Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-11-11

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-11-11. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Elections, redirections, and a resignation from the Committee (2,800 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-11-11

Discuss this story

• Neelix: It might be useful to say "topic banned by the community". I'm pleased the committee closed the case, it's a remarkable triumph of common sense. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC).
  
  • Done per your suggestion. And I agree on the committee's decision. Though if Neelix didn't resign his bit we would've seen this taking the usual course. I do wonder if we're going to see this happen again. GamerPro64 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• In fairness, a small small (fewer than 1%) of his redirects were reasonable band in a few cases even necessary ones. An effort was made to spot these so hey wouldn't be deleted along with the rest. It's always a question in situations of this sort whether the number is so great we should just delete everything without checking. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• If it had been a normal editor they would probably have been indeffed and banned--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like an example of the "Super Mario Problem". GamerPro64 17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Please stop referring to the "Super Mario Problem" all the time. Nobody knows what you are talking about. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That's the first time I've brought that phrase up. GamerPro64 20:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Glossary#Super_Mario_Problem Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • In videogames, The Super Mario Effect is as follows: When Mario gets a power up that turns him into Super Mario, a mistake that would normally kill him as ordinary Mario simply turns him from Super Mario to ordinary Mario, then he has to make another mistake to be killed. Likewise when an administrator does something that would get an ordinary editor indefinitely blocked, he is desysopped, turning him into an ordinary editor. Then he has to do something else wrong to be actually blocked. I believe that this applies to the case of Neelix, and that a regular mario editor would have been blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion report: Compromise of two administrator accounts prompts security review (1,960 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-11-11

Discuss this story

This would be a good time for editors, especially administrators, to change passwords and use a good one. Jonathunder (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• RfA reform, again: The long and convoluted RfC tells us nothing new. Started by well meaning relative necomers to the challenge of RfA reform, preferring not to take any cues or clues from the mighty work that was done at WP:RFA2011, they naīvely thought that reinventing the RfC wheel would prod some of those oft proposed reforms into action. Refreshing though to see it confirmed that 5 years ago we weren't wrong. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misreading your comment, but it appears you are applauding a failure to improve the Wiki. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I could not help but notice that the editor who started wp:RFA2015 was recently rewarded with a mop. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

• NOTHERE I said this on the talk page, but I'll put it here too: How is this not already *the* core principle of this place? People have been banned for it a decade ago. Why don't we ban everyone who disagrees with it? What's wrong with people who don't accept it? DreamGuy (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Why don't we ban everyone who disagrees with everyone? - üser:Altenmann >t 16:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Gallery: Paris (1,027 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-11-11

Discuss this story

That's so terrible, people are gathering, flowers to mourn the victims and they will build an Memorial site dedicated for lost ones on the terrible night of the Attacks --Angry Bald English Villian Man Chat 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower peace sign

Erm, the Eiffel Tower peace sign at the top was improperly licensed and has been nominated for deletion. Perhaps it shouldn't be featured on the page (or at least only featured under a fair-use justification)? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In the media: Sanger on Wikipedia; Silver on Vox; lawyers on monkeys (5,718 bytes · 💬)

Vox

• I can definitely see where Nate Silver is coming from about Vox. Back in April, Silver called out Vox, telling them to Stop stealing his charts. He also mentioned still being a fan of the website but I would not be surprised if he isn't anymore. GamerPro64 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanger

I don't know why people keep listening to Larry Sanger. I mean, look at Citizendium, a project he created to be Wikipedia as how he thought it should be run, then threw out Neutral Point of View, and encouraged equal time for climate change denial and science, evolution denial and science, and gave control of alternative medicine articles over to the practitioners of such dubious treatments. The man seems like a bitter crank who wants Wikipedia to fail, because he thinks he knows better (when he clearly does not). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps just a fleeting hype. Personally my ten-year editing experience in English WP is overwhelmingly positive, despite past blocks, topic bans and disagreements. Morons are everywhere, but as long as the majority works in a cooperative and supporting manner, the result is impressive and increasingly so. Brandmeister^talk 22:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether he knows the current wikipedia well enough to justify comments such as "Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule"? He may be an expert on our early days but is he up to speed with where we are now? For all its faults Arbcom exists and usually avoids mob rule, and the perennial attempts to augment it with mob rule for community deadminship never quite prevail. As for trolling, I didn't join until some time after his departure, but I rather think that trolling is one of those irregular English verbs that vary with one's perspective. Someone who empowered a homeopath with special status as Citizendium's lead expert on "the healing arts" might well regard many Wikipedians as trolls. If he is criticising something that he has not maintained his expertise on, he in turn might well be considered by some of us as making ill informed and negative comments. ϢereSpielChequers 13:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean that news outlets write articles about people without interviewing them first? Shock! Horror! shoy (reactions) 15:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Let me play Captain Obvious here. Wikipedia is an incredibly expansive work, very well implemented despite some kinks (and corporate bias), with thousands of dedicated and able and not-always-cranky volunteer editors, and a resounding success beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Any criticism that denies these things is the one who is trolling (or perhaps ginning up the cottage industry of Wikihate). That said, there are many useful criticisms of this place that need to be addressed. But looking to a guy who got his own "better" encyclopedia project horribly off-track isn't going to be of much assistance. Wikipedia is today the Internet of Knowledge. Google results are us. Slam it all you like. Or, one can work to make it better, the ol' constructive way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I just stumbled upon Citizendium's "Charter" that it ratified in 2010. It's interesting to note some of the starker differences in structure compared to Wikipedia. I can already envision the kind of response it would receive if any one of them were proposed here. The main thing is that it seems to have a "top-down" governance, as opposed to Wikipedia's "bottom-up (in most cases)" governance. The three principal bodies are the Citizendium Council, which has final say on all content disputes; the Managing Editor, who offers interpretations on policy and can make "executive decisions" to enforce policy; and the Constabulary, which is responsible for enforcing behavior. Users (known as Citizens) can petition the Council for a referendum if it feels they have erred in a decision, and there is a formal appeals process as well. Interesting. Mz7 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Might have spoke too soon with the "top-down" description, after digging further and finding their Myths vs. Fact page. Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I was there, almost from the start. Top down was the way it certainly did run at the start, regardless of what may now be claimed on the site . Larry appointed the people who could approve articles (I was one, fwiw), he decided the policies, he settled the disputes, he let people have exclusive rights to key articles and kept others from working on them. Eventually, he did accept a formal structure, and eventually, he did remove himself from the line of command. By that time, too many people had left, myself included. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed: As one thousand of us requested, Superprotect has been removed (9,481 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-11-11

Discuss this story

• It's a good result, if not the best result. Superprotect was symbolic and that symbol has been symbolically removed. A clear statement of good will has been made.

We often (us humans, whether in groups or individually) fail to reap all the benefits of a compromise we agree to, or an action we take because we don't clearly enunciate why what we did was wrong, or the lessons we have learned. This might be considered to be face saving. In fact it often mean that we are not getting the benefits of the sacrifice (in some cases only of "face") we have made.

Let us take this step forward as positive and continue in dialogue with the Foundation - robust dialogue where necessary - to advance the objectives of the community in the furtherance of open knowledge.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC).

• A clear statement of good will has been made. That's it for me. It was not a painless move, but a necessary one. I am indeed hopeful about the future of this "dialogue with the Foundation". José Luiz ^talk 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• It may sound like a positive act but history has shown that this 'good faith' won't last. With Wikipedia and all its offshoots being Internet based electronic products,its management company of now over 200 employees does not even physically sit in the same building. It's time this huge and cumbersome machine the 'WMF has become stops its navel-gazing in order to come out of its bubble for a moment and realise that there are tens of thousands of dedicated, active editors out here, some even putting in a 20 - 40 hour week for free, who are providing the Foundation with its raison d'être. And then we can really say: A clear statement of good will has been made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, as point of contact for this announcement, there are a couple of observations that I would like to share. "All parties would be better served by a single, thorough, carefully written announcement." mw:WMF product development process/2015-11-05 is the canonical location of the announcement, and it offers a central location for Discussion. The announcement and its Q&A were echoed in several channels. There was feedback in several places, I have been the single point of contact replying, and I have been updating the Q&A accordingly. The only other WMF speaker making statements about the announcement was Lila, echoing the news on the same day, at an appropriate venue such as the Metrics meeting. "The Foundation (...) declined to address the context." The context of Superprotect is the WMF product development process. This process documented and agreed with the communities is the right tool to prevent and address situations like the one that lead to the use of Superprotect. The draft is under discussion, and there you can find already now several WMF voices discussing openly from their roles as VP of Product, Director of Community Engagement (Product), Lead Software Architect, Agile Coach, Software Engineer... Owners and stakeholders addressing topics like Between "Concept" and "Plan" - Prioritize? or Community input prior to build phase is exactly what needs to happen in order to resolve "the underlying problem of disagreement and consequent delays", from which Superprotect was one manifestation. Peteforsyth and anybody else interested in this discussion, if you have questions or feedback about how the WMF should develop and deploy software, mw:Talk:WMF product development process is the best venue to discuss and agree on the best implementable solutions.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To me, the core issue here is that the WMF is treating this as some kind of disagreement over software development practices (just look at the title of the announcement, and the fact it was made on the MediaWiki wiki, which is focused on development of the MediaWiki software), when it isn't. It's a social conflict over the role and powers of the WMF. Few people care about intricacies like how software changes are deployed. What the people who protested over superprotect want is a frank acknowledgement from the WMF (and probably from the Executive Director or someone else high-ranking, who is seen as speaking for the organization as a whole) that they screwed up and won't do it again, and maybe a discussion about when and how the WMF should be able to overrule the community. This whole imbroglio has been a specific demonstration of what I see as the problem with the WMF's mindset. The WMF sees itself primarily as a software development house, which is why its default answer to every problem seems to be trying to cook up some whiz-bang piece of software that will fix an issue. But not all problems are technical problems. The projects are communities, not just bytes sitting on hard drives, and in my view the WMF needs to shift more of its focus towards actively fostering healthy communities instead of just being "the people who run the servers". Of course, in doing so, the WMF needs to be aware of the existing bad blood between it and the projects, and needs to make an effort to patch up relations and work in collaboration with the communities instead of imposing things. I think things like the Community Tech team are a step in the right direction, though I'd like to see something not narrowly confined to the area of software development. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"if you have questions or feedback about how the WMF should develop and deploy software the best venue to discuss and agree"... is a FLOW talk board!! (mw:Talk:WMF product development process) Brilliant! Good god. --Atlasowa (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF:, I have a strong positive impression of your role in addressing Superprotect; thank you for your efforts. But there is a fundamental problem with your urging people to use what you call a central place for discussion: the letter in question identifies conditions its signatories consider necessary for having that kind of tactical discussion. The issues, in my view and (I believe) those others who signed the letter, remain at the strategic level, and involve (as stated by the IP immediately above) social dynamics that extend beyond software development. I will not be engaging in depth in evaluating the any proposed development system until I am satisfied that these conditions have been met. I suspect you will find that others who have signed the letter will also decline to engage strongly there, unless they consider the letter's requests to have been granted.

Also, you state that Lila Tretikov was the "only" other WMF person making statements about this; but Trustee Dariusz Jemielniak, and employees Dan Garry and Brion Vibber also responded substantively on the Wikimedia-L list, other staffers have commented on the MediaWiki page you link, and I believe still others have commented in other venues. If you are making some distinction between "official" comments and some other kind of comments, it is opaque to me -- partly because neither your initial announcement nor Lila Tretikov's carried any trappings of officialdom (e.g., press release, blog post, statement that it is a considered action of the WMF, etc.) Could you clarify? -Pete (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the tens of thousands of Users who did not sign the letter, a letter which appeared either petty in substance or petulant in demand - just like your 'we won't talk to you until all our demands are met' looks petty and petulant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I can't really speak to your perceptions, except to point out a couple things that you seem to have missed:

• Three of the five poll questions I put forward were addressed to (as you put it) the tens of thousands who didn't sign.
• I talk to Wikimedia Foundation staff frequently, and have not refused to do so. What you identify as personal petulance is actually straightforward prioritizing. As a general rule, it doesn't make much sense in any context to delve into specifics, when there are unresolved broader issues. -Pete (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report: Doodles of popularity (5,225 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-11-11

Discuss this story

• I wonder if User:Dr Blofeld gets more hits when a James Bond film cmes out?

A good number of Fawkes' conspirators were caught and executed.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC).

Will have to read up on Fawkes then, I borrowed that text from last year's report. As for Dr Blofeld, the answer is yes, based on this release and last bond film in 2012, there is a small spike of views around the release date of each film!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Carson couldn't have gotten a scholarship to West Point. Education there is free but requires a commitment to serve in the U.S. Army.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Vchimpanzee, from my reading on the subject, I found that West Point has at times referred to tuition being on a "scholarship" basis. Everyone has a "scholarship" if they make the non-monetary but very significant service commitment. Carson could have worded it better, but the breezy narrative of his book, writing when the idea he would run for President and be a party front-runner some day was ridiculous (and still is!), brushes over details.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Table formatting

Ugh, please fix the table formatting. The imposition of either fixed column widths or a fixed table width is causing the last column to become very narrow, and since it contains a lot of text I have to scroll down interminably to read the text in each cell. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do you get the same problem on prior traffic reports? And are you on a mobile phone?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I was viewing the page on a laptop. I don't think the problem was so bad before. Actually, looking at the table again, the issue doesn't seem to be fixed column or table widths but the fact that the table is indented quite a lot from both the left and right margins. In addition, I note from the wikitext that the table is further indented from the left margin using the "::" markup, which reduces the width further. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is this line: "<div style="padding-left:50px; padding-right:50px;">". If I reduce the padding to 10px and also remove the additional left indenting of the table, the width of the last column improves greatly. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Spectre (2015 film)

• Regarding Spectre, what does the traffic report mean by, "it seems the proudly British producers have confidence enough to stand apart from Hollywood, releasing the film in six national territories - but not the US."? I noticed this last week too. My first thought is that it means the film has not been released in the U.S., but that is demonstrably untrue - it has been released and is in all sorts of theaters. But then how else is that sentence to be interpreted? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, this refers to the initial release - the U.S. was something like 10 days after the U.K. We may need to tweak the description now that its been on the chart for a few weeks. Thanks for letting us know.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)