs). -- Trevj (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Kudpung except for the user page issue. If the core of the problem (sorry about the pun) is you lost your admin assistance, I suggest you find another admin or admins to help you with your tasks. There appear to be camps of people (Wikipedia is full of camps) on the narrowness issue and the related issue of how much a candidate is going to use the tools. One camp believes that if there is even a single purpose for a candididate, as long as there's no indication the nominee is going to abuse the tools, why not? Generally, that same camp also believes that if a candidate is going to use the tools very little, as long as we can trust them otherwise, again why not? I'm not in those camps. I don't think admins should know how to do everything, but their skills should be broader than one narrow area. I don't believe that all admins have to pass some magical threshold in using their tools, but they are promoted not just because we trust them but because they are willing to do a job. And that job entails doing admin-related work at least to the degree that justifies having the tools in the first instance. As for the user page issue, it would be hypocritical of me to require it. I have one, but it says very little about me, so just having one to avoid the redlink is form over substance. I kind of like the fact that I'm much more anonymous about who I am than many other editors. In that way, people judge me by my edits and actions, rather than making assumptions based on what they know about me personally. Of course, editors still suspect my motives even though I've said virtually nothing, but that's unavoidable, if at times amusing in a weird sort of way. I hope you find a way to continue to contribute technically to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Single-use requests have been declined before. The tools need to be unbundled, and every exception made pushes that realization further over the horizon. I find the "let's make an exception" supports unconvincing. Since the tools are "one size fits all" and are bestowed in effect for life, we need to have confidence in the well-roundedness of each candidate. Sorry. Intothatdarkness 14:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I have no reason to suppose that this editor has any intention of doing anything except to benefit the encyclopedia. But nevertheless, as unbundling is not an option, he will receive, if accepted for the tools, the full range of abilities of an admin which he admits he is not competent to use. This is in my opinion not acceptable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - as a single-use request; perhaps the tools (or some of them) need to be unbundled but I see no reason for you to be given the mop for this task, sorry. I also agree with Kudpung's user page comment. GiantSnowman 16:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — No user page (carrying anonymity a bit too far), single-purpose request (such have mostly been voted down before), doubtful content creation, unfriendly messages in the past (see his talk page), apparently no clue about other admin areas (even as a single-purpose request, a tiny little bit of experience in other areas would help) etc. etc... Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Single-purpose request, which won't do much for helping the encyclopedia. Sorry, but as said before, single purpose requests have been made before, and ultimately failed. I don't think this one will be any different. buffbills7701 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Lustiger Seth and MGA73 were admins on other wikis when they came to en-wiki to offer help, and Andrew West was a PhD candidate and creator of the helpful STiki tool. The case here is quite different, more similar to the request by Carrite. Such requests have all been voted down so far, if I remember correctly. (Give another example, if I'm wrong.) Kraxler (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The list of people who got rejected is longer than the list of people who got accepted (and some after many attempts). A m i t 웃 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, whatever happened to the old culture of IAR? There's no rule saying that single-purpose requests should fail, and I fail to see the logic in saying that Trappist won't do much to help the encyclopedia because they are good at doing one thing instead of another. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - No scope of expansion to other areas as partly mentioned in answer 4. Would not add or benefit the community in any other way. A m i t 웃 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I was concerned with your interactions with another user here, just a month ago. The user was I think justly upset by the tone you used, which I accept may well have been wholly unintentional. But you apparently did not pick up on this, or if you did, you did not make an attempt to modify your initial tone, and indeed responded in a way that caused further distress to the user. An ability to be diplomatic in your dealings is important for adminship, and as others have pointed out, though you have requested the tools for a specific purpose, I'm not sure that you have enough experience yet in the full range of skills that are usually required from admins. I don't think suggesting that you will only use the ones you need for a specific purpose should be grounds for exemptions from these standards at an rfa. Benea (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The conversation began in another thread at WT:SHIPS. With this edit I added ten {{cite ship register}} templates and, later that day, did some cleanup and added two {{clarify}} templates to Editor's list. I had hoped that Editor would see that and continue what I had started. Editor announced completion of the list in the WT:SHIPS thread that Editor Benea mentioned. Because Editor had not made use of {{cite ship register}} nor addressed the {{clarify}} issues, I pointed that out. Rather than simply referring Editor to the {{cite ship register}} documentation, I showed the citation for the first of the ten {{cite ship register}} templates that I had added to Editor's list and then briefly described what information belonged in the various parameters. I ended with a template skeleton inside <ref></ref> tags. Editor's attempt was missing the template name and most of the required parameter data. When Editor returned to the conversation with the comment that I do not know what it is supposed to look like, I frankly didn't believe that and said so but, I provided a completed {{cite ship tegister}} template to show what Editor's attempt should have looked like. Editor replied with the ... once I decide how angry I am comment, but used the completed example I provided and then changed the next reference in the list; in both cases getting them right but leaving out the <ref></ref> tags. In frustration, I up'd-stumps and retired to the pavilion. I don't think that what I wrote about how to use the {{cite ship register template}} was so complex that it could not be understood. I will hold an editor's hand for a long time if needs be, but in this case Editor seemed to be willfully ignoring what I had written. When that happens, my patience wears thin.—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid this rather strengthens my oppose. While you work very well and consistently in the area of templates, other editors, such as this one, do not. He had made a good faith start to a basic list, and when other users worked and expanded it, he worked with them to add content. His post was to invite further work on it, and said that it had been a good learning experience in tables, etc. Your response was "You're not done yet. Fix Rung Ra Do, there are two listed." I.e. go back and work on it. The problem was your tone, which the editor certainly picked up on, and by your admission above was a deliberate show of annoyance that the templates hadn't be used correctly. When the editor tried to do as you say, and made some further errors, he asked for help. You say that you did not believe that he didn't know how to use the template. I'm afraid this shows a strong lack of good faith. Fortunately someone else came by and helped him out some more. But the end result was that the user stated that "I am dropping that page from my watchlist ... and have nothing else to contribute". I.e. he was driven away. I find it hard to believe that he was purposefully trolling you, so you seem to have made a basic error that "he was wilfully ignoring you." I'm sorry, but you failed to assume good faith, you snapped at an innocent editor who was trying to work on a project he found interesting because your patience wore thin. I understand tone is hard to judge here, but this open admission of your reasoning is very disappointing. This, and the diffs by Kudpung ([11],[12]), further show you don't have the diplomatic skills yet to be an admin. The nature of wikipedia is that you will come into contact with other users even if you declare your intention to work only on templates, as this incident has shown, and you have not shown good judgement in dealing with even honest mistakes over very minor formatting issues. Benea (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - No offense to the candidate, but this would be unbundling the wrong way around. Either re-open the unbundling debate, or assess all admin candidates against the usual content/policy/experience/behavior criteria. - Pointillist (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Other solutions exist here, including seeking wider Admin. assistance, requesting previous involved Admins. to come back to the problematic area or seeking access only to the tools needed for the job. There is evidence (Q8) that alternative solutions have not yet been fully & sufficiently explored. While undoubtedly genuine in seeking a pragmatic solution to their current specific problem, I cannot support the granting of all Admin. rights on a one-off / single issue basis. This type of request, once approved as a means to an end, opens the door to future, similar requests by potentially less genuine candidates. With no swift means of removing Admin. rights once granted, the circumvention of the accepted RfA standards can become the thin end of the wedge that will be exploited by other, less honest candidates, in the future. Leaky Caldron 13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a very tough decision for me. With a few things just a little bit different, I would have ended up supporting on the grounds that it would be good for Wikipedia to, in effect, do an "experiment" of giving administratorship here in order to test how unbundling would work. A problem-free use of the tools in the very delimited manner requested here could contribute to a future consensus in favor of unbundling, and I would be happy to see that. I recognize that the candidate has made it very clear that they intend to use the tools only for something specific, that this use is a net positive for Wikipedia (although it does not seem urgent to me), and that they have a long track record indicating that we can probably trust them to stick to their promise not to go into other administrative areas. But when I read the self-description about not liking to be reverted and some of the candidate's past talk comments (see the diffs in Kudpung's oppose), I get a picture of someone who is the exact opposite, in temperament and communication style, of users whom I would normally support at RfA. If ever – ever – the candidate got into a potential administrative situation outside of the proposed work, even by innocently running across someone else who was being unpleasant while editing together on a page, I see this as a situation where there is simply too much risk of a bad block or some other kind of problem. I know that the intentions are good, but I perceive the risk as being significant. I'd rather see an effort to find existing admins to help the way the two previous admins had done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Tryptofish: On first glance I found the mention of not appreciating being reverted troubling, but reading through the entire answer, this is more of an admission of a weakness followed by steps they try to take in dealing with it, as is sort of the intent of the question. I actually respect the candidate more for not attempting to sugar-coat that response as other candidates tend to attempt. I'm also not too concerned with those diffs. This person wasn't uncivil; he just made his feelings clear and didn't respond in the political fashion of one that's running for office nor taking pains to be excessively deadpan, as other candidates tend to. Again I actually respect him more for it. When people are just a little too nice and/or neutral, it has me skittish about what they're actually thinking, and what might come out once they don't see a need to prove anything. With this guy it seems to be pretty much all out on the table. equazcion(talk) 02:11, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
As a small aside, this is not the first nomination of this sort we've seen (single permission motivation for adminship). But I forget specifically who the past one was. Shadowjams (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There was West.andrew.g's RfA, which was primarily for viewing deleted pages. PaleAqua (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That is one, I think Carrite's nom is the one I was thinking of, but thank you for adding to the list. I think there's at least one more that I remember... in any event, the unbundled request is not new. It doesn't say much about the nominee but it does say something about our process. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Lustiger seth requested adminship for the sole purpose of editing the spam blacklist. Leyo's request was also a similar case, but he requested adminship for image work. Graham87 09:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Also see the replies to oppose #7. Graham87 09:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, thank you to everybody who commented to me here. About the previous single-purpose RfAs, I do indeed remember at least some of them. And I'm friendly in principle to the idea. I have long been in favor of unbundling, personally. I believe that having more single-purpose RfAs that are successful, and then turn out to produce good administrators who really do specialize in what they focus on, will eventually lead to community consensus for unbundling, and I would be pleased to see that. Now as for what Equazcion asked me, it's obviously a subjective call. My first instinct was to want to support this RfA, and I never feel good about opposing any RfA. I, too, recognize that the comments about disliking being reverted were in the context of showing what the candidate had learned about themself, and that's good, as is the honesty about it. As to whether or not those diffs satisfy WP:CIVIL, I don't ever expect multiple editors to even agree as to what WP:CIVIL really means. But I thought hard about it, and I'm really quite convinced that what I concluded was correct. I get a picture from the evidence I cited. A lot of it is gut feeling, and other editors may agree or disagree. And I have no doubt about the candidate's good intentions. I'm making a subjective call about what I believe this picture is telling me of what the candidate will do when, inevitably, someone else acts in a difficult manner towards them. And I think that there is too big a risk that the community will eventually regret it if this RfA passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm sorry but I simply cannot support single purpose nominations, or take restrictions on adminship at face value with the broken recall system [its lack]. I don't doubt this editor, but it's not a good precedent to set for the future, and if Trappist changes their mind down the line, how should we handle that situation? If we want limited adminship rights let's petition for those specifically (like rollback, or article creator), but I cannot support self-constrained adminship. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see it all now, and just like as per above comment (the number 12 opposer comment) I will also say Oppose. Sorry about this, but its my final decision. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Tryptofish. --John (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I generally do not support single purpose nominations, but in this case, I have other concerns. The answer to question 3 concerns me, and the user seems to have an antagonistic attitude at times, as evidenced by some of the conversations on his talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I aggree with Inks.LWC comment, I'm concerning the same situation as well. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 01:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As the concerns raised by the above are valid, but we all know this will come down to how many admin and bureaucrat buddies you have. One already expressed wanting to go back to the 'old culture of WP:IAR', which was usually a moderator that shall remain nameless telling people to, quote, "fuck off" while calling other "cunts" as well as about 160 other instances of verbal abuse as of five years ago with absolutely nothing being done to him so that he could continue his tornado of abuse as admin to this date, but good ol IAR! Once we put one of these editors into office, we have to drag them out kicking and screaming if they won't come quietly. I'm not going to support a candidate when I know I won't be able to undo it, especially when "recall" has been long exposed as a broken joke and WP:RFDA is a page to give the illusion that we'll even have a de-adminship process in the future. Oh well, let's see if the superfriends push through a single purpose request anyway. Extremely unwise, but not unprecedented. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I was going to question this oppose and caught myself in time. I'm not going to badger and I implore other editors to restrain themselves too. Let this oppose speak for itself and let the closing 'crat evaluate it. No need for RfA dramah here. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I must oppose per Benea.The issue of requesting adminship for one purpose does not trouble me in the slightest. However the exchange highlighted by Benea is problematic and I am concerned that the candidate does not seem to appreciate this. If they had recognised that the discussion was sub-optimal or even said "I was having a bad day" I would likely have excused it and then supported. But the candidate has attempted to defend their rather brusque and unfriendly language, and this is not an attitude we want to see in our administrators. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - per Benea; candidate's temperament is unsuitable for adminship. Per MSGJ; candidate does not grasp the magnitude of dysfunction. When a user interacts with TTM they will not perceive him or her as a special purpose admin, but instead as an administrator; and they will more than likely be left wanting in the aftermath.—John Cline (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Not sure I like the idea of granting admin tools based on a "limited use" promise. I don't really doubt that Trappist's promise is made in good faith but circumstances change and it doesn't really make sense to me to do a circumscribed evaluation but then give the candidate all the buttons. (This is neither meant as a comment on the suitability of Trappist nor should it be taken as an anti-unbundling statement.) --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose but a reluctant one. Per Tryptofish and I wish this editor would have made at least some comments on a user page. This editor seems like a rather good candidate for the RfC/Template editor user right. - tucoxn\talk 00:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Benea and John Cline. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Benea and John Cline. My gut says no too. Sorry, Ruhrfisch><>°° 10:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose the issues brought up by Benea and the diffs by Kudpung (oh man, those diffs), as well as the single-purpose request have led me to conclude that the candidate is unsuitable for adminship. Sorry, but no. Inanygivenhole (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as too soon, as too few template/module edits at this point (see: edit-counts). When User:Jimp requested adminship to fix protected templates, he had made over 2,000 template edits. Also the ongoing WT:CS1#RfC, with growing consensus to suppress red-error messages in wp:CS1 cites, is diametrically opposed to Trappist stated intent for more messages in Module:Citation/CS1, which would just frustrate the whole purpose of this RfA, to have powers to change a protected module but consensus would likely reject those changes. Needs to wait typical 6 months, and edit more templates/modules meanwhile. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Until the tools can be unbundled, I must look at this as a full RFA. As such, this editor falls slightly shy of my RFA standards. That said, I would gladly support this editor in pursuing additional user rights in the future and if this editor wants to specifically apply for adminship as a whole and shows a balanced understanding of conflict resolution and policy. I largely feel this is an oppose because the system is broken for not having a user right to edit protected pages. Mkdwtalk 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Per Tryptofish, Benea and John Cline. Does not have my confidence. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per above and per Ruhrfisch...Modernist (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per MSGJ and John Cline, among others. The temperament issue is enough to sink this RfA for me for now.. P.S. I suppose I should note that the lack of a userpage does not bother me. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 01:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I have nothing against the candidate, but don't like the idea of single purpose admin because of the perceived problems highlighted by some of the !voters in the oppose section. Unbundling the tools may be a solution to avoid this kind of RfA. Salih(talk) 05:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose not generally a fan of single-purpose adminship. Also quite disturbed by the candidate's refusal to create a userpage; besides the identification issues, it does not reflect well on the candidate to refuse to do something as simple as that. --Rschen7754 05:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Between Support and Oppose, I'm more into Oppose, user makes great edits and contributions, however I'm not seeing where this will go. ///EuroCarGT 18:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - per benea felt_friend 19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I originally !voted neutral, but am opposing because I've seen no evidence Trappist wished to work in any other admin areas. Also, they have been rather curt at times. theonesean 03:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - I guess this user doesn't understand the question no. 3. I will moved either Support or Oppose if he/she answered properly. But anyway, I see his/her contributions. Some of them need concern. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral The to-the-point style of this candidate and his introductory paragraph sold me. However, I will sit here to take a dep look to the candidate's contributions, and cast my vote later. On a side note, this reminds me why we sometimes need to unbundle several tools out of the sysop toolset. — ΛΧΣ21 02:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Could the pages be unprotected?TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
These particular pages are considered high risk. At the time {{High-risk}} was added to Module:Citation/CS1/doc the module was in use by an estimated 1.9 million pages. It's probably in our own best interest to keep the pages protected. —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Please put Babel boxes on your userpage or indicate your language abilities in some manner. --Walter Siegmund(talk) 03:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please, Trappist the monk. Create an userpage with some baci information about you like the languages you speak. — ΛΧΣ21 03:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
American English with a smattering of British English that I've picked up from an ex-pat English friend. I am private person so I maintain that privacy by leaving my user page blank. I want my reputation on Wikipedia to be based on what I've said and done here, not on what I say I am in the real world. If you want to know something about me, just ask. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
How about a list of articles you created? Kraxler (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Total 29, a few dab pages of ship's names, 3 articles without any sources/references. Not really something to support this request, sorry. Kraxler (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a rather strange RfA. I applied for auto patrolled status a while back because I am drafting a project that requires lots of userspace subpages. I was denied because, typically, tools and hats aren't given to people who won't use them for their normal purpose. The situations aren't analogous, but that's my perspective. Perhaps if the candidate showed some inkling of maybe widening his horizons and getting involved in other admin areas, I would support. But as of now, I'm simply neutral. theonesean 04:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) opposing, I've seen no evidence they want to use the tools for more than editing protected paged
Instead of unbundling, would it be possible for the unrequired admin areas to be turned off? I've no idea how the technical side of it works, but I'm thinking on the analogy of the bunch of keys that a real janitor gets. In cases like this, a smaller bunch would be given, and if the recipient changes their mind later, an RfA would consider them then. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Moving to support Peridon (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that the same as the dreaded unbundling, Peridon? If we don't do it in general, are you suggesting we should make exceptions every now and again? Not really convincing. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
as I interpret it, Peridon (and I) are indeed suggesting we make an exception, here and now. IAR was invented for purposes like this, when something is reasonable and the existing rules do not provide for it. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Here for now, till i finish thinking this through; despite a couple of admins i respect being there, i don't find the Opposes convincing ~ no user page? c'mon! terse language? but still civil ~ so have to decide on the given-the-bunch-to-use-one-key question. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Moved to Support. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - Although I'm not usually a stickler about this, and it's certainly not my main concern, I would like to see a user page. Even if it's a redirect to his talk page or just a "Hi, I'm Trappist the monk; I do technical things". User pages don't have to be about the real world. Also, there's the obvious concern of being given all the admin tools for one purpose, but to me that's an obvious neutral and not an oppose. I'm also not a fan of the tone of the third sentence in Q3. That being said, I think that the work Trappist is doing is extremely helpful, especially considering my lack of technical knowledge (Content creation, copyediting, and !voting? Sure! Photos and technical stuff? Er, sorry) and the fact that he was brave enough to go through with a self-nomination. That would be why I'm parked here. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral, pending the outcome of RfC/Template editor user right. I've not found any unduly alarming contributions from the candidate, and noted some examples of good standard communicative interaction. I applaud the candidate's technical expertise in and dedication to repairing/improving module/template coding. The stated intentions are clear, but admin candidates often also express greater capacity and willing to operate in other areas. That said, there's the potential for any admin to break things on a grand scale by editing outside their capabilities in protected areas, and predominantly anti-vandal RfAs don't seem to penalise candidates for knowing little about templates if there's no intention to work in such areas. In summary, for the moment, that unfortunately leaves me here in neutral. -- Trevj (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem with pending the outcome of the RfC is that, while this Neutral section is often a "holding pen" until one has a better feeling of the candidate's abilities or otherwise, the RfC began after the RfA and, if it runs the thirty days they usually do, it will end long after the RfA ends. I'd be referring to jni's waiting comment here, too. Unless the suggestion be that the candidate withdraw and hope the RfC concludes with a positive outcome? Cheers, LindsayHello 10:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a need for a withdrawal; this RfA could pass, and I don't think that'd be a problem. However, I just don't really feel able to support. If this RfA is unsuccessful, then obviously it'd be a good idea to wait for the outcome of the RfC before deciding whether a subsequent RfA is warranted (assuming on the limited use case presented this time). -- Trevj (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral, mostly on the basis of being unable to personally resolve the conundrum of trusting an skilled editor to only do a specific set of tasks that is visibly useful while being given authority to doing them all. The responses to the questions, including my own, have been respectable. It's true that WP:OWN issues make editing and improving things frustrating and it seems less likely for conflict to come up on these fronts. But when the editor says that their skill set doesn't include "conflict resolution" (except in technical work), it becomes a major concern of mine, because one fundamental component of being an admin is being able to handle conflict (broadly construed) appropriately, particularly the interpersonal kind. I really don't think it's a good idea to have the mop if you wish to avoid interpersonal conflict. I do not disbelieve the editor when they say they will stick to template / module work, but the avoidance of conflict is enough of a concern to keep me neutral. Again, however, my main issue is that I do not think it is entirely fair to an editor skilled in a very particular domain to oppose or support them on the basis of a system that supplies successful candidates with numerous tools. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Not being funny, but only doing a specific set of tasks despite access to others is a life skill my seven year old has. He's quite capable of ignoring his technical access to the oven yet manages to wield a knife and fork. If would suggest JethroBT that its not hard to "resolve that conundrum". Pedro : Chat 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the metaphor analogy, but we'll have to agree to disagree. It's not an obvious decision to me. Approving or denying authoritative functions on Wikipedia on the basis of being skilled at a very specific one that is largely unrelated to the others has consequences on future nominations of this sort. This has less to do with trusting this particular editor, who I generally trust after evaluating their contributions and recognize their need in this case, than it does with being uncertain of how supporting or opposing the candidate would influence future nominations. I would rather help and see a process like RfC/Template editor user right succeed (as I have already) so that the scope of permissions granted are consistent with an editor's intentions in this case. The editor has stated as much, that they do not require nor have any interest in using the other permissions. I genuinely want to help the editor do their work because I believe it is useful, I just do not think this is the right way, even if it is the only available one. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 21:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. Why not wait for the outcome of RfC/Template editor user right since self-nominator does not seem to want the full mop. No strong reasons to oppose candidate so might change to support after thinking more this somewhat unusual RFA. jni (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Jni: I think that Trappist was unaware of that RfC when he submitted this nomitation, was was I. — ΛΧΣ21 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Inevitably, as this RfA began before the RfC had been created Jebus989✰ 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@Jni:Why not wait? Because the RfC might not pass. Also because if it passes, goodness knows how long it could take for the user right to actually be implemented into the software. If and when it's implemented, Trappist will step down as an admin and request the template editor right, as he stated in his reply to Q12. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not notice Q12 and you both are making valid points. However I'm still undecided so will stay neutral. jni (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. I am not familiar enough with the candidate to support or oppose, but I would like to comment that there are likely many admins who avoid using some of the tools that they are given. An admin who decided not to modify templates and scripts, etc., because of lack of competence in this area would be showing admirable restraint and no one would think anything was amiss. The main criteria is trust by the community to use the tools to benefit Wikipedia, and if the candidate feels that the best way to do that is to avoid using certain ones, that is an aspect of that trust. In my opinion, when judging this candidate's suitability for adminship, the criteria should be suitable experience and competence in the areas in which he has chosen to work, based on his contributions, and trust by the community to show good judgement in the use of the admin tools, even when that judgement means choosing not to use some of them. It's not as though there is a limit to the number of admins and he would be bumping someone out who chooses to work mainly in dispute resolution. I also hope that those who are voting for or against are voting with respect to this candidate in particular, and not for or against the idea of a single-direction admin. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not fundamentally opposed to single-purpose RfA, but I really don't know about this one. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning:
In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.
The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[] what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Endorse closeAmend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Two minor points of clarification: I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would personally be glad to see this outcome. That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are this one and this explanatory comment, both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
"I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6" The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as "indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE" and then immediately discarded as "not clearly learning toward either option" before the narrative analysis began.
"to conclude that option 3 should be reached" The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no "consensus as to its underlying reliability" emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).
To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by Buffs in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate (RfC closers are not RfC enforcers). Chetsford (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
@Chetsford: - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsfordper the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockleyhere and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
"The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Amend per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. TheKip 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that any source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission not to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently.
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog(talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog(talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred). As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:
A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote. In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count"[14] of "votes"[15] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [16] somehow) favored the RfC proposal. I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC. The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred" This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs. The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close. The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.
As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This response by the closer is further astray:
First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.
Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
"the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [17] of the "vote" [sic] [18] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression. "RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
"this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this "This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR." - I disagree with this. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the template link (above) "Discussion with closer" is linking to the user's mainspace talk page however the user recently archived their talk page, could another editor please assist to link to the correct archive link which is User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [19]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I went ahead and reverted your WP:SUPERVOTE that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a WP:SUPERVOTE. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. WP:IAR could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.
All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?[edit]
The more I think about this whole "official talk page current consensus box" thing, the weirder it gets. Since when do we have a policy or procedure for keeping a set of officially-determined statements about article consensus... on the talk page of an article... separate from actual consensus on the article? And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? I don't see anything about it in any of our policies or guidelines; I am looking through some talk pages, each of which I know to be a zoo, and seeing if they have anything like this. So far it's a "no" for Talk:Israel–Hamas war, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), Talk:Race and intelligence. A title search says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The first was at Talk:Donald Trump, which seems to have been unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? jp×g🗯️ 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative. The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this May 2020 RFC). But how it's stated has led to an RFC on whether to remove a statement from a talk page, which is just bureaucracy. An RFC on text to be included would have been a better solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology appear to be two articles about the same thing. I could be wrong because I have trouble understanding exactly what the ecotechnics article is about. The ecotechnology article is easier to understand, but it is almost entirely copied from here. Perhaps someone who understands this subject could have a look? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The Ecotechnics article is about a philosophical idea, so it's a separate thing from the Ecotechnology article. Someone with better skills for handling copyright issue should look at Ecotechnology, the original version[20] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[21] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[22] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The remaining infringing material is still a copyright violation. I have removed it and requested revision deletion of all old revisions. – dudhhrtalkcontribssheher 20:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Block has been adequately reviewed. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think there is any issue with the block, which was the unfortunate yet inevitable conclusion to an editor having stress issues they could not resolve. Let's leave it at that. As they may themselves ask for review, given their latest posts about "abusive admins", I figure it is better to simply put it out here and let others opine as to whether my actions were appropriate or not. It's not the usual circumstance, and was done as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but in the interest of transparency, I ask for review. I won't post diffs, a look at their contribs should be sufficient when combined with their talk page. As always, any admin is free to modify my actions without my prior permission if they feel I've made a mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse Wikipedia is not a group therapy session. Editors with mental health issues are welcome to edit productively which may be therapeutic in some cases, but are not permitted to act out disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse (surely non-admins can endorse too?) Very reasonable reaction to a likely coming WP:SBA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, anyone can give their opinion, endorse or oppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse I'm actually one to champion that Wikipedia can be therapeutic, even the criticism one receives, but that is not without limits and is no excuse to be disruptive. Dennis, your action was done with care and concern for protecting the encyclopedia, the community, and the editor. I appreciate your efforts. --ARoseWolf 10:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse again. Blocks are preventative not punitive - there to protect the project and to give editors some time out to reflect when they need it. That's exactly what you've done here. Good block. WaggersTALK 13:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. I'll paraphrase a hard lesson I've learned very, very, recently: If you find Wikipedia hurting your mental health and/or your ability to communicate, it would be for the best to disengage for a long while so that you don't fuck up and find yourself dragged here or elsewhere. Or if you cannot disengage for some sort of reason, it would be better to say or do as little as possible so that you don't dig yourself into a hole. You can try to come back once you start feeling better. The Night Watch(talk) 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Good block, obviously, but I can't help but wonder whether opening yet another discussion is a good idea. I don't doubt your intentions in opening this, of course, but it seems to me like the last thing this user needs is a bunch of other people dogpiling endorsements of their block. Perhaps it would've been better to leave well enough alone. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 17:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, fwiw, the editor seems to be in favor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion centers on if it is permissible to return to discussion you had closed, wait (in this case 4 days), then reopen it, change the outcome, and perform a mass move. In this case, it is a WP:BADNAC.
The claim is being made that this is common and within closing guidelines [23].
I think this would be a horrible precedent to set, but either way it needs to be clear if this is acceptable. // Timothy :: talk 18:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been closing discussions, to include move requests, for many years, and this is just part of the process. An editor closes an RM, another editor discusses it on the closer's talk page, the closer then makes a decision to leave things as they are or to change things that need to be changed. It is not unprecedented for that part of the process to take several days while I or other closers mull it all over. Don't know why you think it's "horrible", that's just how the process works sometimes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 01:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding User:Mzajac has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in February to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Mzajac requested it within three months. Because Mzajac has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac#Motion to suspend.
For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello 178.164.179.49, the page now exists (empty); please go ahead. Next time, please provide the deletion reason too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
People have made this lady over 1,000 years old, and someone else should look to see what is valid. I tried to sort it out, but it appears that valid edits are mixed in with vandalism. Quebec99 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
It was just simple vandalism. Someone has already reverted it. Nothing special. Feel free to revert obvious vandalism like that. I went ahead and semi-protected it for a bit since there has also been some other minor issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French ship Gapeau (B284) - this discussion needs to be closed please. No idea why it was relisted a 3rd time. Discussion has petered out, with a week gone with no further input. Would someone uninvolved please close this. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
AfD's are regularly relisted up to three times. I think this is a reasonable relist, as it may facilitate further discussion to build towards a clearer consensus should additional participation come its way. It will be closed when it appears on (or before, if an admin so chooses) the daily +7 days log, which will be on 12 May. I'm not seeing how this is any different to most relisted AfD's. Daniel (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that this was closed early, reopened, closed early again, then taken to DRV. Perhaps requesting an early closure was not the best idea. We should let the DRV run its course now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This user @Saqib is constantly removing the articles that I have created without citing any reliable reasons. Just now, he has moved my article in the draft space Draft:Kashan Admani - Wikipedia. If I have COI, he should prove it. If there is some information that is not reliable, there is Citation needed template available. Perhaps, he is having some agenda to remove the pages that I create. I humbly seek an admin support and guidance in this matter.
P.s. he has a history of being accused of harassment and this time, I believe it is important to look deeply into his behavior and put a stop to it. Aanuarif (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I concur. It's become imperative for someone to intervene and examine my edits and conduct. I've been facing numerous attacks across various forums lately and truthfully, it's becoming quite bothersome. I can either defend myself against these accusations or fix articles. This needs to be addressed promptly. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Saqib, you shouldn't draftify old articles, so please just self-revert that one. You'll need to make a detailed case for whatever's been happening to you if they don't appear to be independent incidents. However, it's likely also that these are just independent editors bringing cases against you because they have each been emboldened and misdirected by the existence of previous complaints. Working AFC/NPP in high volume is another way you can get a lot of new editors confused and angry with you. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️ 12:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Saqib! I don't want to get into a dispute with you. I have respectfully accepted your suggestions and will continue to do so, provided they are in good faith and not based on assumptions. Aanuarif (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool - I moved the draft back to the main NS. I initially draftified it because the majority of its content was contributed by @Aanuarif and the BLP appeared to be PROMO and relied on non-RS. Instead of nominating it for deletion, I thought giving the creator a chance to fix the issues would be more appropriate. However, I've come to realize that draftifying old articles isn't the right approach. I might take it to AfD. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's sometimes frustrating when you come across articles you think are too poor for mainspace but there isn't an easy way to rid of them. Unfortunately, comes with the territory, as you are finding out, especially when working in third world topics, where you rarely find another editor also familiar with the area to back you up. You can remove serious BLP problems and get an admin to help you enforce that removal without much hassle. Most of the other problems, sometimes you can do something about, sometimes, you have to learn to be able to ignore and forget about for your own mental wellbeing. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️ 13:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
At what age does an article typically reach a point where it's shouldn't be draftify ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Cheers Aanuarif, glad to hear you're open to hearing out Saqib's concerns. — Usedtobecool☎️ 13:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not actually an admin, so I fear I've already taken too much space in this thread. But I wanted to leave some parting thoughts.To Aanuarif: I would caution that just because there are many complaints on a user's talk page does not necessarily mean that that is a bad editor. Most admins' talk pages are filled with complaints from other editors and all kinds of accusations, of bias, of incompetence, of prejudice, and so on. So, sometimes, it can actually mean the person is doing good work.To Saqib: Most COI/UPE editors produce poorly referenced, promotional articles but so do newbies. One of my first articles was speedy deleted as spam even though all I had done was follow Wikipedia's own suggestions in good faith to translate an article from another Wikipedia. So, in your first response, you almost always have to allow for the possibility that it's a good faith editor accidentally producing subpar content due to inexperience. Secondly, even when you're reasonably certain you're dealing with an actual spammer, it's best to keep that to yourself until you are ready to make a proper case backed by evidence in the proper venues. Makes for a more pleasant environment all around. Best, Usedtobecool☎️ 13:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool Sure, I've just started NPP so I don't have much experience dealing with UPEs yet. I've interacted with COI editors before but UPEs are new territory for me. I'll definitely take your tip going forward. In this case, I haven't filed any complaints against @Lkomdis or @Aanuarif. Actually, they're the ones who lodged complaints against me. OK you might be wondering why I called @Aanuarif a UPE. Let me break it down here. @Aanuarif were adding WP:OR and WP:PROMO to Waqar Zaka's BLP. When I raised concerns on their tp last month, they suddenly became inactive and stopped editing WP altogether. So, was I wrong to suspect they might be a UPE? --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
And @Aanuarif has been actively editing this BLP since 2021. Here's the thing. In 2021, they removed well-cited material (probably because Zaka didn't like it) and then added PROMO using unreliable sources. Added his achievements using unreliable sources. Added more PROMO, More, More, More and the PROMO goes on. I removed PROMO and unreliable references in 2017, again in 2020 and once more in 2024. In between, I made several edits to clean up the BLP. The point is I've been neutral back in 2017 and I'm neutral still in 2024. BUT, @Aanuarif and @Lkomdis accusing me of being a UPE. I'm seeking an answer from an admin on how to deal with @Aanuarif who has been adding PROMO themselves and now has the audacity to call me a UPE instead.--—Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Usedtobecool, i just saw this and wanted to share my opinion. Few days ago, Saqib nominated one article Shuja Asad on which i voted keep, then instantly he followed my editings and harrased me. He tagged my article Abu Aleeha with notability tag [24] and for proving his instances, he even tagged other articles which was linked to Abu Aleeha with notability tag although those articles were not created by me. The tag was instantly removed by another senior edior [25] By searching his work, i found out that he is harrasing many Pakistani wikipideans and eventually found out this page where i thought to share my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I understand pointing fingers at UPEs without strong evidence can stir things up in the community, but honestly, if you take a peek at their contributions, it's pretty clear they're up to some shady business. It seems like they're all just covering for each other. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It's very interesting that someone who produced Draft:Mohammad Jerjees Seja has joined the chorus of editors with grievances against Saqib. — Usedtobecool☎️ 05:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That promo article does'nt mean that i am not allowed to join such group and if you have not noticed, i have not moved that draft to main space neither urge to edit that draft because i understood my wordings and tone in that article was wrong and i dont mind after its deletion neither recreated it as i am not UPE who will be affected. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Saqib You should present an evidence, not assume. If you are alleging someone of shady business, you should present a proof. Now you are at the receiving end of your stuff, you are Aanuarif (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Saqib! By analyzing your edits i too believed that you are an experienced UPE, just saw the level at which you are defending Waqar Zaka at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination) & other Pakistani politician articles (may be they have paid you) as your area of interest is only Pakistani politics. Anyways i dont want to put allegations on someone without proper evidence like you do. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Saqib, as you know, I was the first one to respond to the parallel thread at ANI pointing out that you maybe are being targeted by bad actors. So, you know where I stand. My point was/is, like many new editors, including other editors involved in this thread, your report takes the form "This editor or group of editors are up to something. You can clearly see it from their contributions. Admins, please investigate." The problem is admins are not investigators. You would have to be insanely lucky to get someone else to investigate the issues that you have identified when you yourself give so little to go on. As the person most familiar with the case and the one most affected by it, you should be the one to investigate and write up a proper report that uninvolved editors can easily follow and uninvolved admins can easily action. There is no admin assigned to work every thread at AN or ANI skipping none. So, if there's a thread that's a mess without proper evidence presented, it's likely all admins are going to skip over that section completely, or at least wait for someone to bring something that's easily actionable. That's all I wanted to convey. You have now added a few diffs, that's on the right track. But there are so many threads about this in so many places and multiple editors who've complained against you, multiple editors you've complained against in turn, it's still a big mess. If I have the time, I will try to see if there's enough of a pattern for a sockpuppetry investigation. But at this moment, the ANI thread looks the most promising. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️ 03:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Great tip! I'll start making reports as suggested from now on. I never thought about it before, but now I've realised I do need to put in some effort to gather evidence and provide diffs because admins aren't here to investigate. Got it, point noted. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The OP has been directing toddler-level comments toward Saqib at various AfDs: [26], [27], [28]. They should probably just be indeffed per NOTHERE or CIR or something like that. We don't need to indulge such foolishness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, isn't there a sockfarm going after Saqib for their work with new page reviewing? It could be one of those again. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Saqib is WP:BLUDGEONING in multiple WP:AfD. He's conveniently defending his articles and nominating article of other users, accusing them of being a WP:SPI when there's no such evidence has been identified. He has set a narrative about users like BeauSuzanne, Aanu Arif, Me and then kept repeating it in different talk pages, discussions, AfDs to prove us somehow a WP:Forumshop. 182.182.29.217 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The IP range 182.182.0.0/17 has been CU blocked with the instruction to "log in to your account to edit". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I have discovered that Aanuarif is an undisclosed paid editor. I have sent the evidence by mail to Rosguill because they have actioned my reports in the past. If another admin is interested or willing, I would be happy to share it. Best, Usedtobecool☎️ 14:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Support indef: No surprise here. @Saqib, don't get discouraged by the harassment, you're doing a good job. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Friendly reminder that per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCEThe community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. and private evidence of UPE should be sent to the paid editing queue (paid-en-wpwikipedia.org) or an individual checkuser (if appropriate) who would then need to send it along to the queue if acting on it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I think there's enough publicly available evidence of harassment of Saqib to block without consideration of the private evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting a TBAN exemption specific to my Sandbox, to get input from others on a possible appeal[edit]
I would like to have the opportunity to work on a draft appeal of the TBAN that I received in March 2023, at my Sandbox. I proposed this idea to an admin, who demurred saying that this is a gray area and that I should seek explicit permission here.
The reason I am asking for an exemption specific to that sandbox is that I don't see any way to work on or get feedback on the possible appeal without mentioning the topic the TBAN is about - I will not be discussing issues about that topic within the Sandbox, nor will I respond to any other editors who might choose to comment on the topic in their comments on the draft.
The three elements I do intend to include in my appeal are:
a section where I acknowledge why the TBAN was applied,
a section where I document my current (less problematic) approach to editing, and
a section discussing the neurodivergent blind spots that got me into the mess the first place.
In other words, I will not be attempting to relitigate the ANI in any way.
I have taken considerable time to reflect on this, and it seems clear to me that the largest contributing factor to the outcomes of the antecedent RSN discussion, the ANI discussion that prodiced my sanction, andthie request for a carveout that I made in April 2023, were my failure to be aware of and to take strategies to mitigate my aspects of my neurodivergence, discussed here (and subsequently).
From these experiences, I was forcibly made aware of the extent of "blind spots" which have made it essentially impossible to predict how my comments at ANI or AN and related bahaviour (especially clarification-seeking behaviour) are likely to be interpreted by other editors. I therefore believe that a smooth decision-making process at AN is much more likely if I have the opportunity to "workshop" the filing in draft, and receive input on the filing from editors of varying perspectives.
I can and most likely will file to have my TBAN lifted (while the BLUDGEON ban remains in place), with or without this sandbox being allowed, but I think the net benefit of a smoother appeal process ought to be evident. I therefore hope this request will be positively received. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Crafting an unban request in user space, so others can provide input, seems at best promising and at worst harmless. I think SFR's suggestion to come here was wise, as I don't think it meets the letter of the law at WP:BANEX, but I think it probably meets the spirit. I'd have no concerns. I assume it is clear that any GENSEX-related disruption in the sandbox would be extraordinarily damaging, so nothing that even comes close to that, please. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:BANEX, bans don't apply to legitimate discussion of the ban itself, and it explicitly mentions appeals as an example of this. I think drawing a distinction between "appealing" and "drafting an appeal" would be splitting hairs to nobody's benefit. – Joe (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I endorse this request. It is reasonable and thoughtful. There shouldn't be any disruption resulting from it. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I endorse this request because I agree with what Floquenbeam, Joe Roe and Buffs have said. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Uninvolved as far as I'm aware. Support/Endorse request. Reasonable plan since a well-crafted appeal is what ultimately helps the community and the editor. StarMississippi 01:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse per above, and personally I think it is in line with WP:BANEX. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse - there is no reason why drafting a potential appeal should be considered any different from actually submitting that appeal. Any argument to the contrary is, as Joe Roe says, arguing about the colour of the bikeshed. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 17:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Rules are there to be broken. I'm trying to read through the user talk page discussion and previous ANI thread and just seeing a wall of quoted guidelines. Could you please explain, in your own words, why you think Colmedy's edits to Mac Tonight are disruptive? – Joe (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I believe they're being disruptive due to using unreliable sources, rejecting the colaberative nature of Wikipedia and accusing others of instigating edit wars (see Talk:Mac Tonight /Please try not to remove any of the information presented/Overuse of Maintenance Templates/This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately.) XCBRO172 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I am open to the collaborative nature of wikipedia, but i disagree with deleting large chunks of the page, especially without explaining it. Some stuff was from youtube (uploads of commercials and stuff), but those sources and info have since been removed. Im new to wikipedia, and its tough to actively learn how to improve a page without actual feedback on which areas had the issues. Deleting large chunks of properly cited stuff is arguably more disruptive. Colmedy (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That is a relief to hear, I also don't want this to blow up into a major thing; just please listen to those who know the rules, which as I have stated before are that excessive detail, as well as trivial information should be avoided. XCBRO172 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
From what I can see, User:Colmedy seems to be highly interested in this character and including all the information possible about him. To that end, there is a lot of detail here that is simply not encyclopedic or could be significantly better summarized. There is space however to contain much of the basic information.
For example,
"Between 1997 and 1998, McDonald's sponsored NASCAR Hall of Famer Bill Elliott with Mac Tonight featured on his car. In 2016, the Mac Tonight theme was McDonald's driver Jamie McMurray's Chip Ganassi Racing No. 1 Chevrolet SS throwback scheme for Darlington Raceway's Southern 500."
could be summarized as "From 1997 to 1998, McDonald's sponsored a NASCAR vehicle featuring the character"
I don't see a problem with his point of view, however, something I'm not seeing is any discussion on the talk page. User:Colmedy has asked several questions without reply/explanation. Based on the editing pattern, there seems to be a low-speed edit war in progress. All parties would do well to use the talk page and settle their differences of opinion in a civil manner. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The block reason was "WP:ECR violations, canvassing and, (vile) personal attacks", but the reason for TPA removal is unstated and appears to be along the lines of "just... just too frustrating to deal with". No additional ECR violations, canvassing, or personal attacks happened after the block. They just kept ignoring advice and saying and doing clueless things. Normally I'd say that TPA removal was a bit bitey, and favor restoring it, but in this particular case... I'd probably have gotten frustrated too. After seeing the UTRS request, I don't have high hopes for an unblock. They just don't seem to be understanding anything. Maybe if one admin took time, and other admins and editors left it alone, some progress could be made. But who would be up for doing that with this editor, and how would you even keep kibitzers out? What area would this editor even want to edit until they became extended confirmed? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I have no objections if people want to restore talk page access. I strongly oppose unblocking, though. Egregious personal attacks, blaming others, etc. Reading through the UTRS request, I don't even see Peace Love10 retracting their personal attack. They appear to believe it was accurate albeit rude, they just accept that if they make another such attack, they'd be blocked again. I don't believe this user would be a net positive. Again, though, no objections if people want to restore talk page access. Note that ScottishFinnishRadish is the original blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, ping @ScottishFinnishRadish: for consideration of restoring TPA for user to request unblock here(or at the AE place for that). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Any established editor is welcome to raise issues if needed. This is not that. StarMississippi 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a Reliable Sources Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are, or aren't reliable. I'd suggest raising these sources there (check that they haven't already been discussed first) to get community consensus about whether or not each one is generally reliable.
I notice you haven't notified Saqib of this discussion on their talk page, which is a requirement of opening a thread here. Please do that now. WaggersTALK 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
182.182.29.217, Another notice, another day. I guess I'll keep defending notices like these for the unforeseeable future. For the record, this IP only provides vague sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuja Asad), just mentioning the names without making efforts to provide specific links to coverage.So, definitely, I will reject it. Did I do anything wrong here? And by the way, WHO is this now? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The IP range 182.182.0.0/17 has been CU blocked with the instruction to "log in to your account to edit". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP continues to vandalize the article Neoliberalism with no end in site, while also acting belligerent in the edit summaries. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 15:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Blocked, consider AIV for stuff like this in the future. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Already INDEFFed by NinjaRobotPirate StarMississippi 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just thought I'd put this here... User:Robert7277 is impersonating an administrator on their userpage and moved a draft submission to the mainspace with absolutely no permission to do so; they've improperly used the "Misspell" reason to state that they "approved the page to the mainspace." Probably worth mentioning that the subject of the article, who seems to fail WP:NBLP, paid for the article to be created as disclosed by the creator's talk page. Requesting for somebody to take a look. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
5 days and already an admins! Impressive! EvergreenFir(talk) 17:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete the page, blammo-nuke Robert7277 (if not for their mercenary editing than for disruption from impersonating an administrator) and watchlist the article and draft titles for more of this chicanery. That seems to be the best route here. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 17:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems to consistently use the potted edit summaries incorrectly, as almost all of their edits have consisted of ill-advised wikilinking in articles (perhaps to become autoconfirmed). Deor (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Exactly ten edits before going on to make problematic edits. Bingo. B3251 (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-close comment. There are several reasons to block this editor but moving a page to mainspace without permission is not one of them. Nobody has to ask for permission to do anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, neither is having "I am an admin" on one's userpage when one is not an admin (removal generally suffices). Primefac (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Wikid77(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – Although I have been asked to submit a wp:RfA for years, this is a self-nomination to reduce work for current admins.
Previously I had thought of admins as full-time managers, but now I see admins can take wikibreaks and share the workload. What finally
prompted me, to submit an RfA, was a user asking why their article was deleted, at the wp:Help_desk, and I noticed an admin could
read the deleted page and answer the user, whereas I could not. Also, the growing complexity of wp:templates and Lua script modules has left
a shortage of technical admins who are prepared to update a complex template used in a million pages.
However, I also intend to help with wp:AfD work, or to block users who are causing severe wp:Disruption,
in unprotected templates or in major articles or images. —Wikid77 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly updates to protected wp:templates, Lua modules or other protected pages (see: CAT:EP), especially between 1:00-6:00 am, when many other admins are typically unlikely to respond. Several users have complained that this is "no longer a wiki" because so many pages have been protected, and they need help with timely updates to pages. Some full-protected templates have waited almost 3 years for updates, for issues noted and explained years ago. However, I am also willing to help with any emergency needs which involve numerous admin actions. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel a timely response to a frustrated user could be the best contribution (why: to improve the spirit of cooperation among users, to build positive synergy): someone had noted how a songwriter of a Tim McGraw song had been misspelled, and I was able to find a wp:RS source and correct the songwriter's name, as requested. Many templates have complex problems, and I have often debugged template glitches for other users within a few hours. However, among pages I wrote, the original Template:Convert/spell (April 2011), to convert a measurement and show the numbers in words, was a success. Perhaps the biggest impact was rewriting the wp:CS1 cites to use Lua script as 13x faster, transforming Uncle_G's Lua prototype in February 2013 (70 edits) to closely match {cite_web/old} format. After I explained how the wp:Scribunto interface was slow, a MediaWiki developer rewrote it to allow double-speed Lua. Among 100 recent articles, I created "Recovery of Aristotle" to help correct myths about Aristotle and focus attention on ancient Greek texts as well as recovery from old Arabic translations. With calendars, I wrote "Old Style 1752" (omitting 3–13 September) and 14 pages of "Old Style common year starting on Monday" (etc.) to remind people how calendar years had begun on 25 March, for many centuries longer than new-fangled "1 January" as New Year's Day, and those calendars were extremely complex to write, as if the whole world had forgotten how calendars looked after the Middle Ages. Meanwhile, I have written numerous essays: "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" explains the 60-second timeout of formatting large pages, while "wp:Advanced text formatting" shows detailed typesetting, and "wp:Wikifinagling" allows talking about skirting the rules, without any demeaning comments about the profession of a lawyer. I have begun creating wp:Helpbox pages, such as {{wikitext}} for a short reference card to remind users about markup format or template parameters (see: {{convert/help}}). Feel free to ask questions about the thousands of templates or articles or essays I have edited. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, many conflicts have reminded me to drop the wp:STICK and "back slowly away" from disputes, and in fact, some editors have even complained at me for leaving a debate too soon. I have kept my indef topic-ban of "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (in wp:RESTRICT) as a reminder not to go against a group of editors or else face censure. Instead, treat each person as an individual with their own viewpoint and "go with the flow" of other editors. In a sense, Wikipedia has "traffic-jams" of conflicts, and many users are stuck on the same road, to find a mutual solution, not abandon the efforts and quit. One former vandal wrote to me about being reformed to now correct vandalized text, so give people time to change their viewpoints. Hopefully, as a admin I can remind people not to tower above others in demanding a lofty "fairness" in mid-traffic, but instead, we try to work with others to clear problems at a reasonable pace. There are numerous conflicts, and progress requires diplomacy. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This RFA is just the latest example of a well qualified and deserving editor not being allowed to have the tools. The community has preconceived notions that an Admin must be a saint prior to getting the tools so this will fail. I find it rather hypocritical that there are several administrators on a topic ban but editors are opposing this one because of one. If a topic ban does not cause admins to lose access to the toolset, it should not prevent editors from getting the tools. Also, if something happened 4 years ago its time to let it go. We all made mistakes in our early editing careers and that's usually more do to the maze and volume of unnecessary policies than about the editors intent to do harm. All you opposers need to grow up and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I would support this candidate but of course IP's aren't allowed to vote. So much for allowing IP's to have a voice in how this community operates. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
So register, already. Carrite (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: the IP has been blocked for editing logged out to evade WP:SCRUTINY. It appears the user's real account has been blocked as well. [29]~Adjwilley (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Moral support I know this is not going to pass, and maybe there's reason enough for that, but I've known Wikid77 for around 2 years, and I do find what's written below (the first seven opposes) to be grotesquely unbalanced in emphasising the negatives and ignoring the positives (other than to acknowledge a "Long-time user" -- faint praise indeed!). I see no mention of his massive contribution in templates, his patient explanations at WP:VPT for editors with less technical savvy than he (which is almost all of us, let's face it), and his frequent copy editing in mainspace (while declining the GOCE barnstars). What I do see is an admin endorsing a virulent personal attack as grounds for an oppose, another editor attaching significance to the fact that a request to lift a topic ban failed 23 months ago, and lots more ugliness. Shame on the bunch of you! If this fails and the proposed Template Editor right is approved, I hope at least that some admin will have the gumption to offer it to him before he has to ask for it. And Wikid77, I hope all this won't stop you wanting to contribute here. You'd have been better at it than a number of admins I can think of. Sorry for the rant, but it needed saying. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, he sure knows his way around templates and most of the stuff he does in that area goes way over my head. So kudos for that I guess, but what does it have to do with his qualifications as a possible administrator and why do opposers have to acknowledge this for the sake of balance? It's the oppose section and you are surprised that it emphasizes negative aspects? What did you expect?--Atlan (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
@Atlan: What I expect and what I think we need may differ a tad. What I think we need to see in oppose sections is reasons, not personal attacks. For example, one could call the answer to Q3 unconvincing without having to allege dishonesty. I have oppposed several RfAs, and have never found it difficult to do it respectfully. --Stfg (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I want to add that an RfA is an offer to serve the community and deserves to be treated as such. It doesn't stand for Request for Apotheosis. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, other editors have warned how the block-log entries seem to "scar" a Wikipedian for life, but I was still surprised that the wp:3RR (from August 2006) was raised as an issue after 7 years, without another 3RR and not considering how article "Hurricane Katrina" had understated the impacts to the U.S. state of Mississippi, so I updated "Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi" (dif71) to explain the storm surge was so deep (9.1 m or 30 feet), east of New Orleans, that it pushed casino barges into the upper floor of hotels, and the police/rescue command centers in all 3 coastal counties of the state were flooded by waves at 10-meter (33 ft) elevation. Anyway, that is what the 3RR was about, and I learned other ways of working. -Wikid77 12:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I fully support Wikid77's qualifications for adminship. I think some of my respected colleagues who oppose this candidate, though meaning well, are proffering a misnomer by suggesting Wikid77 is anything but trustworthy. I do trust Wikid77, finding him or her dependable; actually.—John Cline (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Probably moral support more than anything at this point given the red flags on the block log and how this discussion is starting. I've crossed swords with this editor over at least one recent contentious topic, probably more, that's in the rearview mirror. I consider this one of the most intelligent observers of Wikipedia at the macro level. A very interesting, sometimes controversial, frequent, and intelligent commentator at JimboTalk. If he wants advanced permissions for template work, good enough for me. Would be a valuable addition to the cast of characters at The Site That Can Not Be Named, incidentally. Carrite (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as a long time editor. You'll have have to try again in a few months. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose To put it plainly, I do not think Wikid77 should have access to the admin tools. I think Matma Rex said it best here. Legoktm (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that comment by Matma was over-the-top, but thank you for noting the edit which admitted I was right about the MediaWiki software update Thursday, when the user reported a browser lockup. Other developers have been surprised about lockups in MSIE, this time for IE10, and there is an issue when a MediaWiki upgrade invalidates browser cache, because the high-security browsers can hang on the image icons, which are not from website "en.wikipedia.org" but rather from "bits.wikimedia.org" such as the MediaWiki logo file: poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png". Other browsers, such as Firefox do not have such restrictions between different websites. -Wikid77 07:10/07:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasoning here (Sven's). I don't believe the candidate has the judgment or temperament required for adminship.--Jasper Deng(talk) 05:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Candidate is also badgering opposes, which I do not really approve of.--Jasper Deng(talk) 07:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually I am clarifying some misunderstandings, because I think people deserve a response to their concerns. They have taken time to ask questions here. -Wikid77 07:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Considering that this candidate is under an active topic ban, [30], [31], I do not think that he has a sufficient level of community trust to be an admin. Yes, the ban was put in place in 2011, so the argument can be made that as it happened so long ago, it should not be held against him. However by that same token he has had two years to get his act together enough that he could convince the community that sanctions were no longer necessary, and the continued existence of the topic ban shows that that has not yet happened. Simply put, I don't find his answer to question 3 convincing; he claims to have kept it as a reminder, but I suspect he knows that any attempt to have it removed would be unsuccessful. Sven ManguardWha? 05:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think lifting the topic ban, today, would be unsuccessful, because it was based on claims of personal attacks and not any form of POV-pushing, and the topic is not as controversial after the acquittal freed them from prison. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think lifting the topic ban, today, would be unsuccessful, because you have continued to exhibit behavior similar to what got you in the sanctions in the first place. If you got hit with sanctions and said to yourself "Oh, shit, I'm being sent a message that my behavior is out of line and I'm going to make sure that the mistakes that led me here aren't repeated", and then followed up with 12 months of not exhibiting battleground behavior, no one would have batted an eye at removing your restrictions. But you got hit with the topic ban after an earlier, unsuccessful request for a topic ban, and since being sanctioned, almost got hit with a second topic ban. This is a pattern of disruptive behavior that you seem not to have learned from. If you don't internalize warnings and change your behavior in the face of blocks and sanctions, what hope should anyone have that you'll suddenly stop doing the things that led to the blocks and sanctions? Sven ManguardWha? 07:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the "hope" comes from no further blocks now, going on 3 years. -Wikid77 07:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Back in January 2010, the "block for sockpuppetry" was when people kept posting outrageous insults and slurs about my username (and other people), and we changed usernames in the same talk-page thread, as a technical violation rather than a pretense to be acting as 2 different people at the same time. Now I know about wp:SOCK#Legit to avoid mixing usernames. That was almost 4 years ago. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose leaning neutral per current topic ban and Minimac. You have too many problems. Though you have pros, as an autopatroller and has created many good articles, but you are under a topic ban currently. Your reviewer rights were revoked in the past due to your block for disruptive editing. Please see here for more information. Sorry, I changed my vote from neutral to oppose because your cons is more than your pros. Jianhui67Talk 06:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The first part of the answer to question 3 is rather dishonest inaccurate, as Wikid77 has attempted to get the ban lifted and this effort was unsuccesful. That discussion is here. Wikid77 has just changed tactics over the years to complaining about admins and topic bans without explicitly mentioning his own topic ban, but rather alluding to it. I think [32], [33] and [34] demonstrates quite well what he actually thinks about the consensus that lead to his topic ban and how he has not dropped the stick at all. Apparently, the people who served him an indef topic ban are not "normal people" and "ruthlessly fascist". I'd rather not hand the tools to someone with such a bone to pick. The second part of answer 3 is about dispute resolution I guess, but it makes so little sense that I'm not sure. I have to wonder who all those people are that have asked you to run for RFA and where they are now, because this RFA was ill-advised IMHO. --Atlan (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The topic ban problems are enough to oppose over, but I had a look at Wikid77's contributions anyway. With only five AfD !votes this year, he does not have enough experience to close AfD discussions. I do not trust him to make fair editor blocks either. Axl¤[Talk] 10:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - the topic ban shows you - currently - do not have the correct behavior for an admin. GiantSnowman 10:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, topic ban, condescending tone during discussions, assumption that all who disagree are abnormal; long-term user with long-term history of problems. Not a good candidate for the mop -- it would simply increase Wikid77's battle arena. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry but your temperament and attitude are uncompatible with the role of sysop. — ΛΧΣ21 15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose my experience of his contributions, in particular to TfD discussions, as well as looking at his recent contributions, suggest he is too headstrong and sure of himself, unwilling to accept that the views of others are as valid as his own and accept consensus when it's against him. Giving him the tools would be a big mistake.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
So by that definition he already has the "attitude" to be an administrator. So, what your really saying here is that editors need to be humble until they get the tools but then they can become headstrong. Because I can't tell you how many admins meet the exact same language you use for your oppose (but its a high percentage).71.126.152.253 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is one of the building blocks of WP, and being able to understand, interpret and act on consensus is a key admin skill, whether it's the local consensus of e.g. an AfD discussion or the community consensus that lies behind many policies of WP (or often both). As for 'how many admins' you seem very well informed (though entirely wrong) on our admin corps and extremely opinionated on them for an editor who has only a handful of edits and no interactions with admins.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
True on the first statement, consensus is a core value here however I do not believe Wikid (or most other established editors for that matter ) would violate that. If they did, and that's the great thing about being a wiki, it can be simply reverted. I also agree that some admin functions require a consensus, many however do not. For example, does it require a consensus to edit a protected template (new right RFC not withstanding) or block a vandal? I would argue not. As for AFD and others were it is an issue, I have seldom seen an admin (even the poor or abusive ones) fail to follow consensus even if they do not agree with it. So that argument is really just AGF. I also don't agree that my assessment of the admin corps is wrong. There are some good ones but there are an awful lot of bad ones and there is no mechanism for getting rid of them. Its a billet for life because in order to change it, the admins need to agree and that will never happen. As for my knowledge of things here. I watch, I read and I listen, but I rarely edit and likely won't until the culture actually follows the policies that are in place. The reason I am opinionated is because I have a brain and think for myself and look at the details. I don't just blindly oppose or support because I see a bunch of others do it. Also for the sake of full disclosure I have edited before but as with many networks my IP changes when I disconnect. Its not socking its just a byproduct of having good network security mechanisms in place. If someone wants to block this IP then feel free. All I have to do is disconnect and reconnect and get another one. No muss, no fuss. It really doesn't affect me and although Wikipedia currently blocks about 2-3% of the worlds IP's, I doubt they would be willing to block the entire Verizon Fios network and the checkuser tools isn't worth a shit anyway. Its wrong more than its right but its used to block helpless and innocent IP's all the time. If I wanted to dodge it, I could, but I don't care enough about avoiding scrutiny to put forth the extra effort. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose per JohnBlackburne, Drmies and SuperMarioMan. I'd forgotten just how badly this user behaved on the Knox article, and I see no sign they have learned anything from the experience.--John (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (amended --John (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
Oppose, in part due to the answer to question 3, which comes across as very disingenuous. The 2011 topic ban was not the result of being "ganged up on" or "silenced", as Wikid77 seems to be implying ("a reminder not to go against a group of editors or else face censure"), but the outcome of his uncompromising, obfuscatory and sometimes very divisive approach to talk page editing. Further to this, the user indirectly encouraged disruptive behaviour from several SPAs through carefully-worded but provocative user talk page comments. Yes, the diffs do date from two years ago, but since then I have seen little to no understanding on Wikid77's part of how this past behaviour was seen to be unacceptable. SuperMarioMan 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, the Amanda Knox debate was almost 4 years ago, and you are still upset how some new users wished to make comments on the talk-page, even if they did not want to edit the articles. Well, several of those users were finally unblocked, and I do not think it hurt Wikipedia to allow a few more new users to edit pages, among over 5,000 new confirmed editors each month. -Wikid77 20:16/20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I should have been clearer: in that diff, are there any statements that, in your opinion, could have been worded just a little bit more responsibly? I'm thinking primarily of the speculation on another user's personal life, as well as the attempt to downplay and excuse sockpuppetry. That is certainly not the kind of behaviour that I expect to see from any administrator on this project. Some time later, you were still casting these kinds of negative aspersions (and at the same time soapboxing in a manner that brought you extremely close to violating your cross-namespace topic ban). The rest of your above reply completely misses the point – it's a good example of the obfuscation that I previously mentioned. SuperMarioMan 22:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per topic ban!, Not a wise choice - RfA whilst being topic banned!. Davey2010T 22:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify about the topic-ban: I had been accused in 2010 of being a "ring leader" of some nefarious plot to advocate for the innocence of U.S. university student Amanda Knox, who was in fact found not guilty in October 2011, for the Murder of Meredith Kercher, her British roommate who also went to college classes and concerts with her and helped her get a job in Italy, although a higher court in Italy has since demanded yet another retrial to examine further evidence in the case, but I kept the topic-ban, during the past 2.3 years, as clear evidence that I was not here in Wikipedia to run a pro-Knox campaign. Many other users were also blocked or banned during the same time period, and I suppose I should have my topic-ban lifted now, so I can better discuss how new users were blocked when they explained the lack of evidence against Knox, such as a traffic camera running "5 minutes" fast to give a false impression of the sequence of events when the postal police arrived at the scene. Other editors (not topic-banned) have quit Wikipedia, in frustration, but all the blocking of many users has soured their experience, and they lost interest in writing other articles. -Wikid77 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I commend you for sticking it out but I feel If you waited till It was up- You would've had a better chance, -
Good luck on whatever next step you take. - Davey2010T 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. This editor is too much a dramah seeker, with over 1000 edits to User talk:Jimbo Wales (they got Tarc beat by almost twice as many, for instance), which I think they think of as a kind of in-wiki Wikipediocracy to denounce other editors. I have no faith in their temperamental suitability as an admin. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I could pretend to be "tempermental" but the protected templates do not seem to care when edited! Anyway, many interesting subjects have been discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and he has posted much advice there to help improve Wikipedia; however, there have also been many cases of bickering, but I tend to avoid those, and in fact deliberately start new threads to re-focus on practical subjects (which readers have noted as a welcome change). Please understand that Jimbo gives advice as a long-term user and admin, and encourages "philosophical" debates which might be considered off-topic elsewhere. So, yes, I have posted over 1,070 messages to JimboTalk, and many of the discussions have been fascinating, plus Jimbo has said he plans to remain involved with Wikipedia for years, so feel free to post there with questions or comments. -Wikid77 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, well-meaning, but does not have the temperament or social skills to be an admin. See his contribution to this conversation on Jimbo's talk page. Graham87 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. What we like to see in admins is that they take advice, and that they reflect on where they have gone wrong, and learn from it. Wikid77 appears to feel he is right and that the opinions of others are to be challenged rather than listened to. I am particularly concerned that he continues to justify his attempts to gather one-sided support for the Amanda Knox article. He seems to feel that the end justifies the means, and that following due process is not for him - indeed he feels that "The event revealed a "loophole" in wp:CANVAS". Looking at the incident - he was was advised by two users that he was violating WP:CANVAS. Four hours later he continues - this time adding the comment "I am not suggesting that you need to edit the article. You know, restrictions in notifying other users". Now, I understand that at the time he was heated, and when heated people do say and do inappropriate things. So while that incident is a concern, it was a while ago, and he has been topic banned for it. But I do expect users - particularly prospective admins - to learn from their experiences. That he continues to feel he was in the right, and indeed that CANVAS should be adjusted to allow users who are heated and angry and unable to make sound judgements, to ignore CANVAS because they feel justified in doing so, gives me serious cause for concern. Opening this RfA with a topic ban in place was questionable judgement. That he keeps it open and argues with people is a firm demonstration of poor judgement. The longer Wikid77 keeps it open, and the more he argues, the worse it will look for a future RfA. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that is quite a lot of false assumptions to build a straw man argument. Briefly, I was not "angry" at the time, because my intention was to let other users read the article "Amanda Knox" and expand with wp:NPOV text, and it was not inappropriate "one-sided support" because other editors were neutral or against a separate article. When I notified another user (4 hours later), I was contacting a known opposing editor unaware (to balance support-vs-oppose for proper wp:CANVAS), with disclaimer "I am not suggesting that you need to edit the article." Now, insisting that I dismiss the topic-ban, against advice from another admin, I will again note that the topic-ban has kept me away from investigations of many suspected wp:SPA accounts (no talk-page discussions with them) where I might otherwise receive further sanctions in a broad-sweeping attempt to control numerous new editors trying to update the related pages, but it has been 2.3 years since then. Also, wp:CANVAS was in fact adjusted, along the way, to foster better collaboration. I can appreciate how you want me to do exactly what you think, but I am here to also listen to concerns noted by other users, and I feel they should be allowed time to make an informed judgment. I am NOT here planning "my next RfA" (no), but rather to address people's concerns. -Wikid77 11:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - the topic ban, overall answer to #3, and slight badgering of other oppose voters leaves me to believe the tools should wait at least a while. Also suggest closing immediately per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 19:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Opposeper Matma Rex. On top of everything else mentioned above, Wikid77 has something of a history of blatantly misinforming other editors on VPT and other technical pages with long and confusing explanations of things that he quite simply does not appear to understand. That he thinks he does and responds to corrections (because when someone asks for help, they should actually get that help, not a bogus explanation that may not even be entirely related), as well requests to change his behaviour in general, not by acquiescing but by explaining himself further with similarly confusing and long-winded explanations and generally disagreeing, is not something I would want to see in any productive user, let alone an admin. -— Isarra༆ 19:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Please observe wp:NPA for no personal attacks. Claims of "blatantly misinforming other editors" requires a lot of evidence to prove such an outrageous conclusion. Also, understand that I have 2 degrees in computer science, so perhaps reconsider who "does not appear to understand" the technical issues, which can be quite complex at times. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - As many user's on the top had stated about the topic ban, also user has been blocked many times a long time ago, just don't see that this user will be an good admin. User should try again in few months after getting positive feedback from other users. ///EuroCarGT 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
As I explained, above, there were many editors (see: User_talk:Charlie_wilkes) who were blocked or banned in conjunction with article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as I was also blocked or topic-banned repeatedly, and it became so troublesome that User:Jimbo Wales finally came to moderate the discussions and recommend unblocking users who had been blocked without proper justification. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. You have too many problems. Though you have pros, as an autopatroller and has created many good articles, but you are under a topic ban currently. Perhaps come back and request for adminship 12 months later when you have no problems. I wanted to support you at first, but considering for a while, I decided to place my vote at neutral. Jianhui67Talk 06:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral leaning toward supporting. I need time to research the issues concerning topic bans and other sanctions that have been raised in the oppose, but so far what I see is an editor with a demonstrated track record of helping out fellow editors, a well thought out rationale for offering to help with administrative tasks, good technical skills (which a lot of us agree we need more of in the admin corps), and good writing skills, so I want to recognise those pluses and encourage the candidate to hang in there while I and others do the necessary research. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
About those block-log entries: They were mainly about college student "Amanda Knox" as an article I re-created on 9 June 2010 (dif2952) when many sources and editors said she should be acquitted of the Murder of Meredith Kercher (which she was on 3 October 2011), but the article was immediately re-sent to AfD while I was notifying people how I had re-created the article, and I was accused of improper wp:CANVASing for notifying more people who requested the article (well, they asked), rather than those who opposed the article but had already been notified by other editors. The event revealed a "loophole" in wp:CANVAS when supporters of an article do not frequent a discussion where opponents have been notified, putting a person at risk for double-notifying opponents when notifying everyone about the re-creation of an article (another reason to use wp:IAR to overcome loopholes). Meanwhile, the re-created article was subject to massive edit-wars, such as removing -11,817 bytes (~1,700 words) without prior consensus by other users, including by User:Hipocrite (dif803), who left Wikipedia in July 2012. Such gutting of related articles, without consensus, led to numerous complaints. After topic ban, I was advised to stay away because the whole subject was a hornets nest for many editors, and I left the indef topic ban in place. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:43/13:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral for now, per Yngvadottir. I'll be back. -- Trevj (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral no need to pile-on, but I'd recommend that you withdraw at this point. The RfA will clearly not succeed and leaving it open could bring unwanted drama. Just my two cents. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment (but RfAs have succeeded with almost 40 Opposes), and I want to hear the concerns of other users as well, plus people have raised issues which needed to be clarified. -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I was actually just about to say the exact same thing as AusomaticStrikeout. Wikid77, you have made many great contributions to this site, but history has shown that you too readily engage in situations without thinking things through beforehand. Perhaps in a year or two with a proven track record of aversion to drama, I will consider supporting you for adminship. For now, just keep up the good work and hopefully you'll outgrow the issues you've had in the past. You're a valuable editor — everyone sees that. :-) Kurtis(talk) 00:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
That's why I came here after 2 years of no further blocks, but an admin cautioned me to keep the topic-ban lest I be targeted for further sanctions, along with dozens of users blocked or banned for discussing the Amanda Knox trials (6 court cases). -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Wait until all of the problems mentioned above disappear, and then maybe I'll support you. buffbills7701 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I have explained most of the issues already, such as the topic-ban to protect me from other admins who might want to block more editors who they imagine are cohorts of wp:SPA accounts (see: User talk:Charlie_wilkes and find "are all largely SPAs"). I guess many people do not realize how a topic-ban can be a shield from getting lumped into a group of suspected users; and in fact, it took me a while to realize the danger of talking with users who are under investigation for advocacy, because I did not think of them as impending targets for blocking, but rather as new editors to update other articles such as page "Linda Carty" (which some of them attempted until followed to other pages). It is important to also think "like an admin" in reviewing these issues. -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - I was asked 14 days ago if I would review this possible candidacy. Due to heavy commitments in RL I didn't get round to it but my advice would have been to wait a while longer until the issues mentioned in the oppose section had been addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Giving a heads-up that at this point it's unlikely the PD will be posted tomorrow today. We'll keep you appraised of any other delays. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, apologies for that. We hope to have it ready soon. WormTT(talk) 07:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for keeping us updated - I appreciate that. — Ched : ? 16:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, this is exactly the sort of communication that takes almost no effort but goes a long way towards maintaining good relations :) Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
As a form of update, we've punted a working draft of the PD over to the committee as a whole. Giving ample time to wordsmith and fine-tune things, and in the spirit of under-promising I hope to have the full PD posted by early Saturday UTC if not sooner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit harsh to label the IP an "edit warrior" for one reversion when Pigsonthewing has ignored WP:BRD and reverted against the status quo twice... - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
see also, stay calm and factual, - forgive me for seeing a team at work, I must be biased, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I am calm and factual, and yes, you are biased, as am I, but throwing around accusations of edit warring against people cranks up the tension in a debate, not defuses it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Guys and gals? Evidence page is closed, workshop is closed, and the PD page is not the place to rehash it. Leave it be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
First: I will be having some strongly worded comments on this PD in the near future.
Second: per "As Gerda has herself noted, she's been adding far more infoboxes as of late than Pigs; it hasn't been very constructive, especially when adding ones unilaterally is clearly going to create a kerfluffle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)" ... I would kindly request that David refrain to referring to the editor as "Pigs". I would suspect that Andy, or PotW would be acceptable, and I am familiar with the moniker that Andy has chosen; still, I think it is quite unbecoming to shorten the user name in the fashion that you have. Please make appropriate adjustments. Thank you. — Ched : ? 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Also: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from removing | or |" ... I'm pretty sure Gerda will agree to refraining from removing infoboxes. typo? — Ched : ? 02:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch. I malformed the very end of the PD in my initial copy and paste. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
PSky comment on the most one-sided decision ever[edit]
Hmm, let's see, you smack Andy and Gerda, the pro-box side, and leave the anti-box side, Klein and Smerus, totally alone? Do you guys realize it takes two sides to have a dispute, edit war, etc, and that Klein and Smerus deserve smacking far more than Gerda? This is the most one-sided decision ever. I'd ask if this PD was a joke, but nothing AC does anymore surprises me. I didn't think my opinion of AC could get lower but it just did. An editor with one-month wiki experience could have written a better decision. As far as I'm concerned, AC should be abolished; and in case you missed it, I've said that before onwiki. PumpkinSkytalk 02:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the proposal to sanction Gerda is ill-founded, even though I disagree with every infobox she's added at classical music-related bios. If she had been edit warring over infoboxes, yes, or if she'd repeatedly proposed infoboxes at the same article ad WP:IDHT, yes, but I've seen no evidence of such behaviour. Adding infoboxes to articles where it's likely to be controversial strikes me as bad practice, but I know of no policy it breaches. Sanctioning people for bad practice is not the way to go. Having said that, we do only have one arb currently supporting this sanction, and NYB seems to be questioning the FoF supporting the sanction, so this doesn't seem like a done deal. I hope the other arbs will read this and consider when voting. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 03:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
May I add here that I never added an infobox where I expected it to be controversial. I stand corrected in several cases, mostly operas where I still believe an infobox on the given works would be superior to a side navbox duplicating information from a footer navbox, illustrated in The Ban on Love. I don't recall adding any infobox to a classical music bio unless I wrote the article myself. I would not call "reignite" to point out that factually looking at The Rite of Spring might be a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the AC proposal. It's the relentlessness which Gerda has shown in starting multiple infobox debates which is the problem. She's even tried to reignite some of the most contentious disputes (e.g. Rite of Spring, Georg Solti) while this Arb Case was open. --Folantin (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to understand what you mean by reigniting. I used The Ban on Love as an example how consensus could be achieved (or - so far - not). Only after The Rite of Spring was mentioned in the discussion did I also show that one. As for Solti, I have no idea what you mean. I approached an author of a TFA with the proposal of an infobox, he wanted me to insert it and I asked him to do it himself as I could be banned for disrupting the TFA. Is that what you summarize as "reignite"? For the whole case, I hoped for more looking at the actual evidence, rather than going by such summaries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The Georg Solti dispute had lain dormant since December 2012. You attempted to re-ignite the dispute on 2 August. You solicited an unsuspecting fellow editor to re-open the debate on the Georg Solti infobox: [35]. You must have known how inflammatory this was as this was one of the two pages which earned Pigsonthewing his topic ban on TFAs. Your comment even demonstrates you were aware of this. The other user went ahead, re-activating a debate which had been dormant for eight months: [36]. You then thanked him and tried to get him to do the same for Carmen[37]. --Folantin (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
We use the very same diff, only you see it differently. I explained that I could not do add the box because of a danger that I illustrated, - the danger is what I was aware of. What he did was a complete surprise to me, unsolicited. I did not comment on Georg Solti, not then, not now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you said "the editor who disrupted Georg Solti 25 July 2012 (mind the year!) is threatened to be banned." That's clearly Pigsonthewing, not you. --Folantin (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That's what I said, meaning that I - if I disrupted the TFA of that day, Duino Elegies - might be treated the same way. Do I have a language problem? - How is that "reigniting" and "inflammatory"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That makes no sense to me. It's clear from those comments you were pleased the Georg Solti debate had re-started and wanted the same to happen with Carmen. --Folantin (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I invite everybody to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I too invite neutral observers to look. --Folantin (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm rather inclined to agree with PSky on this. There is no sanction for those on the anti side, despite the principles explicitly rejecting tactics used by that side far more often than the pro side. The evidence shows that there is no way of telling in most cases what will be controversial until one of the anti people show up to a debate, making some proposed remedies unworkable in practice. Finally it sets up the classical music and opera projects as a walled garden where the normal rules of Wikipedia discussions about content do not apply, and you're banning Andy and Gerda to enforce it! This really is the most inappropriately one-sided outcome I've ever seen from ArbCom and I've been observing it for years. Please go back and try again. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@Folantin, Klein and Smerus have been doing that too during this case so where's the difference? There is none. This is the worst AC group ever and I no longer recognize their legitimacy. @Thryduult, precisely, the only-pro-side sanctions violate the very walled garden principle they've posted because it sets up the anti-side as a walled garden just as you've said. PumpkinSkytalk 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"Klein and Smerus have been doing that too during this case". No they haven't. Kleinzach has barely edited Wikipedia during this case as you well know. --Folantin (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes they have. Even if not, they most certainly did during the events leading to this, so again where's the difference? PumpkinSkytalk 11:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless you can back your accusations, you should stop repeating them. This case began on 17 July. Where have they been "starting multiple infobox debates" during that time? Kleinzach has made precisely five edits to Wikipedia during this period, two of them to your user talk page. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll say whatever I want. And how convenient of you to ignore my last question. PumpkinSkytalk 11:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Your lack of concern for factual accuracy is duly noted as is the fact you appear to be the founder of WP:QAI. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh? And your clear bias and lack of concern for factual accuracy is also duly note; you did clearly ignore my question about their behavior leading to this case. We clearly won't agree so let's just move on. But also note the other two commenting here seem to agree with me. PumpkinSkytalk 12:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You clearly have no evidence for your claims. I'm going to supply some regarding Gerda Arendt during this case. --Folantin (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Can we please stop? If you want to discuss about something not related to the case, like you've been doing in your latest four posts, there are more suitable places than the Proposed decision talk page. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It's relevant to what David Fuchs says on the Proposed Decision here[38]. --Folantin (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PunkinSky's surprise (while not agreeing with all points.) The AC felt the need to include the Levels of consensus principle. Did the committee miss that the very reason this needs to be asserted is the wholesale violation of the principle by many editors who invoked local consensus to remove infoboxes? Those removals, without citation of an actual policy, led to much frustration by Andy. While he did not handle it well, is it really the case that the committee finds nothing to say to any of the editors practicing it? Not a ban, not an admonition, not even a reminder?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Just as Andy may have been frustrated by the non-policy removal of infoboxes that he added, so those on the other side were frustrated by the initial non-policy addition of the infoboxes. A wikiproject does not own an article, but likewise a group promoting infoboxes does not own the top-right corner of the page. Rather than relying on attrition, the proper procedure for anyone wanting to spread infoboxes would be to establish a policy that an infobox cannot be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Request for evidence relating to Kleinzach and Smerus[edit]
PumpkinSky has suggested that the committee is wrong not to bring findings and remedies against Kleinzach and Smerus. However, little or no evidence has been submitted against these editors. Therefore, if anybody knows of any such evidence, I would request that they (pithily) submit it below. Unless it is entirely unavoidable, a simple list of diffs followed by your signature will be sufficient. Thank you, AGK[•] 15:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I have intentionally not supplied any evidence against (!) any editor, many of whom I respect, and still don't want to do that. (Was it a mistake? I am interested in understanding, not "remedies".) I have supplied ample evidence for (!) an editor, Andy, and would like that to be considered. The shortest way is my list of "systematic" reverts/changes of infoboxes, most of them in 2013. I trusted that the arbs are able to read a version history such as Sparrow Mass. The latest revert was yesterday, BWV 71: an infobox that I added and Nikkimaria edited was reverted by Eusebeus, see talk and history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I have VERY limited time today, and limited internet access on weekends, but I will begin to go back through things. These two are subtle in their slaps, but the use of the old "with all due respect" phrasing should not keep folks from seeing the snide snaps and snarks going on here. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Kleinzach: [39] Kleinzach engages in condescending snark at Gerda: "...Engaging in this kind of work would be a great learning experience, and help to re-integrate you with the community following your unfortunate experiences with infoboxes."
Smerus [40] Smerus responding to notification of an ANI involving this issue. [41] is his identical response to Andy lower down the page)
Smerus [42] In saying "Gerda 'doesn't think it's a problem' and I congratulate her on her eternal Fotherington-Thomas grade optimism..." Smerus basically, via his wikilink, describes Gerda as "an effete and loathed sissy"
Smerus: [43]: (to Gerda) "Now that you are able to grasp that people may think differently from you,..."
Please also note other editors making use of local consensus - some are looking at the "policy" at wikiproject composers: [46]
More to come as I have time. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
To note that I plan on offering alternatives and/or new remedies and FoF this weekend. If you have any final comments I would make them soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
We are pandering Satan here by suggesting the things plainly seen are not even viewable unless restated here with a diff. It is much better to pardon the server load than to provide additional web hosting; for the sake of redundancy. This; compounded with intentions of an unwanted hammering sanction; in clear contrast of the community's desire, and indeed, her needs! We ask for guidance on protocols of civil discussion; expecting usable precedent to enhance our ability to move beyond impasse, with propriety to Wikipedia's institutional aims. We can agree to disagree (called no consensus), and close a discussion by default, to some neutral parameter; like the preference established by the earliest contributor, quite often the article's creator. This works for everything from the serial comma, to measuring time itself. Let me attempt to convey this in succinct candor; We don't really need sanctions here, we need authoritative guidance. If a sanction must levy; employ the "swift kick sanction"—that's the one where after self administering a swift kick in the ass, we see the light and get it right. :)John Cline (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I support that view. I said so already in the workshop phase. Repeating in optimism some don't understand: We need to find a better way to discuss, and sometimes accept "no consensus", - not exclude excellent contributors with valid arguments from the discussion. I supply two diffs, both by uninvolved editors of this case, as food for thought:
Infoboxes are useful tools that should be encouraged in classical music articles. They sum up the main points of an article, allowing for readers of these articles (such as myself) access to some of the most commonly sought-after material. That they be in standard place in most articles would allow readers an easy go-to place for birth/death dates, places of occupation, and a general synoposis of the individual. I feel some in the classical music wikiproject get offended thinking that infoboxes encourage readers to skip over some admittedly great articles. But those who come here just to see a basic sketch of an individual aren't going to read the article from top to bottom. Those who do that will continue to do so whether or not there is an infobox present. Infoboxes, written correctly (omitting information that cannot be summarized, such as which "period" Beethoven belongs to), offer no drawbacks to an article and quite a few benefits. 10 August 2012
Consensus does not mean that stupidity and ignorance be given equal weight to common sense and knowledge. 22 August 2013
Not only for this case, but the future, I started a list of frequently raised concerns against infoboxes and what I would answer. It seems not well known that Kleinzach, mentioned above, said "I have no objection per se to boxes for compositions," and initiated infobox orchestra. It is a myth that Classical music is against infoboxes, a myth that seems to be widely believed for no good reason. - I don't mind an occasional bollocks or bullshit, having a history of linking to one of these in some other editor's comment myself. - If I may have a final word here (while I will keep adding to the list): I looked at the discussion Talk:Sparrow Mass again and found no lack of dignity in Andy's contributions to it. Let's not continue The Ban on Love. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
May I respectfully point out that the evidence for this arb case closed about two weeks ago? Arbs may wish to consider the consistent attempts of Montanabw, Rexss, PumpkinSky and Pigsonthewing to turn this investigation into their behaviour into an attack against others. I don't have time or inclination to respond to Montana's latest effusions, save to point out that virtually all the links she points out relating to me are repsonses to unprovoked, hostile and agressive comments from the four above mentioned editors. Gerda's optimism , which is what I clearly referred to, has been to me exactly as irritating as F-T's, although I am glad to say we are now cooperating with each other as per normal; I believe that Gerda and I understand very well each other's virtues and limitations and we don't need outsiders to kibitz on our Wikirelationship (Ahh.....). I am not at all ashamed of referring to the futile attempt of Pigsonthewing and Rexss to get an ANI judgement against me as 'bollocks' - which is exactly what it turned out to be. Unlike them, I am not a Wikilawyer, do not seek to build the encyclopaedia by vengeful attacks on fellow editors, and have not sought to escalate their war to these upper regions. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This case is not an investigation of my behaviour. You need to take responsibility for your systematic reversions of the addition of inboxes inside your walled garden - without any justification beyond 'nobody asked your permission first'. Then you need to consider the effects of stonewalling any attempts to reach a consensus by canvassing your WikiProject to trot out the same tired irrelevant, arguments. You count opinions on talk pages and call that a 'consensus'. At no point anywhere in this sorry business have you made any attempt whatsoever to look for consensus. You should be ashamed of the way in which you insulted and belittled one respected female editor and accused another one of libel. That's so far beyond the pale that any conclusion to this case that fails to acknowledge your central role in causing the problems will have simply given you a licence to continue bullying female editors and stifling any attempts at consensus. That has to stop if we are ever to move forward. Your lie above is plain: from the start, you have singled out Andy and Gerda as scapegoats, while I and others have deliberately refrained from mentioning your name in our evidence, as I would have preferred to have dealt with your behaviour as a general issue, not a personal one. It seems the Arbs would prefer to have it spelled out in detail and that's what those diffs above show. --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I have to intercede here as a longstanding member of the WP:CM wikiproject. The description above by User:RexxS is simply histrionic. 1) We have discussed the use of infoboxes for classical music topics at WP:CM for a very long time now and have raised a number of arguments that members of that project find compelling and germane. That other users who do not edit classical music articles do not find them compelling may be true, but it is ridiculous to suggest that referencing and soliciting the opinion of interested editors through the relevant wikiproject is "stonewalling any attempts to reach a consensus by canvassing your WikiProject to trot out the same tired irrelevant, arguments." This seems arrogant. (2) You describe an engagement between two editors which is mere fiction given how the two editors concerned on this very page have undertaken to describe their dynamic. You may see it as insulting and bullying, but you are not the editor being addressed. Who are you to take umbrage on someone else's behalf? This seems remarkably arrogant. (3) Andy has been singled out because Andy is problematic. This may offend your sense of justice because you happen to agree with him, but I don't see Smerus, Kleinzach or anyone else wading over to other wikiproject article series willy nilly to bray schoolmarmishly about how we are guilty of owning all these articles (that we create, edit and maintain) because we refuse to concede the value of his point of view. To suggest that our interest in maintaining the quality of articles under the project's umbrella is somehow "stifling attempt at consensus" is ridiculous and seems quite unbelievably arrogant. (4) We have engaged, repeatedly and extensively and in good faith the question of infoboxes for classical topics. We will do so again. There is no policy mandating infoboxes. Absent such a policy it is reasonable that the editors who have common interest in these articles, demonstrated by the fact that they have edited and maintained them, should offer their opinion and be solicited to do so. That you contribute to such debates is salutary. That you then insult the integrity, motivations and sincerity of those of us who labour hard over our wikiproject articles is, however, not. It seems, dare I say, exceptionally arrogant. Personally, I see nothing in the evidence that has been presented "against" Kleinzach or Smerus that in any way whatsoever compares to the longstanding, repeated disruptive history of User:PigsontheWing. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Eusebeus, please differentiate. Project Classical music has reservation concerning infoboxes for biographies, and I am willing to accept that. However, the project developed infoboxes for orchestras, Bach compositions and musical compositions, project opera developed an infobox for opera, all ready to be used. The fact that many of them were reverted and questioned brought us here. I don't want to point out evidence against any esteemed editor. Today I read again several interesting discussions, notably The Rite of Spring, Sparrow Mass and Don Carlos. I found no disruption by Andy in those discussions, instead an admirable hope for improving content: "One always hopes that fellow editors will raise issues with articles in order to improve them, rather than to try to score points in a different argument; perhaps disappointment should be expected. Nonetheless, if there is an error in the article, overlooked by those who have spent so many hours working on it and those who have subsequently reviewed it, it should be fixed sooner, rather than later. That said, if a term has been "employed by significant scholars in the field", then that, not your personal preference, has precedence. regarding your final question, you might like to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY." One always hopes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to inform you that the option of infobox opera, installed by Voceditenore in the project's Manual of Style, was just changed, in Voceditenore's absence and without a discussion. (It makes me think if "Infoboxes" is the right name for this case. It seems to grow more and more to a matter of ownership and protection of the status quo, here: the traditional side nabox. You can speak up at the project talk or at the example The Ban on Love.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
[ec] You refer to "arguments that members of that project find compelling and germane". What about the project members who do not; and who like infoboxes? Does Gerda not count? Have the rest, like User:GFHandel and User:Melodia, et al, been driven off by the intransigence of the remaining project members? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Like Gerda and RexxS, I was reluctant to pile on diffs of editor behaviour in my evidence, feeling that it would just fan the flames, rather than enable proper arbitration and the attainment of an an amicable resolution. But since you request them, I'll post some now. Noting your request for brevity (while giving necessary context, especially for long edits), and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' request for haste, this is still just a sample:
10 March 2008 Kleinzach adds the words "non-classical" to the scope of {{Infobox musical artist}}, which includes an explicitclassical_ensemble configuration and code.
31 August 2009 I removed that caveat
21 October 2009 Kleinzach comments on this, in a conversation in which I was not yet involved, detailing my blocklog and Arb history, in a clear ad hominem response.
In the poll which followed, Kleinzach accuses others (in edit sumamry) of a transparent attempt at splitting the consensus against using the box for 'classical' musicians.
31 July 2011 In response to my making a suggestion to improve the accessibility of navboxes (since adopted for all navboxes on Wikipedia), Kleinzach's reply is Is this to do with microformats? There is at least four years of back history to this issue as searching the archives of WP:Composers will show [47]. The suggestion was nothing to do with microformats.
16 April 2012 Kleinzach saysI was dismayed to see Andy Mabbett's involvement; also false allegation of breaking an undertaking (which I never made).
16 April Kleinzach declaresAGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst
19 March 2013 Smerus refers to the insane proposals to weld all the world's knowledge into a virtual nugget amd attempts to bully editors by alleging huge techno revolutions going on somewhere
22 March 2013 Smerus opposes (on an article talk page) an infobox, citing WP:COMPOSERS policy and continues It is rather naughty to use Bach as a catspaw in trying to change this - it would be more polite to engage discussion at the project page. Remember that the composer's project's RfC concluded that consensus should be formed on article talk pages.
23 March Kleinzach Closing an ongoing discussion, with a particularly biased summary, despite being an involved party. He was immediately reverted by User:GFHandel. Kleinzach then complained that his summary had been deleted in the reversion, rather than refactoring it as a general comment (i.e. removing phrases rendered nonsensical by the revert, like "I am now archiving this") and reposting it. Immediately after this, GFHandel, a long-standing editor in classical music realm (whose user name belies his interest); and a supporter of the use of infoboxes in such articles, retired from and ceased editing Wikipedia.
March 2013: Infobox orchestra is created, in draft. I add some fields to it, and
Despite the fact that the template is a draft, not used in any articles, Kleinzach objects that I am opposed to any changes to the template made without discussion. These shouldn't be happening — as I have said here. ("here" link updated to archive; diffs from that are in my earlier evidence. That whole discussion, and the template talk page, are worth reading for examples of Kleinzach objectingto (and often reverting) every change I made (most have been kept), and reporting every edit I make to the classical music project to canvass support).
During construction of the template, I made the observation: This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course). At that time the CBSO article looked like this
Nonetheless Kleinzach proceeded to replace (seemingly) every instance of {{Infobox musical artist}} on an article about an orchestra - edits well into three figures, ignoring objections. In most cases, cited and otherwise undisputed information was lost from the infobox, as can be seen from the current state of the CBSO article. That's a Fait accompli, apparently.
19 May Smerus places a Do not feed the trolls graphic on the Richard Wagner talk page, during discussion of a proposed infobox.
22 May Smerus made a bogus attempt to claim that I was not allowed to edit the talk page of a TFA (Richard Wagner; the discussion has been listed in others' evidence). He pushed this repeatedly in later edits. In This he refers claims I am Wikipedia 'reductionists' lke Mr. Mabbett, who see WP as means of crystallising the world's information to an essential nucleus from which all can be extrapolated (rather like, as I have mentioned elsewhere in a debate on Mr. Mabbett's obsessions, the desire of Mr. Casaubon in 'Middlemarch' to construct a key to all mythologies),and 'expansionists' like myself who like to create and expand articles, thereby both misrepresenting my work on metadata and dismissing the considerable number of articles I have created and/ or expanded. (Both ANI and then AN later rebuffed the attempt.)
8 July Kleinzach falsely asserts that an infobox must summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole, attempting to correct Gerda, who rightly points out that they are supposed to summarise key facts. (MOS:INFOBOX: 'to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears)
8 July Smerus describes infoboxes as the "end of civilization" and comaplins about Gerda doing so "without consulting on the relevant talk pages" while asking "whether it's "OK to revert these with a request for discussion on each talk page".
8 July Kleinzach described the addition of an infobox as a WP:POINT attack
9 July Kleinzach falsely accuses Gerda of going through my edits reverting them one after another
11 July Kleinzach deletes an infobox which was part of Gerda's comment, from an article talk page.
12 July Kleinzach attempts to pressure Gerda into falsely confirming that he did not delete part of her comment.
11 July Kleinzach falsely claimsAs everyone here probably already knows, the editor involved here follows me around Wikipedia reverting and refactoring my edits He means me (see my earlier evidence for other examples from the period when he insisted on not using my name or user name). The diffs he gives are all pages I'd previously edited and are on my watchlist. He also accuses me of "hacking" (repeated in edit summary)
I repeat my comments in evidence and workshop that the "involved" projects include other editors, not yet named here (and some who have posted evidence or comments). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
As I went active on this case rather late (after the workshop closed), I'm leaving some comments here. I've read through the evidence and workshop pages (and talk pages), and there are some interesting discussions and suggestions there. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that it is not possible (or desirable) for ArbCom to rule on the wider aspects of the matter, such as what infoboxes are for, and how they should be used and the various points related to metadata. Those sort of issues need well-ordered and widespread discussion by the editing community, while at the same time recognising existing practices and any inconsistencies in current editing practices.
Looking at the bigger picture here: many elements can be incorporated on the same Wikipedia article page (article text, lead section, tables, references, categories, navboxes, infoboxes, succession boxes, images and other media). Some of those elements are optional, others are found in all articles. How these sometimes disparate elements mesh together is part of the process of building and writing an article. Sometimes that requires discussion. If editors disagree over how an article should be written, and which of these elements should be used or how they should be used, then they need to discuss that. When editors fail to discuss (or edit war), or discussions fail, that is the point at which either wider input from the editorial community is needed, or formal dispute resolution.
When you have meta-philosophical disputes like this that have lasted years, one approach is to identify the productive community discussions that have taken place over the years and to identify the discussions that got widespread input from a large number of editors. And if those discussions haven't taken place, to try and encourage such discussions (after suitable planning and preparation).
One thing I have noticed recently is the large number of discussions taking place at WP:TFD, with infoboxes being discussed there. As far as I can tell, those discussions appear to be mostly aimed at merging infoboxes, but it is interesting to see the wide range of opinions expressed in those discussions. Even if this case does succeed in calming things down here, it is obvious that the wider issues still need fuller discussion. This is the sort of case where I'm tempted to say that those who disagree (as shown on the workshop page) should be instructed to write essays explaining their positions, and that a widely-advertised request for comment would then help form community-wide consensus on the best way to move forward. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
One-sided rulings in such cases never calm things down, they exacerbate the issue. You should know that by now. Not to mention making AC look ever worse. PumpkinSkytalk 11:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Your comment is a response to my saying "Even if this case does succeed in calming things down here"? Fair enough, but that wasn't really the point of what I said and you are only responding to a very small part of what I said. Your comment seems to relate more to the section you started above (which I may comment on later). I'd be interested in constructive comments on the other things I said in this section. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Wiki has become completely dysfunctional as it is a reflection of the real world, which is also totally dysfunctional. These things can't be fixed. For example, you can't stop people from socking--the sock policy is joke as it's a total waste of time, AC is pointless anymore because their rulings are wildly inconsistent and contradictory--towit putting up a principle against walled gardens here and yet setting one up for the anti-box crowd by ignoring their actions, AC and other wiki DR efforts are pointless because you can't change people's nature, those in power in wiki and RL protect their own and crap all over other people. So, I think we should do away with AC and DR and just work on content. Nothing has changed in the almost 8 years I've been on wiki. It just gets worse every year. AC and DR is all pointless and taking sides in a case makes it even worse. PumpkinSkytalk 11:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Wiki has become completely dysfunctional - admins have been far, far too lenient with disruptive editors such as Pigsonthewing who have turned massive areas of the project into battlegrounds and driven away productive editors and this has been going on for years. Many people who could make valuable contributions do not want to spend their spare time volunteering to take part in an activity that involves constant arguing and participation in bitter feuds. I am an active blogger on opera, I have taught history of classical music professionally, I made a conscious decision several years ago not to edit in the area on WP for the very reason that I could see I would get involved in this long-running controversy on infoboxes and it would be an unproductive waste of time. I never commented on the issue until it came to arbcom. It looks like a good decision is shaping up here, the essential thing is that Pigsonthewing is permanently removed from any involvement in anything to do with infoboxes.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You know Findings Gerda Arendt: Yes, I have added infoboxes to articles systematically and without prior discussion. The first link goes to works by Kafka, the day before he was TFA, - I am proud of it. The second link shows me adding one infobox to one opera which was a FA, right after the option of {{infobox opera}} became available, which I understood as an invitation to use it, whereas others regarded it as the end of civilisation. I was told that it was not wise to do so and have only suggested (not added) to Carmen. - I believe that adding infoboxes to operas, literature, compositions etc. don't require previous discussion. I would go further and say that no edit requires to first ask permission, - and who's permission?
For quite a while already, I am on a voluntary 1RR rule: if an added infobox is questioned I go to the talk page. I offered to find out how consensus can be achieved in two cases, The Ban on Love and The Rite of Spring, in an attempt to get from "I don't like it"-arguments to factual one. I invite everyone, arbitrators and watchers, to enter those discussions, to find a way how conflicts can be resolved in the future, rather than looking at errors of the past. There are some 50 other cases to look at. Note: not one of them is a composer where I added an infobox. For the infamous case Richard Wagner: I didn't even suggest to add an infobox to the article, only to show it on the talk, according to the advice from an arbitrator. Why the reaction was as if I had committed a sacrilege is beyond my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
1) About Andy
I still haven't seen any evidence of Andy editing disruptively in 2013. I found him always helpful, creative, open for suggestions and considerate of an editor's personal situation. Restrict such editors? What do you want to accomplish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
1.1) As said above, there are countless topics where infoboxes are quite normal. Why restrict Andy - of all people - from adding infoboxes there? (Same question for me, of course.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
1.2) As said above, where is the evidence for recent disruption? I see no reason to ban for something that was regarded disruptive in the past, if it is not repeated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, I'm sorry to 'butt in' and contradict your defense of Andy. But only in the last day or so, not having had any previous dealings with Andy until I encountered him on the Peter Warlock article, I have personally found him aggressive, confrontational and quite oblivious to appeals to actually discuss an issue and collaborate. This can be seen here where, even as you and I are having a civil discussion about infoboxes, he butts in and tries (not for the first time, as you can see further up the talk page) to goad me into 'reporting' him after I'd called him out for breaching BRD - I can't help feeling as if to say "so you say - what are you going to do about it?". In short, he was behaving like a bully who's been caught out and has no intention of making amends but would rather turn this into an intractable confrontation, presumably in the hope that his 'opponent' will 'lose his cool'. Alfietucker (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
3) About "remedies"
The term "not very constructive" has been used, - forgive me for finding all so-called remedies not very constructive. Nikkimaria and I not to add, revert, discuss infoboxes at all? Please see that only in a a very small field infoboxes are contentious, and these are not contentious because of Nikkimaria and me. I should not be permitted to add an infobox to a Bach cantata I write? ... to a church I find without one? Come on. - It's easy to ban an editor whose arguments you don't like. I don't see yet one factual (!) argument why "The Rite of Spring" should not have an infobox, - please join the discussion and give me one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, your last comment is a very interesting point that should be clarified. If you create an article, you might be allowed to add an infobox, I think. However, there proposed remedies have yet to pass (or not). — ΛΧΣ21 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Assuming it complies with Wikipedia's content policies, then yes. The reverse should also apply: if you create an article (or provide the bulk of its content) then you shouldn't have to have an infobox imposed on it. For instance, on The Rite of Spring, the biggest contributor by far is Brian Boulton [48] and he's opposed to an infobox there. --Folantin (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you mention that here where we talk about me adding infoboxes? I didn't add one to "The Rite of Spring", nor did Andy, no infobox was "imposed" on it. Andy asked (!) why it doesn't have one, and that was the most "disruptive" edit I saw him making in 2013, - needless to say that I don't find it disruptive at all. - I am in friendly discussion with Brian on the infobox of another article, see Talk:Peter Warlock (again not added by Andy or me). One question is if an infobox is supposed to contain "the key facts" of an article or "key facts". Brian, who wrote an excellent Signpost article, is more open than you assume, and discussion, not banning and restricting, is the way forward that I hope for. - The agreement between Nikkimaria and me is that she doesn't revert infoboxes in "my" articles, I leave "hers" without one, - it's not a great agreement (a reader may wonder why some Bach cantatas have an infobox and other's don't, Nikkimaria's and Mathsci's), but is better than none. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, I respect your content work and your Precious awards to build community here, and I think that you should be able to add infoboxes to articles you start. However, you seem at least a bit tone deaf when it comes to infoboxes. For example, when the discussion at Talk:The Rite of Spring had clearly reached consensus against adding an infobox to the article [49], you went ahead and added The Rite of Spring as an example in the Infobox musical composition documentation (diff). When there is a clear consensus against using an infobox, using it as an documentation example makes no sense, and invites well-meaning editors who are ignorant of the article's history to add it to the article. Ruhrfisch><>°° 15:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please follow the sequence: It was not my choice of an example, I chose The Ban on Love above it. The Rite was mentioned there, I thought we better illustrate it for those who don't know. I still believe that we should not "vote" on infoboxes but find other ways of discussion, - I keep dreaming and searching, please help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry Gerda, but I have no idea what you mean with your comments directly above this. I tried to "follow the sequence" by looking at your edit history. On June 1, 2013 at 19:10 you made your first edit in nearly six hours (to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to the thread "Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox" with the edit summary That's how you can look at a ramp for the disabled (diff)). Your next edit was at 19:21 to Talk:The Rite of Spring to the thread "Closing discussion?" with the edit summary some things can't be decided by voting (diff). Your next edit was at 19:36 to Template:Infobox musical composition/doc with the edit summary Examples: add one where you added The Rite of Spring infobox as an example (diff). I looked at several of your other edits before and after these, but none of them mention the Ban on Love.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with proposing and showing examples of infoboxes on the talk page for the article where the box would be included.
However, I think that it makes absolutely no sense to show a specific article's infobox as an example in that box's documentation when the talk page for that article twice showed clear consensus against including any infobox. That is like using Mitt Romney or John Kerry as an example of a US President in {{Infobox officeholder}} (since there was pretty clear consensus against either of them actually becoming President).
I also think it makes absolutely no sense to show an unused infobox as an example anywhere outside the article's talk page (or a personal sandbox). The problem is that an uninvolved editor who sees the example box and finds it is not used in the article may well not read the article talk page. They may well think that the box should be included in the article, and add it despite consensus not to do so. It is a little like a leaving a loaded gun lying around unattended - it may lead to unexpected noise and injury.
I hope this explains my concern at your "tone deafness" when it comes to infoboxes more clearly. Ruhrfisch><>°° 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I try to follow but think that we speak of different things- which doesn't make understanding easier. After the workshop closed, I installed The Ban on Love on its talk, side navbox vs. infobox, to "practise" with an example how consensus might be achieved, on 8 August. In the discussion The Rite was mentioned, therefore I added it 9 August. - I am a bit surprised to see an infobox compared to a gun ;) - If someone sees it and adds it, simply revert. - Decision by voting: I believe that to look at flaws and merits of a proposal is better than counting people who come with arguments such "Oppose any infobox" (yours), "An infobox is not needed" (well, of course not, it is never "needed"), "redundant to a properly-written first paragraph" (well, it has to be redundant by definition), and better than all these " infoboxes are contentious". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ruhrfisch: we spoke of different things, now I know. I was absorbed in the case, you spoke about the example in the infobox template. You were quite clear, I didn't get it, sorry. I replaced the example now by a Bruckner Symphony, which has an infobox since 2007. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You forgot the "Google should not be allowed to easily benefit from our work" argument that was sported at Jimbo's Agathoclea (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The above summary is mistaken. The discussion was here and concerned an essay expressing extreme frustration with the infobox wars, and particularly for one justification to include infoboxes, namely "Watson, SIRI, and Google all use the infobox data." The author objects to having their opinion that some infoboxes are not helpful subjugated by an imperative that data must be provided for Google (and inserting metadata into the article is not sufficient because editors won't keep hidden data updated, therefore an infobox must be present and visible). Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The "Watson" quote (though factually correct; and acceptable, as WTT points out elsewhere)) is a paraphrase of part of a much longer comment by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) in a November 2012 discussion at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover/Archive 1. For the record, I posted only three short comments there, and one of those was to point out that the page had been refactored, changing the meaning of my other two comments. There is no "imperative", and noting is being done "for Google". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I keep dreaming of a new discussion style in the future, instead of looking back at who made what mistake in the past. My suggestions for arbitration:
I restrict myself: I don't revert the revert of an infobox. (I started doing so a while ago.)
Andy restricts himself: he doesn't make more than one comment per day in any given infobox discussion.
Nikkimaria keeps doing what she does, follow our edits, and Wikipedia will be clean.
Kleinzach restricts himself: he doesn't say again "The talk page is not the place for an info box".
Smerus restricts himself: he doesn't mention "(mental) health" again in an infobox discussion.
We all don't start new discussions, but try to solve the open ones. I suggest Siegfried first, if you don't like The Ban on Love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you please cite exactly where I have made any mention of health, mental or otherwise, in any infobox discussion? I do not recall any such occasion. I ask so that I can make apologies if appropriate if I have in any way transgressed the bounds of courtesy.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Siegfried, link above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I see that I wrote there ' I join the plea for dignity and (mental) health'. This is not an imputation against anybody, it is a simple plea for sanity. This is the secondtime in a few days that you have made unwarranted imputations against against me, once by suggesting that I set up a tag-tema, and now by apparently implying that I made comments about the mental health of other editors. I suggest that the principle new start that can be made here is by editors refraining from making allegations against others and/or telling other editors what words they should or should not use in their general commemts, as long as those words are not insulting or vicious. I dream of such a day.--Smerus (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not. I have not made any imputation. I have not said that you set up a team-tag. I have not implied anything here, I have only asked you to not use the phrase in the future. Let's keep it simple, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I invite every arb (and everybody else interested) to visit one open discussion, perhaps even take part in it. You know where to find the choices on top of Verdi, Siegfried, The Ban on Love (mentioned in the case or above): here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I invite everyone to stop talking about infoboxes for at least a month because no benefit would arise from adding further fuel at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent idea - I will stop talking about infoboxes for at least a month (as of now ;-) ). Ruhrfisch><>°° 00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I thoroughly approve of this proposed moratorium. --Folantin (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
We can not ask "the readers" how they feel about the unspeakable things - let's call them "summary" for the moment. We can not ask them especially when they got reverted. But we all are readers. Please let me know if my "summary" serves you, compared to no summary. From the more than 50 cases (linked above) I chose an opera (o), a composition (c) and a person (p). Easy poll: if "with summary" (or without) is the same for all three cases, simply sign, if not the same for all three take the two initials for which you react the same way and sign those. I would love something playful today.
Feel free to discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
This Arbcom case concerns the long-term disruption caused by a clash between two sets of editors—it is not relevant whether infoboxes are good or bad. Let's suppose some new arguments were produced to conclusively show that infoboxes must (or must not) be included in every article—would that resolve the problem? The answer is no because after all the bitterness of the infobox wars, neither side is going to accept a new opinion. It really would be best to stop talking about infoboxes—wait a couple of months, then if wanted, start a community-wide discussion to get a general consensus so future discussions can rely on a policy, or at least a guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
So you think, about what this case concerns. Please note that I never said "must" or "must not", and never will. I use an option. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This case is called "infoboxes", yes, but as someone who has watched the dispute for a couple of years without getting involved in it until now, I agree with Johnnuiq that it is not actually about infoboxes but more about one editor's (Pigsonthewing) obsession with "metadata" and his pushing of it onto unwilling editors in a highly argumentative way that alienates others. There are many examples where he has put an infobox into an article, or attempted to, and the people who have built the article say" that does not add anything", to which the all-purpose reply is "Yes, it does, it emits metadata", just for instance in this discussion [50].I can say for myself that I made a deliberate decision not to edit in the area of classical music because I could see it would involve me in this bitter feud, and I have better ways to spend my spare time.Smeat75 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Smeat75 misquotes me. I was actually replying to Brianboulton, who said, addressing me, You obviously think that an infobox would enhance this article; let us have the arguments for this., and what I actually said was The benefits of an infobox in this article, as for the many thousands of other articles that include one, are that it summarises key information from elsewhere in the article, including material not suitable for the lede, for the convenience of readers wanting a quick overview, not least those accessing the collapsed view on mobile devices. It makes that information available as machine-readable metadata on the page; and for use in dbpedia. And it will, shortly, provide an interface with Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I provided a link to the whole discussion, anybody can follow it to see exactly what you say.I find you a very intimidating and bullying presence and made a conscious decision to avoid any articles that might bring me into dispute with you.Smeat75 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You have your view, I have mine (and this is my section of the discussion). I repeat from below: I find Andy not intimidating, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour (note: I did so already when I did not share his view). - I liked to enter his latest article to the DYK statistics. I like that he (of all participants in the Bach discussion) came to my talk when I mentioned that a friend died. - "Intimidating" is a difficult term, - would you have a link to something you would describe like that? - I am not intimidated, although I was warned. - "Obsession" is also a difficult term. I am for infoboxes without using the term metadata, and I don't feel that I am obsessed. - What this case should be about and is about are very different things. It should be about systematic reverts of infoboxes, latest example BWV 71, see discussion. - The way this case goes (so far) makes me think of a "deliberate decision" not to edit Wikipedia. I didn't want a case, but really hoped arbitration would look at recent evidence, not history, and reach for understanding. Recent evidence has it that Andy and I did the same things, so please treat us the same. I am not afraid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
For the future, we need to know precisely "what is perceived to be some editors' aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion", as the SignPost summarized.
Please mark the following 2013 examples as "aggressive" if you perceive them so. (Note that I excluded operas, because we will deal with it on the project level, started already, after 17.000 words of discussion were archived.)
Added later: After Voceditenore's remark below, I change the question to: what is perceived to be problematic and should be avoided in the future? (Not using "aggressive", "tendentious", "disruptive", "detrimental to our content", "a nuisance".) All cases turned out to be controversial, to my surprise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Needless to say, as I am unaware that any of these actions (not even the reverts) are "aggressive", problematic, please clarify. What did I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The quote is a Signpost editor's individual take on the case. It has nothing to do with the proposed decisions in this case. You will note that nowhere in the proposed decision is the term "aggressive" used except in SilkTork's comment under Editorial process:
"Reverting of anything other than obvious vandalism or harm should be considered very carefully as reverting can often be perceived as an act of aggression which then provokes a negative response. Consideration, politeness and discussion go a long way to assisting everyone to build this encyclopaedia appropriately."
As for WikiProject Opera "starting already" on the discussion you propose here, I'm afraid you've rather missed the key thrust of my "17,000 words" comment there:
I don't think I missed it, I responded that I will not add an infobox where a side navbox is in place, - adding here: I will not even suggest one in such a case, - five months were mentioned, fine with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I am aware that you responded with your five months offer, but since you have described your response as "starting" (yet another) discussion of how to proceed with infoboxes, well, I'm afraid you did rather miss my point. In any case, you can (and undoubtedly will) do what you think is best. Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not start "yet another discussion", - I opened the discussion on The Ban on Love on 8 August, only moved it to the talk of the article on 26 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
??? What does Talk:Das Liebesverbot have to do with it? That is an individual talk page discussion, not a "project level" discussion and not carried out on the project talk page. Your statement: "Note that I excluded operas, because we will deal with it on the project level, started already, after 17.000 words of discussion were archived" (and your subsequent comment) implied pretty clearly to me that you considered Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#17,000 words and your response to it to be the "already started" new project-level discussion on how to proceed on infoboxes, when actually it was my individual plea to both sides for a project-level moratorium on the subject. Perhaps you don't see the damage these discussions have done to the project in terms of both productivity and our former collegial atmosphere, but I do, and so do the members who have taken the project talk page off their watchlists. Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I won't "damage" productivity and atmosphere anymore, leaving projects opera and classical music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I see several problems with the proposed decision.
Klienzach and Smerus should be subject to - at a minimum - identical or parallel restrictions to those imposed on Nikki, Gerda and Andy. I will elaborate more on this below
Andy needs to be evaluated on 2013, not 2006 or whenever. To the extent he made mistakes, he did his time, he's paid his debt to wikipedia society, and that should be water under the bridge. Drop the stick, look only at the present.
Also, Andy clearly has an interest and passion for infoboxes and metadata, and that interest is not a bad thing; he provides a useful service to wikipedia and shouldn't have the thing he cares about most taken away. He has learned and grown from what has happened in the past, and I believe that the PD is basically giving him a life sentence for a misdemeanor. I think that if people are concerned, any proposed decision should be time-limited and narrowly targeted to specific, CURRENT concerns, perhaps only within the Classical Music project.
Any restriction on Gerda of any sort makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. She has never violated one single policy or guideline on wiki and where she has ruffled feathers. she has apologized. In addition, most infoboxes she initially added were to INDIVIDUAL articles (which the PD says is OK) that she herself either created or did a 5x expansion on (I don't have time to correlate her DYK record to infobox additions, but I think I'm correct on this). Basically, all she has done was annoy the Old Guard "we don't want any infoboxes anywhere never lalalalala" clique at WP Opera.
The proposed sanctions on Nikki seem about right, though perhaps definitely a time frame after which she can reapply for adminship (6 months, perhaps?) would be good so that we don't have a situation of the wiki life sentence that I have criticized above for Andy where a RfA would result in a chorus of "OMG! She was desysoped 10 years ago and how dare she return now? It's too soon!" and put her under a cloud forever.
I am concerned that Nikki is being subjected to sanctions when Smerus and Klienzach aren't even mentioned, even though their behavior and attitudes are a very large part of why we are here in the first place. I am wondering if this is an example of the systemic bias against women that is a problem in parts of wiki. Nikki did overstep, but she also should not be the only person on the anti-infobox side (particularly where she isn't 100% anti-infobox anyway); in some ways, she showed more willingness to collaborate and work with Gerda than did Smerus or Klienzach.
I think that if we are looking at levels of remedies, those imposed on Andy should parallel those on Nikki (save that he isn't an admin, but perhaps a discussion of appropriate but time-limited ( a month or so, maybe) editing restrictions would be in line.
I believe that there should be some action taken against Kleinzach and Smerus for their behavior as the "old guard" and how UNBELIEVABLY unkind and incivil they have been to Gerda who, in my view, has always been nothing but civil. In particular, Kleinzach seems to be skipping off scott free because he simply has not responded here. Although Folantin and I personally reached a truce as to each other, I will note that I continue to be troubled by his attitude and responses here, it's one thing to defend his friend Smerus, but his tone has been problematic.
Any restrictions on people adding or removing infoboxes should be confined mostly to the classical music topics, because this seems to be the only place where the existence of infoboxes themselves are the problem (most other disputes in other areas seem to be more over form than existence). To say that people cannot add ANY infobox anywhere is ludicrous; what if we have 10 new articles that need, say Infobox Mineral added - a wikiproject that strongly supports infoboxes in every article? Or if I ask Andy or Gerda to tune up or fix me up a fancy new infobox design for, say, the equine "biographies" where we have an infobox in all of them?
I am concerned that the proposed ArbCom decision unfairly targets a user, Andy/Pigsonthewing, as a scapegoat, and lets two playground bullies, Klienzach and Smerus, off scott-free to continue their bullying and domination of WikiProject Opera and WikiProject classical music unabated. This situation illustrates the worst weakness of "teh wiki" - it never forgets and it never forgives. Montanabw(talk) 15:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@Worm, others: I am quite concerned by the "disinclined to use infoboxes" tone of the comments below and the implication that, somehow, they are not a standard feature of wikipedia articles, or that the "pro-infobox" contingent is a minority. Infoboxes are pretty much standard operating procedure for many wikiprojects, and as far as I can tell most of the C-class and better biographies, most C-class and better animal articles, gem and mineral articles, health and disease articles, chemistry articles, movies, TV shows, popular music, and so on. I think in Andy's evidence he showed some links that at least HALF and maybe more of wikipedia's articles - and this counts stubs and everything - already have infoboxes. While there is plenty (I'd argue too much) "drahmahz" over the content and appearance of infoboxes, the rabid OMG NO! response to them is rather unique to the Classical music project. For that reason, I don't think it wise to view infoboxes as a "creation" issue nor am I confortable having their absence any kind of implied default position. Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
NEW: For anyone not thinking there is evidence of the behavior of Smerus that I think needs sanctions, he just posted this on the 16th (been ut of twon, haven't been following the drama chapter and verse for a while...): User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Team. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just in case anyone takes this latest provocation seriously, I suggest they read the entire thread concerned.--Smerus (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Most definitely. And I also strongly recommend reading Smerus' talk page as well. Don't start, my friend; WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw(talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed that the PD has failed to find any viable way forward in resolving these issues. The idea that simply banning a few editors from the dispute will solve the problems is akin to the concept of cutting off an arm to cure left-handedness. You have the ability and the encouragement to look for better means, but have spurned the opportunity.
There is clearly a principle missing as Silk Tork has hinted - something along the lines of:
Editors making bold, good-faith edits to articles or article talk pages that others consider contentious may be judged to be editing disruptively.
because without that, the FoF and remedy concerning Gerda are hung on a non-existent premise - one that I'm not at all sure has the consensus of the community. You won't put the above up for debate, of course, because you know it has no grounding in our current policies and guidelines.
You will know that I have collaborated with Andy on numerous technical issues over the last couple of years, not least the development of {{hlist}} and the improvements made to the accessibility of our articles, so you will expect me to be dismayed at the suggestion of banning Andy, thereby losing all of his hugely valuable contributions in so many areas - including classical music (how many of the regulars at WPCM can boast of having written a monthly column for a classical music magazine, as Andy can?). I accept that it would be better for Andy to step away from the conflicts over infoboxes, as they tend to bring out the worst in him, but why do you pick the bluntest of tools to do the job? "... indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes"? That implies a ban from any namespace, yet Andy is one of the small fraction of editors with the technical know-how to create and improve infoboxes, and you suggest removing him from that as well? Why? What does it accomplish besides damaging the encyclopedia? If you want to remove Andy from the conflict, then forbid him from adding or discussing infoboxes in mainspace; get him a mentor; look for some constructive, not destructive remedies.
I've known Nikki since she worked her socks off to save Geogre's Ormulum, and I've had both agreements and disagreements with her, but I've always found her willing to debate the issues and look for compromise - the last time she was blocked for edit-warring, I was able to successfully petition the blocking admin to unblock her as we had already made progress in resolving that particular issue. I know that she has regularly reached compromise with Gerda, and I'd point others to those interactions as one model of resolving differences. I do find her abbreviated edit summaries problematical, but I haven't seen any evidence of misuse of her admin tools. I therefore find the proposed desysop as unfounded, and I'd strongly suggest you look at ways of helping her contribute - why not 1RR and obligatory explanational edit summaries, as those are where the problems lie? The present drafting is reminiscent of curing headaches by decapitation.
Ok my rant is finished, and so am I. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no experience with the info box debate. I am familiar with Gerda's work, although not with Pigsonthewing. I did attempt to talk to Nikki after watching what appeared to be on-going stalking. What struck me when reading this Arbitration case was that it seemed out of focus, blurred, and with no clarity. The remedies for the most part are those saved for the worst offenses and all of it was lopsided ignoring the work of multiple editors which should have been scrutinized.
I would like the arbs to consider a few general points:
There are two kinds of issues which seem to come to the arbs. Wikipedia is a designated collaborative community. Its legs are the family of editors the encyclopedia stands on. As in any family behaviours arise which make editing unpleasant. Still, those behaviours while unacceptable can be remedied usually, as in a family, with strategies that do not require that the family member be asked to leave and set up a tent down the street. Members of this community are valuable, take a long time to train and for the kind of issues that create unpleasantness but which do not undermine the very fabric of the community lesser remedies are always best.
The second kind of issue is that which eats away at the legs of the community, destroying, not making unpleasant, but destroying the fabric of Wikipedia. That kind of behaviour is directed directly at other editors, is thoughtful, premeditated and is meant to damage editors so they eventually will leave. I mean more specifically the creation of narratives that create a false sense of an editor, fatiguing them deliberately, harassment, retaliation, bullying, talk page lynchings, and the lack of basic values most of us agree allow communities to function optimally like honesty and integrity ... and the list goes on. I'd add that these tactics have been applied to both editors and arbs. wearying the arbs as well as the editor.
I do not see that a general over arching distinction has been made that separates problematic behaviour from behaviours that are meant to deliberately harm other editors, undermining Wikipedia in the long run, in part because the behaviours which truly undermine are hard to see, the cases, high profile, and all of it harder still to believe. And I do not think the arbs have made this distinction either. Maybe I'm wrong. Once behaviours have been placed in either the "bickering family" slot or the more serious "undermining the fabric of the collaborative community" slot, remedies are easier to apply.
In this arbitration what struck me was that the bickering family had been treated to remedies that belong to more serious transgressions like the eventual undermining of the community creating that immediate out of focus sense I had. I don't see in the list of concerns in the Pigsonthewing remedy that indicate he/she has deliberately causing the kind of damage that requires an indef ban, and Gerda seems to be relatively blameless so I have to ask, please reconsider the nature of the problems and into which of these two categories the editors named in this case belong. I know this is tough job, and I can't imagine what the arbs deal with so this is not an attack, just an attempt to analyze and define, should that make the arb job easier and the remedies more likely to be fair.(olive (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC))
Second: I must take responsibility for my lack of direction in my original request (as pointed out by User:Giano), my lack of participation in the evidence stage, and perhaps most regrettably in my lack of participation in the workshop stage. For these failings I do apologize to both the committee and the community. (Worm That Turned and 2 other wikipedians are aware of the specifics as to the "why", but the reasons are not germane to wikipedia). I would also offer apologies to Gerda and Andy; as well as Nikkimaria and the other named parties of the composer group in requesting their attention to this case. Still, it was something I saw as a problem, and I thought could only be resolved by a full case.
Third: Montanbw above summarizes my thoughts well in the sense that I fully agree with much of what PumpkinSky, Heimstern Läufer, Thryduulf, and others say in that this PD falls short of an optimal solution to the infobox debate. Still, perhaps it is best I speak my peace in my own words.
To say that I am disappointed in this PD would be an understatement. I was hoping for a fair and equatable disposition to all sides. This is not it. It may well chill any discussions or inclusions of infoboxes in the near future; I would certainly hesitate to add an infobox to ANY musician, let alone "composer" after reading our ruling body's suggestions to a solution. In fact, I won't be the least bit surprised if infoboxes now begin to disappear from articles such as Paul McCartney, Tupac Shakur, Andy Williams, and others. Fortunately while our own article fails to offer certain amenities, Google does provide an "infobox" of sorts to things like Bach, in that quick date and place of birth, date and place of death, compositions, children, and spouses can be found without having to read an en.wp page.
I'm not attempting to commit wikicide by Arbcom, but I must say that frankly: After reading the original posting I must wonder if the Arbs even bothered to look at any links, comprehensively review any background, and actually follow through with clicking on "diffs" to determine a full picture of the forest. Often I see a "recidivism" statement, and I wonder if even the very basics were reviewed in this case. I do not dispute that this has been a "wp:battle" on wiki, but I remind all that it takes TWO sides to have a battle - one does not have battles on their own. Quite frankly this looks like a case of: "Hmmm .. there's 5 people in the composer project opposed to infoboxes (actually there are 25 regulars), and 2 people supporting infoboxes. Let's go with the bigger number, and hopefully that will translate to 'votes' in December". I apologize for the WP:ABF - and I'm not actually making that accusation, but the thought did cross my mind.
As far as specifics, the PD does mention in the FoF 2 blocks acquired by Nikkimaria for edit wars. Sorry .. but the actuall number is 3. Also, while "stalking" is a term that's fallen out of favor, here, still the harassment #hounding is not even addressed. (I also feel that addressing Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Tag team could have benefited the project here) Added to that the lack of any inclusion or mention of Kleinzach and Smerus, who's postings have been every bit as inflamitory and confrontational as Andy's, from this PD is somewhat puzzling. Indeed I would say that the committee is well on its way to declaring a "WINNER" in this debate. And no I would not support a permenant removal of Nikkimaria's tools absent evidence of misuse of those tools; however, I would support a time limited removal to recover the understanding of what the non-superuser editors must labor under. I understand there are members of the committee who do not favor this as it can be viewed as punitive; however, having worked under those very circumstances, I can say that it can be enlightening.
After long consideration I can now say that I suppose I felt that some sort of 1RR restriction on composer and infobox items would have been my preferred way forward here. I would also mention that Dave and David may want to add a "recidivisim" clause to the PD as it is often done in other cases. I'll also say that while I don't fully understand the "wikidata, metadata, microdata, what.ever.data" .. I do wonder if it positions Wikipedia better in the future of search engines. I also appreciate the Levels of consensus principle, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to explain the three levels. 1. Community 2. Group/Project 3. Article I feel that there's enough ambiguity there to further muddy the waters, and feel that further clarification would be of benefit.
Now, having berated the committee - I must also mention a few things that I found to be positive. I very much appreciate that both Dave and David were responsive to concerns, and communicated well with us. I also commend the lack of "legalese" in the PD - much easier to understand that way. While I have and do find many faults with the committee as a whole, there is not a single member of the committee that I do not respect both as wikipedians and as people. My own view is that the committee has grown far to large (and by extension: diverse) to be efficient, consistent, and productive; but I do appreciate the effort that all of you put in here. I know it's a tough job with little reward beyond the title.
Question: I have two pages I'd like to either delete or move to a public area:
User:Ched/RfC - Infobox - as this is a discussion with multiple people, it should likely be preserved - suggestions welcome.
This page should definitely be preserved and there is absolutely no reason why the discussion there shouldn't be continued, though you will need a strong guiding hand to produce an end result. If you read my comments up above and elsewhere, and those of some of my fellow arbitrators, you will see that there is very definitely a recognition of a need for such discussions to take place, even after this case has ended. The true resolution to meta-philosophical disputes such as this arise from widespread and well-planned community discussions, not from arbitration cases. The community need to continue discussing things and moving forward on this and other issues. But the discussion needs to be better planned than what took place there, and more widely advertised. Have a look at the 2010 RfC on microformats that is mentioned on the PD page for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Ched/infoboxes - a page I was working on to organize evidence, unless prohibited I will do a "user requested deletion" upon case closure.
Finally, Thanks to all. Apologies to all. Hopefully if/when I feel the desire to return to editing I will never hear the word "infobox" again. I will also be avoiding any of the Admin. related drama boards if/when I return. (at least for the foreseeable future) Cheers. — Ched : ? 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"5) Wikipedia's mission is to built an encyclopedia" ... should this not be "build"? Built is a past tense. — Ched : ? 21:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"2) There is no general rule on infoboxes, meaning there are regularly debates regarding the use of infoboxes on articles. The debates are overwhelmed by a number of editors, who have been listed as parties on this case.". Very much a nit-pick, but I personally would say " ... some of whom have been listed in this case." I say this because I don't believe, in fact I know that not everyone involved was listed as a party here. — Ched : ? 22:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"6) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has added infoboxes to many articles systematically,[12] and without prior discussion.[13]" I think you are getting dangerously close to choosing one essay over the other, and I suspect a "remedy" outside some clear and documented "warnings" falls well outside Arbcom remit. — Ched : ? 22:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Why no mention of User:Pigsonthewing's possible Conflict of Interest?[edit]
Pigsonthewing self-identifies as Andy Mabbett. On his User Page, Pigsonthewing links to his interests page: User:Pigsonthewing/interests. On that page he writes "My paid work includes delivering advice and workshops on and training in the use of Wikipedia and sister projects, for example and links to this page, where a short biography of Andy Mabbett includes the sentence "His [i.e. Andy Mabbett's] advice has been sought recently by organisations including Google and FourSquare (on their use of Wikipedia data); and The BBC, Facebook and the London Assembly (on microformats)." When I asked him if he had a WP:Conflict of Interest, Pigsonthewing twice referred me to this Interests page (diff), but would not say if he has a COI.
I raised this possible COI in my evidence, and it was mentioned by Smeat 75 in their evidence, and mentioned by Riggr Mortis. Despite the fact that Pigsonthewing and his defenders wrote at length in the Evidence and Workshop and associated talk pages, no one else mentioned this apparent COI. To me this at least meets the criteria for reasonable suspicion, and I assumed that ArbCom would address this issue in some way.
Note also that in Resolute's evidence, they stated " I think Ruhrfisch's questions about potential COI and his relationship with those organizations are valid, and should be answered". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvolved party who's watched this with some interest, I think the PD is generally shaping up along reasonable lines. A few thoughts:
If ArbCom is looking to restrict Andy in a closely tailored fashion to prevent disruption, I think the language of Remedy 1.1 is sufficient. Perhaps amending it to "adding infoboxes to articles or their talk pages or discussing the addition of infoboxes to articles or classes of articles" would make the scope clear. As I read it, this would not prevent him from developing new infobox templates or suggesting changes to existing ones, but their acceptance by the community would determine whether they were actually added to articles.
I'm not convinced Remedy 1.2 should be off the table. Looking back at ArbCom's dealings with Jack Merridew/Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit and Rich Farmbrough, in both cases, ArbCom attempted to impose carefully tailored restrictions on technically talented contributors who engaged in disruptive behavior, hoping to retain their contributions. The subsequent history of both editors suggests that this approach may not be entirely fruitful.
Contra Carcharoth, I think there's a very clear line between Andy's second RfArb and the current case. While the ad hominem conduct evident in the first RfArb and to some extent in the second has largely been replaced by parliamentary tactics, a quick perusal of the evidence in the second case will show the same essential problems (battleground behavior, inability to acknowledge adverse consensus), occurring in substantially the same topics (classical music, composers, opera) now before ArbCom.
I clarify that you can ban a person, but not an idea. I believe that for almost every article, an infobox is not damaging it, but is a service to readers. I respect an individual editor's wish to not have an infobox, ask Tim riley. I am looking at opera articles where an infobox was made available but is opposed by some editors who don't like any infobox, - one of them mentioned dung. I am waiting for some more factual pros for keeping the present side navbox, which duplicates facts from a footer navbox, instead of an infobox for the specific article, example The Ban on Love. I am waiting to see how consensus can be established in case of disagreement. I believe that arbitration should serve this purpose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I saw my name pop up on the new notification gizmo. I confirm that wherever Gerda and I have disagreed over info-boxes it has always been in the most colleaguely and reciprocal way. Gerda is one of my most cherished colleagues, and our disagreement over this one matter is a side issue as far as I am concerned. I abandoned editing WP for some months last year in the face of what seemed to me to be bullying over info-boxes, but Gerda was assuredly not the culprit. Tim riley (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Duly stricken. I think you are the person most likely to be successful in promoting infoboxes in classical music and opera articles, because a) you know and write a great deal about these subjects and b) you're capable of backing down and working on other things when you find that other people don't agree with you. Good luck, and I hope we'll be reading your lovely articles about music for a while. Choess (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I know that this decision has the potential to impact editors' lives and may even shape policy about Infobox but after reading this talk page I went to go look at the Proposed Decision page and was surprised to see that only 3 or 4 Arbiters have weighed in, they haven't agreed on or objected to every single proposal (many are skipped) and it is very possible that minds could be changed if someone comes in with a compelling argument. I take the delay in other Arbiters posting their views is because it isn't a simple case (or they could all be on vacation!).
This is all to say that none of the proposals that impact specific editors has a majority of votes and a lot can change (for or against) in the next 24-48 hours. I would hold off celebrating or despairing until all of the votes roll in. NewJerseyLizLet's Talk 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I must apologise to everyone that I haven't had as much time as I would have liked to come up with a solution here. David and I were working together on a decision, then unfortunately real life stole me away from Wikipedia. I will be going on an indefinite wikibreak as soon as I've tied up a few loose ends.
So, here's a few thoughts, which might hopefully help the creation of a solution. Bear in mind that I came to this case unaware that there had been years of infobox wars.
Infoboxes, in general, appear to be a good thing. They allow information to be offer key facts about an article to our readers and facilitate reuse of our content. They are customisable to allow editors to decide what to put in or leave out.
Articles do not need infoboxes. If after discussion at a talk page it is decided that an infobox is not needed, that should be accepted.
The use of an infobox in an article is a content decision, not a maintenance decision. It should be added as part of content creation, and they should not be added systematically to articles.
Edit warring over infoboxes should not happen. Ever.
If anyone can create a solution out of those thoughts, please do!
Now, to a few editors specifically.
@Pigsonthewing: I do see that you've managed to keep yourself from falling off the edge into an arbitration case for 5 years, since the end of your ban. However, you've carried on with many of the same behaviours, especially around infoboxes. I attempted to craft a solution whereby you could be removed from any discussion if you were dominating it, but it was pointed out that you are still on article probation and that clearly isn't working.
@Gerda Arendt: I have seen systematic additions from you, please do keep in mind that infoboxes are a content decision, not a maintenance decision.
@Kleinzach:@Smerus: I have been unimpressed by the attitude you have both taken reading around the discussions, though little evidence was provided regarding it. You have tarred discussions with the same brush, refused to assume good faith about the actions of editors. Suggestions that infoboxes cannot be put on the talk page for discussion because someone might copy it onto the main page is clearly stifling discussion. There have been more incidents and if I have more time, I'll be adding something regarding them.
@Nikkimaria: Again, I have been quite unimpressed by your actions, especially coming from an administrator. Reverting without discussion or explanation even in the edit summary is unacceptable. As is edit warring over these matters. I haven't looked far enough into the allegation of following edits to add that to the list, but overall it doesn't make for a good picture.
I believe that covers everything. I'll try to find some time to vote and possibly add some more bits over the next few days WormTT(talk) 09:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
(Reply from Gerda - to where I am addressed above)
I don't add where I think it's contentious (learning slowly...). I don't believe to add an infobox to a composition or story - my only cases of "systematic additions", like Schubert's masses, Kafka's short stories - are a content decision. - The newly developed infoboxes for opera should not be contentious, but I realize that they are and am more cautious. (Please see Siegfried: I only proposed on the talk.) - I am on 1RR, take any revert, there were many. I could have provided evidence against other editors but didn't want to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
@Worm, re Klein and Smerus...they should have been part of the original proposed remedies, but glad you seem the need. Real life is more important, but within the AC world, I'd submit it's better to delay a PD and case closing in order to get a sound and fair decision that to rush and leave a swiss cheese decision. The problem of long term issues is a tough one. The only real solution is to for the parties on all sides to realize the problem and change and within the wiki world that's very difficult to do. PumpkinSkytalk 10:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Part of the reason for the delay we had was that I was unable to keep working on the PD. As time went on, I became less available, not more. I'm not going to hold up the case for an indefinite period on the vague hope that I might suddenly get more time, especially given that it is unlikely to happen. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, some arb needs to pick this up because right now this is an atrocious PD. It's better to delay against than make a bad ruling. PumpkinSkytalk 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The committee is tasked with making a decision which resolves the problem. I may see areas for improvement in the PD, but I'd hardly call it atrocious. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@Worm: I reverted without edit summary on a single occasion, and had already long agreed not to do so again. And yet there is no mention in the PD of rollback being abused to revert me. The PD also characterizes my participation in discussions as "sniping", based on a talk page demonstrating neither incivility from me (though one comment was admittedly sarcastic) and worse behaviour from others not mentioned, and ignores multiple diffs of both incivility and gross personal attacks presented by a variety of people in Evidence. I admit that some of my actions with regards to these debates were suboptimal, and have endeavoured to improve my responses more recently and reach a compromise with those on the "other side". But if the PD as presented reflects the overall picture, it's missing a few pieces, and is unlikely to either solve the problem or encourage a more collaborative approach. There were a few good ideas on both "sides" in the workshop - isn't it possible to consider more of them? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I apologise, I had not seen that you had agreed not to do so again and that does make the situation better. Could you provide diffs for rollback abuse? I appear to have missed that too. I'm afraid the reason that you've been singled out is that you are an administrator, you should be setting the example for the rest of the community. Effectively, you should know better. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
(watching and involved) Nikkimaria and I arrived at an agreement of mutual respect, so much better than restrictions if you ask me. She has been singled out because she did most reverts of infoboxes (about 20). As you can see here, her edit summaries improved greatly from "cleanup" (#28 Sparrow Mass) to "rm: several errors or oversimplifications, net negative; also per previous agreement. feel free to discuss on talk" (#49 Cantata academica). Both discussions are open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This one was presented in Evidence, same paragraph as some CIV/NPA diffs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Nikkimaria, that has helped, sorry I missed it. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
@Worm: See my comments in "my" section above. I am concerned about your comment "and they should not be added systematically to articles..." - MANY wikiprojects have a standard article design that DOES in fact ask - nicely and informally - that an infobox be part of the standard article layout (note WP Horse racing, for example, see, e.g. Paynter (horse)). While I suppose someone who is an anti-infobox fanatic may insist that they "own" an article in project and demand removal of an infobox there, I really do think that the projects can be allowed to recommend a starter template and a standard design, even if they can't "demand" it. Ditto things like chemistry (oxygen) or gems like the Yogo sapphire. Just saying. Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a very sensible position, but should not the reverse also be true, that WikiProjects can recommend, if not demand, that an infobox be omitted from the "standard" article on the grounds that infoboxes usually do a poor job of representing that subject's articles? (cf. the recent removal of the "influences" parameter from Template:Infobox person: I'm sure there are a few cases where it could be used reasonably, but consensus seemed to be that it was more an attractive nuisance than a useful tool.) Choess (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I have long supported the ability of projects, not set in stone, to either mandate and deprecate infoboxes for particular types of articles. But in the types of articles that are expected to add them, someone else will come along and do it. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"Sensible position": the name of my project is opera. The project made an {{infobox opera}} available in June, concise and in keeping with the recommendations in Brianboulton's Signpost essay. I tried it in operas. Some are accepted, others were (rather systematically) opposed and reverted by those who don't like infoboxes for composers. See for example Götterdämmerung and feel free to join the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I had an initial (not positive) reaction to Worm's ".. not be added systematically…' comment. However, after thinking about it, I believe Worm has a good point. Some of the concerns here are founded in a different interpretation of "systematic" than I came to have after reading carefully. We have many editors who perform valuable maintenance tasks. In many cases, those edits can be done "systematically" and without needing an expert's understanding of the subject matter of the article. I'll give an example. I recently created a task force on women's basketball. We do not yet have a template for the talk pages, but once one is created, I can imagine an editor finding an appropriate cat, and "systematically" adding the template to all articles in the cat. That can be done by an editor who knows little about the subject. In contrast, I think Worm is suggesting that such a "systematic" edit is not such a good idea with infoboxes. Even if some Wikiproject identifies the inclusion of an infobox as best practice, and an editor finds a cat whose every entry is within the project, it would not be wise to " systematically" add the infoboxes. Why? Because infoboxes take parameters. If an editor plunks a blank infobox into an article, it will make the article look unfinished until someone populates the fields. If the editor chooses to populate the fields, they might get some right, but might blunder on others. In many cases, it take an editor who is conversant with the subject matter to properly populate the infobox. An empty infobox is arguing worse than nothing at all , an improperly filled one is arguably worse than an empty one. If a maintenance editor wants to do something, perhaps they should add a note to a talk page informing editors that there is a suitable infobox, but leave the actual adding of the box to the editors who know how to populate it. Worm is suggesting that infobox addition be part of the content creation process, not part of a maintenance edit. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Dave does make an interesting point, but there is no policy or guideline that supports the notion that "systematic" addition or removal of infoboxes is frowned upon (other than a local RfC at one WikiProject) - indeed, such a recommendation would hinge upon each person's idea of "systematic". We need to discuss what is best to do whenever either a new infobox template is created to meet a particular demand (such as {{infobox opera}}), but also we need to consider how to make use of a database that has been created. What if I come into possession of a verified database of notable monuments in Bavaria as used in ? May I use {{infobox monument}} to make use of that data where we have an article already, or would that be "systematic"? Could we systematically translate the articles from de-wp, adding infoboxes as we go along? Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments generates many such databases from many countries and there's a debate to be had about how we can best use such data, so I think that a ban on "systematic" additions would be premature, and certainly far too early to base a sanction upon. --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree that no policy or guideline supports the notion. The very fact that infoboxes should be discussed at each individual article makes it a content creation decision. Assuming we can divide the types of edits people make into content creation and maintenance, then the addition of an infobox falls into the former, not the latter. For clarity, I would consider maintenance to be tasks such as categorisation, stub sorting, adding wikilinks, formatting and stylistic changes such as number and position of headers or placement of images, and simple copyediting such as grammar and spelling fixes. In general, these should not change the meaning of the article for the casual reader. Content creation on the other hand, would include addition and removal of text, images, tables, references and so on. The addition of an infobox should be considered part of the latter. The distinction is important as the former can be done by any editor on any article with minimal knowledge of the subject, whilst the latter should be done by an editor who has some knowledge of the subject, more than a cursory glance at the article.
As to your questions, RexxS, if you are creating the articles and have sufficient knowledge and understanding to write a stub based on the verified database, I see no reason why you should not be adding an infobox at the same time. That is part of content creation, and it is recognised that diligent mass content creation is acceptable. Similarly with translation, if you are diligently checking sources, you will have sufficient understanding to add the infobox. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And yet there still is no policy or guideline that recommends against systematic addition of content. For example, there are a lot of stubs about plants and Indonesian administrative regions (if I recall correctly) that were created from a database. There were complaints, of course, but the overall opinion was that once we get a basis for an article, then other editors will improve what is there. So it is with infoboxes; if one is added, then it is likely that its content can be refined by adding or removing parameters. I was actually posing the question about adding {{infobox monument}} to make use of a database where we have an article already - is the answer the same as if we were creating a stub? If so, then I have to take issue with your underlying assumption: that there is a binary division between an editor with "minimal knowledge" and an editor who has "some knowledge of the subject". There is a continuous spectrum of knowledge on any subject and it is a recipe for conflict to allow editing only from those who claim to know the most. By that logic, if Andy were an expert on classical music, you'd be perfectly happy with him adding infoboxes - and yet he wrote a monthly column for a classical music magazine, so he demonstrably has more than "minimal knowledge". In the first half of this year, he added about 60 infoboxes, and more than 50 of those were accepted without a problem. Nikkimaria reverted 6 and Andy walked away from each of them, as I had advised him to previously. I'm sorry but that is not a battlefield mentality. The problem I complain about is that additions of infoboxes - no matter by whom - in one small area are invariably met with a revert by the same handful of editors with the only reason being that it wasn't notified to WikiProject Composers first. If you don't tackle that ownership problem (tq|"Please clear this with WikiProject X first"}}, we'll just be back here in a month's time. --RexxS (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no issue with a starter template, or a general explanation that infoboxes are recommended or not by any WikiProject. The ultimate decision though comes down to discussion at the article. Editors should not go through a group of articles, adding infoboxes to each systematically, or indeed removing them in the same manner. There's a difference between "recommending" and enforcing the recommendation. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you mean by "adding systematically". As it has been used in findings about me, I guess I better understand. When I add an infobox, I know how to fill the fields, be it an opera, a short story or a church. I typically don't have time to add infoboxes to articles other than my own, those related to them or otherwise of interest to me. Is that "systematic? Unwanted? Once the template for operas became available I tried to use it, because I am interested in operas and sincerely believe that opera articles are better with an infobox instead of a navbox that is uniform for all articles by the same composer. Look at GA (as of today) Fatinitza and compare to before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Ched is a friend of mine and one of Wikipedia's good people, so I sincerely hope he won't be offended by me saying that the bringing of this case was somewhat naive - especially, as the obvious conclusion has to be the exclusion of the main player and protagonist, Andy Mabbitt; something I wholeheartedly support and that I suspect Ched does not. However, Ched should not be too downhearted: some good can come of the case and it should be the unequivocal endorsement by the Arbcom of this finding [51], regarding the 'Use of infoboxes', because it gives those of us who feel downtrodden by the pro-infobox crowd something concrete to quote in all the many future debates/wars on this subject on pages from music and architecture to outer space. As a postscript, I would ask the Arbcom to go gently with Gerda; she's a good editor and she means no harm - she's a little hung-up with the use of infoboxes, but I think she amicably accepts that they are not everyone's choice. Anyhow, that's my view on what is probably an unsolvable problem. Giano 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Offended? Absolutely not Giano. In fact, I'm outright honored to be considered a friend - and I do very much appreciate you trying to guide me to take some sort of direction in the beginning. Naive? Yes, I do have to plead guilty to/of that. Sadder yet is the fact that I actually communicated with a former arb, and was told exactly what to expect. (quite accurately I might add) My request was born out of frustration at all so many discussions on the topic. I did learn a few things though. First: have a target in mind, be willing to point fingers, have the diffs, and be willing to go for the throat. Use the diffs in evidence - then give what you want in the workshop with the FoF, and ask for bans in the remedy. There should have been at least a dozen other parties to this case (on both sides) which I was reluctant to name. Not really my style, so I doubt I'll ever return here. Yes, you're right - I do NOT want to see Andy banned - I think he has far too much positive impact to offer the project, so I guess we'll just disagree on that part of it. Not that I'm a full-blown "add infoboxes to everything" person - in fact your examples of a historic building is a good example where I'd agree that it would be counterproductive to add one. Still, when it comes to people - I do favor them (generally).
I do feel bad for the position that I put Dave/Worm and David in though. I dumped everything in Arbcom's lap, stepped back and let the chips fall where they may (partly out of necessity due to unforeseen things in real life) and hoped they would find or invent some sort of 1RR thing, and state that "Projects" can not "own" things, "canvass" and "tag-team" editors who are trying to improve articles. While being creative has happened in the past (Delta/Betacommand) - apparently that is not S.O.P. It seems that the Arbs must work with what is presented in the workshop, and without anyone building a case against the composer group ... there was only so much they could do. I am encouraged that Nikkimaria and Gerda are working together, and I even see signs of Nikki taking things on board - that I am very happy about. I'm also very encouraged by the fact that Dave/Worm and David stayed with us, were responsive and communicated and updated everyone thoroughout. Add to that the fact that Carcharoth put quite a bit of time into reviewing things, and offering suggestions to a way forward? Yes, as much as I see this particular committee as one of the most inept I've ever seen (the Malleus/George situation is a good example of that), the individuals are impressive to me.
I'll continue to login and check my talk page until this is closed. I'll continue to fix typo and syntax items where I can, even if I'm not logged in. I am tired though. Over the last year I have alienated people who were friends. I took sides against people who were friends because I thought it was right for the project. I was not "loyal". I did what I thought was right in my heart. I'm tired of admins. being "super-users". <aside> I know that a lot of kids will shortly be returning to school (which should alleviate some things). Still, I am tired of the bullshit. Years ago I was very proud of what I did here. The work I put into WP:RIP is something I will always be proud of. In the beginning I was even proud of being an admin. ... not so much anymore. I've met a lot of great people here, and I am happy about that. Still, I think when this case closes I will need a break. But I am rambling here .. so I'll close with "Best to all" Thank you for the kind words you've offered me Giano. I do consider it high praise indeed. — Ched : ? 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I had resolved to stay out of this discussion; to observe and learn if you will. All I managed to learn however was more about my own weaknesses. I find I am incapable of observing the mistreatment of an esteemed colleague without intervening aid. Also I find, if I reply to provocation, I am not proud of my prose; instead—ashamed!
Please understand that when not discombobulated, my stringent endeavor is to publish prose that I can be proud of; even succeeding at times. Yet the error is mine for having not further endured.
Help me to better endure by allowing that I edit under the enduring principles that founded this great site. Principles that do not embrace debase provocation; allowing one to withhold their own indignation in favor of observing the institutional retribution that is all but assured in policy.
It is well known that a plethora of policy insight is ignored, so the belligerent can edit this encyclopedia. Perhaps this is not an unsolvable problem after all? Instead, simply an example of one that can not resolve by ignoring all rules? :)John Cline (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple more thoughts here to try and help clarify some things (see also the section above that I added earlier).
Firstly, unlike Worm That Turned (who "came to this case unaware that there had been years of infobox wars"), I and several other arbitrators have been very aware for years of the tensions surrounding infoboxes. But this doesn't mean that we are able to provide a panacea or that an arbitration case will provide a 'silver bullet' that will magically resolve these tensions.
The only thing that will help improve matters in the long-term, and it is worth repeating this again and again until people actually get it, is to have productive 'big picture' discussions that help editors settle on best practice and sort through any differences and disagreements they may have, and then people can carry on with writing articles and curating article content. Some people are able to discuss things calmly and work through their differences, or explain clearly why they disagree. Some are not able to do this, and need the help of others (or to be kept away from such discussions).
Infoboxes are templates designed to summarise key points, not just in a single article but across a range of articles. This is why there is a difference between systematically adding infoboxes at random (e.g. to a list of articles created by a single editor) and systematically adding infoboxes to articles in an area an editor (or group of editors) have some knowledge of and have considered carefully the best way to present the information in an article. This is why infoboxes tailored to specific subject areas can be helpful - it shows that a group of people have considered the various options and how best to present the information common to a range of articles within the same topic area. When you get broader infoboxes such as those for people in general (most of my experience with infoboxes has been on biographical articles), then it becomes more difficult to handle and a case-by-case approach is usually needed. Ditto for other topics.
The key point is to also have discussions about groups of articles, not just individual articles. To form consensus at a group level as well (to avoid endless discussions on individual articles), but to still strike a balance that allows maximum flexibility and exceptions where needed (such as not using an infobox if that is desired). Sometimes the merging of infoboxes helps focus such discussions, sometimes excessive merging hinders such discussions. What you don't want to do is end up with the bureaucracy that is sometimes associated with the requested move process - that evolved to help people resolve differences over article titles, hopefully people can resolve their differences over infoboxes without needing anything like that.
It may help to draw an analogy with discussions about whether to include an image in an article or not, or whether to include an article in a particular category, or how to write the lead section. Those discussions can get contentious, but the nature of infoboxes, placed at the top of an article and performing a similar but different function to the lead section, makes them particularly prone to causing certain types of arguments.
The whole argument about metadata and data in articles is something else again. That needs several rounds of proper community discussion. Anyway, most of the above isn't anything new, but the community absolutely needs to have proper, structured discussions, planned and properly publicised. A key part of the planning is sorting out where to publicise discussions, and having a representative selection of people working together to produce a summary and questions suitable for a community-wide request for comments (some of the workshop material is a good start). This can be a long and difficult process, but it would be better than endless low-level arguing. ArbCom can suggest that this should happen (I've suggested it to my colleagues), but we can't (and shouldn't) require that to happen - the real impetus needs to come from those willing to participate in such a process. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the PD, it seems like the decision will actually have little to do with Infoboxes and everything to do with conduct and a lack of collaboration (conduct, not content). It's about how differences are settled (or mishandled) and the fundamental content/policy issue could be almost anything - Infoboxes, COI, NPOV, anything that causes division among people (which is almost everything).
It reminds me of political scandals where the scandal isn't the news but the cover-up is. I'm not sure how much it would help but I think more should be written, policy-wise, on negotiating conflict when trying to come to a consensus. Mostly I see consensus arriving when one of the parties decides the fight isn't worth it, not because anyone has changed their mind about the issue of contention.
I think WP policies on consensus underestimate how difficult it is to arrive at, how conflict is to be expected and what should happen when differences appear to be irreconcilable. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think if people saw conflict as predictable and not exceptional, a lot fewer cases might arrive at the ARBCOM doorstep. LizLet's Talk 00:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I am rather new to the topic of infoboxes - as you all know from my evidence I was against them and converted, - very dangerous ;) - I believe we need a better way to discuss their flaws and merits. Sorry, I don't think that it happened (yet) in the often quoted Rite of Spring discussion which Andy started by only asking "Why ... no infobox?" (Now how disruptive is that?) - I started to discuss a very simple example, article type opera, template new and concise: The Ban on Love, - help there please, let's make it a model discussion! - I don't believe that we achieve progress by restrictions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: yes, I hope that the model discussion could serve operas in general on a "group level".
@Liz: no, I did not foresee conflict on operas as predictable, - and still nobody could point out why a side navbox duplicating information from a footer navbox would be superior to an infobox on the specific article, - but I am open to learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
One of the articles where infobox opera was installed was just promoted to GA: Fatinitza. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Reading all these comments, and well-aware I'm not one of the people who can discuss calmly as per Carcharoth's statement above, it occurs to me that this case is about pure frustration and that's a tough one for the Committee to address.
The issue, however, in my view is not about infoboxes. The issues are deeper, more entrenched, causing enormous damage in terms of attrition of highly productive editors, and for at least a year and a half has needed attention.
In terms of how the arbiters are to handle this, I'd suggest to follow your inclinations, ignore pleas (including this), do the job you were elected to do (and like all the rest of us, it's frustrating to work for free), and decide how to eliminate the disruption.
In terms of individual editors, I'd suggest looking at their overall record. For example, Nikkimaria has a record of pitching in ceaselessly to keep copyvio from the mainpage, in checking sources at FAC (for a while she was the only person there doing that and as far as I know singlehandedly checked each nomination) and is an enormous asset to the project. Look at each editor's contributions, assets, and weigh it up. I think this is very tough and important case. If it needs to go back to the drawing board, do so. If you all know how to vote, do so and put us out of our misery. But realize that a lot of content producing editors who could be reviewing and writing are currently tied up here, or just plain frustrated and work has ceased. That is not good for the project.
Thanks. Victoria (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
May I factually clarify that you seem to confuse The Rite of Spring and "The Ban on Love". One is a ballet by Stravinsky, the other the translation of Das Liebesverbot, an opera by Wagner. Both articles are no biography. I tried to initiate a model for how reaching consensus might work in an infobox discussion, The Ban on Love. Please take a look. You may also want to look at a comparable work, where an infobox was accepted without disruption and frustration: Fatinitza, a GA nominee. For discussion as I like it see Peter Warlock. I agree that Infoboxes is not the topic of the case, - reasonable discussion about infoboxes should be. There is hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There may be hope, but I fear that it, and any remaining goodwill towards you and your mission, Gerda, is dwindling fast as a result of your relentless persistence. For example, I have engaged in a perfectly civilised debate with you concerning infoboxes on the Peter Warlock talkpage; I understand your position, and have made my views clear there. So why, the very next day, did you have to introduce the same issue into the peer review of my current music project, Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)? This fanning of the flames is a tiresome and unnecessary provocation. I do not wish to stifle debate, and I think it possible that a form of infobox might eventually be devised that is appropriate to the character of all Wikipedia articles. But this will require some wholesale rethinking on the concept itself, not just the adaptation of the existing model. My recent Dispatches article was a contribution to that discussion. However, very few positive steps will be taken in the atmosphere of antagonism and mutual annoyance that envelops this whole topic. And I entirely endorse Victoria's sentiment: we all have better and more productive things we should be doing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that you see a proposal as "relentless" that I thought was a reasonable solution to the problem to show at a glance that the Eighth Symphony by Jean Sibelius is a composition project, not a composition. I am fine with your decision to look for a different way to show that. I was fine with your decision not to change Warlock now. - Sorry, I didn't see a problem (fanning of flames, provocation, annoyance), but will avoid it now, with respect for your view. - What do you suggest we do until that future concept will be developed? And how do we develop it if not by thinking about the options we have now? How do we overcome an atmosphere of antagonism that I - late to the topic - obviously don't take into account enough, and certainly don't want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the best thing would be to let the issue rest for a while. It is sucking too much creative energy out of the process. As I have said, there are more issues related to infoboxes than that of the reluctance of music and opera editors to adopt them, and the matter will not go away (I intend to return to it in a future Dispatches article). But if anything positive is to be achieved, there needs to be a calmer atmosphere, so if I were you I would adopt an informal temporary vow of silence on this issue. You can continue of course to work on your ideas in your sandboxes, and can invite comments there, but you should steer clear of initiating any new discussions and should generally avoid article talkpages and reviews. That would do a lot to defuse the atmosphere of antagonism to which you refer. Brianboulton (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, taken. I said before that I don't add any more Wagner opera infoboxes until Götterdämmerung is resolved etc. - Please forgive me Sibelius. I saw you hesitating for the composer, but thought a composition was not the same problem, mea culpa. The same way I expected operas to be less of a problem than composers, especially with an infobox developed by the project which - I think - fits the requirements for conciseness your article pointed out. But obviously I was wrong. Why - that may be part of your next article. In expectation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I note that Victoria has yet to address the demonstrably false statements made in her evidence, which she reinstated (after an earlier deletion), unaltered, after their falsehood was demonstrated. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It is currently impossible for Victoria to edit Wikipedia outside her talk page, since she has been blocked for three months (by me, at her request). Ruhrfisch><>°° 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Not only did Victoria post a lengthy comment, above, yesterday, but she made 32 other edits in the last week. In none of these did she address the clear discrepancy between her false claims and the demonstrated facts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, let's look at your statement and then do some counting of edits.
At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop#Evidence_by_Victoriaearle you wrote: Victoriaearle asserts that, following the Pilgrim at Tinker Creek discussion in September 2012, the "primary editor", User:Yllosubmarine, "became discouraged and left the project" and that we thus "lost a prolific female content editor". As can be seen by examining the edit logs, Yllosubmarine was editing as recently as two or three of weeks ago; as she continued to do throughout October and November 2012. The evidence appears to be blatant falsehood. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that Yllosubmarine has not entirely "left the project", look at her contributions before and after her encounter with you over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek: X!'s Edit counter for User:Yllosubmarine. By my count, in the 10 months before your exchange in Sept. 2012 (i.e. Nov. 2011 to Aug. 2012) Yllosubmarine made 914 edits or 91.4 edits per month. In the 10 months after (Oct. 2012 to Jul. 2013) she made 88 edits or 8.8 per month on average (a decrease of just over 90%). Please note that I do not count her 90 edits in Sept. 2012 (as that month was split in terms of before her encounter with you vs. after), nor do I count her 0 edits to date in Aug. 2013 (as the month is not complete). How is this not a case where Wikipedia "lost a prolific female content editor"?
Counting another way, Yllosubmarine was a major contributor to 14 FAs and 14 GAs. She started editing in Jan. 2006 and really started contributing around Jul. 2006, so to Sep. 2012 this averages out to roughly two FAs and two GAs where she was a major contributor per year. in the 11 months since her encounter with you over Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, she has been a major contributor to zero FAs and zero GAs and a quick look at her contributions shows the vast majority are maintenance edits (things like reverting vandalism or minor copyedits). Yes, she technically did not leave, but I ask you again, how is this not a case where Wikipedia "lost a prolific female content editor"?
Pigsonthewing, I think you owe Victoria an apology. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I note that you choose to start your count in November 2011. In October 2011, Yllosubmarine made only 34 edits; in September 2011, just 27 (fewer than in October 2012); August, 31. In July, it was as low as 18; in June, only 20 (again, both fewer than in October 2012). Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh? But thank you for proving my point: Yllosubmarine did not "leave" " Wikipedia. Victoria's evidence is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What part of my statement that I agree that Yllosubmarine has not entirely "left the project" do you not understand? Yes, her output varies over time, but I chose two periods of equal length to compare. Do you maintain she is still a prolific content editor? (The "female" part is not in dispute - that is a joke on my part)? Can you not see that your fighting every jot and tittle to the bitter end is precisely why you have twice been banned for two years and are now in this mess? Give it a rest. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
PS For my own mental health, I am removing this page from my watchlist. I will be without internet over most of the weekend, but if my input is required, please let me know on my talk page and I will comment as soon as I am able. Sorry, Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@AGK: Regarding [52]: despite the arbitrators' duty to examine evidence presented in a case, It sees that you may have missed this, in which I say:
Some editors have referred to my block log. Block logs are notoriously crude and errors in them are rarely corrected. In reverse order:
31 December 2012 - erroneous, for a supposed edit war, 27 hours after making my first and only edit to Hans-Joachim Hessler in five days. He [ Mark Arsten ] subsequently apologised to me off-wiki, confirming this via the summary of a null edit, in evidence.
22 March 2012 - Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me for supposed BLP concerns, undoing his contentious block with the summary "clear emerging consensus for topic ban". In fact ANI levied no sanctions for my editing, which was within policy.
25 January 2009 JzG blocked for 3RR, then undid this after just twelve minutes, admitting he had miscounted.
That means that the last valid block (again that's disputable, but I won't labour the point here) was five years ago. (21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC))
Further to the above, the "BLP concerns" were discussed here; and continued here. At the latter, Kim Dent-Brown makes clear of the former, in his opening comment (21:08, 3 April 2012; my emboldening):
There was a similar proposal at AN which can be seen here [link to that earlier discussion] but this was never agreed upon.
and the second discussion was closed (over a year ago) by CambridgeBayWeather (19:37, 7 April 2012) with the summary (again, my emboldening):
There appears to be no consensus here to do anything. I would suggest that everybody take a few days off from throwing things at each other, which is what this has degenerated into, and go make some useful edits.
There was no topic ban; and the block was clearly contested by other editors and admins. I therefore invite you to remove or strike your false statement and recast your vote accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing: Thanks for your comments. I'll look at the links you have provided regarding your block log, and then reconsider my vote, okay? (You will have to forgive me for forgetting about the evidence submission you quote above; the evidence page is one of the longest we've had in a case for some time.) AGK[•] 23:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@AGK: I notice that you have just commented on your vote, and made a minor copy edit to it, but have - remarkably - let the false claim of a topic ban stand. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Your vote says Blocked then topic banned for inappropriate edits to a BLP in 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand your objection. I thought you were claiming that there was no 2012 topic ban. In order to resolve this thread, I've corrected my comment. AGK[•] 10:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Regarding your statement above that "arbitrators" have a "duty to examine evidence presented in a case" and your often expressed concern that no one make false statements, would you please address my concerns about your possible conflicts of interest, especially with regard to WP:COI? If needed, I will gladly point you to the relevant evidence I gave or my query above, or to the requests by multiple other editors that this issue be addressed. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter, Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have responded to your request more than once, with a link to my published declaration of interests in my userspace. However, since you either fail to understand that, or insist on attempting to smear me with innuendo, or both, I will explain: I have no conflict of interest regarding my infobox-, microformat-, or metadata-related editing. I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing. My potential conflicts of interested are all listed at that page. If you have evidence to the contrary, or in any way showing malfeasance on my part, you will no doubt now provide it; as you have provided none so far. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a more detailed answer than previously. I have no other evidence than your own words and links, but just to be clear (since, as you note, I "fail to understand" what is going on here), I want to ask another question. You write on your interests page: "My paid work includes delivering advice and workshops on and training in the use of Wikipedia and sister projects, for example" and then you link to this page, where your short biography includes the sentence "His [i.e. Andy Mabbett's] advice has been sought recently by organisations including Google and FourSquare (on their use of Wikipedia data); and The BBC, Facebook and the London Assembly (on microformats)." To me, this sounds very much like you are paid for your advice by these organizations. Since you are also a strong advocate of the commercial re-use of Wikipedia data and Wikipedia's use of microformats, how is this not "paid advocacy"? Please note that WP:COI says "paid advocacy is considered to be an especially egregious form of advocacy. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question.". Yours in failed understanding, and thanks again in advance for your cooperation in this matter, Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
PS I originally used the British spelling of "organisations" and a [sic] above, as an attempt at humor. I did not think that it might be taken as unkind, and apologize (as that was not my intent). 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can read Andy's "I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing" and still maintain that you think he's been paid, based merely on a surmise you've made from reading his brief biography. I have some experience with dealing with CoI and as it happens I spoke to Andy today. During the conversation, I asked him "have you received any payment from any of those organisations you named as having sought your advice?" and his reply was "No". I checked we understood each other by naming 'Google', 'BBC', 'Facebook', etc. and he was equally clear that he had never received money from them, but he supplies his advice freely. He confirmed to me that his paid work has been in connection with helping museums and other GLAM institutions in making use of the Wikmedia projects as a Wikimedian-in-Residence. I'll tell you this in case you still can't understand it: you simply cannot generate a conflict of interest from that, because his paid work is not in conflict, but in alignment with our object of producing a free, neutral encyclopedia that is available for all - otherwise you are going to be accusing all of our Wikimedians-in-Residence (not to mention all of the WMF staff and contractors) of "paid advocacy". Now if you want him to confirm what he said to me today, please feel to ask him whether I have accurately summarised our conversation; but I am becoming increasingly worried by your obsession with this non-issue, as it is starting to look like a smear; repeat an untruth often enough and people start to believe it. You need to consider carefully before making any further unsupported accusations. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree - it is hard to imagine who would have any incentive to pay for infoboxes to be created on 19th-century composers etc! Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(after ec) Thank you RexxS. Just to be clear, "I have received no payment from any organisation in regard to such editing" is not the same statement as "I have received no payment from any [of those] organisation[s]" (which is why I asked for further clarification, which you have now provided). Also to be clear, I never mentioned any of his Wikipedian-in-Residence work as a potential COI. If Andy (who is quite capable of writing lengthy responses and who did not respond to my Evidence post or previous post on this page) would have made such a categtorical denial on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I would not have repeatedly raised the issue. Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod - I imagine a company might well pay for inclusion of metadata or insuring that all articles (regardless of topic) had infoboxes which their computers could read more easily. But RexxS has spoken and the issue is resolved. Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't see that myself at all, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have. There's a huge difference between what people will use when it's available for free & what they will pay for. That's rather the point of open content. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I tried to discuss conflict of interest with Pigsonthewong in relation to QRpedia, following the release of the WMUK Governance Review. I didn't find his answers very satisfying. The last people I would look to for statements on conflict of interest would be people who were trustees of the WMUK board which failed to deal with the rather clear-cut case involving Roger Bamkin which sparked the governance review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that pulling in that whole WMUK thing is WAY outside the scope of this particular case? Not that it doesn't have merit, I'm just saying it's a lot bigger can of worms than what has been presented here. — Ched : ? 04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course I do, but since former WMUK trustees RexxS and Johnbod showed up here to vouch for Pigsonthewing, I thought it would be a timely reminder. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If you bothered to read the rest of the case pages, you would see that "showed up here to vouch for Pigsonthewing" is a strange way of describing my comments in this case, even by your standards. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
My view on payment, which informs (though not decides) my perspective on COI matters, is that I am less concerned if an editor is an amateur or professional than if their editing is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, within policy, and is not disruptive. In my view, an editor, for example, who is repeatedly adding a template to articles against consensus, and is not being appropriately responsive to concerns on the article talkpages, is being disruptive regardless of if they are being paid. To me it doesn't matter if the writer is left or right handed - what matters is the quality and impact of their writing. I find slightly odious people inquiring into the personal life of others. SilkTork✔Tea time 08:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a proposal to ban me "from adding or discussing the addition of infoboxes". there is no justification for this; and no allegation, much less no evidence, that the addition of infoboxes, in general or by me in particular, is controversial or has caused disputes, outside of a very narrow set of pages owned by one project and related editors. There have been no ANI sanctions resulting from the additions listed below; an no blocks or warnings issued.
In the first six months of this year (i.e. all of this year, excluding the months in which this case has been proposed or active, lest anyone accuse me of modifying my behaviour disingenuously), I added approximately (I don't promise not have missed one, when reviewing my edits) 60 infoboxes. Note that this figure is only for additions to pre-existing articles. It does not include the probably greater number I included in new articles which I created; nor a couple of changes from one infobox to another.
With a few exceptions, which I shall discuss below, none were disputed or reverted; or where they were, unusually, reverted they were reinstated by other editors. They are still, at the time of writing, in the articles concerned.
Of the infoboxes listed above, which are no longer in the articles concerned six of them (that's ten percent of all the infoboxes I added in half a year; four of them on one day) were removed by Nikkimaria during the stalking of my edits by her, about which I commented in my evidence:
[113] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.
[114] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.
[115] - edit summary "rm, cleanup"; I did not revert.
(Those particular removals were not included in the evidence cited in the case, and presented at ANI, which was representative, not complete.)
Three further infobox additions were disputed:
[116] - the infobox was hidden in a collapsed wrapper, with a set pixel width, contrary to the MoS, rendering it less accessible, and moved to the foot of the article. I later reverted that, but when it was collapsed again, I walked away.
[117] - reverted by Cassianto with the edit summary "..as you were". I did not re-revet, but please see the discussion on the talk page. When that discussion proved fruitless (both RexxS and I tried, in vain, to find out what the specific objections to the infobox in that article were), I walked away.
[118] - My only revert was to replace {{Infobox invisible}}, which was shortly after deleted as it was styled to display:none;; and I replaced it after deletion. Nikkimaria eventually hid the infobox at the bottom of the article, styling it bodystyle=width:10px;font-size:10%;. This is contrary to the MoS and makes it inaccessible. I walked away.
So, where is the issue that the proposed ban on me adding infoboxes is intended to prevent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it was just an oversight, but a few days before you posted this you also added a box to Café de Paris (London). I'm not stalking, btw, I was looking at the article for something unconnected. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The oversight is yours. As I say above, this list covers "the first six months of this year (i.e. all of this year, excluding the months in which this case has been proposed or active, lest anyone accuse me of modifying my behaviour disingenuously)". But thank you for pointing out yet another of my many uncontroversial infobox additions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake (not an oversight, a mistake, but thank you for highlighting errors), although I would not call it uncontroversial: I am not sure the article is made any stronger by the box, but far be it from me to start removing them, especially while the case is rolling on. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Andy is mistaken about his edits in the first six months of the year. As the anon (above) mentions and I say in my evidence, Andy was certainly causing trouble in February 2013, and going out of his way to cause it too, which is why he showed up at Montacute House. Initially, I believed an infobox topic ban might be enough to curb his zealousness for infoboxes, now I am less sure. Giano 20:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I invite the arbitrators to review the entire, and short, discussion at Talk:Montacute House/Archive 1#Infobox (only eight short posts), which was not about the addition of an infobox. The first two posts there were:
The infobox on this article is hidden. This is unhelpful to our readers. I un-hid it, but I have been reverted, with no explanation. The infobox should be displayed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You are trolling from another page and another discussion! Go away or you will be blocked for disruption. Giano (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
.....and indeed you were trolling for trouble from yet another of your many infobox disputes; or have you suddenly become an expert of 16th century English domestic architecture? No, the truth is that you just cannot resist bombastically trying to impose your will and views on pages about which you know nothing. Wherever you show up, there's trouble. Giano 21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. This seems to rest on three premises, all questionable: that the persistence of the infoboxes is a good indicator that their addition was not disruptive; that the controversy is caused by "ownership by one project"; that if, arguendo, the project has displayed unacceptable ownership, Andy's conduct has not in itself been disruptive. Judge for yourself. Choess (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
eerrmmm... " [119] - reverted by Cassianto with the edit summary "..as you were". I did not re-revet, but please see the discussion on the talk page. When that discussion proved fruitless (both RexxS and I tried, in vain, to find out what the specific objections to the infobox in that article were), I walked away." Sorry to dip my little fly into the ointment, but that's not strictly true that you walked away. I tried to come to a compromise: you dismissed it on spurious grounds, saying "each [[WP:POINT|deployed]] by vehement opponents of infoboxes". That's falling well short of any attempts at good faith and evidence of a battlefield approach, rather than any serious attempts to come to a collective agreement - oh, and yes, as per the usual tactics, spurious allegations of ad hominem comments were thrown out to both me and Cassianto - simply for daring to have a different opinion to you, it seems. I find that your evidence on this one is extremely lacking and I don't have the spirit to go back through the others to see what has taken place in those arguments. - SchroCat (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Choess raises, above, the question of ownership by the classical music project(s); I'd widen that to include some of their like-minded allies. I and others touched upon the matter in the evidence stage. WhatamIdoing said:
One of the main complaints in the music area is <!-- hidden comments --> demanding that editors respect the (dis)infobox POV of one particular group of editors, merely because the one group of editors has decided that they're interested in the article's subject. Some of the hidden comments say things like After lengthy consideration at the Wikipedia Composers project, it has been determined that infoboxes are not appropriate for composer articles. Before adding an infobox, please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates. Text similar to this appears in a substantial number of composer-related articles. This editor behavior needs to be addressed directly. A significant example of the debate can be read at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 8#Routine_use_of_infoboxes_for_biographical_articles.
(some of the other hidden comments are more forceful than that; I'll add an example later see below).
IOs have frequently exhibited, or supported, ownership, in contravention of core polices; in talk, and even here: ("WP:IAR trumps WP:OWN", "use of infoboxes ... more than settled ... in terms of a clear project consensus"; proposed findings)
The "views of creators and maintainers of articles (and of projects relating to them)" have not "been summarily dismissed as WP:OWN", references to OWN have followed examples or suggestions of breaches of it. e.g. Folantin's examples:
I find it more than a little rich that you accuse members of the classical music project of thinking they WP:OWN articles, an accusation I have seen you make numerous times, since it seems to me that you think you WP:OWN Wikipedia itself and are on a mission to make every article emit "machine-readable metadata", as in this edit from February this year, only one of many many such, [124],I recently fixed this article's infobox, which was not displaying. Another editor has now removed it, saying "it adds nothing anyway". That is patently false, as the infobox, in addition to providing a summary of key points for the benefit of our readers, cases the article to emit machine-readable metadata, such as is used by DBpedia, search engines, and, soon, Wikidata. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 11 February 2013" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 August 2013
Nothing in the comments above indicate ownership nor are beyond standard discussion. And "it seems to me that you think" is so clearly the entry to laying out an personal opinion that it is alarming to see this presented either as rebuttal or evidence of wrong doing.(olive (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
Andy says - "[77] Not about infoboxes", no it isn't, you provide a perfect example there of what I said earlier on this page, this is not actually about infoboxes at all, it is about your fanatical drive for "metadata" as a diff from just a little before the one you quote shows:[125] Somebody has just said "it doesn't add anything" and you reply "That's patently untrue. It's adding coordinates and distances which are not otherwise in the article, as well as emitting the former as metadata, which can be understood by machines, and mapped. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 19 July 2012 " Not everyone who edits WP is obliged to arrange articles so that machines can read them, there is no policy that says that.Smeat75 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the part of the comment, in your quote, which says adding coordinates and distances which are not otherwise in the article. That's adding them in a human readable form, so that our readers can see them with their eyes. Ownership on Wikipedia has a specific and clearly-defined meaning - clearly evidenced as having been breached by those opposed to having infoboxes on "their" articles - which is not "he says something I don't like". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We are all working on machines. This is a wiki, machine driven. And nothing being said in the quotes you offer suggest "require", and by extension ownership. This encyclopedia some think should be edited so it can be handled easily and read easily, while suggesting that is not ownership. One is free to dislike the suggestion even the editor but extending that as somehow proof of ownership is fallacious logic, and to sanction an editor based on that kind of evidence or any like it is wrong and unfair.(olive (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
The more forceful hidden comment, to which I referred above, is <!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->. AIUI, well over 300 articles include that comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The only arbitration in my personal Wikipedia history where I have seen remedies this severe were with Will Beback in the Timid Guy case. Is this in any way even remotely comparable?Remember that you are laying out the worst possible remedy for Pigsonthewing. As a committee you have established where the most extreme outcome applies, have created a scale. How does this situation compare? Since I was very familiar with the TG case, I can tell you this does not compare. Where do you go from here if editors transgress on a level comparable to the worst case. There must be a consistent gradation and scale out of fairness, but also to make your job/decisions easier the next time and the next. (olive (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
A more apt comparison might be to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram: one user repeatedly engaged in an activity that he finds constructive but annoys other people, brushing off criticism, and a group of other editors interested in the subject matter responding to that intransigence with increasingly bad behavior. The two seem broadly comparable in terms of severity of the proposed remedies. Choess (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a project in which people volunteer their time and knowledge, for fun, I would imagine, in most cases. The vast majority of us are not doing it for money, anyway. Where is the fun in being confronted with an aggressive editor like Pigsonthewing, constantly insisting that articles be arranged so that machines can read metadata? Most WP editors care nothing about that and there is no reason why they should.Smeat75 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Where is your evidence that Andy is "aggressive". I never found him aggressive. Don't say that's because I am on his side. I wasn't always. I disagreed with his view on Samuel Barber (March 2012), but found him factual, patiently explaining, with a sense of humour even: "Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". I don't have time for more right now, but to see labels such as "intimidating", "belligerent", "battleground mentatality" etc. with no evidence apparent to me, simply repetition of experiences from a time past, makes me question why arbitration in the true sense of the word (as I understand it) is not even tried. - This is a project in which I volunteer, so far it was fun. Stress on "was". I know well what "frustration" means right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, just as one example of his aggression, you could look at a discussion he himself references above - [126] where he put a table of distances into an article the day it was on the front page of the site, after literally years of arguing for such a table and being told that the creators of the article did not feel it was useful, or valuable. Yes, I think that is very belligerent, very intimidating and shows a battleground mentality, and it is not anything to do with infoboxes either, it is his obsession with metadata. There would be a dispute about infoboxes without Andy but no one else argues for them with such obsessive fanaticism, that is why I say this feud is not actually about infoboxes but about his disruption to the project and inability to collaborate amicably with others.Smeat75 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion to which you point was again in 2012, right? I fail to see how adding a table is an "aggression". - Andy is collaborating amicably with me, with people developing templates, with people working on templates, etc. You may want to try yourself. I love his latest article, peace and reconciliation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
No fun so we sanction the editor? I understand frustration, frustration though, does not equal sanctions especially of the kind I see here, further, your insistence is as direct as anyone else's. This is a squabble long term yes, but a squabble, and squabbles require more than one side to even exist. The sanction should be of the kind, "Don't make me stop this car", not, "you're out of the family."(olive (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
This would all be true if it were the first time. This has been going on for eight. bloody. years. The exact same issues over three arbitration cases including a year long ban. MLauba(Talk) 07:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see above. Define "this" more precisely. That a project introduced an infobox which is opposed is new! It has nothing to do with Andy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The context changes, the behaviour doesn't. No feedback registers. When an issue is pointed out, Andy endlessly finagles around details and takes nothing in. There is not a iota of difference in the way he handled the feedback regarding his multi-year long obsession with inserting a BLP's date of birth at Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) against the subject's wishes and annoyance, the behaviour that led to his topic ban from TFA, or what he displays in discussions around every single infobox feud listed in the whole evidence section. Heck the ANI report he filed a few months back complaining he was being stalked is a perfect illustration. Nothing registers. He's right, no matter how many uninvolved people tell him otherwise, and he will grind on and on and on. This is what has been going on for 8 years. The only relationship to infoboxes is that it so happens that this is the most common obsessive subject of his. MLauba(Talk) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again I invite the Arbitrators to review my edits and comments at Manchester Ship Canal. In the cited discussion, it is pointed out by Tagishsimon (another editor driven off the project by ownership) that the table of coordinates and distances had been in the article, uncontested for four years. Having found it recently removed without discussion on the talk page, I restored it. When I was reverted, I joined the discussion on the talk page, where I was accused of making drive-by edits, despite my along association with the article. If I intimidated Malleus Fatuorum there, I shall of course apologise to him.
Likewise, I repast my invitation to them to review the Hawkins case, which polarised both editors and admins, but where it was again decided that there was to be no sanction against me. Both cases were over a year ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems like this decision has taken so long because it's taken so long to get a quorum. Are a lot of Arbitrators gone for the summer? It seems like this hasn't gotten the attention from the entire committee it deserves. LizRead!Talk! 18:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
For a complex case with loads to read, this doesn't seem to have taken an unusually long time to me, though there may be a bit of an August effect. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your perspective, Johnbod. I saw that the case was due to be decided on Aug. 14th so I was wondering what was causing the delay. At this point, unless new motions are made, it's a matter of casting votes. LizRead!Talk! 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, nice to meet you (so to speak). Actually many of the Arbs have had a look around here. Roger is really the only one that hasn't weighed in at all yet. It's a very complex issue, so as individuals they are all going to have their own views. Several things come to mind for me though - 1. Trying to sanction some scapegoat is not going to resolve anything. 2. While most arbs can agree on the "Principles", and even many of the "FoF" things (some of which I would dispute), there seems to be virtually NO agreement on any "Remedy". That makes things tough, or more to the point - unresolved. We all want to present ourselves in the best possible light, and since arbs are people too - that include them. 3. AGK is still looking and even asking for some diffs (which if I have time I'll try to offer this weekend). 4. One forward thinking arb (Carcharoth) is looking beyond this case, and suggesting a global discussion. How much time he would have to actually guide that only he can say. But he does see the need for it. The thing is that it would need to be structured to achieve an end result rather than a circular "I like it", "I don't like it" type of thing we've seen for years.
As an aside - one thing that has troubled me in this case is the "bully" aspect. Intimidation is a very subjective thing, and is as much befalling on the the subject, as it is on the so called bully. As someone who was small in stature growing up, I learned that if I wasn't going to stick up for myself .. then I would be subjected to bullying tactic all my life. So I refused to be intimidated at ANY level; and especially over the internet. And standing up for one's beliefs is not an attempt to intimidate. I also understand that there are quiet, shy, and timid people in life who are easily hurt and intimidated. Good, kind, caring, loving people who simply choose not to battle others; either in debate or argument. But when a group of people get together to try to force a situation through in their own walled garden, outside the global consensus, then yes, I do consider that intimidation. So it all boils down to talking to one-another and getting to know the people we write with. But the "Wikipedia is not a social network" stigma sometimes thwarts those efforts. But I'm drifting into "lecture mode" again, so I'll close here. (so much for my "Closing statement" eh? Later all. — Ched : ? 05:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Ched. Although I've been editing on & off for 6 years, paying attention to Arbitration Cases is new to me so when I read that the decision is due Aug. 14th and it's Aug. 23rd and only a few Arbs have voted on solutions, it just got me wondering whether people were on vacation or something. Now that I've been told that this rate of progress finishing up a case is the norm and believing, as I do, that a better resolution is preferable to a faster resolution, I feel like my question has been answered.
As for your statement about "bullying", having worked in the area of conflict before, I'll just say that consensus building does not come naturally to people. It's slow, it delays an individual from taking action that they believe is necessary while one waits for people with different opinions to weigh in. It can be maddening to Type A personalities who just want to get the work done and not spend a lot of time talking about the process. I truly believe that aside from vandals, most editors that might be seen as bullies truly believe what they are doing is for the good of Wikipedia but that doesn't justify any effort to silence, badger, ignore or intimidate other users so one gets one way. But aside from a few personal feuds (which end up finding their way to AN/I), I don't think bullies are malicious in intent, they think they know better and trust their own instincts rather than the judgment of others. It's an unfortunate byproduct of their sense of rightness that their pursuit often results in alienating or, at worse, driving away some of their fellow editors. LizRead!Talk! 19:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Montana above that one editor may have been made a scapegoat here. This is a difficulty that arises with a case like this when its difficult to see where the problems are coming from. What I see is that a group of editors have been interacting in a less than positive style. Some have maintained a collaborative posture throughout as Gerda has. Others like Andy have shown improvement over his past editing practices and that must be noted.
The standard way of dealing with arbitration cases, doling out individual sanctions seems illogical here given all parties were involved in the squabbles surrounding info boxes. What Id' like to see is some out of the box thinking about how to deal with this kind of situation. Is there something that will fairly treat everyone, is not punitive while supporting ongoing work by knowledgable editors.
Suggestion:
A restriction (time out) on all editors on infoboxes for one month. None of the editors named here touch an info box or comment on them. Further if any one editor does deal with infoboxes in any way, the whole group of editors will be restricted for another month. I am suggesting true collaborative work here, that those in this group be responsible to and for each other. I've worked with people in collaborative situations and used this technique, and found that the group begins to police itself, draw closer together, and those not willing to collaborate stand out in a hurry. Probably nothing new here but some thoughts on this case.
All sanctions should be specified per each editor as they are now. Editors who are not willing to improve in their collaborative skills will given this system show up immediately and that point sanctions may be applied. I realize this will be considered impractical but thought it might trigger novel thought. This is a collaborative community and collaborative remedies may be meaningful.
My concern is that three editors that I know of show a willingness to improve this situation. That in my mind is the best and most important aspect of this case.(olive (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC))
I am sorry to note that I don't see attempts to improve when an editor who is being scrutinized during an arbitration continues to make this kind of edit. [127] which seems very like the pattern of edits made before the arbitration[128] . (olive (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC))
Thank you for notifying us of this (I have taken the liberty of correcting the username spelling in your heading). I'm not at all impressed that all three editors involved there (Gerda, Andy and Nikkimaria) have engaged in a discussion and sequence of editing like that during the case. The evidence presented was ample already. I will draw this to the attention of my colleagues. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my spelling, No disrespect meant to Nikki(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
Er, my sole edit on that page during this case (I have not posted on the talk page since 9 April) was a technical fix, made on the (apparently mistaken) assumption that the renewed and seemingly resolved talk page discussion had settled the dispute. Whether we have an infobox or not; we certainly don't need two copies of the same one (I doubt even my most strident critics would argue for that!), so I removed the one which (no doubt because it was styled |bodystyle=width:10px;font-size:10%;) Gerda had obviously missed when she re-added the other infobox in the immediately preceding edit. (I also made a minor tweak to the position of some parenthetical text for readability at the same time.) In what way was that disruptive? I trust that will draw this reply to your colleagues' attention, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC) - added @Carcharoth:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Olive, your second diff is from months ago, well before this case was open. As to the first: Gerda suggested on talk that we change the type of infobox that was being used; I agreed and made the change, noting on talk that I had done so. Gerda then added a second reformatted and expanded version of the same infobox; I disagreed and reverted, once, with a pointer to my explanation on talk. Can you explain why you see that as problematic? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I apologize. I left out part of the comment which unfairly created evidence of two diffs instead of one. Nikki I'vw watched your edits for quite a while and as you know commented to you on them. I thought that with this arbitration you might move towards a less aggressive style of interacting, with less a sense of ownership, but I'm not seeing that in the thread I linked to. I hope I'm wrong.(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
Thanks for amending your comment; however, I'm still not understanding your objection. The earlier edit used an edit summary which I agree was suboptimal; however, the edit summary of the more recent edit was IMO clear and based on an ongoing discussion. Furthermore, the more recent sequence shows that I implemented a suggestion by Gerda, objecting only to her subsequent addition of a second and inappropriately expanded template. Can you explain further how this sequence demonstrates aggression and ownership? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Carcharoth. I don't see a concern with Gerda's or Andy's comments on this thread. I was concerned about Nikki's. With respect, I think its mistake to tar all editors with the same brush.(olive (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
The orchestra: I found the article in the list AN/I list, an infobox added by Andy, reverted/hidden by Nikkimaria, one case of several. I restored an open version, It looked reverted the same day to me. I failed to see a collapsed version. What should an invisible infobox be good for, anyway? - No, I would not call this style "aggressive", but it's no clear communication, leading to waste of time. (Spare me the other steps, it's all in the history and on the talk.) - None of us is an "owner" of this article. If you ask me it should simply look like other orchestras, with {{infobox orchestra}} developed by Kleinzach in 2013, for example Lautten Compagney. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the arbs are looking for or expecting here. (The scope and title of the case have probably influenced the nature of the evidence presented, both about Andy and other parties.) None of these, coordinates included, are on the scale of infoboxes in terms of disruption caused; the non-coordinate incidents aren't anything I would have kicked up to AN/I, let alone arbitration (indeed, I agree with Andy's position on accessibility and avoiding definition lists); and the last link makes it clear that Andy is capable of accepting criticism of his proposals with equanimity on some occasions. All that said, I do think there is evidence of Andy's battleground mentality and difficulty accepting consensus, mentioned elsewhere in this case, extending at least to other metadata and markup-related topics. Make of it what you will. Choess (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as I have said several times in this discussion, this is not just about infoboxes, but about Pigsonthewing's obsession with "metadata" and several arbitrators say on the PD page that there needs to be wider discussion of this issue. I agree, otherwise this problem will not be solved, even absent Pigsonthewing.Just as the guidelines for infoboxes state "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines" so they should state something like "It is neither required nor prohibited for any article to be arranged so that it emits metadata" and "put this-or-that into the article we are talking about because it emits metadata" should never,never be accepted as a reason for altering the visible appearance of any article. There is no requirement, and there should not be either, for any WP editor to care two hoots about microformats, or metadata, or machine readability, or Wikidata, or anything of the kind, or even to have any idea what those things are.Smeat75 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you postulate, but with very few of your conclusions. Surely none of us would want to see editors compelled to enable metadata, just as we don't require them to use inline citations or make articles accessible. Nevertheless, improving accessibility, enabling metadata and converting raw sources to inline citations are part of the natural development of articles that improves them. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we don't need editors to have expertise in every aspect in order to contribute. Many editors are quite capable of writing excellent prose, but rely on others to upgrade rough sourcing into more maintainable formats, or to ensure that their work is usable by a screen reader, or to enable third-parties to read our information in a format that is appropriate for their needs. Each good-faith change to an article - whether it be converting raw urls to citations, or identifying row and column headers in tables, or converting a bare image into an infobox - needs to be considered for the impact that it makes on the other aspects of the article, of course. But I reject the proposition, so often assumed here, that the self-proclaimed experts on a topic should be the only ones who are entitled to an opinion on such changes. Editors must be able to propose what they believe to be improvements to an article, even if the owners of that article don't care two hoots about microformats, or metadata, or machine readability, or Wikidata, or anything of the kind, or even to have any idea what those things are. Ignorance is seldom a good starting point for having a sensible debate on any issue and Ludditism isn't actually a cool stance to take. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A brief update pointing to what David Fuchs said here. Please be patient until any new findings are posted. A reminder to everyone to please maintain decorum on these pages. Robust debating has its place, but please hold off on that while the case is still going. I said on the proposed decision page:
"I think several of the parties to this case are quite capable of changing their conduct without the need to pass formal remedies. I would like to see how things go after the case closes and wait to see if further remedies are needed."
I also said:
"Overall, I think a 'parties reminded' clause is needed here. And (after a period of some quiet) a way for people to discuss these issues in a calm manner at a central venue, building on some of the proposals made in the workshop, without tensions rising again."
I am still hoping this will be possible (my colleagues may in any case disagree with this approach that I have suggested), but it does depend in large part on people being able to discuss things calmly and being patient as we finish voting. I've asked the case clerk and the other clerks to keep an eye on this talk page over the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that the comments on this principle, and particularly the recent one from SilkTork, reflect a microcosm of the issues faced here. I would invite the Arbs - or anyone else - to examine these propositions to try to get a sense of what we need to understand in order to make progress:
The very act of emitting accurate metadata helps others use our data. It cannot per se be harmful to the project and its current mission, and will most probably be helpful.
As data is inherently dynamic, the metadata will only stay accurate if it is updated when the data changes. For that reason, an invisible mechanism for emitting metadata will always be inferior to one that is visible.
Infoboxes are a feature of the majority of our articles and already contain both the structure and content needed to emit accurate metadata. They are therefore an obvious candidate for implementing metadata, as they require no duplication of data entry, nor special effort to update.
In many articles, some particular key facts are too nuanced for a summary to be accurate metadata. In those cases it is not helpful to include that data in an infobox.
There will be other valid, often aesthetic, reasons against including an infobox in a given article, but the job of seeking consensus is to balance the advantages (of which metadata is just one factor) against the disadvantages (which may be manifold or entirely absent). Both the issue of having an infobox and its content if one is included are properly subject to the process of consensus.
I believe those propositions reflect reality. I don't know whether SilkTork would on reflection modify his present stance, but I'd be more than happy to debate the points he raises in a broader forum, at a later date. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I very much agree with what Silk Tork says in that comment you refer to, and agree with you that the issue needs discussion in a broader forum.Smeat75 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
One point that I think was raised in the workshop or in evidence (or in earlier discussions) is that the placement of the infoboxes may be what causes some of the friction. In desktop view, the infobox is at top right, next to the lead section. In mobile phone views, infoboxes are above the article and the first thing you see. If infoboxes were placed further down the article, or down the bottom of the article, the way categories are, the way navboxes (footer navboxes, not the sidebar ones), and the way some succession boxes, and some 'invisible' metadata (such as 'persondata' and DEFAULTSORT values) are, then infoboxes might be a lot less contentious. You would still get some arguments (over accuracy), as people do still argue over categories and navboxes, but from what I've seen, the arguments are less - possibly because the visibility is less (my general observation is that some people get rather annoyed with five or six collapsed navbox templates at the bottom of an article, but suffer it because it is 'down the bottom and after the article'). The reduced visibility means that updates may not be as accurate or timely, but what I wanted to ask is whether any serious attempt has been made to explore other possible positions for infoboxes? (I've only seen the examples where infoboxes have been placed invisibly right at the bottom of an article - not showing but still emitting metadata, and the visible but collapsed examples - with arguments against both these attempted solutions). Do examples exist where the default location for an item on a page (not just infoboxes) can be changed if needed? Has anyone tried to do an alternative infobox design that would fit across the whole page like a navbox footer template? Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that was tried at one of the country house articles, but is disliked, as you note. I hope someone has the link(s). I'm not sure if any such as in place now. Andy's note in this case that the lead image can be above an infobox has some potential to help where a landscape image is the natural lead pic (not composers, but very often in art and architecture), though I suspect keen infoboxers (not really those in this case) would be forever coming along and changing it. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
(1) There are a few articles that have infoboxes embedded lower down within the article (eg Mini and many other vehicle articles), but none (afaik) that place the infobox at the bottom. Nor are there any that use a full-width layout - this would be very difficult to design, given the succinct nature of each field/value pair. Moving them would also have to be done site-wide for consistency (otherwise readers won't know where to find them) and it would no longer match the way all other language Wikipedias are setup. It would also make the {{sidebar}}-navboxes more prominent, which is a can-of-worms itself.
(2) Collapsing has been tried in various places, from Ponte Vechio (2010) to Little Moreton Hall (current). I've tried to enumerate all the problems with collapsing in my evidence.
(3) I think I was the first to suggest that lead-images could/should display above the infobox. At my sandbox4, I made a mockup of that (and a few other changes). I gave further details about this idea in response to one of Andy's workshop proposals - particularly "Ideally, the image could (would?) still be "part" of the infobox's code, it would just display above the box-outline - this would allow all sorts of articles to use larger images, without making the box extra-wide." I tentatively suggest that this should become the default for all lead/infobox-images - this wouldn't require changing any articles, it would simply require changing the templates.
With a lead image above an infobox, we have the "Rite of Spring" problem: a picture suggesting that it is an article about a painting, instead of telling the reader prominently that it is a ballet by Stravinsky. I tried a new approach which I called "title box" as a certain word is not to be mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Not if it is an article about a painting, Gerda. And why is that more of a problem when it is above rather than in the infobox? One might argue it is less likely to confuse that way. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This debate notwithstanding, Arbcom does not have the power to dictate to the community whether to accept or reject the use or inclusion of metadata. That is a content decision. Even if passed, this proposed principle should simply be ignored lacking an actual community mandate for it. Resolute 13:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be worth renaming this remedy to "Editors reminded" and making a corresponding update to the wording. I'm conscious of being as much caught up in the arguments surrounding infoboxes as many of the parties and there will be others in the same position as me. I'd willingly sign up to this proposed remedy and hope that everyone else can. --RexxS (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The reminder certainly serves my benefit as well; which by the way, I intend also to heed. :)John Cline (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Arbcom needs to decide on rationales for edits: does the tail wag the dog?[edit]
Arbcom needs a finding on whether debates regarding Wikipedia content that postulate benefits to "downstream re-users"—the argument ad Google—which Riggr Mortis outlined as a common feature of pro-infobox debate (diff), should be allowed, or have any standing in content discussions. Such a clarification is surely within the committee's remit, since it would seem foundational that Wikipedia volunteers do not get to re-define who Wikipedia's "client" is. This cannot become a case of the tail wagging the dog. We again provide the following diffs as examples, quoting here from Riggr Mortis' post on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence (and showing only comments by User:Pigsonthewing; there are more there from User:RexxS):
Missing—an understanding of the huge scope of Andy Mabbett's agenda and activity[edit]
A few of us have discussed by email what we think is missing from this case to date. We are issuing one comment.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) has made hundreds of thousands of edits (via bot requests) to Wikipedia over the years that have no conventional effect on article content, yet there doesn't appear to be an understanding in the Arbcom's comments to date about the scope of Mabbett's agenda, which put briefly is to create templates and insert them into as many articles as possible so that "metadata" can be read from the articles more easily by computers. The Arbcom does not appear to realize that a remedy that, for example, disallows infobox editing, does not prevent Mabbett from continuing to build the infrastructure that supports his agenda. Indeed, arbtitrator David Fuchs has written "I'm hopeful that forcing him [Andy Mabbett] away entirely from the infobox issue would alleviate the cause of conflict for this case"! The "infobox prevention" remedy is not sufficient. We will explain this below.
Mabbett's entire project is to overlay his infrastructure of templates (not just infoboxes!) upon millions of Wikipedia articles so that they can be better "parsed" by computers. Mabbett must want Wikipedia to act like a database, and databases must have very defined structures. So every article (or template like {{Geobox}}, or "non-conforming" (e.g. collapsible) infobox) that deviates from his strategy and his structures is a potential battleground for him. An article edit that deviates from his template build-out, wherever he notices it, will be met with a revert, which regular editors are expected to accept, without policy grounds, for reasons that "they just can't understand"—it "emits metadata this way, you see"—it feeds third-party computer systems. His project is nothing less than re-defining Wikipedia for his own out-of-scope purposes. His "walled garden" of templates overlay the conventional editorial process and provide him with a self-reinforcing pseudo-technical rationale for controlling what appears in the wikitext of an article.
We must observe that Mabbett is perhaps Wikipedia's ultimate article owner, because his owning occurs via an entire infrastructure developed in the template space and applied to millions of articles. His methods have the effect of taking away editorial control from regular editors who may see no value in a template that adds complexity to the wiki-text without benefit to the reader. We all recently witnessed him attempt to take editorial control away from people who maintain articles about composers, for example, because their choices didn't fit his grand "data-feed" plan.
We will highlight one current initiative within Mabbett's project as an example of how he builds his infrastructure through templates and bot requests, to show why he must be stopped at the root. This recent bot request initiated by Mabbett proposes that dates already in infoboxes be put inside a new template—his template, ({{start date}}, created by him—so that the affected articles will output data that is easier for computers to parse. The infobox aspect is irrelevant, being only the container for the template, which in turn "emits" a microformat, another major part of Mabbett's infrastructural plans. (One can go back to 2007 and find quotes such as the following: "Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page [ANI], including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Wikipedia and something should be done about him".) You see, infoboxes are nothing special here—they are just another template involved in Mabbett's strategy; infoboxes and "microformats" and so on are all part of the same agenda that dates back half a decade, and involve the same battlegrounds. How will a simple "infobox ban" affect his behavior? Not at all. If Mabbett's behavior has caused controversy, it is because it stems from his agenda—probably the strongest agenda a single Wikipedian has ever attempted to implement without a fairly quick ban following. The solution is to prevent the agenda, by preventing the person holding it from implementing it.
The bot request linked above demonstrates everything this case is really about. It demonstrates that Mabbett will continue to find battlegrounds regardless of being "banned from infoboxes". In that discussion, he accuses the most thoughtful commentator on the page of "filibustering"; he refers to minor documents somewhere else to discount the informed opinions of the people who have taken the most time to respond. And so on. We see that, even when the topic isn't literally infoboxes, he's still doing the same thing, years on, and still acting the same way toward others.
Does the Arbcom see how wide-ranging and problematic Mabbett's agenda is? The Arbcom will not accomplish anything by preventing Mabbett from editing a given infobox on a given article. His battleground encompasses all articles, and the template space. He must be banned from all activity relating to templates, including edit requests on the protected templates he frequents, and from asking for or participating in bot requests, because these are the methods by which he establishes his agenda on Wikipedia. His agenda and his "enforcement" style are why we are here. No other named party on either side of the debate demonstrates the aggression and tenacious enforcement of Mabbett. To not ban Mabbett from all template and bot activity is simply to move Mabbett's battleground a little. The battleground behavior and agenda-pushing will not stop until the Arbcom introduces a very broad restrictive remedy.
P.S. This hardly starts to examine how Mabbett achieves his goal via poor behavior. It does not focus on his bullying behavior, his ignoring any argument which he cannot attack, the behavior which discourages and drives away content editors (who are the lifeblood of this project).
P.P.S. If others agree with these statements, please sign your names below.
Thank you for this input, which relates to an issue I've been trying to read up on, but had trouble getting my arms around. The input raises a few questions in my mind. What community discussions have been held concerning the desirability of including microformatted information in articles? With greater specificity, what practical uses does the computer-readable microformatted information have, either within or outside Wikipedia (i.e., what are the actual or claimed benefits of including the microformats)? Can the microformatted information be included without visual effect on an article, as opposed to via an infobox, when the inclusion of one is disputed? I may have more comments later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The small scope of my agenda (forgive me that I don't understand all of the above): part of a microformat is for example {{start date}}. You enter year/month/day as yyyy/mm/dd, and worldwide can be understood "this is a date" and the single elements, which different cultures can represent with month names in their languages and their order of rendition. It's a great concept! I support that! More on microformats by RexxS on the specific example of Talk:Mont Juic (suite). Nikkimaria reverted the infobox, but the principal author liked it. Please note that Andy didn't argue in the discussion, only answered questions and explained. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If Brad (or others) are interested in what the above contributors are describing, I suggest he takes a look at what independent scholars have to say about it, rather than taking the word of those who simply wish to keep us in the world of a paper encyclopedia. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World-Wide Web, wrote an article for Scientific American in 2001, where he describes his vision of a Semantic Web - it's available as a pdf here. After describing a brother and sister finding a specialist to treat their mother he writes:
Sorry to interrupt but is there a more legible version of that article? All I see is a page of "}A³RÒ¬�^ät/�ßξ÷®g½ë›iï�Ä„‡³dHéøŒ" when I tried to open it. LizRead!Talk! 19:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Try saving it to your hard drive and opening it from there, in a PDF reader, rather than in a browser. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
"Pete and Lucy could use their agents to carry out all these tasks thanks not to the World Wide Web of today but rather the Semantic Web that it will evolve into tomorrow. Most of the Web's content today is designed for humans to read, not for computer programs to manipulate meaningfully. Computers can adeptly parse Web pages for layout and routine processing—here a header, there a link to another page—but in general, computers have no reliable way to process the semantics: this is the home page of the Hartman and Strauss Physio Clinic, this link goes to Dr. Hartman's curriculum vitae. The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, creating an environment where software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users."
So the concept of adding meaning to web pages is nothing new and doesn't belong just to Andy. Have a look at some of the results from this search on Google Scholar and you'll see that building the semantic web has been a task embraced by many scholars, designers and engineers over more than a decade of progress.
Every single web designer is aware of the potential of adding meaning to web pages. Our problem as a crowd-sourced website is in enabling everyone to contribute without throwing away all the other aspects of web design that most contributors will not be interested in. On the whole, we have made a good job of that, by using templates to hide the complexities of web-design inside a simpler wrapper. Even so, the fear of the unknown will still drive some to reject any sort of progress.
I submit that the essay above is nothing more than a device to stigmatise Andy's desire to see Wikipedia evolve into a resource that is usable in far more ways than simply reading an encyclopedia - I have the Encyclopedia Brittanica on my bookshelves if that's all I want to do. Let the three authors above honestly answer a simple question: "Would their opposition to infoboxes be any less if they did not emit metadata?" I think we already know the answer to that.
The authors also repeat a lie: that Andy has driven away editors. Not one single jot of truthful evidence has backed up that smear. In fact, Victoriaearle made that claim in her evidence, but had to retract it when it was shown that the editor whom she claimed had "left the project" had edited continuously ever since.
ArbCom should look carefully at the agenda of these editors: they have employed smear, innuendo and fabrication to create a caricature of an editor with whom they disagree. There is nothing sinister about wanting Wikipedia to be used as more than a paper encyclopedia; most editors share the goal of broader use and dissemination of our content; and there is no reason whatsoever why those goals should run contrary to the process of writing good content. --RexxS (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to endorse everything in RexxS' rebuttal to the three editors above. It is true that not everything can be accurately summarised in an infobox, but there has been no reliable evidence presented anywhere that emitting metadata for things that can is anything other than a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the argument is not that metadata is a Bad Thing, but whether the approach Andy takes is helpful or causes problems. Is it better to have 100 editors doing what Andy does in small amounts, or Andy doing what he does in large volumes, as a speciality, and persistently, over many years? When people take a de facto leadership role in over-arching matters like this, is that a good thing or not? And how responsive are they to community concerns? That is my understanding of the argument being made here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you from me too for this. It does clearly lay out the concerns that I've seen expressed elsewhere as well. Could Ruhrfisch clarify whether the postscripts (PS'es) are from him or all three editors issuing the joint statement? NYB, to answer one of your questions, I believe that when you Google for something that has a Wikipedia article, the Google summary that comes up to the right on the standard search results screen is based on what Google can read from machine-readable sources, including Wikipedia articles. I believe the other questions you ask have been mostly answered in the evidence and workshop pages, though it can be difficult to find the links among the other material there. I too may have more comments to make later, but the closest ArbCom can come to limiting scope of activity is if the overall editing is bot-like or aimed at achieving a fait accompli against existing community consensus. Beyond that, it would be the role of members of the editorial community to initiate discussion within the community on whether consensus exists for such wide-ranging activities. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Newyorkbrad, There are other methods of obtaining this information, including the {{Persondata}} template. Interestingly a Google search for Terry-Thomas carries one of these side boxes, even though our corresponding FA article doesn't; the same is also true for a Google search of John Le Mesurier and again our (FA) article doesn't carry the box. Metadata in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: if we can provide a method of disseminating microformats in a hidden form (even if that is a collapsed box) then that can only be a benefit. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple more comments, based on what I've read about this while looking into some aspects of this case:
My understanding is that metadata here means data that can be included in and extracted from articles. This can take the form of infoboxes, but can take other forms as well. Microformats are ways of using existing html tags to mark and allow extraction of this data. You don't need to edit pages direct but the tagging is included elsewhere. It is a technical back-end allowing computers to 'recognise' what is on the page (i.e. semantic markup).
In an attempt to get a feel for the sort of work Andy does on this, I looked at some of his edits this year:
An example of his microformat work is here. Change made to sandbox here. This is (as far as I can tell) an example of allowing external data reusers to more easily access the data contained in Wikipedia articles.
An example of Andy's outreach and consulting(?) roles is here (from May 2013, about the ORCID "works metadata" working group), though I'm still not clear on the full scope of what Andy does outside Wikipedia on this sort of thing.
I noted the extent of the work done on data-related issues, templates, and infoboxes on some of his user pages: to-do and infoboxes.
I noted an example of a recent infobox merging discussion that drew a fair amount of attention: Template:Infobox journal.
I noted an example of a discussion on gender here.
My overall conclusions from this were that many people do lots of work of this nature (on templates and infoboxes), but most manage to do it without causing waves. Either because they are more sensitive to concerns, or because they edit less, or because they restrict themselves to a narrower area and don't edit across the whole gamut of infoboxes. What I'm trying to articulate here is whether there is justification for a principle that sometime less is more (to put it crudely)? I'm not sure there is justification for that, but there is a long track record within Wikipedia of individuals trying to do too much themselves, over-reaching, and running into problems with various parts of the community. It is very difficult to edit widely across a large number of areas without eventually running into those sorts of problems. It would help to be able to compare the participation in such discussions of all the editors named in or participating this case. Who participates in the most discussions, and who contributes most productively to such discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to note that I completely endorse the statement of the three editors above. My own evidence touched on the edges of Andy's metadata obsession, but having not looked at it as deeply as they have, I felt that an infobox ban would have been sufficient. They quite eloquently and convincingly (imo) argue that such a topic ban would not be sufficient in this case. Metadata by itself may not be a bad thing - this seems exactly what Wikidata was set up to achieve - but Andy's behaviour around it has been a continual and significant source of wasted time for pretty much as long as I've been here. Resolute 14:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I also endorse the statement, and thank the editors for laying out with clarity the real problem here. I should note that the inclusion of metadata seems to me an important goal (I've said as much before in the debates about infoboxes), but that is not what is at issue here. Eusebeus (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I add my thanks and endorsement to the three editors' statement above. Smeat75 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like the metadata isn't the problem here, it's the zealousness which an editor approached the task he saw before himself. Building consensus and handling conflict is messy and time-consuming but an essential aspect of how Wikipedia works. I can see how anyone who believes they are working for greater functionality of Wikipedia would become impatient with ever present debates. But, I think for WP, the ends (greater functionality) doesn't justify the means of overcoming resistance by either steamrolling over it, denying it exists or bypassing the debate altogether.
I need to say this is a general observation about editor conduct on WP that may or may not apply to Andy. I only have these proceedings to go on and it seems like there are some conflicting statements in the lengthy proceedings. LizRead!Talk! 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I fully endorse the statement above; this is further supported by my evidence that I submitted a few weeks ago. --Rschen7754 20:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I emphatically OPPOSE the witch hunt against Andy and the character assassination above. Here you have an editor who has clearly learned from his mistakes over the years, but is being hounded to death for a mere passion for a topic. The merits of the issue itself are being drowned in a sea of scapegoating. I see nothing of excessive "ownership" or some sort of dark agenda in Andy's behavior over the last year, and though he gets a little intense at times, he is merely a fellow editor with a strong area of interest. This is character assassination at its worst and it seems that any attempts by Andy to defend himself are met with the same chorus of outrage. The logic of the above statement is ludicrous: "let's ban people who care about improving the encyclopedia." Hmmph. Next thing you know, someone will want to ban Jimbo for his passion for wikipedia! Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
So much for Carcharoth's request for the maintenance of decorum. What we see in two sections above, as others have noted, are further attempts to misrepresent and smear, devoid of any actual evidence of wrongdoing or ill-intent - exactly the kind of behaviour seen (and evidenced in earlier stages of this process), from those opposed to infoboxes, or metadata, or having our content reused by external partners, or objecting in some other way to normal Wikipedia practices.
Ruhrfisch has found some instances of me discussing the reuse of our content by Google, Yahoo, Bing, DBpedia and others. So what? A similar attempt to spread FUD in that regard, also referring to Riggr Mortis' ill-conceived essay was given very short shrift by the wider community when brought up on Jimbo Wales' talk page during this case. One editor there, User:Equazcion, commented:
"I fail to see the difference. Services that benefit people should be hindered because a company is also profiting from it? Why? To prove a point? To stick it to the man? Wikipedia is about providing your knowledge for free to whoever might use it for whatever purpose. What's the difference if it's structured data or prose? The same argument holds either way. I guess it sounds scarier when you throw around words like 'Google' (big ie. evil) and metadata (automated ie. evil), but really, it's all the same"
adding
"the wishes of the "primary" contributors shouldn't take any kind of precedence; The counter-arguments based on WP:OWN are perfectly valid in response to arguments referencing the amount of time or effort contributors spent creating or developing articles. We have that policy to deal precisely with these types of situations. You shouldn't contribute here if you think you have some sort of right to maintain control because it was 'your' work."
Ruhrfisch quotes me as saying "We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to" (emphasis newly added). What he does not reveal, is that I was replying to the question (from Toccata quarta) "why should we shove our information down Google's throat?".
He also neglects to mention that my comment "The [meta]data emitted by our infoboxes is already used by Google and Bing and has been praised by Yahoo" is a reply to the assertion that "[that] microformats... will one day facilitate the development of the Semantic Web, [is] just a leap of faith".
The "we and "us" I use refer to Wikipedia. Wikipedia shares its content using metadata. Wikipedia invites its reuse. Wikipedia's mission is enhanced by that reuse. And if I've done more than my fair share of the laborious and unexciting work to make that possible, for which I've been thanked by WMF staff and numerous fellow editors, then I'm very proud of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad - I know that User:Pigsonthewing cited the existence (since 2007) of the category Category:Templates generating microformats as evidence that "The use of infoboxes to emit microformat metadata has been supported ... in practice" (take that as you will). As for actual RfC's, he cited two:
I do not know of any other RfCs which support inclusion of microformats. I do know that when the start date template was proposed to be added by bot to about 40,000 articles on listed properties in the National Register of Historic Places, it was done as a bot request and Pigsonthewing made only one post to the NRHP WikiProject web page about this - see here. I think it would have been much better if the NRHP WikiProject (to which I belong and which includes infoboxes in articles as a matter of course) had been asked directly for its input by User:Pigsonthewing. [Please note Pigsonthewing says below that he did not make the original bot request. I apologize for my error, as I said I am quite busy in real life and just recalled his comment on the NRHP talk page.]
If microformatting is desired, it can be incorporated in articles in places other than an infobox (to be very clear, infoboxes and microformats do not have to go together). One possibility would be Template:Persondata which is hidden from readers and is already included in over one million articles. As for microformats changing an article's appearance, they should not if done correctly, but even something as simple as a date runs into issues with the different date formats used around the world and in articles here which might cause it to change appearances (see the discussions above). I also worry that editors will not understand what the microformat templates are asking for which may lead to issues - again an issue raised in the NRHP page and touched on by us as part of the ever-growing complexity.
As for practical uses, I do not know of any within Wikipedia (Persondata is used for categories, perhaps microformats could be too?). Many third-party data-reusers can and do make use of machine-readable data (from microformats). As we asked, does the tail (Google, et al.) wag the dog (Wikipedia)? Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I have little time in real life today, and will reply to the other arb comments / questions next as I am able. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Persondata is only for people (hence the name), not buildings, events, and the many other things for which our infoboxes emit microformats. Please provide an example of a microformatted persondata template for a person, so that it can be tested. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
And again Ruhrfisch misrepresents what was said, this time at the NRHP project talk page. I was replying to Doncram, a project member, who said "Please see wp:botrequest#Mark a lot of pages for microformatting. Not sure if they should be discussed here or there" and I replied "I've answered these questions at BOTREQ; I suggest we centralise discussion there.". Doncram and others joined the BOTREQ discussion; there were no posts objecting to the suggestion to hold it there. Note also that the bot request was not made by me but by User:Nyttend and the aforesaid comments are in reply to his notification of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth - the PPS is all mine. The PS reflects things that we discussed via email, but I will take responsibility for it now. I have asked Victoria (who has asked for a block) to comment on her talk page about the PS (since she cannot edit elsewhere). I assume Riggr Mortis will comment here if needed. More later. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I keep on hearing the argument that we could incorporate microformats into something that isn't an infobox. Yet the truth is that nobody has ever done it with any success. {{Persondata}} could emit microformats, yet it doesn't. Any number of invisible data structures could be embedded into our articles, yet they are not. Why? Because anybody who actually sits down to the task quickly realises that the problem with invisible structures is that they don't get updated on a crowd-sourced site. Then they spot that they want a structure with a number of label/data pairs, like a table with two columns that's relatively easy to create and update, and it needs to be a template so that we can hide the classes needed to emit microformats. And voilà! they've re-invented an infobox. There are already well over 2 million of them in use on our Wikipedia, so why not just use them as the basis for emitting the metadata? The only reason why not is that some folks just don't like 'em. I'll start to take seriously Ruhrfisch's assertion that we could incorporate microformats in some other way when he manages to create one of these other ways and shows how it will be adopted in our articles. Have a look at Ruhrfisch's recent contributions and at my recent contributions. Which one of us is more likely to be producing technical solutions to problems? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not pretend to be a template or coding expert, nor do I wish to engage in a pissing contest with RexxS (and if I did, I would direct him to look at WP:WBFAN or at the number of peer reviews we've each done ;-) )(the smiley face means I am trying to use humor here). All I said was that infoboxes and metadata do NOT have to go together. To prove this, I have used {{Start date}} and put a microformatted datum into an article on a covered bridge without resorting to its infobox or a hidden template or anything hidden - diff.
On a more general note, members of ArbCom are asking for clarification and more information, and all Pigsonthewing and RexxS can do is resort to their usual tactics of attacking the messenger (me), pointing out one error (Pigsonthewing did not initiate the NRHP bot request, so I struck that and apologize), and challenging me to a code off (or whatever you call it). Why not give them what they ask for? Or could it be that the best evidence for consensus to add microformats everywhere across the whole encyclopedia is really a category (but hey, it is 7 years old!), a no consensus RfC, and 10 editors who could out-code me saying yeah, you can try this with a bot. Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No-one attacked you; its just that the flimsiness of your arguments and falseness of your claims was (again) exposed. I don't know of any outstanding requests from Arbcom for clarification or more information about microformats, metadata or infoboxes, but if there are and someone points them out, I shall be happy to answer them. And no, you have not added "a microformatted datum" to that article, You have added a template which emits one element of a microformat, without a parent microformatted container to give it context (i.e. the start date for what - the page? Consider also a page with two infoboxes). The template documentation explains this. No microformat-aware tool will recognise it, because it does not conform to any published microformat standard. So you have not proved your assertion. (I have fixed your error) And do you really think inline templates, in running prose, are preferable to, or more likely to find favour with the wider community than, those in infoboxes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ruhrfisch: I don't remember trying to tell you that you should be doing peer reviews in a different way - the way that you tell me I should be writing metadata-emitting templates in a different way. In fact, I'm happy to acknowledge and commend your work in doing peer reviews because I know it improves the encyclopedia. But then you keep making the claim that we could put metadata elsewhere, and ignore my explanation of why it's a bad idea - based on what? Your expertise in doing peer reviews? I agree that it has a certain humorous quality. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
@Pigsonthwing - So just to be clear, you, Pigsonthewing are the author of {{Start date}}, a template specifically made for emitting microformatted data. However, and here's the catch, it only works when embedded inside other "microformat-emitting templates". So you made it so it won't work unless it is in an infobox or other appropriate template - how does this not conform to our arguments above? i.e. you OWN Startdate, and it has to be in a box to work, so then you OWN the box too? Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't own any of them. Where is your evidence that I attempt to? Please explain how you would have {{Start date}} work outside a parent container. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ruhrfisch: you need to actually read WP:OWN. It's not about creating articles or templates; it's about stopping other editors from contributing to work that you feel you own. It is exactly what has happened with biographies of classical composers. It is exactly what has not happened with {{Start date}} - another half dozen editors have contributed and Edene is now the main contributor. For information: many infoboxes allow dates such as "about 212 BC", "15 or 17 December" which are not suitable for emitting metadata. So the way that we emit metadata for dates that are sufficiently precise, like "27 August 2013" is to wrap them in a template that adds a microformat - which is what {{Start date}} does. It works sensibly when the date it wraps with the classes "bday dtstart published updated" is inside another class like "event" which names the event that it is the start date for (or the person whose birthday it is, etc.) Please try not to use {{Start date}} outside of suitable containers like infoboxes otherwise re-users can't tell what it relates to. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
RexxS and Pigsonthewing, I have read it - I was referring to our joint argument about OWNership above. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth - Riggr Mortis indicated to me on email that he is fine with the PS. Victoria posted the following on here talk page:
Yes, per Carcharoth's question, I agree with the PS. It's been amply demonstrated on the pages of the arb case and on other pages where I've witnessed these discussions and is in my view the reasons it's difficult to impossible to discuss these matters elsewhere, which goes to Newyorkbrad's question. Only one more thing, in response to RexxS assertion that I accused Andy Mabbett of driving away editors: the evidence states editors become discouraged and leave. But - and this is important - I don't wish to engage on that level because frequently in these discussions the concept or the main point of the discussion devolves quickly into a "he said, she said" scenario which is almost always counterproductive. Feel free to copy over, or to link, or to point to this post. Victoria (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC) End of quote posted here by Ruhrfisch><>°° 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well of course Victoriaearle doesn't want to engage in discussion after she's been caught out in a lie. But her so-called evidence is still there on the talk page of Evidence even now for anyone to see and she hasn't had the decency to retract those untruths. Here's what she says referring to Yllosubmarine: "In September 2012 ... She became discouraged and left the project. ... . Keep in mind, too, we lost a prolific female content editor from the Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek episode."It's pure fabrication. Yllosubmarine never left the project. Here's a link to her contributions so you can see for yourself. Count the monthly contributions since last October when she was supposed to have left the project: 28, 10, 6, 11, 3, 7, 11, 2, 7, 3. She even edited today. It's on the back of this sort of mendacity that we get the smear "the behavior which discourages and drives away content editors". There is zero evidence. Strike it if you have an ounce of honesty left. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see my comments above in the #Comment from Victoriaearle/Truthkeeper88 section. While I agree that Yllosubmarine has not left entirely, her edits dropped by just over 90% in the 10 months after Pigsonthewing's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek infobox argument (compared to the 10 months before) and she has not written any new articles I could see or brought any to GAN or FAC (and this from an editor averaging over two GAs and FAs per year from starting here to Tinker Creek as TFA. As I said above, how is this not the loss of a productive editor? I know you won't answer that, because you can't. I will repeat what I said to Pigsonthewing and now say to you, you owe Victoria an apology. Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That would be the section where I disproved your and (not for the first time) Victoria's bogus claims by showing that Yllosubmarine had edited more times in some of the months after the Tinker's Creek discussion than in several of the months before it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ruhrfisch. Rubbish. Yllosubmarine made more edits in the month after the Pilgrim's Creek debate (October 2012 = 28) than she made in any of the four months prior to it (May, June, July, August 1012) and she was busily contributing to Today's Featured Article requests during the rest of the year. It is disgusting that you try to spin that into evidence of Andy chasing editors off the project. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
newyorkbrad and Carcharoth and any other members of ArbCom reading this - I see further attempts at discussion will get nowhere, since I cannot code templates and mendacity is supposedly rampant. I hope that our arguments offer a useful way for you to look at this whole mess. Ask yourselves this: if infoboxes and metadata and microformats are a content issue (as many have argued) and we have a small group of editors who are pushing this content everywhere they can, despite a lack of broad consensus for it, isn't this really a WP:POV case too? If this were some content on the Middle East or (Northern) Ireland that was being pushed, wouldn't the solution be obvious? In POV cases, ArbCom has topic banned or site banned the POV pushers. Is this that much different?
And now, since Carcharoth has asked for a break (as it were), I bid you all adieu. Good night and good luck, Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
[I've cut this way down, Carcharoth]
On the lying accusation: Don't call people liars. I had the same impression about Maria/yllosubmarine--that she was gone, I mean. It's an easy mistake to make, in general, about people you've encountered a tiny bit. Maria certainly has cut back on editing, having made maybe 70 edits since the infobox debate she participated in almost a year ago, which went something like this: Talk:Pilgrim_at_Tinker_Creek#Infobox.
"Give example of an editor leaving because of Pigsonthewing?": OK, me. Not as a matter of direct conflict, but in the way that one has an instinct to walk away from something they think might explode. Or worse, stick to them and explode. Wouldn't want to be within a country mile of the next Tinker Creek Box Battle.
(Why am I back? I participated in proposing the remedy we gave above (that bold part), because if it passed I would feel much better about the culture and editing environment of Wikipedia.)
Metadata misdirection: All cut—except for a short comment on semantics and retro-fitting. I didn't know that buildings and bridges had birthdays, were "published", were "updated", or fit into a calendar event, but the HTML source of one example tells me so: <span class="bday dtstart published updated">1872</span>; the Eiffel Tower has a "nickname" that happens to be in French: <span class="nickname" lang="fr"...>La Tour Eiffel</span>; Chelsea Manning was also going to have a "nickname" that consisted of their prior name (sounds controversial in any other context, doesn't it: [129]); and biographic metadata for the most part "emits" contact card data. "Semantic"? Hehe. Not so much. This "tail wagging dog" concept comes up again. What to do with it... Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Where has anyone called anyone else a liar? The HTML class names used in microformats are just labels,; (they could easily be in the style "parameter23"), but were chosen by the authors of the microformat standards to match the internationally used vCard standard, and as already discussed, are widely and interoperably recognised by a large number of organisations, web services and software tools. In the case of the bridge, the classes "published" and "updated" are disregarded, because the parent microformat includes no definition of them, unlike the "dtstart". Since they are not exposed to our readers, there is little chance of them being cased any confusion. I've already suggested that people read the archived section of Jimbo's talk page, where your user-page essay got very short shrift, and quoted some of the response to it, above. In that essay, you give your reason for leaving as "As long as Wikipedia drifts from its origins as a tool for human learning to a second-rate quasi-database—apparently to the benefit of ADD-inducing tech companies—I will no longer participate as a volunteer". Let's have another quote from the discussion of that on Jimbo's talk page, from User:Cyclopia: "So someone is led to retiring because we're making it easier to reuse data and make Wikipedia interoperable with other tools? I am sorry but I can't think of anything else but 'insane' when reading this essay... Licensing is how we deal with wishes of people who wrote the data. If you don't want your contributions to be used in ways you wouldn't think of, you better not contributing to a project under a free license."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Riggr Mortis: I call someone a liar when they are clearly telling lies and damaging another editor as a result. Did Yllosubmarine leave the project - yes or no? Is Victoriaearle a liar? Of course it's easy to make mistakes, but honest people withdraw the accusation when they realise they've made a mistake. Victoriaearle's mistruths lie on the Evidence talk page to this day and you use them to call for sanctions on another editor. You suffer no damage by defending such lies, but for the person who is maligned as a result, it may possibly result in an indefinite ban for something that you've helped to fabricate. Shame on you. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
RexxS - everyone makes mistakes (my recollection is that Pigsonthewing said I found quotes by him, when all I did was copy what Riggr actually found, you referred to me still doing peer reviews when I got burned out and basically do not do them anymore). Yet I am not calling either of you liars. Victoria cannot edit any page but her own, and has chosen to leave the project. I said above that while Yllosubmarine did not technically leave Wikipedia, it is also clear she is not contributing at anywhere near the level she did before. You have an excellent FA nom; you know the effort involved in writing and researching and getting an article through FAC. Look at Yllosubmarine's edits - she still cares enough to revert vandalism and good faith cruft additions, she still participates in a few discussions if any article she took to FA is nominated to be on the Main Page, but that is it. She went from 14 GAs and 14 FAs in less than 7 years to ZERO in the year since the infobox posse showed up at the Tinker Creek article. Address that part of Victoria's statement, why don't you? Yes, Yllosubmarine still pops up from time to time, but she is not the editor she used to be. Why can't you admit that too? Or do you want to provide yet one more example of how you and Pigsonthewing attack one small part of an argument (IT'S A LIE!!!!) so no one will focus on the rest: that Wikipedia has lost a valued content contributor? Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
PS In the interest of not contributing anymore to the avalanche here, and to give the Arbs a break so they can sift through all this, I am done - ping me if needed. Please play nice with each other while I'm away. Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Honest people correct mistakes, not rehash them to tar others unreasonably. Victoriaearle still makes the untruthful claim that "Yllosubmarine left the project" - do I need to supply you with the diff again? She could easily ask for that to be refactored, but chooses not to, so that you can repeat the smear on Andy that has no basis in fact whatsoever. Why did Yllosubmarine cut down on her GA/FA work? Why did you cut down on peer reviews? Peoples' circumstances change, and it's utterly inappropriate to heap the blame on Andy when there is nothing that supports it. The Tinker's Creek discussion occurred mid-September and Yllosubmarine edited 28 times in October - that's more than she had in the previous April, May, June or July. How on earth does that support your wild assertion about "behavior which discourages and drives away content editors"? You simply made it up. Address that fact first instead of making ad hominems about honest editors who have caught you out in a smear campaign based on a tissue of lies. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said in the second of those, Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation [spoke], in an article called Wikipedia to Add Meaning to Its Pages, about "making some of the data on Wikipedia's 15 million (and counting) articles understandable to computers as well as humans". Note, in particular, the part about "allow[ing] software to know, for example, that the numbers shown in one of the columns in this table listing U.S. presidents are dates". That's exactly what microformats do.
The cited article is also a very accessible overview.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
I would also add that I am firm believer in the benefit of infoboxes to our human readers; I added them before we started to use microformats, and I have worked hard to ensure their readability by humans, both visually and for those with visual impairments requiring them to use screen readers. And I would still add and improve them if they did not emit microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I note the arb opinions that I have degraded infobox discussions and the examples cited of my comments against Gerda; I apologise for these and certainly intend not to indulge in such behaviour or employ such techniques again. May I ask then whether the unprompted incivilities (and sometimes gross incivilities) of Rexxs,(examples of whose handiwork I gave in my original evidence), Montanabw and PumpkinSky against myself during infobox discussions are also to be considered? There is PotW as well of course but his general behaviour is adequately covered in other aspects of this arb case. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I accept the apology. - I said before that I didn't need one and would like to only look forward. Thanks for expressing it anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Gerda is very gracious, and between the two of you, I hope you've patched things up. However, that leaves Andy and also your overall attitude toward anyone who proposes an infobox anywhere that you claim ownership in the topic. if you fail to see your own incivility, Smerus, and still cannot even when it has been pointed out to you (and others) with diffs and examples, then it proves my point that you are a mere bully who is mean to people who you think are weaker than you, but when called on your own behavior can only cry crocodile tears and claim that you are the victim. Montanabw(talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope it is clear from the above edit what I mean. I have not anywhere claimed that I am a victim. The abuse, name calling, unsabstantiated allegations and pose of moral superiority, is part of the culture of PotW, Montana, Rexxs and PumpkinSky, and if this arb case is about editors' polite behaviour towards others, then what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganders. In Wikilawyering capacity I am a six-stone weakling compared to the professional intimidation carried out by these characters. But I do not seek, like Montanabw, to be a moral touchstone, exonerate myself or to be claim to be heroically intervening on behalf of others; I only ask that all participants be evaluated as I have been. It seems from the recent request for diffs about me and Montana's ready response to this that the closing date for evidence has become irrelevant to this case; I can see it for extending for several months or years yet at this rate; so if arbs request me to produce diffs, there is no shortage of them and I shall be glad to oblige. Meanwhile, as Montanabw seems to note, Gerda and myself have taken constructive steps to make things work, which is more than most other contributors to this discussion have done. --Smerus (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to see the diffs, particularly of my unprompted incivility. If I see you bullying Gerda, or saying that Montana is "libelling other editors", or attacking other women editors again, you can be sure I won't be civil when I take you to task for it. But that won't be unprompted. I am perfectly civil when I'm interacting with those who debate in a collegial and constructive manner, but a lifetime involved in resolving disputes has left me with little tolerance for those who deliberately don't. Mea culpa. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
But you are not an arb. I will gladly list them, as I clearly state, if an arb indicates that s/he will be willing to take them into consideration.--Smerus (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
While I completely understand why this has been proposed, and I can see that it will be a big help to curtail some of the unproductive discussions, it has as I see it two potential downsides:
Hampering productive discussions about content.
In pretty much every area of Wikipedia that is not watched by those members of the classical music project who dislike infoboxes, the existence of an infobox is not at all controversial. Sometimes though the content of an infobox is not always clear cut and it requires discussion between various parties until everyone is happy that the information is correctly summarised, this can sometimes take several comments until people understand each other. Now imagine that there are three fields of an infobox that require discussion but you're limited to two comments. How do you proceed?
Discouraging productive discussions about infoboxes or their content.
Evidence presented shows that a not infrequent sequence of happenings in the classical music sphere is that someone proposes an infobox for a given article, whether they know (or can know) it is likely to be controversial or not. This is either reverted or responded to with a comment along the lines of "No infoboxes on this article!", the proposer then responds with the reasonable question, "Why do you not want an infobox?" gathering only the response "I said no!". If someone has a maximum of two comments to make then this sort of behaviour is encouraged because it means you get to keep the infobox off 'your' article without having to explain why you don't want something that other editors think will improve the article.
As Carcharoth notes, "The fault (if any) seems to be more a frustration that others won't discuss things fully.". This is the crux of the matter, those who think infoboxes on articles improve them generally seem to want to discuss them and get them right. They are generally interested in why someone thinks that something is incorrect or too nuanced so they can understand the objection in order to work around it (by which I mean either correct the information, present it in a different way so it doesn't mislead or omit that bit of information from the infobox). In far too many cases this has been met with a refusal to discuss - often the infobox in its entirety or sometimes the objections to specific aspects of it ("piece of information X cannot be accurately represented in an infobox, therefore we must not have an infobox", rather than "piece of information X cannot be accurately represented in an infobox therefore the infobox will include on information ABCDEF which can be accurately summarised.").
It is not possible to have a productive discussion when one side refuses to discuss anything, and I don't see these proposed restrictions as helping that. Some things that I think would help would be:
A ruling that no party to this case may revert the addition or removal of an infobox from any article or talk page
A ruling that proposing an infobox on the talk page of any article where there has not been recent discussion of one is disruptive only when the proposal makes no reference to that article.
A ruling that arguments about a (proposed) infobox on a specific article are disruptive if they make no reference to why the infobox is or would be or not be beneficial to that specific article; and that such arguments may be removed by any uninvolved [editor|administrator].
Imposing a limit on the number of concurrent discussions about infoboxes that may be initiated by any party to this case. If that number was 3, then an editor must wait for the first discussion they initiated to conclude before they my start a fourth discussion.
As for more general alternatives, would the committee regard any of the following to be within their remit?
Mandating that discussions of individual infoboxes must take place only at the level of the individual article, and take into account only arguments related to that article?
Mandating that WikiProjects may not impose a blanket requirement for or against infoboxes on 'their' articles?
Mandating that discussion of whether articles should emit metadata is irrelevant to whether a given article should have an infobox?
Rule that WikiProjects do not own articles?
This is not a recommendation that the committee should do any of these things, it is asking whether they could do so if they felt it would be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts for better collaboration! As for wording: "by those members of the classical music project who dislike infoboxes", it seems a bit too general, for example Kleinzach initiated infobox orchestra, infoboxes for compositions have a tradition to at least back to 2007, project opera initiated an infobox opera. The restriction is for biographies in the field. But you are right that some members dislike infoboxes, period. - We can practise consensus at The Ban on Love which I moved (for this purpose) from the case workshop back to the article where an infobox had been reverted twice. I just left the discussion for today with my self-imposed limit of only one entry to one discussion a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I think something like a 1RR restriction might be useful. The problem with "consensus" is that no one knows what it is or when it has been achieved...for example, the WP Classical Music project claims a "consensus" against infoboxes, but that claim is then used to bludgeon anyone, anywhere, who proposes one. Yet, to have 10,000 individual article discussions seems other fruitless also. I DO think your comment about "one side refuses to discuss anything" is the crux of the matter, you can't reach consensus if one side covers their ears and shouts "lalalalalalalalaaaa!" or if there is a Greek chorus drowning out everything. If that can be addressed, the rest might fall into place. Montanabw(talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Propose that a community-wide discussion be held to determine global consensus on infoboxes[edit]
Apologies if this has been mentioned, as I've only been peripherally involved in this. I was reading through the proposed decisions and saw @Newyorkbrad:'s Locus of dispute. I honestly don't see any way for the infobox question to be resolved on an article-by-article basis. The first bullet point reads:
"It is not clear how infobox disputes are to be resolved (e.g. if 5 editors favor including an infobox in a given article and 5 disfavor it, there is no default rule and no policy guidance for determining how the consensus is to be determined, so the dispute continues indefinitely)."
Setting aside the question of how to handle a tie, are we really content to resign consensus down to a vote at each individual article where it might arise? It seems like that's what this comes down to, and if that's the case, it would actually save everyone a lot of grief to state it plainly and simply: Do not discuss, but rather simply vote, as this comes down to individual preference, so majority therefore rules in each case. As far as each individual article is concerned, there is really nothing to argue about. It doesn't seem like the infobox question is actually all that article-dependent, beyond the infeasibility at certain topics (an article about an author is feasible, while something like dystopia might not be), and the fact that different people with different opinions on infoboxes might be editing at those respective articles. Again, it comes down to individual preference.
The above really doesn't seem like any sort of Wikipedia-style solution though. If any semblance of actual WP:Consensus currently seems impossible as there is no relevant policy or guideline, nor even a logic to point to on a per-article basis, maybe this is the time to start answering the question by putting it to the community at large. I'd like to see that as one proposed decision, assuming those can still be added. Equazcion(talk) 17:20, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason why someone can't independently launch an RfC at a village pump, or some other appropriate location. That being said, for myself, I support the use of infoboxes, but oppose making them mandatory. There are always exceptions to the rule. Resolute 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Reso. I update Infoboxes all of the time but don't think they should be mandatory, especially on articles that are not biographical. I can't see there being a straight "Yea for Infoboxes", "Nay against Infoboxes" vote because however it was decided, it wouldn't reflect a consensus, just a majority for those editors who cared enough to cast a vote. I'm not sure if there any solution other than deciding this article-by-article. LizRead!Talk! 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Quite. Some if us have been trying that. Look where it's got us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
[ec] "I support the use of infoboxes, but oppose making them mandatory" - Me too. Who is it, remind me again, who wants to make them mandatory? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well me for one, for certain types of article where the Wikiproject so decides, and with a certain allowance for IAR, as I've said more than once in the case. And the 31 users of Template:User Infobox pref - "This user believes that all articles should have an infobox". But certainly not for all biographies - biographies are one of the problematic areas for infoboxes. A pertinent example today, from my watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Kinda getting off point. I think rehashing the opinions of all involved here on the infobox question isn't going to be all that helpful. We've seen arbitration decisions before that a community discussion be held to gauge a broad consensus, and I think such a decision would be appropriate here. Equazcion(talk) 19:44, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It would be an appropriate remedy in the sense that nobody would object to either its relevance to the case or disagree that it is within the committee's remit to pass such a remedy. I don't think that it would be useful though - at the end of it I would be prepared to bet a significant amount of money that the answer would come back "The community supports infoboxes but doesn't think they should be mandatory" - i.e. exactly where we are now. This is because other than a very small minority of people who dislike infoboxes per se, almost everybody agrees with the status quo. Even if anybody wanted to make them mandatory (which I've never seen any evidence of) there are some articles where its just not possible (e.g. Orthogonality and Types of inhabited localities in Russia), and there are other articles that are structured by their very nature and so any infobox would just be duplicative (e.g. List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom). You would therefore have to mandate them only on articles where they were appropriate - which gets us back to exactly where we are now. What needs to happen is for the discussions about infoboxes on pages within the sphere of classical music to become detoxified such that they are as productive as the discussions about infoboxes on the other 99.99% of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't really suggesting only those two questions be asked. We could additionally ask the question, "Should infoboxes be mandatory on every article about a person"? I think that would produce interesting and useful results, just as an example. Let's start fleshing out some guidelines here (not literally here, but at a global discussion) so that people arguing at articles actually have something to discuss. Equazcion(talk) 19:54, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
I don't support mandating their use even for articles about a person because there will always be edge cases where an infobox is not appropriate and other cases where it is debatable whether the article is about a person. The first example that comes to mind (although there will be better ones) is Piltdown Man. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It's great to know what you think, but I wasn't really asking, with all due respect. I'm again suggesting a community discussion. But just as an aside, yes, if infoboxes were mandated for "person" articles, there would be some scattered instances where the article topic is ambiguous, and that would need to be discussed at the article. As is the case for most guidelines, they're not always easy across-the-board answers, but can rather be a place to start, whereas right now there is nothing on which to base a discussion. Equazcion(talk) 20:36, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting this be a straight yes-or-no question; only that it be a community discussion on what to do. We can make room for several possibilities. The point is, it seems arbitrary to leave it up to the "i like infoboxes" or "i don't like infoboxes" stances of whomever might be at a particular article at a particular time (that's essentially what it will come down to). Centralized community discussions (especially those commenced by arb decision) tend to make room for several possibilities, not simply a yea or nay. Let's see what we can come up with. Equazcion(talk) 19:44, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
Considering that ArbCom is close to banning a user for advocacy of infoboxes and thus singling one user out as a scapegoat, against an "old guard" of rather mean and nasty-acting sorts who continue to do anything (including collapsible side navboxes) to avoid having "teh dreaded infoboxen" appear on "their" articles - you may have a valid point. If "consensus" leans toward infoboxes, then the sanctions toward this user would be moot. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Any sanctions imposed on Andy Mabbitt will be an indication of his behavior alone - nothing more or less. Any great debate on the general usefulness of infoboxes will be millions of wasted words of waffle - most of them written by editors who have never written a useful page in their lives. The present system of adding an infobox only after debate with the primary editors on the talk page is the most satisfactory and least aggressive way of obtaining consensus that there's likely to be. The problem has always been Andy Mabbitt's inability to accept this. Giano 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm still struggling with this notion of "primary" editors, and how this concept could have possibly gained even moderate acceptance in a discussion here, of all places, where there's a policy called WP:OWN. But I digress. This should be put to a community discussion. I don't care about how various editors have behaved and don't have an opinion one way or the other on sanctions (because frankly I'm not familiar with their history) but the way these things are handled in general should be discussed broadly, as this is a broad-reaching issue, regardless of how lowly you regard the opinions of those who might respond. Equazcion(talk) 20:41, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, those seeking to bombastically impose their own views on others have always erroneously invoked WP:OWN. Fortunately, most people see the flaws in such false reasoning. Giano 20:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not erroneous. If someone is imposing their own views on others then they could be wrong too, but if you counter with any argument based on "primary" editors or anything synonymous with that, you're just as wrong, as you're doing precisely what WP:OWN warns against. It is the very purpose of the policy to prevent such stances from being credible. You may have a point that an editor acted inappropriately, but if that's the case then you've got the reasoning wrong. Equazcion(talk) 20:57, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear that a community-wide discussion about some of the issues raised in this case is needed. The trouble is that in the past when ArbCom have stated that explicitly, the response is at times a resounding silence. Literally. I may have missed it, but in the Doncram case earlier this year, ArbCom suggested (in relation to the stub guideline) that "this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way." I am not sure if that ever happened. In part, this is human nature as the last thing most people want to do after a lengthy ArbCom case is to carry on the discussions. You can take a break for a month or so, but people are often still reluctant to return to things especially if some of the ArbCom remedies may have calmed things down. Bit of a Catch-22 really. The other problems are that many casual editors will be completely unaware of WP:INFOBOXUSE, and many editors will have widely varying experiences and expectations in relation to infoboxes, which makes centralised discussion not as easy as it looks. You need to prepare such an RfC and gain input from all those who have strong views on the matter, otherwise the results won't be accepted. Carcharoth (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If the decision is made to put the question to the community, and no one is mandated to actually create it, then yes it could result in silence. I think if an RfC actually appeared, with a watchlist notice, there would be widespread participation. I would create one myself right now if I thought I could make a good one, but I was hoping someone smarter and more capable than myself could craft a good one. It needs to present all the right information and distill all the issues into a viable group of questions, and if that happened I think it could work. I have a feeling the infobox issue isn't quite as contentious in the broader community as it is with those vocal few present currently. Equazcion(talk) 21:04, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead. Almost anything would be better than the way we deal with disagreement now. Today I looked at the history of Sparrow Mass again, and I suggest you do the same, it's short. I added an infobox, after doing so to the liking of the principal author for Schubert's masses. Was that aggressive? Less than two hours later it was reverted, edit summary "cleanup". Was that aggressive? It looked to me not very thoughtful, so I reverted, asking for discussion on the talk. Edit conflict war, page protected. Andy was not on the scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
See, here's the issue. Per WP:BRD, you never should have restored the infobox after being reverted, regardless of whether you agreed with Nikkimaria's removal being characterized as "cleanup". Rexxs (with an ironic edit summary) and Diannaa should not have tag teamed to try and force its inclusion, nor should Nikki have edit warred against the three of you. But all of that came about because you incorrectly figured the guideline was bold, revert, revert, discuss. Once the page protection was lifted, the infobox was again removed to restore status quo ante, and you were right there to restore it yet again. Why? What did you expect to gain when there was already a discussion on the talk page, involving the usual suspects? Resolute 23:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You are right, I should not have reverted. But was it "aggressive". It was a spontaneous angry reaction to something unexpected I could not believe. By now, I am on 1RR, voluntarily so. Looking back to April and June gives you a wrong picture, I improved. So did Andy, no? (He didn't touch that article, sorry I was not precise about the meaning of "scene"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Andy was, in fact, on the scene, apparently misrepresenting the outcome of his microformats RFC to try and gain the upper hand in that discussion. Resolute 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
What I said was We've had RfCs which have shown community consensus to use infoboxes to emit microformats}}; and though I commented on the talk page, I did not edit the article, which is what Gerda is referring to. [Note Gerda means edit war, not edit conflict. Corrected.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and SilkTork's closure of that RFC made it clear that no such consensus existed on the use of microformats, let alone the use of infoboxes as the delivery system. They only noted an indication of support of considering the use of microformats in general. Unless, of course, there is a different RFC that I am not aware of. Resolute 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There are other RfCs, yes, one cited above; and the Composers Project RfC authorised the use of {{Infobox classical composer}}, which has emitted a microformat from the get-go. Your reading of ST's admittedly ambiguous-in-part closing statement also omits some important detail: "In general people felt that microformats had a place on Wikipedia, and there were no views calling for an outright exclusion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Err, no, I quite clearly said "They only noted an indication of support of considering the use of microformats in general." Resolute 00:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's important to note what ArbCom can and can't do. The Committee can impose binding decisions regarding inappropriate behaviour - such as users consistently ignoring consensus. The Committee cannot make decisions regarding content or policy or guidelines, nor force the community to have discussions regarding content or policies (the Committee can recommend or suggest such discussions, and the community can quite rightly ignore such recommendations). We have community wide consensus on the use of infoboxes which has been quoted in the findings: WP:INFOBOXUSE. This has been in existence since October 2011. If people feel this needs amending then the appropriate place to open a discussion would be on the talkpage of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. What this case is partly about is not that we don't have a guideline regarding the use of infoboxes, but that some users may not be appropriately following that guideline - that is to say that some users may be urging either the consistent use of infoboxes on all articles as standard, or conversely, some users may be insisting that infoboxes are not to be applied to a certain section of articles. The guideline indicates that use of infoboxes on a particular article, if contested, is decided by discussion and consensus on the talkpage of that article. Discussion has been taking place. The decision for the Committee is whether such discussion has been handled appropriately, whether those taking part in the discussions are taking on board the concerns of others, and whether certain users are having contentious discussions regarding the use of infoboxes so often as to be considered disruptive. The Committee's considerations on these matters will be informed by awareness of existing guidelines and consensus, but it is outside the scope of the Committee to alter consensus or to ask the community to set about altering consensus. My own view on infoboxes broadly aligns with consensus - properly used they provide useful information, but they are not always required, so making them mandatory would be inappropriate. If editors cannot reach agreement in a discussion regarding the use of an infobox in an article, they should avail themselves of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures we have in place.
However, making a focus on infoboxes is perhaps taking the spotlight off the real issue, which is the use of metadata. Infoboxes come into the picture, it seems, because they are regarded as the best means of employing the metadata software. The issue is that those in favour of employing the metadata software wish to place an infobox on articles which don't have one. Some users are objecting to having an infobox on an article where it may not be appropriate merely in order to employ the metadata software. If there is to be a community discussion on something, it should be on the use of metadata software on Wikipedia. Infoboxes would come into that discussion, as they are seen as fairly indispensable to the employment of metadata. My understanding of the metadata software is that it is able to encode certain basic information, such as the date of construction of a building, its location and size and type, and that can be translated into whatever readable format is appropriate by compatible software. This means that information can be transferred by means other than text. In previous discussion on metadata there is a consensus that it would be appropriate to explore this technology. Where there hasn't been consensus is how to use this technology - and how much we should be adjusting Wikipedia to fit the technology (such as employing infoboxes on all articles, regardless of local consensus on the appropriateness of such infoboxes).
That is, however, only the background. This case is not about should Wikipedia be using this technology. It is about whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to get this technology accepted everywhere on Wikipedia, or whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to block this technology being employed in certain places on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett is the expert on this technology, and if we are to fully explore it, his knowledge and experience would be invaluable. However, it appears that in his enthusiasm for the technology, he has been irritating a number of other users, and he has perhaps not been spending enough time on Wikipedia getting the community to buy into his vision. It is a grave error, and one that may prove costly both to him, and to the advancement of this technology. It is frustrating that this is the third time he has been involved in an ArbCom case related to the same issue. Though a user may be pursuing the right end, the means are also very important, and the community cannot work well if some users are allowed to ignore consensus because they have a good idea.
My view is that I am inclined to support a site-ban for Andy Mabbett, but I also see the need for the community to have a full and detailed discussion on the metadata technology, and such a discussion would benefit from the involvement of Andy Mabbett. I am wondering if a suspended site-ban would be appropriate. Allow Mabbett time on Wikipedia to get others to buy into his vision. Build some bridges. Explain more clearly how the technology works. And listen carefully to the concerns of the community. Perhaps get the site developers and the Foundation involved. While doing that, there would be certain conditions which if he broke would trigger an indef ban. Conditions such as: edit warring; arguing over using an infobox in an article (if someone objects, simply back off - there are over 4 million other articles on Wikipedia to work on); and being dismissive or incivil to other users (think twice before clicking "Save page" - has that comment the potential to be read as offensive or hostile? As an example - repeating in bold three times "Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" has the potential to be read as offensive and hostile). I haven't decided yet to simply support the current site-ban, or to propose a suspended one. SilkTork✔Tea time 03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" has the potential to be read as offensive and hostile. It can also be read as helplessness when faced with missing a basic common ground in a discussion, which needs to be established before you can reasonably talk. See (from Don Carlos):
My general thoughts on the Infobox (including that in my personal history I argued exactly as shown above) is found on Wikipedia:QAI/Infobox, short: the infobox is meant to repeat, in structured form, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not consistent with WP guidelines on infoboxes which stress that they are to summarise not repeat. --Kleinzach 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Without looking: How would you "summarize" a date of first performance, a subtitle, the name of a librettist, etc? If the guideline does not allow to repeat those key facts it needs to be changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Gerda, the box is supposed to summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole. Kleinzach 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
How can one say politely that a key player in the infobox discussions has a misunderstanding of what they are? I wonder how much conflict could have been avoided if it was accepted that infoboxes hold key facts, not a summary of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears." I understand that this means only key facts, avoid trivia. - What do you think? - Do you think an infobox on Verdi has to capture his genius? It's a myth. Not even an article can do that. - A common understanding of such basics is crucial for a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
While particular users' behavior in these particular cases is certainly a big part, if not the focus of the case, I think the arbitration committee has an opportunity to make a recommendation regarding the larger underlying issue that causes these conflicts to arise, even if until now they've taken place on a smaller and less noticeable scale. The guideline we have really offers no guidance at all -- it is in the end merely a negative statement: that there is no policy, so just decide amongst yourselves, using no criteria in particular. In addition to deciding what sanctions to impose on users, I think making broader recommendations when an underlying issue is present seems to have always been within the purview of arbcom. Equazcion(talk) 03:37, 27 Aug 2013 (UTC)
The "Why are you making pronouncements on the validity of this request if you do not understand such things?" comment was in this discussion, where (as Gerda suggests) it seemed a proportionate response to the wall of the demonstrably ill-informed and ad hominem dismissal of a proposed action which already has unequivocal support at an RfC (and which as a result of that unfounded intervention is currently stalled). Since that's not how it read to you or others, at whom it was not addressed, I apologise. I wonder if you, @SilkTork: would like to comment on similarly worded, "offensive and hostile" comments addressed to me and others on various talk pages, by parties and commenters in this case, along the lines of "you clearly have no interest in..." or "you clearly have no knowledge of...", which, unlike my comment under discussion, are not accompanied by evidence and have no basis in fact? Also, which are the other two "metadata arbcom cases" to which you allude? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be more reassured Andy if you were reflecting and taking on board concerns that people raise rather than arguing against them. If any user proposes something - regardless of what it is - they will likely meet some concerns. Some of these concerns will be valid. Some will arise out of a lack of clarity regarding some aspects of the proposal. Some may well be wide of the mark. All concerns need to be met with the same politeness and genuine attempts to allay the concerns. If after several reasonable attempts to allay the concerns they are simply repeated without showing signs of understanding, and if after reflecting on the adequacy of the explanations, perhaps asking what aspects are not clear, possibly rephrasing if needed, the same concerns are again repeated and it starts to appear as though the person asking is being disruptive, then it is better to ask for assistance rather than resorting to be impolite. If at this stage you don't understand that, then I am concerned. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In general, a fair point, and one I'm taking on board as a a result of this case (if you will, consensus not only has to be done, but be seen to be done), and I would indeed seek third party assistance in such cases in the future (you can read that as a formal undertaking if it helps). You appear to have missed my question about similarly worded, "offensive and hostile" comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Andy, you are close to drowning, Silktork tosses out a lifeline, and you are essentially complaining that it didn't precisely hit the mark. Astounding.SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) [This case] is about whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to get this technology accepted everywhere on Wikipedia, or whether some users have behaved inappropriately in attempting to block this technology being employed in certain places on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett is the expert on this technology, and if we are to fully explore it, his knowledge and experience would be invaluable. However, it appears that in his enthusiasm for the technology, he has been irritating a number of other users, and he has perhaps not been spending enough time on Wikipedia getting the community to buy into his vision. This to me is the heart of your apparent misunderstanding. As evidence has repeatedly shown, it is not Andy who is failing to get the community to buy into his vision, the problems all stem from a small number of users who have a dislike of infoboxes and who refuse to engage in discussion about it. You can continue to try to ban Andy for having been banned before if you want, but you can't expect people who have actually read all the evidence in this case to support your "grand vision" for an Andy-free project, nor can you expect it to solve the actual problems in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there an article showing an infobox edit war with only arguments from infobox supporters on the talk page? Why are those who oppose infoboxes considered to "refuse" discussion, whereas supporters are just trying to help? Some editors are able to propose change in a manner that is not disruptive. When such an editor encounters stiff opposition, they adapt, assuming that the opposers are acting in good faith, and that assistance or time is needed so others can understand the benefits of the proposal. A good editor might even contemplate whether the opposers have a valid point of view. Some editors can collaborate, while disruption seems to follow others. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is ample evidence in this case of where I or others have attempted to open a dialogue, and been met with a blank refusal. There is no evidence of the reverse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not strictly true Andy. In the Frank Matcham discussion you were offered an alternative compromise version, which you refused to even consider "because it finds no favour". To say there "is no evidence of the reverse" is just misleading, I'm afraid, although I'm sure it may have just slipped your mind. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, SchroCat, it is strictly true. In the Matcham discussion, I replied: "...the collapsed infobox, with hidden content, hasn't been implemented across WP because it finds no favour, unlike the million-plus uncollapsed infoboxes we have... Collapsing the infobox not only defeats its primary purpose, of providing a quick and convenient fact-list for those readers who desire or find useful such a thing (and there is evidence that readers [...] do), but also hampers the usefulness of providing accurate machine readable metadata, since hidden content is more likely to be overlooked when pages are updated. However, if you still think we should adopt that model despite such shortcomings, then - again - a centralised RfC should be the way forward." (of course, I should have said "2.5 million-plus uncollapsed infoboxes". Mea culpa). That might be a discussion that you find inconvenient, or even dislike intensely, but for you to attempt to portray it as a blank refusal to open a dialogue is at best misleading and quite possibly disingenuous. You continue to throw out false allegations, based on either no evidence or blatant misrepresentation of evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, as we do on so many things. You were offered a compromise solution on Matcham: you rejected it out of hand with a line of argument that a)smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and b) I am not sure I believe ("hampers the usefulness of providing accurate machine readable metadata"? Not at all true). It's not a question about an argument that I find inconvenient or dislike, so please don't try and double guess my rationale again: try to stick to the more concrete things people can understand, without trying to look into the psyche of others. I'll ignore your regular passing (and baseless) ad hominem comment, I find them part of the scenery in discussions with you, so there's no point in trying to rile me with such silliness. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Like something or not is one thing, but accepting something that "defeats its primary purpose" seems strange. I also have to disagree with you on this, SchroCat, as I disagreed with Nikkimaria on it, see? Dealing with a cantata "There is a contrary and despairing thing" (illustrating my present feelings quite well) I phrased about collapsing: I "regard (crossed out stronger term for dislike) the other as against the spirit of an infobox as openly accessible information. I don't revert it in articles of others (Little Moreton Hall comes to mind), but please please please don't do that to me in my articles, - it's against my sense of quality." The reply was: "functionally, there is little difference", which told me that I was not understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please feel free to disagree all you like with my reasoning in the cited comment, and the basis for it; and even to wrongly doubt my sincerity. But to pretend for a minute that it is evidence of refusal to engage in dialogue is fatuous in the extreme, and to describe it in such terms and link it to a pattern of similar incidents is not ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"You continue to throw out false allegations, based on either no evidence or blatant misrepresentation of evidence." There was no false allegation and I find your words an ad hominem that are, at best, unhelpful, as is following it up by accusing me of being "fatuous". I stick by what I first said, that you were not being entirely accurate when you said "I or others have attempted to open a dialogue, and been met with a blank refusal. There is no evidence of the reverse." There was evidence of the reverse, it's just that you didn't like what was being offered to you and rejected it out of hand. I'm taking this off my watchlist (again), so feel free to write whatever you want: others will judge your words for what they are. I find interacting with you utterly frustrating and demoralising: you can't see beyond beyond your own opinions on things and cannot behave like discussion is anything but a battlefield for you to smear and wound your opponents - and well done for beating another person away from a discussion. I'm utterly sick and tired of it and hope that I never see another petty, supid and pointless infobox argument break out again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "infobox edit war with only arguments from infobox supporters on the talk page", it seems logically impossible, - it's war or it's only one side. Wars are rare, thank goodness, we try to learn, really. More frequent are discussions with repetitions of similar arguments, see [[Rigoletto, reaching no consensus. We need a procedure to solve those cases, and banning one contributor will not solve them. However, as mentioned above, one protector of the status quo found a simple solution: change the Manual of Style. (Rigoletto would fall into a category which has no more option for an infobox.) Can we please come up with something more constructive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, SilkTork, about what ArbCom can and can't do. In WP:ARBDATE, a protracted and difficult case that occupied seven months of 2009, ArbCom passed the following Enforcement:
Stability review: "If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus."
Ryan Postlethwaite (God bless him) put a huge effort into organising and conducting a grand RfC to settle the content issues. It succeeded and there has been no war over any form of date de/linking to this day. I agree that ArbCom can't settle the content issues itself, but as you have indicated, it could go a long way to making sure it's in the interests of all involved for the warring to stop. --RexxS (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
By my estimation, it is likely to take at least another week before the case is close to closing (possibly longer). I'm aware that there has been a large amount of debate on this page in recent days, but can I ask that everyone please show restraint and focus purely on the proposed decision from now on? That will help those arbitrators who have yet to vote or complete voting, as there is a lot on this page for them to read. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It is to be hoped, not least given AGK's undertaking and his request for additional evidence, that those who have voted will also be reconsidering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I can speak from bitter experience that if you're going to railroad somebody in an arbitration proceeding you need to do it fast before people notice what you're up to and start asking pesky questions about evidence and motives. By all means, let's drag this out and see if some clueless administrator will block one of the participants while you all decide whether or not to jump off the ledge. Mackensen(talk) 00:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Better a well-thought out and consider decision, Carcharoth, than one made to hastily made. As far people posting, I'm not sure what can be done about that. People want to talk about this case and they will look for an appropriate forum to discuss it. If not here, it has to be on another page. LizRead!Talk! 00:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand Carcharoth's frustration quite well. He's trying to get the stupid case in the can (whether it's just or not is beside the point now) but no one dithers more than a half-active arbitrator who has just realized this job isn't what s/he signed up for and can't bear taking an unpopular stand. In the meantime, the talk page is exploding and he knows sooner rather than later someone's going to say something rash enough to earn a civility block, and then we'll have to hold a whole other arbitration case to deal with the inevitable fallout. Clock's ticking.
As to the merits, it's clear from the proposed decision that the committee should never have taken the case in the first place. None of the proposed bans are really supported by the evidence; if that's all it takes to get someone banned these days I've some scores to settle and some cases of my own to bring, although somehow I don't think I'll be as successful. No one's indispensable, but that doesn't mean prolific editors should be banned, blocked, or restricted lightly. This is ultimately a content dispute, not a personal one, and it'll have to be settled in the usual, painful way. You ought to just dismiss it, or water it down with the usual adjuration that we should all be nice to each other. Mackensen(talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Mackensen (a former arbitrator) makes some good points. Liz, it would be a good idea to centralise 'overflow' discussion at another page and leave links from here (anyone is welcome to do that). Specific commentary about aspects of the proposed decision is what is really needed. Some wider debate has been helpful initially, but that can only go on for so long before it detracts from the specifics of discussing the proposed decision. More specifically, those facing sanctions need the time and space to respond to what is being decided here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You know, I beginning to wonder why anyone would want to be an Arbitrator. Seems like a thankless job. Thanks for plugging away at it, even in mid-August. LizRead!Talk! 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to give an update from me; I'm one of the dithering Arbitrators referred to above. I have been trying to keep up with this case, but I have other Arbitration work too: CheckUser/Oversight appointments, Ban Appeals work, and the Tea Party Movement case. All three have been neglected just as this case has. I'll try to get this done by next week, but realistically that may or may not happen. For now, my preliminary analysis it to support the first several paragraphs of what SilkTork wrote above but again, there are a billion RFCs and talk page discussions to read and for someone who found out that there was a serious problem with infoboxes on Wikipedia in July 2013, it's not exactly the easiest thing to immediately grasp. NW(Talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want a gentle suggestion, it looks really bad when your (the committee's) proposed decision essentially ignores one side of a dispute, even though ample evidence was presented. Arbcom isn't supposed to take sides in a content dispute, but you are here. Mackensen(talk) 04:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want to take another gentle suggestion: don't look at a billion RFCs but at 2013, it would make your life easier and mine. Remember:
@NW: your wording "ban the worst offenders" reminds me of "arrest the usual suspects". As one of them, I urge you to go beyond suspicion, to facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)"
That's an excellent point, Gerda. That was me looking at the situation in July, never having understood that there was a problem with infoboxes. Having extensively read the evidence since, I understand that my first impression was entirely wrong. I'm still not entirely sure how I'm going to vote on the case but I know "arrest the usual suspects" is not on the table. NW(Talk) 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! There should be no problem with infoboxes, meant to be help and service. Repeating: if someone added infoboxes to my articles, I would say thank you. It is hard to understand for a newcomer - I am relatively new to the topic - why most works by Kafka have an infobox, no problem, but the addition of one to a book article in September 2012 is still remembered as a (insert the terms you heard) discussion, believed by some to have driven away a precious editor. This is not the fault of the infobox, which is rather simple in case of a book. The Rite of Spring, similar, a composition, - Bruckner's symphonies have infoboxes since 2007. - I have good news for you and all: the unilateral change of the MoS of project opera, aiming to keep the operas of all major composers free from an infobox, was reverted, a discussion is called for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@NW: I'm not really surprised that you didn't know of problems with infoboxes because over most of Wikipedia, there's no concern. However at WikiProject Composers, infoboxes have been a problem for many years. If you're feeling masochistic, take at look at the 2010 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC - 219 kB of text where you see the same anti-infoboxers rehearsing the same weak arguments ("redundancy", "consensus amongst the main contributors", etc.) against a different bunch of pro-infoboxers (many of whom have since moved away). You find DGG patiently explaining about the value of metadata and about building the semantic web, and you even find Kleinzach complaining about canvassing, because the pro-infoboxers hadn't notified all of the other relevant wikiprojects. What's the word I'm looking for? --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not concerned about myself, and I haven't seen recent facts that would justify banning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Any restriction on adding/not adding infoboxes to articles should specifically exempt creating new articles. As it currently reads, the first Pigsonthewing remedy seems to say that he cannot add an infobox to an article that he creates. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 03:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Nor an eight-word stub that I turn into a proper article. Nor an article on a subject well away from classical music and he other parties in this case, where there is no dispute on the use of infoboxes; or even where infoboxes are the norm. Note my evidence higher up on this page, listing the 60 infoboxes I added to existing articles in the first six months of this year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't look closely enough at the case to see if a restriction on the other cases you mentioned would be merited or not. My only thought was that since this is about conflict between users, a restriction where there was only one user would be irrelevant. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 02:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
See the section "Proposed remedy 1.1" currently at the bottom of the page, where I have proposed wording that allows for this. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Could I prevail on whomever's drafting this decision to clarify the problematic behavior? I see much forceful arguing, yes, but that's not impermissible and in general appears to be within the bounds of civil discourse. The evidence linked is also rife with personal attacks, bad faith, and innuendo from editors not named Pigsonthewing, none of whom are themselves subject of findings of fact or "remedies." If I were looking at those linked pages as a matter of first impression it would not occur to me that it was Pigsonthewing who was being sanctioned, and I'm still not sure what policy he's alleged to have violated. Thanks, Mackensen(talk) 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting for an answer here. Surely the ten who endorsed it and five who (presumably, given no other findings of fact) consider it the basis for a ban can quickly explain. If there's confusion about why you're banning someone then maybe it's not a great idea. Mackensen(talk) 12:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned that an arb decided to vote for banning Andy, mentioning the Peter Planyavsky case. Andy helped me (!) there, as often, on "my own" article where I wanted an infobox (and still don't have it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm put in mind of Henry's apocryphal plea, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" This case now borders on the farcical. Mackensen(talk) 13:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As is quite apparent to me, and as the finding states, Andy's contributions to the theatre of infobox disputes have been broadly unhelpful. The diffs show a sample of the evidence to support that conclusion; and they are illustrative, not exhaustive. Bearing in mind that this has been a heated and protracted dispute (where level-headedness is basically mandatory, if the whole thing isn't to descend into chaos), I don't think it's reasonable to contend that Andy's conduct illustrated by these diffs was helpful; is that what you're trying to suggest in your first few sentences?
I was under the impression that anybody else who is a prolific party to this dispute has been appropriately sanctioned, if they have had a negative effect on the dispute, but even if there were other people whose conduct has been wrongly overlooked, that would not excuse Andy's truculent interactions with the other disputants, nor make his previous influence on the dispute less disruptive. Debating whether he's earned a site ban is fair enough, but suggesting that he's conducted himself appropriately on all, or even on many, occasions is pretty out there. AGK[•] 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think you're asking me to prove a negative. What would helpful look like? Reading over the discussion truculent may be apposite, but he's not uncivil, he's not name-calling, and he's generally advancing the idea of why a particular edit ought to be made. I'm not aware of anyone else being sanctioned in this dispute, and I think that if you're going to ban someone outright you need to go a lot further than characterize comments as "unhelpful", especially when you have other editors specifically disputing that characterization. Above all you need specifics. Let me ask another question: do you see any other unhelpful people on those talk pages? I do. Do you think they're going to be helpful to the next editor who rolls around if you ban Andy? I don't. Mackensen(talk) 18:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you know that it was copied to the German Wikipedia, first installed recently?
Did you know that there's an an article on which Giano, Eric Corbett, Andy and I collaborated?
Did you know that there's another one by Nikkimaria, Tim riley and me?
Did you know that The Company of Heaven, Benjamin Britten's 1937 composition for speakers, soloists, choir and orchestra, contains "metrical spoken (shouted) male chorus"?
Did you know that Ben Gunn, imprisoned 32 years for killing a friend when he was 14, earned a Master of Arts degree in peace and reconciliation?
No. Since you mention my name, I will comment. I accepted an infobox (without question for its need, although I did question some of its dubious content [130]) on Holzhausenschlösschen because you, Gerda, were the major concerned editor [131](if I recall correctly, you posted on my talk-page requesting my input [132]). I respect your views on pages where you are a major content contributor - I never comment in these infobox disputes on pages where I feel my input has been non-existent or negligible. Unfortunately, Andy Mabbit does not reciprocate that view where his input is minimal. My solution of leaving these disputes to those writing and maintaining the pages is the obvious peaceable solution. Giano 18:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments and a suggestion from Harry Mitchell[edit]
Please forgive me if if this might have been better presented in he evidence or workshop stages; I missed those, mostly as I have limited access to the Internet at present, but also because I think the whole thing is a bit silly. However, after a heated conversation with a friend at the weekend, I wanted to offer a few thoughts. For the sake of transparency, I should declare that Andy Mabbett is a personal friend in real life and Nikkimaria is a fellow coordinator of the military history project whom I've worked with in the past and hold in very high esteem. I am less familiar with the other parties, but this seems to me not to be the typical arbitration case.
This isn't a political or nationalistic dispute spilling over onto Wikipedia (like Armenia/Azerbaijan, Israel/Palestine, etc, etc); it's a group of very intelligent and otherwise rational editors who have made immense contributions to this project but who seem to have lost the plot a bit. I actually intended to be quite scathing of several of the parties, but they have all presented themselves well in this case, made reasonable comments, and suggested that they are willing to sit down and discuss the issues with infoboxes like adults. They're not children who need disciplining, nor zealots who are incapable of putting the needs of the encyclopaedia above their own personal biases, so the optimist in me hopes that the discussions around infoboxes can continue without anybody (pro- or anti-infobox) having to be forcibly removed from the discussions or the project as a whole. What needs to end and what is totally unacceptable and unconducive to productive discussion is:
The snarkiness, sniping, sarcasm, condescension. Editors need to behave like adults and not resort to juvenile name-calling, or thinly veiled remarks about opponents' mental health, intelligence, etc.
Similarly, the contempt in which the parties hold each other (of which the above is a symptom). Folks need to wipe the slate clean and remember that we're all working to the same end. We're entitled to disagree on the route we take to that end (it's inevitable, and ArbCom should not seek to suppress honest disagreement), but no progress will be made through petty bickering.
The belligerence of the parties, the passive-aggressive behaviour, and the spoiling for fight. This includes the attempts to railroad infoboxes in by force and the continual hammering on the same door, which only heightens the bad feeling, intensifies the dispute, and only makes the anti-box parties dig their heels in even further. It also includes reverts with cryptic or inaccurate edit summaries, and any other behaviour which is intended to avoid or derail discussion.
Adding infoboxes to articles where previous contributors have opted to omit one (or removing long-standing infoboxes) without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page. The parties have all been around the block enough times to know that this causes more problems than it solves.
Attempts to undermine or demean opponents by manufacturing a divide between "content creators" and "others". The idea that there would be such a divide is anathema to the principles of Wikipedia, and, more importantly, it's a fallacy—many (most, even?) Wikipedians write articles and do other things. Defining oneself as belonging to one camp or the other in an attempt to belittle the other demeans every contributor to this project and serves no purpose towards addressing the resolving disagreements.
Flash mobs (whether recruited on-wiki or off, ie including but not limited to wikiprojects and ad-hoc groups of friends) turning up en masse as if to fight in a battle. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and editorial decisions are not made by volume of advocates, so attempting to drown out opponents with vast numbers of "me too" comments is unhelpful at best.
My suggestion would be to be liberal with the admonishments/reminders/cautions if ArbCom wants to be seen to be doing something, but really this is a content dispute. It can only be resolved through discussion. Perhaps once all the parties have had a dressing down for their various misdemeanours, they could attempt to work out their differences on a centralised talk page (for issues around infoboxes in general) and on article talk pages (for issues concerning infoboxes on a specific article). A small group of mediators (experienced editors who have or can earn the respect of both groups) could be appointed to keep order, and could be given the power to caution editors and then remove comments or ban them from a specific discussion or all infobox discussions if their comments continue to degrade the quality of the discussion. It won't resolve the questions about whether and where to use infoboxes (that's for editorial discussion), but it might improve the quality of the discussion. And if it doesn't, the case can be revisited in a few months with liberal application of bans for those who refuse to engage in civilised discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine thoughts that we can all agree on, except that there is a distinction between content creators and others (I'm an other). Magnificent articles do not evolve from people like me correcting typos or adding factoids—someone with a deep understanding of the topic needs to devote large effort and energy in an act of creation that is fundamentally different from 100 passers-by adding a sentence each. In this case (where infoboxes are not mandatory, and where good arguments exist on both sides), the most collaborative approach is to employ the WP:ENGVAR idea of leaving an article the way it was built. Battling content creators is very unhelpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to vehemently disagree with that, Johnuniq. Content creators who take so much pride in their work that they don't expect to have to argue the issues on equal footing with everyone else are best suited to non-wiki venues. I'm not even sure how feasible this kind of attitude would be, as not everyone who comes across such an article will be familiar with the special treatment these people are to be afforded. Shall we make a template that reads, "This page was created by a beloved content creator, so tough calls fall by default to them"? Equazcion(talk) 01:43, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how that conclusion can be reached from my statement—of course ownership is wrong and needs to be stamped out if encountered. However, having a group of technical editors say that infoboxes are mother's milk is not sufficient reason for the group of editors who maintain an article to accept that an infobox is necessary. Apparently some third-parties view infoboxes as obviously desirable, and so regard the reversion of a new infobox as an ownership problem, but there is not even a guideline to support that view. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion but - in my view - is mistaken at the premise. Show me one person who likes infoboxes who would say they are "necessary" ("mandatory")? I would say: helpful yes, necessary no. Look at The Rite of Spring (if you dare): Do you see "necessary"? "Why doesn't this article have an infobox?" - that was all, and two versions suggested. How is that "imposing an infobox" (a term I often read and don't understand, as I don't get how that would be "disruptive")? - The question is still open, btw, even if the discussion was closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not drawing any conclusions about who should win the infobox debate in those or any instances. But when people attempt to answer that question by drawing a distinction between how the opinions of "creators" should be regarded versus those of others, that is an ownership problem. Every article on Wikipedia is a collaboration between editors who all have varying levels of devotion to a topic, from gnome to wizard (or whatever the nomenclature is) -- none of which should dictate their level of control over the fate of articles. How much content an editor is responsible for in a given article should never enter into any debate as proof that their opinion should weigh more than anyone else's. It's always been one of the supreme challenges of the Wikipedia editor to vigilantly let go of those natural notions that creation entitles one to any modicum of control. That's just how this place works, like it or not. Those who can't accept that fact, or simply refuse to, don't get a pass to ignore it. Equazcion(talk) 02:33, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
Infobox are not compulsory, yet their persistent promotion has caused enormous disuption to a group of content creators—that's about the most damaging thing that can be done at Wikipedia. From frustration, perhaps someone has said that the views of content creators have primacy—that's incorrect, but hardly a hanging offense. If an infoboxes-cannot-be-removed policy is enacted, so be it, but meanwhile maximum benefit arises from defending content creators. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
"meanwhile maximum benefit arises from defending content creators" -- How so? Because we don't have an answer it's best to keep the peace by choosing someone to side with arbitrarily? Or if it's not arbitrary, is it that we need so urgently to keep content creators happy that we should ignore a basic tenet of Wikipedia? The need for content is not so dire that we should bend Wikipedia around those few content creators who seem less satisfied with the way things are actually supposed to work here. Equazcion(talk) 03:55, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus mandating infoboxes, and both sides have presented sound arguments. Are you suggesting that a good way to resolve the conflict would be to reject the views of those who maintain the article, in order to promote our basic tenets? Supporting content creators is not arbitrary—it is a choice that is likely to result in more good content being created. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made no claims as to how the issue should be resolved, other than somewhere above where I suggested a community-wide RfC to start crafting an actual guideline on the topic. And as Olive below points out, all contributors should be supported equally. Supporting content creators over other editors so that more good content can come about is a tactic best left to independent publications. It has no place on Wikipedia. The ends do not justify the means here. Equazcion(talk) 04:32, 28 Aug 2013 (UTC)
The issue should be resolved by both sides – and I make no apologies for stating that unfortunately there are "sides" – discussing the issues with an view to reaching an agreement, rather than aiming for a "win" for their views. Equazcion expresses some of the frustration I have found when I've seen an infobox reverted with the only reason given being that a particular project was not notified first. Nevertheless, the principal contributors to an article do have an advantage – they almost certainly understand the nuances of the subject better than others. What that means is that we should respect their expertise: they are in the best position to help decide on the content of an infobox. If someone who has guided an article through FAC tells me that key fact A is misleading because XYZ, then I make sure that fact A doesn't go in the infobox. That doesn't mean that their opinion of the value of metadata or accessibility, for example, is worth more than anybody else's. The so-called "content creators" (and I have written featured content, but I'm still unsure whether I'm counted as a content creator or not) are the best folks to improve content and curate it - and that includes the content of an infobox. The sad thing about all of this is that in one small area the very folks who would be of most value in making sure an infobox would improve an article are the ones who are so dead set against having any infoboxes in their walled garden that they have opposed them blindly. There is even an article on a composer which was promoted to FA with an infobox but five years later had the infobox removed (edit summary: "Removing infobox per Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Music#Biographical infoboxes". The infobox had been there for five years and it was promoted with it - now please read the "discussion" on the talk page. The infobox was of course removed again and is still absent. Then in the next breath, we get told to defend the "content creators". What hypocrisy. --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Supporting Wikipedians is necessary whatever they do. Good is a subjective judgement. (olive (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC))
This is "controversial"??? Given that many of the additions are from July 2 and are "current," and the other handful I checked show the boxes still there, obviously the boxes aren't very controversial. NE Ent 23:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Infoboxes for discussion", rather like other contentious areas where opinions might be divided and progress is not being made, to have a venue where discussion can take place, and an uninvolved editor/admin makes the final decision. Might be worth folks having a discussion on the Village pump or a RfC page regarding if "Infoboxes for discussion" would be viable. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
They are currently on Project QAI. I am willing to open a new subpage for centralized discussions if wanted, but the normal thing would be to go to the article's talk page. Don Carlos is open on QAI since it was deleted from the talk of Don Carlos with the edit summary "The talk page is not the place for an info box. - Typically an infobox is added and reverted, period. It would be a nice service if the one who cleans an article from an infobox would place it on the talk for discussion. Recent examples where I placed it on the talk are Cantata academica (infobox was added by me) and Russian Symphony Orchestra Society (infobox was added by Andy). In the latter case, discussed above, I didn't find an infobox in the article. I wonder if you will ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I invite all the arbs to visit the current version of the RSOS article and look at the infobox there (n.b. not the image/ caption set in the top right), then to tell us here what they think of it, its accessibility and usability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Question re "Editors reminded" section of PD - it says editors are reminded "to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." In that case, in my opinion "this article needs an infobox because it emits metadata (or wikimarkup, etc)" should never be accepted, or even introduced into discussions about a single article's infobox, is that what is intended? Can this be clarified in the final decision?Smeat75 (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As I see this "reminder", comments such as this [133] on the Don Carlos talk page, which have nothing to do with the specific article, should never appear again on single article talk pages, I wonder if the arbs agree that is the implication of this "reminder".Smeat75 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you have it the wrong way round. Any article will benefit from emitting accurate metadata, so that needs to be considered in every case, just as every article benefits from having a quick overview summary of the key facts for the casual reader. It's nonsense like "the infobox is redundant" and "the information is already in the article" that needs to be stamped on strongly. It is obvious that the lead itself suffers from exactly those problems, but we still encourage editors to add leads to articles, because it improves them. Millions of Wikipedia articles benefit from having redundant information in their infoboxes, and there's nothing special about composers that makes their redundant information any smellier than other peoples' redundant information. Redundancy of information is not in itself a disadvantage to any article, but it sure makes a good target for those who don't have any real arguments to muster. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This isn't the venue to discuss the merits of infoboxes, and even if it were, it's producing more heat than light. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That would indicate to me that nothing will change."Why will an infobox improve the article on Don Carlos", answer "Because it emits metadata" has nothing to do with Don Carlos. Smeat75 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, Rex's frank statement (not his first) that he is implacable that there are never good reasons not to have an infobox for the vast majority of articles shows why this is unlikely to work. There is little point in a "X for discussion" set-up where there are entrenched views among a high proportion of the small minority interested. It just becomes a matter of stamina. Those interested in metadata need to find another, and better way of handling it, linking to the vast amount of work being done outside WP on standard vocabularies, digitizing standard sources with more authority than WP, and so on. Then metadata on WP would become an input and a positive benefit for WP, rather than an output, and a nuisance for us and a benefit for the likes of Google. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be so radical or purely black and white. Non-infobox templates could emit the metadata just as well. Collapsible infoboxes that do emit the metadata seemed to gather quite a few votes among those traditionally opposed to them - it's the pro crowd that rejects them out of hand. Infoboxes could have a supplemental flag parameter that trigger a bot which copies to or updates wikidata entries then removes those flagged infoboxes from articles, avoiding recoding non-infoboxes that emit the same metadata - I'm quite sure again that people traditionally opposed to infoboxes for non-metadata related motives could live with 24 hours of infobox presence that gets removed. Or the bot could comment out the infobox once it has done its work, leaving it still present for updating purposes later on. Solutions abound. The willingness to compromise is what is lacking. MLauba(Talk) 22:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's the complete opposite of what I've said, John. I have never intimated "that are never good reasons not to have an infobox" for whatever set of articles you care to choose. I have consistently and patiently explained that there advantages and disadvantages and both need to be balanced when making decisions. See my evidence for starters. I do get rather sick of having words put into my mouth by those whose only goal is get rid of all infoboxes from Wikipedia for no other reason than not liking them. I do believe that an infobox would bring some advantages to Don Carlos: (i) it would provide a quick overview of key facts for the casual reader; (ii) it would enable outside data users to quickly and easily index those key facts about Don Carlos; (iii) it would help improve the accuracy of natural language processors which are trying to glean further information from the text of Don Carlos - which in turn helps spread our content beyond the traditional boundaries of paper encyclopedias. I also can see that having an infobox with wrong or misleading information in it would work against those goals; and I'm even able to accept the argument that so little information about a particular article is presentable as a key fact that an infobox would be a net disadvantage. But that's because I can see both sides of the argument and I'm willing to search for compromises. Your crew hasn't budged an inch with your ownership issues since before 2010 and if you carry on like that, of course you'll find nothing has changed. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Mlauba: Have you written a "Non-infobox template" that "could emit the metadata just as well"? If you produce one that's as easy to edit and maintain as an infobox, I'll be happy to see it used where infoboxes are unwelcome. Until then though, I hope you'll allow me some skepticism of another pie-in-the-sky idea being thrown around as if it were fact. We usually call it "vapourware". As for infoboxes with collapsible sections, I'm lukewarm although I've created some as examples of the technique. They make life harder for anybody who can't use a mouse, and frankly, if the infobox is getting so big that some of its content needs to be hidden, I'd rather exclude that content from the infobox anyway. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
"By those whose only goal is get rid of all infoboxes from Wikipedia for no other reason than not liking them."—There is no such person. (One said, e.g., [134].) Your comment may have been said in anger, as we all over-generalize when angry, but such statements make me wonder what the point of ever "debating" or "trying to finding compromise" with you would be, when you misrepresent the situation that much. (Am I supposed to be one of the people who wants all infoboxes removed? Garbage. Hell, I've commented in four or five infobox debates in my life, all in the humanities area (humanities bios, art, lit). This is the main scope of the infobox problem, though it would be hard to tell from the presentation here.)
One tends to stop "debating" when all of one's positions are considered "refuted" by the strident infobox supporters a priori. (Here's a talk-page search of Andy Mabbett saying "refuted". All those top results are him. "Bogus / refuted / misleading / bogus ..."). This case happened because, in the history of the entire infobox debate on Wikipedia, people have questioned infoboxes on perhaps 50-100 specific article talk pages. There was a common factor to most of those cases, as this case has clearly shown. No person was ever present, in the numerous discussions I've seen, who suggested that all infoboxes should be deleted.
RexxS, you called someone a liar [135] and shamed me [136] higher up on this page. Observing that such is permissible, I'm going to stretch my wings and say to you: shame on you for lying (which is to say, knowingly misrepresenting the degree of infobox opposition). This bird has flown. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Rubbish - there's a whole bunch of people who have never advanced more than the most fatuous of reasons for removing infoboxes - even you could see that if you took your blinkers off. Yes, I am angry, because I can see that all you've been doing here is playing a game to get rid of your principal opponent. There's been no attempt to look at ways of resolving the issues over infoboxes and all you've achieved is damage to the encyclopedia. You must be really proud of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The latest version of an infobox for Don Carlos is here, because it was deleted on the talk of the opera. (Andy restored it there.) Note that it is a double, showing French and Italian version which have different names. For me (foreigner), that's much more obvious than any prose, - feel free to discuss there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
@RexxS You can spare the condescending remarks, thanks all the same. The point is that there are several potential solutions that could dissociate metadata from the present infoboxes, whereas goodwill is manifestly lacking. Fully visible, present-state infoboxes as the sole emitter of metadata is not a permanent truth. It's a matter of convenience. Dissociation of metadata from full infoboxes could be a good way to give all sides what they want. It would also definitely separate both matters, which in reality is probably for the best. MLauba(Talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course, it's fine to promise all these technological solutions when you haven't a clue about the problems of creating and maintaining them - not to mention the Luddites who will fight you tooth and nail before they'll let you make changes to the articles that they own. Anyway, if you ever look, you'll find that it's not just a matter of convenience, it's a matter of maintenance - or are you going to write a bot that keeps these invisible structures updated as well? It's ok to make promises relying on work from other volunteers as long as you don't have to do it yourself. And I'll tell you this: valuable as it is, metadata is only a minor reason for having infoboxes; the principal reason remains the value that they give to the casual reader who wants a quick fact, or the visitor who doesn't understand a lot of English but can still pick up some key concepts. So you're a very long way off the mark by thinking that stripping metadata from infoboxes would solve anything. The walled garden brigade would still be removing perfectly good infoboxes from their articles just because they don't like them. Or is that the only solution that acceptable to you? --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You seem intent to pick a fight with whoever doesn't share your absolutist world view. What you are amply demonstrating is that neither the pro-infobox nor the anti-infobox crowd are capable of envisioning a reality that doesn't conform to their narrow vision of what is possible and feasible. You think every single article should have an infobox? Go ahead, get a site-wide consensus to implement one. And lastly stop ascribing opinions to people when you have no idea what their opinion on infoboxes are. If the subject is so emotional to you that you are unable to maintain a semblance of decorum, a wikibreak might do you good. Voluntary or not. MLauba(Talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And you're pretty quick to leap to the ad hominems when somebody tells you something you find unpalatable. Address the comments, not the commentator. I'm quite happy to stand up for myself and for reason, and if you want to claim that's an intention to pick a fight, you'd better start finding some examples of where I've started it. If someone wants to debate sensibly, I'm more than willing to engage at that level. But when someone starts spouting drivel, I'm going to be telling them so. You know nothing about me, but you want to smear me with an "absolutist world view" - complete and utter bollocks. Have you read any of my evidence or contributions? Thought not. If you had, you'd see I have never suggested that every article should have an infobox, but have given examples of where I've agreed that an infobox is not an improvement - at least one of us understands that we have to debate pros and cons to reach a consensus. Read up on what a strawman is before you engage again. Folks like me have been willing to see both sides of the argument and look for compromise through reasoned discussion, but you come along and pontificate about technical solutions without any understanding of what is involved. I am very angry right now at the most one-sided decision that I've seen from ArbCom in the five years that I've followed them, so if you want to threaten me with a block, bring it on, and show us just how abusive an admin can be when involved in an argument. Why on earth we promote trigger-happy kids to a position where they can threaten other editors that disagree with them is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: asked for comments on the proposed findings.
My detractors have posted a carefully chosen selection of diffs and links to discussions, attempting to portray me and others who share some of my views in the most negative light they could. That is, of course, their right, and they would no doubt say I and others have done the same to them. This arena has, after all, evolved over the years into being an exceedingly adversarial process (the debate about whether and how to remedy that is for another time).
Unfortunately, those who drafted the proposed findings have drawn from these partisan examples some very broad brush conclusions, which others have taken on board at face value. For instance, there are already sufficient votes to pass the finding that my "contributions to discussions about the inclusion of infoboxes are generally unhelpful and tend to inflame the situation". I beg to
disagree, and suggest that dispute only occurs in the narrow focus of this case; that is, in articles edited by members of the classical music projects and a small group of others who (for want of a better way of referring to them collectively) are those who see themselves as a "content creator" faction described by Harry. Most of my talk page edits regarding infoboxes were not mentioned in the evidence or workshop stages, because they did not seem relevant, but I believe I have a reputation among many editors for being helpful in that regard - at least, many ask for my advice or assistance, (and I recall being "thanked" in notifications, though I quickly turned that off as a distraction), and I am often engaged in unremarkable talk page discussions which result in undisputed improvements to templates, their content and the articles on which they sit. If Arbcom want it, I would be willing to collate evidence of this, but that would be both time consuming and voluminous.
Even in the discussion cited as evidence in that finding, I contend that my comments, while forceful, are not generally unhelpful. I also note that the finding ignores the comments to which I was subjected in those cited conversations, such as "I suggest you go away and finds a spot where your input is more welcome", "I would have expected you to have had more sense...", and so on.
There is also the contention that I "selectively choose what discussions I consider consensus". This later claim is evidenced solely to the linked discussion about {{Geobox}}; where a TfD found "no consensus" for a merge proposal, and I have been painstaking to propose small, incremental changes in discussion on its talk page, those of related templates and interested editors, and with related projects Note that in that debate, Ruhrfisch, the cited editor who accuses me of ignoring consensus, said at the TfD "if you want to get rid of Geobox, then 1) fix the infoboxes so they can do everything Geobox can, and 2) make sure it is as easy as possible to convert from one to the other, then ask again"; which is exactly what have been doing (again, I can furnish diffs on request).
As a result of the above finding, there is a proposal, already with enough votes to pass, albeit slated for rewording, which would have me "indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes" across all of Wikipedia. I have provided ample evidence, above, that the vast majority of my infobox additions are outside the area of this case as described, and are non-controversial. The project will drive no benefit from preventing them.
I have already indicated my willingness to further moderate my tone in discussions; and I am of course willing to take note of and abide by the "all parties reminded" findings recently suggested. If it is necessary for me to give an undertaking to avoid certain areas of Wikipedia involved in this case, then I shall of course do so. But, as Mackensen notes above in a currently-unanswered question, the evidence presented in this case does not support the findings and the proposed, extensive restriction on my editing or commenting, much less a site ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I will reply later today as I am ultra busy in real life and for now refer people to my evidence on the Evidence page, which offers much more than Pigsonthewing mentions above. I also ask the ArbCom to decide if the proposed topic ban includes 1) "infoboxes" without the name "Infobox" (such as Geobox) and 2) editing Infoboxes in general (otherwise I foresee a can of worms). Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That does need clarification from the Arbs. As it passes now, the ban is on 'adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxs'. On the face of it, that does not include - altering the templates, adding/removing sections to them or nominating them for removal outright. Is this deliberate in order to allow Andy to continue to work on infoboxs? Or is it an oversight? Because I would refer to Ruhrfisch's evidence if its the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said I have very little time today, so here to start are the pertinent sections of my evidence on Pigsonthewing's selective use of "consensus" (copied from the Evidence page):
"In my experience, Pigsonthewing seems to try to wear people down, arguing long after consensus against his position been reached. Despite his single-minded pursuit of his goals, he can be frustratingly inconsistent in his arguments. For example, his evidence (above) cites a no-consensus, nearly three-year-old RFC to support adding Microformats on WP. But when I pointed out six-month-old opposition to adding an Infobox at Talk:Rite of Spring, he basically dismissed it as "based on false claims" diff. He did not object to my citing numbers (6-1 against) then, and when I gave a tally/percentage (as is done at WP:RfA) of those opposed to an Infobox in the article (myself included) and those in favor diff, he wrote "So we are making progress!" diff. However when Gerda abstained, I recalculated the tally, and Pigsonthewing called my actions "asinine" and accused me of "rig[ging] the figures in your favour" diff."
"Pigsonthewing is also out to delete Template:Geobox despite "no consensus to merge" (with Infoboxes) on his TfD. He then tried to delete the Geobox piecemeal, starting with the Mountains and Mountain ranges functions here, and here. Next he turned to Geobox|River, by proposing it be "deprecated" at Template talk:Infobox river (and no notice from him on Geobox talk)."
I also note that I later told Pigsonthewing that I had changed my mind on replacing Geobox, but he didn't quote that and I have no time to dig it up now. I will comment more later, no time now. Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
My reply to Pigsonthewing is at Template_talk:Infobox_river#Geobox.2C_again and reads in part ". I have changed my mind (especially as I would have to do the work of updating the river articles I am the chief contributor to if this comes to pass). Wikipedia allows editors fairly wide leeway on how they do many different things here (please see WP:IAR). One example is that there are at least three different ways to cite references (with many similar but not identical templates). Are you going to "unify" those too?"
There are over 20,000 articles which use Geobox River - I know how long it took me to convert when the current version of the Geobox was introduced (diff) and assume conversion to Infobox River would be at least as time consuming. Even if it took only 1 minute per conversion, that would be about two weeks of work to convert all 20,000 plus Geobox River articles. Nor did Pigsonthewing bother to notify the users of Geobox River about his plan to deprecate that version of the Geobox.
In addition, please note that both {{Infobox mountain}} nor {{Infobox mountain range}} still CANNOT do everything that Geobox Mountain and Geobox mountain range did (i.e. Geobox mountain had parameters on the geology and geological period and who made the first ascent) [137]. So much for my request that they first "fix the infoboxes so they can do everything Geobox can" and Pigsonthewings claim that this "is exactly what have been doing" sic. Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I (Ruhrfisch) close by quoting Finetooth at the Infobox River discussion "Andy, the issue that concerns me here is editorial control, which should never be ceded to a subset of the whole collective. By consensus, the collective has already rejected your proposal to eliminate geoboxes entirely. Your proposal to deprecate geoboxes is essentially the same proposal. The English Wikipedia and the Commons are parts of a commons managed collectively; anyone, including Google, may reuse the product (encyclopedia articles, data, images) under the terms of the GFDL and other licenses and may participate in seeking changes to existing policies and guidelines. However, participating in policy discussions is not the same as setting policy. That power should remain in the hands of the collective, which has already spoken on this matter. ... "
@Rhurficsh: so because one infobox is suboptimal then all infoboxes are bad and anyone who promotes them needs to be banned? According to my understanding of the way wikis work, an infobox being suboptimal is simply a reason to fix that infobox. If you can't do it yourself you should explain to someone who can what needs fixing, if they don't understand what needs fixing or why then you need to have a civil discussion until you understand each other and come to an agreement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Thryduulf, by no means is that what I was trying to say, sorry to be unclear. Pigsonthewing mentioned me and my evidence, so I tried to clarify. To beat the proverbial dead horse, Geobox was nominated for deletion (by Pigsonthewing), but that TfD was closed as no consensus to merge with the appropriate Infoboxes. Despite that clear consensus, Pigsonthewing succeeded in deprecating the mountain and mountain range functions of Geobox, and tried to do the same for the River function (in the latter case not even bothering to post a notice on the Geobox talk page for a proposal that would wipe out over 20,000 uses of the Geobox had it passed). My problem with Pigsonthewing has everything to do with his repeated bad behavior, and only involves Infoboxes (and Geoboxes) because that is where most of our interactions have taken place.
Just to be clear, I am not "anti-infobox". If you look at the 28 articles I helped bring to FA, about 90% have some sort of box (though I suspect most of those are Geoboxes). In most cases, a box is OK by me, but there are some like Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park or the 3 FLs I have been a co-nom on at FLC that either have no box, or where a box would not add anything useful. To me it is an editorial decision, just like which photos best illustrate an article and what level of detail to go into on different topics. And, for the record, I did support improving Infobox River (see further down its talk page), I just choose not to use it in stream articles I write (and as RexxS can tell you, I can't code templates). Ruhrfisch><>°° 16:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So when the case is closed, are the clerks going to put a notice on every editor's talk page?
Shouldn't editors maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about ... anything?
While I respect the committee's willingness to settle the issues no one else wants to actually figure out, I've never figured out how vague sweeping remedies like this are intended to improve WP? NE Ent 02:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It's really not so silly. One purpose enshrined in such General Purpose Criterion is its effect on future incarnations of "behavior"; impossible to list for being unknown, and for such GPC, unnecessary. :)John Cline (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So what's equivalent to Chemical weapons, committee decisions or haggling over infoboxes??? NE Ent 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It's a concept, is all. :)John Cline (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
NE Ent, that remedy originally referred to the parties to the case, rather than editors in general. The change was made here. See also the comments made by arbs. Strictly speaking, the remedy should refer to editors who participated in this case who would reasonably have read that remedy. It's a warning for people who participated here to keep calm as their conduct will likely be judged more harshly than others if a future case is needed if things flare up again. Though hopefully that won't happen. Your point about how editors in general should maintain decorum in discussions about anything, not just infoboxes, is well made. The wording could be tweaked (e.g. "All editors engaged in discussions about infoboxes are reminded to maintain decorum and civility"), but the current wording is unlikely to be misunderstood. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A cluster of issues — personal, publishing-related and technical, (if not philosophical) — are involved in the infobox question. Confusing these issues has made it difficult, if not impossible, to resolve them.
Unfortunately I think the lack of structure and preparation for this ArbCom case (as freely admitted by the initiator), has doomed it to the repetition of old arguments, limiting the prospect of positive outcomes. (If only the energy that has gone into this case could be recycled in the actual encyclopedia! Perhaps we could even start reversing the decline of Wikipedia!)
I’d like to make some quick points:
1. Personal disputes have been discussed in detail. It should be simple enough to determine who has been edit warring and sanction them accordingly. Sanctions should be proportionate. They should be based on how users behave, not on how they think.
2. The ‘publishing issue' — of how to coordinate ancillary material with main text — is important for all encyclopedias, on and offline. This could be usefully discussed in separation from general and technical matters. AFAIK no one is advocating putting wrong information in infoboxes, so there is no reason for a dispute on this aspect of the box question.
3. Technical issues have not been adequately opened up for discussion. We need to look at how the boxes are structured within pages, and used to extract what data, for what purpose. Assumptions have been made by both sides (pro-box and box-sceptic) without any real examination of how the boxes should be coded and applied. In the future, improved, better-linked infoboxes (‘smart boxes’) may obviate some of the present difficulties and help address GIGO concerns (e.g. boxed information missing from articles might be highlighted etc. etc.) I think we should be looking in this direction.
(I’ve been travelling during the last couple of months. I haven’t had time to read all the submissions above and on other pages. I'm only taking this opportunity to make these brief comments because the page has been left open (past its expiry date?). I'm not intending to add anything later. )
This is a talk page for discussing the proposed decision. It will remain open at least until a decision is finalised.
The personal dispute problems are not a matter of edit warring, so more nuanced remedies are required.
The publishing issue really does need to be discussed outside of this case. I wish you luck with it.
It is pretty obvious nobody will advocate putting wrong information into infoboxes, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten those who have complained about other people putting wrong information into infoboxes. (It's always other people, right?) To refresh your memory, here are a few snippets of those complaints:
"if boxes are a possibility, no matter which ones are out there, I expect that editors who think everything from plainchant to Mahler's "Resurrection" Sym. is a "song" will persist in afflicting us with The Wrong Box, and, if history is any guide, will then get upset and combattively launch new discussions like this one when others remove them"
"editors will continue to use inappropriate boxes or even create a composer/musician box themselves without consulting us."
"First, look at the existing article on genre, to which the box gives a link and to which an ingenu might be expected to refer. It's an utter dog's breakfast. (And don't advise me please to rewrite it if it upsets me so, I have other things in life to do). Then let me take issue, as I think many others would, as to ecosaisses etc. being considered as genres. If he has a genre, it's perhaps 'early romantic pianism', but don't quote me on that, I am sure many will disagree."
"if the exact same description appears in the lede, then why is there a problem with having it in the infobox? Infoboxes and ledes can and should be edited if a summary description is problematic or wrong for a particular composer."
"the project's issue you raise above is not quite right - the primary concern has always been inaccuracy not duplication"
"Liszt might get a litle hairy, too: many people assume his was a priest but he only took minor orders, hence he was called 'Abbé Liszt'"
I've spent more than my fair share of time explaining how boxes are structured, and used to extract data, and for what purposes. I have studiously examined how the boxes are and should be coded. I am perfectly willing to repeat any explanations that you feel remain unclear to you. I have over the last few days coded a mechanism for retrieving information from Wikidata into a Wikipedia page (Module:Wikidata) so that all language wikis can make use of the data from a central repository. So I find it somewhat insulting to be told that I have been making assumptions without any real examination. Some of us have actually been looking forward for a very long time now. --RexxS (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Point number 3 is quite true, but it is really not within our scope. We can try to pass a remedy that leads to a binding discussion on it, but the structure is probably not even there for that yet. NW(Talk) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I generally agree with Kleinzach. More discussion is needed on various issues. The most useful thing ArbCom can do (in my opinion) is set the stage for those discussions, and then sanction anybody who prevents those discussions from progressing. There's nothing wrong with two groups of editors disagreeing or even having a dispute; the problem comes when—through gamesmanship, loss of temper, bad attitude or anything else—people prevent the dispute from being resolved. Forcibly removing people from the discussions at this stage only guarantees that the dispute will continue—perhaps more quietly for a while, but eventually it will come back to haunt all of us. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It’s been pointed out that my Point 2 (The ‘publishing issue’ above) needs clarification. When I wrote “AFAIK no one is advocating putting wrong information in infoboxes, so there is no reason for a dispute on this aspect of the box question.” I was thinking this issue could be usefully separated from the general debate, and examined objectively and in detail by editors with a view to writing some rigorous guidelines (for an improved and expanded MOS:Infobox).
The ‘publishing, or copy-editing issue’ is about consistence, clarity and coherence, relevance, appropriateness, balance, and presentation, including things like: 1. position of infoboxes within articles, 2. size/text length of infoboxes in absolute/relative terms, 3. box/lead content relationship, 4. box/article content relationship, 5. collapsed or non-appearing fields and field names, 6. appearing field name rules, 7. linking and referencing within boxes, 8. rules on avoiding anachronism, 9. material exclusive to the box (i.e. not in the article), 10. illustrations, 11. use of technical, scientific and foreign languages, abbreviations etc. etc.
The ‘Proposed decision’ states “All editors are reminded . . . to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.” If centralized discussions of key aspects of “infoboxes in general” have never taken place, then that avoidance will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Kleinzach 07:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts echo a variety of users above (HJ Mitchell and Kleinzach in particular). I sent a variant of this message to arbcom-l, but it was deemed inappropriate for private evidence, so I'm going to post an edited version here.
The current proposed decision is not going to solve the underlying dispute, and is not going to move the community towards solving it ourselves.
As Ched said, "We need leadership".
I would suggest that what we specifically need is: a simple question and answer session - i.e. Someone good at mediating (not just someone enthusiastic about trying to help), reads until they understand the entire issue, and then asks smart questions, and the editors acting-on-best-behaviour *actually answer*, rather than tangenting or sniping - which is what often happens when direct/uncomfortable/backed-into-a-corner questions are asked.
This might also, perhaps even mostly, involve asking editors privately, in order to keep the dialogue unhurried/calm/unreserved/honest/etc. This is why we need someone utterly trustworthy to lead it.
Relatedly, a public RfC will almost certainly not help matters - it will devolve into argument, and !vote counting - we already know all of the issues, we just need to determine whether solving them will actually help.
(Note: The only item I purposefully left out of my "Legitimate problems" list (in Evidence), is the issue of "distraction" - I suspect that this is one of the major reasons that some editors are infobox-skeptics; not wanting anyone to be tempted-away-from reading the hard-worked-upon entire introduction/article - this is a hot-button issue (some editors previously mockingly referred to it as teh Brilliant Prose), and I don't raise it willingly, but it does need to be out in the open.)
Therefore, We need to know:
Would an aesthetic redesign/tweaks help?
Would reinforcing the template-documentation help?
Would anything help?
This is what we need to know, if we want to prevent an eternal-stalemate, and/or individual argumentsdiscussions at the thousands of articles where anyone might object to the inclusion of an infobox.
This is what I was trying to get at, with my Evidence and Workshop suggestions. I'd hoped that arbcom members would simply ask those questions on these talkpages; or in private, amongst themselves, and to the editors; and perhaps the latter is still possible.
I've tried hard to limit the extra content that I oblige arbcom to read, and I will endeavour to not discuss it further here (and I hope nobody replies at length), but I hope this last post helps. –Quiddity (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I very much doubt that the wider issues are known by everyone: one of the arbs (NW I think) remarked that until July they were unaware infoboxes were an issue, and equally I'm sure that most of the editors who do the normally useful work of adding infoboxes to articles without them are unaware both of the hostility to them in some cases (until they run into it) and also of the "metadata agenda" that drives some of the editors here. The core issue for the infobox sceptics is accuracy - I think I coined "misinfobox" some years ago, which User:Wetman and some others used too (also "disinfobox"). There are things that would help in a small way, but really the way forward has to be to treat metadata separately and more seriously, and as an input rather than an output (see above). I don't think a private mediation that involves choosing whether the online encyclopedia or the metadata output is more important will attract community support. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"Online encyclopaedia" vs "metadata" is not a helpful thing to be saying, because they are not in the slightest way opposites. The relevant question is "Do we want an online encyclopaedia or an online encyclopaedia?" Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
John, is there any reason why you and Andy (and everyone else with strong feelings on infoboxes) can't sit down and have a rational discussion about these issues with a neural third party moderating the discussion to keep it constructive and on-topic? From where I'm sitting, there are good arguments for and against infoboxes, and you're all intelligent enough to reach a solution, if only both sides would stop bickering and engage in serious, level-headed discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf, Rexx's comment above about: "...Andy's desire to see Wikipedia evolve into a resource that is usable in far more ways than simply reading an encyclopedia - I have the Encyclopedia Brittanica on my bookshelves if that's all I want to do" shows a fundamentally different attitude to the project to that of most Wikipedians, I would suggest.
@ Harry - surely that is what the various case pages have been doing for most of the time? It has I think produced considerable elucidation of the issues, and will be educative for any outsider with the patience to read it, but I see little sign of "a solution" emerging. I notice that Rexx, who began the discussions saying discussion would solve everything (if only the other side would stop using "bogus" arguments), has rather changed his tune, as on your talk recently. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
We are not a paper encyclopaedia. If you want to remove all metadata you need to remove all page history, all categories, all page titles and headings, many (if not all) redirects, many templates, most (if not all) tables, etc. All of these either are metadata or produce metadata by virtue of their existence. Metadata and human readable information are not exclusive, indeed far from it. There is no diachotemy between improving the encyclopaedia for human readers of the Wikipedia website and improving the encyclopaedia for those using our content in other contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Straw man. Who is proposing that? Nobody. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes (to "straw man"). Thryduulf, your posts above conflate issues in a rather scary way. You've conflated metadata and data. You stated that to have concerns about the "data emission" agenda is to oppose "metadata", meaning we must delete page histories, etc. Do I need to point out how absurd this contention is? I fear I might, which is why I will spend some time on this post and attempt to tie it back to our original joint statement.
Thryduulf has given some examples of what "metadata" actually is: it is data about data, in the common definition. The "metadata of a Wikipedia article" would include its size in bytes, its article assessments, and some of the things Thryduulf mentions, like page history. "Metadata" and "data" are different concepts, and you've given evidence that it might be generally useful to clarify this. Someone involved with the "metadata emission" project must have adopted the term "metadata" in a loose sense to refer to data about the article subject that is encapsulated in various ways using HTML attributes. This emission happens most conveniently by wrapping a template around a date or other atomic data point which makes the system output a bit of extra information in HTML source; in turn giving computer programmers more confidence that they are retrieving what they want to retrieve.
When we speak of "metadata emission" in the sense that its most ardent supporters use the term, we're speaking of "data" about the article subject. Those supporters appear to have originated the use of the term "metadata" for these data emission things they do, and for better or worse we've adopted the term in discussion so that, at least in a local sense, there is an understanding that we're referring to the same thing. But the extra syllables do make it sound more important, I suppose. In short: page history is metadata and (really!!) no one ones to delete the page history. On the other hand, an example of "metadata emission" goes like this: "{{Birthdate|1940}}". That template wraps one piece of article subject data (inside an infobox template) so that a computer can read the data by recognizing HTML code like "<span class="bday">1940</span>". The "1940", the article content, would be in the HTML source either way; the wrapper is meant to help computer programmers. It is easy to imagine every computer programmer saying "yes, that's great!", but they're not the ones who have to measure the goal against its costs. They're not the ones considering project scope. Adding that wrapper to every "data point" in the encyclopedia is no small feat and quite obviously encompasses the creation of a large template infrastructure, plus millions of edits, that some people might consider beyond the scope of the Wikipedia project. When those edits are largely the work of someone who engenders conflict, trouble's a-brew.
I would suggest that in favour of a "debate" about "[meta]data", the community realize that the entire project of Wikidata was set up to accomplish this task. No, not in exactly the same way as its main supporters have implemented it here—but ultimately in a much better, scalable, computer-friendly way. (It's even multi-lingual, meaning no need to repeat this "data emission" project on each Wikipedia.) Two expected counter-arguments: 1) "The technical means differ." That doesn't matter; to argue that is only to suggest that you are more concerned with the implementation methods you've chosen than the conceptual goal (semantic web, parseable data). Which would suggest an underlying motivation for implementing it all a certain way on Wikipedia. 2) "Wikidata can't accomplish x yet." That would be a reason to help on Wikidata, including in development, and not a reason to continue the build-out of the infrastructure here. We now have a sister project designed to accomplish the equivalent of the "data emission" goal on Wikipedia. The work belongs there, would be welcomed there.
I justify the length of this post on an arbcom talk page as follows: 1) I hope it may help clarify some concepts and their relations for some arbcom members. 2) I hope it may shed light on our original joint post, by showing in a bit more detail how large and encompassing the infobox agenda is here—how intertwined it is with related concepts (by the primary advocate's design, I mean)—and how easy it will be for the agenda's primary and most active advocate—the one with documented repeated issues of engendering conflict—to just move on to a slightly different area of the "build-out" if topic-banned from only one piece of the puzzle. Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping that I had finished posting here, but as Riggr Mortis has decided to prolong the discussion, I suppose I might as well add the information he leaves out. There is a standard defined for emitting data in that the names of the data-wrapping classes are standardised. When the template outputs "<span class="bday dtstart published updated>1940</span>" each of those class names is the same as for data similarly encapsulated on thousands of other websites, so that common agents can 'understand' it as perhaps a birthday if it's inside a "hCard" microformat, or perhaps as a date of publication if inside a "hAudio" microformat, and so on. The classes are not only common across websites, but are designed to exist inside a container that gives context - a person, an event, a piece of music, etc. That's one of the reasons why {{Persondata}} falls short: neither the container, nor the items inside are assigned standard classnames, so they remain invisible to the readers that can read the information inside our infoboxes or their equivalent on other websites.
It would be nice to think that one day every data point in Wikipedia could have a descriptive name (for example a date is marked as a birthday, not just any old date). Adding meaning to content is part of Berners-Lee's vision of building a semantic web and it's something that most people who think about it would see as a "good thing™". But the point about cost is well-made, and on a crowd-sourced site, it is not feasible to expect every contributor to mark up data meaningfully. All is not lost, though; on a crowd-sourced site we should be able to allow other editors with the skills to apply the semantic markup. If they're really clever, they mark it up in such a way that future editors don't have to see the internals - and so that's why we use templates to hide the scary bits. It's also the reason why I find it so annoying when somebody tells me that marking data with microformats doesn't add value to an article. And at the present moment, we only have infoboxes to do that, so it's even more annoying when I'm told there's lots of other ways of doing it. Yes I know that, but at present none of them work.
I would wondering when somebody would raise the issue of Wikidata in an attempt to tell us that we can offload all our data emission to there. I've actually been working over there so I know a bit about it, and I've just spent my most of final contributions here on creating a means of importing Wikidata back into a Wikipedia with full local control, in the hope that somebody in the future will find that useful. But I digress; what I should be telling you is where Wikidata gets its data from. Did you guess? - it gets it from infoboxes. I'm not kidding you. That's where the vast majority of data comes from because a bot can import it fairly automatically and accurately - did I mention that infoboxes also have the advantage of very regularly structured data as well? The downside is that the collection is patchy. I was doing some testing a few days ago and found that Wikidata thought that Richard Burton was born in Wales (hint: there is actually a place called Pontrhydyfen) and only had two wives, one of whom was also one of his childen - they must have confused him with some other actor. I corrected the error manually, but was unable to add three of his four children as they didn't have articles. So Wikidata has a long way to go before it's anywhere near as useful, flexible or accurate as our infoboxes. And if you think the the cost of infoboxes isn't negligible, you'll have a fit about the cost of cleaning the data in Wikidata that you're proposing as a replacement. One day maybe, but that day is not today.
And that's it from me. Goodbye and good luck. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont known know Rexx, but perhalps if you had used less agressive stalking horses. I know I'm one to talk, but I was only ever provoked, I never wandered out and said "this is the way it should be, if you disagree, I'll have people who will, over years and months, grind you down". Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do the implementation notes say that 1.2 "cannot pass" and that "1.1 is passing instead"? The maths seem to allow it to pass with one more vote which hasn't been cast yet, and at least two arbitrators explicitly say in their votes that the two are not alternative to one another 92.39.207.86 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Only one of those can pass. Actually the second Locus of dispute principle was presented as an alternative to the first one. — ΛΧΣ21 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've misread it horribly - I think it's having more than one row numbered 1.1 that's confused me - why do that? In some ways I suppose it's not as bad as having four 5s, two of them adjacent in the same section. And likewise three 6s, two of them adjacent. But at least there aren't any notes mentioning 5 or 6 by number. 92.39.207.86 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see. I should have written "Finding of fact #1 cannot pass." instead of just "Cannot pass". Let me fix it. — ΛΧΣ21 22:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Premise 1: I hope we agree that Wikipedia's mission and values make no distinction between first- and second-class readers. We bring free knowledge to the widest possible audience, without discrimination.
Premise 2: I hope we agree that Wikipedia is non-paternalistic; that it does not decide for the readers how they should use information. This is reflected in the policy against censorship, in the provision of an open API so developers can make new ways of viewing and interacting with Wikipedia, and in the licensing which allows adaptation and reuse by anyone, for any purpose.
Premise 3: As a consequence of (2), a lot of the access to Wikipedia's free and open knowledge is via DBpedia and similar harvesting projects, which in turn feed sites such as the BBC. I hope everyone here is familiar with DBpedia's prime importance in the web of Linked Open Data.
Premise 4: People who remove an infobox (or other semantic markup) from an article are, in effect, deleting a page of information. They are not deleting it from Wikipedia itself, but from DBpedia, Google, the BBC, or many other sites and apps
However, as per premise #1 those audiences are no less valid readers of Wikipedia than those that come to the site. They are no less entitled to benefit from free and open knowledge. We're not like commercial web sites where it's all about getting "eyeballs" on your site rather than "competitor" sites: that commercial mentality does not belong here. This isn't a matter of subjective preference: it's core to Wikipedia having a distinctive mission as a free and open encyclopaedia.
So I've come late to this discussion and a lot of what I see is very worrying. Andy Mabbett's statements about making data reusable and accessible are cited against him as evidence of a harmful agenda, rather than of him advancing the Wikimedia mission. The fact that we enable for-profit companies to harvest metadata is cited as if it were against Wikipedia's mission, rather than fulfilling it. I see "the reader" of Wikipedia being defined as those that come to the site, bluntly denying both Wikipedia's mission and licensing (as made clear by RexxS) and the way the Web has evolved over the years.
Whether or not we make information and knowledge open and free, removing barriers so that the greatest audience can participate in it, is not a matter of personal preference. It's not something to be weighed against the aesthetics of how particular users view Wikipedia. It's definitely not something that has yet to be worked out by community discussion. For Wikipedia, it has already been decided. There are clearly vocal users that disagree, but they have a huge uphill struggle if they want to change Wikimedia's mission to fit their preference, and in fairness they need to warn all contributors that "Wikipedia is about knowledge that anyone may freely use for any purpose, with these exceptions..." MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Given such confidence that the pro-infobox case is obviously correct, why not propose that a policy prohibiting the removal of infoboxes? The problem with this case is that infobox enthusiasts have not taken a policy approach, possibly expecting that adding infoboxes would become de facto policy after wearing down a few obstacles. Further, the arguments are rather more subtle than assumed in the above. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Based on MartinPoulter perspicuous reading, those who object to the inclusion of infoboxes are ruining it for everybody; hence, the case for making their inclusion a matter of fundamental policy (up there with RS and V) should be straightforward, compelling and unstoppable. Eusebeus (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There are good grounds for removing infoboxes, if they contain only wrong or misleading information. I edit mainly in the area of psychology, and I don't think many psychological articles merit infoboxes. So you're both hacking at a straw man. On the other hand, there aren't good grounds for treating the increased availability of free and open knowledge (one form of which is putting information in semantic formats) as an agenda to be resisted on Wikipedia. As to "[T]he arguments are rather more subtle." Why? What are they? As I said, I think the key decision has already been taken and it's the anti-semantic users who want to change the status quo. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Why? What are they? It's not helpful to post summations to write off good editors (very good editors) in a complex case without studying the background. This case is about the consequences for the encyclopedia of a battle—it's not about whether infoboxes are good or bad. The only fact concerning infoboxes of any relevance to this case is that infoboxes are not mandatory. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not the venue for discussing the rights and wrongs of infoboxes. This is the venue to discuss the way the Committee is dealing with conduct issues arising from those who have been battling over infoboxes. There have been several suggestions made by various people (including a formal one by the Committee) that discussions on various aspects of infoboxes should be held. Hopefully at some point people will start doing that at a more appropriate venue than this one, so a broad range of views can be heard. SilkTork✔Tea time 14:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem that I see is that much of "conduct" was caused by the lack of agreement about infoboxes and who decides in which article they go, causing conflict that would not exist otherwise. (Example: if there was a guideline about infobox in a book article, a traumatic discussion on Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - 2012 and remembered - would not have happened.) - I will bore you but suggest: be easy on conduct of the past, especially of years ago, and work in respect for each other, starting today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Several of the arbitrators have expressed a desire for remedy 1.1 to be fine-tuned, particularly those who see it as an alternative to 1.2. For my part, I see that remedy as an excellent opportunity to determine whether Andy should be site-banned or not. If his behavior is restricted and things run along okay, then we need not go further. Finding of fact 4 identified Andy's engagement on article talk pages, usually right after an infobox had been added or removed, as problematic. I haven't seen any suggestion that there's a problem in the template namespace itself. If I were tasked with enforcing that remedy I'd understand it, even as written now, to be restricted to the article and talk namespaces, but that may not be clear enough. I'm thinking giving uninvolved administrators (perhaps designated beforehand) the power to ban Andy from a talk page might work, though that would mean specifying unacceptable behavior. The remedy as written though would even prevent Andy from adding an infobox to an article he creates. Sometimes arbitration rulings have perverse outcomes; the committee should probably acknowledge that issue upfront if there's no way to avoid it now. I suppose you could try this:
"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes on articles where he is not already a major contributor."
Open to interpretation and I'm a little uncomfortable with a remedy that more or less endorses WP:OWN. You could also add in the implementation notes "Administrators, don't be stupid when enforcing this" but I don't know if that would work. You might also want to consider a sunset clause or opportunity for appeal, such as was found in 1.2. All bans area appealable of course, but it's best to state these things openly. Mackensen(talk) 15:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Alternatively, on re-reading the decision, the remedy for rejected for several others might represent the desired tailoring:
"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction."
That remedy would have essentially the same effect as the current one, but with a tiny amount of give which hopefully prevents misunderstandings. Mackensen(talk) 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
For the first bit, how about: ""Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding infoboxes to established articles or deleting infoboxes..." If a definition of "established" is needed, then "articles in existence (under any title) for over one year that are not classed as stubs" should do. I don't think anyone wants to prevent him adding boxes to general articles of types that normally have them, and given he can't restore any reversion, I hope everyone will be happy with this. Do we need to prevent him from "deleting infoboxes" actually? No-one has complained about him doing this.... Why is he "they" at the end? Redrafted whole thing:
"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from: adding infoboxes to established articles (defined as articles in existence under any title for over one year that are not classed as stubs); restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on any given article. He may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction." Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Per my earlier comments at #Limited number of comments in discussions I think that restricting the number of comments one person can make in a discussion will have the effect of preventing productive discussion while doing little or nothing to prevent unproductive ones (even possibly encouraging them). Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I expect there will be some lengthy comments, & Andy should finally start using preview. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That wont help where the conversation is: Andy: "I think this infobox would help this article", Bob: "Generally I agree, but I think nationality is wrong, because...", Andy: "Bob: Would putting 'Austo-Hungarian' there be more accurate?", Carole: "I like this, but I think it's worth putting there that her husband was her third cousin, can the template do that?". Andy (on Carole's talk page): "I'm sorry but I'm not allowed to answer the question you asked me about the infobox.". Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not entirely the way conversations have tended to go. Maybe he could start a user subpage with a) standard FAQ (or FMA - "frequently-made arguments"), and also b) notes re individual cases. It's not entirely clear how many times he could edit one comment - and he often takes a number of edits on a single comment as it is, hence my preview remark. I don't think such a subpage would be covered. I accept it is not a standard remedy, but surely better for him than a full topic ban, which seems to be the most likely alternative. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That is how conversations about infoboxes tend to go everywhere the classical music/opera editors aren't involved, and it is how we want conversations to go. An FAQ would be useful (if one doesn't already exist?) but only if editors actually read it and understand it (I have no confidence certain editors named on this page would). I would not be at all useful for questions such as this about specific entries in an individual infobox. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(Outdent). It might also be appropriate to tailor this remedy to certain projects. My impression is that this dispute is mostly localized to articles which fall under the purview of WP:OPERA and WP:COMPOSER. In most parts of the article space the use of infoboxes isn't controversial and I don't know that any evidence has been brought forth suggesting otherwise. Under those circumstances a more narrowly-tailored project/interaction ban might be appropriate. E.g. (and building on the suggestiosn from Johnbod and Thryduulf):
"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from the following actions involving articles which fall under the purview of WP:OPERA and WP:COMPOSER: adding infoboxes to established articles (defined as articles in existence under any title for over one year that are not classed as stubs), restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on any given article. He may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction."
I've retained the "wider policy discussion" boilerplate to make it clear that he can mention a "covered" article in the context of a wider discussion. In essence, this is an article-space interaction ban but limited to those areas which Arbcom has actually found disruption. Additional narrow findings of fact concerning those projects would be appropriate if this alternative is considered. Mackensen(talk) 20:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake: it's simple mathematics. Pigsonthewing + Infoboxes = Trouble. Whereas, Pigsonthewing - Infoboxes = a Quiet life for all. Giano 21:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Giano, I sympathize, but that's not true for the entire encyclopedia. The committee does no one any favors by painting with too broad a brush. In the areas where I usually work neither Andy nor infoboxes are controversial. This remedy attempts to get at the actual root of the problem, which is the interaction between Andy and a few select projects. If you can suggest improvements to this concept I'm open to them, but full-blown remedies such as what you're proposing are already in the decision and voted upon. Several of the arbitrators are interested in a more tailored remedy, and that's what we're discussing here. All the best, Mackensen(talk) 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree: Andy's obsessional views on infoboxes (in all subjects from music to architecture) have been a complete pain in the backside for too many for too long; he needs removing from the equation altogether - then others can all be allowed to reach reasonable compromises. He's had dozens of chances and he's blown the lot, I don't care if he's banned from the project of just banned from infoboxes; just so long as he stops causing all this trouble and disharmony. Giano 21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Giano's got the maths right here: "Pigsonthewing + Infoboxes = Trouble. Whereas, Pigsonthewing - Infoboxes = a Quiet life for all." QED. That's the last thing I'm going to say on this case (I hope). He had his chances. --Folantin (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we must simply disagree on that. There are many subjects on this project where infoboxes are not controversial nor is Andy's involvement in them. Andy is a regular at Templates for Discussion where he is one of many editors pushing for standardization of templates. This isn't considered disruptive by any of the regulars there. If Andy were truly disruptive sitewide I would have expected broader participation in this discussion. If this was truly a sitewide problem and not localized to a connected set of projects I would expect to see evidence of it, but none was adduced. Much has been made of his bad behavior from six years ago. If we were to constantly hold bad behavior from six years ago against editors then this project would be consumed by hatred and be destroyed. People change and grow. The only thing that's apposite from six years is that Andy doesn't deal well with wikiprojects which reject infoboxes. Fine. An interaction ban solves that problem by removing Andy from that equation. We can then see how that discussion proceeds without him. The results should be indicative.
Anyway, this thread is about helping Arbcom craft a narrow remedy. If they think it's warranted they'll take it up. If they don't they'll do something else. I don't think it helps anyone to reiterate how we feel about certain editors. Mackensen(talk) 21:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
So Mackensen, how are your posts anything but "how [you] feel about certain editors"? ;-) Be that as it may, please read the finding "Pigsonthewing's contribution to discussions", which has unanimous support from all 11 active Arbs, cites recent evidence (including disputes outside Music articles) and cites my evidence. You might also find Choess' and some of the other editors contributions on Pigsonthewings behavior useful.
Even RexxS, one of Pigsonthewing's strongest supporters, has a more realistic view of his behavior. RexxS wrote on SilkTork's talk page that "You could insist on him having a mentor starting now. What he needs more than anything is someone to tell him "walk away - it's not worth the pain", because he's glaringly bad at recognising when that point has come. ... But if you don't get someone who can help him spot when his best option is to step away - even when he's right - then you might as well ban him forever." (diff). Frankly, my opinion is if someone can't learn in nearly a decade on WP how to play nice with others almost all the time, then maybe it is time for them to leave the project (voluntarily or not). Ruhrfisch><>°° 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You should have quoted the next sentence from RexxS, because it's even more telling: "Over the last few weeks, he's often emailed me to ask my opinion on a given debate and most often I've told him to walk away - to his credit has done that each time." I've found that whenever we try to get into this question of "playing nice" (not patronizing, just quoting) and whathot we get bogged down in the level of disagreeability a person's contributions warrant. I got out of that business a long time ago because it's an impossible question. Mackensen(talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I could also have quoted Samuel Johnson "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." We shall see how long the good behavior lasts, though I hope it is a permanent change of heart. Ruhrfisch><>°° 12:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this will fly, not least because the Arbs are reluctant to take a position favouring "states rights" for Wikiprojects, which this proposal will tend towards. Several areas have come up in the case, in particular literature, architecture, the visual arts, and historical biographies. There's a long-running infobox row at Peter Sellers, with an entirely different cast (ok, largely different, since some here including myself & Andy commented briefly, mostly back in 2012 - Archive 1). The attempts of Thryduulf & others to paint infobox scepticism as very localised are wrong, though there are large areas like sports and taxons where it presumably doesn't exist. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that's the practical effect of this decision regardless. The Committee is free to claim otherwise, but sanctioning one side of the dispute and one side only is taking sides and endorsing the position taken by those projects. Can I gently suggest that you broaden your horizons with regard to the project's scope? There are numerous areas: transportation, sports, the hard sciences, politics, languages (just to name a few) where infoboxes are in my experience widely accepted. I don't claim this to be troublesome or difficult; I claim this because I believe it to be true and because it has a significant bearing on this case. Broad remedies are justified by broad problems, not narrow ones. Mackensen(talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I said "large areas like..." (and had already mentioned sport) and back on the evidence page and way up above here have briefly attempted to define what distinguishes those trouble-free areas from the troublesome ones. But someone up above suggested biographies in general were a trouble-free area, which is very much not the case. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Define "trouble-free". I fail to see trouble in the infobox for Verdi's work that will be shown on the Main page, DYK. I fail to see trouble for a symphony that will appear these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Mackensen, it is a mere coincidence that the most prolific pro-infoboxer is being sanctioned. I find it quite unreasonable to read a remedy that says "for [consistently unacceptable conduct], Andy is topic banned", then infer that we are sanctioning him because he's a pro-infoboxer. If we also consider that one anti-infoboxer has been sanctioned, and that evidence for misconduct by other anti-infoboxers has not been supplied despite a request for it, I find it quite obvious that the notion the committee has taken a side – or can even reasonably be perceived to have taken a side – is nonsense.
On the request that we write a narrower remedy, I am not persuaded. Even a brief review of the evidence demonstrates that Andy's conduct with respect to infoboxes has been unsatisfactory on several topic areas, not merely on opera articles. The first diff I opened illustrated him misbehaving on an architecture article, for example. The problem is also with Andy and infoboxes in general (cf here), not Andy's views on whether certain subjects are best presented with an infobox. His attitude in general is problematic, not his content views, which is why a wholescale removal is required. If we restrict him from infoboxes in certain topic areas, the committee is only going to have to chase around after him over the next year, adding more and more topics to the topic ban. AGK[•] 12:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
AGK, I never said that you were sanctioning him for being a pro-infoboxer; I think you're sanctioning him for being Andy. I'm unfamiliar with anyone on the "anti" side being sanctioned, unless you mean the admonishment of Nikkimaria. I can't really consider an admonishment in the same breath is a site-ban which appears to be very much on the table, or an infobox-ban which is still a very serious remedy. You'll note that I mentioned several projects above. You might also note that many of the same editors frequent those projects. Whether you draw a conclusion from that is your own affair. Plenty of evidence has been adduced of intractable, uncollegial behavior on the part of other editors which has gone unremarked. Gerda Arendt has raised these issues repeatedly on this talk page and on some arbitrators' talk pages, and has been rewarded by a renewed effort to sanction her (remedy 3.3). Principle #6, concerning ownership, is failing, though I note you haven't taken a position on it. The effect of this decision is to endorse one side of the argument by sanctioning the other. If that's unintended then maybe the decision should be redrafted. All I'm trying to do at this point is limit the effect of this decision to the areas of the project that are actually disputed. I think, however, that I'm wasting everyone's time. You can't see what you don't want to see. Just remember that in your evidence for Andy's disruptive behavior you link to a page where he's the subject of multiple personal attacks. If you're still wondering why many of us are appalled by the direction this arbitration took, that may be your starting point. Best, Mackensen(talk) 12:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I should also say that the wording points here should apply to any other topic ban remedies, as appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
In the finding of fact, Gerda Arendt is referred to using "she". But in the proposed remedies, "they" is used. It sounds a bit silly when read as a whole. Could this please be made consistent? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The pronoun concerns me less than the "remedies". The "wider than classical music evidence" is dated. At the moment I am on a voluntary 1RR rule, walk away if an infobox is reverted. I have never added an infobox to a classical music bio other than one I wrote myself, and try to find out in which areas precisely I should avoid to serve the reader by an infobox (see above). - I see that there is a battle but my goal is peace. I respect the personal wishes of editors if I know them. How can we define the "territories" to avoid unintended battle? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
In the context: Did you know ... that Ben Gunn, imprisoned 32 years for killing a friend when he was 14, earned a Master of Arts degree in peace and reconciliation? (now on the Main page). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I left the two most controversial projects, opera and classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is also a comment rather than evidence, and I hope it is acceptable to use the page in this way. Please tell me if it isn't.
I share Kosboot's view that the root of the problem lies is structural, and that is what I want to comment on. (I have had good and bad experiences of parties on both sides of the dispute, and have nothing to add about individual conduct.).
This dispute is one of several areas where there is tendency for a structural clash between 2 sets of parties:
some wikiprojects which have a strongly normative culture, which they seek to apply to all topics within their scope
editors who work on more technical aspects of the project, such as navigational boxes, categories, succession boxes, or infoboxes. (Similar, tho slightly different issues, have also arisen with some bot owners)
Unsurprisingly, clashes have also occurred with other forms of metadata such as co-ordinates, categories, and navigational templates. Disagreements over the use of co-ordinates have rarely been long-lived, and those over categories and navboxes also tend to be resolved without prolonged drama because in each there is a structured process for achieving a consensus: WP:TFD and WP:CFD, with appeal to WP:DRV. Similarly, there are processes for reviewing and constraining the authorisation and uses of bots, such as WP:BRFA ... and in all cases, the centralised and structured decision-making has allowed a body of precedent to be accumulated, which helps to stabilise consensus.
No such structured process exists for achieving a consensus on infoboxes, which has left the various parties to rehash their fundamental disagreements on the non-prescriptive MOS:INFOBOX. The result is sometimes a cold war and sometimes a war of attrition. Regardless of any action which might be taken wrt individual misconduct, the structural clash will continue.
Others have pointed to the ambiguous status of Wikiprojects. Theoretically, they are vehicles for collaboration; but in practice they assume some degree of WP:OWNership over their subject areas. The community is fluid in how much ownership it accepts, and the unresolved boundaries of both scope and ownership make them an impractical vehicle for deciding on the use of infoboxes. (Some topics may be core articles for 2 or more projects.)
One possible solution is to adopt a rigid global policy on infoboxes, to end the individual disputes. However, the community usually rejects rigid rules.
I see two other solutions, which may be implemented separately or together.
Community solution
Create a central forum for discussing the inclusion of an infobox on an article (possibly Wikipedia:Infoboxes for discussion). That would help the wider community to join in infobox discussions, broadening participation between the two most involved camps (i.e. the infobox specialists and the Wikiprojects)
Technical solution
Modify the mediawiki software to allow readers to set their preferences to enable or disable the display of infoboxes. A community decision would be needed on the default display setting, but giving readers a choice would help defuse some of the tension. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Versions of the "community solution" are discussed above, in this and other sections. I doubt the "technical solution" will please infobox-sceptics as we know the awareness & take-up will be miniscule. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
A community discussion to determine whether WikiProjects should be purely a collaborative venue or have power to dictate rules across article categories might not be a bad idea either. Equazcion(talk) 16:26, 2 Sep 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of interesting ideas and possible solutions mooted here; however nothing is going to be solved happily and collegiatly while Andy Mabbitt is on the loose. Too many of us have been there with him too many times. For as long as he is allowed to run rampantly and arrogantly through the infobox subject nothing will ever be happily resolved. He has made himself a red rag to too many bulls/cows Giano 19:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree there, Giano. I see plenty of evidence that many users, including Andy, can grow and change. I do think that sometimes when people who have clashed in the past run into each other, they may be more prone to revert to old patterns, but it's important to look at the user's overall growth. A ban on Andy won't solve the real problem here, which are some other editors who WP:OWN the classical music projects and run off anyone who dares to question their authoritah. I think that's the tragedy here. (Note the action of Gerda, above, and also Ched, who has quit WP altogether because of all this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 September 2013
There is no evidence at all that Andy can change or is even, indeed, willing to change. It's sad, but he has to be removed fron the subject/project - there is no alternative. Giano 21:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
AGK: Request for evidence relating to Kleinzach and Smerus[edit]
was posted here and includes sub sections: [138] (olive (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
The drafter looked at that evidence. He found the Smerus evidence persuasive, and proposed an appropriate finding (which was followed by my remedy). The Kleinzach evidence was not so persuasive, but the point is that all the anti-infoboxer submissions were dealt with and there are none outstanding. AGK[•] 21:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I was confused by, "little or no evidence" in your statement and assumed the previously posted evidence had been missed. No comment one way or the other was meant which is different discussion.(olive (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
I am not sure what else to do with this information, so I am posting it here.
The article on Joseph Priestley is a FA and has no infobox. In June 2007, as a group of editors were improving it with an eye to FAC, the infobox was removed after a talk page discussion, and discussed again later that month. The lack of an infobox was raised next in its October 2007 WP Biography peer review, and none of the 5 editors commenting there were in favor of a box. No mention was made of infoboxes in the GA review, in October 2007 a box was added, then removed and discussed - for both see here. Inoboxes were not mentioned in its Scientific peer review or FAC.
In 2009 there was an extensive discussion and RfC on both the alignment of the lead image (it used to be left aligned, until the MOS changed) and the lack of an infobox - here. The RfC closed with no consensus to add a box, and although the MOS change meant the image became right aligned), from Oct. to Dec. 2011, there was a discussion that again came to the consensus that no infobox was required, at least at that time.
Earlier today, User:Pigsonthewing made a series of edits to the article, some of which added an infobox with edit summaries including "Template" and "ce" and "("(diff). I reverted citing WP:BRD and previous consensus against a box (diff). I opened a discussion on the article's talk page here where we each commented briefly and Pigsonthewing said he was done with the infobox. Ruhrfisch><>°° 22:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Please could the arbitrators (and please only arbitrators) answer the following questions in as succinct manner as they can manage. Having re-read all their comments on the decision page I still do not understand why this decision is as it is:
How will banning Andy improve the encyclopaedia, taking into account all his contributions?
Why do you think that this decision will not lead to ownership of articles by the Classical Music and related wikiprojects, contrary to the opinions expressed on this page by (almost?) everyone not involved with those projects?
Why have you chosen not to make any mention of the personal attacks against Andy presented in evidence and on this page?
Why do you think that this proposed decision has generated so much opposition relative to almost every other? The Tea Party case is the only comparable one I am aware of, and that was in the Committee's own words an extraordinary proposal).
These are not flippant questions, and I would like answers please from all the arbs active on this case before it closes. I am normally very supportive of the committee but I am genuinely struggling to understand how you came to a proposed decision that is so seriously out of line with the evidence as most uninvolved commenters here read the case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I missed this earlier (I remember reading it, but replying to your questions slipped my mind). First, a word on responsiveness of arbitrators. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the norm for all 15 (currently 13, and only 11 on this case) active arbitrators to respond to direct questions aimed at the committee as a whole. If all 15 arbitrators participated in every such set of questions (and you and others replied to all that was said), we would be here a very long time. Until a proper moderated way to have discussions without them running out of control is available, that will always be the case (this is, incidentally, one of the reasons for the 'comment only in your own sections and avoid threaded discussions' set-up at WP:RFAR). Having said that, the talk pages of a proposed decision is a place for threaded discussion, and some responses are warranted. I will do my best to answer your questions.
(1) Andy is not being banned. But if anyone is banned during a case it is usually to prevent disruption caused by that editor's presence, or that editor's actions, regardless of their levels of contributions.
(2) I supported the principle referencing WP:OWN that did not pass, but I can understand the reasons given in the comments by my colleagues that opposed it. Editing is often a balancing act between (i) editors that range widely across articles in many different topics who may (or may not) have extensive knowledge of a specific topic area; and (ii) editors that focus on narrower topics or areas (sometimes only one article) and build up that area or article. This can lead to tensions if both types of editors (and I know many editors do both sorts of editing) clash over some aspect of article editing. The key is to be able to discuss things productively when that happens, and respect each other as fellow editors, rather than end up in circular and endlessly repeating arguments that reduce the productivity of all editors that end up involved in such disputes.
(3) No comment. I will leave that for the drafters of the case to answer if they choose to do so.
(4) This case has not really generated more debate than other cases. You need to look back to earlier in the year and to 2012 and 2011 to compare with cases back then.
I hope this helps, Thryduulf. Apologies for not replying earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what Carcharoth said. 3 cont) I didn't draft this case and there is only so much time I could spend on it. NW(Talk) 02:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
A subject that comes up time and time again at arbitration is the "worth" of contributors--namely, the rationale that X editor, having broken Y policies or guidelines, should receive "less punishment" because of the good work they do in various areas.
I don't subscribe to that idea.
If an editor is disruptive, and preventing other editors from contributing effectively, then they should be addressed. Anything else becomes a bizarre game of editing worth. Let's engage in a thought experiment: who is worth more as an editor, Pigsonthewing or me. Andy has roughly three times as many edits. He has more mainspace edits than me. Does that make him worth more? I have more featured articles, more substantial edit\ to a smaller core of articles. Is that better than editing tens of thousands of articles like Andy? Or is my quality outweighed by quantity of smaller fixes, typos, and formatting? A lot of my featured articles are on pop culture topics, so are they worth less than a classical composer? If so, how many FA video games articles would it take to make a Wagner? A Liszt? A Mozart? What's the exchange rate on template edits to meaningful content additions? To vandalism cleanup? To admin backlog tasks? What about factoring in yourself, Thryduulf? Have your 43 edits to Spain, the most you've sunk into any article, been worth less than what I've done, or what Andy has done? Is true "editing worth" the proportion of article edits to non-articlespace edits, in which case you would be found wanting?
I hope this exercise conveys my point: there's no agreeable metric to decide when an editor's worth is greater, or less, than the trouble or disruption they cause.
We are all volunteers, and (despite biological or emotional ages) Wikipedia's principles are set up so that we are all treated as equals and adults. As an arbitrator, I often try and focus on minimizing fuss and trying to get quality edits out of editors without causing trouble; if a banned user appeals, I'm more inclined to try and suggest a topic ban from problematic areas than throw away the key. But there is a point where no amount of gamesmanship can thread the eye of the needle, that perfect sweet spot of disruption-free quality contributions. And so one has to make the call about whether cutting off some good contributions to avoid the bad is worth it. That threshold may often be higher for quality contributors and long-term editors, simply because there are more fields they partake in, more topics they edit, more namespaces they benefit. However that threshold is, fundamentally, an issue every arbitration case grapples with in its remedies.
As for your mentions of "seriously out of line" and estimation of whatever you could possibly term "popular opinion", I think we will have to disagree on your interpretation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
My answers to the questions above:
I did not vote to ban Pigsonthewing, precisely because I concluded that the drawbacks to doing so outweighed the benefits. That being said, I think there is wide agreement that aspects of his behavior have been problematic and need to change.
One of the issues to be addressed in the hoped-for community discussion, I believe (and have indicated on the decision page) is the degree of deference due, in deciding whether an infobox is useful in a given article, to the users most familiar with the article or the subject-matter. I expect the conclusion will be that their input is relevant but not necessarily dispositive. The reasons that contributors to a given article or members of a wikiproject believe inboxes are unsuited to the articles in that area also bear consideration. Sometimes those reasons might be convincing to other editors, and sometimes they might not.
Not every instance of poor or debatable conduct presented in evidence needs to be or can be included in the final decision; the drafters, and other arbitrators who add to the draft, wind up prioritizing in every case. Although the drafters may speak for themselves, presumably they concluded that this was not an area that required focus in the decision. It remains unacceptable for any editor to personally attack any other, although not every instance of doing so can or will result in a sanction.
I agree with Carcharoth's response to the last question. Sorry these responses were delayed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you to those who answered, I haven't got time now to read all your answers but I would like to appologise for my tone earlier - a good example of when I should have previewed and then not saved. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that the Arbcom appears to advance a view on content in principle 3.1.5 Mission: "Wikipedia's mission is to build an encyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible. Additional information, such as metadata, aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is not detrimental to our content or our scope. [+emphasis]"
Whatever the perceptions of my opinions on the matter might be, my point is that I would be equally concerned if the pronouncement in the last sentence were the opposite. The italicized portion could be used as a rhetorical weapon (or more than that) in community debate, and influence what should be unbiased discussions from the beginning. NW is perceptive in saying that " 'detrimental' would have to be able to be interpreted so widely as to make [the principle] useless". That nuance would undoubtedly be lost when this principle was taken up by a community in debate. Since any hypothetical debate would obviously examine the pros and cons, I'm not seeing the point of this statement other than to inadvertently set up a context for content debate which amounts to "The Arbcom said...". And If I'm not mistaken, the Arbcom is actively recommending in another finding that community discussion should occur on these issues. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I’ve already commented on this above, see Perspective from Kleinzach, 3. Technical issues. If metadata is a form of content, and content is outside the scope of Arbcom, then the second sentence of 3.1.5 (Mission) is mistaken. Most of recognise that we need to look at the subject of metadata much more closely. I’d hope ArbCom would encourage, not discourage, this. Can they think again? Kleinzach 00:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per Riggr and Kleinzach. Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"Indefinitely separating an long-term dedicated editor from this project should take more than the closest possible vote of a divided committee. For this reason alone, I'm striking my support. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)" Now that is impressive. PumpkinSkytalk 01:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Gonna pile on my kudos too. I'm completely unfamiliar with Pigsonthewing's history so I can't say if his banning would've been a good or bad thing. Either way this is a refreshingly wise statement. Equazcion(talk) 03:18, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I also am pleased and impressed to see this expression of wisdom. --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we elect the Arbs to make the hard abstentions for us. I especially like the last minute bait-and-switch, so no one realizes what a bizarre decision this now is. As it currently stands, Arbcom has voted to...
...admonish Nikkimaria for edit warring with Pigsonthewing, but not to admonish Pigsonthewing for edit warring.
...indefinitely restrict Gerda Arendt from restoring an infobox that has been deleted, but not to restrict Pigsonthewing in this way.
...admonish Gerda Arendt for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advise her to better conduct herself, but not to admonish Pigsonthewing or advise him in any way.
...remind Smerus to conduct himself in a civil manner, but not to remind Pigsonthewing how to conduct himself.
What exactly do you find impressive about this again? Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The decision to indefinitely ban Pigsonthewing from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes seems to have passed though. I think that covers the restrictions others got, and maybe covers admonishment as well; though perhaps an explicit admonishment should also be proposed for Pigsonthewing, seeing as the site ban is defeated -- I don't have an opinion on whether he should be admonished, but it looks like something that could pass. What is impressive, Ruhrfisch, is T. Canens lone act, even if fault can be found in the way the totality of the case stands at the moment. Equazcion(talk) 04:21, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Exactly; and the stuff you didn't say too!—John Cline (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Mabbitt be site banned, for breaking his restrictions, in a few weeks or months just as surely as evening follows day. The Arbs know this, but the current passing motion allows them not to appear too Draconian. Giano 07:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Impressed and relieved. Everybody who knows me a bit knows that "battleground" is kafkaesque, but I couldn't care less about "imposed" restrictions. I learned, not only this new word. (You don't add the unspeakable thing, you impose it, I didn't know that.) - For clarity: "care less" means 1) I was not worried at all about myself, 2) I am not worried about sticking to restrictions as I left the conflict areas - classical music and opera - already.
Dearest Gerda, it appears that someone may have used our differences in language to play a cruel joke on you—indicative of child's play. There is actually no relationship with your manner of editing and the verb form of impose—yet somehow you've used it in correct context with "restrictions". I'm impressed again.—John Cline (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
T. Canens's action is certainly a good thing, and I thank him for it. However it shouldn't be regarded as impressive for an arb to take such action - doing it shouldn't be needed in the first place, but if it is it should be normal. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
My take (short version): bullet unbitten, inevitable postponed. This pulled punch is only going to work if you have the stamina to enforce it properly. --Folantin (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This morning Gerda Arendt has gone straight ahead and added yet another infobox to a Bach article [139]. As far as I can see, this is not a page she herself created. I don't see how this is stepping away and disengaging from the infobox furore. --Folantin (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a cantata where I am the main contributor, as for most Bach cantatas. I created about half of them, expanded several others from a stub. With some 150 articles in question, I didn't improve all at the same time, but since December routinely add an infobox for the cantatas of the upcoming Sunday. - For consistent style to the reader, I would prefer if all looked the same, but I respect other editors (BWV 105) and the cleanup of editors who are no contributors (BWV 71), as now also the one you mention (BWV 51), - I will not fight it, but does it make sense? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't seem consistent with: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create." --Folantin (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Nor is yours ↑ consistent with "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.", nor Bencherlite's below ↓.—John Cline (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(after several edit conflicts) You are right. - Perhaps that "letter" can change, to make more sense? How about templates such as {{infobox Bach composition}}, that were developed within the project and are not contentious? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What seems obvious to you, isn't true. It's a routine since December, I do three a week, normally on Mondays, as you can see in my contribs, - this week I was held up. I don't only add an infobox, but also update them, improve wording, format references and add the lang-template to articles for which I feel responsible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) She may not have "created" the page (again: is that a criteria? Under what policy?) but she is a major contributor to it, having first contributed in 2010. Indeed, she has added more volume of content to it than the colleague who did create it, and who has not edited it since the day they did so, in September 2005. I note that Eusebeus has removed the infobox, with the edit summary "rm info box pending determination for consensus via talk", but started no such discussion on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)×3 :I note that the addition was reverted by user:Eusebeus with the summary "rm info box pending determination for consensus via talk." but the only comments on the talk page are from 2011 and no attempt has been made to explain why the infobox might not be beneficial to this article. This is important because, to summarise and generalise RexxS' comments, the benefits of infoboxes are generally the same for every article accross the project but the downsides are not, and so they need to be expressed and weighed up on an individual article - sometimes they exceed the benefits and sometimes they don't, but you can't evaluate that without knowing what they are.
While she didn't create the article, the revision history statistics show Gerda is the most frequent contributor to the article by some way (38 edits, one editor has 7 and no others have more than 3). Although she is about 10th by average edit size, she has added a lot of information to the article (including referencing it), so it is in no way fair to say that she is not one of the principle editors. From memory (and I haven't double checked this) Bach compositions are cited in evidence as articles where additions of infoboxes have been uncontroversial in the past (in the context of it being impossible to know in advance where they will be controversial).
So what we have here is one of the principle contributors to an article adding an infobox to it, and being reverted by someone making their first edit to the article without discussing why. Which is the exact opposite of what we are told always happens by those not wanting infoboxes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I was quoting this proposed restriction: "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes... [she may] include infoboxes in new articles which [she] create[s]."
It's funny to see Andy Mabbett now stressing that the opinions of the principal content contributor should be given the most weight. Had he actually espoused this principle before, we might have been spared all the endless wrangling over Cosima Wagner or The Rite of Spring, to take just two examples. It's even possible that this very Arb Case need never have arisen. --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's actually not what is being suggested at all. Andy (and I) are simply saying that you can't have it both ways - if you insist that the views of the principle contributor are respected when they don't want an infobox then you have no leg to stand on when views of a principle contributor who adds an infobox are not respected. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not what Andy's saying. See below. I would have no problem giving weight to the opinion of the creator/primary contributor (assuming it was in line with our core content policies). --Folantin (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm saying. While the basis of your position is false, it's still being applied hypocritically. And we do have a core content policy which precludes giving additional weight to one editor or group of editors: WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's funny to see Andy Mabbett now stressing that the opinions of the principal content contributor should be given the most weight. - That would indeed be "funny", and not in the humorous sense. I didn't say that, nor do I think it, so please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I think those referring to principle editors above are doing so in the context of interpreting the proposed decision on this page, as in, what might constitute an article that Gerda "created" (rather than the more general principle that anti-infobox editors tend to reference). I have to say though I don't think the allowance that Gerda can "include infoboxes in new articles which they create" is served by her adding an infobox to an article she did not create, and is not new. The case hasn't concluded yet but those likely facing infobox restrictions might be wise to keep a distance from individual article infobox issues at the moment. Just my take. Equazcion(talk) 11:30, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
if we go strictly by the letter the restriction is not in place yet
in the light of this discussion, perhaps the restriction can be worded differently?
the articles in question are not "individual articles" but a series in which most articles have infoboxes
for these articles there is no author whose feelings are hurt
the topic is not contentious
the parameters are not contentious
I ask our esteemed arbitrators for a solution, perhaps with our readers in mind, - hopefully before Sunday. Until then, I will not add to Warum betrübst du dich, mein Herz, BWV 138 (Why do you trouble yourself, my heart), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to doubt that the arbitrators will think it beneficial to make the restriction contingent on how contentious a particular situation is/whether or not you're a principle contributor/whether or not an article series has an established form. Those would add layers of ambiguity and interpretation ripe for fighting over later. The choice of words ("new" and "create") was likely intentional as it is less likely to produce conflicting interpretations. Equazcion(talk) 12:10, 4 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, infoboxes on classical music articles are somewhat contentious. I think everyone following this case has realised that by now. --Folantin (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I show the missing infobox which will hopefully make it to the article until Sunday, better tomorrow because the premiere was 5 September. Folantin, the template {{infobox Bach composition}} has been discussed first on the project talk, further on the template talk. There is also {{infobox orchestra}}, initiated by Kleinzach, - your generalisation "infoboxes on classical music articles are somewhat contentious" is not quite to the point. It's more some classical music authors, who - not wanting infoboxes in biographies - extend this dislike to compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, I don't think what this case needs is yet another infobox discussion. Please. --Folantin (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't. It is a discussion about how to supply our readers with unrestricted information, for example by a different wording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Remember, in the workshop I tried to find a way to reach consensus. In this case I don't even see a conflict, author wants infobox, no former author objects, why not then? Whom would a restriction serve in such a case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please compare GA BWV 103, GA review by Smerus with whom I liked to work and hope to do it again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
New day: I found messages on my talk which made me reply, thoughts also for this context:
I would love to eventually not talk about infoboxes for individual articles, but groups of them, for example orchestras and Bach cantatas, two topics where I don't see the slightest conflict.
All French, Norsk and German Wikipedia Bach cantatas have an infobox, the German derived from our English example.
Infoboxes in Bach cantatas (template developed and usage established with help from Kleinzach, Voceditenore and Nikkimaria) help the reader understand at a glance that the long German title, followed by a translation and a catalogue number, is a work by Bach; they provide year/date and location, let him know the sources of the hybrid text (typically three different sources) and the voice parts and instrumental scoring?
Regardless of how good or bad the article is, and by whom, these are facts important for a reader. Please let him have them at least for articles for which I feel responsible, - accepting that it is impossible at present for the several that Nikkimaria wrote. How can we get reverted infobox of BWV 51 and the one proposed for BWV 138 here to the respective article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to stay away from this subject as it annoys me intensely and the whole brouhaha that surrounds the discussions generate far too much heat and little in the way of light. I do feel uncomfortable with the wording restricting POTW's remedy 1.1 (currently passing): ("Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes.") While I support the spirit of this proposal, it does mean that even if POTW starts a new article from scratch, he is unable to add an infobox. This seems to be an unwanted aspect to the proposal and I advocate a minor tweak to allow him to add an infobox at article creation stage:
"Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes: he may include infoboxes in new articles which he creates."
If we're going down that road (and I agree with your comments about the existing proposed restriction, and it exist also for Smerus' proposed restriction) then using the same language as used for Gerda would be good for consistency. But please per my comments elsewhere on this page, drop the maximum two comments language from all of them, it will just make things worse. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope this isn't some kind of joke. Any community discussions that are set up following this ArbCom should be done by established, respected editors who are willing to do the necessary detailed drafting. Editors who have taken a moderate position on the controversy will be best suited to this job. It shouldn't be undertaken lightly. Kleinzach 09:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Chedzilla is an alternate account of User:Ched, who requested this arbitration case and had previously started User:Ched/RfC - Infobox. Despite the comments on User talk:Ched, he has not left Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the WP:OWN mention on the page and put it into more neutral language: there was no finding of ownership in the decision, so I'm not sure why the RfC decided to lead with it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there is much that is useful and possibly helpful at User:Geogre/Templates and suggest all interested parties read it for ideas. Ruhrfisch><>°° 10:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Kleinzach and with the comments made by Carcharoth and Johnuniq in the sections below. This is extremely ill-advised. If an RfC is to have any chance of not becoming a complete train wreck:
Before even embarking on a draft, at least three months are needed for all involved to return to normal editing, reflect both on this decision and on their own positions, gain some perspective, and drop the (understandable but counterproductive) recriminations and posturing.
Not only does the drafting need to be initiated and undertaken by established, respected editors with hitherto moderate positions on the controversy (preferably no one who has given evidence in this case nor any of the parties, including the filing party), they must also be willing to put in the considerable time necessary to create a detailed and thoughtful draft.
I agree with all of the above comments. Please delete this RfC "draft" before it spirals into another series of mistakes. You can't just throw a handful of stuff at a wall and hope other people turn into something useful. It didn't work with this arbcom case, why would it work with an RfC? Productive RfCs require a lot of hard work and mediation skills. Please leave it for someone who is willing to put in that effort. –Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone has a question for me, please note that I am facilitating two conferences over the next five days; so shall have limited and unpredictable opportunity to edit here until Tuesday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for letting us know. If any developments require your input, we will try to hold them off until your return on Tuesday. AGK[•] 11:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We speak already of the letter of the restrictions, let me please ask a question regarding the findings about me. It reads at present:
6) Gerda Arendt ... has added infoboxes to many articles systematically, and without prior discussion. including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial.
I don't admit that and would like to see evidence, - knowing of course that it is difficult to say what I knew or should have known.
Following the link to evidence by Voceditenore, I find exactly one addition of an infobox, L'incoronazione di Poppea. That was at a time, when infobox opera was newly established and I was convinced that everybody would be delighted to have it. I did not know that it was controversial, I learned the hard way that the new option was not welcome be several editors.
Gerda, this is about the fifth time you've said you were "following the advice of Brad". Can you actually point to where he gave you this alleged advice? NYB would be the first to admit that he has virtually no content-writing, page layout or template markup experience, and as far as I'm aware the only time he ever discussed infoboxes was this comment, in a private discussion with me on my talkpage about how to head off this very RFAR—not any kind of policy debate—in which he specifically prefaced his suggestion with a note that doing this would "probably please noone". – iridescent 20:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
He didn't give me the advice. The link to where he gave it is above, Brad on Boxes. I met it in a list, trying to find solutions for infobox controversies, added there by Nikkimaria, which is linked in my entry "No infobox" (link above), repeated once more. I thought it was a good idea and tried it, without digging into the context where it was mentioned. I wish now I had not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Reading NYB's full comment, it seems in saying it "would probably please no one", that Brad was merely presenting the definition of the word "compromise", not recommending against the measure. He was presenting talk page-hosted infoboxes as something that both parties might at least tolerate even though neither got their way entirely. That's what compromises generally are. Equazcion(talk) 21:33, 5 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The case is close to closing now. Feelings have been running high. My advice to the parties and all those who participated is to step back for a bit and find something else to do. Way up above, Brianboulton said: "My recent Dispatches article was a contribution to that discussion. However, very few positive steps will be taken in the atmosphere of antagonism and mutual annoyance that envelops this whole topic. [...] we all have better and more productive things we should be doing." My suggestion, for those who want to sort through their thoughts on this while they are still fresh, would be for people to make notes or mini-essays offline or in their userspace, and to leave articles and talk page discussions well alone for a bit (or for longer if someone is restricted). Don't rush into post-case discussions, but let things calm down, and find other things to do in the meantime. It's not like the issues are going to go away (the essay by Geogre that someone posted above is from seven years ago). Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It's close to closing and not one of the arbitrators has seen fit to answer any my explicit questions to them, or respond to any of the comments regarding the perceived weakness of several proposed remedies (by both sides of the dispute in some cases). Those are not the actions of a committee that is interested in maintaining the respect of parties in this case. I'm honestly shocked to think that any arbitrator can read this talk page and still genuinely expect collegiate discussions about infoboxes to stem from this decision. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've answered your questions above as best I can. Could I ask you to consider putting your post above (which isn't really anything to do with post-case discussions) into a new section separate from what I said (you could title it something like 'questions need answering before case closes')? The point I was making about post-case discussions is really important, and I don't want it to get lost because you feel affronted that your questions were not answered. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Carcharoth and was surprised to see the recent RfC section above which pointed to a new RfC draft. I would much prefer that the Community discussion recommended remedy state that it would be counter-productive to start an RfC discussion in under three months. There are good editors on both sides, and very strong feelings on both sides—conducting another knock-down battle at the moment is the last thing that should occur. It would be impossible to hold any discussion in the next three months that is not seen as "Arbitration part 2", and the entire case would be refought—perhaps not the entire case because variations on "editor X was disruptive" would be squelched, but everyone involved would know that this was the ultimate winner-takes-all argument, and only two outcomes would be possible: my side wins, or your side wins—in each case, a significant group of editors is made to feel even more bitter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - my bad, my fault. I saw the suggestion of a discussion, and not being able to be consistently active on wiki, I missed the "wait" idea. Feel free to delete. I'm doing my best to follow this through to the end, and I screwed up - sorry. Feel free to delete it, I won't object. — ChedZILLA 04:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Smerus retired. I would like to see no actions against him, for decency. (I had no problem with his arguing, minded only one phrase. He and I were ready to keep working together. The term "battleground" is a myth, if you ask me.) I don't know if the rules would permit that.
I'd actually be in favor of reversing the sanctions against Smerus, but not out of mercy. The quoted evidence just seems rather thin for imposing restrictions: [140][141][142]. The third diff is really the only example of unacceptable behavior that I'm seeing. The other two seem at most like impatient words in a heated exchange, as is par for the course on Wikipedia. I've seen people get away with far worse both in cases that did and did not end up at arbitration. Unless there's something I'm missing (which is entirely possible as I've not done any digging beyond reading those three diffs), I'm inclined to ask the arbitrators to rethink this or at least explain their votes a little more than they have. Equazcion(talk) 13:54, 6 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I'm sad that I never managed to successfully communicate to Andy that he has to acknowledge the perspectives of others when they have legitimate subjective objections (I still think that would've solved almost everything, in this and previous heated-discussions). Acknowledging the diverse perspectives and problems, cannot be undervalued, as a part of resolving team-disputes.
However, I'm also frustrated that any other editors seem to be getting more than an admonishment - restricting gerda or smerus from infoboxes completely isn't a good solution - they just need to be given a better structure to work within - ie. better infobox guidelines. They're both willing to admit mistakes and move towards compromise/consensus positions and templates, when not backed into a corner. These two split decisions, that are leading to one retirement and widespread frustration, could be usefully re-examined. –Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Quiddity, the problem is that we lack the authority to unilaterally create better infobox guidelines. We may suggest or even urge the community to discuss the issue and come up with a new solution, but, right now, we have to apply the policies as currently written, even if we were to consider them unwise. SalvioLet's talk about it! 20:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Salvio, I suppose I was thinking of this as the rationale/answer: "We're going to admonish editors x and y, but not restrict them, because they are currently working based on fundamentally [flawed/ambiguous/lacking/inadequate] guidelines and MoS pages. We will try to assist the community in its search for a suitable individual to help put together an RfC aimed towards improving these areas of documentation, in an effort to move this forward in the normal community process, but in as well-researched and balanced a manner as possible." (Note: That's not meant to be in the standard-legalese; my wording is flawed; I'm just trying to get across the general idea. :) –Quiddity (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Quiddity, I like your proposal as an alternative to restricting Gerda and Smerus (but not Andy, whom I still think needs to be site banned, but that's neither here nor there); and I have mentioned it on the mailing list. Let's see if any of my colleagues agree. SalvioLet's talk about it! 12:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
What has always been a problem and is becoming more so here and around Wikipedia is loss of understanding of what a community is. We are so intrenched in a punitive mind set that we do not have the vision or skills to work through problems that have arisen in a group, that depend on collaboration rather than separation. Our arb committee, not their fault and in good part because of what the community is clamoring for may be stuck in an outdated model. Problems will always arise when people are working together. Even as editors here are working out their problems, find solutions, and this is the real outcome of this arbitration, sadly the sanctions stay in place. Something rather important has happened here due in good part to Gerda's open heartedness and ability to work things out with people. A strategy that supports community growth has occurred, if only we could see it.(olive (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC))
Understandably, people view arbcom decisions as "punishments". But another way of looking at all this is that the protagonists have been given an "opportunity" by the arbitrators to step back from the trajectory they were all caught in—instead of plowing ahead with disputes in article after article and becoming more and more frustrated with each other. I'm not sure it was an opportunity they would have chosen themselves before these proceedings began—in fact six more infobox discussions were initiated on article talk pages by the parties involved here during these proceedings: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148]. In any case, people now have the space to reflect and to break the cycle. I hope it will be used constructively. Voceditenore (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Please also see Pigsonthewing adding an infobox to Joseph Priestley with the fairly misleading edit summary "template" (diff). I reverted it, citing WP:BRD and the previous consensus not to include an infobox (diff). I then opened a discussion on the talk page where I linked to 4 of the 6 archives where infoboxes are discussed (there is also clear consensus against a box from late 2011 on the current talk page) here and was told by Pigsonthewing "I note that you dismiss my addition of an infobox without making any arguments against it" (which he had not even labeled as an infobox on adding it to the article).
Arbs, please read your Proposed findings of fact again. Then read the Proposed remedies. Does it really seem, based on your own findings of fact, that Smerus and Pigsonthewing deserve essentially the same remedies? I would argue that Smerus' remedy is worse - he is also "reminded" (and Gerda and Nikkimaria are admonished) while Pigsonthewing is neither admonished nor reminded. I know these are neither crimes not punishments, but if they were, would the "punishments" fit the "crimes"? Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
what is striking me here in many of the above comments (clear up to the top of the page, is that it appears that presenting evidence in one's defense is considered a whole new "crime" rather than a defense -- supposedly sought by ArbCom -- for the previous set of actions. Does no one see how the tag team of Smerus and Kleinzach paired up to WP:BAIT Gerda in particular, but also gave aid and comfort to Nikkimaria to the point that she made some serious mistakes in stalking Gerda and Andy, and how Andy's behavior, if it was anyone other than Andy, would be deemed mildly overeager wikignoming at most? Seriously, Smerus and Kleinzach really should not scoot out of this scott-free. They DID exacerbate the situation! Montanabw(talk) 00:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Montanabw - with due respect, as an outside observer, no I do not see that Smerus and Kleinzach "paired up to WP:BAIT Gerda"; rather, I see you have done your bit to do this, even as Gerda and Smerus were building bridges, by being outraged ostensibly on Gerda's behalf (though she has not invited this from anyone), accumulating evidence - most of it quite trivial - against Smerus in particular, despite Gerda's continued collegial attitude to Smerus. I notice that since Smerus has been driven away from Wikipedia, Gerda has joined the [vote of thanks to Smerus]. Perhaps you hadn't noticed he had departed? Forgive my saying, but your actions increasingly appear to be driven by some kind of vendetta. Please prove me wrong. Alfietucker (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You didn't read all the diffs, then. They were requested, and submitted. As for the rest, Gerda did a good job to work with Smerus, and Nikki, and had they been left alone and not tag teamed by others at the classical music project who owned everything, they may have worked things out. But the reality is that Kleinzach, by simply refusing to respond at all, is scooting off more scott free than Smerus, and he was, if anything, the more egregious offender in the "lalalalalalala no infoboxes everevereverever" department. My only concern here was seeing how bad Gerda was being ganged up on and bullied. People showed her little good faith and were saying terribly mean things about her. I think she's a wonderful, kind, decent human being and she did not deserve any of this. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have read all the diffs (at least the ones proffered and a bit more, plus there's what I have happened to encounter in the course of working on classical music articles on Wikipedia). I'm not sure I'm convinced by your change or at least modulation of tune over Smerus, Montanabw - or at least you give no explanation of what you meant by your previous accusation that he "tag teamed" with Kleinzach. It would seem to me a more likely explanation of them often being on the same talk page is simply that they work on several of the same projects. Otherwise can't the same accusation of "tag teaming" be applied with even greater pertinence to you and Andy? It also seems disingenuous of you to now claim your main beef was against Kleinzach, when the majority of your evidence was against Smerus: furthermore, your evidence against him was both pettifogging and luridly presented ('scream(s) bloody murder'; 'describes Gerda as "an effete and loathed sissy"'; 'dripping with sarcasm'; etc.). This, frankly, does look like vengeful action rather than a dispassionate presentation of the facts. Alfietucker (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I should not have backed off on Kleinzach, who was the worse offender, but I only have 24 hours in a day, and because everyone was saying the poor Kleinzach wasn gone and didn't have the ability to defend himself, I backed off on him more than I should, probably. I'm not saying that I'm backing off on Smerus, only that if Gerda feels he was the lesser problem and she believes that she can work with him, I have respect for Gerda's views on the matter. Gerda is not the "offender" in any of this, my view is that if Gerda is "admonished," then those on the other side should be equally admonished for their behavior. Montanabw(talk) 22:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"I'm not saying that I'm backing off on Smerus...Gerda is not the "offender" in any of this, my view is that if Gerda is "admonished," then those on the other side should be equally admonished for their behavior." Since when did two wrongs make a right? Alfietucker (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"[X] really should not scoot out of this scott-free. They DID exacerbate the situation! [Y]". X<Y. And while I appreciate any "aid and comfort" offered, particularly in the face of egregious personal attacks, only I am responsible for the choices I make to accept invitations and act on concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
No, Nikki, X=Y or X>Y. If you get smacked for what you did, (and I have already made my comments on that issue, I have nothing more to add there) justice demands that the punishment fit the crime and all "offenders" be appropriately approached. Smerus, Kleinzach (and possibly others) certainly contributed to the mess and you should not be carrying that alone. Scapegoating someone as the sole offender is not justice, nor appropriate, particularly when, as noted here, you and Gerda actually were working stuff out between you. I consider the others with the "lalalalalalanoinfoboxevereverever" attitude to be the far greater problem here. At most, you had a few bad days where you started stalking edits and lost your usual good judgement. They have a longstanding premeditated ownership problem. That's a much deeper concern. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"your actions increasingly appear to be driven by some kind of vendetta". Driving Smerus (one of our best classical music editors) off Wikipedia is not enough. After all, Smerus and Kleinzach messed with core members of WP:QAI and must be punished. I have a strong suspicion they aren't the first to receive this kind of treatment. --Folantin (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Folantin, you and I agreed to a truce on discussing one another's behavior and your QAI conspiracy theories. As we agreed, you struck some of the things you said, particularly about me, and I struck my concerns about you. So let's just keep that hatchet buried. Your stirring the pot was not calming down the situation. If you really want to crank this up again, though, be aware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I return to this after two days off, and again can't believe what I read above. I - a core QAI member - ask for Smerus, a colleague with whom would like to continue working and who accepted a comprise solution on Symphony No. 1 (Sibelius), to not be admonished/restricted. I had no problem with his arguing, minding only one term. Is anything not clear about this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Smerus should be sanctioned to any greater degree than you, Gerda. And I don't think you should be sanctioned at all. But if they are going to treat you like the villain, then the eye needs to be focused on all players equally. However, if left alone, you three would have worked things out between yourselves, but others were not going to allow the sacred ground of the classical music wikiproject local consensus to be altered and were more than willing to bully, intimidate, snark and threaten anyone who challenged the status quo. So really. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to highlight what Ruhrfisch wrote above:
"Please also see Pigsonthewing adding an infobox to Joseph Priestley with the fairly misleading edit summary "template" (diff). I reverted it, citing WP:BRD and the previous consensus not to include an infobox (diff). I then opened a discussion on the talk page where I linked to 4 of the 6 archives where infoboxes are discussed (there is also clear consensus against a box from late 2011 on the current talk page) here and was told by Pigsonthewing "I note that you dismiss my addition of an infobox without making any arguments against it" (which he had not even labeled as an infobox on adding it to the article)."
This shows Andy Mabbett's persistence. I remember bringing up evidence of his warring on the very same very article in the Pigsonthewing2 Arb Case back in 2007 [149]. If it wasn't obvious already, this is why the previous Arb Cases are relevant to this one.
If Mabbett isn't sanctioned properly, we can expect more of the same. --Folantin (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You read it on the Main page: ... that when rehearsing Dvořák's Eighth Symphony, conductor Rafael Kubelík said: "Gentlemen, in Bohemia the trumpets never call to battle – they always call to the dance!"?
I recommend a closer look at the above mentioned "six more infobox discussions were initiated on article talk pages by the parties involved here during these proceedings", six diffs provided. Yes, I started a few, not for battle, but to see if we can actually argue in decency, as a model for future discussions. I inserted an infobox for Götterdämmerung, for example, - it was reverted and discussed, - have a look what the parties did and if there is anything in it that requires restriction. (I confirm again that I will not add an infobox to another opera, it's enough.) The infobox on Peter Warlock was added by none of the parties. The following discussion reads to me as if the principal author was ready to accept a short infobox. The two discussions on Verdi and Das Liebesverbot were started as part of the arbcom case and only taken to the respective talk pages. Rigoletto was started before the case. Siegfried (opera) was a suggestion on the talk page, a very short eye-opening discussion which I actually enjoyed for literary skill displayed. Don't miss it.
I am by now bold enough to recommend a closer look at a diff that was at one point given as a reason to ban Andy. He moved an existing infobox from the bottom up to the top and uncollapsed it. He did that in an article written by me where I wanted an infobox. - Looking at his contributions in 2013, I don't see a reason to restrict him, - what do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I recommend a look at the top of my talk: links to several articles, including the symphony mentioned above which has an infobox shaped after the 2007 Buckner model, and some of Andy's recent article work. Enjoy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, a couple of points. The constant reference to Main Page material (and recent article work) is becoming rather wearisome. There is really no point constantly emphasising that and using DYKs (or other Main Page content) as examples. Main Page content is good, but it doesn't have a special or hallowed place on Wikipedia. Things appear on the Main Page only briefly, and far more important is long-term stability and quality. Quoting a DYK hook in an attempt to recast a battle as a dance is distracting and annoying. If you want to say that you think this area should be less a battle and more an area for calm discussion, then just say that without dressing it up as a dance.
I am sure many of the discussions associated with infoboxes are fascinating, but at the end of the day are they really productive and useful? Can you see that some people think that the amount of time and effort that goes into them may outweigh the benefits? Why do people spend so much time on the details, when there is so much other (arguably more productive) work that can be done on Wikipedia? Some people like discussing things like infoboxes, but people have differing tolerance levels: some would like to get back to doing other things, while some seem quite happy to spend weeks and months (even years) discussing infoboxes over many articles (essentially specialising in infoboxes). Can you see how that can end up being be a problem? Imagine this amount of discussion over a category, an article title, an image, the balance of the lead section, the precise wording used at any point in the article itself, or even the quality of the sources used (or not used).
Those discussions do happen (and people do 'specialise' in category work and article title discussions - not always terribly productively in my opinion, but that is their choice), but like the discussions over infoboxes, they need to be focused and not overwhelm the other work that needs doing. My inclination when something is disputed is to recognise that fact and consciously attempt to minimise the impact discussions can have on others, plus (and this is critical) focusing on improving other aspects of the article before even considering returning to previous discussions. If things show no sign of improving after this case, it is extremely likely that those mentioned in the decision (if they continue to contribute to the overall deterioration) will face further sanctions later on, such as topic bans or even site bans. Those named in this decision absolutely need to step back and let others have their say in the post-case discussions. Please consider that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I can speak only for myself. I repeat that I don't add infoboxes to "contentious" Classical composers unless they are "my own". I repeat that for articles on operas and Classical music, I stepped back from adding infoboxes and starting discussions on talk pages, unless they are "my own", as this symphony. I confess that I would prefer to see more consistency, all symphonies treated similarly, or at least those by one composer, but will spend no time fighting for that. I hope that consistency may be an aspect in future thoughts on the topic. - I would have chosen a different word than "dance", but could not change a quotation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, first of all, please note that I'm speaking only in my personal capacity, but would you be willing to enter a gentlemen's agreement under which, for the moment, you accept to refrain from adding infoboxes to single articles, with the exception of those you start, until a better guideline regarding infoboxes is adopted? SalvioLet's talk about it! 11:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I offered above my way to avoid conflict. Why would you think the project wins if I stop adding infoboxes in the estimated 95% of articles where an infobox is the normal thing to have? (Not that I would have time for it, just curious.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this whole case now rather going around pointlessly in circles? The Arbcom has accepted and established, that which most of us already knew: infoboxes are not mandatory. Furthermore, the Arbcom has established, again what most of us already knew, that certain editors (one in particular) have been vehemently arguing and trying to impose infoboxes on pages against consensus and policy and in doing so, causing disruption. Arbitrators are now themselves becoming guilty of deviation and in danger of exceeding their remit. Giano 09:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
They should probably dot their i's and cross their t's, though. Gerda Arendt restricted (2) and Smerus prohibited are now both marked in the implementation notes as "cannot pass", but each has 5 supports, 5 opposes, and no abstentions. User:Roger Davies's previous votes have been struck but he has not "re-voted" in either of them. Voceditenore (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Roger's votes were struck not because he changed his mind, but rather because he went inactive. SalvioLet's talk about it! 11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for that explanation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think it's time to close as long as the proposed "remedy" for Andy ("Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.") would prohibit him from adding an infobox to "his own" articles, such as Francis John Williamson and Selly Manor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Well he should have thought of that before he caused all this trouble. If there was any sensible justice in the world, he would be be completely banned and therefore not writing anything at all. He should count himself lucky that he's not. Giano 11:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Gerda, as far as I'm concerned, Andy is getting off lightly, here; however, having caused enough disruption wrt infoboxes, it's best if he keeps as far away from the topic as humanly possible without exceptions. So, no, I would oppose authorising him add infoboxes to "his own" articles.
Also, as a side note, in the spirit of patti chiari, amicizia lunga, as they say in Italy, (which means "clear understanding breed long friendships", by which I mean that I'm not assuming bad faith of you or anyone else, but just want to make this clear to avoid unpleasant surprises for anybody), if Andy was to ask another editor to add an infobox to an article on his behalf, that may be construed as an attempt to game the restriction and may lead to sanctions. SalvioLet's talk about it! 12:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Here you are, Gerda, encouraging people to go arownd and arownd in circles again. We are not discussing the quality of Andy Mabbitt's writing - that is not the issue. This case is about the hectoring and bullying that has surrounded the implementation of infoboxes against policy. That has been proven. Now it would help this case enormously if you and others would try and stick to the relevant facts of the case. Giano 12:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Giano, "it's the irrational hatred of a clique of editors" as noted below that IS the relevant facts of the case and what got us here. Not Gerda. She is the person who was hectored and bullied. Can't anyone understand that? Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to make very sure there is no leeway for Mabbett to game the sanctions. You also need to make sure you have the stamina to enforce them - please, Arbs, no offloading the responsibility for enforcement onto the shoulders of some poor admin who will be mobbed by Mabbett's fan club. As far as I'm concerned, Mabbett's already tried a breaching experiment with his addition of an infobox to Joseph Priestley, as noted in the section above. I predict more of the same, unless he's properly supervised. --Folantin (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Folantin, there is no cabal, and they are not after anyone. Drop the stick, please. Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand "implementation of infoboxes against policy" (there is no policy against them) and "mobbed by Mabbett's fan club". Everybody can check Andy's edits, no? Many will. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, as you well know, it's not policy to enforce an infobox: Mabbett frequently wandered in off the street and dictatorially tried to impose them - that's against policy. While your loyalty to Mabbett is to be admired - you really need to accept that he was in the wrong behaving as he did. Giano 18:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had said more than enough but you addressed me personally. So, as gently as I can (imitating the ways of the sadly missed George Ponderevo) I ask as I asked consistently since the beginning of the case: when did Andy add an infobox to an article that was meant to be infobox-free and behave "dictatorially" (however you would reference that term)? You have experiences from a past that I don't share, but the last time I observed him adding an infobox, followed by a long discussion was Cosima Wagner, 25 December 2012 (Please note that the lady isn't even a classical music composer.). What I observed now (see below) is add, make one comment and walk away, see below. I trust that he can do it from now on, that's all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Not to preclude any answer Giano might provide, but I have to say my very first encounter of Andy here totally chimes with what others, including Giano, have said about his dictatorial behavior. On Talk: Peter Warlock Andy suddenly appeared, intervening in what appeared to be a reasonably civil if candid exchange between Smerus and another editor, who had just posted "I consider myself wrist-slapped. Sorry." Andy's very first comment was: "Don't. Smerus is bullshitting. "no infobox should be added without a formal justification" is utter bunkum." I should add that Andy had latched onto a phrase of Smerus's, which in context has a quite different flavor: "I considered tinkering with the added infobox to remove the irrelevant information included in it. However, on further consideration I believe that, as this article obtained FA status (the highest classification possible for a WP article), no infbox should be added without a formal justification and evdience that it improves the article." i.e. Smerus meant no more or less - it seems clear to me - than anyone wanting to add an infobox should present a written justification for doing so and demonstrate "that it improves the article". Furthermore, Smerus had indeed, as I'd seen from the edits on the article, attempted to improve the content of the infobox before deciding - quite rightly in my opinion - that the infobox was a poor introductory tool for this particular article.
Anyway, Andy proceeded to edit-war over the info box, twice reverting within 70 minutes to reinstate it without offering any justification, and only desisting when a *third* editor (neither Smerus or myself) intervened and removed the infobox. If anyone cares to check the talk page, they will see that - quite apart from my being offended by Andy's rude appearance and attitude - I actually went over the objections Smerus had raised against the box, pointing out that he had at least tried to make it work, whereas Andy by contrast offered no argument or attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of the box but was, as I said at that time, "imposing the infobox for no stated reason whatsoever". I wrote this based entirely on what I had seen him write on that talk page (I've just checked, and that was absolutely his first post there), and his edits on the article. Andy continued to refuse to answer any points either Smerus or I had raised about the article and the infobox, but simply brandished the straw man he had made - i.e. his selective quotation from Smerus.
I have since understood there was a past "history" between Andy and Smerus. Still, that does not excuse Andy's behavior on that (still quite recent) occasion. Alfietucker (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You describe your perception well, and everybody interested can follow the discussion. You might have mentioned that Andy had not added the box, - we were talking about "wandered in off the street and dictatorially tried to impose them". (I think I mentioned already somewhere that I don't mind bullshit here, bollocks there. Telling someone - possibly a user who never heard that an infobox can be a problem and who felt "wrist-slapped" by a revert: "don't" [feel wrist-slapped], - how do you describe that?) You might have added that the further discussion with the main author (Smerus had made only one edit before) reached acceptance for a shorter infobox. This - discussing the content (!) of the infobox - could have been achieved without a revert. The only reason why an infobox is not in the article seems to be that the author is waiting for "less volatile times". I wish him patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of what was being discussed. In the Peter Warlock instance Andy certainly "wandered in off the street and dictatorially tried to impose" an infobox: the fact he was not the original author is not the issue; what is relevant is that he twice reverted within 70 minutes to keep it there, which *was* an imposition (and disregarded BRD), and the fact he refused to offer any explanation to justify this makes his actions dictatorial. I'm afraid Giano's description of Andy's behaviour matches this case fairly exactly. Alfietucker (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a coincidence that Mabbett chose Joseph Priestley at this particular time.--Folantin (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There is already talk of gaming the system (or not gaming the system) here]. My view is that Andy Mabbett's continued presence will be disruptive by its very existence. How will we know that infoboxes are not being added by his many 'students of Wikipedia' and what influence will he exert as Wikipedian in residence (the Wikipedian in Residence at Queen Street Textile Mill Museum, Burnley; also the Wikipedian in Residence at The New Art Gallery Walsall; Wikipedian in Residence at Staffordshire Archives and Heritage Service (winter 2012/2013) and Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador). If he's allowed to remain a 'Wikipedian', the whole thing is unpoliceable. Giano 13:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty of monitoring infoboxes added by 'students" would by just the same even if he was banned. Now I - in a way a student - restricted myself, will not infoboxes for opera and classical music other than "my own". But for a building such as Selly Manor: where's a problem with a 'student' adding an infobox? Then why not allow the author to add it himself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, you really are not getting it are you? The whole point of this case seems to have passed you by in some sort of fluffy cloud of cotton wool. I shall say no more and leave it to the Arbs to see that this case needs wrapping up tightly before we are all suffocated by any more thick fog. Giano 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Giano, you have just exemplified the locus of this dispute. It's not the infoboxes, it's the irrational hatred of a clique of editors who are so vehemently opposed to the great unwashed editing "their" articles that they feel it gives them the right to talk to other editors like something they just stepped in. This is an encyclopaedia built by collaboration, and no editor has the right to take the sort of tone your posts above take with Gerda. There is no need for it, and its only purpose is demean other editors, so kindly knock it off. I'm not going to sit here and defend Andy—he knows his conduct has been unacceptable and it's up to him to see the error of his ways—but nothing he or any of the pro-infobox crowd have done gives you license to attempt to patronise and demean Gerda or anybody else like that. I'm firmly of the belief that if both sides stopped stopped bickering like children and stopped trying to get one-up on each other, you might actually find some common ground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Like You got it in one, HJ. That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to explain all along! Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This case would have been simply and quickly resolved if people were capable of (and advised)to sticking to relevant facts. Instead we have had millions of words going of at tangents. You say, User:HJ Mitchell, "Andy knows his conduct has been unacceptable" - well you seem to be the only person who has spotted that amid the huge smokescreen of waffle that's been created. So don't you come here preaching like some puritanical Sir Gallahad telling us what we all should have seen and how to behave because you appear to be alone in your observations. Giano 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think HJ Mitchell is all that alone in how he believes people should be behaving, Giano. I've found your comments to be consistently derisive too. As for Andy, HJ is not alone there either. Several people, including arbitrators, have acknowledged Andy's own acknowledgment that his behavior needs improvement. equazcion(talk) 20:16, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Drowning people invariably learn to swim a few strokes before they sink for the third time - and I believe it will be Andy's third time. I admre your faith and trust, but really its naivety is worrying. Giano 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any trust or faith. It's not myself who thinks Andy will get better. I don't know anything about him and have no experience with him. But you said HJ was alone in his observations, and I just wanted to correct you. equazcion(talk) 20:25, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
".I don't know anything about him and have no experience with him" Then why on earth are you here? Sitting like a little old woman knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Giano 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm here because I wanted to refocus a little of this case on the larger underlying issue, and suggested a proposed decision recommending a community RfC, which was subsequently added and passed. I may not know anything about the involved parties prior to this case, but solving the greater issue interests me. Some of us do make appearances in the interest of something other than interpersonal drama. equazcion(talk) 20:33, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
"Andy knows his conduct has been unacceptable". His addition of an infobox to Joseph Priestley on 2 September would suggest otherwise, especially given the history of his prior involvement in that article. --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Andy's friends are currently bestowing him with the gifts of humility and remorse that his actions don't seem to portray. Throughout this has been a strong theme of the case - I wonder if the Arbs are clever enough to see through the fog and cotton wool. Time will tell. Giano 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
So people who don't know Andy shouldn't be commenting here, and anyone who supports him must be his friend. I have to say, Giano, without being privy to this conflict, if I had to ascertain who might be most responsible for its escalation, you'd be at the top of my list, based on what I'm seeing on this page. It's a shame the case is nearly concluded without a decision regarding you, as I have a feeling your continued involvement in infobox issues will cause continued problems.equazcion(talk) 22:57, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You can't base a judgement on this case only by what you see on this page, that's the point.Smeat75 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
As you say, Equazcion, you are not privy to this conflict. Were you informed on this subject, you would be aware that Mabbett and I have only come into contact when you has wandered off the street onto pages where I have been a significant editor (note: I do not say my pages) on one occasion I would go as far as to say he was provocatively trolling a page. I have frequently declined to comment on his edits to musical pages because, while I sympathise, I have not edited those pages. However, My advice to Mr Mabbett is if you don't want trouble don't go looking for it. Like most editors here, I woudl quite like a quiet life without being ordered and dictated to by misinformed editors who have already been banned twice (without any help from me) because of their behavior on this subject. Giano 06:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is the crux of the conflict, is it not? My understanding is that the way "significant" editors react when someone from "outside" comes along to make changes is central. Referring to the them as "coming in off the street" and "looking for trouble", etc, is the stance from the involved parties in opposition to Andy, rather than being some special circumstance that precludes your being referred to as involved. equazcion(talk) 06:22, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I can see that this is very difficult for you to grasp. Let me try to explain it simply: Arriving on a page upon which one has never edited (but is often still in progress by a group of dedicated and knowledgeable editors) and then making major changes without at least minor consultation is at the least extreme bad manners, at worst disruptive. When the dedicated and knowledgeable editors unanimously reject Andy's changes, he edit wars and causes trouble and distress. Often he plonks his infobox on a fully formed page which has attained or is attaining GA or FA status (again without consultation) and then wanders off and expect others to maintain it. That this causes resentment and anger is hardly surprising. Your "crux" of this matter is that Mr Mabbett is the architect of his own misfortune and attempts by his supporters to try and shift the blame are misguided. Giano 06:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Allow me to make my stance easier to grasp as well: I'm more than aware of your stance and who you think is to blame. That's not in contention at the moment. Perhaps Andy has acted inappropriately, or perhaps not -- I wouldn't presume to know this without delving deeper into several page histories. Your own manner in dealing with it, if the comments on this page are any indication, tells me it is likely that he is far from the sole reason this conflict has escalated to an arbitration case; and I suspect the conflict will survive any measures implemented against him if you continue to act in the future the way you are here. equazcion(talk) 06:51, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I rather think you will find, if you bother to research before further commenting, that compared to the long term trouble that Mr Mabbett has caused others, my involvement with him has been minimal. In fact, I have often felt guilty for not doing more to support the many beleaguered musical editors who have suffered from his behavior. However, my own personal view is that editors should not become involved in pages about which they know nothing. This is a public page, so it is right that all who have experience of the subject can bring their grievances here - providing they understand what they are talking about. It seems to me that you belong to a class, once known as the Peanut Gallery. I suggest that you read up before commenting further. Giano 07:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm commenting on your behavior on this page, Giano, which I'm equipped to do, having been involved here and read the entire thing. You're free to dismiss me using whichever personal criteria you deem acceptable, although I seem to not be alone in my assessment, among at least one person who does appear to meet your criteria. equazcion(talk) 08:06, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You are actually wasting time and space by deliberately deviating and obscuring with hot air; so I shall cut off your oxygen and not engage further here with you. Giano 08:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this exchange has deviated from the point, and I don't have any interest in wasting time (I'm not sure what possible motivation I would have in doing so deliberately). If most of the people here have come in order to assess the conflict from a user behavior standpoint, I think this is a rather relevant discussion, even though it's not my own primary reason for being here. Your responses here have demonstrated that you handle disagreements by responding derisively, resorting to name calling and attempting to "score hits", as they say; quite the opposite of attempting to defuse the situation. I do hope this is a unique result of my somehow having inadvertently pushed your buttons (if so, I do apologize), and I similarly hope this isn't how you normally engage those with whom you have disagreements. If this is how you've been handling infobox conflicts, then I think something needs to change there if the matter is to progress better in the future. equazcion(talk) 08:27, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
@Salvio and Hahc21, since Roger Davies is now listed as inactive, shouldn't all of his votes have been struck? I notice that his "oppose" at Pigsonthewing banned remains. Not that it makes any difference to the outcome, but there should be an accurate record of how the final vote was split. Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That was just an oversight, which I have just corrected. Thanks for pointing this out! SalvioLet's talk about it! 10:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Request clarification re "Editors reminded" section[edit]
I would still like arbitrators to clarify, preferably in the decision itself, what exactly is meant when it says "All editors are reminded ....to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" which would seem to me to mean that any discussion of "metadata" or machine readability or wikidata etc should never be introduced into discussions about whether a specific article should have an infobox or not as that is exactly an issue "about infoboxes in general". Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is similar to the point I made on 3 September: " . . . If centralized discussions of key aspects of “infoboxes in general” have never taken place, then that avoidance will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.". So I supportSmeat75's call for clarification. Kleinzach 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The way I read it, the principle invites editors to discuss each case on its merits, i.e. why an infobox would be a good or a bad addition to the article in question. This may include references to metadata and machine readability.
In my opinion, this remedy was only meant to indicate that generalisations such as "infoboxes are always good, no article should go without one" and its opposite "infoboxes are the worst thing ever" should be avoided at all times. SalvioLet's talk about it! 10:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
"A discussion about infoboxes in general" is not quite the same thing as "a generalisation about infoboxes". Arguably generalizations are always bad . . . . but in reality the arguments have related to specific templates rather than individual articles, e.g. the use of Infobox musical artist for classical composers, so they haven't normally been about infoboxes in general, or about individual articles either. Kleinzach 12:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
"infoboxes are always good" because they emit metadata, etc., is just what has been said in hundreds of these arguments which, if anything is going to change, should not be acceptable any more in discussions of specific articles, in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What this case is about: The right to say no (and have it stick)[edit]
Many of our basic rights can be expressed as a right to say no. An election allows voters to say no to the candidates or leaders they do not want. Free speech is the right to disagree, to say "no, that is not what I think". Many protections of a civil society involve the rights of minorities to say no to the majority (no, children cannot work in factories; or no, you cannot enslave others; or no, you cannot stop me from voting, etc.).
On Wikipedia, ALL of the Five Pillars can be seen in some way as rights to say no:
Civility (No to offensive language, no to ignoring the positions and conclusions of others, and no to attacking others)
Ignore all rules (No to any rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia)
As far as infoboxes go, WP:INFOBOXUSE says in part "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." To me that says that editors have the right to say no (on occasion) to infoboxes. This applies to all sorts of articles, not just classical music. So Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park and Horse Protection Act of 1970 and British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War are all FAs and none of them have infoboxes, and that's OK.
I am not against infoboxes, per se (and most of the aticles I've nominated at FAC have a box of some sort). I am against any "one size fits all" solution, and I am in favor of editors having the right to say no to an infobox. I am also in favor of decisions being decided by consensus, and then allowed to stay that way. Let it stick, and don't bring it up over and over and over and over and over again ...
This is the last thing I plan to say about infoboxes for the next three months.1 I invite everyone to take a break, think things over, and hopefully let things calm down. Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
1If someone adds an infobox to an article on my watchlist without one, I reserve the right to discuss it there, or to comment on a RfC on this topic.
Very reasonable and well expressed - I agree. Alfietucker (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This should form part of the Decision. I've yet to read a better expression of the moderate infobox-sceptic position. Kleinzach 00:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Include infoboxes in new articles which they create[edit]
"They may ... include infoboxes in new articles which they create." is a clause in the planned restriction for me, and I can live with that. This clause is still not in one of the restrictions for Andy. please think about it. Philosopher, with a background of law, noticed this (see above, "My only thought was that since this is about conflict between users, a restriction where there was only one user would be irrelevant."), improved wordings were suggested by Mackensen, supported by SchroCat.
I support that Andy may add infoboxes to his own new articles.
-- I would agree. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, Though I think my modification of Mackensen's proposal above is better still. He would not be able to revert or argue against any subsequent removal so there is no risk of extended argie-bargie. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I agree that your version is better, also Mackensen's proposals. This is more an idea than a specific wording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go out of my way and AGF here, with some additional criterion: articles which Andy has personally started (first edit) and the infobox may only be included in that first edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd support; also if I were to create an article and ask Andy to help me, I'd sure prefer that optionL there are dozens of wikiprojects where infoboxes are standard operating procedure and the local consensus is to encourage them; more than not, in fact. Is there any project other than the classical music ones that have such an anti-infobox position? (Wondering) Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I support Andy having nothing to do with infoboxes whatsoever anywhere.
What Giano said. I can already guess how this concession might be gamed. --Folantin (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't - how? Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I should be careful of WP:BEANS, but one way would be the creation of dozens of stubby one- or two-line articles in certain subject areas, just so those pages can have obligatory infoboxes. --Folantin (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Which anyone not restricted can remove without comeback. I think this is pretty far-fetched, and would it be the end of the world? Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I agree with Folantin, John, as you say anyone could remove infoboxes that Mabbett inserted; his pages would become a playground for trolls and anons and cause even more trouble. Personally, I would keep a lot of spave between me and any page he created, but you know what Wikipedia can be like.... Giano 08:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Comments by ColonelHenry
If Andy creates an article, he should be able to add whatever he wants by way of infoboxes, templates, widgets, whatever. Telling an editor "you can't do this" when other editors can violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Personally, even though I'm not a big fan of infoboxes, a good infobox is a benefit to an article. Where the infobox is lacking, I can understand the desire some editors in deciding against adding one. But it is nonsensical where there's a net improvement to article to avoid adding one. I wish the infobox policies on Wikipedia would change...especially in the classical music area. Infoboxes should be on a case by case basis (balancing the informativeness of infobox with the needs of the article), there shouldn't be any blanket edicts banning them by either a WikiProject or a well-organised clique of determined editors intransigently insisting one way or the other irregardless of the facts or rationale. Further, I don't see the point of irrational arbitration cases giving edicts of "thou shalt not add infoboxes." A dictum of "we're not going to provide infoboxes because the information's already in the article" doesn't address all users....while I like reading the articles, I have to acknowledge that 90% of readers give an article 30 seconds despite our best efforts and useless arguing. And penalizing Andy for improving an article is a ludicrous position just because someone is vehemently anti-infobox. Apparently, I wouldn't be surprised the same people who refuse editors to classical music articles the freedom to choose whether or not to infobox are probably listening to Shostakovich and know Stalin denounced him for exercising freedom in creating and almost silenced him over insistence on similar bullshit. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused; was Shostakovich for or against infoboxes? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rather *against*, I'd say. Seriously, though, if we're going to evoke Stalin it could be argued with more pertinence that those who insist on infoboxes being inserted in an article - against the wishes of those editors who are familiar with the subject - are rather like Stalin insisting that every artist should work within the aesthetic of Socialist Realism. More to the point, isn't it usually argued (by Gerda, for instance) that infoboxes are *not* meant to be, and cannot be, a 30 second summary of an article? It's precisely your confusion on this matter which adds grist to the mill to those who are concerned that infoboxes, rather than enhancing, can short-circuit an article: i.e. you've just demonstrated the mindset of those readers who think all they need to crib up on the subject is to read the infobox, rather than the lead/lede which demonstrably - when well written - does that job much more efficiently. Alfietucker (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You called me: what do you think I argued? Summary not of the article, but key facts? Yes. Any time in seconds given? No. - I believe an infobox serves an article like a cover a book, but I don't insist, and I respect the wish of a main author, even if I don't understand it. - Yesterday I was pleasantly surprised seeing the main author of Peter Warlock experimenting with an operatic infobox, - if a new era begins with a small step, I can easily leave the scene ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I was responding to the implication of "ColonelHenry's statement: "A dictum of "we're not going to provide infoboxes because the information's already in the article" doesn't address all users....while I like reading the articles, I have to acknowledge that 90% of readers give an article 30 seconds despite our best efforts and useless arguing." Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent your argument - I guess I should have written something like "infoboxes are *not* meant to be, and cannot be, a summary of an article ("30 seconds" or otherwise)". My point - about the evident danger of readers treating infoboxes as a "crib" for an article - still stands. Alfietucker (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
(Aside: Actually, the Stalin page is a brilliant demonstration of the uselessness of biographical infoboxes. The box contains tons of trainspotterish information while completely failing to get to the essence of the man's "achievements" (Ukrainian famine or Great Purge, anyone?). I think I've already mentioned Adolf Eichmann as another example of the box's ability to miss the point in a crashingly offensive, anal retentive way). --Folantin (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
"Actually, the Stalin page is a brilliant demonstration of the uselessness of biographical infoboxes." - I think this is too general. If one box is bad, it doesn't demonstrate the uselessness of others. If one is bad because the wrong parameters were chosen and filled badly, it can be discussed and adjusted on article level. If the template doesn't provide the right parameters, that can be discussed and fixed on the template level. We improved infobox book by providing wikisource in other languages, not only English, for example, and working on the publishing (next thread there), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh great, Stalin and the Nazis. We've now invoked Godwin's Law. Sheesh. I love those biography infoboxes in general, the one for Stalin is a bit long and overdone, but "trainspotterish" info is helpful and often what people ARE looking for in the "cover" of the article (nice analogy, Gerda, I like it). Let's NOT start in on this in other wikiprojects, I beg you! Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Montanabw - just to politely point out, in case it's escaped anyone's notice, that Stalin was first evoked by one of the *pro* infobox supporters: make of that what you will. Alfietucker (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As I keep saying: it really is about time this case was closed. Giano 17:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It really is time to knock this on the head. --Folantin (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, given that they are waiting for a 24 hour stable consensus (people keep changing their votes), we can't quite get there, but perhaps as far as the wall of text on THIS page, where we non-ArbCom members have been debating forever and I doubt any minds have changed much, perhaps we finally have said something we can all agree on for this page, at least? Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
A brief note to let those posting here know that the case is now closing. Please read what I said earlier above. There may be some more discussion at the arbitration noticeboard once the case is closed, but other than that, please let things calm down and allow people to work out in their own time what to do next (if anything). In particular, if any editors sanctioned in this case decide to seek clarification from the committee (at WP:ARCA), please give them time and space to do so by themselves without extraneous commentary. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You keep telling us it's closing, but it never seems to. Viewing the Arb's voting is as thrilling as sitting in the middle row at the opera, desperate to go to the loo, and watching Tosca repeatedly trampolining above the parapet. Get a move. Giano 08:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is now closed, given the parties have been handed final decision notices. My view: some promising points, but it's too early to tell. The real test will be whether this is enforced properly and what a certain editor decides to do with yet another last chance he has been given. Also, there's the question of whether Smerus returns to editing at some point in the future (let's hope so). I think we should have a moratorium on the infobox issue of, say, three months (I believe something of the kind has been suggested elsewhere on this page). Even that will be too soon.--Folantin (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There is clear consensus to create a new template editor user right. KrakatoaKatie 00:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Filed as bugzilla:55432. Legoktm (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed: Create a new user right that would give trusted template coders the ability to edit templates, modules, and edit notices that have been fully protected for precautionary reasons. This RFC is scheduled to close on 11 October 2013. equazcion(talk) 10:07, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The most pervasive templates on Wikipedia are generally fully protected: They are considered high-risk, because they make it possible for malicious or unknowing people to adversely affect many thousands of pages at once by editing a single page. High-use templates are therefore systematically full-protected as a precautionary measure. When any page is fully protected, administrators are the only editors who have the ability to edit them.
While full protection is an ideal temporary solution for articles that have demonstrated a state of overwhelming controversy, it is less ideal as a permanent precautionary measure for templates. Many editors who have shown an aptitude for coding templates, and have earned the trust of the community in doing their work, may not necessarily be administrators, nor even be interested in becoming administrators.
Non-administrators do have the ability to request edits at fully-protected templates for administrators to enact on their behalf, but there is a significant shortage of administrators who have the time and necessary skills to do this reliably. Coders also tend to find this extra step more than a mere annoyance: Technical work is largely rewarding to technically-minded people in that they value the hands-on experience. Many end up choosing to avoid having to verbalize uncontroversial edit requests made to convince someone else to enact an edit on their behalf, by simply avoiding work on fully-protected templates altogether.
As there is currently no measure that would allow access only for trusted editors with template know-how, some editors have resorted to applying for adminship, as is the case for Trappist the monk's RfA. Note the many comments from all sides saying that the optimal solution would be to grant a user right specifically to allow this editor access to high-use templates.
Create a new user right that will allow editors who have earned the trust of the community as knowledgeable and responsible template coders to modify templates, modules, and edit notices that have been fully protected for precautionary reasons.
This permission will be limited, via technical means, only to pages in the Template and Module namespaces, as well as edit notices.
The protection levels of pages, only within the Template and Module namespaces, that are currently fully-protected for precautionary reasons, will be switched to a newly-created protection level. Pages with this new protection level will be editable by the new Template editor user rights group, as well as by sysops and above. This way, the new rights group will have its namespace restrictions enforced on a technical level; it will be impossible for them to edit full-protected pages in the article or project ("Wikipedia:") namespaces, for example. Actual full "sysop" protection will then be available as an extraordinary measure in the Template and Module namespaces, to temporarily disallow editing by anyone but administrators, should the need arise.
It should be understood that the standards for what constitutes a high-risk template should remain unchanged and not be expanded, despite this newly created protection level and rights group. Vigilance should be maintained in making sure this development does not grant a de facto license to protect more of Wikipedia's less risky templates on the grounds that many editors will still have access to edit them now that this rights group exists. The Template editor user right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editor population.
Editors will be permitted to exercise this permission to perform maintenance, answer reasonable edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. They will also be permitted to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
The new template editor user right will be granted by administrators. Administrators will use their own discretionary assessment of an editor's template contribution value, as well as the following general guidelines:
1. The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 1 year.
2. The editor should have made at least 1,000 overall edits.
3. The editor should have made at least 150 edits to the Template namespace.
4. The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying.
Additionally, an editor should have demonstrated a need for the right, as well as a familiarity with the care and responsibility required when dealing with high-risk template modification:
5. The editor should have worked on the sandbox version of at least three fully protected templates.
6. The editor should have requested and successfully enacted at least five significant edits at fully protected templates.
Items in this section are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities.
The user right can be revoked at any time by an administrator without any process or prior notice in any of the following circumstances:
The editor demonstrated a pattern of performing obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus.
The editor demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when editing protected templates, resulting in serious errors appearing on pages.
The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes.
The editor used the permission to perform blatant vandalism.
The editor has been inactive for 12 months.
Additionally, the right may be removed immediately at the request of the editor.
Betty Logan (talk). Seems a reasonable suggestion to me. No reason why a trusted member of the community should have to go running to an admin every time. Betty Logan (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
TheDJ Yes please, can we enact this already ? I see no reason why a talented coder needs to be an admin on this site. Trust is enough. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Fram. The reasons for removing it perhaps need to be expanded a bit, and the requirements for granting it perhaps loosened a bit, but this is basically a sound approach. Fram (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The ever-increasing minimal standards required for a user to have a remote chance of succeeding at WP:RFA coupled with the complete lack of a requirement to possess knowledge of the wiki parser functions or Lua coding makes this user right a long overdue tool to bestow upon technically proficient editors who have shown competence and proper understanding of our rules/policies/guidelines, but whom either doesn't desire the responsibilities associated with full adminship, doesn't edit frequently enough to require the full toolset, or doesn't have the squeaky-clean demeanor expected of potential administrators. If there is a fear that certain templates are too delicate or high-visibility for even our trusted, experienced, and skilled editors, a new level of protection could be created. It could also be applied when edit wars erupt. - Floydianτ¢ 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Floydian: Just to note, under this proposal, access will be granted to this group via a new protection level below full, so the usual full protection will still be available if any templates should ever be deemed too sensitive for this new user group. equazcion(talk) 11:20, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I frequently patrol Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, and I see plenty of editors who I would trust to edit high-risk templates, but who either don't want to take an RfA or who don't have the broad range of experience necessary to pass one. At the moment, there are only two or maybe three admins actively patrolling edit requests, and if we all disappear for a time (or, more likely, get caught up with writing templates and modules of our own), it can be days or even weeks before requests get answered. The proposed user right would make this situation much more efficient. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 11:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Pointillist. If this is technically viable, I can't see any downside to this proposal. It is obviously a much better approach than granting full admin powers without performing a conventional RfA: it's simpler, less demanding for the candidate and less risky for the community. - Pointillist (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just read Acalamari's oppose. I understand that position but see this as a one-off rather than being "a stepping stone to having multiple and confusing protection userrights for non-admins". However, if this proposal isn't a one-off, then I agree that would be a downside to some extent. - Pointillist (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me - subject to ironing out the details. I'd suggest getting the technical people to say if this is indeed viable before that, though. Peridon (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably every experienced editor has basic knowledge of wiki markup—but Lua and Parser Functions are a different story (I can barely read Lua, let alone code it!) Experienced coders don't need to be admins. ~HueSatLum 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
From my experience as an admin on another wiki ([150]) I know full well that template changes can cause untold performance problems, without any obvious and immediate side effect to the user making changes, even when those changes have been completely in good faith and seemingly compliant with policy. Moreover, the technical skills required only have a small overlap with the diplomacy and policy understanding skills that are generally tested at RfA. One word of caution - the bulk of my template edits are related to WP:DYK, which generally have nothing to do with the problem this RFC is supposed to solve, and I suspect I'm not the only one in that position. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why not, in fact, I'd love to see it expanded to allowing them to work with Edit-protected requests (there's always a backlog) that are uncontroversial (typos, etc). ~Charmlet-talk- 13:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Definately a step in the right direction. I am disappointed though that we have to create a whole new user right primarily because there is a major lack of good faith in the community to not trust our users and fierce protectionism over the Admin tools...which are no big deal. Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any harm that can come from this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Changed to Oppose, see below. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I came here on the premise of opposing due to this proposal makeing it even harder for people to take the admin hurdle. We do want more admins not less. But: The proposed extra protection layer coupled with the argument of speedy corrections swayed me to support. Agathoclea (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The skill set for admins and technical tasks are very different. Some folks I would trust to do one and not the other. The alternative to this are dropping protection to some high use templates to semi-protect or keeping status quo with sandbox main template model. Semi-protection is just too low for some templates as editors with no template experience could make uninformed edits to crucial templates. The sandbox model is good and I would expect any editor worthy of this status to test all major changes in a sandbox first. Minor edits with change some of wording don't need the review process. Further the TemplateData system does introduce a new use for this status - to update the TemplateData documentation for a template requires a null edit and many of those adding template data don't have the admin bit so can't complete their job. There has been a good number template just waiting for a null edit.--User:Salix alba (talk): 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Qualified support I support the concept but the qualifications, etc. and won't block consensus to implement this as-is, but the criteria and other items in the proposal aren't exactly what I would prefer. For example, I would add a big bold statement reminding editors that edit over protection that they will be held to a higher standard, just as administrators are held to a higher standard when they use the mop. We can discuss tweaking the criteria after it is implemented. Also, see my discussion item below about an alternative way of doing the technical aspects of this proposal to allow other Wikipedias to have more options in delegating user-rights. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I support the creation of the user right as outlined. We have a number of editors with the technical skills to know how to edit a template (more so than many admins), who can be trusted to make the edit and not delete the main page. I would have preferred a little more discussion of the granting process, which looks a little loose, but we can tighten that up as we go along. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is a namespace that doesn't have very much attention from current administrators (not that I am blaming them or anything) and it is very, very disappointing and frustrating to have to see skilled editors in these areas go through the RfA process when all that is required is basic conflict resolution skills in addition to the technical knowledge and foresight required to know how to improve templates. I like the idea of encouraging editors who enjoy their work in this space to be able to do their work more effectively without taxing an already burdened and busy admin pool. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A good compromise between needlessly clogging the edit-request list and single-purpose RfAs, with which the community (including myself) seems uncomfortable. Miniapolis 19:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support essentially per User:Floydian. In the Criteria for Revocation, I would prefer "demonstrated a pattern of performing" to become "has performed" and "demonstrated a pattern of failing" to become "has failed". But notwithstanding such details, I think this will benefit the project. --Stfg (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Stfg If I remember the drafting, the reason why "a pattern" was chosen over the explit "has" was to prevent one (potentially minor) mistake be grounds for a pitchfork mob (or a dedicated opposition) call to arms for removal of the user right. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I don't think pitchfork mobs are going to be that common or effective at getting this rather esoteric right removed; it isn't like the block/unblock buttons. Also, on the other side there's scope for wikilawyering about how far one can go before it constitutes a pattern ;) Still, one way or the other, this won't affect my support. --Stfg (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm find with giving trusted users access to the admin toolset even if all they want to use it for is template editing. However, such RFAs create needless controversy, and so creating a seperate system for it makes a lot of sense. I can say personally, I don't feel comfortable fulfilling an edit protected request unless I feel I fully understand what the changes will do, and for more complex templates, that can be very hard. Monty845 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to hand out the full kit (with all the issues surrounding it) to someone who only wants to work in a specific area such as this. That, coupled with the ease of revocation should the tool's use prove problematic (something that currently isn't possible with the full set), makes this a good solution. Intothatdarkness 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't even care about the specific granting/removing criteria or details; they can be worked out/modified later, and I'm certainly not going to risk killing this idea by suggesting tweaks to the criteria now. I only supported the RFA in question because this doesn't currently exist, so my support there shouldn't be taken as evidence that we don't need this option. This is better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Clearly needed given recent issues at RfA and elsewhere. Nicely written proposal btw. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per Floydian, there are many editors capable of editing templates that for various reasons will not become administrators. This can only be a net benefit to the project. AIRcorn(talk) 22:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I support this proposal with very high enthusiasm. It's very clear that there are users who could do a lot of good here, but who should not have the other administrative tools. I've read the opposes so far, and on balance I'm not seeing any downside. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Agree with most of the above supports. This approach deals with the real problems of allowing skilled coders from working on templates as well as encourages good practices by highlighting the importance of sandboxes and testing. The proposal allows for reasonable safeguards, including the ability to treat protection over content disagreements separately then protection over high visibility or high usage. It addresses many of the real problems of the current situation such as the ones most familiar with some of the protected templates. Even with testing there is always the possibility that bugs related to say unusual usages of the template might still get missed. With the current situation the admin that approves the edit request might not be familiar enough with the template to quickly fix the issue that it introduces which means that broken versions make exist longer. This is true even if the admin that applied the requested edit was skilled in template or lua coding, as someone unfamiliar with the details and usage of a particular template might not understand the reasoning behind all the pieces of the implementation. By allowing trusted editors involved in the design and creation of the particular templates to make the changes themselves it means that they can also fix such bugs much quicker. Finally as others mentioned while protecting heavily used templates is an unfortunate necessity these days it can alienate editors that worked or created those templates. One of the reasons that I personally slowed my own editing was getting discouraged after some templates that I heavily worked on ( and was about to do a redesign to ) got fully protected after they got hit with some minor vandalism. PaleAqua (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - this simply makes WP:COMMONSENSE. Unfortunatly there are some things - such as heavily transcluded templates - that must be protected, even fully, both for being easy vandalism targets and because of the technical load on the already-overstressed job queue, and there are plenty of editors who are more than able, as well as willing, to tweak those templates as and when needed but who have no interest, or no time, for adminship. This lets them improve their ability to help the encyclopedia, without the baggage that comes with the mop. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The increasing complexity and specialization of high-risk templates makes it basically sensible that this should exist. Trying to filter highly-technical edits through willing but non-technical admins is a recipe for problems. Choess (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems like some long-overdue common sense. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Useful for good coders who don't want to or cannot become admins. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per many others - Bushranger, KoH, etc. I won't nitpick the proposed criteria; I mostly agree with them, but that can be dealt with later. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sure, does no harm. Adminship criteria is too tough these days. jni (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This would reduce bureaucracy for those such as Trappist who want to undertake this activity. It would also reduce unnecessary time wastage at RfA. Axl¤[Talk] 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Fully protected templates due to visibility is just that -- means to avoid issues propagating over thousands of pages. This is not mistrust in editors, this is a precaution against that one vandal that can cause damage and ridiculous loads that 1000 vandals couldn't in individual articles. Otherwise the templates are no different from any other area of WP, except that inexperience can cause issues. So I think this proposal is a good middle ground. Consensus and testing are still paramount when making changes. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per most of the above – experienced coders should be able to do their stuff without needing a mop. - Evad37 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an elegant solution to a longstanding problem. This will allow us to maintain high standards for the most sensitive permissions without inconveniencing experienced editors who don't have the variety of credentials and/or the desire to pass RFA. Small note that I think "template editor" probably isn't the best name, as it could give people the mistaken impression that others can't edit templates—maybe "protected template editor"? — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A sensible suggestion. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - No reason not too. The reason for protecting templates was to protect against vandalism, not to stop good editors from editing templates. This proposal would solve that problem. Garion96(talk) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support- Based on Trappist the Monk's RfA. Single purpose RfA's shouldn't be here. buffbills7701 22:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This new user right would help cut down on the backlog of fully protected template edit requests. This would allow trusted and experienced users to continue work without having to go through the RfA process when they would just be requesting the mop to edit templates. All in all I feel it is a good thing for the community. — -dainomite 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Looks like a well thought-out proposal that solves a long-standing problem. This would solve some of the single purpose RfAs. It could also be a step toward proving the trust required for an admin. - tucoxn\talk 23:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Allowing edit-access per namespace seems workable in the MediaWiki software, and might need to restrict editing of the protected Lua script modules, as separate from template namespace pages, due to extreme complexity of Lua script as generally very difficult for many users to understand without extensive discussions with other editors, who might already have module-edit access. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support although it will only releave a small amount of admin work, it is likely to disproportionately fall on those admins that are competent with template editing. So if we have more competent template and clueful editors to help out that would be good. Adding the modules part sounds good. Edit notices not so good, but we should be able to trust these people not to embarrass themselves with edit notices either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I see a great potential of this right in the future. -- tnumbermaniacc 12:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I acknowledge the point that Acalamari raises, I just think that the benefits of this outweigh any downsides. NW(Talk) 15:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, per Mr. Stradivarius. If proliferation of user rights is a problem, I would gladly solve that by trading this right for File mover. File movers sleep a lot here ; Wbm1058 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. But, comment: you can't describe a user "right" as a "privilege"! That part needs to be rewritten. Or maybe the issue is that "user right" is the wrong name for this kind of thing in the first place. — Scott•talk 00:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. I've changed it to "permission", which I hope will suffice. equazcion(talk) 01:10, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Support Editing a protected template and editing a protected article need different skill sets and different kinds of trust. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support --Rschen7754 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – I'm an expert template coder (day job). On WP I'm not allowed near them and I have to ask a teenager to do it for me. This has long been a crazy way of working. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I don't think any of the admins who patrol CAT:EP are teenagers. I'm quite a bit older than that, at any rate... — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 15:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support As an admin (though not a teenager) I realize that there are a lot of non-admins who know a hell of a lot more about templates than I do, and we should definitely give them a chance to help out more. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Yes, please, and where do I sign up? –Fredddie™ 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - You shouldn't need to pass an RfA to be able to code templates. Simple. TCN7JM 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Indeed. This might help some users around with their work. — ΛΧΣ21 02:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Pointless support - This will just be shot down (largely by admins) like so many other attempts to create the "protected page editor" usergroup. Perhaps admins should be restricted from voting in unbundling discussions.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh? This is at 61-8 support, and even higher among admins only, at 23-2 by my count. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A good idea, protecting templates will only help to protect against vandalism, not stopping proven editors from modifying templates.Hughesdarren (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – sounds sensible to me. Graham87 04:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Sounds okay with me. Jianhui67Talk 07:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support the benefit of increasing access outweighs the instruction creep for me. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as making the tasks here easier. (aka Ched) — ChedZILLA 07:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Protecting templates is fundamentally different from protecting articles in several respects, so it makes sense to grant access separately. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per my road template editing colleague Fredddie. As someone who will apply for this immediately, it's about time! -happy5214 09:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes! I have needed this many times, and have mentioned the idea several times myself. Ideal solution. Debresser (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, definitely needed. I certainly hope there aren't any opposers below that are also opposing the RFA of the editor who is only running because this currently isn't in place (and if there is, well, You can't have your cake and eat it too). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 13:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, assuming technical implementation is feasible. Ironholds (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, It is going to encourage many users to stay with Wikipedia. I don't see why not. SHIVAM SETU(U-T-C-E) 17:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Seems quite reasonable (and needed) to me. Trusted editors should be trusted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Templates and articles are protected for two entirely different reasons, so I am prepared to support this, even though I would not support a similar unbundling related to article protection. RyanVesey 21:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, mostly based on Trappist's RfA.Tazerdadog (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. How come this doesn't already exist? Azylber (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Emphatically support the creation of the Template bit. I see a number of arguments opposing the "general guidelines", but I feel that there is no point of quibbling over those until after the motion is approved (if it is at all). In other words, what's the point of discussing the finer details of something that may or may not succeed. – AJLtalk 23:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't turn into a slippery slope of the unbundling of the admin toolset, but I have seen many instances where this sort of user right would be helpful. Killiondude (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Qualified support, though I would much rather see granting and revocation done only by the 'crats than by any admin. Something like the way the "translationadmin" right is granted on Meta would strike me as far superior; lightweight, but allows community comments on candidates. Courcelles 00:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, RFA is broken, and people shouldn't need to do everything just to contribute into one specific area. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Suppprt Seems fairly sensible and safe. wctaiwan (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, Seems good. Will be a good and useful feature for trusted editors. ///EuroCarGT 01:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support seems efficient and useful. Don't quite agree with the exact criteria, but as others have said above, these can be worked out later. --LukeSurltc 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, let trusted editors perform directly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support full protection of templates, while necessary to prevent abuse, also has the effect of making it difficult to work with many templates if you're not an administrator. Adminship may not be an option for these people, as RfA not unreasonably expects expertise in areas that have nothing to do with template editing. Many administrators who can edit protected templates don't have the required technical skills. The template namespace is also fundamentally different from other areas in that it is the only place where protection is used pre-emptively. Hut 8.5 10:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per comments, and with strong Administrator support. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support this proposal, since it leaves full-protection open as an option to be used on Templates just as it is currently used on articles – i.e. in the event of edit-warring/what have you. It Is Me Heret / c 12:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
SupportJamesmcmahon0 - This seems like a good compromise that means coders do not have to apply for adminship or pester admins to make changes and admins don't have to understand the code or review requests. Provided the admin is diligent in granting the privilege I'm sure the editors that are granted this right will follow the usual rules on potentially controversial editand community consensus. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Though it probably won't have much of an impact on me personally, I can see how it would be very frustrating to be unable to make necessary changes quickly to high-use protected templates. If one know what they is doing, I see no reason to stop them from doing it. RfA should not be a required milestone for this, IMHO. The guidelines listed seem reasonable, though I would probably add something to the effect of "if you don't meet the listed guidelines, you can still apply, but must give a reason", as we have for the other user rights you can request for. Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I've long thought we need a level of certified trusted editor below admin, with more limited rights, but a less political vetting process. This is more narrow than what I would prefer, but a step in the right direction.--agr (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, let trusted editors perform work on protected templates, and let Admins do other work. There should be a very limited number of such permissions, starting with User talk:Trappist the monk.DThomsen8 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The reason we protect templates is different from the reason we protect articles. A template is protected because we do need to ensure that certain high-risk templates are only edited by certain trusted people. However, not all of our admins are good coders, and not all of our good coders are admins. Thus it makes sense to allow the people we ought to trust with high-risk templates (competent coders) to edit those templates. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 15:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Disappointed Support I support this because it will allow serious coders the ability to edit templates. I am disappointed that it is needed, that template coders are not trusted enough to be admins. I am disappointed that we are going to add another level of trust to wikipedia.Martin451 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I am going to add wrt. edit requests mentioned elsewhere. An edit request to an article is often clear cut, and if a spelling mistake happens or text is put into the wrong place (etc.) it does not really matter. If I were to request an edit to a template, and there was a bug in that edit, or the sysop implemented it incorrectly, then it could affect a large part of wikipedia, and also take hours before someone in the know corrected it. Giving this right will allow those in the know to get it right the first time, or very quickly correct their mistake. It will also allow those in the know to monitor edit requests for templates, and make a better decision than most admins, and debug/revert if needed.Martin451 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support -- This user right makes sense. Template editing is obscure, and, from reading a couple of Requests for Adminship, it appears that no ability in this area is required. I also read a few heated discussions about templates, where administrators edited fully protected templates without discussing the edits on the template talk page; having a category of trusted and competent users might help remove some of this heat, also. I also hate editing templates; it is frustrating to attempt it, and I think I have only edited one. I would also like this category of users so I could identify and ask specific users to do this for me when necessary. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC))
Support - This is a reasonable use of trust which shall remove some unnecessary administrative overhead. kencf0618 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Removes admin overhead and allows for a gradual unbundling or admin rights, which will help with some of the RfA silliness. Shadowjams (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, but we shouldn't need it. Trusted editors should be admins! Since we've got absurdly high standards for adminship, let's at least give the trusted non-admins some of what they need. By the way, we really need a fourth criterion for removal: template vandalism. If I catch you using your template editor userright to perform blatant vandalism, I'm going to remove your rights in addition to blocking you, and I'd prefer that the relevant policy explictly permit removal, rather than having to rely on WP:IAR. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this is covered by WP:COMMONSENSE, but it doesn't hurt to say so explicitly :) I made the addition above. equazcion(talk) 00:24, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Agree with your comment, and of course your change. I'm willing to IAR when necessary, but it's better when we can do what's needed without ignoring rules — if nothing else, it removes a possible wikilawyering strategy. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Some of the oppose votes raise important issues, but this seems like a helpful and useful addition to the project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Perhaps only a few tens of coders will be granted this responsibility but it seems helpful to the wiki to have these people engaged. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I see no reason why this shouldn't be enacted. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Since a lot of talented editors don't want to subject themselves to the hoop-jumping circus that RfA has become, turning individual admin tools into user rights is a good solution. An RfA overhaul would be nice, too. Yintan 15:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, as increasing the number of users who can edit these will dramatically reduce the workload of some. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per Mark Arsten. 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
yes per yintan Dlohcierekim 20:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sounds reasonable and appropriate given the current circumstances. Templates can be a pain and users who know how to edit them (well) are in short supply. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - On the Dutch Wiki I have seen cases where this could be usefull. Some people are not right for admin functions due to human skills, but are great with wiki skills, hyperactive, and mean well. Taketa (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Any attempt that leads to unbundling of admin rights is welcome. This one too, is an excellent idea, do go ahead. --Ekabhishektalk 09:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Support efforts to facilitate template/module development by experienced editors, and separation of this authority versus full admin rights. Rjwilmsi 13:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, this is a good idea, and will help lessen the admins' workloads. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support; this is a good idea. -sche (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Qualified support I support the concept, qualified at least: [a] some long-term positive indication of neutrality, [b] a definition of "demonstrated a useful purpose". [c] (possibly) a longer time on Wikipedia. –DjScrawl (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. - We only need trusted users to do this task; they need not also be an admin. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support The current situation is a bit odd. For example, I've created a number of templates, including one that was recently vandalized and I had to fix. If I ask for it to be protected to limit vandalism, I won't then be able to edit it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. The oppose rationales that I read seem misguided at best. A good many templates are permanently full-protected, and that's not going to change. The alternative to this proposal is the status quo, wherein even fewer people can edit templates. Let's not allow standing on principle to get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. The details of eligibility etc may need some fine-tuning, but the general concept is good. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 10:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support the general principle, and the specific proposal with some suggestions:
I don't think that hard-and-fast numbers are a good idea. We don't ask for specific length of editorship or numbers of edits in RfAs, and this should be easier to get than the mop. since it's strictly less powerful.
I would like to see an additional requirement that prospective template-editors should have not only made the changes, but that their code is of good quality, that they aren't cowboys and do proper testing before going live and that they document their stuff.
One feature of the current 'system' is that editors without a template-editor bit (right now equal to adminship) need to get their changes to important templates past a second pair of eyes. I realise that, with a lack of able and willing reviewers, this doesn't currently amount to much, but it could be built upon to try and make sure that applied changes are good quality, but it should be easier to build a cadre of able-and-willing committers if they don't need to ask for and receive the full monty. I think we should try and set up a norm that admins and template-editors should thoroughly review requests to change templates and bring them up to scratch if they aren't. KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. No reason not to. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 17:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Total support - I am an admin and I sometimes complete edit requests, but Template ones are something way beyond my own expertise and I'd rather let someone who knows more about them fix them up, admin or not. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Would fill an irritating hole in the privilege system. A step in the right direction. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support this and all other thoughtful efforts at debundling the admin toolbox. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support; the reasons those templates are protected is one of safety, not "normal" protection and it makes sense that being able to edit them only requires a demonstration of skill. — Coren(talk) 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I am a very skilled template coder, but all of my work is located on Wikis protected by NDA's using MediaWiki software. That said, having administrated multiple sites with protected templates, I can see the need for non-admins that are proficient with template coding to edit templates. For high-traffic protected ones, though, I would still suggest some kind of procedure where notice and a sandbox version worked out in advance be given for some time before the edit is made. I would like to inquire as to the role of trusted template editors and template edit requests by people that have an improvement and can code the template with improvements well, but don't have the role assigned. I feel like it'd increase accessibility for improvement, but could also be a gateway for other users to piggyback on a user that doesn't have to face any sort of consequences external to Wikipedia should they cause mass vandalism. Having implemented a workflow system on MediaWiki software in php, I find Wikis to still be lacking for accessibility even with this change. Penitence (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - With Lua now available the growing number of templates and modules justifies the need for a right like this. It's born of necessity and arrived at the right time. -- Ϫ 04:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Eligibility might need some tweaking (points 5 and 6 are probably too restrictive) -- Nbound (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Seems reasonable to me. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I've supported this a million times in the past, so I'll support it again now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Seems reasonable to me.--UnionhawkTalkE-mail 21:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This seems entirely reasonable to me. Aneah|talk to me 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Seems like a no brainer to me. It'll make it easier to fix up protected templates, without exposing them to the risk of vandalism across thousands of pages simultaneously and/or wikipedia exploding that you'd get if you let just anyone march in and edit whatever templates they pleased, like some of the people down in the "Oppose" section think we ought to do. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A logical move. SpencerT♦C 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as someone who would request having that right. Having to propose a simple change in which I have high confidence doesn't seem like a good use of everyone's time. Particularly when it's something nit-picky (like a clear MOS issue), I feel guilty having to "waste" someone's time to read, understand, and make the change, when I would have happily done it quickly myself. Some things, I don't even report, though I would gladly do them myself if I could. I know when to ask for help or input if it's something that could cause disruption or controversy. I'm sure there are others like me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, largely per Someone not using his real name and Betty Logan. It's been said many a time above that not all of our admins are skilled enough to feel comfortable editing templates, and I am going to assert that not all of our template coders are skilled enough to feel comfortable running for adminship. GoPhightins! 20:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: This is really needed to speed up template editing. I do suggest one minor modifications though. The editor should have worked on the sandbox version of at least three fully protected templates. should be changed to The editor should have worked on a sandbox version of at least three fully protected templates. Some technical people like copy-pasting templates into their userspace to work on them over time without having someone else overwriting their changes (which may happen on the standard sandbox).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - seems to be a good idea. APerson (talk!) 21:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - After doing a thorough review of this proposal, it seems legitimate to have a separate user right for editors who are experienced in editing/modifying templates, modules and edit-notices. This will definitely help in reducing a bit of workload for many Administrators and other users, since the editors who are proficient in this area can do this work by themselves as they would already have the required skills and knowledge to do it by their own. Overall, the proposal and the reasons provided look valid to create this new user right. TheGeneralUser(talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
support - sounds great to me. we need to have technically skilled users who can edit such sensitive templates without much issue. adminship is overkill if all they are going to do with the bit anyways is edit restricted templates. WP:buro tends to be grossly misinterpreted anyways. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as one of the drafters/proposers. Technical 13 (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as proposer -- not that there was any doubt, but just for the sake of an accurate count :) equazcion� | 15:47, 9 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Support and I hope that the process for granting (and revoking) this right is kept light-weight. In fact, along the lines of Acalamari, my first preference would have been if editors granted the new right were technically able to edit any template (ie, no added complexity of new protection level was created). In rare instances when, for some reason, it was desirable that only admins edit a particular template, that could be indicated by an edit-notice on the page and the new right holders would be trusted to follow that (cf, how page protection due to WP:OFFICE-action is not undone by admins even though they are technically equipped to so so). In general we should be cultivating a culture of trust and norms, not relying on technical barriers. Abecedare (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
For that solution to be technically possible, either a new extension would have to be installed, or users with this right would have to be able to edit any protected page (except user .js and .css, pages in the MediaWiki: namespace, and cascading-protecting pages). Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the tradeoffs. I fear that targeting a new software extension (and re-running this RFC to test support for the approach I prefer) will just delay, and possibly derail, the whole process. And I am not comfortable with editors granted with template-editor rights being able to edit (almost) any fully-protected page, because if that were possible, eventually 1) template-editor right would come to be regarded as admin-lite and earning it would become as onerous a process as RFAs and 2) many RFA candidates would be told to apply and prove themselves as admin-lites before gaining additional rights...increasing wikipedia bureaucracy. Long story short: I do support the proposal on the table, although in an ideal world I would have it different. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. About half a year ago, I had proposed that a similiar right exist in this discussion. However, it seemed that my proposed discussion did not go anywhere, probably due to it being proposed at "closing time" for the Wikipedia talk:Protected Page Editor discussion, where I had posted the proposal. Glad to see that this proposal is getting a lot more attention than the one I tried to start did. Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved vote to Neutral. (see below.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I Support this proposal, primarily as a way of "unbundling" some tasks that are currently restricted to admins. We need a control against preventing template vandalism &c but the current approach - full protection of much-transcluded templates - isn't a perfect control, because admins aren't required to have any template expertise - it's not one of the RfA exam-questions, and it shouldn't be. Let admins focus on core admin tasks, let template specialists work on templates - sounds good to me. bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There needs to be a better rationale before I could support this. Saying that coders don't want to have to verbalize their reasons for wanting the changes and therefore shouldn't have to isn't a suitable reason. If these fully protected templates are that important, shouldn't changes to them be made only by consensus? Wouldn't the reasons have to be explained anyway to get that consensus? I understand, though, that coders enjoy their work and want to do it themselves, so I would support a temporary right that was given by an admin, after the rationale for the change was explained, allowing the coder to make the changes him/herself rather than by proxy on a particular template or set of templates. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your question Anne Delong! Many of the requested changes are trivial and non-controversial; fixing a punctuation error, fixing a misspelled word, adding a new optional parameter, or expanding a template to allow more input based on an established pattern. Technical 13 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Typos should be easy to explain and have an admin fix. The other items you mention I feel should have consensus. Coders sometimes make changes that they consider trivial that may not be considered so by others. For example, in the Afc script the word "hoax" keeps being deleted from the decline reason "joke or hoax", with no discussion among the reviewer community. Someone perhaps thought (more than once) that this was a trivial change. Last week the decline template for a while neglected to list the name of the decliner. Before that, one day the link to the help page mysteriously disappeared from one of the templates. Since the protected templates must be considered more important than these ones, I would feel more comfortable if the coders had to explain what they were going to do, get permission from an admin, so that said admin could check afterwards to see that the result was correct and within policy. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The situations you're describing are just as likely to occur when an admin makes the edit. Minor mistakes will occur from time to time no matter who is involved (incidentally, admins are not required to check with someone else before making their own minor edits, and we do have some admin coders). Adminship doesn't guarantee or even indicate any level of coding knowledge that would prevent mistakes. The best assurance that mistakes will be kept to a minimum is to get more competent coders involved, and currently, most of those are not admins, nor do they want to contribute their expertise at fully-protected templates, for the aformentioned reasons. equazcion(talk) 13:42, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Actually most of the admins admit they wouldn't know if the code was right, they just make the change in blind faith. So its better for the one who knows what the code is going to do makes the change so if there is a problem it can be fixed quickly without having to submit an edit request and wait anywhere from several hours to a week for it to get fixed. Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
...which also touches on the problem of there being relatively few admins around who take it upon themselves to handle the queue of protected edit requests (I make no judgments there, it's just a fact). Forgetting about improvements, mere maintenance and required fixes can therefore take a while. equazcion(talk) 15:14, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issues that you are describing Anne are with the Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script of which there has been a lot of rapid changes going on lately with many new features to adapt to using the latest code (the team has been converting much of the script to jQuery and adapting to use CSS3 / HTML5 lately) to improve load times and prevent mass failures when the old code is no longer supported by browsers and to offer an in-house option for reviewing drafts which fall under the fairly new CSD:G13 criteria. It was determined by the lead developer of the script that the decline template was not showing the the decliner and timestamp of decline on your report because the edit was made manually and not using the script (ticket on GitHub). Also, for the record, the decline template is fully protected (verify) which means that when things go wrong, none of the AFCH developers (mabdul — Nathan2055 — Technical 13 — Theopolisme — Hasteur: — APerson241) can quickly fix it and it needs to sit there until a request is answered by an admin, which usually takes days to fix. Technical 13 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I said that I opposed because I thought the rationale was weak. Some of the items being brought up here are legitimate points and should be added to the rationale. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(opposition weakening..) Although I still don't think that this new privilege is really necessary, some good arguments have been made about why it would be convenient and maybe desirable. The template editing qualifications seem well thought out. The edit count seems a bit low; that's about two weeks of editing for me, and it takes experience to work within Wikipedia's policies. I'm also little concerned about the weakness of the "trust" qualifications. Just not being blocked or edit warring lately isn't much of an endorsement. How about adding having demonstrated an understanding of the consensus process? And I wouldn't like to see admins wait until there is a "pattern" of controversial editing without consensus before suspending the privilege. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I had the same concern on reading the proposal. If "verbalize justifiable edit requests" is changed to "verbalize uncontroversial edit requests", my concern would disappear.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, so I made that change as suggested. equazcion(talk) 23:44, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Qualified oppose For the same reason as the last time something like this came up several months ago. I remain unconvinced this is a serious problem, to such an extant that such drastic measures are rerquired to resolve it. I also still support the much simpler idea of re-purposing pending changes level 2, which is currently more or less unused, to accomplish the exact same thing 'without creating new user rights and protection levels, which by the way we cannot simply will into existence. Do we even know if the WMF is aware of this idea? Will the devs even work on it? Do those proposing this realize that even if this is approved and the WMF agreees to implement it it will probably take six months to a year to become a reality? Despite all the previous discussion this still strikes me as a poorly thought out proposal that ignores a much simpler option using tools we already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
See this discussion in the drafting talk page of this proposal, where the possibility of using PC2 this way was discussed. There are a few problems with using PC2 this way currently, and would require changing the way the permission works in a number of ways, ie. coding. It's actually simpler to create a new permission, as that would only require a little new text in the MediaWiki configuration file. In that same discussion, you'll see that a few developers are aware of this proposal, and one of them stated that a new permission is feasible should the community decide on it. equazcion(talk) 15:44, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
PS. There is also the fact that PC2 has been given out to many, many users already without this functionality in mind. If we're to assume the ability to edit high-risk templates should require some degree of special vetting, it doesn't seem feasible to reuse a permission that's already been given out exhaustively to those who haven't gone through any such vetting. equazcion(talk) 15:53, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Is the administrator toolset a response to a drastic situation, or do we not provide it to trusted users in order to assist them in the kinds of efforts they already carry out? This provides a... drastic... increase in productivity to experienced coders. - Floydianτ¢ 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Once upon a time, some visionary people set out to build an encyclopedia based on the absurd notion that the general populace could be trusted to do the right thing. Further, that any would be evil doers would be so out numbered by the good people that the end product would be exceptional. They were right. Here we sit upon the mount of 4.3 million articles created by this mass of general population who were trusted to do the absurd thing of creating an encyclopedia. And now we set forth to say "No, we do not trust you. No, what you have created must be protected from you. No, you must now seek out special privileges in our ever expanding bureaucracy". Look at yourselves in the mirror people. If the attitude expressed here existed when Wikipedia began, Wikipedia wouldn't even exist. TRUST the masses that created this damn project and unprotect the templates. Not ONCE have I ever committed vandalism, but I can't be trusted to edit a template even though there's been numerous times when I've needed to. No, instead I need to ask someone who is "trusted" to do it for me, because I'm not trusted. What asininity. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You may have a point, but in the absence of your ideal situation, wouldn't it be good to get things a step closer to it by providing access to more of the people who need it, rather than taking an all-or-nothing stance? equazcion(talk) 21:42, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
No. Either you trust people or you don't. You don't expand bureaucracy to solve the problems of the expanding bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This seems like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, Hammersoft. I think I understand your perspective here (although I tend to disagree), but I think that argument has already been lost. I don't imagine there's going to be a consensus to unprotect highly used templates back to semiprotection or no protection. If that's true, then what's the best way to enable you, and experienced users like you, to edit these templates? I think this is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hammersoft, this proposal would not take away any abilities that the editors have now; it would do the opposite, giving some users extra capabilities, giving them more trust. So this should be a move in the direction that you would like, even though not all the way. One possible side effect: Once there are lots of coders editing the protected templates, this may lead to the idea that more templates need to be protected, since one of the reasons for not protecting them will have been eliminated. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My point is to give the right back to where it belongs. This is like taking my right away, then telling me things are improving because more people will be able to answer my requests to have work done for me by proxy. And I should be happy about this? How many years, how many edits does it take for someone to be trusted enough to edit the most visible article on the project? I'll answer for you. Zero, in both cases. Yet, I can't be trusted to edit a template? I'll tell you what will happen. This is passing with flying colors, 8:1 right now. A year from now, far more templates will be protected, and I will have even LESS privileges on the project to do the work I've done in the past. But that's ok, this is the project that ANYone can edit...so long as you're "TRUSTED". But I'm not trusted, because I'm just a lowly stupid editor who can barely ties his shoes. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
An edit on an article can cause an error on an article. An error on a template can cause an error on several hundred thousand articles and present server issues. That is the reason for that difference. I don't disagree with you about the possibility of your second point and that should be actively fought against. SFB 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm worried that having this available will lead to it being used when semi-protection would be more appropriate, which is contrary to the goal of letting more people edit more templates. I think a stronger guideline is needed for when each level of protection should be created before this becomes available. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn That's a valid point that was brought up during drafting, and probably should have been addressed in the RfC text initially. I've now added something about this above, under #Privilege. equazcion(talk) 12:50, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
@Equazcion:I don't feel like including a paragraph saying "make sure this doesn't happen" will keep it from happening. I think a stronger solution is needed Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I strongly support tool unbundling in general and as such I would prefer the implementation of a userright that would allow non-admins to edit any fully-protected page rather than just some. I'm not convinced that over-specialization like this is warranted: as I am sure that anyone seeking this userright would be held to high standards, I think that if someone is trusted to edit one type of protected page then they can be trusted to edit (or trusted to not edit) another. Without wanting to resort to hyperbole, I'd rather this not become a stepping stone to having multiple and confusing protection userrights for non-admins when one would do. I'm not convinced by the "problem" of single-purpose candidacies at RfA, either: they are not overwhelming the process nor are they a major burden. Acalamari 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Many people still seem uncomfortable with single-purpose RFAs though, enough that getting them to pass is hit-or-miss; and that's disregarding the fact that most avid coders have no interest in putting themselves through RFA, nor with its other associated tools. As proposals to unbundle the way you suggest have failed repeatedly, wouldn't it make some sense to make a concession and implement a next-best option that might finally get our avid coders working where they're needed? equazcion(talk) 15:05, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether there's anything you could add to the proposal to address the specific point about it being "a stepping stone to having multiple and confusing protection userrights for non-admins". It's a valid concern, though IMO the technical element makes this a one-off situation. - Pointillist (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear to me what would be so bad about further area-specific rights cropping up in the future, if it means more of the people who are good at something specific are allowed to do it, while also alleviating the concerns of those who would rather not give out far-reaching tools packages. I'm rather skeptical that "confusion" will ensue, nor that even if some people did end up confused when they looked into the various rights available on Wikipedia that that isn't something that could be dealt with rather easily. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that as steps like this are taken, an actual unbundling could begin making more sense to more people down the line, and individual rights may start becoming combined. Either way, none of this can happen if we don't start actually implementing steps, choosing instead to demand that our many widely varying individual ideals are met fully. Everyone has their ideal of what Wikipedia should be, but making demands based on those ideals keeps us from progressing at all. equazcion(talk) 16:36, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, but then this RfC would have to be about unbundling in general rather than this specific case. There are special circumstances for template maintenance that are part of the reason the proposal is getting so much support. I'm not saying there would be anything necessarily "bad about further area-specific rights cropping up in the future", but of course other editors might be concerned about gradualism/thin end of the wedge etc. It's best to keep this RfC as narrow as possible, IMO. - Pointillist (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be that down the line unbundling may start making sense to people if several area-specific rights seem to entail similar virtues. That doesn't mean this RFC need be about unbundling. I don't know what will happen in the unforeseeable future nor is such forecasting a part of this proposal. It's just one possibility. What I do know is that those who want that to happen are not serving themselves by demanding that it happen now or else no arguably small part of it can, as the former has proven unlikely. equazcion(talk) 17:12, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Agree 100% - Pointillist (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
oppose per Hammersoft and Jackmcbarn. Also, guideline #1 for granting this "privilege" is near-absurd and would only drive new template editors away, and probably stems from Wikipedia's general paranoia and disregard for anonymity. — Lfdder (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As proposals such as these have generated resistance in the past from those concerned with such rights falling into unproven hands, the guidelines were written conservatively in the hopes of alleviating those concerns. Coming up with guidelines that will be more or less universally acceptable is a challenge that can yet be tackled in the future should this pass; and the guidelines are far from hard-and-fast rules. The granting administrators will use their own discretion in assessing whether an editor has proven themselves capable and trustworthy. equazcion(talk) 18:06, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see the need. Basically, I agree with Beeblebrox. If people want to argue like they did with the other six opposes, I rarely revisit !votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, I didn't post arguments in those cases in order to garner responses from those who opposed; but rather to let onlookers know that there are counterpoints to the unique issues those opposers raised. You haven't done that, so I won't be posting an argument here. equazcion(talk) 00:22, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: "While full protection is an ideal temporary solution for templates that have demonstrated a state of overwhelming controversy, it is less ideal as a permanent precautionary measure for articles. Many editors who have shown an aptitude for editing articles, and have earned the trust of the community in doing their work, may not necessarily be administrators, nor even be interested in becoming administrators. "Non-administrators do have the ability to request edits at fully-protected articles for administrators to enact on their behalf, but there is a significant shortage of administrators who have the time and necessary equanimity to do this reliably. Editors also tend to find this extra step more than a mere annoyance: Editing work is largely rewarding to linguistically-minded people in that they value the creative experience. Many end up choosing to avoid having to verbalize uncontroversial edit requests made to convince someone else to enact an edit on their behalf, by simply avoiding work on fully-protected articles altogether. "As there is currently no measure that would allow access only for trusted editors with article-editing know-how, some editors have resorted to applying for adminship..." Brycehughes (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making but the parallels are not the same. ( I do think that there should probably be a protected page editor right however, but that is not this RfC. ) Full protection is not a temporary solution for templates.... and permanent protection is not as common for articles. The page "Blue" doesn't get protected just because the color blue is used on a large number of pages; but for template space that alone would be a good reason for the page to be fully protected. There is a much larger pool of admins that will assist with protected articles—especially as such pages tend to be contested and on the watch list of active admins—while there are only three admins actively watching for edit requests to templates. A delay in making a fix to an article will leave just that article in a "imperfect" state for the time it makes for the edit request to be acted upon. A delay in making a fix to a high visibility template will leave a lot of pages broken. Also changes to templates might require changes to all the pages that use the template, which means that any overhead in the process can get magnified. PaleAqua (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not the number of protected templates vs. articles that matters; it's the frequency that they're edited—or, rather, have people wanting to edit them. Why do the technically-minded get a back door? Brycehughes (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not about whether or not people are technically minded. The point is that articles aren't protected "just as a precaution", whereas many templates are. To quote the protection policy "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia." No one is arguing that we need to be as open with high-use templates because of the potential for mess. Yaris678 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the reason why a page or template gets protected has any bearing on whether or not there exists a genuine problem that needs to be solved for the good of the Wikipedia project. I do see how having templates preemptively protected might annoy a group of people who like to edit templates. Brycehughes (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
If there was a load of pre-emptively protected articles, people would probably be arguing for a user right to edit those too. Yes, that argument would probably come from them being annoyed at not being able to edit the pre-emtively protected articles, but is that so bad? Surely not annoying users is a good thing. Yaris678 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's bad when it's the sole argument for creating yet another user right. How many are there now? 16? Everyone else has to WP:CHILL and wait for their edits to go through. I don't see why we need to make a special exception for template editors. Brycehughes (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not merely about annoyance, if you read the rationale both above and in the linked discussions; although for the sake of argument, if it's annoying enough that the people who can work on something stop working on it altogether, that could be reason enough. If articles were preemptively protected and required edit requests, and that caused all the skilled content contributors to stop contributing content, people would likely consider that reason to consider a change. In any case, to answer your "back door" comment, templates are full-protected because people without the necessary skills and responsibility can end up causing a lot of damage via a one-time mistake. All those various "oops" edits that occur in article space could cause massive problems if they occurred at high-use templates. That's why those who have been vetted as knowledgeable and responsible in this area are being proposed as receiving said permission. It's not about seeing technically-minded people as a higher class that deserves special treatment -- they're just uniquely suited to safely help out in this specific area. equazcion(talk) 14:59, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. According to the proposal, the right will allow editors to make "simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates", while more "complex or controversial edits" will be subject to testing and consensus. What is the requisite skill level for making a simple edit? This isn't about creating a new tool that only the most "skilled" and "responsible" among us can employ immediately in those dreaded template-emergency situations—indeed, those situations are preempted by precautionary protection. Rather, it's about creating a new privilege for a group of people who have the wherewithal to lobby the Wikipedia community for their own user right. Brycehughes (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no requisite skill level for making a simple edit. There is a requisite skill level for determining which edits are simple, however. As for creating a new privilege for those who can, I'd say if you were familiar with the history you probably wouldn't be saying that. This has been a multi-year-long headache that failed many times over, and pretty much no one has had the lobbying strength to push through thus far. Those who would be getting the permission in question wouldn't have kept this up for this long just because they can, as so far, they decidedly can't. And if it makes any difference to anyone, I, the author of this proposal, do not plan on applying for the permission should it become a reality. In fact if this RFC closes as a pass, I'll likely be re-hanging my "retired" banner. equazcion(talk) 16:28, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
If it were true that there was a requisite skill level for determining which template edits are simple, then all templates would need to be protected from editors who didn't have those skills. But they're not, because your statement is untrue. Regarding your multi-year long headache, how does that refute my point? Lobbying efforts for special privileges can't fail? They can't last for years? It has no bearing on the cost/benefit analysis before us, other than confirming that the issue has been correctly decided in the past. Brycehughes (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I bring up the history because you've assumed an ulterior motive. You say those who would get the permission are responsible for lobbying for it, and are doing so simply because they can, and because it would benefit them, so why wouldn't they. I'd contend that after the first try or two at getting something just 'cause they can, it would've seemed apparent that they can't. At this point it should be discernible that it's gone on this long because many people aside from those potential editors believe the encyclopedia needs this, and/or that it would at least be an improvement. Of course, the accusation that techies started this and should be blamed for incurring all this unwarranted support is not really something anyone would be able to prove either way. All I can do is tell you that I won't be getting the permission myself if this goes through, which I should hope at least shows my own intentions. I can also ask that you look at the potential net cost of this proposal versus its net gain, rather than attempting to assess everyone's motives. equazcion(talk) 17:28, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I haven't assumed an ulterior motive. I've assumed a motive in plain sight, as it also happens to be your premise. The proposal background clearly states that people who like to edit templates do not like to wait for their edits to be approved. By implementing this proposal, Wikipedia will make people who like to edit templates happy. Were I one of them, I would probably think this was a great idea too. But, in the bigger picture, I would also hope there'd be people outside of myself and my template-editor peers to zoom out and weigh the benefits of bestowing special privileges onto a certain group of editors against the cons of establishing yet another editor hierarchy as it affects the project at large. There are no accusations here, other than an attack on the weakness of the proposal. Brycehughes (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to answer your first point: "If it were true that there was a requisite skill level for determining which template edits are simple, then all templates would need to be protected from editors who didn't have those skills." -- Most templates aren't widespread enough that bad edits to them would cause significant issues. They're protected because they exist on many thousands of pages. It would take a requisite skill level to determine whether an edit is simple enough to be made without risk given the pervasiveness of the template. equazcion(talk) 17:45, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Then spend your template editing time editing the majority of templates that aren't widespread enough to pose this risk. For the templates that are permanently protected, make an edit request. Just like everyone else. The world won't end before you see your protected template edit go through. Brycehughes (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
"Then spend your template editing time editing the majority of templates that aren't widespread enough to pose this risk." -- That's precisely what they do currently. And so, work on the widespread templates suffers. equazcion(talk) 18:04, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
As it should, because they're high risk. Brycehughes (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Poorly thought-out proposal. The criteria for granting the user right are a horrible case of WP:CREEP and I also fail to see the point of it - from the three-template requirement this seems to be aimed at users maintaining templates across the whole site rather than specific ones relevant to their area, who will still have to use {{editprotected}}. If somebody's that interested in sitewide maintenance encourage them to run for adminship. If not, use sandboxes and {{editprotected}} like the rest of us. The main problem here isn't the lack of a userright, it's the overuse of preemptive protection. --W.D.Graham 08:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose-This could lead to a lot of abuse. The criteria to attain this status isn't stringent enough for the power to not be abused. Snood1205 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As an ad hoc "rule creep" -- we should then need a "ref fix flag", a "typo fix flag", a "personal attack deletion flag" etc. - I can think of a dozen or more special purpose flags which would then make sense. Absent a real reason for this addition, I oppose. Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You are comparing apples to oranges here. One does not currently need administrative privileges to fix references, fix typos and delete personal attacks. However, one does need administrative privileges to edit fully protected templates. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose its a good idea but I don't think this will go as expected. and it could cause some problems. A little stricter and a little clearer. we may have something good here until then I oppose. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see why this is necessary and agree this would be too much fragmentation. If a user can be trusted to edit fully protected templates, surely that same user can be trusted with any admin task. If they don't want to perform any other admin tasks, there is no requirement that they do, so they can simply work only on templates if they so choose. We are all volunteers, after all. And if they don't want to be admins at all (or to go through the process), then they can continue working on templates in sandboxes and then submit requests for updates when done. Slightly inconvenient, perhaps, but hardly something that requires an implementation of a new right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2013; 19:45 (UTC)
Oppose -- the ability for more technically-oriented people to edit protected templates is needed, but the solution is to let them be admins. Ëzhiki's argument just above is something I completely agree with. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 03:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
While some might believe that to be ideal, the current state of affairs precludes that as a viable solution. These editors predominately don't want to apply for adminship, and even for those editors that might, the general feelings in the community on whether or not to promote people who do apply for adminship for that single purpose alone are divided. The tools available to admins encompass a broad range of areas that many feel a potential admin should prove themselves knowledgable and capable of using for the most part, as well as, arguably, demonstrating a certain political stature. Many would like that or other ideals to win out, but a compromise may be the only practical solution available for the foreseeable future. equazcion(talk) 03:42, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I can very well understand one's unwillingness to go through an adminship application or editors' unwillingness to grant an admin bit for template work alone, but I still fail to see what's so impractical about editing the templates in a sandbox and then requesting an update when the work is done. I've done a fair share of template work myself, and whether one is an admin or not, highly visible templates which are protected should never be worked on live anyway. So in essence, the difference between an admin like me and a non-admin template worker is that I can post my work myself once I'm done while a non-admin would have to place a request and perhaps wait a couple days. I just don't see what's so problematic with this approach to require an implementation of a new right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 13:52 (UTC)
Trappist's answer to Question #8 provides a little insight there, as do many of the support comments above. The current system is inefficient and discourages techies from contributing. Edits should be able to be confirmed among peers who are actively involved or at least interested, rather than requiring the approval of some whose job it is to go around to various unrelated projects they aren't familiar with to try and evaluate whether an edit is sound. The nature of coding makes answering protected edit requests in those areas a substantially different and involved endeavor compared to protected article edits -- which is why there are practically no administrators who actually take it upon themselves to do it. I'd stay away from it myself were I an admin, even though I have the coding experience to be helpful -- It's just a headache-inducing undertaking to have to dive into projects you know nothing about, repeatedly, to try and untangle and decipher these changes and their ramifications (made more difficult by the fact that template code is more difficult to make organized and readable, without affecting functionality, than most of other programming languages; and the fact that, to my knowledge at least, there is no real development environment available to facilitate those investigations, beyond the plain old wiki edit box). In the end, though, even though it may be hard for you to see why the current system isn't working, the fact is that it isn't, as avid coders do tend to avoid work on high-use templates. This in itself is problematic, and if we can enact a change would change this, and would do so safely, then we should. equazcion(talk) 14:13, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it, but I don't see the situation like that. It is indeed a lot of work to go through someone else's coding job and try to decipher it, but is it really necessary? Bugs are an inherent by-product of template work and may surface later even with the most diligent approach. I personally would approve any template change request as long as the sandbox contains examples of how the template being changed looks currently and how it would look/behave after the change. I may or may not ask for (or try out myself) additional test cases or clarifications if something looks not quite right, but as long as there are no visible problems and any major changes have a consensus, there is no need to dive deep into the code and try to parse it on the off-chance a bug has snuck in. And if I happen to approve a modification which leads to some overlooked serious problems, I'm prepared to roll it back (or see it rolled back by another admin) at the first sign of trouble. The job of an approving admin is not to make sure the change is flawless, it is to make sure that it is not malicious, is functional, and reflects the consensus of everybody involved. Some time commitment on the part of the reviewing admin is required, of course, but no more so than with any other protected edit request.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 14:36 (UTC)
Well, we could argue about how much need there is to make sure edits are sound, or what degree of confirmed soundness is required; but whichever way that discussion would go, I think we can agree that it's better if it's easier to catch more potential bugs earlier. Letting more of the more equipped people make those evaluations improves the situation. Is it necessary? I'm not sure what it means, really, when people say something isn't necessary and thus shouldn't be done. Many of the things you and I have come to rely on were the result of improvements that were not necessarily... well, not necessarily "necessary". And this would be an improvement, no matter how you look at it, even if there's some disagreement over degrees. There's also the issue of fixes needed sooner rather than later, which could be implemented more swiftly if more people in the know were both actively involved and had the required permission. The only real against argument (in relation to your comments) is the hierarchy confusion one, which I don't think actually translates into any practical issues -- though we'll probably have to agree to disagree over that. equazcion(talk) 14:55, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not trying to win you over to the dark side :), I'm simply trying to clarify my position to whoever else might be reading this, so it's perfectly OK that we disagree. What I meant by "necessary" is simply that one shouldn't hesitate to review a protected template edit request simply because they don't want to parse the code modifications. Making sure that there are no obvious problems (which can actually be done with minimal technical knowledge) should be sufficient. And if they can parse the modifications, that's just an added bonus. What you are trying to say (if I'm reading you correctly), that this is not a prevalent attitude among the reviewing admins, who prefer either to make sure everything is in order down to the most minute detail or not to bother with the review altogether (and the latter happens more often). I have no reason not to believe this (if this is what you are saying), but based on my experience, I haven't noticed it to be the case. Hence my oppose. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 15:25 (UTC)
Support #5 indicates that the prevailing practice among admins is to avoid reviewing altogether; and I further wouldn't necessarily chalk that up to a desire to understand minute details. "And if they can parse the modifications, that's just an added bonus." -- This proposal would make that "bonus" more widely available, in fact perhaps standard. equazcion(talk) 15:34, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that comment out; it's an enlightening one. However, one could equally argue that even if it takes a couple of weeks for the changes to be applied, it's still no big deal (and in fact it provides a cool-down period during which the template writer can look at his or her work afresh and perhaps see some problems which escaped their eyes first time round). On the other hand, for templates where applying a change quickly is crucial, one would think that the people interested in implementing it would actively reach out to some individual admin who shares their interest and is willing to help implement the change. At any rate, from what I've seen the unwillingness to implement the changes to protected templates stems more from the controversies often surrounding such changes rather than from the lack of technical expertise—a problem which the proposed flag is more likely to exacerbate rather than alleviate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 16:01 (UTC)
I'll leave most of this alone as I think we've each laid out our feelings adequately enough. However you kinda tacked on something new at the end there that I think warrants addressing. It's not a refusal to implement changes that we're addressing, nor is that a prevailing issue. I'm assuming you mention this in response to my pointing out that you haven't made a practical argument against, but I have to call foul on that particular one, as it's a catch-all argument against many things. Disagreements will of course occur anywhere from time to time, but contention hasn't been the prevailing issue at high-use templates. It's the lack of fundamental participation, both by admins and coders, due to the inefficiency of the whole process. Controversial changes will require consensus to be established first, as stated in the proposal, or else the enacting editor's permission will be in jeopardy. equazcion(talk) 16:55, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You are right, my last bit wasn't particularly related to the proposal and describes a whole different aspect of the template coding process which is not quite relevant here (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not). I do stand with the rest of my arguments, however, since I'm hesitant to accept anecdotal evidence and conjecture in support. I do, of course, realize that my arguments may be seen as anecdotal as well, which is why a broader community input is beneficial. It looks that things are going towards supporting this proposal anyway. If my assessment turns out to be wrong and the new bit is going to bring nothing but benefits, so much the better. If my (and other opposing editors') assessment that the new bit would be problematic turns out to be right, then it can be rolled back fairly easily (I hope). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 17:59 (UTC)
Thanks for all the good and thoughtful comments to my Oppose vote -- it definitely appears that the proposal will pass, so it is good to know that those who support it have thought so deeply about the subject. I will keep the oppose here because I think that opening up adminship to get more contributors involved who have worked well on any aspect of the project is one of the most important changes that WP needs to make to keep up its energy; so definitely if that's not going to happen, I support this proposal, but I wish we could devote more effort to adding to the number of admins. This proposal will probably make that process even harder. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 21:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Registered users should be the default editing circumstance for almost everything, and sadly this is one more move to show some elitism and assuming a lack of good faith on the part of those rank and file individuals (many such as myself who have been editing and participating on Wikipedia for many years) who need to be trusted. If anything, there should be evaluations about many templates as to if they really do need to be protected and why.... including on the "front page". If you want to change the criteria for a "trusted registered user", that is certainly a legitimate debate. In this context, however, I fail to see how merely semi-protecting a template is any worse than granting this "right" to hundreds or thousands of "trusted users". I also see this being a situation where many sorts of templates that at the moment wouldn't even be considered as something to be fully protected would then have that protection status added.... or that even further "levels" of protection might need to be created that still make those templates "admin edits only". This really is feature creep at its worst. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think i'd revisit this RfC after commenting a couple of times, but i believe it is incumbent upon me to Oppose. As Robert Horning says or implies immediately above, the default position ought to be that regular, registered users can edit almost anything; if it's so fragile or important that they shouldn't be allowed to, we do have a process which allows them to show they have the community's trust ~ it's called RfA, and the one which was the proximate cause of this discussion has passed, showing that sufficient members of the community are prepared to trust someone to do what he says he'll do. I also think, as a couple of other users have mentioned, that this is a possible example of rule creep; or maybe of getting something (unbundling) in by a side door because the front door is closed. That previous sentence might be read to imply poor faith on the part of the filers or supporters; i had no intention of allowing that inference, and apologise for the poor wording. Cheers, LindsayHello 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Edited to clarify intentions 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this goes directly against founding principles. Read User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. The genie is already out of the bottle, so calling this a slippery slope would just be beating a dead horse. How's that for a mixed metaphor? Almost any level of hierarchy is bad for the project, including degrees of hierarchy that have been with us since 2003. Speaking as someone who has created and edited several templates, I understand the arguments both ways, but I'd prefer an openness in editing that immediately trashes hundreds of pages (and thus, is quickly noticed and fixed) to a closed system where the onus is on the community to determine who is trustworthy and who is not. Focus on the articles, not the article-writers.Imzogelmo (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If the administrators really think this is a problem for them, I think the solution should be "reduce the number of protected templates" or "increase the number of administrators" (which might include reduce the requirements of administrators). We don't need another layer of rights McKay (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there is definitely a problem here, but I don't think this proposal is the best way to address it. I find Imzogelmo's comment fairly persuasive; we do not need an additional layer of bureaucracy here. But more than that, I see two issues that should be addressed: (1) we should focus on ways to make it easier to edit templates, perhaps using some hybrid of Drafts and FlaggedRevs; and (2) we should focus on making page protection much more flexible (we currently have two hammers for every kind of nail and this isn't serving us well at all). Creating an additional protection level somewhat moves us closer to the second goal, but not without a lot of extra baggage. For any page, it should be possible to easily specify "you need more than X edits" or "you need to have been a registered user for longer than Y" in order to make an edit. This would allow us to stop fully protecting so many pages when semi-protection isn't adequate, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Those are lofty goals that may perhaps one day become a reality. As I've said before, there are solutions that some might call more ideal, but under the current circumstance it makes little sense to demand them and block anything else, while a less-than-perfect (depending on your perspective) solution is on the table that would still improve things. There's almost no chance of your suggestions happening in the foreseeable future, while this proposal could be implemented immediately. There's no "extra baggage" here beyond that which would come with your suggestions. In fact I think this proposal carries significantly less "baggage" than combining drafts, flagged revisions, and vast page protection options that would require significant software and procedural changes; even if those could result in a more powerful system. This is a user right, it's implemented without any new software coding, and is assigned and revoked without any significant process. equazcion(talk) 22:39, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Sure, we have to avoid making perfect the enemy of the done. It's a balancing act, it always is: you can accept a temporary fix and try to hope it won't become permanent or you can wait for a proper solution. One of the more painful consequences to accepting the temporary fix is that it discourages the development of a proper solution. This is one of the situations where I personally think the hack (read: quick fix) is doing more harm than good. The software should be better. I'd like it if the hundred-plus editors here would help make the software smarter. In addition to the two points raised in my comment, a third is the current inability to create arbitrary user groups through a user interface. Bureaucrats should be able to create local user groups with arbitrary user rights just as stewards can create global groups with arbitrary user rights. There are a lot of potential solutions here, but I don't think adding a protection level and a user group moves us forward in the direction I want to move. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I just finished reading all this and need some time to digest it all; however, to oppose is my first, gut feeling on it. I do deeply agree with Acalamari's 5. I strongly support tool unbundling in general and as such I would prefer the implementation of a userright that would allow non-admins to edit any fully-protected page rather than just some. When an editor has performed many thousands of good and helpful improvements, adminship should become a given. At this point, though, it appears to me that the creation of another protection level is just a loose bandaid. And yet, why dishearten good template coders by the present, not-so-subtle system of making them feel untrusted? It's an open can of worms, truly, and I feel there are better ways to find a bigger can. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 17:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If a template is so sensitive to damage that its default state must be fully-protected, it probably is a useful delay for changes to run through edit-protected and thus under multiple sets of eyes. Christopher Parham(talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I really want to support this but I think the guidelines for granting needs to be expanded. In my opinion, this userright ranks up there with edit filter in terms of potentially causing widespread damage to the site. In order for non-admins to become an edit filter manager, there needs to be a discussion first. I think that this userright should have a similar process to the way edit filter manager is granted. Elockid(Talk) 21:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a fair point, but can you point me to a description of the way edit filter manager is granted? I've wasted 20 minutes trying to find a summary of their process without success—I must be looking in the wrong place. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a brief description of it at the end of the lead at WP:Edit filter. Elockid(Talk) 23:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
While someone could vandalize a massive number of pages at once with this user right, the damage from that could be corrected very quickly. The edit filter could cause even more widespread problems, and there could be damage done that would be a lot harder to undo, and in some ways impossible to undo. Monty845 02:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverting the vandalized template is easy, yes. Finding the source of the problem, no. When a template vandal, User:Earth Exploding Live vandalized templates (they weren't protected but I'm just giving an example), it was very difficult for even the most seasoned vandal fighters to locate the source of the problem. With the edit filter, we can locate the problem pretty quickly. It's much easier to fix edit filter problems, I've dealt with both personally. Elockid(Talk) 02:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
How do you undo the damage done when an edit filter blocks everyone on wikipedia from editing, discards the edits they tried to make, and gives them a warning about their misconduct. Sure, the edit filter was fixed within minutes, but that doesn't undo the damage from when it was active. And that was just from a blunder in a good faith edit (happened twice that I know of), not even someone deliberately abusing it. Monty845 02:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I can raise a similar argument. How do you undo the damage done to template where clicking anywhere on the page where that template is transcluded in leads you to a shock site (this has happened before)? Considering that it takes longer to locate the problem, IMO there's a much greater possibility of preventing good faith edits as a result. Not only are people prevented from editing the page but the template can be made to make it impossible to read. What if a template on the main page was vandalized? What I am saying here is that template vandalism can be just as hazardous or even more hazardous than the edit filter. You can't undo the consequences that resulted from both these cases. Our best option is to fix and prevent problem. Elockid(Talk) 04:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about vandalism with the criteria listed here (which can of course be tweaked later, btw). An applicant will have had to put in a fairly good deal of time and effort to meet them, without block-worthy behavior or 3RR violations in the past 6 months (which seems like a tall order of good behavior for a vandal), along with no suspicious behavior that would turn up during the investigation of those criteria (these criteria will require quite a bit more active investigation than those concerning most admin-assigned rights). If someone has committed that much time and effort to building a facade, chances are an added discussion requirement won't catch them either. Further, it seems like an unrealistically significant commitment for someone who'll be purposely damaging things, and I can't see it happening realistically -- vandals are generally drive-by. Finally, there won't be very many people with this right, and their contribs will be the first to get looked at if something starts breaking -- so if a problem is caused by a template editor, the culprit will be found and rolled back pretty quickly, and won't necessarily require much digging through transclusions to find.
All of that having been said, nothing precludes discussion from occurring at WP:PERM, even though it generally doesn't for the rights currently in existence. Anyone concerned can watch the applications and comment. We could even have a waiting period to wait for comments, though it should be fairly short so this doesn't inch towards being "RfA lite", and because the right is easily revoked anyway. I see such things as logistics that can be addressed later though, and don't require codifying right now. equazcion� | 06:02, 28 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The point I was making is that edit filter vandalism and template vandalism can be just as destructive or hazardous as each other. This is why I am advocating for a discussion first. Nothing similar to the easy come easy go process when applying for rights such as Rollbacker or Reviewer. There are even many cases where userrights were given too liberally as in not following the guidelines. And I'm not just talking about the ones in WP:PERM. The Reviewer right was given way too liberally without any form of discussion in almost all cases. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, there was a point where admins were giving the Autoreviewer right too liberally. Even with IP block exemption, admins have routinely not followed guidelines or protocol when granting the right and this is a right where the trust level needs to be similar to that of an admin. Like with what happened to Reviewer, the IP block exemption flag was given too liberally. I think this problem stems from the lack of discussions. If we have even a short discussion (maybe 3 days), we can have further assessment than just from one person which in many cases, it is. Elockid(Talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
@Elockid: Actually, in most cases it's easy to find the source of template vandalism if you know how. The usual way is to just use Special:RecentChangesLinked to get a list of recent changes to linked pages in the Template namespace. Or, if you want to get a little fancier, you could use this userscript. That doesn't always help (e.g. Talk:Human/Archive 33#Infobox with broken code, where someone changed one of the automatic taxobox templates in a way that wasn't obviously vandalism but caused other bits of taxobox to exceed template limits), but such situations are rare. Anomie⚔ 13:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
But there's a problem. Most people don't know how to fix the problem as evident by the last template vandalism disaster. The community was unprepared last time and since this is not a common form of vandalism, I don't believe that the community as a whole this time. Elockid(Talk) 14:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the way to fix that is to make it easier for people to find instructions on how to do it. I'm not familiar with this "last template vandalism disaster" you're referring to, but perhaps the thing to do is find out where the people who couldn't find it looked for help and put instructions (or links to instructions) there. Also, BTW, somewhere above you were concerned about someone vandalizing a template that's on the main page, but do note that the main page is cascade-protected so the proposal here wouldn't let non-admins edit those templates. Anomie⚔ 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example thread at ANI and my talk page. I've also had users sending me emails per WP:BEANS. This spanned a few months. With regards to the main page, my main reason for bringing it up is that like edit filters disallowing good faith edits, template vandalism can also disallows good faith edits. Elockid(Talk) 19:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
As per Elockid. A great step in removing already heavy administrator workload but a potentially dangerous tool in wrong hands. - Jayadevp13 15:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. About half a year ago, I had proposed that a similar right exist in this discussion. However, it seemed that my proposed discussion did not go anywhere, probably due to it being proposed at "closing time" for the Wikipedia talk:Protected Page Editor discussion, where I had posted the proposal. Glad to see that this proposal is getting a lot more attention than the one I tried to start did. However, with that being said (and after reading the proposal in its entirety), I do not agree with providing the permission to edit the Template:Editnotices/Pagepage or any of its subpages in its namespace as part of this right. I can see the edit notices getting either purposefully or accidentally vandalized as part of having this right. Putting up warnings for articles and other pages for readers to see has absolutely nothing to do with being a "template coder" and everything to do with making sure that everyone sees an important warning message. (However, one flaw in this proposal is not enough for me to "Oppose", but it is enough for me not to vote "Support.") Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I think those last three criteria for granting are a bit overly specific, I would make it a bit looser than that, but we can work that out. Also with Lua here now, we should probably include Module space into this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the heading should be "Guidelines for granting", rather than "Criteria"? - Pointillist (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think modules are supposed to be included - is the wording unclear anywhere? — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
TheDJ, Pointillist: Module space is already included here. As for the criteria, it's specific to alleviate concerns over the potential of this privilege to fall into unqualified hands. I felt there was a better shot at acceptance across the community if specifics were laid out. That said, the content of the section already has "guidelines" in bold, with mention that it's really at the administrator's discretion; but maybe I'll change the header as well. equazcion(talk) 11:15, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You're doing a great job. I just thought that contrasting "Guidelines for granting" with "Criteria for revocation" might help with acceptance. - Pointillist (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) I made the header change, FYI. equazcion(talk) 11:38, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The last two criteria, IMO, are intended to ensure a editor is indeed learned in template editing... However, many of the editors who work with templates network together, and its possible for an editor to request coding changes on IRC, email, or user talk pages. These two should be discretionary. Perhaps the first four criteria should be closer to requirements, while the last two could be used as part of a larger list of skillsets for determining an editor's expertise. Coding in Lua is a greater indicator than use of the edit-protected template. - Floydianτ¢ 11:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm open to this and it seems people have thus far expressed a feeling that the criteria could use loosening. Stipulating that the final two criteria are more discretionary seems like a good idea, for the reasons you put forth. I'm not sure what exact textual changes to make yet -- As this is a meta issue we could discuss exact changes to employ on the talk page. equazcion(talk) 12:03, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I still think that the last two guidelines are weak, but I've compromised. I've spent 14.3 years and made hundreds of template edits (mostly on a specialized wiki for an MMO I played + on wikipedia) and I still don't know all there is to know about templates. That being said, having all of this experience, I can pretty quickly look it up in the appropriate manual on MediaWiki wiki. I think that the current wording of the guidelines allows for consideration of edit requests anywhere, including but not limited to the template talk page, IRC, email, and user talk pages. Technical 13 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Question: Whilst this is presumaby technicaly doable, do we have any idication from the developers that they have the time and inclination to actually modify the necessary bits to create the user right? Pedro : Chat 11:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The technical ramifications were explored thoroughly in the drafting talk page, now archived but linked on this talk page. On the developer side, this change would only require config changes, rather than new coding (a new user right + a new protection level). See here for a portion of that, in which User:Anomie dropped by and indicated a new protection level is viable if the community is for it. equazcion(talk) 12:00, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Equazcion, I didn't see that link, appreciated. Pedro : Chat 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(multiple ECs) Although i, in general, am not in favour of unbundling, i am not currently going to oppose. I do think, however, that the timing of this RfC is a little unfortunate, in view of the RfA running as it was started (yes, i'm aware that this particular RfA is part of the motivation for the RfC); it seems to me that if the Request is successful, as doesn't seem unlikely as i write this, that is a sign that the Community is more prepared to grant adminship for a single use than it was previously. That being the case, i'd not be in favour of the new usergroup being offered here. More generally, i'm not sure i understand why or where we would draw the lines of trust: If we trust someone to be able to edit templates through protection why wouldn't we trust him in other areas? Cheers, LindsayHello 12:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This proposal means a Template Editor candidate can be assessed using criteria that are much narrower and to some extent more objective than those in an RfA. There is also a far more credible mechanism for revocation. - Pointillist (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Pointillist ~ your last point there is probably the strongest reason i can see for supporting the proposal; i hadn't missed it, exactly, but my mind did gloss over it a bit. Cheers, LindsayHello 15:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, a general feeling was expressed even by supporters at the RfA that they were only supporting because there was no option such as the one described here. equazcion(talk) 13:11, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lindsay! I appreciate your concerns and questions. Let's see what I can answer, and maybe others can back me up or offer more insight. The current RfA process isn't as much about technical ability and trust. It's a bureaucratic process that requires a wide array of abilities and commitments from having created multiple new articles and contributed to many administrator area discussions (AfD, RPP, and AIV to name a few) to having a good ability to converse and discuss with other editors under extreme circumstances (being the subject of PA or TROLLing for example) instead of just being able to step away. Moreover, my observation of the RfAs I've contributed to has been that it is very much more about a popularity contest than it is about technical skills and trustworthiness. This new proposed right is more along the lines of creating a usergroup that will allow our more technically inclined editors to be more productive in the specific areas that they are interested in based on their skillset. Technical 13 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Technical 13. I have to say that i completely disagree with one of your points (sorry!) ~ i think that RfA is very largely about trust, which is why i mentioned it earlier. We are giving a set of tools to a candidate based on whether or not we, as a community, trust him not to screw up or go crazy. Looking at their various abilities/experiences is just a means of evaluating their trustworthiness. That's why it seems to me that Trappist the monk and others have chosen to go along the best path in order to be more productive in the specific areas that they are interested in based on their skillset. Thus, from my perspective, this new userright is not necessary. But, we can agree to differ. Cheers, LindsayHello 15:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Alternative implementation recommended Create a mechanism in the code so individuals can be bypass edit protection for specific pages or groups of pages, then for the English Wikipedia use this new mechanism to do what is suggested above. This implementation will give other Wikipedias, including non-Foundation projects using the software, the flexibility do do things like give "edit protected page" rights to curators of arbitrary articles or groups of articles and their associated pages, or provide similar features. As the English Wikipedia specifically does not allow "ownership" this would not be used for curating content or likely any other purpose in article-space in the English Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This was discussed during the drafting stage of this proposal, but the developers indicated that it wasn't technically feasible. I'm assuming it can be done (from a software development standpoint it doesn't seem all that farfetched), but would require some substantial development and reworking of the software, so it would be far less likely to actually be implemented by the foundation should a proposal for it pass. equazcion(talk) 17:17, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Question: why are edit notices included in this? It's a completely different scope and skill set, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
True, but none of the rationales for this proposal apply to editnotices. Just because they're in the Template namespace doesn't mean they should be lumped together with other templates. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Scope is arguable, but it's not a different skill set. Edit notices entail the same type of coding, as they're merely banners made of wikicode. Aside from editors' own talk page edit notices, access to edit notices is locked from most users under a similar precautionary principle rather than reasons of controversy etc. They fall under the category of things our many avid coders could contribute substantially to, but are currently barred from unnecessarily. Also, access to edit them is already granted via another non-admin rights group, account creator. It seemed appropriate to include it here. equazcion(talk) 19:28, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Question - Unlike another proposed rights change under discussion lately, which would require editors to have a certain amount of experience before reviewing articles at Afc, this proposal gives more rights to some individuals. If 100 non-admins all speak in favour of this proposal, and no one opposed them, would they have the ability to implement this? Whose support is needed to create new user rights, and who would decide who gets them? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Administrators are generally the ones who close proposals, meaning they provide the final assessment on whether or not a proposal has passed. As admins have the responsibility to disregard their personal feelings when doing so, and are elected largely based on their perceived ability to do so, it wouldn't and generally doesn't matter if everyone who supports a proposal are non-admins. New rights and protection levels are enacted by the Wikimedia Foundation's developers. When a community proposal that requires their action closes as successful, a request is put in to them. There have been instances where the Foundation chose to override the community and refused to enact a community-supported proposal, but that has been rare -- and during the drafting process there were at least two developers who commented on this one and seemed open to the idea if the community was. equazcion(talk) 23:14, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
PS. Several of the supporters on this page thus far are in fact administrators, in case that's relevant to your concern. equazcion(talk) 23:17, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I think technically it could be implemented by sysops, (The ones who run the servers) as it would I think be only a change in a config file. Once the mechanics were implemented, the right would be granted by local admins in accordance with what ever guidelines the RFC Produces. Presumably, the protection level change to the new one would also be carried out by local admins. Note, that support for the proposal is actually higher amongst admins who have !voted then non-admins, so a refusal of admins to cooperate doesn't seem like it should be a problem. Monty845 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
^What he said :) Sysops and developers probably each have config access, and I'm not sure which would actually enact the initial change. It doesn't really matter. Either way (to answer your questions simply), barring the Foundation vetoing this, our admins would indeed be doing most of what needs to be done, as Monty says; which, if this passes, they would do, regardless of who voted. equazcion(talk) 23:39, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who helped clarify this. This is the first time I've seen members of the community proposing to give themselves new rights, and I wanted to make sure it wasn't a pointless exercise. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That raises a question that hasn't really been addressed. If the proposal passes, should all fully protected templates be changed to the new template protection (possibly by an admin bot), should we try to review every fully protected template with an eye towards reduction (7k+ templates), or should they be reviewed and reduced on an as requested basis? Monty845 23:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That question is better left for a subsequent discussion as it is kind of putting the cart in front of the horse in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I imagine that one of those three options or some combination thereof would take place, though that's a logistic we can tackle when the time comes. Just a note though, the new protection level is intended to entirely replace full protection as the precautionary measure for high-risk templates, rather than only being applied to "reduce" the number of fully-protected templates. Full protection would be strictly reserved for extraordinary and temporary situations. equazcion(talk) 03:13, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Some participants will have noticed that I have voted Support. This may appear to be a volte-face; it is not, and it is without prejudice to any current RfAs. The RfC proposal is very specific and as worded, I do not consider it to be an unbundling per se of admins' tools. The threshold requirements are very precise and I don't think that applications for it would be abused by new and/or inexperienced users, or hat-collectors. I see it very much in a similar way as, just for example, File Mover. How this new 'right' could/would be technically implemented is beyond the scope of this RfC - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure this changes much. If a template is already used on so many pages, I find it unlikely that there's going to be some error about it that has to be fixed, or anything the community collectively decides must be changed about it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. LazyBastardGuy 04:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
An interesting point of this un-bundling discussion is what the end result will mean to admins. Certainly our rollbackers are more able to fight vandalism by assuming that right from the previously-exclusive admin domain. Will the administrators eventually be the only Wikipedians to hold the ban hammer, once all other powers are eventually devolved? Will admins primarily be responsible for negotiating solutions between warring editors? I think this is a step in the right direction, as Wikipedia has grown to large and diverse for our admins to manage. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There aren't many admin powers that can be unbundled without the need for an RfA-like scrutiny of the candidate's content contributions, experience, behavior and knowledge of policy. If "Wikipedia has grown to large and diverse for our admins to manage" then community-based solutions would be better than having new types of super user. I do agree that there are some interesting decisions ahead if we continue to see falling numbers of experienced editors and active administrators. For years we've assumed there would be an unlimited supply of admins to interpret our sometimes vague/contradictory precedents. A shortage of admins might force a re-examination of how Wikipedia works. That's not necessarily a bad thing. - Pointillist (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the main admin powers that "must" (i.e. because the Foundation says so or they probably would say so if it became an issue) go through an RfA-like referrendum are those that give access to deleted material, those that affect user-rights, and those that affect which editors can change a page. Some admin powers go hand in hand with these and it wouldn't make sense to unbundle them except in extraordinary cases (e.g. the ability to delete pages or revisions might be granted to editors with access to subscription-only journal articles, but only for copyright reasons, and only with some level of accountability in place). Most other admin rights could, in theory, be unbundled by community consensus without the Foundation vetoing it. I don't think the Foundation will have any official comment about unbundling the right to edit protected pages, although individuals who happen to be Foundation employees, officers, or volunteers might give their opinions as individual editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Who will be granting this right? Rather than any admin granting this right, I would suggest that only those that have experience editing templates grant it. My specific point is the criteria of 150 edits to template namespace, this does not say whether they are good or bad edits, whether they are a lot of minor edits just to up their edit count, or major edits. One editor may make 10 minor edits whilst at the same time another might make one major edit. An admin needs to be able to tell whether the applicant understands what they are doing.Martin451 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to !vote here, as I see the need (I've made template edits on request, to templates I watch, which I didn't fully understand), but I'm not sure of the appropriate criteria. There needs to be some indication of trust, as editing a template which occurs in hundreds of thousands of articles can easily be disruptive, even if actually necessary. It would be a choice of a lesser disruption. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an important question I'd like to raise (and it seems like a good point to introduce a section break here): Will such a user right allow these people permission to edit the fully protected Main page templates? For those unaware, almost all of the text seen on the Main page is from templates. As the most visible page on Wikipedia, the Main Page has historically been one of the first targets of vandalism by a compromised admin account. And, in fact, a few compromised admins were blocked and privileges revoked on grounds of site security (this has led to the creation of editnotices like Template:Editnotices/Page/Main Page, warning admins of this). If the answer is yes, I hope there is no similar incident. I'm not opposed to them helping out editing Template:In the news, Template:Did you know, and the other Main page templates, but they better have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices like regular admins. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I can answer my own question: It depends on if there is also consensus to set them to the newly-created protection level, or leave them at the existing full protection. It also depends on what cascading protection does to such pages: will it cancel the newly-created protection level and automatically apply full-protection? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone, and I'm not seeking to answer this with any degree of finality; this is something that should probably be discussed, so I'm just contributing to that discussion. My own take on this is that we're vetting and trusting the people who get this right to handle it responsibly, and if anything, that means knowing that templates on the main page are to be handled with extra caution; that any changes involving code are to be sandboxed first, etc. As most of the people who end up with this right will know more about what they're doing with templates than the average admin (by mere virtue of the fact that they were vetted specifically for that purpose, and that most admins are not coders), the issue of compromised accounts is all that remains.
One could look at this as increasing the risk of compromised accounts being able to inflict damage, for the simple fact that there will be more accounts that could be compromised. The same would be true, then, if we added a lot of new admins. Each would be an equal risk [correction: not equal, as compromised admins can do much more harm], though a calculated one that we would be taking in exchange for a benefit. In fact we take a calculated risk whenever we appoint a new admin or grant other rights. I don't see any logical reason to treat template editors differently from admins when it comes to the measures taken in limiting the risk that their accounts might be compromised.
Compromised template editors, if those occur, would be handled in a manner similar to compromised admins -- the only difference being that template editors can have their right revoked much more easily, should it be deemed necessary. The eventual page for requesting this right should and will contain appropriate warnings and recommendations regarding security (and thanks for bringing up that excellent point).
I'm not fully versed in cascade protection but I'm thinking it will likely elevate the protections of child templates up the level of the parent. If the current practice is to cascade protect the main page itself at sysop level, that could mean template editors couldn't feasibly gain access to its templates. Depending on what the general feeling is regarding template editors editing main page templates, we could see if there are technical solutions that would allow it. equazcion(talk) 05:14, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that the cascading protection system will create a major technical hurdle to implementation. I'd say we should just leave this off the table for now, and come back to it at some point in the future, after the rest of template space is under the new system. Monty845 05:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. ( Though if you follow through the examples of the config parameter, there might be a way to work around it by making allowing the new protection level to be used for cascading. ) Agreed, that what to do with these pages are probably better decided after there is a feeling about how the new permission works in practice assuming that it passes. PaleAqua (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We can't allow the new protection level to be used with cascading, because that would allow editors with the new userright to protect pages as well as just being able to edit them. (You can protect a page just by transcluding it on a cascade-protected page.) It's probably best to leave editing the Main page templates to admins. However, there are a lot of templates that are cascade-protected that don't really have to be. For example, {{db-meta}} is cascade-protected, but really doesn't need it - I think semi-protection would be a better fit. For templates like these we can simply remove cascading protection to allow editors with the new user right to edit them. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe all of the pages on the main page are covered under cascading protection which granting permissions to isn't on this proposal after discussing this with developers saying that it wouldn't be feasible to implement for specific namespaces. The editors that drafted up this proposal wanted to make this as slimmed down as possible as a starting point so that the editors that would qualify for this right can get started. There were a few other things on the draft that got cut in this interest and may be brought up in a future RfC if this proposal passes. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. After some thought and reading the responses here, it does appear the main page wouldn't be feasibly editable by the new user group without getting rid of its cascade protection, which should probably be left as is for the time being. If in the future it should be deemed necessary this can always be re-examined. equazcion(talk) 14:12, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Cascade protection is a concern for me. The place where I want to work is cascade protected (Module:Citation/CS1). Policies and procedures defining Template editor user right need to have a mechanism that specifies how cascade protected pages are demoted to a protection level that allows template editor users to edit the pages.
Module:Citation/CS1 could just be removed from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, and its protection level could be dropped. For anything used on "real" cascading-protection pages, like the Main Page, there's no possible way to edit those without having the ability to protect and unprotect pages. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that you're right that these pages could just be removed from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. But who does that? How would I as a template editor user initiate the protection change? What are the policies and procedures that requesters and admins need to observe to implement a protection change. If these things aren't defined now, they need to be. They really goes hand-in-hand with the adoption of this RfC, don't they?
I never realized cascading protection was such a mess. Was there ever a broadly participated discussion supporting how its being used both at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, and in the various user space versions of that? The use certainly isn't reflected at WP:CASCADE. I'd say sorting it out is probably beyond the scope of this RFC. Monty845 17:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You just ask any admin to remove it from there, and hope they're willing to. So yes, it's a mess. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
While there are several areas where cascade protection will currently prevent template editors from editing directly, the vast majority of high-risk templates don't fall under that category. With the resistance met in the past regarding a rights group such as this one, and how seemingly close we are to it gaining acceptance now, I don't think it's wise to demand that this be a perfect solution at this point in time. The issues posed by cascade protection can be addressed from a logistical standpoint later on in view of the fact that the community supports trusted template editors having access to high-risk templates -- something that will have been demonstrated already if this RFC passes. The procedures surrounding cascade protection weren't adopted with something such as this proposal in mind, and I'm fairly confident that with relatively minor procedural addendums it can be dealt with. equazcion(talk) 17:48, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
If their trusted they should be allowedWWE fan 4.0 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
While the technical aspects of cascading protection make this more-or-less a moot point, I think we should still explicitly state: Actual full "sysop" protection will then be available as an extraordinary measure in the Template and Module namespaces, to temporarily disallow editing by anyone but administrators, should the need arise. All templates and modules transcluded to the Main Page will remain permanently fully protected. (proposed addition underlined). — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm wary of declaring that the main page will not be editable by the new rights group when the reasons that is currently the case are a bit muddy. It's at least due to a technical/logistical limitation, and if that changes at some point in the future, there's the question of whether it would still be be restricted on principle. I think it might be best to explain the issues surrounding the main page to anyone who might express concerns about it as they come, if they come. My humble opinion. equazcion(talk) 18:11, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The trouble I have with saying permanently is that the Main page is dynamic and constantly changing, so what is transcluded on it one day is not necessarily going to be the next day. Also, I'm thinking that adding something like that distracts the current question posed of "Should there be a new template_editor group to allow editors who demonstrate competence in those areas to edit non-cascading protected templates, modules, and editnotices without opening those conceivably higher risk areas to those that may wish to do harm to the encyclopedia?" If/When, this proposal passes, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to hash out extra privileges and/or restrictions in a future RfC. Technical 13 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this discussion affects enough editors that it would benefit from a watchlist notice. Do others think this is a good idea? — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If only we had an administrator to do it! Oh wait... Yep! Technical 13 (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added a suggestion to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. I don't want to implement it myself, at least not right away, as I was involved in the drafting of the RfC. Maybe if there are no objections after a few days then I can add it. I want to give editors who watchlist that page a chance to comment on it first, though. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 14:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please do it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I DONT KNOW WHAT ANY OF THIS MEANS BUT IT CAME up on my watchlist so I thought I'd tell you here. Thank you. New England Cop (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't !voted in this and don't intend to. I find the arguments of WDGraham, above quite convincing and if this RfC is unsuccessful then I think WDGraham's comments could inspire some alternative measures. Specifically:
Is there any guidance on sandboxing for templates? If people knew the most efficient way of doing it they might be more easily persuaded. Perhaps we should write some. Or if there is already a really good essay (or similar) on this, perhaps it just needs a little advertising.
What is the best way to reduce the amount of pre-emptive protection of templates? Are there currently some fully protected templates that should be semi or even not protected?
To expand upon my comment about preemptive protection, a good example is Module:Citation/CS1, which was the template at the centre of the RfA which seems to have sparked this discussion. Yes, it's widely used, but it's an obscure subpage which isn't transcluded directly into articles - on average it gets less than 30 hits per day[151]. I don't think disruptive users are likely to find it and if they do it'll be at a manageable rate - and they'll be reverted before it propagates to articles. --W.D.Graham 10:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Significant changes to critical templates are already sandboxed. The problems are, among other things, a lack of admins who know what they're doing enough to confirm and implement changes. There are quite literally almost none who actually handle the {{editprotected}} queue, and a couple who do it simply to help out since otherwise nothing would ever get done implement edits on blind faith that the coder knows what they're doing.
CS1 and other relatively lesser-known modules could actually be said to be more dangerous than the average high-use template, as since it's barely watched by anyone, and it's a low-level technical template, problems wouldn't be traced to it swiftly. In fact there was a time when deeply-transcluded and relatively unknown templates were nearly the only ones that got fully protected, for that reason.
We could debate the pervasiveness of the preemptive protection practice, but that's been done, as this isn't a new issue. This latest proposal was sparked by user Trappist and his CS1 work, but there is a long history of proposals to create trusted user groups that are allowed to edit "through protection". All have failed, primarily because they touched on the principle of "unbundling" administrative tools (so that a single administrative power can be assigned without assigning them all). This proposal to strictly limit the permission to template work where a proven need and aptitude is demonstrated comes out of the dust of those as an effort to cut through and around the everlasting controversy and drama surrounding "unbundling", and perhaps finally, after years of this, get our vast supply of good coders, who are willing and able to help, the access that would allow them to.
There are many alternatives that one could say are more ideal; the problem is getting them implemented in a divided community. Many of them have already been tried, discussed, debated, proposed. This is not a new issue. If this proposal can at least be a compromise, that many might not be enthralled with but could perhaps at least tolerate, maybe we can finally take an actual progressive step this time. equazcion(talk) 11:15, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I may have said this somewhere else, but I do look at the edit-protected queue; text only changes are easy, if it looks uncontroversial, no problem. Likewise, if there is actually a discussion followed by consensus, I'm pretty willing to make the change (though I did get bit by that once, it was very widely discussed, clear consensus, and no one noticed the problem until after the edit), because at worst there was consensus in favor of trying what ever caused the problem. The problem is that most of the edits in the queue involve changes to relatively complex template code, most templates aren't coded to make it easy to follow the code structure, and when it comes to multiple nested templates, it can get very hard and/or take a lot of time to basically deconstruct the template to understand what the code is doing. Sandboxing is great for relatively simply templates, but the complex or nested ones can have so many usecases that even with sandboxing, it can be hard to evaluate whether anything will break. Now I don't fault those admins who take it on blind faith the requestor got it right, but I'm not comfortable doing that, and I think that is probably a major factor in the lack of active admins there. Monty845 05:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I pass no judgment there. I've said before, it's merely a fact that needs stating (the fact that there are barely any admins who take on the protected edit queue -- but thanks for being one of the ones who does!). Coding edits aren't easy to evaluate even if one knows what they're doing, and if I were an admin, I'd probably stay away from the protected edit requests myself. Taking on a couple of scripts that you devote your efforts to is one thing. But this... It's not easy, nor fun, nor quick -- even if one knows what they're doing in general -- to evaluate several odd unrelated edits across all manner of different coding projects, one after the other. It's not efficient and shouldn't be necessary. equazcion(talk) 11:17, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Replace the criteria for removal above with these general criteria:
The editor has been inactive for 12 months.
The editor was granted access to the tool in error.
The editor demonstrates a pattern of abusing the tool after repeated warnings.
The editor blatantly abuses the tool.
Number 2 is new, it's meant to cover cases where an administrator was deceived into granting access under false pretenses (e.g. editor had multiple accounts not disclosed to the granting admin, this was his "clean" one) as well as clerical errors that result in someone getting access when they shouldn't (e.g. a username-typo by the granting-admin).
Number 3 covers repeated, non-blatant vandalism, disruptive editing, using the tool to gain the upper hand in controversial situations, not using sufficient care, and just about any other mis-use of the tool that results in a warning followed by repeated mis-use.
Number 4 covers blatant mis-use, usually the kind that COULD get a block at any administrator's discretion. One strike and you are out.
#2 seems a little creepy, ie. excessively specific. On the extremely rare occasion that's bound to happen and is subsequently proved to be the case, I don't think there will be any doubt as to what action must be taken.
3 and 4, on the other hand, are a little too open to interpretation. "Abuse" does cover everything, but it does so by being anemic and ambiguous. It's like saying, "The permission can be revoked if used for a purpose that everyone agrees should warrant revocation". Given the history of these proposals, the criteria for removal need to reassure. Presenting more specifically what exactly will constitute abuse, I think, is paramount. equazcion(talk) 01:09, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
As an observation, the appointment process might be better modelled after the process for becoming a clerk. The clerk appointment system works extremely well, and very similar criteria seem to apply here, in that you want people who have been vetted by their peers.
I suggest the following procedure, based on the SPI Clerk process:
Any user in good standing can ask to be considered as a template editor. Template editors are initially accepted upon consensus of the current template editor membership, following a request to any template editor. If they do not have a proven track record of technical competence editing templates and/or modules, prospective template editors may be asked to serve a probationary period, typically lasting X months, during which time any edits must be approved by a full template editor. The template editors may then recommend full template editor status to the bureaucrats who will decide the matter.
I think that this addresses many of the concerns given by those who oppose the proposal as given. In particular, any talented coder can jump right in to the technical team, just like on any open source project.
Incidentally, at the risk of bikeshedding, can we think up a snappier name than "template editor"? How about "technician"? -- De Guerre (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd be wary of creating a system where the current members decide on who to accept for membership. Both SPI and Arb clerks are supervised by those they clerk for, whereas the Template Editor cabal would be pretty much independent. The only place I can think of where such a system exists on wiki is with promotion to Crat, which is judged by other Crats, but its such a heavily participated discussion, and such a high support level required, that it largely eliminates the issue. Now something softer, like having a Template Editor noticeboard, (I know, too many noticeboards already) and holding a short discussion on requests for the right there, which would be open to anyone, but would be noticed and participated in primarily by template editors would be a more acceptable idea. As for the name, better it be self explanatory, no one is going to intuit that technician means editor of protected templates. Monty845 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The thing I don't like about the current proposal is that any admin can make anyone a template editor, whether they have the skills or not. This is the rationale behind davidwr's suggestion #2. I only suggested a concrete procedure because it felt wrong to complain without proposing a fix. I'm not sold on it as a solution, but I think that the problem that both it and davidwr's proposal are trying to solve is a real problem. -- De Guerre (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Handling specific permissions without a process is generally seen as safe since they can be revoked as easily as they're granted. Regarding Monty's musing of a "noticeboard" type of implementation, I was looking over WP:PERM, where requests for this permission are planned to go, and I don't see anything explicitly prohibiting outside comments there. I'd be hesitant to inadvertently encourage a voting environment, lest it become RfA-esque, but encouraging editors to assist purely in confirming that an applicant's prerequisite claims are accurate might be something to consider. equazcion(talk) 08:26, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
De Guerre, consider the edit filter manager right. While its assignable by admins, there are very few with the right, it is handed out very cautiously. Requests go the the edit filter talk page, sit for a period of time to allow for objections, and if I understand practice, often get cross posted to AN for a day before final granting. While the Template Editor right would not need to be as stringent, the practice there does provide an example of an alternative. Monty845 14:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My similar fear is that the admins will simply deny all or most of the requests as untrustworthy or for some other reason so in the end it will just be a useless Role. This is about as good as we can get but its still not ideal. Ideally it would be for experienced editors to be given access to the Admin tools without all the gauntlet and drama. If they abused them then the tools can just be taken away again. But since the admin club will never allow that, the only thing we can do is to go through the extra trouble of creating a new user right because the vast majority of the admins who do have access to the protected templates don't know how they work. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
@138.162.8.57: I just saw your comments on the RfA talk page saying similar things. I don't know how much experience you have here (a CIDR range search counted ten thousand contributions from your 138.162.0.0/16) but in the RfA's I've attended it's often non-admins who are more cautious about promoting new admins, and that is partly because in the past it has taken months – and a lot of drama – to remove the tools when necessary. The good thing about the Template editor proposal is that it is suitable for people who don't want to be admins, and who might not have the necessary background and policy knowledge required. So if you haven't already supported the proposal, please do! thanks - Pointillist (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What you describe, De Guerre, would likely encourage an exclusive club mentality. The suggestion to assign a "snappy" title alone is risky, as even an arguably humble-sounding one encourages an ironic sense of vanity. Combine that with a policy of only letting people in when they meet with the approval of the current members, and you have a recipe for accusations of agendas and elitism. Specific rights are traditionally assigned by administrators, with titles that are generally bland literal descriptions, and in practice I think that is the safest route. equazcion(talk) 02:35, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
For the name bit, I have wondered if "template committer" might be a better name. This permission is similar to the commit bit in many open source projects, and by using the term committer it invokes the process model that is desired by this new process of changes being done in a branch ( sandboxes ) and then committed ( applied through page protection ) after ensuring ( consensus etc. ) that the changes are okay. It also avoids the connotation of the name "template editor" that other editors can't create or work on templates without this. PaleAqua (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of starting to sound like a negative nancy... Template commiter might be more technically accurate, but it's also more esoteric -- ie. less intuitive to the community at large. I also personally feel "Template editor" has a particular "no big deal" connotation, as in, "I'm just an editor who happens to specialize in templates", rather than "I have a superpower" :) Just my opinion. If everyone else feels differently then of course the name could be changed. equazcion(talk) 19:13, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
How about Template Coders or simply Coders? That's along the lines of what the watchlist notification for this page read.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about the name, but "clerk" has some implications. Here at enwiki, clerks seem to be people who follow a process neutrally. Likewise, admins shouldn't use their powers to support their own point of view—lest they lost the confidence of the community. But I don't think we're expecting this sort of passive stance from potential template editors, are we? On the contrary, they'll be our usual type of contributor with the usual motivation to fix things. The only difference is that they have proved they have the [technical skills, experience, cautious temperament, etc] to handle templates that are extensively transcluded into articles. What we mean is "protected template editor". What's the best way to say that? - Pointillist (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think PaleAqua's "Template committer" suggestion is the most accurate while still being concise, if that's what we're going for. I'm still of the opinion that "Template editor" is accurate enough while also avoiding elitism nicely; but if there is to be a different name, Template committer has my vote among those mentioned thus far. equazcion� | 21:45, 24 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I found the proposal and all the reasons provided to be valid to create this new user right for experienced editors. But the one thing which I don't find much useful is the point number 5 under the Criteria for revocation which states that The editor has been inactive for 12 months. We also have other user rights like Rollback, Autopatrolled, Reviewer, File mover and many more except for Account creator, Administrators and Bureaucrats where these rights are not removed even if the said user has been inactive for 12 months or longer than that. Account creator is usually removed if the user is no longer involved in the ACC process or with the education program and stops their activity in these places. But that's a different thing. As this user right is related to editing Wikipedia, and if we can trust the editor not to misuse the template editor user right and they have used it constructively; I don't see the point of removing it after 1 year just because the respective user/editor is inactive. So why is it necessary to have it here ? TheGeneralUser(talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you, I think it was added as a general provision for similar reasons as why it is applied to administrators. I support the provision's removal at this time, but I think that adjustments such as these should be done in about six months at a follow up RfC to make this right work better for those with it. I think that waiting until we have about six months of data of how the right is used will go a long way in tweaking these things in a way that most everyone will feel comfortable. Technical 13 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree on general principles: All user rights that actually give you the ability to do something that you can't do manually should automatically be removed after a long period of inactivity, without prejudice for re-enabling upon request. Why? A long period of inactivity increases the chance that an account will be unknowingly compromised. Heck, I would even go so far as to have accounts that are inactive for over a year lose autoconfirmed status, just so if an account is compromised it can't immediately be used for abuse that requires autoconfirmed/confirmed status. I do agree with Technical 13 that the best time to discuss this will be a few months after it is implemented. I'm good with a 6-month wait and of course I'm fine if the community agrees to drop this requirement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've read through this, and I think the definition of "template" is vague. (If I've missed a key sentence, please enlighten me : )
From a technical standpoint, am I correct to presume that template equals anything in template: space. And that it doesn't include anything else.
The reason I'm asking for specifics is, first, as I think we all know, most any page may be transcluded like a page in template space can be, and second: whether this involves mediawiki space in any way. - jc37 05:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
A "template" would be anything in the template namespace or the module namespace. The proposal is to make a new kind of protection that can only be applied in the template and module namespaces, and then to switch the protection on all existing protected templates and modules to the new type of protection. Then we would create a new user right that allows editors to edit pages protected with the new kind of protection. We are also proposing that this user right allows editors to bypass the title blacklist (in all namespaces), to give these editors the ability to create edit notices. User rights aren't limited by namespace, which is why we need the new type of protection and why we can't limit blacklist-bypassing to the template namespace. The proposal doesn't include the rights that would be necessary to edit the MediaWiki namespace. (Note that this is just my understanding - if I have any of the details wrong, feel free to correct me.) — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 07:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Essentially what Mr. Stradivarius said. The systematic change in protection would only occur for templates in the Template: namespace. If you're asking whether transcluded pages outside Template: space might be included, then I'd say they probably could be -- if they've been full-protected for the same reason, ie. due to a high transclusion rate that makes them high-risk. I'm not aware of any such pages currently, but if there are any -- and I think that would be pretty rare -- they could be similarly switched to the new protection level on a case-by-case basis. If you have any specific examples in mind it might be easier to answer this if we had a look at them. As for MediaWiki space, this proposal doesn't involve that at all. equazcion� | 10:56, 3 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Really, anything with enough transclusions to qualify for protection on that ground should probably be in template space already (with the possible exception of userboxes, but I don't know if any of them are protected anyway). Monty845 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
@Equazcion: I thought the idea was to include the Module: namespace as well. Or is there something I'm missing here? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour♪ talk ♪ 06:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Module namespace is indeed included, as are edit notices; I was just keeping it simple to answer Jc37's specific question about page transclusions :) equazcion� | 09:14, 9 Oct 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
