Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-09-27

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-09-27. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more (6,079 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-09-27

Discuss this story

Regarding the description of the motion about my person, I am puzzled that it is focusing on two critical comments regarding a failed motion from three months ago. As of this moment, regarding the current motion, at least six editors have expressed their support for it (the failed request had seven supportive comments). Further, while it is true that a similar motion failed three months ago, the reading of arbitrator comments suggests to me that the major concern about the request back then was that it was premature, and they themselves suggested it should be revisited "Possibly another month or two" (at mid-length of the remedy). Finally, I wonder why there are no references to a series of successful motions by me narrowing this particular topic ban or by others in the EE area? By focusing on the criticism and failed motion only, I do not believe this report if neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This restriction on you is about you, not others. The circumstances surrounding your restriction are starkly different to those surrounding others so mentioning their motions would not be appropriate. Steve Smith stated:

[w]hile I think I've been among the most sympathetic arbitrators to the early lifting of EEML amendments...I'm not comfortable doing so here. We're dealing with a long history of problematic behaviour in this case, and also the behaviour of someone who, as a then-administrator, should have known better. [emphasis added]

These cirumstances are not found in the other motions, so to be fair, the only request mentioned is the former (and fully identical) "request to amend EEML Remedy 3 to end the topic ban that applies to Piotrus and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe." In that, Steve Smith also explictly stated that he was persuaded by the 2 statements linked, and two other arbs explicitly concurred with Steve's analysis, while another arb left his earlier oppose that he was "concerned about some things." No arbs referred to any other supportive/critical comments which were made. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to mention/link to those community statements which arbs have acknowledged as persuasive in a particular case. Newyorkbrad, who was the only arb who proposed supporting your cause, was mentioned as again making a proposal in that direction - despite the fact that some would argue that it is not required of this report, this was mentioned purely in the interest of neutrality and awareness. Accordingly, I stand by what is written. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Climate Change arbitration has made further changes this week, which I think could have been mentioned. In particular the focus of findings has been on "Battlefield conduct", and the focus of remedies introduced in recent days has been on the highly comprehensive "Remedy 3" topic ban. This would ban the named individual from editing any page, including article, talk and project page within the topic area, subject only to direct appeal to the Committee. As well as being proposed for all editors previously considered for a topic ban, it has been proposed for Minor4th, ATren, Hipocrite, Cla68, Scjessey, GregJackP, A Quest for Knowledge, KimDabelsteinPetersen, and Verbal, all of whom are new to the remedies list. Remedies have also been proposed to manage the proliferation of evidence pages in userspace related to the case. The arbitration case is said to be "winding down". --TS 22:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that drafting is still incomplete; once it gets near to completion, readers tend to want to know more about what the decision is moving towards. I think a few more votes are needed in the remedies section before we're at that point so it should be next week (also compare this coverage of R+I PD to its previous/next issue). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it just occurred to me that my comment might be taken as a slight on your own coverage. Your point that the proposed decision is still not mature is well taken. My approach was different, in that I sought to describe the trend over the past week. This has been significant at least for those 9 editors now newly facing a possible indefinite comprehensive topic ban under proposed Remedy 3.

Deferring discussion of the proposed remedies until the drafting is complete would certainly avoid redundancy in subsequent reports, at the expense of timeliness in reporting. Most cases are much shorter than this one and the drafting phase is not long and drawn out, so I would guess that reporting on ongoing drafting isn't normally a consideration, but at this stage I wouldn't bet too much money on the climate change case finishing before Columbus Day.

Thanks for your reporting on this, which is very useful to me because of my voluntary non-involvement in the evidence and workshop phases. --TS 10:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

These are useful considerations which I'll be thinking about; I appreciate the feedback. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: The best of the week (851 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-09-27

Discuss this story

Slow week on the FA front. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but it's partly an artefact of our choosing a Saturday–Friday window, so we can prepare this page in time for the SP deadline Mondays. Sometimes there are lots of promotions just before or just after that window. Tony (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest (410 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-09-27

Discuss this story

• This article is a brilliant survey of the literature on Wikipedia and I just want to mention it again in case you missed it: "Where Does the Information Come From?" —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.

News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more (8,566 bytes · 💬)

fr.wiki milestone

(Pinged by ResidentMario on my talk page)

Nice news on the 10⁶-th article on fr.wp! Some funny story: fr:Louis Babel is the Chosen One according to the devs, who have access to the real numbers. Because the special pages and the counters are always a bit lagging, the milestone was expected to be hit on September 23rd. During the evening, hundreds of articles were created in a few hours :D. The event was livetweeted by WM-Fr. It is only after that editors learnt that the milestone was hit two days before :D.

Not sure this is worth a mention in the Signpost, but just in case ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

According to this discussion, it wasn't due to a lag, but to a difference in what constitutes an article. The "NUMBEROFARTICLES" magic word uses the definition here, which requires a page to contain at least one internal link (and not being a redirect) to count as an article. The developers apparently counted all non-redirect pages, even those without internal links. There must have been similar discussions when the English and German WP reached their million.

Some other candidates for the millionth article are named here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would not trust Bistro talks that much ;-). From what I heard on IRC, special pages and numbers lag because of cache. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for posting here, I thought I saw the talk page used for pre-publishing comments. Will use the newsroom next time.

Right, but IRC isn't always gospel either ;)

In any case, the above counting issue (all non-redirect pages vs. only those containing a wikilink) was also mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-03-06/Millionth article and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-21/Half-million articles, so this sort of milestone confusion appears to be kind of traditional.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Came out longer then I thought it would. Lot of bolstering by other editors. Maybe we should post a template for the controversial study story...? ResMar 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats to French Wikipedia! Good for them! It's so encouraging and inspiring to see the other Wikimedia projects prosper. May the Polish and Italian Wikipedias reach their milestones in record time! -- œ^™ 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be so cool to have one of those "millionth-customer" type awards - can we not have a special tag for "millionth article", "100 millionth comment", "1 billionth silly witticism" and so on? Plus of course an appropriate paypal cash award. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehe.. Not sure how well that paypal idea would go over with the foundation.. We do have the Template:Main Page banner though where we usually advertise such milestones, such as the 2 million and 3 million article mark ;) -- œ^™ 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

content recommendations

I wonder how much they paid consultants to tell them "you need more black penises"? Gigs (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia, not a porn site. Please use more sophisticated language. ResMar 00:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm more curious about how they could be certain that all of those penises belonged to Caucasians. Stare at enough examples of any one thing in a short period of time, & they all start to look alike. -- llywrch (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The may have missed The Black Cock.jpg. Rich Farmbrough, 18:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

I love you. --King Öomie 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

article feedback

Is the article feedback cumulative or rolling. I think rolling would be better. Not sure if it should be based on time (feedback in the last 6 months), edits (feedback in the time of the last 500 edits), size (feedback in the time period that the article has been within 25% of its current size).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Catalogue

Part Three will contain a "rough catalogue" of existing sexual images on Commons.

Awesome! How do I go about ordering this catalogue? Is there a print version, or is it online-only? Gurch (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

...ResMar 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've heard there were actually more than 1200 penises counted. I guess they come in a range of sizes and shapes (but apparently not colours, as pointed out). Tony (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine how many people they went through before they found a team willing to count the penises. Must have found them in the depths of Chat Roulette. --King Öomie 14:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...Wikipedia is racist against blacks, apparently. No surprising at all; nowadays, even the slightest difference is racism. Sometimes the world is so nonsensical... ResMar 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Only with respect to penises. More research is needed to determine whether, for example, this imbalance is equally applicable to breasts. ... I am willing to take on this important research task if necessary. Gurch (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Introductory video clips

The videos are a great idea. They're well-made and the Wikipedians involved did great. What I really don't like is that they look very similar to the promos of Apple Inc. products. I would've hoped for a rather unique style. Excellent job otherwise. -- Orionist ★ talk 20:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed =) ResMar 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And women should be a high priority, IMO. Tony (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (351 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-09-27

Discuss this story

• These changes are great. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 15:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)