The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2018-02-05. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-05/Arbitration report

• I have found myself reading about the P-51 and ending as far as Darth Vader. Solution to the getting lost problem, open links in a new tab. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 01:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-05/Featured content

• Well, I dug out my old microscope, but I still couldn't find The Signpost. Yeah, I know – crummy microscope.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for the artwork. I don't know which is scarier, that I know so many of those references, or that there are so many I don't know.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'm going to my local copy shop and see if I can get a real poster. If I were going to Wikimania, I would set up a table to sell these posters. Isn't capitalism great where I could make a lot of money off this other editor? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 12:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Disappointed there is no entry for the Wilderness of Research. Where a Wikipedian goes when she/he reads an article, & decides it needs more work. And for where the Foundation fails to provide guides for intrepid Wikipedians. Sometimes the Wikipedian returns with a treasure of discoveries. Sometimes the Wikipedian fails to return at all. -- llywrch (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• I had forgotten about the dreaded Thank Trolls! LOL! Kaldari (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The link you provided is also pretty funny and worthy of its own humour article. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 09:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why doesn't somebody add an infobox to this map? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Like this:

{{Geobox|Protected area|center}}

Am I the only one struggling to understand the UCF section? Lepricavark (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nutshell: (un)remarkable edit war about unverifiable original research relating to US university sports teams. This uninvolved editor would like to know, was there a Presidential tweet on the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.56 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I got the basic idea. The problem is that the section is confusingly worded and seemingly inaccurate. Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

What's "seemingly inaccurate" about it. Let us know, so we can fix it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

As College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS do not have a championship, there is no defined winner other than who has the best record. That sentence is confusingly worded and also inaccurate, as the FBS does have a championship: College Football Playoff. Therefore, the following sentence about Alabama is also incorrect. Officially, Alabama did win the championship; it is not a matter of opinion. Lepricavark (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The College Football Playoff is a [[M "A mythical national championship (sometimes abbreviated MNC) is national championship recognition that is not explicitly competitive. This phrase has often been invoked in reference to American college football, because the NCAA does not sponsor a playoff-style tournament or recognize official national champions for the Football Bowl Subdivision." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(Minor point: the "[[M" fragment in the 16:36, 6 February (UTC) post above may have been intended to link Mythical national championship.) – Athaenara ✉ 20:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you may be correct, but, the vast majority of the sports world regards the CFP winner as the national champion. At any rate, the sentence is still worded very poorly, and I'm not sure how the 'best record' part is relevant if you're really going to make the argument that there is no official champion. Any sports fan reading that paragraph will gain a lower opinion of Wikipedia's credibility. Lepricavark (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point, and there is certainly validity in it, but what I did was based on a Sports Illustrated piece, which regardless of what many people think says "Outside of Orlando, people largely consider Alabama the national champion and UCF a delightful or exasperating footnote." So yes, it may have been poorly worded, but on the other hand, I based it solely on the article in Sports Illustrated, which hardly mentions CFP. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean no offense, and it certainly was poorly worded, But I do not feel it was incorrect completely. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"I am technically competent within the Wiki markup, tables, etc, so I get a few request to do that, and will happily mop up after others who are creating content." That'd be me. Thanks for many, many such fixes.

A lovely interview, but unduly modest. Your FL contribution is outstanding. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• An excellent interview – dignified, modest and full of common sense. Would that this serenity of approach was evident in other parts of the encyclopaedia where the principal objective of editors seems to be to knock spots off each other. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• I recall having initially stumbled at FL and then having The Rambling Man guide me with incredibly wonderful tips and edits for my two FLs. Perhaps the most helpful editor I've met. Loved to read the interview. Lourdes 16:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Nice interview, an interesting 2-minute read.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• This could equally be used by editors to hide or downplay long-term bad behavior. -- GreenC 20:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am in favor of more transparency, not opaqueness. Letting bad actors slip away and regenerate with a new name doesn't advance the project in the least. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The "right to be forgotten" is a mistake to begin with in its "real world" iteration. Let's please never try to translate such a bad concept here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think the right to remember is at least as important if not more so. – Athaenara ✉ 20:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the other comments, that keeping block logs in tact is very important. But in instances where there is genuine consensus that a block was incorrect, and the blocking admin agrees, then I don't see a reason why we shouldn't have a mechanism whereby a block can be hidden from the record. There are also some very good other points about the language that's used. "Block" and "ban" sound punitive; enforced "time out" or "wikibreak" are a much better description of what these things are supposed to be used for. WaggersTALK 15:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'd say that you hit the nail right on the head in regards to what Atsme was getting at. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• In this situation, the blocking admin should reblock the user for one second and use a rationale along the lines of "I'm sorry; I shouldn't have blocked". Anyone not paying attention will miss this, but they should be ignored because they're not paying attention. Anyone paying attention will know to treat the previous block as a mistake, as retracted. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• The right to be forgotten and the right to remember will always be at odds if they're considered absolutes. Blocks are not punitive, neither should our memories be: Every "request we forget" should be weighed up, and unless we have good reason to think the user who's trying to be forgotten is a risk to the encyclopaedia, we should endeavour to forget: Not because it's a right, but out of respect. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 01:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• The block logs would only be removed from public view. Admins and ArbCom would still have access to the redacted logs. Removal will also serve as a preventative from preconceived notions and bad first impressions, especially if the "researching" user doesn't understand how blocks work, or how they occured - trying to trace it back to find out what actually happened can be an exercise in frustration. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No vested contributors. Privacy situations can arise that I should see but the common editor shouldn't, and of course I have the viewdeleted right, but aside from block log entries that are themselves bad and need to be redacted, anything I can see in the block log should be visible to anyone who's not logged in. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, are you're saying the block log should remain for the whole world to see, logged in or not? Did you wikilink to the essay as an example of a potential admin cabal? I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying to relay. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's a significant problem with a log entry (significant enough to warrant RevDel immediately), yes the block log should remain visible. You a non-admin and I an admin are equal — aside from the necessary viewdeleted (see WP:VDA) and a few limited circumstances to prevent vandalism (e.g. Special:UnwatchedPages), you should be able to see everything I can see. And IPs are people too: they should be able to see everything you can see. My point with the link is that making bigger distinctions between admins and others furthers the caste divide between the two groups that already exists. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, you are one of several admins I admire and respect, and I cannot overemphasize that fact, as my impression of you dates back several years. I will add that if all admins thought and responded the same way you do, we'd be close to having the perfect Wikipedia. I'm not saying my thoughts should be the gage for all...I'm just saying that while the whole blocking policy may be workable in theory, it fails miserably in practice. As long as WP operates in the realm of anonymity, there is no incentive (or concern over being held accountable) to maintain desirable characteristics, such as trustworthiness, principal, conscience, character, sincerity, patience, consideration, or respect. Perhaps I'm mistaken, so please don't hesitate to provide your perspective. Those of us whose id has been made public (for whatever reason) dance to the beat of a different drum, so when an improper block occurs, it does reflect in a negative way on one's character...publicly. What purpose does that serve? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is defining an "improper" block. Often, proper blocks need to be remembered: if you got blocked a dozen times a couple of years ago (all at once), and now you're in an RFA, it's entirely sensible for someone to question you about it. I understand that it can be a difficulty for you, but hiding block logs (for reasons that aren't abusive and don't warrant revdeletion) can impair tons of stuff, especially regarding problematic individuals who won't shape up and keep having to be brought to the aforementioned dramah boards. Improper blocks need to be marked with additional block log entries, e.g. my suggestion up above for a one-second block. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just wish I could get my April Fools block (that admin has since been blocked) and the last admittedly Bad block deleted.

The first one was really odd, because the admin never could explain to us the difference between an edit and a revert, so we were left uninformed by that block.-- BullRangifer (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• The right to be forgotten is absolute, and it's enshrined in EU law as a human right. If the editors of Wikpedia (many of whom are teenagers) want to have Wikipedia to not respect this right, then they need to have a "standing warning" on every page which allows new editors, many of whom use their real names, that anything they do will remain on Wikipedia FOREVER. This includes situations whereby some random person misunderstands them, or picks a fight, or what-have-you, resulting in a situation of unremovable defamation. So either respect the right to be forgotten ("right to disappear") or put a large red "floating" sign on Wikipedia so new editors know what they are getting themselves into. Sapphiresblue (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Sapphiresblue: Wikimedia is not subject to EU law, and stuff like the "right to be forgotten" is a great argument for keeping it that way. That being said, we do have the ability to revision delete or suppress genuinely inappropriate material, but "I wish that weren't there" isn't sufficient reason for that. We don't do disclaimers, aside from the general ones at the bottom of the page and in the TOU. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• This OpEd seems, to me, to be anchored with an opinion that blocking policy (Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users) be changed. And that banning policy should be changed. Wikipedia is implemented with transparency. All behavior here is public, save for that reldeved. The example of the EU right has no bearing because Wikipedia is a voluntary association with a single publication of record. Without publication, Wikipedia does not exist. Behavior records are part of Wikipedia policy. — Neonorange (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• This really needs to be addressed a bit at a time. The place to start is with removing bad blocks from the log. Any block that was overturned by WP:ARBCOM, by a consensus of reviewing administrators (at WP:AE or WP:AN), by the community at WP:ANI, by the issuing admin as a conceded mistake, or (in theory) by WP:OFFICE action, should be immediately removed from the block log. This should be applied retroactively (at least upon request). This is pretty much a no-brainer. There is no community or project interest in retaining bad blocks. If there's a technical reason it can't be done, then they should be WP:OVERSIGHTed instead of literally deleted, so that even most admins can't see them. After we get that bit of sanity, then consider things like auto-expiring things from the block logs after X number of years, and other such proposals. Demanding multiple kinds and scopes of changes – "sweeping reform" – never works at Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• This paper from 2011 is a much better analysis of talk page dynamics than that Carnegie Mellon paper. 185.13.106.213 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is based upon a data dump from 2008. Carnegie Mellon has a whole department dedicated to WP. I've been there. Ironically, most do not edit. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Note how the 2011 paper isolated authority citations and opinion changes ("alignment moves") as the primary features (beyond the writing parties, their semantic assertions, etc.) of talk pages. While the CMU paper says as much in section 2 on page 1027, they proceed to focus solely on authority claims in section 5.2.3 on page 1030, along with the other features in section 5.2, but ignore the crucial instance of participants coming into agreement with others. That's a really stark omission and I am sure their analysis would have been stronger if they included it. Do you know the authors? If so, please suggest that if it makes sense to you. 213.86.87.228 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Cochrane has been a great partner for wiki editors in the field of medicine and for Wikipedia's public image in general. I edit Wikipedia's medical articles and do outreach to health organizations to invite them to edit Wikipedia articles. Many organizations already imagine that Cochrane is the standard for conservative and non-controversial health information, and when I mention that Cochrane itself has a wiki partnership, the fact of that collaboration goes a long way toward persuading other organizations to be involved in editing wiki. JenOttawa has been a great go-between for explaining Wiki to Cochrane and Cochrane to wiki contributors. These kinds of collaborations are invaluable for developing Wikipedia with the best possible source material. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• As encouraging as this article might be, I am concerned that it generates more publicity than actual content additions. Please don't get me wrong, I use Cochrane all the time. I was a little confused about this announcement between WP and Cochrane because Cochrane's content was accessible before the partnership. I am also taking a look at the list generated here by Jen to see what I can do to help. The first link I opened and evaluated was about evidence that was inconclusive and it stated that more research was needed resulting no relevant information that could be added to a WP article. Editors are viewing this Cochrane to-do list at rate of 5 views per day. This was calculated by subtracting the number of total edits (which, of course are counted as page views) from the total page views since the creation of the list. Admittedly, this may not be the best way to evaluate the impact of the list and our partnership with Cochrane. Only five editors have edited the page to indicate that they have added or evaluated the content of the Cochrane articles listed on the page. I guess what I am saying is that more eyes have read this Signpost article than have given the Cochrane list a look. The results have been better with another project of Jen's and the WikiEd Foundation. Student editors have added more medical content in a week's time than the five editors working on the Cochrane list have added in the past 111 days. I have another theory. It is a rare thing for a medical editor to create content that is listed in a 'to-do' created by another editor. Very little collaboration occurs between WP medical editors to improve medical content unless you count reversions, removing vandalism, fascinating talk page discussions, deletions and disappearing references when content is merged. Our problem is not accessing Cochrane reviews - our problem is retaining medical editors and creating a positive environment for those who want to add content. I can explain it from another perspective: medical editors are so busy fighting vandalism and updating information it is difficult to expect them to add content based upon the list generated by Cochrane. I remain positive and will do what I can to incorporate Cochrane reviews on our list, but I am not optimistic about the partnership actually improving medical articles. Sorry to be a party pooper. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 22:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I review a lot of edits to medical articles, and have seen an up tick in new editors added good summaries of Cochrane reviews to Wikipedia over the last couple of years. The effort to update articles via that list is just one effort via Cochrane. IMO Jen and Cochrane have been doing an excellent job. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Minnesota NFL team called the Vikings? See also Scandinavian_Americans#Scandinavian_Americans_by_state . Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

And indeed the Featured Article on Swedish emigration to the United States, which says that "Minnesota remains by a wide margin the state with the most inhabitants of Swedish descent—9.6% of the population as of 2005." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.56 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

See Kensington Runestone for an alleged (though almost certainly bogus) direct Viking-Minnesota connection... AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of us were born in northwestern Wisconsin, so we believe in Packers, not Vikings. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)