Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new other than a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Archives, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

WP:RFC/U - time to get rid of it?

Moved from archive as it's premature to close this - future datestamp applied to make sure it isn't archived again - Will ^(talk) Moving from WT:RFC...

Undid future timestamping, time to archive this (only three posts in two months, no need for this to stay as the first post on the VPP for the next half year). Fram (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

About two months ago, I listed Requests for user comment for deletion under the premise that it did not work, and it's basically a quagmire of personal attacks and a stepping stone to ArbCom. The consensus in the MFD, including the creator of the process and the MfD's closer, is that it doesn't really work 99.9% of the time, and only exists because there is no other process existent. Just get rid of it and reinstate the Community Sanction Noticeboard, as that actually did do some good. Will ^(talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I personally preferred CSN better than RFC/U. D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support CSN provided there was a minimum time for comments (about 7 days). There should also be a maximum time for banning (1 year, same as ArbCom). R. Baley (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CSN had teeth, RFC/U hardly any. CSN saw discussion and nuance, RFC/U sees ganging up and party-lines half the time. With the same provisos as R. Baley, except I'd prefer six months, it would be good to have it back. Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could merge the two... CSN to me always seemed to arbitrary. Consensus could be declared in an hour or never... that kind of gives power to people who can generate a mob of "me too"s on demand. RFC is very structured but seldom goes anywhere. Is there any realistic way to have CSN but with a more normalized process, to give the accused a change to reply, slow down the mob mentality, and reasonably assess consensus? --W.marsh 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it need a new name possibly? Also please note than CSN only closed three and a half months ago and consensus might not of changed much since then. Also, a lot of things that "could" of gone there are instead now sent to WP:AN or WP:ANI, meaning they get a lot more traffic and stress put on them. D.M.N. (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

W.marsh, don't you think a minimum one-week period for each sanction discussion would help with the mob of "me-too"s? (Too much evidence has emerged lately of off-wiki co-ordination for us to discount that as a factor.) Relata refero (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A week sounds reasonable. If it's truly an emergency WP:BLOCK should apply, and if someone's transgressions don't seem blockworthy a week after the fact, then a ban was a bad idea to begin with. I'd also like to look at a waiting period before people start bolding words (ban, don't ban, etc.) maybe 48 hours of pure discussion without people taking definitive stands like in a vote. I think that would lead to better discussion, people tend to feel psychologically committed to a stance once they're locked in to it. --W.marsh 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

At Arbcom they've decided to take the ambitious step of waiting (I believe 48 hours, but I can't remember) before voting on the proposed decision page. We could do something similar, discussion can take place for 2 days, but no proposed "remedies" (ban, topic ban, etc.) could be offered until 48 hours after a new complaint had been certified (maybe not "certified," just following the initial complaint --basically enforce 2 days of discussion before any talk of "banning"). R. Baley (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC works when it's used for asking for comments, it does not work when sanctions are sought, but that is not its purpose. The CSN should be brought back and RFC kept and used for its intended purpose. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Community Sanction Noticeboard had its own problems, though I'm not sure that it needed to be eliminated. Part of the problem is that dispute resolution mechanisms seem to come and go - Mediation went away, and now it's back under a new name, the CSN came and went, ANI seems to alter its mission every so often. I see three main problems with RFC/U: it is not empowered to sanction, it's intended to keep reduce the burden on ANI, and it's a mandatory step before going to ArbCom, which can sanction. The solution I see is to 1) bounce more stuff, both from RFC/U and ANI, to Mediation (wherever it's living right now), 2) have some level of sanction available at RFC/U, which would probably require administrator patrolling, and 3) allow admins to move complicated cases off ANI to RFC/U. Perhaps a name change would be in order - instead of "Request for Comment/User Conduct", it could become "Administrators' Noticeboard: Ongoing Problems" (to distinguish it from AN:Incidents). Making it part of the Administrators' Noticeboard would mean that sanctions would be available and it would be an appropriate preliminary step to ArbCom. It would also reduce the load at ANI, where probably half the volume of discussion is on complicated, drawn-out issues, even though those are fewer than 10% of the actual incidents reported. Community Sanctions would all get moved to AN/OP, also. As part of the AN cluster, AN/OP would be fairly highly visible. Argyriou (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Opposed to this. Many of our processes suffer from a lynching mentality and RFC is as bad as some of them but it does serve a purpose. I really do not see a return to the votes for lynching that CSN turned into as a viable alternative. If we are replace this process we need some other way to garner community feedback into problematical or disputed editor behaviour and a noticeboard doesn't seem the way forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Rlevse's and Spartaz's comments. --Iamunknown 00:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Both W.marsh and Spartaz voice important concerns. The CSN was split off from ANI, and then was merged back into ANI after only 8 months. I think ANI, with its high visibility and traffic, is the proper place for most such discussions. The deletion discussion is very instructive as to the potential problems that must be kept in mind. I oppose any page dedicated exclusively to "sanctions," as well as any form of voting for a ban.

Getting back to RFC/U, I think its purpose and its place within the DR process should be better defined. The list of DR options here is rather bewildering, and does not indicate (what I see as) RFC/U's status as a second-tier DR forum for problems that have proven intractable in the first-tier forums. The third tier, of course, is Arbcom.

There is a grave problem when people see DR as a list of hoops that must be jumped through before you can ban someone. Emphasis should be placed on restoring relationships and on helping problematic editors to become better ones. Note that I am not talking about obvious trolls, who should be dealt with easily enough in the first-tier DR forums. To me, the purpose of the first-tier forums is to have one or two experienced editors tell a problematic editor that he/she is behaving problematically and should change. At this point, the case may be obvious enough that a block or ban would be appropriate. The purpose of RFC/U is then for the larger community to communicate that same message. If the problematic behavior continues, then an admin can enact a community ban, and the tougher cases can go to Arbcom. If I am out in left field on this, then tell me so or ignore me. If not, then the DR guidelines should be a lot more clear that this is the case. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if it worked that way, but the practice is less harmonious. The process seems to escalate conflict rather than diminish it. I don't however know how to substitute it. CSN was seen as a kangaroo court, so that too had problems. DGG (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Practice does not need to be harmonious. I'm not so naive as to think that a large fraction of people are actually focused on "restoring relationships" etc. But I'd settle for orderly. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have seen in the few RFC/U's I've seen (as an outsider) is that there is very little in the way of objective evidence. It usually ends up in IDONTLIKEHIM comments, or sometimes people siding with the nominator they like or the defendant they like, or even lining up with the POV they like.

Any complaint, whether it is in an RFC/U or an AN/I or a proposed AN/OP, should have specific charges based on policy or guidelines and specific diffs to support the charge, and diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem. A user who behaves badly should be warned every time the problem is noticed. Just as we warn against vandalism, we should warn about NPA, incivility, etc. (If we had more warning templates, users might issue warnings more often.) If we warned users more often we might see fewer problems. If problems persist, then the warnings will provide the evidence to justify blocks.

AIV is not contentious because there is a visible history of escalating warnings to demonstrate the problem, to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem, and to justify the length of a block. 3RR is not contentious because diffs provide objective evidence of bad behavior. RFC/U, AN/I, CSN almost always are (were) contentious because there is usually no objective evidence to demonstrate the problem and attempts to resolve the problem. I think that RFC/U would be more effective if it required specific charges of violated guidelines, specific diffs to support the charges, and specific diffs to demonstrate attempts to resolve the problem.

I was just about to make these suggestions about specificity over at WT:RFC when I saw the link to this discussion. I might still suggest it over there to try to improve the process while waiting to see if a consensus develops over here to eliminate or replace the process. I'm also thinking of starting a new section over here to suggest that we should issue warnings for bad behavior much more often. I have seen a lot of incivility go unwarned. If we had escalating templates for warnings, editors might use them more often. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, RfC on User Conduct should be used to elicit a wider community involvement in the background of the situation instead of the superficial cat-calling that we stumble acrost in article-talk and user-space. I frequently accidentally wander into a vicious debate, simply because I visit a lot of pages. The RfC/U posted to the article-talk, and user-talk of both the RfC presenter and the subject would allow for impartial input. Which should continue for a minimum of three days there. Then, as above mentioned, the subject can be given some breathing room in which to evaluate improvement or at least detachment. After sufficient time, if an editor feels that anti-project editing still exists, then it would be appropriate to escalate to CSN and allow at least 3 further days for responses to be gathered. So my nutshell, RfC/U as a precursor to CSN and a necessary part of DR.Wjhonson (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with ANY system of open community comment on another editors actions, regardless of which Wiki-acronym you attach to it, is that it is always open to sniping and abuse (once someones name shows up there, everyone they ever have pissed off gangs up on them). The question is whether such abuse is willing to be tolerated in order to have a system whereby the community can comment on user behavior. You can't have a system in place that is immune to this kind of abuse, but neither should you throw out the baby with the bathwater... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of the WP:RFC/U system. It isn't good at seeking punishments for past bad behavior, but that's partly because sanctions are preventive, not punitive -- the point is, sanctions should be applied when bad behavior continues, rather than because it existed. RFCs are good for that -- if a user pushes POV, for instance, and it becomes well-established that this is the case in an RFC, and they continue to do it, sanctions can be safely applied. RFCs sometimes get out of control, but that's actually a good thing -- think of it as water in the mountains, it needs to come downhill somewhere. WP:RFC/U is a good way of handling that release of tensions because of the way its rules keep editors from commenting back and forth, which tends to build tension. Plus, they have a good way of adding lots of uninvolved editors to the mix, which distributes the energy. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think. The Wikipedia community hasn't shown itself to be anymore trustworthy than the Wikipedia admins. Both increasing and decreasing admin accountability or things like RFC/U seem counterintuitive. Making it more strict allows people to witch-hunt users and admins they don't like. Making it more lax allows trolls and corrupt admins to do whatever they want. The problem is that so many Wikipedia editors have zero regard for reason. That needs to be addressed first, I think. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC works (as stated above) when it's used for asking for comments on behavioral issues of a user or users, it does not work when used for witch-hunts, lynchings, Public floggings, personal attacks, bitterness, and character assassinations. Since this process does seem to escalate some conflicts rather than diminish them, perhaps modifying the guidelines within the process is needed as opposed to removal. Without RfC/U, the only formal steps in dispute resolution that focuses on editors are AN/I and ArbCom. Conversly AN/I could serve as an appropriate venue and does provide wide community involvement on issues (Apropriatly a modified format would be needed on AN/I to replace RfC/U). Processes exist to have a purpose, I belive this does, but some reform may be needed to improve it.--Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you thought RFC is terrible, CSN was horrendous. I don't ever want to see anything like that back on wikipedia ever again. But if I do, I shall certainly crucify the inventor using their own process. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Argyriou's suggestion of making it AN/Ongoing problems. From the very little experience I have with RFC/U, my impression is that it's essentially a temporary repealing of the NPA policy on both sides. There are votes but no conclusions. After lambasting each other for days, both sides claim victory, and use the archived RfC as a method of ongoing bypassing of NPA by simply providing a convenient link to the RfC.

On second thought, don't call it "Ongoing problems". Self-fulfilling prophecy. Call it AN/Problems. A header at the top of the page can specify what types of problems are postable there. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved recently in an ongoing controversy regarding a disruptive editor that has gone through an informal RfC on the talk page of the affected article, a discussion on the No Original Research Noticeboard, a formal RfC on the talk page of the affected article, and finally an extended discussion on AN/I. At the end of a month of these discussions there was a clear consensus for a topic ban, but everyone seemed to be uncertain as to how to formally impose the topic ban.

The advantage of CSN (as I understand it) was that there were people who were knowledgeable about the problems and procedures for dealing with disruptive editing. The concerns that led to WP:DE first appeared in WP:Expert Retention and sought to provide a speedy way to deal with such disruption. As it stands now, the lengthy and ineffective procedure of dealing with disruption "operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors," which is one of the definitions of disruptive editing. From what I've heard, CSN apparently went overboard on instantaneous bans, but the present ineffective model has become part of the problem. I'm not an advocate of any particular solution, but we need to have effective procedures and make them clear to all editors and admins, if we are to deal with disruptive editing, point of view pushing, personal attacks, etc. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How to guide

I think RFC is a good way to gather evidence and gauge community sentiments. If an RFC/U convinces an editor to cease causing problems, that is a good result. If they continue, a note can be posted at ANI requesting a community remedy, such as an editing restriction or ban, with a link to the RFC/U. If there is no consensus at ANI, the case can go to ArbCom, and again, a link to the RFC/U provides much of the necessary evidence. The processes work when people use them correctly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if we ever want RFCU to ever work, we need more admin intervention - Anittas was indefed a second time in October. The attack he was blocked for was on RFCU for twelve days, but nothing happened until ANI got wind of it. Will ^(talk) 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP-Lock: A way to deal with contentious BLP articles

After reviewing the Don Murphy DRV, it's obvious that the community has some differences with regards to BLP articles, Notability, and how to handle things. I tried to come up with a compromise that would ease some folks mind with BLP. I actually brought this up with one of the folks whose article would be covered under this policy, and they were pretty positive with it. It alleviated one of his major problems about having a Wikipedia article about them.

So, without further ado..

User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock

The basics:

A) The article can be placed under BLP-LOCK by any uninvolved administrator. When an administrator places an article under this policy, they must either refer to an existing OTRS ticket, or submit one, and detail why such action is necessary in that OTRS ticket.

B) If an OTRS volunteer agrees that the article should be placed under BLP-LOCK, the article will be stubbed down to a bare-bones situation (just bare facts, no controversial information), and fully-protected for a period of a MININUM of six months (this can be permanent).

C) During this BLP-LOCK status, the only edits that should be made are those via {{editprotected}} requests that have full-consensus on the talk page. Any information that not reliably sourced should not be added to the article, even with consensus. While a subject of the article does not get an automatic veto over information being added to the page, administrators who handle BLP-LOCK editprotected requests should be fully aware of the BLP policy and judge accordingly.

This is actually fairly close to the Stable Versions idea we've been promised for eons going forward.. It reduces a major part of the reason that folks (here and elsewhere) are upset about BLP: That any "child with a computer" can vandalize it, and then these vandalizations are available in the history forever.. and for folks that don't have people watching/OWNing the article, these vandalizations can persist for a period of time until caught. Instead, the article grows in a more controlled manner.

The reason for thinking that the OTRS ticket is necessary.. I'm not sure this is necessary or a good idea for ALL BLP articles, but if an article needs BLP-LOCK, then it should have above-normal levels of attention paid to it, and OTRS is one way to do that. I know that the problem is that OTRS can be overwhelmed at times, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on it, and work OTRS/BLP-LOCK if it goes through.

Also, on a strictly personal level of thought.. if a subject complains to WP via OTRS, this should be a standard option (to BLP-LOCK their article) going forward. It's bad enough if a subject needs to email us once if there's problems with their article. We shouldn't have to make then continually monitor their article. 21:14, 21 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) Timestamp for archivng purposes. Fram (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question on editorial over-focusing

I have a question about a type of behaviour, not an editor. It is a question that specifically doubts good faith and yes this question is prompted by an editor who shall remain nameless. I think it is appropriate to not identify who. If I am wrong then no harm is done by asking this nameless question, and if I am right then I will follow official dispute resolution processes starting with discrete personal discussions with this other editor whom I will call "Editor1" for this discussion. As you read this please keep in mind my question is about WP perspectives and/or policy on the kind of behaviour described, not a specific editor.

I have been involved in editing a set of related articles that have been difficult to source. Editor1 is one of those wikipedians whom I assume in good faith tries to improve WP by aggressively challenging unsourced or poorly sourced material. All of that is well and good. My concern is as follows... Based on an offhand comment by another editor of those articles I looked at the contribution history of Editor1 and it seems that roughly 90% of his challenges over the past year have been on topics that go against his personal belief systems. While the challenges are technically done correctly it seems to me that the targetting of a group of articles and more importantly a subset of specific topics within those articles could represent a hidden agenda to bias the articles. Perhaps even an unintentional/subconscious agenda.

If Editor1 truely is trying to improve WP by seeking out faulty citations shouldn't his edits cover a wider range of topics than only (mostly) those he disagrees with? Faulty and missing citations are easily found everywhere on WP. Does this represent a broad-spectrum violation of WP:OWN or any other WP "rules" ? 66.102.205.150 (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, it is much easier for people to to challenge ideas they oppose than to guess what the weak points in their own arguments are. The standard of supporting evidence on the English Language Wikipedia required here has increased significantly in the last few years (and articles which are widely accepted on smaller WPs have to fight for survival here). The "I'm an expert and this is obvious" school of thought is giving way to the "This reliable source says" school. I have seen this lead to tension in a number of cases. The latter school is perfectly acceptable in, for example, Wikinfo. I think Wikipedia is big enough that there will be readers with all opinions, so the bias in improvements of one particular editor will balance out overall, giving a well sourced body of knowledge in all areas. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

True Stephen, however the aggresive nature of this behaviour is causing a clear pattern of sentences, paragraphs, "poorly formatted" citations, whole subsections and even whole articles being tagged and removed only to eventually be brought back with obvious but difficult to find reliable sources (mostly due to being offline and specialized texts).

Is the material unsourced or poorly sourced? Yes - at first edit it often is.

Should they remain on WP as such? No, not forever ... but the WP:INSPECTOR essay suggests much wisdom on this matter.

Can these articles be validly sourced? Yes, allowing for a cooperative effort and time to do research.

Are there editors willing to do such work on these articles? Yes, but dwindling in number because reluctance to do so is increasing as a result of these behaviours.

I realize that WP:INSPECTOR is only an essay, yet it strikes me as significant that this particular behavior flies almost 100% in the face of every suggestion in that essay. 66.102.205.150 (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the easiest solution would be to find the sources, and re-add the material with citations. Unless the editor is being disruptive, there's really not much else to go on here. -- Kesh (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the trend towards good sourcing, if the fact mentioned is obvious to anyone, or otherwise would never be questioned by a reader, a citation is not necessary. But keep in mind that your view might be biased as well, if it's a topic you're very familiar with. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with a few cite tags. Let him place them. Try not to get upset at the implication that the article is less than perfect. But don't let the info be removed unless there's a real possibility that it is untrue. -Freekee (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can feel with the anonymous editor. I have seen a section on city transport naming the numbers (E27, E12 etc.) of the highways connecting to this city being deleted without warning as this information was not sourced (this has actually happened). Anyone owning a map of the region could easily have checked, or you could turn onto the road and read the signs. I think the tagging and deletion has become a goal in itself for many (rather than a means of improving wikipedia as a whole). Arnoutf (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've come across one who's reducing articles to stubs in particular area, will not discuss, is seemingly abusive, non-negotiable and cite-righteous. They don't seem to contribute to articles and focus on a particular area almost as if they were a specific-type account (I forget the correct term for it). If they weren't an IP, it would amount to a kind of vandalism. Disruptive is a euphemism. Is there any recourse re someone like that? I'm willing to walk away, but I see where that's pretty common in response to this one and it's a pity if this behaviour is too effective. Any advice greatly welcome, thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Julia I think we are talking about the same editor but that really isn't important (see below). What saddens me is your comment I'm willing to walk away, but I see where that's pretty common in response to this one and it's a pity if this behaviour is too effective. I hope you will not walk away but I think you've clarified for me my own concern. Is the effect of such behaviour to cause opposing editors to walk away? I will not ask if the intent is to create that effect, but I am concerned that this could be used in the future as a very subtle disruptive strategy and so I am seeking input on if this is or should be allowed.

There are policy instances where single edits by multiple users have been equivalenced with multiple edits by one user. This issue feels related to that concept somehow. 66.102.205.150 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback so far. Unfortunately I feel the heart of my question was missed - perhaps because the editor Julia and I know of should never have been mentioned and I should have asked in a more hypothetical way. Let me try that now...

All editors at WP are supposed to do things that improve and add value to the encyclopedia, and certainly pointing out missing citations does do that. My question is: Does pointing out missing citations only for topics which one dislikes (or disagrees with) constitute a problem? Doesn't that amount to an attempt to destroy specific material by nibbles rather than improve the encyclopedia? If an editor is concerned about missing citations should they not be applying that concern with a wider paintbrush? 66.102.205.150 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If it shows a disruptive pattern of behavior, yes. It's really hard to say for sure without knowing the situation, though. Some people are here because they're interested in one particular subject/group of subjects, and will excise any unsourced statements because they want to make sure only verifiable facts are presented. As an example, I've been keeping an eye on a few cryptid pages because people like to toss in personal "sightings" and wild claims about the subject. I've offended a few posters because their pet theory/prank edit got reverted. So, it's hard to say without knowing the situation. If you really think this editor's work is disruptive, or based on an agenda, it's best to take it to WP:RfC. -- Kesh (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time I outed myself as the editor in question. It's true, I absolutely hate class rings (in spite of the fact that I've never seen one in real life), and want to erase all evidence of their existence. I also hate St. Francis Xavier University (presumably because they have class rings). But seriously, what I have against these two articles, and a whole bunch of New Thought-related articles (that are the source of 66.102.205.150's & Julia Rossi's irritation with me) is that they're appallingly badly referenced (and in many cases completely unreferenced). Far from them "go[ing] against his personal belief systems", I only heard about this theological genre when I stumbled across a couple of incredibly crufty New Thought articles on AfD a couple of months ago (I can't remember what they were -- but one had 'Global' in its title) when I was commenting on a completely unrelated article. I did a bit of category-searching and turned up a large number of similar ones, and decided to template/challenge them. Where editors were prepared to front up with citations (e.g. Religious Science), I've been supportive. Where they haven't, I've pruned radically. My viewpoint can be roughly summarised as WP:NRSNVNA (which although only an essay, is not violative of any wikipedia policy or principle, as far as I can see). I have in the past challenged the notability of articles on topics directly supportive of my views (e.g. Salem hypothesis), and have just recently supported the deletion of an article on a non-notable book congruent with my views. Far from being the WP:SPA on New Thought that Julia Rossi accuses me of being, the bulk of my edits have been unrelated to New Thought.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I really was trying not to target you specifically Hrafn. I did my best to not identify you because I was asking about a behaviour pattern that might apply to one editor (you) but more importantly a pattern that sooner or later will apply to someone at WP. I do thank you for "outing" yourself as it does allow others to look over the patterns and give meaningful feedback.

My contention was not about your edits on New Thought related articles alone, but on the bigger picture of your views on various theological matters of different kinds. Were you even aware that the many challenges you issue mostly fall under this larger umbrella?

Two questions do arise now that we are in the open ...

1. How were you able to see yourself in the descriptions and yet not feel it applies?

2. Why do you not seek out missing citations on a wider range of topics? There are tons of non-cited articles you could apply yourself to.

-- Low Sea (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (formerly known as IP 66.102.205.150)

Morn, yes Hrafn, thank you for coming along. Can I ask what you mean when you say, topics directly supportive of my views, congruent with my views, etc. It seems a certain subjective something is at stake for you. When you do quote that NRSNVNA essay, it gives a good picture of where you're at, so thank you. Don't you think your label for contributions as "stalk" is just a little bit creepy? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Low Sea:

• The "pattern" you see is one of insistence on WP:V that can, as I have already mentioned, be roughly summarised by WP:NRSNVNA. A "pattern" of insisting on compliance with policy is not a problem in any community that thinks its policy is worth the (metaphoric) paper its written on.
• Like most people, I have a few theological views that I accept, and thus (at least passively) reject most of the vast constellation of theological viewpoints beyond my own. As long as the holders of these other viewpoints don't attempt to impose their viewpoints on (or otherwise harm) others, my view of them is a mild and amused skepticism.
• As far as "How were you able to see yourself in the descriptions and yet not feel it applies" -- quite easily. There is little that is 'over-focused' about my application of WP:NRSNVNA. If I care about a topic, I am likely to be knowledgeable on it, to have sources on it, and to rewrite rather than simply tag (and later prune). The latter course tends to be exclusively applied to articles on topics that I really don't care two hoots about either way, except that they should be WP:V. When I do this, I tend to follow links/categories for related articles. What I choose to focus on tends to be what sticks out as being blatantly unverifiable.

Julia Rossi:

• My "views" in question are support for the scientific method and a consequent dislike of pseudoscience, probably deriving from a background in sciences and philosophy. No, I don't find "stalk" to be "creepy" -- just an amusing commentary (which I plagiarised from another editor) on the nosiness that wikipedia tends to encourage. If you are reduced to commenting on my sig, it probably means that there's little left of substance to discuss.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While Hrafn's edits have been "legal", they have focused solely on the deletion of material in spiritualist articles and been carried out with a combative (and "threatening") style. That is, his attitude contradicts Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and a number of other guidelines that address what we hope is the spirit of Wikipedia. I am not a regular spiritualist editor, but I ran across several instances where Hrafn deleted entire articles -- not by bringing them to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion but rather by means of redirect -- and I have since worked on resurrecting these many articles, in spite of spirited resistance from Hrafn.

The frustrating part is that these fights are about run-of-the-mill biography articles, unsourced yes, but nothing that anyone should get their knickers in a twist over. As just one example, I resurrected one stub and 9 minutes later he redirected it without so much as a "how do you do".

This type of behaviour reflects poorly on the Wikipedia community. Madman (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As one example, I had rescued a stubby Malinda Cramer from one of these redirect-as-a-form-of-deletion exercises and 9 minutes later Hrafn reverted it. I didn't even have time to get another cup of coffee.

Given that Madman2001's first talkpage post related to this dispute was an unjustified accusation of "vandalism", I think it is safe to say that he 'bit' first, and established the "combative" tone of the interchange. "Threatening" the blatant non-compliance with WP:V with the consequences that this policy explicitly states is hardly bullying. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Madman's characterizations are 100% consistent with WP:VANDAL. WP:VANDAL states (bold enphasis added):

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

One could certainly have interpreted the wholescale removal ("page blanking") of an article outside of the AfD or CSD processes as an act to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Here Madman could have been more careful, yet his perspective on the matter was an reasonable interpretation that was made rationally. It is generally difficult to see any form of non-consensus supported page blanking as an improvement.

Committing vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes and warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them. Note that warning is not an absolute prerequisite for blocking; accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked without warning.

Madman initiated a return of the article text (a revert) and left a warning on the talkpage. Based on his understanding of the issues and policy his action and his talkpage entry are quite appropriate.

Perhaps rather than reading just the diff you provided others might find ALL of that discussion[1] enlightening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Low Sea (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I am not the only one who has characterised Hrafn's deletions of whole sections and even articles as vandalism. Citations upon request.

And my first "spiritualist" edit was not an accusation of vandalism, but a request not to "delete without giving folks a chance to research" some 4 days prior. Madman (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things from me, the reduced articles are not stubs in the usual sense of starting point to developing, but are more like stumps where the references outweigh the body of the text and clutter the reduced text giving no room to writing that reasonably assumes a knowledge base as other biographies allow and as "writing" as such requires. It's a stub in a straight-jacket. The other thing is that when an article is retrieved from redirect etc, and survives AfD for example, where do you go from there when the editor is ready to revert or excise further activity? There's also the overdose of tags as well and the demand to self-justify and measure up via the red-hand warning I received when I went near it during the deletion review of Florence Scovel Shinn. Even the section headings have gone so there is a further de-wikifying happening. I'd like to shape up a couple but don't want to see my work down the drain over and over. It's no use pointing such an editor to other areas of the pedia, a cold wind would soon be blowing through their bones as well. There are a lot of other reservations I have but don't want to invite the tit-for-tat reaction. My regret is that a pageant of history makers is being suppressed (seemingly legally but in reality, through something like prejudice and fear). Julia Rossi (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of vandalism

Actually Madman's characterizations are 100% consistent with WP:VANDAL. WP:VANDAL states (bold enphasis added):

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

One could certainly have interpreted the wholescale removal ("page blanking") of an article outside of the AfD or CSD processes as an act to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

Thank you Low Sea for that baseless accusation based on a tendentious reading of policy. Redirection is not page-blanking. That redirection is clearly not envisaged as vandalism can be seen by the fact that it is explicitly mentioned as a legitimate option (short of deletion) both at WP:GAFD and template:notability.

Redirections do not require AfDs, as Madman2001 was very clearly told on WT:AFD, with an editor from there repeating this on Talk:Church of Divine Science -- so I don't see how Low Sea can be unaware of this.

The accusations made in the "Question on editorial over-focusing" thread have had no basis in fact or in policy, but rather in fanciful and baseless assumptions as to my motives. I would further point out that they have received little or no support from anybody other than protagonists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested truce

Based on the most recent discussions held over at the talkpg of one of these articles (see here), I think we are approaching a productive resolution to the issue across this brace of articles. I don't think there's anything more to be gained by continuing this back'n'forth exchange of policy quotations and questioning of motives.

My suggestion is, that those editors who have a mind to concentrate on completing the work adding reliable and relevant sources to the articles and vetting the article content accordingly. I don't think anyone disagrees that the quality of referencing had been inadequate. In the meantime, while this exercise is in progress Hrafn will be (as they've indicated) "suspending imposition of WP:V", in the sense of not adding to the 'cite needed' tags and comments that have already been supplied. Other editors will likewise have no further need to pursue Hrafn (and vice versa) in response to the comments and actions of the past & up to and including now. All parties will be better off focusing on content improvement, staying cool and observing a 'truce'. Without these distractions, the articles' referencing & verification concerns should be able to be addressed in a reasonable amount of time. All further discussions to be centred on content improvement. Presuming these principles are mutually observed from now on, continuing this thread here and on other talkpgs should not be necessary. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Privacy of dead crime victims

Are the dead victims of crimes entitled to privacy? Does the concept of BLA extend to the survivors of victims in some way? Are our articles enriched by including the names of crime victims? Thanks for any ideas. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the dead victims of crimes entitled to privacy?

I don't see why they should, since the can no longer be harmed by an "invasion" of their privacy. However, family members still maintain their rights to privacy.

Does the concept of BLA extend to the survivors of victims in some way?

Only to information about the survivors themselves. However, the victim is not explicitly covered by WP:BLP since the victim is no longer alive.

Are our articles enriched by including the names of crime victims?

That depends very much on the circumstances. Was there anything significant about how the person was murdered or how the body was found? Was it the allege murderer's only victim or one of many? How much news coverage was there of the murder? In most respects, it is a judgment call on how much detail to include and the significants of those details. --Farix (Talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the victim was notable themselves, I don't see a reason to include their name in an article about the crime. As Farix mentioned, the victim's families are still affected by this, and I'd say the spirit of WP:BLP1E applies. If the only thing the victim is known for is being a victim, there's no real reason to include them. There are exceptions, such as if the victim's family makes it a point to bring them up in the media repeatedly, but the average crime victim isn't going to get that kind of treatment. -- Kesh (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. While some sensitivity is warranted in very recent cases, if the crime is notable enough to include then there's no reason to exclude the names of victims. Wikipedia is not censored. We don't omit pictures of nudity for fear of offending people, and I don't see a reason to omit the names of murder victims if editors think there's a reason to include them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. If the information is already available in reliable sources, and if the crime is already notable enough to include, then there isn't any reason I can see not to include the details of the crime up to the maximum possible amount of information that we can cite with the sources that we have. This doesn't mean, of course, that the victim should be the subject of an article (unless they themselves become the subject of independent coverage, such some of the victims of Jack the Ripper). It just means that we shouldn't not include information when there is clear benefit from doing so unless there's a very good reason not to. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that from a legal standpoint, the families aren't affected by libel and defamation of the subject. They can't even claim it. Libel and defamation are damage to the reputation of the individual, and common law has long held that the reputation dies with the person. As an aside, an alternative has been attempted before: the family would have to prove that there was extreme emotional duress being done to them, which has a much higher bar to achieve. This is rarely successful, since for that, you have to show that serious damage is being done, and I really don't think that saying "Person A raped person B, was later found guilty and sentenced to 29 years in prison" cuts it for that, just as it didn't for The Daily Herald. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the opinions above by Celarnor and Will Beback. The biographies of living persons policy, as evident from the name, exists to protect the living. That is not to say, of course, that articles on a deceased subject are not required to be NPOV, as of course all of our articles are required to be NPOV. However, the extraordinary measures allowed by BLP are only counterbalanced by keeping them narrowly confined to the area in which they are strictly necessary—and this area is solely biographies of living subjects whose reputations and lives could be done harm. The life of a deceased subject cannot, by definition, be harmed. We do not censor reliably sourced information because it offends someone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This conversation tipped the scales here: Dennis Dechaine. Thank you for the reality-check. David in DC (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the coverage and the fact that WP:BLP does not apply to deceased victims, it is quite reasonable to mention the victim's name in the article. Put simply, this is no reasonable expectation of privacy for the victim. This is also a case where the alleged murder was charged with killing of only one victims, as opposed to a serial murder. In my opinion, the value in naming each victim diminishes when the number of victims increases. On top of that, naming all of those victims could be viewed as a form of memorial if not handled properly. --Farix (Talk) 02:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

After a more thorough look at the article I have to say that if there is a WP:BLP concern with the article, it would be on behalf of Dennis Dechaine. The article is poorly sourced, quotes are not cited to any specific sources, and the only source that is used is a trial transcript. On top of that, the article also does not assert the notability of the subject. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody have an idea of what the appropriate response to this is:

"Sarah Cherry is a public person as is her family. Taxpayers are spending perhaps a million dollars or more to incarcerate her alleged victimizer (who was convicted in opposition to established medical science). The taxpaying public have a right to know who they helping. If some crime victims do not want their name known, they or their families do not have to report the crimes. Withholding a victim's name is dishonest. Criminals are supposed to wear masks, not the victims. --Danras (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And then there's a reality check of a different sort. As I understand this last comment, if this 12-year-old didn't want to be a public figure she shouldn't have gone off and gotten kidnapped, raped, sexually tortured, and murdered. Hmmm. I'll have to try to wrap my head around that. On second thought, I don't think I'll bother. David in DC (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some writers here have an ego problem, not Sarah Cherry. For all I know Cherry's family and others who knew her have no problem with her name being reported. I don't think Megan Kanka's mom wants to rename Megan's Law. I fail to see why reporting one's name is so deeply embarrassing. Victims who are too embarrassed to make their names public and acknowledge "somebody wronged me," don't deserve help. They are such losers that everyone can screw them without fear that these losers will report being wronged. --Danras (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dennis_Dechaine"

I guess the appropriate response is no response at all, but it does make one wonder.David in DC (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Those comments are borderline uncivil. But as I said earlier, that article has some very serious sourcing problems that need to be addressed if it is to comply with WP:BLP. As it stands, the article would either be reduced to a stub or deleted. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On that score, Kevin has done a fabulous job of bringing the article up to snuff. Take a look for yourself: Dennis Dechaine David in DC (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The status of the Wikipedia:Logos policy

The status of the Wikipedia:Logos policy has been changed to an "essay". While I cannot see that there was consensus for this change, I think it would be good to have some input from other users. I am myself getting more and more confused over this matter. At what extent can we use logos in Wikipedia articles? Whether the WP:LOGOS page stays as a policy or not, I think this it would be helpful to make policy clearer on this matter. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos. --Kildor (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Am I allowed to upload scanned pictures from my own Bible or Qur'an? License/Copyright? Thanks for answers.--  LYKANTROP  15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is probably no. Generally not unless the physical book in your hand was physically published over 95 years ago. You may own the books but you are not the publisher, the editor, the author, or in the case of illustrations the artist. If you are talking about scanned text then better you just post the text (if the text is not copyrighted. Note that most revised and/or translated works are often copyrighted). If you are talking about scanned images then again you have to determine if the image was copyrighted (even ancient images may be copyrighted because the photograph of those images is a new product involving the skill of the photographer and the skill of the printer to transfer that image to paper). 66.102.205.150 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Under U.S. law, the photograph of a 2-D work (such as a painting or another photograph) does not qualify as a new copyrighted work, because American copyright law does not protect applications of skill, only creative expression. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., Template:PD-art-life-70. A photo of a sculpture or other 3-D work may be copyrighted, however. Postdlf (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why you are allowed to put up a photo of a bible published more than 95 years ago (i.e. a bible design now in the public domain) but not of a more recent version (i.e. a version that is still under copyright protection). Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. Unless you're talking about something that is now under public domain under US copyright law (such as Webster's revision of the King James bible, which was published in 1833 and has since lost its status as a copyrighted work). In that case, you would be free to scan the whole thing page by page and do pretty much whatever you wanted with it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For example: My version of Qur'an was published in in 1974. The picture (not just a text) I want to upload one short Sura (chapter in Qur'an) that is "written in famous traditional turkish calligraphy". For an amateur it actually looks like a persian carpet. The picture is definitely hundreds years old. The author is unknown. Is it a public domain? --  LYKANTROP  17:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That might qualify as a Fair-use image of the calligraphy in question, but I'm not terribly familiar with the image guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would still say, if you can find a 100 year old version of the same calligraphy that is preferable as that has definitely no copyright (the specific style etc. of your 1974 version maybe copyrighted). Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If there isn't anything public domain or otherwise reasonably available to illustrate the calligraphic techniques, then you're probably safe claiming it as fair use. Preferably, if the image in question is of something that itself has entered public domain, you're better off finding some other standalone image of it that isn't hindered by being in a copyrighted work. Otherwise, this is a good fair use rationale. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the image would consist of nothing but calligraphic text, then the only question is whether the content of the text itself is copyrighted. The calligraphy itself cannot be copyrighted and cannot make something copyrighted that otherwise wouldn't be. See Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts. And even if the text is copyrighted (e.g., if it's a modern translation), individual words or short phrases cannot be copyrighted, so scanning a few words to illustrate the calligraphy would not even require a fair use rationale (see Template:PD-textlogo for an example of how we treat this issue). Postdlf (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure of that in this specific case where the calligraphy is made in such a way to resemble a persian carpet. IMHO putting large parts of that may go beyond the two mentioned fair use criteria. (or they might not; as I said I am not sure) Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there's a point at which calligraphy (or any font) departs significantly enough from rendering writing to become pictoral in some manner, but from what I gathered of the comment above, the resemblance to a persian carpet is accidental for those who can't read the writing. Postdlf (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A typeface cannot be copyrighted, but calligraphy is art, not a typeface, and therefore can be copyrighted. --Carnildo (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Copyright Office disagrees with you: "Like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such, not-withstanding the effect achieved by calligraphic brush strokes across a striated surface."[2] This is why Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts states that calligraphy is not copyrightable. Postdlf (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a public domain image public domain, regardless of whether it is published in a copyrighted work or not? Unless the copyright holder altered the image in some way, I don't see how putting in a copyrighted work somehow removes the public domain nature of the image. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, if an image is public domain, then its subsequent republishing in an otherwise copyrighted work does not change that. Postdlf (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if a book is so old that it's in the public domain a modern translation of the text is likely to be copyrighted. That wouldn't apply to the King James Bible, but it would apply to the New International Version for example. Likewise, many translations of the Koran are modern and likely copyrighted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A translation of such calligraphy would be copyrightable (insofar as it is original, though if the calligraphy itself were old enough to be PD, anyone else would be free to do his or her own translation as well). However, the calligraphy itself is not copyrightable to begin with (it is considered a font, according to the Copyright Office, even if a very fancy one), and even if it were, a photograph of a 2-dimensional work in the public domain is uncopyrightable, as it is not considered to have sufficient originality to attract copyright. That would be true even if the original work were creative enough to be copyrighted, such as a Civil War daguerreotype. The original daguerreotype would have been copyrighted when created, but that copyright is now expired, and photos of that 2D daguerreotype cannot themselves be copyrighted. Or in short—the photos of the calligraphy are in the public domain, because the calligraphy, A, was not copyrightable to begin with, B, is old enough to be out of copyright, and C, is two-dimensional, meaning that someone taking a photo of that does not change the copyright status, and such photo is not considered creative enough to attract copyright. (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp). So it depends largely if the same page also includes a translation of such calligraphy. If it does, you would have to crop out or clone out the translation, because that is copyrightable, but the image itself is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--  LYKANTROP  21:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

I found "fair use policy" warnings for some game screenshots on Talk:4X. Then I looked for guidance and it appears one has to use Template:Game screenshot rationale. I know nothing about templates and I do not want to spend time learning them. I suggest that requiring editors to learn about the mechanics of Wikimedia or its implementation in Wikipedia is a good way to drive potential editors away. I understand the need for a fair use policy but it needs to be implemented in an editor-friendly way, e.g with simple fill-in-the-blanks sample wikimarkup. Philcha (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Copyright law is not a "fill in the blanks" kind of thing. Images are the hardest thing about Wikipedia precisely because they're such a legal mess. If anyone wants to upload images, they're going to have to dedicate a lot of time & effort to learning the template process to make sure everything is on the up & up. -- Kesh (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and copyright is, unfortunately, not a simple issue. Our mission is also free content, so the burden is on those who wish to use nonfree content to tell us why their nonfree content is so necessary for understanding of a subject that we must make an exception and accept a nonfree image in that particular case. That should not be simple, and should certainly not be "fill in the blanks", as we shouldn't be making exceptions if an image is not essential and critical to a subject, and irreplaceable by free content. Why that would be differs from case to case, so it can't be templatized. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the legal-related points you've made. I was talking about the mechanics - there should be no need to go looking for how to write a non-free use rationale, no wikimark-up, no hunting for templates (which are often hard to find and poorly explained) - just a button that pops up a form, with short guidance on the form and a link to fuller guidance. "Non-free use rationale missing" mesages on articles' Talk pages should link to the form and the article's title should be entered automatically in the form - it's just a matter of passing the right URL parameters. Philcha (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the mechanics need to be improved. There's also much dissent, currently, against the idea that you have to use specific templates or follow specific formatting conventions to have a fair use rationale -- see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#STBotI blocked. The idea that you need to use a specific template has actually been rejected before, and the policy doesn't require a specific format except "clear English" -- which you could argue that a template isn't. But really, none of this would be an issue if someone could figure out how to make a form that walks you through the fair use rationale process, like the upload form currently walks you through choosing the right copyright tag. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

School threats proposed policy at Wikipedia:School_threats

Please comment on the proposed policy at Wikipedia:School_threats which is, in my opinion, the distilliation of the important component of WP:TOV. TOV failed, as it should have, but I think a school threats policy or guideline is significantly different - particularly in todays climate of violence in schools and publicity. Avruch ^T 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental objections to TOV apply equally to any particular case, regardless of how high-profile it is. The only credible argument I can see here is that evidence of school violence is more likely to appear on Wikipedia as a first site of publication than other threats, due to the resources available to a typical student. But school threats are also quite likely to be hoaxes, and I think that efficient use of law enforcement and Wikipedia editor resources mandates that we use our best judgement in ignoring threats that aren't credible. Dcoetzee 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in usage of protection templates

The templates in question, generating message boxes or, in their small versions, variously coloured padlocks, are used in order to indicate that a page has suffered limitations to the editability thereof. More simply, they say "This page has been protected/semi-protected/move-protected" etc. Given that they are the most immediate way to show to editors the existence of such protection on a page, I find it regrettable that not all protected pages have them, often leading to surprises. And even though the Edit this page tab shows to an editor with no right to edit or move a page that this is the case, for editors who do have these rights there is no such difference.

Therefore, for the purpose of general informativeness and transparency, I propose the mandatory usage of these templates for all protected pages, and that a clause should be inserted to the appropriate policy page to this effect.

Although the easiest way to apply consistent usage of these templates is to require administrators to insert or adjust them after changes in pages' protection status, a robot could perhaps be tasked with this job (there already is, to my knoweledge, a 'bot removing them from unprotected pages). This, however, could lead to various problems which I am not in a place to predict. Waltham, The Duke of 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to change the software to display appropriate system messages when a page has protection? Then it would be 100% reliable, and we wouldn't be imposing a manual step on admins. On another note, we could consider similar automatic messages for user/talk pages to indicate blocking, which would not replace a regular blocking notice, but would help you determine if it it current. Bovlb (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not mention automation because I believe there are choices to be made as far as the correct placement of the template is concerned. Perhaps the exact form of the displayed message could be chosen by the administrator while protecting the article, supplied to them as an option in the protection page. Waltham, The Duke of 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Adjudication Board

I wanted to bring to the community's attention the fact that as a part of a proposed decision (in voting stage) in a current ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision, ArbCom is considering the creation of a new structure called the "Sourcing Adjudication Board". The board will have broad authority in dealing with sourcing complaints on Wikipedia. Its mandate is described in the proposed decision as follows: "The Committee shall convene a Sourcing Adjudication Board, consisting of credentialed subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable, which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. The Board shall issue findings, directly to the Committee, regarding all questions of source usage, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Whether an editor has engaged in misrepresentation of sources or their content.
2. Whether an editor has used unreliable or inappropriate sources.
3. Whether an editor has otherwise substantially violated any portion of the sourcing policies and guidelines.

The Board's findings shall not be subject to appeal except to the Board itself. The precise manner in which the Board will be selected and conduct its operations will be determined, with appropriate community participation, no later than one month after the closure of this case." The current vote on this portion of the final decision is 6 for, 1 against and 1 abstention. Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An idea that will never take off, is my prediction. Somewhat like the ideas found in the IRC decision and its clarification, which languished because the Committee did not find much community support for their initiative in forays outside their normal ambit. Avruch ^T 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This board is a novel proposal. But if there is no board, and if admins will never take any action on sourcing, in what sense is Wikipedia:Reliable sources a guideline we should take seriously? Is it only lip service, or is it enforced? EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's routinely enforced all the time, in new page patrol. However the cases there are simple and obvious. It's easy to delete things for having no apparent coverage in sources, but solving harder problems takes more than 10 seconds at a time. We already have noticeboards for getting admin help. Maybe we just need to publicize this need more? There are plenty of admins who focus mainly on damage control. We just need to get them to deal with this type of damage also. Friday (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source noticeboard is already focused on sourcing issues. I don't follow that board, but the regulars there are the right place for a community driven practice to come from. GRBerry 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say that I don't really like this, as it moves ArbCom into content decisions, which should be the realm of the editors. Like Avruch, I don't see much community support coming out for something like this. A very bad idea, in my opinion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the case's talk page that "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing." The committee should not be looking to staff with specific topic expertise (an expert on global warming would be of no use for a homeopathy issue, much less for a medieval philosophy issue); they should be looking to staff with people who have expertise in sourcing - which is academic librarians with the relevant MLS degree. Unfortunately, I only know of 1 editor that I suspect can be so described. (And we know we suffer from editors that falsely claim expertise, which is another related problem.) I suppose on further consideration that some folks with language expertise might be useful for cases where the issue is foreign language sources (like one recent ArbComm case), because they will be able to actually read the supposed source. If the committee wants sourcing advice to consider a user conduct case, that is within their remit, because user conduct issues are within their remit. But a content ruling board would be a terrible idea. GRBerry 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GRBerry (believe it or not ;-)). We need people with broad experience in evaluating information, not subject matter experts. They would be people who recognize e.g., the relative merits of ISI-indexed publications versus self-styled "peer reviewed journals" rather than those who know the difference between barotropic and baroclinic instability. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

GRB, if you by any chance mean one of my colleagues or myself, that;s not what librarians do. We don't rule on information. We help people find information for them to make their own decisions. That's the basis of our profession, and the only basis on which we can work over broad areas--we'll guide you to information, and, if asked, tell you our way of looking at it. and that's where we stop. In fact, that;s why we're comfortable in wikipedia--this fits the pattern of working by general consensus. DGG (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I myself have some institutional concerns about the Board idea. It seems to me that if something like that is established, it should be as a result of a formal new policy rather than an administrative ArbCom action. Institutions and bureaucracies, once created, tend to take on a life of their own. This one has a very broadly described mandate (all sourcing complaints on Wikipedia). The text does not even explicitly say that the Board can only act on a case at ArbCom's request. It is not hard to imagine that, once the Board is established, it can take on independent authority of its own, starts issuing binding opinions and setting binding precedents, etc, and influence general Wikipedia content policy to a substantial degree. All this with a fairly unclear source and scope of its mandate and ambiguous lines of accountability. If we are going to have a body with such broad influence on de facto content policies on Wikipedia, I think its establishment needs to be based on a community consensus (that is, a formal adoption of a new Wikipedia policy), not on ArbCom's administrative action. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me most is how it promotes credentialism, which is something that has always been against the ethos of Wikipedia. The idea is supposed to be that anyone can edit and improve the project regardless of their academic training. It rubs me in a very wrong way to see the project headed away from a consensus-based model to a model where there's a disconnected board that decides whether or not your edits are good. I really don't see the benefit that such a body creates over the exiting reliable sources noticeboard, which supports the consensus model rather than the disconnected corporate board model. If brought into policy with the inherent problems it brings, I think this should be an absolute last rung on a ladder that is seldom reached, much like ArbCom is the last part of the dispute resolution ladder. As few things as possible should ever get to a disconnected non-consensus-based system of resolution. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider this a remarkably poor idea. the understandable frustration with one particular group of articles should not produce a permanent bureaucracy which by fiat of ArbCom, completely changes the structure of Wikipedia. The remit of this board is exceptionally broad. Kiril, who wrote this proposal, has assured me on my talk pageof the intent is to use it very specifically, but that's not what the proposal says. Essentially all content disputes ultimately come down to whether sourcing is being used properly and fairly--and this is a proposal that the final decisions on sourcing will be, not the community of interested editors, but a small standing committee. The lines on which it can take decisions includes essentially everything. I don';t think any small group would even have the necessary competence. They will end up either deciding on vague impressions, or calling in outside experts to inform them. (I can see that as a rare exception we might need to actually need experts in a particular case, but if so we should go by them directly, under the principle of IAR, not as a permanent institution, and not in a way protected form the review by the community. And they will be totally protected--there's no appeal but to themselves. We don't need groups like this in Wikipedia. Not seriously, but I've speculated what I might hypothetically do if asked to join such a group, and I would refuse: I do not think that myself any more than anyone else here ought to have the authority in this way in our organisation's structure. I have no objection to following or taking authority in organisations that work that way, as I've done all my life in the RW. This is a different structure--a unique one, for no other single organization has even tried what we've been doing. We've been doing it with some success. Now, it is possible that some other structure might do better, and people are welcome to try them--and indeed are trying them. We should stick with the community, and do as much as we can on that basis. It may not be everything. I'm not intrinsically a conservative--I'd like to see some radically different organised free encyclopedias also & if I find one I like better & in which I can be more effective, I'll go there. But we already have our own values,and we should develop and refine them, not subvert them. And, at thevery least, such a change as this--so antipathetic to what most of us have joined in order to participate in--should be decided on after full discussion by the community.Arb Com should not impose this and then try to figure out the details with some participation from the ordinary wikipedians. Rather, if they think they need something of the sort, they should propose it for discussion. And then see what the consensus is, and follow it, like everyone else. DGG (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing prevents the community from deliberately granting the power to Arbcom to handle something like this. It could be carefully defined as an experiment, and have a finite term. It could even be tried out first on the articles in one of the less controversial areas. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. But at the moment, ArbCom is not asking for the community's consent and consensus but rather moving on its own. Nsk92 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it might make sense to do it as an experiment for this particular situation in a much more non-bureaucratic way, as an extraordinary remedy. Appoint something in the way of an outside special master of a group of 3 or the like, to decide this particular issue in this particular case, with no structure and no precedent. I think something like that could be considered within the discretion of arbcom--they recently tried something similar, a special small board with respect to a particular enforcement problem. If by any chance it works--and I wouldn't necessarily count on it--then it could be tried again in some appropriate fashion if the need ever again arises. DGG (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who think Arbcom has no right to rule on content, have another look at its charter. Arbcom replaces Jimbo in his capacity as God-King. So far, on English Wikipedia, it has chosen not to exercise its indubitable right to rule on content (or policy). A number of users (presumably including some current Arbcom members) believe that if it did rule on content now and again it could give closure to some issues that come back to Arbcom repeatedly. In general, I would much rather Arbcom acted rather than simply opening yet another policy debate which would only attract a self-selected bunch of wiki-policy wonks who by no means would represent the community, and who have demonstrated an inability to achieve consensus either for or against any significant new policy initiative in the last couple of years. On this specific case, I wish them luck...it does seem that the match of credentials to subject matter would have to be pretty loose, if the Board is going to be smaller than the faculty of a large university. PaddyLeahy (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked Kirill, who is the main sponsor of the Board idea, to comment on the ArbCom's power to delegate its authority to another body and to clariy what "final" in the describing the board's decisions as being final means ansd whether the Board's decisions in terms of findings of fact (e.g. whether or not some editor misrepresented sources) will be binding for ArbCom itself. Here is what he answered[3]: "It's worth noting that the Arbitration Policy says nothing at all regarding delegation of authority, and I don't see any reason or means by which a body with authority could be prohibited from delegating it. If it clarifies the pseudo-constitutional semantics any, you might think of the "final" issue as being equivalent to a statement of intent on our part that we will not overrule the board (without going into the question of whether we would retain a reserve power to do so)." Nsk92 (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture move

There is a picture uploaded on Wikipedia with free licence (Template:GFDL-self-with-disclaimers) by some user. Is there some way how can I move (or copy) it to Commons? Am I allowed simply to dowload it and upload it to Commons? Thanks for the answers. --  LYKANTROP  21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are other ways, but yes, you can simply download it and upload to Commons. Make sure you include all the source and copyright information avaliable here, and tag it with {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers|name of copyright-holding user}}. Algebraist 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way is CommonsHelper. Very handy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GFDL question

What is this Wacklepedia thing? It seems to include stuff from here, say that its contents are licensed under GFDL, but I don't see where it gives credit where credit is due.... but maybe that might be a browser compatibility issue or an oversight on my part (e.g., the history link is there but I can't see it. Or does GFDL not require a history link on mirror sites?)

It does. You're supposed to somehow include the names of the five principal authors. Usually that's done with an edit history. Celarnor ^{Talk to me}

On a slightly different question, what's the meaning of the term "title page" as mentioned in GFDL? Is that the Wikipedia main page, or is it something else?

For us, it's the title; i.e, what appears before the beginning of the text. It varies from project to project using the GFDL. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another GFDL question

What is the proper way to copy text from one Wikipedia article into another? For example, linker and static build contain duplicative text; supposing that the text was written by the same author in both articles, that is clearly not a problem, but suppose that they are by two different authors. What would be the proper way for the author of the newer article to comply with GFDL when copying text from the older? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In my edit summaries, I usually say something like "Incorporating text from this article". Provides a link to the history of the text. Resolute 03:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the most common solution, indeed (the linked page effectively includes "attached" authorship history by virtue of being a MediaWiki page, and all pages on Wikipedia include a link to the GFDL). If it's practical or there's concern one page might be deleted, naming author(s) or copy-pasting history to an article's talk page may also work out okay. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK and the First Amendment

Resolved

 – Wikipedia is not congress _{1 != 2} 20:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So why is a policy like WP:ATTACK not challenged for violating our First Amendment rights? I know you might say "no governmental action," but someone could claim as the most important and biggest forum on the internet (which is the most important, indispensable medium), such restrictions on speech leave the party with no other reasonably similar outlet for his expression. I also am not talking about obscene speech either, but then again I hardly think that calling user XYZ a "nincompoop" would be construed as obscene. JeanLatore (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably in the first place because this is not a forum. This is a project. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a forum, or soon will be, due to its near omnipresence on the internet. JeanLatore (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant. The American First Amendment does not extend to non-governmental organizations, no matter how influential they might be. Simply put, you have no constitutional right to "free speech" on Wikipedia, or the internet. Resolute 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And also, a lot of us aren't Americans! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. Darkspots (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. --Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The First amendment has to do with congress restricting your speech. Congress didn't write WP:ATTACK. --Kbdank71 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very narrow reading of the First Amendment, and not the way it is construed in American jurisprudence. But Guido is correct; this is a project, not a democracy, and the people that set the project up and make sure that it gets paid for get to make the rules. If you go to Network Solutions and register your own domain, then you have free speech. Not here. Darkspots (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not there either, if they don't like what you've registered, or what you're doing with the domain enough. SQL^{Query me!} 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Amendment only covers the government restricting the free speech of private citizens. It is in absolutely no way, shape, or form applicable to WP:ATTACK, or indeed anything on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is not (try insulting your potential employer during a job interview referring to the first amendment ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not applicable -- there are many other forums for insulting your employer. The First Amendment in fact does give you the RIGHT to insult your employer, unless you use "fighting words." You just have the pay the consequences of said speech, but you are free to do it. The First Amendment thus gives us the right to make personal attacks on Wikipedia too. JeanLatore (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• But you probably won't be hired as a direct result, just as you won't be staying on Wikipedia very long. Mr.Z-man 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, there is free speech on Wikipedia, as you will not be prosecuted, locked up, tortured or killed, or denied any other civil rights (edting Wiki is not one of them) for anything you say on Wiki. You may be kicked off the project; but quaoting JeanLatore "You just have the pay the consequences of said speech, but you are free to do it." Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Or you could try spray painting graffiti on your neighbour's wall and threatening to sue him for violating your right to free speech if he scrubs it off. Hut 8.5 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not applicable -- involves committing a crime through your speech.JeanLatore (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The point still stands. Suppose you did something legal - put a sign on his front lawn. It's his property and he has every right to determine what is and is not on it, just as Wikipedia has every right to determine what they do and do not host. --Hut 8.5 16:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting a sign on his front lawn w/o his permission is illegal -- it's tresspass. I don't know what country you live in where they don't consider that wrong! JeanLatore (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are dodging the question. My point is that the owner of private property has the right to regulate what is or is not displayed on that property, regardless of how it got there. Therefore Wikipedia has every right to remove personal attacks as it is private property. Hut 8.5 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not dodging the question. If you have a point to make just make it without resorting to unclear and inapposite analogy. JeanLatore (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Say your neighbor gave his permission for signs to be put on his lawn. Now it's legal. If you put a sign he doesn't like and removes it, that's his right. It's still his property, and he can do what he wants with it. --Kbdank71 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And in a more positive vain, it means you can kick your friend out of your house when he bad-mouths your favorite sports team. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not applicable if your friend had no other place to live not even the streets.JeanLatore (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it is; your house, your rules. There's no law saying you have to house someone against your will. Kicking your friend out when they have nowhere else to go may make you a total jackass, but it isn't illegal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and free speech is irrelevant to your argument anyway. Anyone can say whatever they want whenever they want. Sometimes it's just stupid to exercise that right because it'll bite you in the ass. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

JeanLatore, 'free speech' does not give you the right to insult people. What it does (one of the things that it does) is make you accountable to the other if you do, as opposed to non-free speech where you are accountable to the authorities. It is a right, but also a great responsibility. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not even do that. It guarantees American citizens the right to public speech without government interference. (At least, in the context I think this is used in, I'm not sure about the irish one... That's what happens when you link to things you haven't read, I spose.) SQL^{Query me!} 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the amendment. I'm talking about freedom of speech itself now, which user apparently also doesn't understand. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the text of the First Amendment before continuing to comment. Until Wikipedia becomes a branch of the government with rules formed by Congress, it doesn't apply. Wikipedia is a private website governed by a board of trustees, though most power is delegated to the community. As a private website, the foundation and the community have just as much of a right to regulate speech as someone may do in their own home or in an office they manage. Mr.Z-man 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, No, they dont! The owner can regulate speech within the area under his control, that is true, but not when that area is so broad as to there not be any other feasible locations for the speech. There are 2 Supreme Court cases right on this point, something about how a "company town" could not regulate speech within the town it owned, and other about a shopping mall. Wikipedia is like the "company town." JeanLatore (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to tell me there are no other feasible locations on the internet for you to make such statements? Resolute 01:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a "company town." Wikipedia is an internet establishment whose avenues for communication amount to little more than your run of the mill forum, BLP issues notwithstanding. It has the right to regulate speech as it sees fit. You might as well drop this, because you're never going to successfully argue that everyone should have the right to call the other side some terribly obscene name in place of actual discussion. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing like the company town. The company town is when one entity owns so much of an area and regulates speech within it that in effect there is nowhere else to go to speak freely. This is nothing like that. You can go somewhere else just by moving your mouse up and clicking elsewhere. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The text of the first amendment starts out with: "Congress shall make no law"... That seems pretty clear as to why it's not applicable here. SQL^{Query me!} 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that constitutional law and interpretation only done through United States Supreme Court cases involving the text. Not all it takes to understand constitutional law is to memorize the text of the constitution and its amendments. JeanLatore (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you would interpert Congress some other way, to mean Wikipedia? SQL^{Query me!} 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, read the first string of posts, its explained up there. Look for the "company town" stuff... JeanLatore (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And this is an article that also advances this argument: [4]

this is another one dealing with the First Amendment consequences of MMPORGs. [5]. And the company town supreme court case was Marsh v. Alabama. JeanLatore (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What geographical area does Wikipedia own and govern? Have you or anyone else been imprisoned for making edits that are not in line with WP:ATTACK somehow? SQL^{Query me!} 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does the law say that one can only make a first amendment claim if he was imprisoned first? The mere fact that a user is threatened with some sanction, that is to say, banning from wikipedia, is all you need to make a claim.

And who said anything about geographic area? Wikipedia owns a LOT of information-area. That also is sufficient to make it subject to a Marsh-like claim of a first amendment violation. JeanLatore (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What? Now I can't interpret it however I see fit? :) SQL^{Query me!} 01:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You've yet to address the issue of how this applies to Wikipedia. You've thrown around "company town", which doesn't apply, and posted two papers which likewise don't apply. Wikipedia isn't a public forum and your assertions don't have merit until it is ruled to be as such. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)Since we're citing opinion papers, there's also Wikipedia:Free_speech, probably explains things a little better than I have. SQL^{Query me!} 01:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am curious here. What percentage of the internet must Wikipedia "own" in order for a "Marsh-like" claim to exist in your opinion? What percentage of the internet do you think Wikipedia owns? Also, please get in contact with the ACLU. I would love to hear their take on your complaint. Resolute 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jean, a couple of your recent article contributions: Anal Sex with Sluts and Small Sluts, Nice Butts make me question your understanding of our project, not to mention your mention above of WP as a "forum". You seem to confuse us with You Tube, MySpace, or a blog space. The point here is that we are writing an encyclopedia in cooperation, like a work environment. It is incumbent on the project to provide a reasonable and comfortable work environment free from sexual harassment and incivility. You are trying to pushing rope uphill with your debate here. Why are you here? Are you just trying to get attention by making noise? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the content, not the contributor, man. Everything was going fine until you started to troll the thread... and why am i here, man? Just check out these gems: Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, United States v. Williams, United States v. Dixon. Yeah man, that's it baby. JeanLatore (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions do have merit to this very pointless discussion. You seem to think that Wikipedia works in a way contrary to reality, and won't let that belief go despite the obvious. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the biggest supporters of free speech around here, but I'd never be silly enough to claim that the First Amendment is directly applicable to the policies of a worldwide, privately operated site like this. (And I don't see how the cases you cited here are relevant.) *Dan T.* (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to free speech? Resolute 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, did you read them? I'm thinking about when wikipedia becomes all powerful, all encompassing. Read that case about AOL that's mentioned at the bottom of the marsh v. alabama article...the next time the court might rule against the internet on the same grounds, esp. as it grows stronger.JeanLatore (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One item that has been dropped from this discussion is Freedom of association. Wikipedia has the right to restrict who it associates with when such associations do not conform with Wikipedia's stated goals. Another way to view this is that the right to a free press does not mean that you can force someone else to buy you a printing press. --Allen3 ^talk 01:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The first amendment right in question here is not free speech. It's freedom of the press. That belongs to the guy who owns the printing presses and the barrels of ink. The WP analogy is the servers and the software. The Foundation has this right, delegated in large measure to contributors within a set of rules prescribed, ultimately, by the Foundation. Jean, you have no right of free speech here. The Foundation has a right of unfettered freedom of the press. If you want to exercise that kind of freedom, buy yourself a bunch of servers and buy, develop or license the software (some you can find as "freeware"). Then you can exercise your freedom of speech and your freedom of the press (at least here in the U.S.) You have no such right here on WP. David in DC (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Careful, David - the Foundation will have section 230 issues if you keep likening it to a newspaper publisher (emoticon would go here if I used the things). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All analogies are imperfect. :) <----(I use them)David in DC (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, IANAL, but here's my basic understanding of free speech issues. First, the First Amendment only applies to Congress; private organizations are not required to provide anyone a forum for their speech. The closest any law comes to requiring that would be common carrier laws, which require all common carriers to carry any and all legal traffic that's willing to pay the service fee. Wikipedia is not a common carrier. A railroad is a common carrier, as is a phone company or internet service provider, but Wikipedia is not, and thus isn't legally required to provide anyone with a forum to express their opinions. Again, I'm no lawyer, but that's my understanding of it. And I just got this information from someone I know who IS a lawyer regarding it: "Succinctly: Wikipedia is not the government. The Bill of Rights involves actions by the government, or a subdivision thereof." Rdfox 76 (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Amendment is on Wikipedia's side. The group can have First Amendment rights against the individual (see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale). --SMP0328. (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a First Amendment case because of a law, not private action. Quote: "...overturning the New Jersey Supreme Court's application of the New Jersey public accommodations law, which had forced the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale." That was an application of law, not simply a group/organization making a decision about a user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The point was that the law infringed upon the private organization's First Amendment right to make such decisions regarding members/personnel. But this whole discussion thread is silly. Postdlf (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but these are my thoughts: WP:ATTACK is itself an exercise of free speech on the part of its author. The Marsh case, on the other hand, involved a governmental action. Somehow I think that "no governmental action" is dispositive. Marsh might, or might not, be applicable if somebody were to be prosecuted for unauthorized use of Wikipedia's services. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Marsh case did NOT involve governmental action..are you nuts? Did you even read the case? It was about a private company regulating speech on the property it owned... Come on, let's tighten up, here man!! JeanLatore (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but I'm pretty certain cyberspace is not tangible property; thus the Marsh case applies here about as much as house deeds apply to stock holdings. The key word here is "property", which I'm pretty certain means tangible items (i.e. land, buildings) legally. As Wikipedia is not (a) tangible, (b) land, or (c) a building, it it therefore immune to the Marsh decision.

And before you make your argument again, consider these articles: chilling effect and defamation. Telling us to abide by the First Amendment (even if it doesn't apply to us) gives us the right to call people names you would personally not want to hear - freedom of speech cuts both ways, and if you can call someone an idiot, then I can call you someone who loves chukawk. By the same token, however, freedom of speech also does not allow libel (which is the deliberate publishing of falsehoods to defame someone; see the Seigenthaler incident), and such speech would still be removed on here per WP:BLP due to legal ramifications for the Foundation. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has the right to do anything on Wikipedia. The servers are the property of the Wikimedia Foundation, who can do whatever the fuck they want with them. It's basically the same as having a notebook. It's not your legal right to write "Marvin sucks" in my notebook (or anything else for that matter), so why should you have the same right on Wikipedia? If anybody gets to say whatever they want on Wikipedia, then it should be illegal to block anyone, or have protected pages. IPs should be able to edit the Main Page. But of course, that's the most idiotic idea in the history of man. Ziggy Sawdust 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedia. I've lost count of the number of times people have tried to claim free speech on privately-owned websites. I occasionally post on a few messageboards, and if someone is cautioned or suspended for making personal attacks, they unfailingly resort to "You're suppressing my right to free speech!" Even if the entire world subscribed to American law, that fails. You do not have the right to free speech on someone else's property/website. They make the rules. If you don't like it, there are many other websites which may not care what you say or how you say it. Enigma ^message 20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Enigmaman, I might not know you are or what you stand for, but you are right. You are right given that the website does not control so many of the avenues of internet speech as to be able to shut out a person's avenues to make that speech. However, Wikipedia, perhaps not now, but soon will reach that gargantuan and powerful mass. That is when the First Amendment a la the Marsh case would apply to Wikipedia, even though it is not a government entity. JeanLatore (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, so please stop wasting our time with fruitless what-ifs about Wikipedia possibly infringing on free speech. It's not going to happen. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize how generous Wikipedia is?

I've started this new subsection so that I'm not quite keeping this silly discussion going. Only one person here is honestly arguing that WP:NPA violates the First Amendment, and I humbly suggest that he take this discussion to his own talk page if he doesn't know it might possibly be time to give it a rest. However, I think there's a valid point that needs to be made: Do you realize how amazingly generous Wikipedia is on "free speech" issues? In many Internet communities, they can block or ban you just for saying something negative about the website. Here, we won't ban you just for criticizing Wikipedia. Anyway, if you honestly believe WP:NPA violates U.S. law, feel free to take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. If he feels your argument has merit, he'll be happy to strike down the policy... szyslak (t) 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, really, please don't bother the counselor. Surely he has real work to do. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone should bother the counsellor. There's a "reasonable accommodation" issue lurking in the background that a U.S. lawyer looking after the Foundation's interests ought to look at. David in DC (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, the First Amendment limits what the US Congress can do, it does not stop a private publisher from deciding what is and what is not allowed in their publication. I am Canadian and even I know that. _{1 != 2} 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't encourage people to waste other people's time. I was gunna suggest someone write an essay for this, but there's already Wikipedia:Free speech. Friday (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, Congress shall make no law. Wikipedia isn't Congress. Can we resolve this? --Kbdank71 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

According to my lawyer friend who I quoted above, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment also extends to state governments, and private organizations operating with an authorization from the US Government. For example, WXYZ-TV has a certain level of First Amendment obligations due to the fact that it operates with the permission of the US Government, in the form of the station's operating license from the FCC. Of course, this means nothing to Wikipedia, which has no such government license. Rdfox 76 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The government also allows me to live in the state of Michigan, and that still doesn't mean I have to let people into my house to write things in my books. Ziggy Sawdust 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Zigic

There is a requested move that a a page called Nikola Zigic be moved to Nikola Žigić although all but one of the reliable sources presented in the debate spell the name "Nikola Zigic" the majority of the editors who have taken part in the debate support the move to Nikola Žigić, because it is the "correct" spelling. My position is that the correct name for the page's spelling depends on what the majority of verifiable reliable sources use, (and as it is a footballer/soccer player that "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources). This is the position taken by the guidelines WP:MOS, WP:NC and WP:UE all based on the policy WP:V, but despite pointing this out not one person in favour of the move has changed their opinion. I would appreciate it if those who look at this page would contribute to the debate as it seems that either I am misunderstanding the guidelines or they are not worth the storage space they take up. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some debates about this sort of thing. Talk:Jennifer Lopez/archive1#Diacritic/accent mark on her last name comes to mind. I'd bet cash money there's been arguments over the Tokyo article. I've seen it go one way or the other, depending on circumstances; ultimately, as long as one redirects to the other, it may not be the healthiest thing to get high blood pressure over. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY has had some epic battles over this as well. Basically, we've accepted that WP:UE is a dead guideline, since many of our player articles clearly are not English spellings of names. We came to an unsteady truce on the topic by agreeing that North American related articles would hide them, while international would show them, given North American sources never use them. Resolute 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup they have definately been epic. But yeah its probably a harder distinction for football/soccer. But yeah at the hockey project we have a truce giving player pages the diacritics and any international page shows them, but any North American page like an NHL team page they do not show them. -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The move will be a bad idea until Wikipedia's search engine can return Nikola Žigić when asked for "Nikola Zigic" and wkiliking Nikola Zigic does not return a red link. Philcha (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Until we invent redirects, you mean? Algebraist 11:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are limits. At present we wouldn't have the main entry for a Greek person have a title in Greek font. In general, there are problems when you use characters in titles that will not be found on the keyboard of the person searching. So Wikipedia:Use English has some logic when you are trying to meet the needs of people who read English and use computer keyboards designed for the English language. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia has a 3rr policy?

The rule can be strict and many users make mistakes reverting. I could revert a mistake and get blocked. Jet (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the three revert rule is that editors would often just revert each other instead of discussing what should be done. Captain panda 04:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the "3" in 3RR, you have to make more than 3 reverts and a warning is generally required as well. Note also it only applies to reverts to the same page in a 1 day period. After 3 reverts and a warning in 1 day to the same article, I wouldn't believe that its still a mistake. There's also exceptions for reverting vandalism, spam, or copyright violations or if you realize your mistake and revert yourself. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators treat WP:3RR violations with a touch of common sense. We would rather you discuss the issue than mull about it on your 24 hour block. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Small fonts

Looking at one of today's articles in the news, Union of South American Nations, I find some of the text in small fonts to be hard to read. Not all of us have those new sharp digital monitors, and I'm sure many people have smaller monitors than mine. Yes I know there are ways to increase the size of text on the screen, but I'm not vision impaired, and have no problem with average font sizes. Look especially at the section with a map of South America halfway down the screen, or the bottom of the big table further down. I can make out the small text with a little difficulty, but the big problem is the superscripted reference numbers (1, 2, 3) - I'm having trouble seeing which is which. These numbers seem to be smaller, or at least harder to read, than the usual blue superscripted reference numbers in square brackets.

Why do we need small font text in Wikipedia articles, anyway? I think of small font as being appropriate for legal text, where a large block of text that most people don't care to read is crammed into a small space. Even then, I suspect legal text is printed small in a deliberate attempt to hide it, but that's getting off topic. The small text, as used in this article, is not overly wordy, nor is it something that is so trivial that it needs to be tucked away for the sake of appearance. I suspect the writers are just copying style they've seen used elsewhere, such as in printed books.

Do we have a policy discouraging small fonts? Do you think we should have one? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in the NPOV/FAQ

Some editors have expressed that the second paragraph of WP:PSCI (A section of the NPOV FAQs dealing with pseudoscience) may be confusing or unclear, and may not express that topics having a pseudoscientific component may have other views to cover not related to science (eg. epistemological, historical, or cultural views). Part of the discussion centered around whether or not the current text implies that the scientific view is always the majority view and that the context of a pseudoscientific topic is always a science-related context (ie. SPOV). The current text reads:

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Following a discussion on the NPOV talk page, it was suggested that we clearly make a distinction that the topic as a whole may not always be about science, that we should clearly separate when it is and isn't, and that a better wording may reflect the current policies regarding pseudoscience in a clearer way. As such, we came up with this wording as a replacement for the second paragraph:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study. In the interest of describing topics fully, pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these views to their proponents. By weight, less detail (or none at all) may be required in mainstream science discussions if the concept is not prominent in the mainstream science field. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

It was suggested that we take it to the Village Pump for wider community feedback. Comments? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit wordy, but I agree with the basic point. The Parable of the Sower is not a treatise on agronomic practice. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about the worth-length as well (being a less is more kind of person), but there were several issues raised and we wanted to be as clear as possible. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see a few huge problems with the wording. For a start, his version does not state that we should have "the majority (scientific) view as the majority view". It says instead "pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view" which leaves a wide gaping hole for editors to insert lots of pseudoscientific POV and marginate the scientific view as one more view. Another problem whis this wording: "the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study", it leaves another hole for inserting any study from anyone that can be labelled as a scientific, and to insert "scientific" studies from pseudoscience pushers. This is so wordy that it's leaving lots of holes for interpretation.

Also, I think that the ArbCom case on Pseudoscience wasn't cited on the NPOV discussion? I would look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Serious_encyclopedias and see that we are not supposed to treat pseudocientific views on the same way as cientific views. This is something that the new wording fails to express. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It does state we should have the majority scientific view when talking about how it's pseudoscience, and it explains what the scientific view is, as "...the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study". A study couldn't be inserted as a majority view if it's not a majority view, ie. pseudoscience can't be inserted as a majority view of science. You left out the majority/prominence part in your analysis. Where's the hole? It's just reworded to reflect that the conversation isn't always about science/pseudoscience, case example astrology -- the article's not all about it being pseudoscience.

Regarding the ArbCom case, this is only a change to the second paragraph. The information about the ArbCom case in WP:PSCI remains intact. Regarding treating pseudoscientific views in the same way as scientific views, that's exactly what the wording is about. It says in no way, shape, or form should we do that, ever, and explains why. It further directs us to not only separate the pseudoscience from the science, but never present a pseudoscientific view alone sans-science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the earlier wording of simply saying the majority (scientific) view as the majority view, by the way, is that the majority view about a topic isn't always the scientific view. As I pointed out on the NPOV talk page, according to polls in general culture over 50% of the US population supports creationism over evolution. A creationist can easily read the policy and think, "that's not correct, we have the majority, not science", and be correct from a cultural context... but not the science context. When the discussion turns to scientific origins of the human race, it is important for the credibility of Wikipedia that they do not come away thinking that their majority view in culture translates to an overall majority view in what should be a science discussion, where the prominent science view actually excludes creationism. That's what the new wording reflects. It first separates the context, and then clearly directs what editors need to do when the context is science... don't muck it up with pseudoscience. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place for doing a rewrite, but taking out the second and third sentences would help. The gist of the third sentence already is covered in the first. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)