text:
23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the fact we have an "over-tagging" problem or not, I think the real concern should be focused on actually trying to fix the problem instead of simply drive-by tagging it in the hopes that somebody else will come by to fix it. The chances that somebody else will fix it is decreasing every time Wikipedia loses more editors. Plus, for articles that have multiple tags, I suspect that it may be scaring some people out of editing it, because there may be a perception that the article may have too many issues to fix and it's just an insurmountable task. Or others may steer clear of them because they might think there's some sort of edit war going on and they want to avoid controversy. WTF? (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's often not so easy and/or very time consuming to fix problems that are easy to see are problems. Never forget we're all volunteers here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Marking the problems is also a good thing, much better than doing nothing, which that "actually trying to fix the problem instead of simply drive-by tagging it" too often becomes. Not everyone who can notice a problem can fix it.
 * Anyway, there was one thing you said that is really worth notice: "Perhaps the tags could be redesigned to be a little less intrusive or less annoying as well?". So, to start, what makes you think that the tags are "intrusive" and "annoying"? Is it the shape, the size, the colours, the icons, the wording..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think what bugs me the most is that they're generally placed at the top of articles, and for articles with multiple tags, you sometimes have to scroll down at least half a page just to see the content! That seems a bit excessive. Maybe for articles with multiple issues (or, let's just say, they totally suck), a single "THIS ARTICLE COMPLETELY SUCKS" tag would be appropriate and be done with it. Then, you don't have five or six tags going down the page -- leave the details about why the article sucks to be discussed in the talk page. WTF? (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * "[F]or articles with multiple tags, you sometimes have to scroll down at least half a page just to see the content!"? In such case, what is the size of your browser window (or screen resolution)? Having enough tags to cover the whole screen and half of another seems to be a lot (far more than "five or six" - unless you have a small browser window or meant something different) and I don't remember ever seeing so many tags... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I end up fixing a majority of pages I tag by myself, I'd wager. The tagging helps with my workflow. What is nice is that I can provide hard data for that in the form of ~100,000 listed contributions. Personally, I'm more prone to believing hard evidence than in some personal hypothesis that an unknown number of editors are recoiling from Wikipedia like a vampire from sunlight because a page has a tag on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment: On the unconference day at Wikimania this year, some of my colleagues and I rounded up a table full of Wikipedians and banged out an experiment idea designed to test the hypothesis that cleanup and maintenance tags are actually negatively affecting editor engagement. We literally came up with the hypothesis, assumptions, and metrics in under an hour, so it's still pretty rough – but I think this will be a great thing to test for a short period of time on a sample of articles, to figure out if this is really an issue that needs more attention. Stay tuned... :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Maryana (WMF)'s proposed experiment sounds like an excellent idea. My personal opinion is that it's mostly the appearance and placement of the tags that's the problem.  Consider the stub templates, for example.  These are tags which invite readers to expand the article.  They are quite attractive and polite and are usually placed at the foot of an article, where they seem quite restrained and pleasant.  Does anyone ever complain about stub templates?  If not, then they may serve as a model of how to tag an article without upsetting people.  Warden (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback
A recent BBC News article, lead me to blog entry about this Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 which I understand is an attempt to have readers make suggestions about improving (without actually editing Wikipedia) and an editor will come along and make the changes. Seems to me we already do this with any number of tags, I know that WikiProject Unreferenced articles alone has a back log that grows faster then is addressed. So where do the editors who are going to make this edits come from? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The tags don't seem to be doing much of anything other than contributing to increasing the backlogs. There seem to be too many "editors" who do nothing but tag articles (the "citation needed" tag is a particular favorite of these people), and not enough true editors that actually work on improving articles. See the discussion earlier on this page on tags. WTF? (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe editors are already discussing some of these concerns up above. In any event, resolving a "Citation Needed" tag would seem easy enough to me - either provide a citation or remove the unsourced material. Problem solved. I'm not sure what the problem is with anyone using a "Citation Needed" tag if in fact a citation should be provided. Doniago (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)rea
 * If it is so easy to resolve, then why don't all the people just resolve it themselves? User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot is right on this one, many users put tags because it is easier than actually doing the work required to fix an article. While we do need a small segment of editors to put tags, that a huge proportion of our editing community does so with only a small amount actually improving the article directly is definitely harmful to Wikipedia. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined  19:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it's more harmful that editors are adding unsourced information without taking the effort to source it to begin with. If tagging the information at all increases the probability of a source being provided, then I consider that beneficial. Editors are not under any obligation to find sourcing for material they are not contributing to the project; would you prefer that the CN tag be delisted and policy be modified to more strongly endorse simply removing unsourced material as a form of resolution? Doniago (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Conversely, we might consider asking ourselves if all these citations are absolutely necessary. I've seen some articles where almost every single sentence has a citation at the end of it, some sentences with multiple citations. I've also seen some editors who apparently only read the WP:LEAD section without reading anything else, find that there's nothing cited there, and sprinkle a couple of unnecessary citation needed tags into the lead when the information is merely summarizing other information -- that's properly sourced -- in the article itself. Perhaps we need to re-examine what content needs a citation and what content really doesn't. WTF? (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur that material in the lead doesn't require a citation if it's cited in the body of the article; CN tags placed in the lead under such circumstances should be removed with explanation; maybe contacting the editor who placed them would be worthwhile as well. Presumably editors generally insert CN tags because they feel the information should have an available reference, but I suppose if an editor disagrees with the placement of a CN tag they could always ask the inserting editor why it's there, or start a discussion on the Talk page. If they're really being placed as thoroughly as you say, I would suggest that the section itself (or the article) should have been tagged, rather than specific statements. In any event, these don't sound to me like unfixable situations if we're just talking about article aesthetics and editors not being familiar with available templates. Doniago (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the discussion about tags as such seems to be "offtopic" - there is another discussion just about them... Still, to use what you said, do you think that the "Article Feedback Tool" is going to be "definitely harmful to Wikipedia" too..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Article feedback "We are developing a new way for readers and editors to work together" (bold is mine) and apparently this is a a proposed guideline. I thought we were the "Wikipedia that anyone can edit". Before helping two classes of people interact, maybe we should ask if there are two classes of people. So are there two classes? Is there a single editor, who never read and an article? is there a single reader who does not have the option and ability to edit an article? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes a lot for someone to dive into the world of policies and talk pages and become what we'd consider an editor. As I understand it, providing the opportunity to evaluate pages is meant as a kind of gateway drug to becoming more directly involved in the project. Darryl from Mars (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you change "we'd consider an editor" to "we'd consider an experienced editor", I think most everyone would agree. But is it a good thing to encourage yet another division of Wikipedians? Many of the issues discussed here are about this group or that group...  IMHO everyone is in the same group, Wikipedian.  We all started in the same place, we all stumbled across our first Wikipedia entry somehow, we all decided to make our first edit or not, we all learned from the same school, then we diverged into different directions, but we remain members of the same family. The first listing on Administrators used to be "No big deal" do we really want to make the division between reader and editor be a "Big deal"? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's already a big deal :(. Lets be honest and blunt, editor-to-editor: most of us don't encounter readers. We know of them as an abstract Other, and that distinction between us and them already exists - we contribute, they don't. Actually, I see this as an opportunity to weaken the distinction, in two ways.
 * The first is that, for the first time, the distinction isn't based on contributions. Readers have the opportunity to make (admittedly small) contributions to articles just as editors do. It's narrowing the gap, not widening it, because for the first time both groups have a tangible stake and a sense of ownership. The second is that we can no longer think of readers as this abstract group with undefined views and opinions and needs - we know what they need, because we've provided a mechanism for them to tell us. They need a reference added, or updating, or additional images (or occasionally "poop lolol" ;p). I'm actually really optimistic about what this'll do to our relationship with readers. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Judicial de-adminship
Currently there is no way of removing administrators from their posts short of an Arbitration Committee case. This ensures that numerous grievances regarding administrator misconduct may take a long time to be resolved, assuming that the ArbCom even decides to hear the cases against these administrators. Various proposals have been made for community de-adminship, but the results of community de-adminship proceedings is based not necessarily on reasoned discussion but ultimately on a vote count. When dealing with an issue as contentious as whether an administrator should lose their privileges or not, a better system is required.

I propose that a new subcommittee of the ArbCom - the Administrator Conduct Subcommittee (ACSC) - be created in order to facilitate proceedings against administrators and reduce the caseload of the Arbitration Committee. An Arbitration Clerk shall review each request to open a case against an administrator posted on a designated page of the ACSC, and shall decide whether the case may be tried before the ACSC, or whether it is serious enough to go before the Arbitration Committee itself. The Arbitration Clerk shall then inform the rest of the Arbitration Committee and its subcommittees of the decision, whether or not these subcommittees are trying the case. The Arbitration Committee may at any time take up a case itself or reassign it to another committee by a majority vote of its members. The ACSC may, by a two-fifths vote of its members, reassign the case to the Arbitration Committee, which may delegate it to another subcommittee or try the case itself as per the procedures of the previous sentence. Whichever body is selected to try the case shall have the permission to accept or deny trying it, in which case nothing shall be done against either party

The ACSC shall be permitted to issue temporary injunctions with penalties up to de-adminship for the duration of the case, and may enact remedies with the maximum penalty of one year's loss of administrative tools, with the ability to regain it only upon a successful RfA after the period has elapsed. In procedure the ACSC shall follow the model of the Arbitration Committee, but with only five members. The members of the ACSC shall not be Arbitrators themselves, but rather individuals selected by the Arbitration Committee as being suitable to handle the task of membership. The ACSC shall be composed of five members, a number which ArbCom may increase at its own discretion, but may not reduce below five. Any case involving private information should be declared as such when a user makes a petition for a case, and should a case involve private information either declared in advance or brought up later in the case, the case must for legal reasons be moved to the Arbitration Committee.

Any case may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, which shall take up the case at its own discretion.

This, in essence, is my idea to allow de-adminship to take place more rapidly when it is required, but allow it to maintain a high standard of evidence and review. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it is unfair of me, but my only authentic response to this long proposal is to wonder who you'd like to see de-sysopped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nobody I want to see desysopped specifically, but I do feel that the current state of the Wikipedia community is one of harsh conservatism, with it being difficult to remove administrators in case of misconduct. Administrators have mistreated me in the past. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While certainly not attempting to discourage this idea, I should point out it's on the list of perennial proposals. There's also an ongoing push to reform RfA/desysopping at WP:RFA2012 which you should look at.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a perennial proposal shows that administrator misconduct is an ongoing issue on Wikipedia. I will look at your recommended pages. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How many desysoppings are seriously considered by the ArbCom in any given year? Is there any evidence to suggest that their process is being overwhelmed by such requests?
 * The ArbCom already has (and has made use of) procedures for rapidly withdrawing administrator privileges in the event of serious concerns about an admin's conduct: Arbitration Committee/Procedures. In the most urgent cases, a temporary desysop can be carried out by the unanimous request of just three Arbs in only a few minutes.
 * The ArbCom has demonstrated a willingness to desysop admins by open motion (without the rigmarole of a full case) in situations where a broader examination of other editors' conduct isn't required, and where the circumstances and community's expectations are clear. See, for example, here.  (In that case, statements were made between 20 January and 23 January; an Arb presented the motion to desysop on 28 January; voting was completed and the admin desysopped on 30 January.)
 * Before you tell us how to fix the problem, you need to be a little bit more specific about what's broken, and how it isn't being handled properly by existing processes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How many desysopping requests can ArbCom seriously consider in a year? The limited time of ArbCom means that for every request seriously considered, ten will be ignored. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a lack of accountability of administrators to the community once their RfA passes, with only ArbCom being able to assign remedies. This speeds up the work of desysopping when required and reduces the workload of ArbCom. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider my questions suitably modified, then. How many credible requests to desysop has the ArbCom ignored in, say, the last year—whether due to excess workload or sheer fecklessness?  What fraction of admins do you believe need to be axed?  I've provided an example of the ArbCom quickly and efficiently handling a clearly-stated desysop request by motion in less than ten days; how much more does the process need to be accelerated?  Repeatedly asserting that cases are falling through the cracks without offering any evidence to support your statements doesn't advance your argument.  Bluntly, your proposal doesn't demonstrate that you've done your homework. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The current ArbCom is fairly quick to desysop (a bit too quick, I think, and there is no appeals court). —Kusma (t·c) 19:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This will make ArbCom the appeals court and ensure that the desysoppings which should be conducted quickly are conducted quickly, while the more contentious ones have a longer process. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which are the ones that "should be conducted quickly", and why are the processes mentioned above not able to handle them? Be specific, instead of just repeating yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorting in tables with letters with diacritics
There is a discussion over at Featured list candidates/List of Malmö FF players/archive1 on how letters with diacritics, Å, Ä and Ö in this case should be sorted in a table and if there is any policy on this. The letters are sorted after Z in the Swedish alphabet but how should they be sorted on the English Wikipedia, under A and O or after Z? Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Since such lists could potentially contain names from different languages, including, for instance, German with Ä, Ö, Ü, which in a German locale (and possibly a Swedish locale?) are sorted in the neighbourhood of the letters A, O, U), I would suggest that any style guidance should be based on the untailored European ordering rules (or similar), which are probably appropriate for cross-country lists of names written in Latin-based alphabets. I believe that would mean sorting (the whole name) according to the notional base letters and then sorting the whole name by diacritics (so that Müller immediately follows Muller). I believe the European ordering rules include a specification for the order of diacritics, but the problem of names that differ only in the different diacritics is probably largely academic within a Wikipedia article. I expect librarians' organizations have discussed the problems in detail with regard to international access to library catalogues (starting with Z39.50?). I don't think the best approach would be to use ISO/IEC/Unicode ordering rules that have been tailored to a very specific locale (ordering rules may potentially differ between languages and/or countries).--Boson (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * That seems like a good solution. Thank you! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocking IPs from posting on your talk page
If someone is an admin, which often means dealing with IPs, is it appropriate for the admin to make their page for autoconfirmed only, thereby blocking IPs? I assume there are some who wish to only be IPs or newbies who dont know what signing up for Wikipedia accomplishes who may come across an admin and need to respond on their page regarding some action towards the IP by the admin. I think perhaps it's time we set some limits on admins to require they are responsive to the needs of those they serve, which includes allowing IPs to contact them.Camelbinky (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No—an admin who actively opposes disruptive editors or trolls can attract a team of haters, and the community needs such admins to be relatively free from abuse so they will continue their work. If there is an individual case where someone believes a page is inappropriately semiprotected, that should be discussed with the admin concerned. If not satisfied, and if it was felt that it would help the encyclopedia, I suppose the next step would be WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So an admin does... whatever admins spend their time on... to an IP and the IP has questions, concerns, explanation, whatever, and therefore can not contact said admin. And we think that's ok...? Wow. Keep bleeding editors. Good job Wikipedia keeping up your reputation for ignoring newbies and being hypocritical regarding "dont bite the newbies". "Admins attract haters"... yes, just a large group think admins as a group are useless power hungry power seeking buffoons. Protecting one's talk page should not be justified by that. Nor should admins, who are here to SERVE US, be removed from being contacted by those they SERVE.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Admins do not serve individual users. They serve the project.
 * Nearly all admins whose talk pages have been semi'd for very long set up a separate page for such communication. Alternatively, an unregistered user may contact others with the problem or question.
 * I'm not sure that you understand the level of problems. It's not just simple complaints about a page being deleted over copyvios.  We've had admins who get threats to their families and friends, whose pages are filled with libel, who are harassed by postings about their race, gender, sexual orientation, who get dozens of messages from someone IP hopping just to be irritating, etc.  Admins should not have to put up with abuse from unregistered users.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Anyone wanting to contact an admin but unable to do so can ask for assistance, for example at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an appropriate message could go on the Admin blocked page(s) to point IP's to a more appropriate page. Just blocking without an alternative is WP:BITEy. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking out about this issue, I have served in the position of being an administrator on Wikimedia projects before (not here on Wikipedia though). I know how bad trolls can get, where I ended up putting full protection (edits only by admins or bureaucrats) on my main user page and considered strongly to do that to my talk page as well. There are some users who simply dislike any sort of communication on their user pages preferring to have such communication on article or project talk pages instead. For myself, I'm fine with that, particular with the harassment issues expressed above as well. There certainly is no "right" to post on somebody's user or talk page, and it can be disruptive in the hands of some trolls. Telling IP users in this case to go to the Admin noticeboard for any issues they may be having seems to be very realistic (or wherever else the particular user in question wants to see that kind of activity redirected with a soft redirect). Indeed, if there seems to be a problem even for non-admins, I'm even fine with ordinary editors requesting this kind of protection on their user talk page. I likely would never do that here on Wikipedia for my own reasons, but I'm fine with some users who get fed up with some kinds of communication on that level. Heck, full protection could even be requested by ordinary users on their talk page so it would only be communications from admins to that user. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I managed to get the user and talk pages of an inexperienced editor permanently semiprotected (that wasn't easy due to it's highly unusual nature). The editor had pursued a troll, removing their garbage from various articles. Unwisely, the editor had left enough clues that their identity could be guessed, and the troll occasionally posted sinister rants with the real name of the user, their wife, and their daughter, and their address. They did that over a period of years despite the editor doing almost nothing on Wikipedia. The people we know from everyday interactions are not the only kind of people in the world—there are also crazies who will never stop.
 * If there is a real problem with new users being unable to contact a particular admin, the solution is to include a hatnote: If you are unable to add a message here, please contact WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment policy
There's a discussion going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Consolidations about what seem to me to be fairly drastic changes in the harassment policy. I am noting it here so that interested editors can take part if they wish to do so. Or maybe the conversation should go on here; I'm not sure. Here is a diff of the proposed changes, which I've just reverted in order to try to start a conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment&diff=503634478&oldid=503126887 — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest continuing the discussion on that page, if necessary you could slap a RFC tag on it, but the above post may attract enough attention on its own. Monty  845  00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point about the RFC tag. I forgot about that.  I put one on the talk page over there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Images of fictional characters and/or shows in Getty Images
was deleted because it is licensed to Getty Images and is used commercially, and prior publication does not erase later commercial intent. was deleted for the same reasons. I tried deleting because it is licensed to Getty, even if the original author is NBC or Paramount. Nevertheless, someone challenged it, and I am almost ready to nominate it for deletion. I wonder if any image of a fictional character or show fits the bill of WP:NFC, as these images themselves are not notable enough as stand-alone articles. If not, shall they be excluded from fitting the criteria of photo agencies? --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Working on the assumption that a character is notable, either a photo of the character (from a press agency kit, most likely) or a screenshot of the character is generally accepted, but as you note, if that photo is coming from an agency like Getty that are publishing the photos commercially, we can't use them, and need to find another source. That is, the respect for commercial opportunities and the issue with photo publication entities trump the UUI aspects.  Same if we're talking a cast photo to be used within the description of a show.  --M ASEM  (t) 18:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a question to be asked too: where did the original photo come from? Is it the case that a press agency pack get to Getty, who put those photos up for commercial redistribution? (In this case, if we can demonstrate the photo actually came from the press agency pack and thus Getty doesn't own the rights to it, we can use the press agency photo) Or is it that the photo is exclusively from Getty's archives, meaning that we can't use it at all.  This is a tough question to answer and so if Getty images or other agencies are involved, and we can't positively determine the original photo source, we need to play it safe and delete such images. --M ASEM  (t) 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But what about original and subsequent intentions of original authors? Have photos been originally distributed as publicity photos or commercial photos? Either way, would subsequent intentions triumph original intentions, or the other way around? Does commerciality triumph publicity? --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, is the short answer. Given the *broadness* of Getty's catalog, and the fact that you can click a button on Flickr to publish an image via Getty, probably means that there are copyrighted photos belonging to party A, uploaded elsewhere without copyright licensing (read, possibly fair use) by party B, and picked up by Getty based on party B's intentions, ignoring what A had intended. I have no idea of how Getty works to assure uploaded photos are owned by the person that says they are (just as with Flickr, there's lots of images "licensed" as CC-BY but are clearly copyrighted elements without validation the copyright owner said it was ok).  Unfortunately, because it's Getty, we have to play bad cop here.  --M ASEM  (t) 18:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * George, your question goes to the source information, which is as good a proxy for "intention" that we can have. If the original source of an image hosted by Getty was a press kit, then it shouldn't matter that it is now part of Getty's archive. And a screenshot has none of these concerns, and should be readily obtainable for any TV or film character. Your initial post made it sound like you were (incorrectly) thinking it was the subject matter of fictional characters that was at issue. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why was the "Steve Urkel" image deleted? Should deletion be reviewed? One of my mentors MGA73 says no review. However, ask Nyttend; s/he challenged speedy deletion proposal. Masem is uncertain, but you said it doesn't matter. Now I'm confused. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, why was the Urkel image deleted? Your question implies we just contradicted something when I thought it was explained very clearly and consistently. The Urkel image was deleted because it was from a commercial source (Getty), there was no evidence it previously originated from a non-commercial source (such as a press kit), and a screenshot was already in use to depict the character that had none of those problems. This is what we just explained, and it was quite clear from the FFD itself, so your confusion confuses me. Maybe you should take some time to re-read and think through these comments, and then come back later when you've had a chance to digest it all if you still have questions. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Very suspicious image. Getty credits the image to "Bill Reitzel/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank". The image was made by NBC and NBCU Photo Bank appears to be another commercial image host belonging to NBC. The site contains information about image licensing and pricing, so I would assume that any image on that site would count as a WP:NFCC violation. I tried locating this specific image by searching for the term "Frasier Crane", but the NBCU Photo Bank returned 40 pages with 25 images per page, so it takes too much time to search through them all, but I assume that the image is there somewhere. I would say that it should be deleted per WP:NFCC since it seems that individual copies of the image are sold not only by Getty Images but also directly by NBC through the NBCU Photo Bank. I am aware that anyone can make photos available through Getty using Flickr, but wouldn't Flickr images normally be credited to the Flickr account holder? I would expect Getty to treat Flickr images as own works by default, even if the images are copyright violations on Flickr. This image is not credited to some obscure Flickr user but to NBC directly. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You simply missed this, which I saved in image description: GettyImages.com. --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

One of images displayed in NBCU Photo Bank is deleted. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom's silent coup d'état
Fæ is likely going to be banned see here for being in contempt of ArbCom. Note that the "numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies", is nothing more than this; just read the FoFs that are passing.

I think it is high time we replace ArbCom with another system that doesn't make itself part of the problem. If an editor doesn't cooperate well with dispute resolution processes, that can obviously affect the outcome, but kicking someone out of Wikipedia should only be done if the evidence referring to actual editing of Wikipedia proves that the editor is incapable of doing that without problems.

The present outcome fais the WP:IAR test. If Fæ were to violate his ban and edit anyway, his edits would have to be judged to be a priori ok., given everything that ArbCom has found. If someone is topic banned then this is not the case (assuming the correctness of the ArbCom's ruling), as the editing of that editor in the topic would have been judged to be problematic. Then any violations of the topic ban would have to be judged to be a priori problematic.

This then shows that the ban is not about maintaining Wikipedia at all, it has to do with ArbCom's authority. But ArbCom was never put in such a position of authority by the community, that's something they did themselves. Doing so is a violation of WP:IAR, as violating their authority while still editing correctly should never be a problem.

I suggest that we correct this problem here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I happen to be the only arbitrator voting against the proposed siteban that you are criticizing, so I'm not here to defend it. However, I don't think that this is the right place to argue about the merits of a proposed arbitration decision. And the strident phrasing ("silent coup d'état") is, at best, unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think alot of the griping about Arbcom that goes on is uncalled for, they deal with the most problematic editors, and need to make tough calls. While I don't always agree with the decisions, they are usually within the realm of reasonable judgement and discretion calls. This is not one of those cases. As best I can tell, Arbcom is planning to ban someone whom they acknowledge has not edited in a way that would justify a ban, but instead will be banned for failing to cooperate with the investigation and failing to respect Arbcom's independence. Those are clearly not appropriate grounds for a ban, it comes off as Arbcom lashing out over its own insecurity, and I hope Arbcom reconsiders before making an embarrassing mistake that will undermine the legitimacy of the banning process. Monty  845  01:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not followed this case but, from scanning the decision page I can't see any indication of what is being alleged (i.e. ArbCom banning someone whose general conduct they acknowledge does not merit a ban). Could you draw my attention to what I should be looking at? Formerip (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the support rationales associated with votes 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 in support of remedy 6. Monty  845  01:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've looked at that and I have to say I find it hard not to see your point. Maybe this ties in with an existing discussion here. At present, the appeal route is Jimbo, but Jimbo is not neutral with regard to this particular user. Formerip (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It's going to be hard to have a silent coup since you've let everyone here know about it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about this case but from what I have read both sides have merit. What does seem to be the continuing trend is that if someone goes before Arbcom they can expect to be site banned or at least limited to the point where they may as well be. I also notice with this case, as with several over the last few months that the terms are written in such vague fashion that they can be interpretted in a variety of ways to ensure that it will be difficult if not impossible for the defendant to be in compliance for long. If Arbcom wants the negative comments to end then they need to start drafting the cases more clearly and definitively. They don't need to be so loose that they are open to unending interpretation and debate. Well among other things, but that would go a long way. Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Arbcom is part of the problem or that they are attempting to grab power. I think Arbcom has realized the toxic environment created by many sanctioned users and that remedies short of site banning tend to permit them to simply continue that disruption, even if they are in compliance with the sanctions. I think Arbcom has realized its role is to prevent disruption, not ensure fair and equitable treatment of persons before it. I think Arbcom has also realized that many prior sanctions were so specifically tailored that they merely encouraged gaming by the parties and that by keeping sanctioned users within a very tight limit; making it clear that if they cause even the slightest bit of disruption they will be removed from the community, they will reduce disruption within the project.  MBisanz  talk 03:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect I don't agree. I don't want to turn this into an Arbcom bashing debate but the truth is I think that many of the members of Arbcom are out of touch with the realities of editing. Its impossible to please every editor and the more edits you perform the more likely you are to irritate someone for something stupid like violating their perception of a minor edit, "filling their watchlist" or something else equally trivial. I also don't think they need to cater to every mob that comes along with a complaint and ban them for the troubles. But that seems to be the trend and IMO that perception is not helpful for their mandate nor for the long term health of the pedia. Kumioko (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Without reviewing the specifics of the case... to me if ArbCom (a) found a good reason to open the case and that it wasn't frivolous, and (b) requested some kind of comment or explanation from the editor in question, then some bare minimum level of cooperation should be expected from that editor. If everyone who didn't like ArbCom scrutiny could just say "enh, screw you guys, I'm going to keep doing my thing, catch me if you can", that would set a pretty bad precedent for future cases. It would render ArbCom completely ineffective, and fundamentally undermine our dispute resolution process. I think the editor in question should always owe the community some level of explanation, unless the case is completely dismissed for being groundless. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Too many forums on this at one time for anyone to follow. There is a famous sign in a Western saloon ... "Please don't shoot the piano player He's doing the best he can."  It applies here.  I had commented early in the process that the committee should cut to the chase early, and not allow all the sideshow to develop.  As it did. Collect (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A major problem I see with the ongoing Arbcom pattern of banning every editor submitted to them, because they have preconceived notions of guilt if the case makes it to them, is this. It takes a lot of time and effort to participate in an Arbcom case. It requires research, writing, following the story as it unfolds, etc. If Arbcom develops a pattern that your gonna get blocked then why would anyone outside Arbcom and their cabal bother to spend the time to plead the case? If the evidence doesn't matter and the end result is always the same within a couple degrees of variation then why bother? Its just a Drumhead trial anyway right? Going back to the original point of this discussion, ArbCom's silent coup d'état, hardly a day goes by lately that I don't see something where Arbcom is trying to build and expand their empire and establish themselves as the supreme rulers of the Wiki. On point with what you are saying I agree that we need something like Arbcom but I am growing more and more convinced that it needs to be different than the committee as it exists today. I admit I don't know exactly what that is, but I know this ain't it. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They've done this for a while. They tried to interfere in the PR response to the National Portrait Gallery on the grounds that the images were on Commons therefore showed up on en:wp. (I have the emails from functionaries-en, if any of them dare try to dispute this.) It's part of the admin problem too - why take any admin action if you might be sitebanned for it years later? - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, I certainly agree that they need to start drafting the cases more clearly and definitively, and do more to prevent the side-tracking and Strawmänner. However, WADR, I don't believe that Arbcom is planning a putsch any more than British High Court judges are considering a coup over the UK government. One thing for sure, and which I was most relived to see after meeting some of them in person recently, is that at least Arbcom is staffed by mature, educated individuals and not by the many who see such office as simply another hat to collect on the way up some personal greasy pole, such as we find lurking around lower levels of 'power'. I generally agree with most Arbcom findings - although I sometimes find their sentencing a little too mild and cautious. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a coup as people pushing them into the job: wikis make people uncomfortable, so they want there to be a government, so the arbcom gets shoved into the role. The failure is that of the arbitrators and the committe collectively to realise this is not necessarily a good idea. It also doesn't help that an elected position of power selects for politicians, even if the actual stakes are minimal - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that in general I have tended to agree with most of the Arbcom decisions relating to things other than editor behavior but I think they all too often favor a complete block for relatively minor infractions just to make the problem go away. I also think that more often than not they seem to succumb to peer pressure from those submitting the requests. Those who it seems are rarely the ones doing the editng, but those that are doing the nitpicking of those doing the actual editing. Kumioko (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying not to interject too often in this thread, but I can't help noticing that Kudpung opines the remedies imposed by the Committee are sometimes too mild, while Kumioko opines they are often too severe.... (Of course, in different cases they could both be right.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not quite sure how Kudpung can justify that they are too mild since it nearly always equates to an indefinate block. That to me is just about as severe a punishment as can be levied unless society grants Wikipedia actuall penal powers. Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's the problem. Many times there is only "an indefinite block" from a case for the worst actor, while several other parties get editing restrictions or have articles placed under general sanctions. I think an increase in the number of indefinite blocks resulting from arbitration cases and a corresponding decrease in the use of topic bans would help the problem. If someone is filing a case or is the subject of an accepted case, it's no longer about "relatively minor infractions" and both sides should expect that by bringing in Arbcom because they couldn't resolve the matter, they are opening the door to being blocked.  MBisanz  talk 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MBisanz your suggested solution to the problem would only compound another, far more serious set of problems that currently plagues the project. An increasing amount of control of influence of the project (and even pushing for more power outside the project by Arbcom), a decreasing number of active contributors and edits in general, a decreasing number of admins willing to perform actions for fear of prosecution and a general feeling within the community that Arbcom has their own agenda and that agenda isn't always in the best interest of Wikipedia. Yes it may be preferred by a small subset of contributors who don't like too many edits in their watchlists, don't like bots, don't think we should allow one thing or another or whatever. As Arbcom's continued determinations and blocks increase and spread the number of editors willing to perform certain admin actions, to use bots and to be active contributors will decrease in contrast to those actions. Its already happening as can be plainly seen by the reduction of certain types of admin actions, the reduction in bot operators and bot tasks, the reduction of contributors, etc.

 * There is even (or was recently) an RFC about Arbcom's impacts on these and a lot of sidebar discussions on the impact of Arbcom on various areas. Some users like yourself may feel that Arbcom serves WP well as the Judge, Jury and executioner but there are a lot of us that feel otherwise.

 * Indefinate block by Arbcom should only be done in certain circumstances such as obvious sockpuppetry, Copyright violations, Vandalism, etc. Not for filling watchlists, performing too many edits to quickly, performing too many minor edits, upholding the rules such as Wikipedia's Copyright policy and not catering to ever petty complaints about every action performed by the user, many of which are personal feelings and counter to actual policy. These are the types of things that Arbcom is banning editors for over the last few months and it is having a detrimental impact to long-term health and operations of the project.  Kumioko (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Kumioko, not to play dumb, but, which policies, articles, or processes has Arbcom attempted to control or influence as a means to increase its own power in 2012? I see ten cases and twenty-two motions in 2012 (Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012, Arbitration/Index/Motions). I'm familiar with a good number of them, and they seem to basically be reinforcement of the WP:INVOLVED, WP:CIV, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DISRUPTION/WP:EDITWAR. I know some people think Rich's case was wrongly decided (I'm one of them), but it was still within the realm of reason since someone filed a case and evidence showing a continued conflict. Also, I have not seen Arbcom mucking around in WP:BRFA, telling BAG how to approve bots, or otherwise trying to interfere to implement their own opinion of automated editing as a supervote over the community. The motions dealt with similarly mundane topics that have lengthy histories of arb involvement. I don't see Arbs randomly creating new policies through their decisions, telling non-parties how to edit in new ways, or appointing themselves in control of other elements of the project.

 * As to the decreasing contributors and admins, I think Arbcom's actions serve to help that. Many of their cases have reinforced the view that admins are not exempt from policy and that admins cannot use their powers when involved. Admins doing so drive productive editors away by squeezing them out of articles and RFA becomes stricter when people are afraid an admin can abuse their power and get away with it.

 * More specifically to the "too many edits" blocks, I think if Risker had phrased it in the way I would have (I wanted to block him, but was a party to the case); namely as a block based on WP:MEAT, WP:TEND, and WP:DUCK, it would have sailed through without a problem. Poor phrasing of a block reason doesn't make it a bad block.

 * Also, as to the point of Arbcom as judge, jury and executioner; I agree with you. I think Arbcom has done a good job of letting the non-arb crats handle most desysops and letting non-arb admins handle most of the enforcement of discretionary sanctions and editing restrictions. Further, in a recent block I made, I was criticized for not letting the Arbs make it since it involved their page. That an Arb can be criticized for blocking someone in a case and a non-Arb can be criticized for blocking someone in a case tells me we have a healthy balance.

 * Indefinite blocks serve to protect the project when we are certain a person cannot be a net positive contributor to the project. Copyvios, vandalism, sockpuppetry are the clearest indications of this, but other things such as SPA-editing, tendentiousness, POV-pushing, and failure to discuss are also valid negatives that count against a person.  MBisanz  talk 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, MBisanz is right, given the level of their activity, ArbCom is hardly a parawikitary organization bent on domination of the encyclopedia. But we all understand that sometimes we are given to hyperbole. However, on the statement of "Poor phrasing of a block reason doesn't make it a bad block", I would have to emphatically disagree. By definition almost it is a bad block if you don't give a good reason for it. Blocks are intended to be a powerful measure to protect the encyclopedia, subject to review by the community. If the community is looking at the block rationale and can't discern a legitimate basis for the block, it is a bad block. Now, that does not stop the admin from explaining their block better in a description on the blocked user's page, or on AN/I, but that's all textually part of the "block reason" IMO, so it directly relates to the block summary. But there is absolutely no place for a block in Wikipedia that hasn't been backed up by a clear, coherent and reasonable rationale for why it was enacted. And when you consider that the admin can update the block summary any time, and can further explain the block on Talk pages or elsewhere, leaving a poor block summary, no block summary, or unclear explanations simply means that it is a bad block on its face. We aren't mind readers. -- Avanu (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to make this discussion too long but there were several proposals or discussions (some formal and some more informal) in the last few weeks I had some heartburn about regarding Arbcom's ever increasing power. There was some discussion about Arbcom stretching outside the En to others such as commons, there was some discussion in the last few days about removing some of Jimbo's power and giving it to Arbcom or at least removing Jimbo's authority to override it. I have also seen discussions on several Users talk pages regarding their feelings on Arbcom's power. Many of them are afraid to comment on the Arbcom discussions because they are afraid Arbcom will block them for supporting. That to me is a huge, huge problem. Whether true or untrue the perception is a real morale killer. As for specific user cases. I had a huge problem with the Rich decision also as you know and I frankly haven't thought much higher about most of the decisions about users. Most of the nonuser related decisions are sound IMO but their judgement on the User cases has me less impressed. Of all the user cases I really only agreed with a couple (the Beta case had me on the fence).

 * In regards to the Admin actions point I disagree. I have seen and heard several admins mention in discussions (particularly after the Will Beback incident) they were hesitant or reluctant to act in certain circumstances because they were afraid if someone disagreed it would go to Arbcom and they would be banned. Not that they would be blocked, punished, desysopped or yelled at. Banned. That they automatically think its going straight to a ban is a big problem for me.

 * Arbcom is no longer an Arbitration committee working to find the best solution to a problem. They are a committee working to stop the problem and in most cases the fastest way to stop it, admittedly and especially regarding users, is to ban them and close the case. Its not a fair or unbiased ruling its an expedient one.

 * I also know that I have been an fervent critic and many just look at what I am saying and ignore it or think I'm just being overly critical so I'm not going to continue to dwell on it. I have said my opinion and whatever happens happens. All I can do is say what my feelings and beliefs are and deal with the fallout. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Newyorkbrad, this is not to argue about thia specific case, rather that the outcome suggest that there is a systemic problem. In this case, the ArbCom did what they are not supposed to do, i.e. ban someone based on issues that are irrelevant as far as actually editing Wikipedia is concerned. Remedies are supposed to be focussed on purely the editing and maintaining of Wikipedia. Evidence of bad conduct, harassment, personal attacks etc. etc. should always be evaluated in this narrow context. At the end of the day Wikipedia is just another website, it's not some company with the ArbCom members being the senior managers who can decide in some meeting that some employee (an editor) should be fired for not interacting well with them. By doing that, one actually makes Wikipedia a lot more vulnerable to the social dynamics that is causing all these problems involving harassment that played a role in this and other cases. Count Iblis (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes. When, whatever the intentions are, the observable end result is the Arbitration Committee functioning as water carriers for Gregory Kohs and associates ... then we may have a problem - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For those only just reading this thread, it is worth noting that the proposed decision as it currently stands (about to be closed) is different to what it looked like when Count Iblis started the thread. It really is best to limit discussions outside the case pages about currently open cases until after the case has closed. Valid criticisms should be raised at the case pages (not at user talk pages, and certainly no-one should be afraid of commenting at case pages, please don't make ArbCom out to be some sort of monster, I know several of the people on the current committee, and they are human just like everyone else). The other point to make is that the workload of ArbCom is such that it really helps if criticism is not of the variety that is heavy on words and rhetoric, but concentrates (or is backed up by) detailed links and diffs. Broad brush-stroke conclusions have their place, but they need to be backed up by analysis of what actually happened, not just opinion. It would be great if some of the most fervant ArbCom critics did more than just commenting at threads like this (and on case pages), and put in the heavy lifting and hard work needed to produce detailed pages on the major problems as they see it. It won't be easy to produce such a document, but it will actually be of more use than hand-waving and rabble-raising. Follow each and every case and motion. Make notes. Carry out analysis. Be fair and objective and try to avoid bias. Then you might be on to something. You will at least show arbitrators how they should be conducting their business if you can show that they should have reached different conclusions. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC) PS. David, I vaguely remember the functionaries thread you refer to, my recall of it is not quite the same as yours, but I could look it up if you remind me of the details.
 * The exact wording of the justification was "en-Wikipedia uses many of the pictures involved and many of the pictures are viewed by readers of en-Wikipedia articles", and it was written in message-ID<EMAIL_ADDRESS>datestamp Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:39:36 +0100, by ... you! This was after me asking several times what the hell the justification actually was, and that was the only one anyone actually came up with. Except the arb who claimed that a BBC article (that named DCoetzee as "David Coetzee") saying the images were on "Wikipedia" meant the images must be arbcom's problem - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. If you want to rehash that argument, we will be here a long time. I will concede that that was one of the less edifying threads that took place on that list at that time. It started with me expressing outrage at something you did, and with hindsight I should have raised it with you privately first. I have no idea what things are like now on the functionaries and arbitration mailing lists, but I expect things are in some ways much the same, and in other ways maybe saner given the relative differences in personalities between then and now. I do think it is unfair to use an example from 2009; looking at the datestamp you provide, that was just over three years ago. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not unfair, we have nothing to assure us that everything done "behind closed doors" is squeaky clean except the word of those who are behind the closed doors (which they have not given). In the past, going by leaked ArbCom mailing list content, there were endemic problems of attitude if not of conduct.  We have no reason to believe that things are better now, only hope. Rich Farmbrough, 07:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

 * For what its worth I too have met several members of the Arbcom and my feelings of the process aside I hold no ill will towards any of them. That still doesn't change the fact that I think the existing process is flawed and broken. After looking back at the case as you referenced above, yes there are some changes but the result is still leading to a ban, just with shorter a period at which the user can request a review of their block. You are also correct that links help. They do however take a lot of time to research and add and since the adding of these links is unlikely to change the outcome I don't feel that is a very good use of my time. I do admit that I am likely a strong reason that Rich F wasn't completely banned from the pedia but it took a huge investment of time and effort that could have been better spent on the pedia and not in arguing a case based on petty grievances that never should have made it to Arbcom in the first place. I also don't have time to act like an Arb. I'm not on the committee nor do I wish to be. The main problem is that the majority of the people involved in these cases are either members of the committee or those that mean to see the user banned. Very few ever comment in support. Partially because they are afraid to get involved, partially because they know that Arbcom will ban them anyway so commenting is just a waste of time, some because they don't know about Arbcom or the process and still others because they just think that their time is better spent in actual edits and not in Wikipolitics. Kumioko (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, like Kumioko no animus against the Arbs individually or as a group, but there is a de facto increase in the effective power being wielded. The question of whether the power is being wielded well or badly is to some extent a separate issue, as is the question of how these problems can be resolved. Here are some examples of creep:
 * 1) Beta - attempted community solution sunk by ArbCom Motion.
 * 2) Precedent - use of previous cases principles has effectively created case law, which was never intended to occur
 * 3) Chilling effect - BAG is cowed by ArbCom cases, either onging, proposed or historical
 * 4) Governance - ArbCom is asked to rule on govenance issues
 * 5) Control - ArbCom controls and appoints its own audit subcommittee
 * 6) Control - ArbCom appoints checkusers, very few historical checkusers remain
 * 7) Chilling effect - Arbcom's severe and erratic de-sysopping results in admins being reluctant to be bold
 * 8) Policy - Arbs attempt to and do change policy, contrary to their remit.
 * 9) Self-starting - Arbitrators bring cases, which is a severe abuse of privilege
 * 10) Self-serving - Arbitrators ban users by motion, thus taking supreme executive power

This is all from memory, research would doubtless throw up more examples. Rich Farmbrough, 07:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

 * Rich, if I assume the above to be true, would the existing semi-democratic process for electing arbitrators simply make that an extension of the editing community's consensus? Is ArbCom excused because we (we being anyone who can vote and is not an arbitrator) continue to give them the power they have? In other words, I'm asking if your beef is ultimately with ArbCom itself, or the decision the community made in electing its current members. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is the present ArbCom system, ArbCom elections are held within the existing ArbCom system. There is likely no consensus for having the ArbCom system we have at present. So, if Jimbo were to abolish the present system and he were to ask the community via a few RFCs to choose a new system, the present system being one of the options, I would be very surprised if the present system would end up being selected by the community. Count Iblis (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do the rules apply only to less connected wikipedians, while connected wikipedians get a free pass?
Do the rules apply only to less connected wikipedians, while connected wikipedians get a free pass?

See this AN/I case, where one admin edit warred, reverted a revert of the competing editor, blocked the competing editor in order to win the edit war, and brought in puppets to do his war.

The other editor complained at the AN/I, and asked to block that admin and his puppet show. The decision of the AN/I was to block the editor that complained, and to hide the complaint inside a closed hat template.

I think that the rules either apply to everyone or they apply to no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked this IP hopper, block evasion, I've been all over the place with this one... Dennis Brown - 2¢    ©   (WER) 16:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I am not going to edit war, but this IP needs to get blocked as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not edit warring when WP:DENY is involved. Obvious sock was obvious sock. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked.  It isn't warring since vandalism (close enough) is a clear exemption to 3RR.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   (WER) 18:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock or no, the question posed in the thread heading is a legitimate concern and one whose answer is "yes". Now you can ignore ME, but you cant call me a sock or meat puppet of anyone.Camelbinky (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, I suppose if you want a real answer, it starts with defining what a "Connected Wikipedian" is. Natural human socialization gives us connections, of course, and the more socialable someone is, the more people they end up knowing. We treat those we know with more trust and forgiveness than those we don't, in general. Another type of connection might be people who share a common interest or have a common attribute. This might be people who volunteer together at a certain Wiki project, like Copyediting, or who like the same kind of pasta, *or* might relate to people sharing a status, like Administrator or Bureaucrat or Arbitrator. Strangely, I've seen very odd and mixed reactions in this. If someone is an admin at the English Wikipedia, it might get them respect here from other admins, but an admin from another language iteration of Wikipedia might not get as much good will. I think generally it boils down ultimately to how congenial you are versus how patient or altruistic others are. If you're nice, and pick your battles carefully and you happen to be an admin on top of that, you're going to be loved by all. If you're not so nice, come out swinging too much, and you're an IP editor, you can expect to get a kick in the face pretty fast. All this despite whether you follow our rules here or not. It is human nature. So the question is... where do you feel like fitting in on this continuum, and are people being patient and altruistic *enough* generally that it isn't so bad? -- Avanu (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We can debate whether altuism actually exists, and while the facts from my anthropology courses I helped teach as a TA might be out of date, I'm still going to go with the standard answer from back then "no altruism isnt real". But the point is in Wikipedia- it does NOT matter who or how many friends you have, the !rules do apply to all EQUALLY. This crap of- if you have more friends there must be a reason for that, and therefore you must be more careful and more respected and less likely to do something wrong on purpose.... smacks of Chamberlain-esque appeasement to bullies. Bullies have plenty of friends. Hitler had plenty of friends, the NAZI party was democratically elected. We dont allow those with lots of friends to get a free pass. Anyone who justifies it should not be allowed to comment on AN/I or anywhere else where penalties may apply to someone who does something wrong. This results in people who bring an admin or other long-term editor to AN/I getting themselves censored instead of a remedy.Camelbinky (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, becoming an admin (or even being a prolific editor over a long period of time) does require some degree of reasonableness and responsibility, so the favor is not entirely unreasonable. If any editor (even Jimbo Wales, hypothetically) is totally uncooperative, incivil, or trollish to other users, in spite of well meaning advice from other users, that editor shouldn't be here. If they evade their blocks only to continue their inappropriate behavior, the other account should be blocked and existing blocks should be extended. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And once again, Wikipedia boards show Godwin's law perfectly. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The question here, Camelbinky, is whether we are following common law, civil law, or some other process entirely here at Wikipedia. Honestly it is hard to tell sometimes. Creative interpretation of the rules is discouraged by the average editor, and seemingly encouraged via the IAR pillar when an Admin feels they have a *need* to do something. So it is a bit like the "Do as I say, not as I do" method of parenting, and unforunately people get caught in the middle of this mess because of inconsistent enforcement and an unintentional Blue Code with a small degree of Lese-majesty that comes I think from a tendency to regard those who challenge the status quo as 'upstarts', rather than as 'fixers'. I would strongly discourage labeling everyone in a class as a bad actor. In fact, most of this is not anyone's 'fault' as much as it is just human nature. I think Wikipedia lacks a few controls and checks to balance out this disposition (those need to be addressed), but overall the spirit of Wikipedia is pretty darn awesome. So, what should be done? -- Avanu (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as how NOTHING in Wikipedia is analogous to a constitution or set of laws and we specifically spell out that our policies and guidelines are NOT "rules" I would say probably common law is the closest analogy we have. But the point is that common law is decided upon by courts, our policies and guidelines are decided upon by consensus of the best practices of what we already do. Our actions determine what the policies and guidelines should say, policies and guidelines are written after the fact of the Community already disregarding them and changing our Standard Operating Procedures. We are the biggest form of pure democratic anarchy and the problem with that is there is a subset of the Community, especially among Admins that see Wikipedia as a strict-constructionist interpreted Constitutional republican form of governance with policies and guidelines as "laws". That has been struck down MANY times most notably at wp:5pillars everytime someone wishes to change the wording to make it a POLICY or some how where "policies flow from" which it is not and never has been classified as such.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)::I find that approach somewhat problematic.
 * Suppose that one or two editors revert an edit of an other editor, and say that the edit of the other editor is against current consensus, despite that edit being in accordance with current written policies. How can anyone verify that current consensus is indeed what the reverter(s) claim that it is? It is impossible or impractical to confirm it.
 * Thus, the result is that the "consensus" is dictated by a small group of people, and is not really a consensus at all.
 * The policies pages should reflect the current method of making decisions. If someone don't like the current method of making a decision, then he/she should take his/her dispute to the policies pages, and not dictate their whims in article space against current written policies. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC) :P

 * Though the policy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does clarify that policies, representing the consensus of the community as a whole, overrides consensus among small groups. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is ignored by people who ignore policies, just like any other policy. In light of the above, they can also easily claim that the current broad consensus is exactly what they do, a claim which is impossible to prove or disprove, even when in fact it is a small local consensus between one or two editors.
 * If the current written policy don't reflect the consensus with regard to how things should be decided right now, then there is no such thing as consensus. The decision making is just a power trip. It has nothing to do with what is right for an encyclopedia, and for its audience. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) :P
 * Policies are "descriptive" not "proscriptive" if a dispute occurs whether or not a policy should be ignore then discussion occurs, and perhaps the policy or guideline is rewritten. I have been part of that process for MANY years, I see nothing wrong with it. What I see a problem with is admins going around applying the policies as written-in-stone laws and acting as if they are the police and judge and jury of what can and can not be done in Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a major problem. The attitude that "I am an admin (arb, Bagger, Crat, established editor...) therefore I tell you what to do" even backed up by policy (and even when it is correctly interpreted which is not all the time) is basically unfriendly. I have found that in almost every dispute that remains unsolved one party wants to tell the other party what to do. Rich Farmbrough, 06:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

 * @Rich I agree. I also think that it is unfriendly to just tell the other party what to do, and expect the other party to comply just based on who the teller is. I think that everyone should have to explain the rational behind their point of view.
 * @Camelbinky I agree that the admins shouldn't act like the police judge and jury. However, doesn't it bother you that the same question could be asked in relation to a million of articles, and in many articles could be decided in a way that is not optimal for the encyclopedia, just because of a local consensus? Doesn't it bother you that time and energy are wasted on many small instances of the same dispute? Parohstein (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think there are two ways in which well-connected Wikipedians benefit from a free pass when it comes to conduct issues. The first is the "... but he/she is a net positive to the encyclopedia", meaning that if you're unnecessarily personal when you get into a disagreement it will be okay if you improve enough articles. The second is the benefit of numbers that can always disrupt a consensus, so that even 10 friends can make it impossible for an RFC or an AN/I to arrive at a consensus. As much as these two things annoy me, I don't think the answer is some "purist" interpretation of policy where we ignore an editor's good contributions, or editor conduct is evaluated by people who have no direct experience with that particular editor's history. If we slammed everyone for every infraction, we wouldn't have very many editors left. Being a more active editor typically means more actively putting up with a lot of crap, and those editors have earned a longer rope than your average 10-edit troll. The key is this: with a longer rope needs to come clearer and more pre-emptive warnings. We would resolve a lot of issues if those editors in good standing were told "hey, you're a good editor, but you should know better than to do that, so please stop", even if there's no block or ban. We actually inflame the problem when we try to sweep the bad conduct under the rug completely and say "ahh, give him a break and just drop it". When we "just drop it", we end up in a negative pattern where we drop it and drop it and drop it, until that editor has caused so much damage and drama that now we have no choice but to resort to a hefty block or ban. And by that point, a lot of editors have left Wikipedia in frustration, because of what they saw as a completely blind eye to bad conduct. If I could sum up my argument, I'd say we SHOULD grant leniency to editors who are a net positive, but that doesn't mean that they should get a free pass until they do enough damage to become a net negative. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New guideline proposal
I've proposed making File mover a guideline; please read my suggestion at the talk page and offer your input. I've never before made such a proposal, so any technical help would also be appreciated. In particular, I don't know whether I need to announce it anywhere; for example, is there a bot that makes announcements of proposed guidelines? Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At a minimum you should start an RFC on the question, a notice here, and at WP:CENT are sometimes used. You have already sort of notified this board, and I don't think it really rises to the WP:CENT level as it is focused on the narrow role of file moving. Monty  845  22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your link in your response at the talk page, I'm going to withdraw this temporarily, since I searched but failed to find any previous attempts to make it a guideline. Please expect a modified proposal before long.  Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * See WP:PROPOSAL for advice that you should adapt as needed to the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminder of Verifiability policy RfC
Reminder: the request for comments on how to word the lead section of the verifiability policy will close on July 28. Editors are invited to participate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Policies: number and size
You see, if you propose a change in isolation the big picture is missed; the argument becomes one of whether we really care about the topic of the potential policy (which we always do) and therefore often the status quo appears to be policy rather than guideline. I would also note that there are two symptoms I see of two much policy: firstly, policy pages often summarise each other; secondly, we often deal with subsets such as "Procedural" or "Behavioural" policy. Both might be necessary but surely they aren't where we would like to be. So, first, that central question. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments
It's actually surprising how few of those affect a typical new user. What new editor is going to worry about Bot policy? Policies related to the Arbitration Committee? Policies about checkuser, child protection, global rights, or global blocking? There's maybe a dozen of those policies listed that may have real impact on newbies: edit warring, image use, NPOV, NOR, and the like.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'll add that most of the policies that are important to new users are actually "common sense written down". For example, is it likely that the good new users will have to read No personal attacks to know that insulting strangers at random is not a good idea? Lithuanian Wikipedia actually manages to discourage insults (perhaps better than the English Wikipedia) without even having such policies written down...
 * And one more point: I don't think that the users who come to write encyclopedia are going to be discouraged by reading...
 * Of course, all that doesn't mean that the policies can't possibly be improved, but each case has to be considered separately. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of George Carlin's Ten Commandments, I don't think we need all those policies when only one will suffice. I suggest nominating all those pages in that list for WP:AFD except for Ignore all rules. Remember, There can be only one. WTF? (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we required editors to pass some sort of test on these prior to editing, it'd be a problem. But we don't. As Kww says, editors need only concern themselves with policy (or even know about the existence of policy) as and when they want to. A lot of this is back-end detail that the vast majority of our contributors (who don't have accounts, don't use talk pages, don't know what an admin is, have never heard of any namespace except for mainspace, or all of the above) never need concern themselves with. And furthermore, this is the most highly active collaborative project in the history of the Internet, and in a great many ways in the history of mankind: we are not going to get by with a 16-page pamphlet and WP:IAR alone for the simple reason that if we have to reinvent what we presently codify in policy from first principles in every dispute we'd be even more bogged down in politics than we already are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * KWW hits the nail on the head there. In practice, the vast majority of those policies are there for the edge cases, and will never apply to 99% of editors.  They may be arcane, and most could stand a bit of freshening up of both their substance and prose, but they are mostly irrelevant to new editors and couldn't possibly be an obstacle to them.  — Coren (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"how widely agreed is it that Wikipedia's policies should be fewer in number and more concise?" I agree there should be fewer and they should be more concise. Something like combining WP:5P with the related nutshells comes to mind. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are opening up this discussion, we should probably also mention the fact that we use shortcuts EVERYWHERE, and shortcuts are written in CAPITALS and capitals are related to as shouting in many online communities. I'v experienced more an more people who are heavily offended by the SHORTCUTS we 'call' them. I realize they are handy, but perhaps we should add some 'auto expansion' or something on those things, using templates or the like. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that listing the number of bytes is very helpful. WP:IAR is listed at over 3KB, but the policy consists of one sentence. Most of the content is interwiki links and standard templates linking to other policies. Hut 8.5 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be fewer and they should be more concise. Coincidentally, I was pulling together a list of policies and their size for this purpose, and another purpose. I wanted to track the size over time, because I think that is relevant to RfA requirements. (In round numbers, the size has doubled since approximately 2006). At Wikimania, I ran into someone who has already assembled the data, so I have an email in to get it. My incomplete analysis also included Guidelines. While secondary to Policies, I think any effort to work on streamlining needs to include a review of Guidelines. And, unfortunately, because I think it makes the task almost impossible, rather than simply very difficult, I don't think a proper view would be complete without looking at Essays. For example BRD is an essay, but I bet it is cited more often than some policies. Sue Gardner, in a speech in London, talked about the difficulty of paring back policies. I think she is right that our processes aren't well suited for the task, but we should take it on.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm all for some kind of modest target. Say, reducing the number of policies by 20%, and reducing the cumulative length of those policies by 20%. That might not seem like a big reduction, but I suspect it will be challenging enough as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't identify 11 of these pages that I'm willing to live without. A couple could be merged, but not eleven.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 55 policies!? Note that the US Constitution only has 7 articles and 27 amendments.  There's obviously a lot of a redundancy here.  We have at least five different deletion policies (deletion, oversight, revisions, proposed and speedy) and three different sub-methods of proposed deletion including a special one just for books (of which I was totally unaware).  We have separate policies for civility, harassment and personal attacks and they all seem equally useless.  And we can be fairly sure that all these policies are mostly original research, unsupported by external evidence and based mostly upon personal POV.  That's why editors love them so much - they are personal creations and so tended lovingly.  That's why we have an absurd RfC to agonise over the wording of one sentence in WP:V.  Now, we even have a policy which states that all these rules are largely pointless,  "...rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice.".  You can therefore delete all of these pages and Wikipedia would carry on just fine.  Where do I sign ...?  Warden (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * US Code of Laws : Wikipedia's total Policy/Guidelines :: US Constitution : Wikipedia's Five Pillars. --M ASEM  (t) 22:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The analogy interested me, but it's not precisely correct. The US Code came after the Constitution and could not have happened without it; FIVE was created from TRIFECTA some years after the creation of the core policies, as a summary for newbies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion suggesting the demotion or redirect of WP:ATTACK at its talk page. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, interested editors may want to coordinate efforts through WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
heyrðu

Etymology
The imperative of.

Interjection

 * 1) hey! oy! (used to grab attention)
 * 2) ; right, so
 * 1) ; right, so

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: heyrðu


text:
kepittää

Verb

 * 1)  To cane, to beat with a cane.
 * 2)  To punish; to hurt
 * 3)  To win
 * 4)  To shaft to have sexual intercourse.

title: kepittää


text:
Golshan, Nishapur

Golshan is a village in Rivand Rural District, in the Central District of Nishapur County, Razavi Khorasan Province, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was 344, in 85 families.

title: Golshan, Nishapur


text:
User:Sidang' Adipo/sandbox

Adipo Sidang' (born 1983 in Siaya, Nyanza region) is a Kenyan poet, playwright, actor, song writer and the author of “Parliament of Owls” poetry book which features different themes, with the state of African politics and affairs as the over-arching theme. The book was published in 2016 by Contact Zones Series, an imprint of Goethe Institut, Nairobi and Native Intelligence Publishers, Nairobi.

Sidang’ is a Pan-Africanist and an exponent of black consciousness, pluralism and the need for Africans to archive their culture through literature and performative arts. Besides writing in English, Sidang’ also writes in Dholuo and has written a number of poems in Dholuo. He has written songs among others “Bunge la Bunde” (Parliament of Owls), co-written with Zakah of Ukoo Flani Mau Mau hip-hop outfit and performed by the hip-hop artist.

Sidang’, a former university teacher of Philosophy, is a proponent of employing new media in archiving poetry performance. Under his record label Sidang’ Studios Limited, he has performed a number of poems from his book, the most popular being Parliament of Owls, Love is a Ring and These Works of Mine. Some of the performances are available on his YouTube channel.

Sidang’ currently runs AfroGovernance Initiative, a civic engagement and education platform targeting the youth to actively involve them in the quest for democracy and good governance in Kenya. AfroGovernance Initiative uses literature, art, music and digital media to educate the youth on the issues of democracy and good governance. Besides, he also runs Agora Theatre Group which plays a critical role in creating civic awareness through theatre. Agora Theatre performed an adaptation of the title poem “Parliament of Owls” in the run-up to the 2017 General Elections in Kenya.

Parliament of Owls is available in bookstores in Nairobi (Prestige Bookshop & University of Nairobi Bookstore) as well as on Amazon.com.

Influences: Okot p’Bitek, Taban lo Liyong, Malcolm X, Aimé Césaire, Kwasi Wiredu, Walter Rodney, Steve Biko, Thomas Sankara, J.M. Kariuki, Oginga Odinga, Odera Oruka, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean Paul Sartre.

References:

Parliament of Owls (2016), Contact Zones Series, Nairobi. https://www.amazon.com/Parliament-Owls-Contact-Zones-1/dp/9966095586

Parliament of Owls (2016), Contact Zones Series, Nairobi. https://www.books.magunga.com/store/parliament-of-owls-by-adipo-sidang/

Nation on Saturday: Adipo Sidang: The Literary Monk Inspired by Luo Folklore: http://www.nation.co.ke/lifestyle/weekend/The-literary-monk-inspired-by-Luo-folklore/1220-3994152-ffdc3e/index.html

Eve Woman, Saturday Standard: A Poetic Man - Adipo Sidang’: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/evewoman/article/2001246684/a-poetic-man-adipo-sidang

Love is a Ring, Adipo Sidang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bzv3iPci1o

MA Philosophy Thesis: Knowledge and Epistemic Justification: http://www.researchkenya.or.ke/thesis/21730/knowledge-and-epistemic-justification-:-an-appraisal-of-robert-nozicks-truth-tracking-theory

title: User:Sidang' Adipo/sandbox


text:
Oshadhiparvata

Oshadhiparvata (ओषधिपर्वत) is a mythological mountain featured in the Ramayana. It is described to possess a number of medicinal plants growing upon its summit. In the Ramayana, the bear-king Jambavan requests the vanara Hanuman to travel to Oshadhiparvata and carry the medicinal herbs that grow on its southern summit to the battlefield in Lanka for healing the army of Rama.

Literature
In the Ramayana, observing the serious injuries afflicting the army of Rama, Jambavan urged Hanuman to fly to the Himalayas, and locate the Oshadhiparvata, the peak present between the mountains of Kailasha and Meru. He informed the vanara that he would be able to identify the mountain by the luminescence of the healing herbs growing upon them in the dark. He instructed him to collect four herbs, known as the mritasanjivini, vishalyakarani, savarnyakarani, and the santanakarani. These four herbs are stated to heal all wounds, no matter how grievous. Hanuman flew towards the mountain, but realised that the glimmering plants appeared to vanish when he ventured close to them. Growing to massive proportions, Hanuman uprooted the mountain and carried it upon his palm to Lanka. The herbs were used to heal and restore the lives of the fallen warriors on the side of Rama. After his forces were healed, the deity asked Hanuman to restore the mountain to its original location, which he swiftly performed.

title: Oshadhiparvata