Jump to content

User talk:Iridescent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.23.157.73 (talk) at 20:04, 8 September 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

UpsandDowns1234, again

Hi, I was wondering if it's now time you carried out what you said here. See his talk page.... Aiken D 18:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed; having looked at his history since he came off the block his edits are entirely unconstructive. I've given him a final warning just in case he thinks people are yanking his chain and doesn't realize just how unwelcome he is—if there's anything more after this the next block will be indefinite until he actually demonstrates some kind of understanding of what Wikipedia actually is. ‑ Iridescent 18:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, I looked at his talk page and wondered if I'd accidentally stepped into a wormhole and come out in 1973 (although I think that plot device has been done to death already). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Special:DeletedContributions/UpsandDowns1234 as of today, click to view at normal size
Trust me, it used to be even more like something Geocities would have rejected for being too incompetently designed. I do feel a little guilty going in studs up like this—this is clearly a young child who's totally out of his depth but too proud to admit it, not an outright troll—but if you're going to try to pull the "I am an expert and you should all respect me" line, you need considerably more to back it up than this.
The list of his deleted offerings makes eyebrow-raising reading, too—anyone want to take a stab at what kind of mind thinks 3.1415926535897932­384626433832795028841­971693993751058209­7494459230781640­62862089986280­348253421170679­82148086513282306­6470938446095505­822317253594081­284811174502841­02701938521105­5596446229489­54930381964 is a useful redirect?. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of my first redirects that I created, and that was before I knew that it is bad to get pi to so many digits. Ups and Downs (↕) 06:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UAD, if you're going to tell lies don't tell lies that anyone can see are lies in less than two seconds of checking. The first redirect you created was Ctrl-Alt-Esc; that pi redirect wasn't created until almost a year later. ‑ Iridescent 08:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I said it was one of my first redirects, even though the first redirect that later I requested deletion for a year and a half later was Ctrl-Alt-Esc. Ups and Downs (↕) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And at least I fixed the redirect Telephone typewriter (TTY), it was pointing to a disamb page and should be pointing at Teleprinter. Ups and Downs (↕) 07:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Why did you undo my post to User:Miralishahidi's talk page? I was not trying to make him feel unwelcome, however, it is best if Arabic users contribute to the Arabic Wikipedia. That is all. Ups and Downs (↕) 01:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(A) You were assuming that "any language in a funny alphabet" must be Arabic, which is at best grossly insensitive and a serious competence issue and at worst intentionally racist;
(B) You were "welcoming" a globally-locked long term abuser, as you'd have known had you bothered to look at his contribution history.
Seriously, will you stop pissing around and either agree to abide by Wikipedia's basic rules or stop editing Wikipedia? This is getting well beyond a joke. ‑ Iridescent 10:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me. I didn't know. Ups and Downs (↕) 22:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I think I've successfully convinced my kids that Wikipedia is utterly dull, unexciting and something only boring old farts do, so they don't want to touch it and won't be tempted to come along and "improve" articles in the way teenage boys do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He seems (touch wood) to have calmed down now. Hopefully, reading him the riot act will either make him decide Wikipedia isn't the place for him and he'll go over to Wikia and annoy them instead, or he'll decide to settle down and follow the rules. If not, the next disruptive edit he makes will be the last. ‑ Iridescent 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, am I allowed to redirect it to Albert Eagle? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: This is my last mistake. Follow through with your indefblock, and make sure that I do not come back until I can show that I can do better things than creating pointless redirects, messing with other's pages, and treating Wikipedia like a webhost. Ups and Downs (↕) 03:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm treating that as a request. Going through UAD's contribs it's 50% self-reverts and more than a few places where I've had to revert. Primefac (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reluctantly endorse both the block and the "indefinite" aspect. U&D has promised to stop wasting other peoples' time and to stop using Wikipedia as his personal code testing sandbox too often for any promise to be taken remotely seriously any more. (User:UpsandDowns1234/intentionally upsidedown page, really?) ‑ Iridescent 15:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was that what the random ping yesterday was about (I'm assuming others got one as well)? I was confused as to how that happened because I couldn't find my name on the page. Anyway, a NOTHERE block seems appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely

Thanks for this edit Iridescent. Your edit summary is spot on and I would add that the eggy nature of the previous edit "scrambled" the article :-) Cheers and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the assorted sockpuppets (I assume these are all the same editor) are genuinely acting in good faith, think they're being helpful and can't understand why they keep being reverted. They cited this source, which looks kind-of-official at first glance and gives a headline figure of 10,549,000 as the population of London, which is bigger than that of NYC.
I did (rather snappily) explain the issue on the talk page of the Legendii account; it's only when you drill down to the small print on that site that you see that the 10.5 million figure is derived by including the whole of the contiguous urban area, including places like St Albans and Cheshunt which border on London but aren't legally, culturally or psychologically part of it, and that the actual population of London is 8,173,941. If we accept the "entire urban area" methodology for deriving the population of London, then we also have to include Jersey City, Westchester, Yonkers, Hoboken et al in NYC. (It would also mean treating a sizeable chunk of southern California as part of Los Angeles, and ditto for Chicago/Milwaukee/Gary and the whole of Gauteng—I'm not going to bother doing the math but it's perfectly possible that this methodology could actually relegate London into fourth or fifth place, since London's Green belt sets a physical limit on what can be considered part of London by even the broadest definition.)
It is possible that London has overtaken NYC—London has had a recent population boom while NYC is relatively static—but even if it's true the sources by definition won't exist until the next UK census in 2021, by which time Brexit will likely have led to a very sharp drop in London's population as the big multinationals move their operations to the EU, the ≈ 1 million EU citizens currently living in London leave, and the drop in the value of the pound makes emigration to the US or EU a more attractive proposition.
Expect this edit-war to keep running. Assorted cranks on the English right wing currently nurse fantasies of London as the cultural capital of the Vibrant Anglo-Saxon Order standing in opposition to the Decadent Declining Europe and Corrupt Unimaginative Asia, and the Atlantic Bridge nutcases hate having it pointed out to them that the rest of the world doesn't consider Britain anywhere near as important as they consider themselves. ‑ Iridescent 18:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going into such detail about this I. Your taking the time to spell things out is appreciated. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it, though? Say that in Watford or Weybridge and you're likely to get your head kicked in for suggesting it. If they'd stuck to the original plan for an inner and an outer M25, then the inner one would roughly correspond to the London boundary, but in reality they built half of one and half of the other, so the Heathrow-Orpington and Uxbridge-South Mimms stretches - which follow the intended outer route - have no real relationship to the London boundary. You also have anomalies like North Ockendon, which are in London but well outside the M25, and places like Chigwell which are within the M25 and have London tube trains, London buses but would fight to the death to avoid any redrawing of the border that placed them into London. ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Do we care what people in Watford think? ;) My family are 99% cockneys and think that if you are not born within the sound of the bow bells you are not a Londoner... The Chigwell thing is largely historical ignorance. As anyone who has an actual passing knowledge of where the East End cockneys migrated to once the property developers started pricing us out of our homeland. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real East End cockneys moved to Basildon, Billericay, Becontree and Benfleet (with the exception of the former dockers, who went to Grays and Tilbury). I guarantee to you that even in the 1950s, Chigwell was standing firm against allowing the oiks to pollute their green and pleasant land—I'm sure if they could erect razor wire and watchtowers along the border with Hainault, they would. A fairly accurate rule-of-thumb is "if they do their shopping at Lakeside (surely the only shopping centre that has an eel shop in the food court), the town was colonised by displaced Cockneys after the war". ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cockneys: The eel's only natural predator :) — fortunavelut luna 21:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delicious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only slightly on topic, but when I was a little kid, I was fascinated by the fact that my grandpa used dead eels as bait for fish pots, dead fish as bait for crab pots, and dead crabs as bait for eel pots. I suppose it messed with my simplistic vision of there being a clear, well-organized hierarchy of predator/prey, and is my first memory of finding out the world was more complicated than I thought. My grandpa would say that the only reason God put eels on Earth was as bait. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That glass eels dish... does not look appetizing to me. But there's no accounting for taste; if you had told me many years ago that I would willingly eat goose barnacles, I'd have called you crazy. But they're heavenly. If I could get them on Amazon, I would. I imagine many eel-eating Cockneys and Hudsonites (and possibly you too) are shuddering at the thought. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
De gustibus non est disputandum. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me who smells something? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to a quick-n-dirty summation the population of Southern-California-if-you-use-the-broad-definition-of-"Los Angeles"-needed-to-make-these-claims-for-London-work is over 21 million people. Surely more than London and more than the entire New York State (New York metropolitan area clocks in at 23 million people). Gauteng currently has a population of about 13 million people, not counting any outlying regions that should be counted as well. London's looking pretty picayune there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years ago I came across a reference to an (auto?) biography of a WW1 British diver. He was the only person the RN could find who wasn't phased by working in confined spaces, amongst thousands of writhing eels eating dead U-boat sailors. No roses bloom on a sailor's grave- the eels would just treat them as 'salad'. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 05:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC) aka P51 train ace (totally joking; reference to your animated gif at the top)[reply]

Urgh. While I support them taking the case, I really with they'd dealt with this by motion rather than going through the whole workshops-and-proposals show trial. I can tell you now that the result will be "(1) Arthur Rubin desysopped, he can regain the bit following a successful RFC; (2) TRM advised to moderate his language when discussing other Wikipedia editors; (3) The community reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and that should people raise concerns in good faith about your actions you are expected to justify those actions; (4) The community reminded that making allegations without providing evidence constitutes a personal attack". Dealing with it by motion would have the exact same result, and avoided the whole slow-burning ritual humiliation of two long-serving editors and their respective supporters picking through the contribution histories looking for any mud they can throw. There are some occasions where it's important that due process is seen to be followed, but this is not one of them. ‑ Iridescent 14:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the bet, I'm in for (1) Rubin admonished (2) TRM further sanctioned and/or punitively blocked. But only after six weeks of the hawks dragging up every diff available under the sun going back to 2005 to ensure they can get at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah (although if they're feeling extraordinarily generous, they may replace "AR desysopped" with "AR given a final warning"). The most that could happen to you would be some variation of "please don't be so snappy, most of these people are trying to help even if they're doing it wrong"*—AR and his supporters have had a month to dig up whatever dirt they could find, and haven't managed to find any. I'll be willing to bet that all my four above points (with the possible exception of (3), which is a point they may feel the Magioladitis case makes more explicitly so they don't need to repeat it in yours) form part of the final ruling. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*A sentiment I endorse to some extent. Remember, unless people have an interest in English sport they're likely only to know you from various arguments—I know someone else said you're becoming the new Malleus, and there are far worse people with whom to be compared, but what you don't want is for people to start seeing you as the new Baseball Bugs. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our arbitration system seems designed to make problems continue so long they get worse and alienate productive contributors when swift and sensible intervention could nip things in the bud. If an Arbcom like authority with its powers told Rubin weeks/months ago to withdraw the accusations or be desysopped, we'd be a lot happier. That body could be AN/ANI, except we've over-engineered ourselves so AN/ANI have no real teeth to deal with admins, other than community ban. I don't necessarily blame ArbCom's members for this - I get why it takes so long for them to act - because of how they're set up to fail. So here we are. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blame them 100% I'm afraid. If they were paid by the hour this turn of events wouldn't be surprising. They collectively lack the ability to actually make timely and objective decisions. This one will no earlier than October, by which time no-one will even recall what the original issue (which started in April) was actually all about. Perhaps that's the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By community decisions and the actions of they're predecessors, they're wedged into a pseudo legal framework that is slow and cumbersome. I agree with Iri's original point that motion (in May, ideally!) would have sorted this out, but they just are backed into a corner. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To give some benefit of the doubt, I assume quite a few of them have been away so it was always bound to move slowly, and the case being filed by a sock presumably meant a long debate somewhere about whether it should go ahead which would also have taken time. Plus, of the current crop NYB is (ironically) the one most likely to say "cut out the pseudolegal crap and just settle this", but because of his past history with TRM he's presumably felt he shouldn't comment. ‑ Iridescent 15:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public service announcement

Seeing as our insect overlords at the WMF don't appear to have deigned to actually announce this anywhere other than at a few obscure noticeboards, just to let people know they've just made this loopy pet project live (open your notification settings and scroll to the bottom). There may have been a stupider idea the WMF has sent live without consultation, but I can't think of one, and I'm old enough to remember Liquid Threads. ‑ Iridescent 21:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the PSA, but I guess it doesn't annoy me as much as it annoys you. It's not earth-shattering, but it seems relatively harmless at worst, and mildly useful at best. I've already used it, albeit 95% to see if it works, and only 5% to avoid the unwanted pings from that editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need it, and those who don't want to be pinged or thanked by me have told me so in normal language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How did you know it was you I muted? :P --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I know everything - I don't know anything. - I am not easily silenced ;) - In German we have an expression: "tritt es nicht noch breit" - as in breittreten - what would that be in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam, the way I see this going is either:

Editor A: "Editor B keeps telling me I'm a stupid fuckwit!";

Admin C: "Just mute editor B";

Editor A, a month later: "I've just discovered that every edit I ever made has been undone!";

Admin D: "Yes, that's because Editor B rolled back your edits and you had them muted so you didn't know. It's your fault for allowing this to happen".

That's at the basic level with Good Faith Assumed on all sides. If you're willing to accept that some Wikipedia editors are obsessive crackpots who enjoy edit-warring over stylistic decisions and are willing to be cynical and disruptive when they feel it necessary to enforce their personal preferences regarding things the overwhelming majority of readers don't even notice:

Editor A: "There's a change I'm determined to make to a huge number of articles, but some people are steadfastly opposed to (infoboxes / em-dashes / distances in chains / color-coded navboxes / separate male and female categories / list-defined references / non-free images / linked country and city names) being (added/removed)";

Editor B: "I don't want you making this change unilaterally. If you're not willing or able to get a demonstrable consensus in favor of this change, I'll take action if you go ahead with it anyway";

Editor A: "I'll go through Editor B's entire edit history for the last few months thanking them for every edit, and I'll mention them at every opportunity and be sure to bluelink their name so they get a ping. I'll do the same for everyone who is likely to support their position";

Editor B: "Every time I log on, I find that I've hit the 99-new-notifications limit after which the Echo system stops working, so I'm not seeing legitimate messages. I'll mute Editor A, that will solve it" (or alternatively "I'll haul Editor A off to ANI to complain about excessive thanking, and they'll just tell me to put them on mute");

(a month later)

Editor B: "Hey, every (instance of {{infobox composer}} / spaced en-dash / chain (unit) / etcetera) has disappeared!";

Admin C: "There's no point complaining now, you should have complained when the change was made two weeks ago, and it's not our fault that none of you noticed, it's your own fault for muting Editor A. Given the time elapsed since the change was made Editor A's preferred version is now the stable version, and it would be disruptive for you to change it back.";

Editor B: "Well, I'm not happy with this. Since ANI is unable to resolve the matter given that everyone's actions were technically within policy, the only option is to take this off to Arbcom where all of my and Editor A's friends can fling shit at each other like wild monkeys for six weeks".

You may not have been on Arbcom for long, but you were certainly there long enough to know that Editor A isn't a purely fictional construct and that this is exactly how some people will seize this opportunity. (Hell, it's only WP:AGF that's preventing my giving you a full list of the names of the people who'll seize this opportunity.) The infobox wars may have calmed down but it's at best an uneasy armistice not an actual peace treaty, the delinkers and endashers are still merrily delinking and endashing away, and there are enough arbs now who don't remember the old days or come from a non-content background that User talk:Betacommand#Public Appeal has a genuine chance of being accepted.
As Gerda says, I've never encountered anyone other than an outright vandal who hasn't acceded to "please don't communicate with me unless it's absolutely necessary". I can't imagine a circumstance where anyone wouldn't want to be informed that their edits had been reverted by one particular editor—either you want to be informed of every revert or none—so the only problem this is actually addressing is "I'm being thanked too often for my liking by one editor but I don't want to disable the thanks feature altogether", and I've never seen any evidence that this is a problem. ‑ Iridescent 08:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about sorting the cases alphabetically? - The infobox wars are a myth that some seem to need, - it's almost religious. Please note, in order to get closer to reality, that I never use {{infobox classical composer}} (so it's 165 inclusions are all not by me), but {{infobox person}}, and that I think I know by now when better not to do it. I started a discussion yesterday on Verdi, and nobody went fighting, DYK? The last argument about a composer's infobox that I recall was Max Reger, in 2016. The last argument, about no more than the duplication of coordinates to an infobox, was yesterday. Waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Infobox Wars certainly weren't a myth—I had a ringside seat for them (you may remember that the string of discussions which ultimately led to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes originally began on my talkpage). As well as the traditional "this article should/shouldn't have an infobox" arguments, which still flare up from time to time, they've now metastasized into meta-arguments over how to format which fields are included in infoboxes and whether to populate the boxes from Wikipedia or Wikidata, and those arguments are still as vocal as ever (just put Template talk:Infobox person on your watchlist for a while). ‑ Iridescent 09:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox person is one of the more than 33333 items on my watchlist. (I like the number, hit yesterday, but I noticed only later.) You have a good memory, so will know that the arb case was basically about resistance to the new {{infobox opera}}, which is now in all major operas. As arbcom goes, the case caused the past of years before (much of it before I even joined, or noticed the problem) to be brought up also, and the arbs had to something, so gave me this wonderful restriction of no more than two comments per discussion. Imagine if everybody adhered to that ;) - I am a free person since 2015 but still follow that as a rule of thumb. In the above-mentioned discussion, even one comment seems too many. - I agree that there are other questions rather than infobox yes or no, but I regard that one as the most war-like conflict, which should have been over when the arb who wrote the case added the infobox to Beethoven as the community consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a dispute over opera that forced the case (as there were vocal people entrenched on both sides and refusing to concede), but the underlying dispute was certainly not confined to them. If anything, in my experience the "should this have an infobox" was most problematic on popular musician articles —classical musicians in general stick to music, whereas the Frank Sinatras, Madonnas, Michael Jacksons and Taylor Swifts of the world don't always pigeonhole neatly as "musicians". Nobody has every really satisfactorily addressed the issue that {{infobox specific profession}} generally means data related to that profession is given undue weight (so treating Michael Jackson as a singer ignores that he was the director of a huge business empire, treating Frank Sinatra as an actor downplays his musical career and vice versa). The "overly specific infobox" problem is by no means specific to music, but applies to everyone who's been active in more than one field—is Arnold Schwarzenegger a politician or an actor? Is Brian Cox a particle physicist, a 1990s pop star, or the BBC's go-to narrator for wildlife documentaries? How about chief economist of the Office of Fair Trading and former lead singer of Heavenly Amelia Fletcher (or indeed her former bandmate, 1980s indie music darling and 2012 Turner Prize winning artist Elizabeth Price)? That people overuse the "infoboxes give undue weight to some information" argument doesn't mean it isn't a genuine problem. ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Just today, I decided again to use "person", because the person is not only a pianist but also an academic teacher, in a way also a composer, - while most of the people he plays with have "musician". - I am happy with short infoboxes that give us the basics that persondata had previously. Did you know that the Italian Wikipedia has a format that doesn't make an infobox but a standard lead sentence for people? (example Maria Carbone, go in edit mode and see, - it was discussed in the last composers discussion, 2016, when Pierre Boulez died.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the Italian experiment, but I think it's a horrible idea and I'd fight tooth-and-claw any attempt to implement it on Wikipedia, for the same reason I'd fight tooth-and-claw any attempt to activate ArticlePlaceholder (example, if you've never seen it in action on the wikis that have it) or Reasonator (example, if you've never seen it in action on the wikis that have it), on English Wikipedia. I can understand the "something is better than nothing" argument when it comes to languages where there aren't many editors, but for the highly active Wikipedias like English, Polish, German and Spanish even the most obscure topic should be able to find someone who can write a couple of sentences on it if the sources exist. The Italian experiment of automatically generating the lead either means importing from Wikidata which makes the article a hostage to Wikidata, a project which even its staunchest defenders would concede is riddled with errors and has a well-deserved reputation for failing to spot vandalism; or, it means treating the auto-generated section of the lead as a de facto infobox in another format, which just displaces the "which information do we include?" debate from the left-hand to the right-hand side of the page.
Thanks to Reasonator, we know what a lead sentence automatically generated from the infobox data would look like on en-wikipedia. To take the examples I used above, Arnold Schwarzenegger gives us Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Austrian-US-American actor, politician, film producer, film actor, film director, restaurateur, soldier, entrepreneur, bodybuilder, autobiographer, businessperson, real estate broker, and powerlifter. He was born on July 30, 1947 in Thal to Gustav Schwarzenegger and Aurelia Schwarzenegger. He studied at Santa Monica College and University of Wisconsin–Superior until 1979. He was/is Governor of California from November 17, 2003 until January 3, 2011. He married Maria Shriver on April 26, 1986 (married until on July 1, 2011 ). His children include Katherine Schwarzenegger, Christina Schwarzenegger, Patrick Schwarzenegger, Christopher Schwarzenegger, and Joseph Baena., Amelia Fletcher gives us Amelia Fletcher is a British economist, singer-songwriter, and guitarist. She was born on January 1, 1966. She studied at University of Oxford and St Edmund Hall. Her field of work includes indie pop., and Michael Jackson gives us Michael Jackson was a US-American singer, dancer, singer-songwriter, actor, businessperson, philanthropist, film director, screenwriter, poet, composer, musician, songwriter, autobiographer, writer, record producer, choreographer, film actor, and beatboxing. He was born on August 29, 1958 in Gary to Joe Jackson and Katherine Jackson. His field of work included pop music, soul music, dance music, disco, and musician. He was a member of The Jackson 5 and Jackson family. He married Lisa Marie Presley on May 26, 1994 (married until on January 1, 1996 ) and Debbie Rowe on November 14, 1996 (married until on October 8, 1999 ). His children include Prince Michael Jackson I, Paris Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II. He died of combined drug intoxication on June 25, 2009 in Los Angeles. He was buried at Forest Lawn Memorial Park. – Beethoven, meanwhile, includes the very informative sentence "He played a role in death of Ludwig van Beethoven". There really is no substitute for human editing, and if you have to manually tweak all the output to prevent it generating irrelevant nonsense you may as well just write the sentence. Besides, scrapping infoboxes in favour of a lead sentence means losing the main positive of infoboxes are useful (an at-a-glance summary of key facts) while still keeping the main negative (forcing articles to comply with a particular format even when that format may not be appropriate).
Plus, automatic article generation (or automatic lead generation) requires the assumption that any given topic is treated equally in different cultures, which isn't the case at all. To take a relatively trivial example de:David Hasselhoff devotes roughly equal space to the great man's musical and acting careers, whereas en:David Hasselhoff treats him almost exclusively as an actor and just mentions in a brief section that he also had a successful musical career in Germany; this is as it should be as English-speaking readers are much more likely to be looking for details of his acting career. To take a more serious example (the one which serves as my go-to example of Wikipedia's tendency to reflect the systemic biases both of the sources and the readers of a particular culture), compare en:Texas Revolution, es:Independencia de Texas and ro:Revoluția Texană—all Featured Articles on their respective Wikipedias—and observe the relative weight given to the Battle of the Alamo (a relatively minor skirmish but one with great symbolic value in the US) on wikis where the readers and sources of the article are primarily American, primarily Mexican and primarily neutral; I see this as a feature, not a bug, as the US readers are much more likely to be interested in the specifics of the Alamo, the Mexican readers are more likely to be interested in the broader politics and the course of the war as a whole, and the neutrals won't want the full details of the Alamo but need enough information to understand why Americans attach such significance to a battle with less than 1000 casualties. ‑ Iridescent 16:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(adding) I've just noticed an excellent example of "every article needs an infobox but what should be put in it?" at Moses, where a lack of consensus as to whether he was a historical figure or an invention of the church means he gets {{infobox person}} and {{infobox saint}}. (Reasonator gives us the highly informative Moses is a military leader and prophet. He was born in Land of Goshen to Amram and Jochebed. He was/is ruler. He married Zipporah, Zipporah, Zipporah, Zipporah, Tharbis, Tharbis, Tharbis, and Tharbis. His children include Eliezer, Eliezer, Eliezer, Eliezer, Gershom, Gershom, Gershom, and Gershom. He died in Mount Nebo., incidentally.) ‑ Iridescent 17:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am with you being against the Italian model, and said so last year. "every article needs an infobox" is nothing I'd ever say, but for the articles I write or improve, I like one, and I cherish Carmen, Falstaff and Mozart's piano concerto that was TFA this year. Music is much more important than boxes. - Yesterday I went with dear people to a concert, expecting to meet a couple. Reading the newspaper on the way going told us he died. The music was The Dream of Gerontius, of all pieces, and the previous day it had been Salve Regina, Hear my prayer, Remember not, Lord, our offences and Mozart's Requiem. In the midst of life - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree; while I think the default should be "infobox unless there's a reason not to have one" it doesn't mean I don't think there are many situations where there is a good reason not to have one (generally "there are so few facts that any infobox would be meaningless", "the lead image needs to be displayed at a large width" or "the topic can't be summarised without accompanying explanation"). However, the "every page needs an infobox" faction certainly do exist.
(On a completely unrelated topic, do you want to try explaining to this person in German that their grasp of the English language isn't as good as they think it is, and there's only a limited amount of patience The Wikipedia Community will show when it comes to comments like "your pertinent professional incompetence", especially given that their recent edit history seems to consist almost exclusively of machine-translated gibberish.) ‑ Iridescent 18:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sue a Wikipedian for libel?

I was cleaning up Darius Guppy's article just now, and somebody who was working on it said, "I'm just terrified of English defamation law". I can't believe anyone would have a case to answer by suing some random person acting in good faith on the internet, but I also know that Darius Guppy has history of threatening to duff up people who disagree with or strongly criticise him. Is it actually possible to file a defamation lawsuit against a Wikipedia user? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically in the UK yes in some situations - people have been successfully sued for repeating information online that someone else has originally said, for defamatory content. 'Someone else said it first' is not a defense under British defamation law. 'Its completely true' however is. But there is a world of qualifiers that apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) It would have to be established that the user was based in a UK jurisdiction, and exactly who that user is. As it's an IP user, it's a near-thankless task to identify a specific individual behind a series of numbers - police powers and/or a court order would be needed (I worked on one of Elton John's libel cases years ago doing just that). If the information is from reliable sources (better, if it's in several high-profile reliable sources), it should be OK, but even then there is no defence in claiming that you are just repeating stuff in the public domain. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above comments. It's probably the type of thing Carter-Fuck (see Private Eye, passim ad nauseum) would love to take on, and I presume Guppy still has significant funds.. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The TL;DR answer is "yes, and it does happen". Wikipedia is insulated to some extent by being based in California, which has anti-SLAPP legislation (that is, if the courts deem that the purpose of the lawsuit is to stifle free speech rather than to address a genuine grievance, it will be rejected). Section 230 protects the WMF, but it doesn't protect individual editors—indeed, the WMF is obliged to (and does) provide whatever personal information they hold on you if they get a subpoena requesting it. If you do get sued, the Legal Fees Assistance Program may pay for your costs (and if they don't, the EFF may well take it on pro bono), but there's no obligation on them to get involved. As well as libel, there has also been (unsuccesful thus far) legal actions taken against Wikipedia and/or individual editors for publishing plot spoilers and consequently damaging revenues (including by the author of the wonderful Latawnya, the Naughty Horse, Learns to Say "No" to Drugs), and of course the fallout from the Siegenthaler incident which was never tested in court. If you're on speaking terms with the Wikipediocracy/Wikipedia Review crowd, someone like Greg or Somey could probably provide an up-to-date list of all the documented legal actions involving the WMF.
If you do think there's the remotest possibility that an article subject will sue, I strongly recommend letting the long-suffering Whatamidoing (WMF) know as soon as possible. For all the WMF's faults, Jimmy Wales and WMF Legal do have the financial and political backing to either call potential litigants and calm them down or to examine the evidence and conclude that there's no case to answer, which you don't. ‑ Iridescent 15:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty sure this case ended in court, and a conviction, where malicious WP editing was one aspect. But google searches now reveal no trace of these proceedings. Of course, I now can't be sure if my memory is playing tricks, or if the villain of the piece has excercised his EU human rights.... Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this specific case, I have been cleaning up a BLP, but put forward multiple trustworthy sources showing Boris Johnson's failed attempt to provide Guppy with an address of a journalist he wanted to get beaten up - an incident that was broadcast on national television and has been watched by millions of people. Perhaps I'm just being over-paranoid, but why would somebody bring up defamation issues on the talk page if they were a non-issue? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While it may ultimately be a spurious and unfounded lawsuit, the problem with UK defamation law is that like all privately brought cases, it favours those with the biggest pockets. Someone with enough money can make life extremely unpleasant for a victim of a false allegation, even if ultimately the case is based on a bogus argument. It would actually be trivial given enough money to get a court order for any personal/private information Wikipedia holds on its editors, IP or otherwise, as the WMF (as Iri points out above) is required to provide that information on request or risk being found liable for what its users post. EG should Guppy or Boris take offense at what is being posted to their article, they have the money to get the information the WMF holds on the editors who posted it, including location, IP address etc. If the editor is an editor who has identified to the WMF (for advanced permissions etc), they would also be required to hand over that information. I believe they don't actually keep track of that anymore precisely to fend off those sort of requests. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That should be fine - it's been plastered over the mainstream UK press for over ten years without Guppy taking any action (and even an edition of Dispatches on it), so the courts wouldn't touch the case anyway (a statute of limitations for the 'new news' gives him some time to sue, but these are old and oft-repeated). I'll email you some articles from UK broadsheets to use as references. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In their defence, the WMF actually has a very good record compared to the Facebooks and Googles of the world when it comes to telling governments where they can shove it (see the transparency report I like above, and note how many requests are rejected). A litigant would need to go through the American courts to get at the servers, and US courts aren't known for their love of British litigants trying it on. The important think in the case of Guppy is to make sure everything is attributed not only inline but in the body text (a Sunday Times report said…, Isabel Oakshott claimed…, Ian Hislop alleged…) to make it clear that you're repeating allegations made in the public sphere by other people, not making allegations in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 16:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clearly possible and this is a significant risk if you go after high-profile public figures. A good example is McAlpine v Bercow in which Lord McAlpine made lots of people back down, apologise and pay damages. The fact that the WMF is safe isn't the issue – the risk is that individual editors will be sued. See Beware online words that can lead to a libel charge

    ...cases of libel or slander seem to be on the increase. Research published by Thomson Reuters in October 2014 showed a 23 per cent rise in the number of reported defamation cases in the UK over the past year, up from 70 to 86. At the heart of this growth, it seems, is a sharp rise in claims brought in response to online postings on social media, review sites and blogs. These more than quadrupled, rising from six to 26, the research says.

Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although it depends what has been posted. The information about Guppy's request to Johnson for the address of a journalist he wanted to get beaten up has been published in the mainstream UK since 1993, and any attempt to sue for repeating it would be thrown out by a judge on the basis that none of the parties involved have taken any action in the preceding 24 years. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with SLAPPs isn't whether they'd be won or lost—the outcome is a foregone conclusion. They're a mechanism used by the rich to discourage people reporting on their activities, by creating nuisance for the defendant (rich people can afford lawyers, poor writers have to waste a lot of time representing themselves) in the hope that even though the case will invariably be rejected, it will cause enough hassle that people won't repeat the accusation. Wikipedia's SLAPP article is US-centric but explains the phenomenon quite well, and (unlike in the US) English courts have no quick-reject mechanism for vexatious lawsuits—the crime of barratry was repealed and has never been replaced. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article

Hi, "Iridescent,"

I see that you're a fairly frequent contributor to the Manual of Style's talk page. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?

Thanks if so, 174.23.157.73 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I'm asking you for MOS help...

Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?


Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initialisms such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "RADAR," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms (even as "laser," "scuba," "radar," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased), or just calling them "initialisms" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?


Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?


And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?


Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?


Thanks for your opinions, and then we'll go from here,

174.23.157.73 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iridescent&oldid=799615599"