Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:33, 8 December 2007

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

• ]

Are there Mods here?

Or is everything edited and reedited by anyone? Why I ask is because it seems everytime you turn around, some jerk reverts an edit they may not agree with when the edit or addition is a factual entry that any moron would or should know. They seem God-like and have their own little community and it makes me wonder if a bunch of nerds are sitting around the world behind their fancy little computers changing things and discussing the newest episode of 'Heroes'.

It really needs to stop and needs to be a limit to their antics or most protential contributors will simply leave and go elsewhere. This site is suppose to be open to everyone and NOT controlled by a select few.

Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.75.40 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal Ownership of Posted Material

I'm looking for a policy I can post on our own local Wiki (using Wikimedia) regarding ownership or lack thereof of info / material posted onto a Wiki. Does anyone know where I might find such a policy, e.g., that the site is public domain and free for use / citation, etc.? If you have any suggestions, please post them on the TALK page. Thanks. --Pdmawiki (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages:Copyrights is the closest to what you're looking for. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is: you remain the sole copyright holder of any contributions, but by submitting to Misplaced Pages agree to irrevocably license your contributions under the GFDL. Dcoetzee 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(In the case of en.wp) With the added footnote condition of "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts". And irrevocably mean "parties who have received copies, or rights ... under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance", otherwise the rights granted are terminated automatically. KTC 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you're creating your own wiki, you decide what the terms of use are for your site. Legally, Americans which write text or create images own the copyright when they create it. You have to make your users let you use their work under some sort of agreement/contract/license. This English Misplaced Pages has chosen the GFDL; Wikinews has chosen a different license. What you choose is an issue between you and your contributors. -- SEWilco 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Article / discussion / edit this page / history

Article / discussion / edit this page / history

As you know, every article has a set of four links that are typically labeled as shown above. But these links actually lead to a set of six related pages, not four. That's because two of the links, when used, silently change the meaning of the other two. Selecting "discussion" not only brings up the talk page, it also causes the "edit this page" to edit the talk page and the "history" link to show the talk page history. Conversely, selecting "article" not only brings up the article, it causes "edit this page" to edit the article itself and the "history" link to show the article's history. But the "article" and "discussion" links always point to the article and the talk page respectively, no matter which of the other five pages you're on.

This is not a big deal, but it is a mildly confusing design, and it ought to be possible to do better. If the present behavior of four links really is the Right Thing, then one simple possibility would be for the wording to change so they read either

• article / discussion / edit this page / history

or

• article / discussion / edit discussion page / discussion page history

as applicable.

This is in keeping with the way "edit this page" changes to "view source" when you don't have permission to edit, and "article" changes to "project page" when you're viewing a project page.

Of course there is one other difference as well: talk pages have a "+" link to add a new item, and article pages don't. As this is less than transparent, I would also suggest that if changes are being made, then "+" should become "add item" or "new item".

Yes, of course it's possible to get used to the present design. I'm sure everyone who's likely to read this is thoroughly used to it. But please try to look at these links like someone who isn't familiar with it, and see if on reflection you don't agree that they're confusing.

Discussion page

Another thing I think is a bit confusing is the use of the word "discussion" in these links. I don't see it as a big deal whether they're called talk pages or discussion pages, but I do think it's confusing when almost everything else in Misplaced Pages that talks about them calls them talk pages, even the talk page URLs use the word "Talk", and yet the link that points to them reads "discussion".

I'm sure this has been discussed before, or perhaps talked about :–), but since I'm talking about rewording the link names, this seems a good time to raise the point again.

I can see that a link marked "talk" by itself might also be confusing, but "talk page" might fly. Or maybe even "talk page (discuss this article)".

The other alternative, of course, is to drop "talk" altogether and use "discussion". Then many templates such as POV and Citecheck and Pp-dispute and Expert and Story would have to be changed, and so would pages like Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Deletion and many others that speak of "talk pages". Personally, I'd see rather the briefer word survive.

Project page

Still another confusing wording is "project page". This is fine for pages that actually are at the center of something that might be called a project, but it doesn't really apply to forums like the Reference Desks or the Village Pump. However, I don't have a good suggestion for a better wording.

--207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some advice

• Be succinct. A common reaction to long posts is to ignore them.
• Don't combine multiple subjects in a single post. If you have three things you want to discuss, post them separately, and sign each, so that other editors can respond to each separately. It's really a pain to have three conversations going simultaneously.
• Read the instructions at the top of a page before you post on that page. In this case, the relevant instruction is The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's a limit to succinctness. A common reaction to short posts saying that something could be improved is to ignore them and imagine that because you're used to the present arrangement, it must be okay.
• There was only one subject: improving the wording of the links in question. However, I agree that it would have been better to sign each section separately so that responses could have been posted within them. Since they have been posted below, I've added a subheader "Responses" to set them off.
• I was not asking for a policy change, describing a technical problem, making a specific proposal, or asking for assistance. If I wasn't assuming good faith, I'd say that assuming I hadn't read the introduction was presumptuous or condescending or something.
• I will now shut up and let people discuss changes if they want to.

--207.176.159.90 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses

I think you have some very good points. I would support changing discussion to talk and changing the '+' tab to something that gives some indication of what it does.

The thing is, most of what you're suggesting has been raised before, and people have said that the word 'discussion' is used to discourage people from using talk pages for chatter (I'm not entirely sure how it does that, but that's my opinion) and '+' is used so that the tabs don't get too long (since user scripts and admins have extra tabs).

As for changing the edit/history tabs depending on which page is active, I don't think that's possible with the current software. Tra (Talk) 23:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The "+" tab seems the easiest to fix: change the default, and provide personal css or JavaScript (or, best of all, a checkbox in one of the tabs in "my preferences") that will change it back to "+", for those who want the classic look. Misplaced Pages is very configurable; there is no reason why a minority (if that's really the situation) should need to force a cryptic tab label onto a majority who find it confusing. The tab label "add new section" would be one character longer than "edit this page"; if that's too long, then "new section" clearly still is better. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the discussion I was referring to is here. Tra (Talk) 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer. I find the discussion about the "+" tab, last June and July at the page you linked to, disappointing for three reasons. First, the new text for the "+" tab that was tried, then abandoned - "Leave a Comment" - was a poor choice, since it's NOT appropriate for leaving a comment within an ongoing discussion (that is, within an existing section). Something like "+ new section", which would have retained the "+" as part of the tab label, would have been a much better alternative. Second, the arguments for retaining "+" seem to me pretty much to come down to "it works for me, and other experienced editors, and it's obvious to me what it does, so therefore it should be to obvious to pretty much everyone else - leave it alone." (I've always thought that when some people are saying "It's obvious to everyone" and some people are saying "It's not obvious to everyone", that the "NOT" people win, by definition, but ... ). And third, the editors opposing the change didn't address, at all, the ability for them to customize the label back to "+" if that made them happy, while leaving the tab with the best possible wording for inexperienced editors.

In short, I think the discussion was ineffective, and in no way should be taken as a definitive decision that the matter is settled. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The "discussion" label does help to reduce confusion with inter-user chat features which exist on some web sites. You might also notice that on Wikinews there are separate comment and collaboration tabs; the collaboration page is for editor chatter. -- SEWilco 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about my Masters project

Hi, my name is Thor Polukoshko. I am an English Masters student at Simon Fraser University (in British Columbia, Canada), and I am currently writing a research paper on reliability, truth, consensus, and Misplaced Pages. The main objective of my paper is to find a definition of "truth" as it applies to an online, collaborative project. I will be working mostly from what Jurgen Habermas defines as the "consensus theory of truth," focusing on Misplaced Pages’s hope that consensus will eventually lead to a higher level of reliability.

I believe that the medium of communication is an integral part in the reception of any work that criticizes or discusses a specific medium—this is in part simply because of the fact that the work draws attention to the notion of “medium” as a possible subject for discourse. Thus, my project will take the form of a Misplaced Pages article, not only in the form of the finished product, but also in the process of its conception. By using only articles and other information found on public-access websites, I will be working within the realm of the “unreliable” media which I discuss. I believe that citing non-academic and other “unreliable” sources as my primary and secondary texts enables me to better develop my own guidelines for truth and reliability, and allows me to, in the process of compiling my notes, come to my own definitions of the two terms. Not only does this process help me, as a writer, to develop my own notions of reliability, but it also allows my readers to do the same. Because I will display the project online, and because it uses only internet sources, the employment of hypertext and hyperlinks will grant, to anyone who reads the essay, the same access to the sources I use. This means that my readers may easily check and evaluate the sources for themselves.

The reason I am posting this here is because I would like to post my essay on my Misplaced Pages user page when it is completed in the next week or two. This way, it will be open to improvement (or vandalism), and will introduce a collaborative element, and a degree of consensus, to the project.

Is posting an entire 15-20 page essay on my user page an acceptable Misplaced Pages practice? Or is there a better place for me to do this? If it is acceptable, is there any possible way for me to enlist a few volunteer Wikipedians to make changes/deletions/additions to my project? Since the essay is about consensus I want the methodology to involve some degree of consensus, and I’m afraid that if I just post the essay on my user page nobody will even touch it.

If anyone has any suggestions or comments about my proposal, I would be very grateful. Thorblood (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability: verifiability, not truth. See also Category:Rouge admins. Suggest you post your proposal in user space. Durova 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For use in Misplaced Pages articles, as this is a research paper Misplaced Pages:No original research would be an issue. Text such as background material and description of a topic could be used in Misplaced Pages (probably one to two thirds of such a paper). Putting it in user space reduces the risk of being deleted due to WP:NOR violations although using WP services for an unrelated collaborative project is a taking of service. However, you might preface your paper with a reminder that the text is under the GFDL and can be copied over to relevant articles, as that is the case and donating text to the project makes your text be not unrelated. -- SEWilco 16:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

School Administration Help

Our school is trying to deal with Misplaced Pages vandalism internally (looking at logs etc), and I'd appreciate any advice as to whether we're missing any technical aspects of WP that we can use to help prevent vandalism. At the moment, all we've been able to do is subscribe to an RSS feed of changes to our talk page which, while useful, doesn't really help. Is there, for example, a feed from Special:Contributions that I haven't found? Or any other MediaWiki functionality that we (as school staff and owner of the IP address) are missing? Many thanks, Alexlmuller 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I tried adding "&feed=rss" to the end of an IP's Special:contributions page but that didn't produce a feed of IP changes. You might try asking in Village pump (technical) if there is a way to get an RSS feed of an IP's contributions. This idea is also not mentioned in the list linked to at the bottom of WP:VANDAL; you might instead ask in WT:VANDAL. -- SEWilco 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL / CC announcement

(From foundation:Resolution:License update)

-- KTC

This is huge, pretty huge. I am guessing dual licensing would be an option if both licenses are made compatible. It would be really good, although I am slightly pessimist right now :( -- ReyBrujo 20:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Armwaving aside, what they can do is ask the FSF to make the next version of the GFDL more like CC-BY-SA, and ask CC to produce a license that's more like the next version of the GFDL, and eventually, once the two are close enough, switch to GFDL-+CC-BY-SA- licensing. But that's not what the announcement says. Cynical old me wonders whether people realised that "Please don't hold your breath: Wikimedia may switch to dual licensing when the FSF get round to releasing the version after next of the GFDL" isn't much of headline. Even Slashdotters couldn't get excited by that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's OK - right up to the last step. When someone contributed something to Misplaced Pages, they were agreeing to the terms of the GFDL - one of which is that they agreed to trust the GNU folks to put out new revisions of GFDL that wouldn't be too horrible. So when a GFDL appears that happens to be compatible with CC, that's OK and if future versions of GFDL happen to track the CC license verbatim, that's OK. But actually adding the CC licensing terms to Misplaced Pages also allows for the possibility that the CC folks might change their license at some time in the future. The problem is that nobody has yet agreed to confer on them that trust. So unless the change to the GFDL also says that future versions of the GFDL may be updated by the folks from Creative Commons, the licenses are not strictly compatible and may not be interchanged in that way. Personally, I have no problem with relicensing my work under GFDL - but there is no chance on earth you'd get written agreement from every single contributor. IMHO, we should encourage GNU to undertake to maintain CC compatibility off into the future - but we can't simply add CC licensing to Wikipedias' current contents. SteveBaker 15:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It will be necessary to see exactly what the updated GFDL says. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Any Orkut users?

I am wondering if there is any Misplaced Pages users of Orkut who can help. The article Ezhava seems to have been listed on some Orkut forum with the forum moderator there directing people to edit the article here to a particular unsourced version. See the WP:AN discussion, and I've requested a link from both User:Vvmundakkal and User:125.99.225.216. I don't know if that's enough but if someone could explain to them that making up sources (saying things came from books when they didn't), reinserting the same POV text repeatedly, and recreating deleting articles are generally not helpful here? There is a discussion somewhat at Talk:Ezhava but it requires them to actually discuss the article, not simply insult everyone and leave to edit war again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has sort of been dealt with but we have some fun coming along. Discussion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I request an article be constructed?

I have seen the name of a producing group called "Chris and Drop" numerous times within Misplaced Pages pages of musicians, but i cannot find more inforamtion about them. They were cited on the page of Dutch Singer Ninthe, Amerie, Lupe Fiasco, Nikki Jean, Cassidy. How would one go about requesting that an article be written about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lelaninavarro (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You could try Misplaced Pages:Requested articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007

Voting for the 2007 Arbitration Committee Elections has officially begun. Visit the Voting page for more information. Thank you. - Mtmelendez 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Overly high standards for new articles?

It seems apparent from anecdotal evidence that new articles are being scrutinized more closely than before, and have greater likelihood of being speedied than in the past (especially on CSD 1 or 7 grounds). As a result, stubs with potential for expansion are squashed before they get the chance. Could this explain the slowdown in Misplaced Pages's growth, particularly in terms of number of new articles, which has shifted from an exponential pattern to a linear one? Sarsaparilla 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you quantify the claim that new articles are being speedied more frequently than in the past? Corvus cornix_talk 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how. It just seemed so from a comparison of my own experience today vs. 3 years ago. Back then, speedy was pretty much only used for blatant nonsense, prod didn't exist, and AfD was used in most cases when deletion was desired; and there wasn't a lot of policing of stubs/substubs for context/assertion of notability; I think I remember only one case back then when it happened to me, versus like a dozen or two in the past few months. Sarsaparilla 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're more aware of what's going on around wikipedia now than then, as compared to just the articles you were interested in; hence the perception? But I wouldn't be surprised at more speedy-deleting now than three years ago; even then, there was still a strong desire to help wikipedia grow. Now, I don't think people care much if we're 1.5 million or 1.7 million articles or whatever - so they're more likely to deletion-ist on us. That's just a guess, however. - DavidWBrooks 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Jimbo said something awhile ago to the effect of, For the sake of encouraging contributors, we should let someone post an article about their non-notable high school even though we would look at it differently if they set up a bot to post 10,000 articles about non-notable high schools. Now, I think that we are much more likely to apply the rules uniformly, and I think it's beneficial to do so. However, my concern is with the tendency to require an article to meet an overly high standard just in order to avoid deletion. Which is better, to have no article, or to have a somewhat ugly sub-stub hanging around for awhile, that will later become a beautiful swan? Sarsaparilla 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are looking for an example. Try this Westerwald Pottery. Surfing through requested articles I saw a request. A fairly simple topic to write a stub- I have a house full of the stuff. At 14:21 I posted a stub with links back to German Misplaced Pages- where there is a article on the ceramic museum that is the world centre, and links to the english wikipedia on the geographic area. My tea break over I went back to some heavy duty work. At 14:36 in comes someone who tags it as lacking sources. A bot kicks in at 16:24. I noticed this when I posted a image 19 days later. But if it had been 19 mins it would have been too long for some folk. There are several issues here, if my source less stub had been causing the other guy such distress for a whole 900 seconds, perhaps he could have followed some of the links and extracted the source from de:wiki- or even used a search engine using the keywords I had identified to find a source and add it. The articles notability is proven by the fact it was requested. ClemRutter 10:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not just for new articles.A policy rethink is really needed -and soon, as I think this is likely to get worse. From what I have seen over the last year or so, most of the |deletionists only joined WP after the bulk of the main articles had been written; so have no experience of the work that goes into researching and preparation, creating and expanding a new articles. Instead, their modus operandi is getting other editors to 'jump' by threatening and removing text that doesn't meet their standards of 'perfection' without doing any taxing work themselves. To make matters worse ( and other friends have mentioned this to me in regard to areas of WP that I don't frequent) they almost always have a very poor (and sometimes a 'popularist' but often badly inaccurate) understanding of the subject. This, as must be becoming apparent to long time contributors means that valuable editing time is in fact now being squandered by lengthy debates on the talk pages, many which are now grown to be as long, or longer, than many of the articles themselves.

Also, whilst it is often helpful to have a complete novice to the subject, look over an article for the reason that a fresh pair of eyes can often spot oversights, etc., but their appears to be a growing problem that the new editors, more and more, lack the critical thinking skills to enable them to understand the answers to their comments on talk pages and leads other editors to near utter despair as they try and seek a resolution to a barrage of badly constructed augments put forward to try and prove a point (PhD's can also have some funny ideas about subjects outside their immediate field but at least they can quickly and productively follow a logical explanation that clarifies a matter). As knowledgeable editors tends to lead busy productive lives they can ill afford to constantly watch over and defend every article they are helping to expand, where as the poorer editors appear to have nothing else in their lives and so can wreak havoc on articles by placing irrevocable time limits for citations, deletions, etc., and can maintain this interference 24/7.
Moreover, there are some editors (that appear to be mainly students) that take a stance, as if to say: “I am not going away until you spoon feed me on every single aspect of this article I don't understand otherwise I am going to change it to read in a way that 'feels' right to me and my preconception”. Is there any subtle way to point out that: if they clearly don't understand the the subject of the article they are trying to edit then they should not be editing it at all (!!!) -regardless of the anyone can edit policy.

We need to get back to adding and polishing the content rather than have most of our time wasted on the talk pages by people who actions help achieve overall a negative contribution to WP.

As more knowledgeable editors give up and leave (read any of the 'why I left Misplaced Pages' essays) these problems are bound to keep growing and growing. --Aspro 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Aspro. This - Arthur Douglas Merriman - was speedied when it was a little stub, fortunately we were able to resuscitate it and help it grow into a big strong article. How many others were strangled at birth? DuncanHill 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup – and I've used this example before, but legality of the Vietnam War was originally speedied under WP:CSD #1 or #7 (can't remember which, and can't find out because it's been deleted!) I think we badly need to better define "context" and/or remove CSD #1 and #7 as speedy deletion criteria and require those articles to go to AfD, as we used to do. Sarsaparilla 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here it is: User_talk:Stayman_Apple#Legality_of_the_Vietnam_War Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/10/11/dlwiki11.xml

Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages, created a stub entitled Mzoli's Meats.

It was deleted in 22 minutes in a unilateral action by Chad Horohoe, a 19-year-old Misplaced Pages administrator who goes by the name ^demon.

The two weeks of furious debate that followed was summarised by user Kelly Martin, who said: "The Misplaced Pages that Jimbo originally created takes short stubs like the one he created and turns them into articles; stubs should only be deleted when there is no reasonable hope that they will ever cease to be stubs. Unfortunately, in the past few years Misplaced Pages has changed; it now takes short stubs and throws them in the trash can, and excoriates those who have the temerity to create them. This stub is being saved only because it was created by Jimbo."

Mzoli's Meats now has an extensive entry and is unlikely to be deleted.--Aspro 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I love that article. It sums up my experience pretty well. So, shall we add a sentence to the CSD policy stating, "Stubs should only be deleted when there is no reasonable hope that they will ever cease to be stubs"? Are there any other ideas for reforming this process? Sarsaparilla 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the sound of that - I think also (and I am not sure how this could be achieved) that some admins might benefit from an introduction to the {{expand}} tag.DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One also gets the situation where an admin speedies an article without tagging it first, or having the common courtesy of explaining what they are doing to the original good-faith creator of the article. Not healthy, in my opinion. DuncanHill 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been a Misplaced Pages editor since 2003. In my experience, there has never been a time when people were not asserting that too many articles were being speedied, that standards were too high, that deletionism was rampant, and that new contributors were being discouraged.

As nearly as I can tell, policy on deletion has, in fact, tightened. For example, CSD 1 is much narrower than it once was, and "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" is no longer a valid reason for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a type of editor or admin who only patrols new pages, rather than write any themselves, has developed. They seem to measure their effectiveness in the number of new pages they can nuke from orbit and although they get rid of a lot of nonsense their occasionally overzealous efforts must be VERY offputting to new users especially.

I've had articles on people who won the George Cross deleted (Arthur Douglas Merriman mentioned above) for not asserting notability - and I wasn't informed of their deletion either. Messages from tag happy editors telling me that Royal Navy ships, first class cricketers or novels by major writers are not notable can get tiresome after a while. Misplaced Pages policy clearly states that articles often start in bad shape. What editors who don't write don't understand is that articles are often built and saved bit by bit over the course of a few days, often by people who are also busy doing other things. Cutting and pasting tags for categories, references etc can't all be done in one go. Jumping on such articles straight away is highly 'uncivil' yet it's the irritated comments of the contributing editor who has to explain, for instance, what the George Cross is when a link already exists in the piece, which then get demonised.

To take another example The Cornelius Quartet was put up for AfD half an hour after the first word was written, leading only to a virtually unanimous keep at AfD but wasting time which could have been better spent on improving such articles. Two editors asked me on my talk page to stop creating 'stub articles'. These were on books written by Michael Moorcock, a major British fantasy writer. They were referenced, wikified and categorised but because these editors thought them 'stubs' they said they should be deleted and that I shouldn't write any more. The WHOLE POINT about Misplaced Pages is that articles evolve and improve gradually with the input of lots of people, the increasing idea that articles should leap into life fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus is not only impractical but it goes against the whole ethos of the project and the one thing - collaboration between strangers over time - which has made it a success. How many new editors have been warned in this way and taken that 'welcome' as their ticket out of here?

As the excellent Aspro pointed out above, a lot of featured articles started off as two line stubs and blossomed to their current status over several years with hundreds or thousands of edits, I fear that process is being nipped in the bud now. There are some who, because they don't write or contribute to articles themselves, seem entirely ignorant of how Misplaced Pages works. They can trot out the alphabet soup of policies, even if they don't understand why they're there, but have no feel for how things grow in practise. If every article which didn't immediately meet every standard was binned at birth, Misplaced Pages would now have precisely no articles at all. It's like pulling up every sprouting acorn they stumble upon in the forest because it hasn't reached the 1 metre Misplaced Pages standard for tree.

Obviously a lot of rubbish gets added every day which has to be culled, but self proclaimed 'new page patrollers' really should be encouraged strongly to TALK to an editor who's started an article which doesn't seem to them very good. Instead of slapping automated tags on everything, they should take a few minutes to leave a friendly note or even, gasp, try to improve it themselves with a quick google. This is much more likely to get a decent reaction and lead to the improvements in articles we all wish to see. Brusque automated messages left by patrollers working on auto pilot themselves indiscriminately machine gunning down everything they haven't heard of themselves doesn't help. The slow down in Misplaced Pages's growth is a real issue. There are still a lot of articles on more obscure topics to be written, but if anything beyond what might be learned in an American grade school gets beheaded at birth, they aren't going to get written, especially by intimidated new contributors.

If I could change one thing I'd make it an unofficial rule that every new editor has to create three pages, to the satisfaction of other editors, before they're allowed to tag things for deletion or sources or anything else. That way they'd know what it took to build an article and be able to offer advice to new editors about what to do because they'd actually done it themselves. Sadly all too many of the people at Request for Adminship for example lack even this experience. It's a sad rule of thumb that the people who tag the most articles are those who know LEAST about the subjects involved. The level of ignorance of some of the enthusiasts is quite frightening sometimes. If some of the patrollers spent a bit of time reading wikipedia in an effort to actually learn something new, they'd be better off as well as the project. Nick mallory (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point everyone to my short essay Misplaced Pages:Give an article a chance, which is very relevant to this discussion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Another example is The Felice Brothers, which was nominated for speedy deletion twice, then prodded, then the prodder decided to take the article to AfD. A newbie editor has since expanded the article, and it will probably survive the AfD. The nominations occurred even though an article about the band in The Guardian is the very first Google News hit. There is far more chance of a stub being improved than a sourced and well-formatted article being created in one edit. And even when I end up rewriting an article from scratch, the original not-so-great article helps me by providing a base to work from and search terms for research. Bláthnaid 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is this discussion going? Is anyone reading this? Wikipolicy and procedures defeat me- so how does one make this known to the great and the good- or have they been deleted because they lack notable source?ClemRutter (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumably this discussion will eventually get refactored to someplace like Misplaced Pages talk:Give an article a chance. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

in the past we have had suggestions that there be a pause in Speedy deletions for everything that was not clearly nonsense, copyvio or BLP. . they have typically foundered on the difficulty of distinguishing what is in fact nonsense, which would lead to the same argument as now. I suggest the following practical suggestions.

1. continue re-examining the criteria for speedy to see if they can be worded more precisely. It may not sound like this would help those who ignore them anyway, but it will, for it will provide a clearer ground for convincing them of their error.

2. Monitoring CSD., Anyone can remove a speedy--it does not have to be an admin. (anyone but the author of the article). Once it has been removed, it cannot be replaced.

3. questioning all deletions that appear clearly invalid. The first step is to ask the deleting admin for a copy of the article. If he will not supply one, all admins will who list themselves in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. If you think it really unjustified, ask the deleting admin to restore, and if not, take it to deletion review. Every single time where you think there really is a good case--don't bring ones that are technically invalid speedies but hopeless otherwise.

4. Those of us who are admins can of course directly monitor deleted articles. I gave my desire to do so as one of the reasons fro wanting adminship, and it was almost unanimously accepted. Of course, I also had to demonstrate that i did know what ought to be deleted and was willing to delete them--and I do--I delete about one dozen articles a day personally.

5. A speedy-deleted article can be recreated if in good faith even without deletion review. Just make clear in the edit summary and the talk page that it is an improved article and meets the objections raised. And make sure it really does meet them.

6. Use the tag {{underconstruction}}. It gives a week if used in good faith.

7. when patrolling articles, use WP:PROD whenever possible, and notify the author. This gives a decent chance of improvement. If it can not be improved in the 5 days, it leads to rapid deletion, as is generally appropriate.

8. show you know the difference between good and bad by helping spot the great amount of absolutely impossible articles that still exist in wikipedia.

9. (and most important) -- when you come across an article you can help, help it. DGG (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some good suggestions by DGG, but in relation to (2) - removing a speedy and providing a valid reason for removal does not seem to stop some admins from going ahead and deleting anyway. Some admins also speedy articles without tagging them first, or having the ordinary decency to inform the original good-faith contributor of what has been done or their reasons for doing it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In case they remove it anyway, proceed to step 3.

Admins who speedy immediately should be watched more carefully. Remember that for things like attack pages it's a necessary thing to have available. But I have supported and would support changing the rules so it would be an exception. We have about 1,400 active admins. there is never a problem getting someone else to look at an article. DGG (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1400 activeadmins, and 58 who say they will provide copies of deleted articles! Great ratio! DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

deathnote "fonts"

what kind of font is used in the "L", "M", and "N" in the Death Note manga? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDragon295 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Secret mailing lists

Secret mailing list rocks Misplaced Pages The Guardian has published an article about the recent Durova mess, it's an interesting outside perspective on internal drama. --arkalochori 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite The Guardian: The Register, an online news publishing. The website is pretty consistent in the nature of its criticism of Misplaced Pages. Which, if useful for nothing else, must get them a nice number of page views. It's food for thought, and as such, tastes better with a grain of salt. Gracenotes § 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, I'd copied a citation template and had gotten confused. Thanks for pointing that out. --arkalochori 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd comment, but I'm too scared I'll end up The List and be banhammered next time I mess up a vandalism revert or accidentally use strong language. Slashdot hat picked up the story too. There is no Cabal. Yeah, right. CharonX/talk 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If that were to actually happen, you can always drop me a line :-) Go ahead ans say what you want to say. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Or otherwise, send it per e-mail

Wow, what a stretch. - Rjd0060 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

After talking with Durova, Slimvirgin, and also briefly with Jimbo Wales:

• Durova was acting on her own and made a mistake, and compounded it by defending it in the wrong way (by referring to evidence off-wiki). Most admins do this once, early on, and learn the lesson. Poor Durova learnt it more spectacularly than most.
• The list in question is not secret, it's a support-list for people who are being stalked. There wasn't much discussion about the matter on that particular list in the first place. This is not a secret list for admins at all, though there are some admins and other folks who apparently want to help in wikistalking practice. The list is not run by wikipedia or the foundation, it is an independant list of a couple of editors, hence it is not run on foundation servers.
• Since either way, investigations were not what that list was for, a new list had recently been created for folks cooperating on sockpuppet investigations. The investigations list is very new, and hasn't seen much activity yet. If this had happened a little later, perhaps Durova would have referred to that list instead. As it stands, this new list actually has nothing to do with anything. Even so, it's a good idea to mention it here because some people have referred to a "2nd list", and this is the list that is meant.
• To atone, Durova has requested to be de-adminned. This has been granted.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I know this will make me unpopular (and possibly the subject of retaliation), but I have to comment. I will be brief:

• Durova, SlimVirgin and Jimbo are all interested parties, each for different reasons. I cannot accept their judgement as unbiased or definitive.
• Durova now claims she acted on her own, but she said the opposite before. This has never been resolved.
• There's really no evidence Durova has learned anything. She might have, but it's not obvious. I could point to reasons to question this, but that would make me a bad person, I guess.
• The lists were effectively secret, in that no one talked about them and one couldn't know they existed unless invited to participate. Just because people didn't call them secret doesn't mean they weren't.
• Durova only requested deadminning as the least distasteful recourse, after it had been made clear to her that she was out of better options. Add to this the mantra that "the tools" are no big deal, and it's unclear how much weight this atonement should be afforded.

I'm sure that she does feel bad, but I don't see how that's actually relevant to the issues at hand.

Comments and criticism are welcome, at least by me! No offense to Kim, I appreciate his/her efforts. Thanks, sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, whose word exactly would you accept? If you have already decided anyone who is in a position to give you an informed answer is untrustworthy, then there is absolutely nothing anyone can tell you that will change your mind. Is there is little point in discussing it further? Rockpocket 07:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an ugly misinterpretation of what I actually said. If you don't see how a reasonable person (or even me) could question the impartial value of basing a narrative on the accounts of three people, all of whom are on the "same side" and share vested interests in a similar outcome, then yes, there's little point in further discussion. Are you really unable to see my point? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 08:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked a question: whose account - among those who are in a position to provide information about what happened on that list - would you believe? If you could come up with someone perhaps that person would provide you with the information that would put your mind at rest. Rockpocket 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked a question too, and you answered with another one, but actually I think you did answer, since we're continuing to have a conversation. So now I will answer you, but it's hard because the question is wrong. There's no ONE person whose word I would accept, that's not how I roll. If we're going to just summarize a few interviews, then I supposed I'd like to see fair representation, so perhaps also ask Giano, or Cla68, or poor cuestix. At least give us more than one "side". But what I'd really like is to be able to answer questions and question answers, calmly and in one place. Not ten. Not some fragmented chain of sound and fury, scattered among the archives, RfCs, RfArbs, talk pages, etc (please see my helpful but rudimentary list, compiled per request). I already know what I saw, or think I saw, and I want to know what I didn't see, and I shouldn't be asked to take any one person's word for it. AGF is a noble (a priori) presumption, but it's no substitute for an open accounting.

To the second part of your question: the people who might ease my mind include Durova, the "roughly five" and other recipients of the "evidence" (if they exist), and Jimbo himself. Now, how optimistic are you that their concern for my mental well-being will compel them to step forward and provide the information which has so far eluded us? By all means, if you think you can be of some service, I'll be in your debt!!! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 09:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. I was in receipt of that evidence and I can confirm that what Kim Bruning comments are correct (at least in regards to the involvement of the list, I can't comment on Durova's motivation). Does that make me an interested party too, and therefore unreliable? I do have experience with harassment, true, but I have zero interest in "sleuthing" or WR or launching investigations to find "ripened socks"; a review of my editing history will demonstrate that. As for asking "Giano, or Cla68, or poor cuestix", as far as I am aware those three have had no access to the list (the single email Giano leaked is from a difference source), therefore asking them them about it is entirely uninformative. There are no "sides", there are simply individuals that are in a position to know, and individuals that are not. If you wish to get an accurate answer, you should ask those that have access to the information, not those that don't. If you do that, but then dismiss their answers as unreliable, then there is little anyone can do to better inform you. If you wish to know more, feel free to ask, but in all likelihood you are going to get the same answers as you have from Jimbo and SlimVirgin, not because there is some grand conspiracy, but because that is what happened. Rockpocket 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I only mentioned the lists once, to Kim B, and only asserted that they were effectively secret. I still do. You've ignored everything else I've said to focus on that one small side point. You also seem to take this quite personally, and believe it's somehow about you. Please be assured, I consider you almost completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. You keep insisting that I'm unreasonable and can't be helped, which given how much time I've invested in trying to honestly engage with you, is a little insulting. Didn't I make it sufficiently clear that I'm not happy to take ANY one person's word? How many people do you think you are? Do you believe that italics will somehow be more convincing to someone of my limited comprehension?

Perhaps someone with more patience for my intellectual deficits can assist me to understand. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm perfectly aware its not about me, after all I'm not the one whose entire history edit has been to prolong the drama around this incident. Your edit contributions appear to tell a rather different story. I have no idea if you are reasonable or not, but it is unreasonable to expect someone that has no access to information be that one that provide a "fair representation". Draw you own conclusion from that. There is one of me, which means i'm not in a position to offer you anything other than my own word. However if you don't wish to accept my offer of information about the list then that is just fine, i'll leave you to your conspiracy theorizing. Good day. Rockpocket 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My user page begins with the sentence: "I was never much of a wikipedian...", but perhaps you overlooked that on the way to my contributions, thank you for pointing them out anyway. I can't quite say I get the connection, but I'm sure that's my fault. I am happy to accept any relevant information you may possess, please feel free to post it here with my thanks. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead horse is dead, and it's apparently a slow news day at The Register. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? Please, prove us wrong by releasing whatever archived mails from this gestapo list you have. A campaign is underway for this to happen, it would be good to see some transparency by this being an official act and not something done by a Freedom Ninja. Sukiari (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Making references to the Gestapo is extremely poor taste, and I ask that you refrain from doing so in the future. Please express your concerns and displeasure in a civil manner without using real-life emotive metaphors. Daniel 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can campaign until the cows come home, if there is not any archives of the list (and there ain't) then its not going to do much good except create more drama. Rockpocket 07:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can ask me to refrain from whatever you want, but I am not going to comply. Perhaps you don't realize how damaging this incident is to the reputation of all Administrators involved with secret activities that may not be in the best interest of the Misplaced Pages, and this kind of crap certainly flout the policy of openness that is claimed around here. So, ask away but don't expect me to change my verbeage until there is a change in openness on the part of the secret rulers around here. ♥, Sukiari (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to refrain, I was but pointing out the utter pointlessness of campaigning for something that does not exist. Rockpocket 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that archives do exist, and suspect they are damaging to some or perhaps most of the participants. Additionally, I was responding to Daniel's 'request' that I refrain from strong language. An interesting point is raised by Snikrsnee, though. We are assured that this is "no big deal" by people who may well be interested parties, but have been offered no proof. The ONLY 'proof' is the archive of this mailing list, which should be released in its entirety, with names and emails perhaps scrubbed but leaving Misplaced Pages handles in. Otherwise the proof is no proof at all, but a mere claim and one coming from folks who are not well trusted at this time. As I said, I believe that there is much more going on here than we are being told. I doubt this secret gang of Lords will give up their games easily, though. One can always start afresh and be invited into a new secret list, Adminified, and just resume the fun, no?

So, to those who think this is no big deal, and assume that no damage has been done here, you are wrong. Please stop the dismissive hand waving and look at the shockwaves that have rippled across the intertubes. Openness is the only solution I see.Sukiari (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the list is not archived, and thus you cannot be "sure that archives do exist". They do not. So my advice to you is to stop wasting your time campaigning for them to be released publicly. You are asking for the impossible. Rockpocket 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this mailing list isn't even controlled by the Misplaced Pages community, so even if it were to exist, this is the wrong place to ask for such copies. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove you wrong that a dead horse is not dead? What? And as far as I understand, there's nothing "official" about the mailing list, no more so than one any other small group of Wikipedians could set up, on their own, to discuss whatever they want to discuss. With a massive userbase, it's not unreasonable for people to use plain old e-mail to discuss some things, as well as other means of communication.

People are also missing the point in all of this. The existence of a small, private list was never the issue, rather it was about taking action based on things that were not discussed in the open. Because of all of this, the community is a little wiser, and the next time someone wants to take action, they will have to be more open about it. There's no reason to tar and feather anyone. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that this is a big deal. And it is unreasonable to coordinate certain activities in secret, when the point of this whole thing is openness and transparency. Yeah, you called the horse dead. I am not sure it is. The list is hosted by Wikia, and people do download mail via POP3, and certainly the mail isn't deleted every 24 hours whether or not people have read theirs. I'm afraid that what we have here is akin to a cop saying "Move along, nothing to see here" in front of a big flaming crater with a UFO in it. There is no cabal, and there are no UFOs, and this is really no big deal, right? WRONG! As I said above, the dismissive hand waving isn't fooling anybody here. Sukiari (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So what you are really demanding, is not the (non-existent) archive of the list, but that someone provide you access to their email inbox so you can publish its contents. Good luck with that. To lead the way, why don't you - and everyone who supports your "campaign" - publish every email you have ever received from another Wikipedian. Then we can talk. Rockpocket 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but private mailing lists have been used on Misplaced Pages ever since the very start. There's one for admins, there's even one for the arbcom, and those are official mailing lists to boot. Have you ever heard of Misplaced Pages:OTRS? There is a whole group of editors that help deal with private messages concerning copyrights, complaints, and much more. Sometimes content will be blanked from Misplaced Pages because of an OTRS issue, and the "public" never gets to know what that issue is. This isn't a bad thing, and it's rather necessary. Many of these complaints deal with personal information, legal issues, even death threats.

Misplaced Pages also has a several anti-vandalism resources that are all hosted off-wiki. We have anti-vandal bots where only a select few are allowed to see their programming code.

Private discussions have always been an essential part to running Misplaced Pages, and again, that is not the problem. The problem in the !! situation was that a block was made, an action was taken, based on information that could not be reviewed. Some functions of Misplaced Pages have, are, and will be discussed in private, but blocks of this nature should not be. Believe me, we know that, and even those who stick up for Durova will tell you that we thought the block was bad. We can't control how people will communicate with each other, but we can have a say on what things are actionable based on private evidence.

And rather than this being a cop at a UFO crash saying "move along, nothing to see", this is more like us telling you that you're way late to the party, and people have already started going home. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Who was it that started this thread claiming that the article in The Register was from The Guardian? Well, there is now a (Seth Finkelstein) Guardian article to go with the Register one. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• At least the Guardian was a little bit more balanced about it. -- Ned Scott 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seth Finkelstein was the only reporter who contacted me. The others neither checked the facts with me before running the story nor responded to my query afterward. I didn't attempt to contact the Register editors because that publication has a long history of negative articles about Misplaced Pages. I am very sorry for the ruckus and have no other comment to make at this time. Durova 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information there. My view is that Misplaced Pages, as a community, needs to be more aware that when it goes into one of these tailspins and dramafests, that it is likely to lead to coverage like this. In that sense the community's bears some responsibility for the media attention because of the level of "heat" with which the community responded to this. If there had been a calm independent inquiry, followed by a report, and most of the community had restrained themselves, there would have been less of a ruckus. But trying to control or calm the Misplaced Pages community is like, well, like trying to stem the flood through the dyke, or to use the more common analogy, like trying to put out a forest fire. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, just because Finkelstein writes a column for The Guardian, it doesn't make him a fair and unbiased assessor of Misplaced Pages. Seth is has a history of conflict with representatives of the Foundation ... (I don't think that link violates proposed policy, however is difficult to keep track sometimes. If you think it does, please feel free to remove it.) Rockpocket 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of that history can, I think, be found by digging behind the red-link Seth Finkelstein. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lady and gentlemen, there was a time for the community to protect !!, he is a great contributor and got an absolutely undeserved blow by a stupid block, there was a time to protect Giano, he is a great contributor and was threaten with undeserved sanctions for his whistleblowing. I believe it is now time for the community to protect Durova. She also is a great contributor as an editor, mediator and former admin. I do not know if she has learned her lesson (I would if I were in here shoes) but whatever her misunderstandings of WP:SOCK are they are not dangerous since she retired from her admin buttons. I think it is time to stop kicking her while she is down and protect her against unfair criticism in the media (or maybe do something useful like e.g. writing encyclopedia). IMHO she deserves some community protection for all her work she put in this project.

Regarding the "secret mailing lists" there was and is all sorts of closed and semi-closed communication between 5 millions of registered members. The difference with this list that it was hosted on wikia and so is somehow semi-affilated with the foundation. I am not a member of the list (and in fact is surprised that nobody invited me there). Still I can reasonably guess that was there and do not think it was sinister enough to warrant investigation. Anyway the list is obviously have private info on their recipients who are exactly the same people who are targets of stalkers and are very conscious about their privacy. Thus, obviously only people with checkuser access can have an access to the uncensored version of the list. I do not think it is unreasonable to request somebody with a checkuser access who the whistleblowers trust to review the maillist content of the mail lists. It is the only real thing I could think of Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

About protecting Durova, I couldn't agree more. That is why the discussion is taking place here, and not on Durova's talk page or the RfC, and that is why the discussion here should be primarily about the media coverage and corrections of inaccuracies in that coverage, rather than about Durova. The point here is that the media coverage led to people visiting Durova's talk page and seeing people reverting the addition of questions. Naturally, they were worried about cover-ups, and links were provided here to allow those following up the media stories to have a place to discuss things and ask questions, in an open manner, as befits Misplaced Pages. When the media interest dies down, this discussion should die a natural death and will then only be available from the page history. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova has been consistently one of the most powerful fighters against true cases of major spam and sockpuppetry. Her activity in convincing businesses and even SEOs to contribute usefully has been a major advance in the improvement of Misplaced Pages in a positive sense. We have everything to gain in encouraging her to continue her activity. Considering the amount she has done correctly, she has been remarkably accurate at it, and has always been willing to rapidly reverse herself the extremely rare times she has been in error (including this one). We must now learn from her work how to do it right ourselves--there is great need of it. DGG (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Helpful Links

(per request, am providing links to appropriate references. Please feel free to reposition or reformat for maximum clarity).

• Original AN/I Incident report and reactions

(please note that top-posted "Comment from Jimbo" is out of chronological order, which begins under "Indefinite block of an established user")

• Durova's Request for Comment

(please also see accompanying "talk page", on the "Discussion" tab)

• Durova's Request for Arbitration

(please also see subpages named "/Evidence", "/Workshop", and "/Proposed decision", along with associated talk pages)

• Durova's ArbCom Candidate's Q&A

(several questions and answers are directly related to this issue)

-- sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Q&A

Since there is a consensus that questions about this issue should NOT be directed to Durova's talk page, there needs to be a proper place for them. Some people seem to think this is the right place (and who am I to disagree?); but it's not properly structured. I'm adding this heading to provide a clear place for people to ask their questions under.—Random832 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Announcement of forthcoming book -- feedback wanted

I just sent this to the mailing lists as well:

I'm pleased to announce that four Wikipedians -- myself, Charles Matthews, Ben Yates and SJ Klein -- are writing a book about using and understanding Misplaced Pages, tentatively titled "How Misplaced Pages Works". It will be published by No Starch Press in early 2008.

This guide will be focused on helping readers understand Misplaced Pages and helping new editors contribute. We hope to include enough detail to make it a useful reference for current contributors as well. (Note that this is a different project from the O'Reilly book that was discussed earlier on the lists).

We welcome community feedback and ideas, and hope to make this a truly community-based work. There is a project page here. We'll add detail there over the coming weeks, and have asked for feedback in some specific areas. Please do contribute and send us your thoughts and ideas.

Some details:

• The book will be licensed under the GFDL and an online version will be available. (No Starch has been a great partner in this and has been very supportive of open licensing). Where the book reprints on-wiki documentation, the authors of that documentation will be credited.
• We're primarily focusing on the English Misplaced Pages, but there will be brief sections about the sister projects and Wikipedias in other languages, so we definitely welcome feedback and ideas from those communities as well.
• A portion of the authors' proceeds will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation.

If you have any questions, concerns or ideas, please let me or one of the other authors know. I'll be updating the project page with progress information as we get closer to publication. Best, -- phoebe/(talk) 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Namespace 0 pages deleted per month

Hi. Some statistics of namespace 0 deleted pages from last logging-dump available. Come on deletionists! You have to delete ~50,000 pages this month ;) --Emijrp 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2004	3097
January 2005	11446
February 2005	11459
March 2005	15603
April 2005	16406
May 2005	18712
June 2005	18387
July 2005	21952
August 2005	25607
September 2005	24700
October 2005	33984
November 2005	33615
December 2005	27460
January 2006	25706
February 2006	24693
March 2006	30824
April 2006	33467
May 2006	43050
June 2006	37393
July 2006	35812
August 2006	41188
September 2006	44055
October 2006	56181
November 2006	57680
December 2006	54718
January 2007	59734
February 2007	59603
March 2007	59376
April 2007	60147
May 2007	58817
June 2007	48186
July 2007	43802
August 2007	44194
September 2007	44063

WP:CIVIL. Please correlate numbers of pages deleted with numbers of pages created per month. Corvus cornix_talk 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't. But that about deletionists was a joke. Don't Panic! --Emijrp (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added an image from User:Dragons flight/Log analysis; that page also includes graph based on a sampling (NOT a log) of when new articles were created, based on articles still in existence as of a date in September 2007. So that graph has net figures for new articles, not gross figures (that is, it counts survivors, not births).

Also, for what it's worth, namespace 0 deletions include deletions of redirects, which might have started life out as an article, or might not have. And some articles are killed off via a redirect, which doesn't show in transactional statistics. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked anonymous per country

Hi. I have analyzed logging-dump for blocks to anonymous users, and these are the results (complete list).

First ones:
United States 	145482
United Kingdom 	26182
Canada 	16677
Australia 	14702
Germany 	5487
Korea, Republic of 	4150
New Zealand 	2741
China 	2535
Brazil 	2504
India 	2417

• 256,245 blocks to anonymous users from December 2004 to October 2007.
• 256,146 blocks have been located, 99 unknown procedence.

Congratulations to United States X) --Emijrp (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

United States is the most blocked because it does the most of anonymous edits. I'm thinking to check how many anonymous edits do each country, and then divide per blocks. But some countries offer anonymous proxies and they are blocked very fast, so the results of edits/blocks canbe biased. --Emijrp (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you divide 500,000 blocks during a three year period into about 1,000 active admins, it looks like the average active admin has done about 500 blocks. Obviously, a few have done many thousands of blocks, and many have done almost no blocks, but that's still a large average. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 500,000 blocks are a lot of vandals. --Emijrp (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

New category

Anyone want to create Category:Manufacturers? The subcategories are ready-made, but for some reason nobody thought of it. It's a very tedious job unless someone can program a bot to do it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, why does it take a bot to add parent categories to a group of category pages? (And if it really is a job for a bot, why not post at the bot requests page?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Illustration project

--PaperclipedMime (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I apologize if I am spamming the Village Pump (*snicker* still can't get over that...), but I don't really know where else to ask. Does anyone know anything about the illustration project that Misplaced Pages is sponsoring that is going on right now? Artists can submit illustrations for specific articles that Wiki needs, and the staff will pick the best ones and post them, but I'm not really sure who to contact on that one or where I could even get more information on the project. Help please?

Project proposal; acceptance by the Board. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

--PaperclipedMime (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Thank you very much for your response. If I could ask two more questions, that would be great. First off (and I realize that this makes me sound like a noob) but is there a special program for SVGs, or is that just another type of file (I just found that part a bit confusing as I've never encountered the term before). Also, is there an available list of illustrations that need to be done? Again, thanks for the help.

Check out Scalable Vector Graphics, that might answer your questions about the .svg format. And see Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures. Corvus cornix_talk 19:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rethinking the term "policy"

The whole point of a wiki is lots of people coming together to figure out what the right thing to do is in a particular circumstance. "Policy", then, is not prescriptive but rather descriptive--descriptive of what generally happens in certain types of situations. This means that an argument for a particular action should be justified on its own merits; simply saying "because policy says we must/must not" is not a valid argument, since it rests on a complete reversal of the concept of policy on Misplaced Pages. Actions should not follow policy; rather, policy follows actions. The right thing to do in a particular situation, whatever it may be, is totally independent of policy. Simply citing policy--even if such a citation is indeed correct and relevant--is not enough; what policy says is irrelevant since its purpose is not to dictate our actions, but rather to describe them after the fact.

Many people fail to grasp this basic distinction, and instead go around insisting that policy on Misplaced Pages is the exact opposite of what it actually is. They justify actions because "policy says to do it" (I, too, have been guilty of this at times) rather than justifying their actions on their own merits. There is now an entire generation of editors who can recite "policy" forwards and backwards, but don't get what it actually means, or how it applies to actually doing things on Misplaced Pages--or any other wiki, for that matter. This bureaucratic wonkery needs to stop.

I believe that the single biggest culprit for this is, quite simply, the unfortunate choice of the word "policy" as an appellation for what are in fact nothing more than observations made after the fact. The word "policy" should be reserved for the few "policies" we have that are indeed imperative in nature: copyright policy, maybe BLP, and whatever else is necessary to keep the Foundation and individual editors out of legal trouble; documents that describe a general process used for going about a task (adminship/bureaucratship, article deletion/undeletion, blocking, etc.) should be referred to as, simply, "processes" (the process for accomplishing something being separate from the reasons why it is done). The vast majority of what we now call "policies", including deletion and undeletion policy, blocking policy, notability, most user conduct policy, etc. should be explicitly renamed to "Observations", and make it clear that that their purpose is not to tell editors what they must or must not do but rather let them know what they can likely expect others to do in certain situations.

It may be tempting for some to respond that this is what IAR is for. Don't fall into that trap. The basic assumption of IAR is still that policy as it currently stands is primarily prescriptive in nature; it merely serves to emphasize this basic misunderstanding. When it becomes clear that most of what is now termed "policy" is in fact not, IAR will become useless--because actions, orthodox or not, will be justified on their own merits. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They justify actions because "policy says to do it" (I, too, have been guilty of this at times) rather than justifying their actions on their own merits. Sorry, I've got better things to do with my time than rehashing the logical underpinings of and WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Saying "per policy" is a shorthand way of saying "that issue was decided a long time ago; the people who decided it were presumably right; read the policy; if you don't like it, then propose a change."

Sometimess people disagree on how to interpret a policy; then they can bring that to WP:RFC for discussion. But going back to the basics, and explaining the underpinnings of policies, each and every time, rather than just cite them. No thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The unfortunate choice of the word "policy" to describe these leads some people, including the above user, to believe that we must follow them. Nothing could be further than the truth. Despite the fact that they are called "policies", they are absolutely not prescriptive. All they are are descriptions of what people have done in the past, made after the fact, and they are absolutely not binding on future actions. There's no need to try and change "policy", because these non-"policies" are not a constraint on our actions. All that needs to be done is to decide what's right for the given situation. Prior actions are perhaps useful as an example, but at the end of the day a solution tailored to the situation is what's called for. Thus, the vast majority of what we call "policy" should be called something else instead, to prevent just these kinds of misunderstandings as John Broughton has unfortunately fallen victim to. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's dig a little deeper. Underneath the edit that started this section, I see an assumption: that actions of editors must be "justified." It was written, in particular:

Actions should not follow policy; rather, policy follows actions. The right thing to do in a particular situation, whatever it may be, is totally independent of policy.

This is, of course, true, there is no fault in it. As far as it goes. But actions do not take place in a vacuum. They take place in an environment where there is precedent and shared understanding, and without this, a community cannot grow and develop intelligence, except for the raw, a-priori, and individual intelligence of its individual members. And then it was written:

When it becomes clear that most of what is now termed "policy" is in fact not, IAR will become useless--because actions, orthodox or not, will be justified on their own merits.

"Policy" is, in fact, a defense of an action as reasonable on its face. It is not a defense of the ultimate value of the action. There is a big difference. First of all, if there is no policy, then every action is easily subject to challenge, and, as a group grows in size, the challenges will multiply. We have elected, as a community (or those with decision power decided) to entrust certain powers to what are called in other organizations "trusted servants." These powers are essentially police powers, and, because of the familiarity with the situations, I will now describe admins as police. The police, in a healthy society, have no punitive power, they have only the power to "serve and protect," as is the motto of a local police department, and it is regrettable when they act otherwise. Nevertheless, if a police officer acts according to established policy, the action is defensible, unless the harm of it is blatant and irreversible, and any reasonable person would have recognized this. But there is more. Police officers are also given discretion. This is the public version of WP:IAR. Where action is required that is outside of policy, but is necessary or appropriate *for the public welfare," that action is lawful, and if the action is challenged, a showing that the officer reasonably believed this would be sufficient to protect the officer from disciplinary consequences. Again, for public servants, the *legal* standard is WP:AGF. Misplaced Pages is not as different from normal society as we sometimes think. Courts do, in fact, have a standard that, by common law, supercedes written law ("policy'), it is called "public policy," as a basis for decisions. When a court cites "public policy," it would be acknowledging that it is making a decision that is contrary to law or precedent, in the public interest based on the facts of the case. This, then, if sustained, becomes new policy through precedent.

We entrust administrators with a difficult task that can be expected to raise hackles. If an administrator does actual harm, absolutely, it should be challenged. If the action was contrary to policy, it's also appropriate to expect the action to be justified at least to the level of the intention involved. A controversial action should naturally be reviewed to see if policy is adequate. Policy, properly, is a living thing, not fixed to whatever current statements comprise it. But so too is, properly, the discretion of administrators. It is well-known that police must have discretion if they are to effectively protect the public. No set of policies can anticipate what an officer will face. There is, however, a question of the limits of discretion. We have come, in public society, to recognize a balance between discretion and policy, and, increasingly, for an officer to detain and arrest on a mere hunch has come to be considered contrary to policy; but this is controversial, for it conflicts with the protection of the public.

However, what if the action of the officer does no harm? Or the harm done is reversible?

We have a situation where ongoing harm is being done to Misplaced Pages by disruptive editors and sock puppets. To maintain the project in the face of determined and continual attack by such is becoming an increasing burden. I believe that there is a way to make this more efficient, but the tools to do it are not in place. Until then, we need, in fact, some set of users to be vigilant against what are actually worse than vandals. Vandalism is easy to detect and not controversial. But a POV-pusher is another matter. Such people create edit wars, but, more seriously even, they harm newcomers. A sock puppet is often an experienced Misplaced Pages user, a wikilawyer, and skilled at presenting "policy" justifying abusive edits that can completely snow a newcomer. If there are no other experienced editors defending an article and the newcomer, many simply go away. It even happens when there *are* experienced users helping, for some newbies will disappear at the first deletion of the edit that took them a long time to put together, gone in a flash. Experts, who don't have time to go through complex wikipedia process, go away in disgust.

Misplaced Pages is bleeding from these thousand cuts a day. This is what we must balance against an allegedly overaggressive protection against sock puppetry. Further, the alleged harm to a newbie from being unjustly blocked is ameliorable. The very climate that requires administrators to "justify" their actions increases the need for admins to come up with strong reasons, which then can be offensive, and, indeed, drive a newcomer away. Blocking is not and should not be presented, ever, as a punitive action, and the message received by those with blocked IP or account should never accuse, and it should thoroughly explain how to appeal, all that, *and it should apologize for the inconvenience and encourage the user to help fix the situation.* There is no harm in apologizing to a miscreant, they can't bank it.

To me, Durova committed no offense at all. We need more like her, though I'm not sure we deserve it yet. She made an error. But if the police never make errors, they aren't trying hard enough to protect the public. The questions, properly, should have been, when her action was challenged, "Did she have reason to believe that her action was needed for protection of the project and its users?" "Is there any evidence that she used her police power to advance a personal agenda, i.e., to block users selectively because she disagrees with their POV or opinions." "Could her error have been made by a competent person?"

If, *starting with a presumption of WP:AGF*, the answer to all these questions is "Yes," then she should stand in no need of defense, and the only question would be whether or not policy was adequate to guide her.

The question of secret evidence is a huge red herring. Police action, ultimately as the situation deepens in complexity and the increasing sophistication of those who would abuse our freedoms, requires secrecy to be effective. The demands that the content of a private, off-wiki mailing list be provided are utterly unreasonable. The future of Misplaced Pages actually depends on the freedom of private speech, it will become increasingly important, and it's the only ultimate protection against increasing bureaucratic control. We cannot tell whether or not what is on that list is interesting, boring, represents an evil conspiracy, or was entirely benign and helpful. And, quite simply, it is not our business. Durova, when her action was challenged, apparently felt it necessary to note that she had not taken the action alone, but this, in fact, was irrelevant. She was responsible for her own action, and if it was worthy of de-sysopping, she'd be the one, not anyone whom she asked *privately* for advice or support. A *very* important part of freedom of speech is the protection of privacy. Without it, free speech, ultimately, becomes severely constrained. Private speech is *irrelevant* to Wikpedia policy.

Durova is to be *congratulated* for not carrying her burden alone, but nobody has seriously proposed that a private list of concerned people should be a mechanism in policy. Absolutely, it is not adequate for review of a block; however, the only immediate question with a block should be whether or not it should be maintained. Whether the administrator erred or not is *irrelevant* to that question. In my view, the *worst* problem here is that an administrator reviewed an unblock request and denied it. I've seen far more errors, far more serious in effect, from the denial of an unblock than from blocking. I'd suggest that, instead of leaping to conclusions based on some idea that an administrator should be supported by denying the unblock, administrators not respond to unblock requests unless they can unblock. It's pretty bad when an innocent user gets blocked, requests unblock, and gets a denial instead of the request starting some process where the evidence will be reviewed by more than one or two persons. If I were a newbie, and I were wrongly blocked, and I saw that my request started a process of review that was founded on AGF, I'd say that I'd probably be gratified, not offended. I'd see that the community was trying to protect everyone, including me.

The harm of a block, in itself, is small, except to true POV-pushers, who *must* protect that article they worked so hard to get the way they want. And even these should be able to recruit a meat puppet -- even legitimately -- if what they want to keep in or out is legitimately so. There is *far* more harm from sock puppets, who aren't polite to newbies, insult them, tear up their edits, and generally drive them away, quoting policy as the wikilawyers they often are -- and some newbies have no idea about Undo or even History, no idea what to do against a determined and unrestrained sock puppet, who fears no consequences. Socks are cheap. To learn the guidelines takes a long time, to navigate the process for reporting suspected sock puppets is forbidding and confusing, and it is really easy to get it wrong in some way, to then be chided by a less than helpful admin. Yes, Misplaced Pages has problems, but I believe they can be resolved. I have experience as a chair under Robert's Rules, for a large assembly with inexperienced members, and my duty as chair, as I understood it, was not to simply rule a member out of order, but also to explain to the member how the member could do what the member plainly wanted to do. "Protect and serve." --Abd (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Want to make article

I want to make a request to make a new article about Jimmy Napitupulu. I want to make it in Misplaced Pages, but I'm afraid that I thought that I made a vandal. Please help me. Thank you. Albert@Indonesia (My User Talk Page Shortcut here) —Preceding comment was added at 06:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do it! Be bold! I will proofread if you'd like.Sukiari (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

merge?

I wonder if Angioma and Hemangioma are the same thing and should be merged? Hovev (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Absent user

User:Phaedriel has been one of our most valued editors. But she's not edited since taking a wiki-break in September. Does anyone know if she's formally left the project or is just busy with real life? Mbisanz (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

She's probably taking a full-internet break after she was constantly targetted over the summer by a sockpuppeteer. Will 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards