Jump to content

Talk:ITIL/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Question the link to BOFH. it is amusing and satirical but lacks notable new thought on ITIL. Not appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukerua (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that.
As the one who added the BOFH link, I must admit that I had never heard of ITIL until I saw the reference to it in BOFH. It seemed only fair to return the complement. :-) Ralphbk (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise the link to itil.org.uk. This is a commercial website. I nominate this as link spam. Why aren't the MFA nazis up in arms about this one? Pukerua (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Adsense (MFA) on there at all. I see TSO, the publishers of ITIL (in case you didn't know)! I also hear rumours that the site is going to be a dedicated front end for them.
Your zealousness seems to be a little misplaced (as in your previous edit history?). 86.130.173.212 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There isn't adsense but they are a for-profit affiliate of TSO, i.e. a retailer. This is obvious from the links. This is a commercial re-seller, one amongst many. They are NOT TSO nor are they a dedicated front end for them, even if they have plastered their logo all over the page to lend credibility. They also flog the ITIL Toolkit http://www.itil.org.uk/kit.htm. My MFA point is that an opinion/discussion website with advertising revenue gets hounded off this page while a purely commercial site gets an external link. This is inconsistent. The same is true to a lesser extent of The ITIL Community Forum http://www.itilcommunity.com/, which is obviously non-commercial but promotes commercial sites such as the Toolkit.Pukerua (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Your new strategy to list your site seems to be to try to discredit sites even like the community, which probably has more ITIL content than any other! Or you miss the point completely. Just because a site has a couple of links on it isn't the issue. The content is. A site constructed just to derive Adsense clicks is never going to be suitable, however many times you call us 'MFA Nazis'. And I take the point made by the previous poster about your edit history. 74.63.84.101 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I added this link http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/51930 but it was removed/reversed. This LinkedIn group has over 5,000 members discussing ITIL and therefore I don't understand why it is being removed but other forums such as the ITIL Community Forum is still displayed? Your advice would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimozcan (talk • contribs) 01:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison at all. The community has many thousands of open informative articles in the forum by some of the biggest names in the sector. This is rather different to a basic and closed LinkedIn group, which is simply not appropriate, ditto other LI groups on other topics. Wikipedia is not a directory and should not be used to promote your own interests. It is also the case that attempts have been made to add that LI link to the ITIL Open Guide and others, presumably by the same person. 81.159.231.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC).
Oh please! A linkedin group is not closed - it is as easy to register with as the "community forum". The forum (and itil.ork.uk) have ZERO official status yet both slyly imply official status to their product the ITIL toolkit by listing it amongst questions about things that ARE official with statements like "5. What is the ITIL Toolkit? This is the main support resource for ITIL." "What is the ITIL Toolkit? The ITIL Toolkit is a collection of resources brought together specifically to accompany ITIL". The community site does provide a valuable function but no more so than many others (including that linkedin group, the datamation forum and others). Wikipedia is not a directory as you correctly state and this link to a commercial forum site is inappropriate. itil.org.uk is totally indefensible. Pukerua (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Abusing other sites, with countless open articles on board is not a way to get your own dubious site/interests listed: which IS closed by the way, unlike the community. It smacks of desperation and self interest, as does picking up on something which is just referenced (the toolkit) and trying to use it as some sort of stick to beat any a site that mentions it. In addition you demonstrate no idea at all of the history and background of these things. Finally, generally speaking, LinkedIn is simply not appropriate generally in Wikipedia. 80.36.248.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
I'm not abusing anybody - I'm revealing fact. I think you should examine your own position before questioning the ethics or motivations of others. I've had my say: I let the public and the Wikipedia editors draw their own conclusions. What I say is pretty obvious to anyone who examines these two external links. I'm not making anything up.Pukerua (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, anyone looking at a suggestion to remove such a bulk of open and often valuable ITIL content, and replace it with a closed and limited Linkedin group will probably laugh, as I did. Sorry, but the suggestion itself is sufficient to reveal motive. 86.167.136.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
Perhaps this question should be referred to OGC/TSO who take a very dim view of unauthorised claims to official ITIL status? Itil.org.uk has no official standing. In comparison the ITskeptic is a well regarded critic of ITIL, endorsed by Don Page, Sharon Taylor et al, and by itsmf international —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.245.167 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested to add the www.itil.org web-site. The request has been removed with the argument, that it is a commercial site. The Site is sponsored by Glenfis, an akkredited ITIL Training company, thats true. But the site is indeed very usefull and informativ and does not look commercial at all. There are much more detailled information about ITIL and it's processes as it is available on wikipedia or other sites. It has also very usefull crosslink inforamtion to other standads like ISO 20000 and COBIT. So, if you think, that this site could contribute the open knowledge about ITIL, then please add this site. If not - it's no problem for me - I know the site as an alternative source of good ITIL knowledge. U11720 (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion appears to have drifted from a set of three interlinked sites to jyst focus on itil.org.uk. These other two sites itilcommunity.org and itlibrary.org are also worthy of debate and have been debated above. Can we please not lose sight of resolving their status? To summarise my own views:

  • they have no merit because of official status - they have none.
  • they are clearly a commercial mechanism to channel traffic to a product called The ITIL Toolkit, which is in no way a part of the ITIL official body of knowledge
  • the content on the ITIL Open Guide is extremely dated (certification and process information all dates to ITIL V2 with a token summation of ITIL V3 books as the only updated content), limited and sourced from a small number of contributors. It adds nothing to the information on Wikipedia
  • the ITIL Community forum has very little "content" at all despite claims to the contrary. I count six little bits of dated ITIL V2 content at http://www.itilcommunity.com/modules.php?name=Content from nobody I have heard of. It has lots of forum posts, but so too do other forums and forums are explicitly not desired content for Wikipedia

Pukerua (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


I would direct you to all the information on these two sites discussed above. Not least points like:
- having a link to a commercial website on board in no way makes a site "a commercial mechanism to channel traffic" (although no doubt competitors of whatever the link is might see it that way): and pretty much every ITIL site links off to a commercial one somewhere or other
- those sites are part of the fabric of an open ITIL community, which de facto is not "official", hence the opposition from those aligned down that route
- hiding the existence of the open community would be counter to Wikipedia ethos
- the Open Guide in fact has a large number of contributors, and because it is open, the vast majority of whom (and I wrote of pages for example) don't put there names on the site, equally it is up to date but also holds historical data, which is a good thing
- the Open Guide holds the open Certification Register!
- I suggest digging deeper on the submissions to the ITIL community, especially with respect to the forum posts by some of the biggest names in the industry
The list could go on and on, but most points are already covered in debate, which is why the broad consensus seemed to be that these have at least as much validity as the other links, if not more. There are political aspects around ITIL, and they will thus always be opposed by come vested interests, ditto the other way around, hence the need for a macro view and understanding of this apsect. BinaryGal (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
With regard to consensus I disagree. As for going on and on, please don't. Several pages of diatribe and poor etiquette from one editor is not a consensus. I shall raise an RFC for these links so that other opinions apart from Binarygal's can be heard.—Teahot (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
They should both go - external links should be to sites that cover the subject in a more detailed manner than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The ITIL Community Forum is a discussion forum and does not do that. The ITIL Open Guide is poor and the certification register is worthless.--Michig (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Should itilcommunity.com and itlibrary.org be kept as relevant external links for this article and do they meet the guidance of WP:EL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Previous extensive local discussions and some third opinions have failed to firmly resolve the issue.—Teahot (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Inconclusive The RFC closed after 30 days with apparently no firm consensus.—Ash (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support These are clearly important sites in the ITIL landscape with important roles and information. But that landscape is plagued with politics and vested interest, a fact which must be appreciated to understand the background here. To delete these links and not the others would unbalance the article and tend it not reflective of the real picture. It would amount to endorsement of official vested interest, and the pretence that the "open" does not exist, neither of which Wikipedia should countenance if it values the accuracy of the article. And of course all the other points I make above, including that the Open Guide is clearly intensively managed and holds the open certification register, and that the Comunnity website is clearly a source of significant further information which cannot tenably be dismissed as a mere forum (noting that the ITSMF website has a forum on board too). BinaryGal (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I support keeping the link to itillibrary.org but not to itilcommunity.org. I can perhaps be considered an uninvolved editor: I don't think I've ever edited this page, but I heard a lecture about ITIL at my workplace and may have looked at itillibrary.org (or a similar site) briefly in connection with that. I don't know much about these websites. It might have been helpful to give links to the previous discussions. My impression is that itilcommunity.org is primarily an interactive forum, and is therefore not the kind of site we normally link to. itillibrary.org seems (at a glance) to have more stable useful content such as FAQs. If it's a fairly stable wiki it may be appropriate: EL doesn't completely prohibit linking to wikis. If the quality of its content is good it can be a useful link, I think. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Both links. They add more value to the article than the others listed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.237.254 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'd been here in time I'd have addded my vote to drop both. Now what? Pukerua (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And no doubt so would others to keep them both I would imagine. It seems clear to me - there is no great hunger to remove them - in fact quite the contrary, as most voters want them to stay. So clearly they should stay. In fact I wonder if a vote on the other links would yield the same level of support? BinaryGal (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As the RFC was inconclusive I'll put the one with the least support (itilcommunity.org) back up for further discussion. I note that apart from Binarygal the only other supporter was an anonymous IP with a record of 6 article edits. Admittedly if nobody can be bothered to express an opinion then there's no incentive to tidy up the external links, though it should be noted that many folks were probably on holiday during that period.—Ash (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this. What happens now? It keeps getting put up until eventually the vote goes against it? Surely this is simply wrong, in every way. BinaryGal (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

certification

I think the paragraph about certification and ITIL criticism should be moved to the end of the page. By having the certification first, it seems that the aim of ITIL is to get certified! Guigui NYC (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ITIL V2 vs V3

I think ITIL V2 information should be moved to a separate page. We should only keep the current framework on the main page of ITIL because if someone wants to understand what the content of ITIL is, we should not confuse him or her with 2 versions of it. Guigui NYC (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Make this a redirect page as Infratructure Management Service (IMS). As because this information is all about Information Technology.--Sita manu (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. REDIRECT Infrastructure Management Service
Oh, you meant you had redirected that page to this one.—Ash (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Googling suggests Infrastructure Management Service is a generic term used by a number of vendors. it has no specific application to ITIL, it is not a synonym. I have no idea what was in the Infrastructure Management Service page before you redirected but I suggest you may not have done the right thing in Wikipedia terms Pukerua (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The redirect has been marked for deletion.—Ash (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
ITIL is a specific standard, originally published by the UK Officer of Government Control (OGC). It is most definitely not the same as an IMS. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the Itil Community Forum be kept as a relevant external link for this article and a valid exception to the guidance of WP:ELNO #10 and WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Previous extensive local discussions, an earlier RFC and some third opinions have failed to firmly resolve the issue.—Ash (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

The RFC closed after 30 days with a consensus to remove the link to itilcommunity.com as there is no clear justification for an exception to the guidance of WP:EL.—Ash (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Support This is clearly an important site in the ITIL landscape with important roles and information. The landscape itself is plagued with politics and vested interest, a fact which must be appreciated to understand the background here. To delete this link and not the others would unbalance the article and tend it not reflective of the real picture. It would amount to endorsement of official vested interest, and the pretence that the "open" does not exist, neither of which Wikipedia should countenance if it values the accuracy of the article. And of course all the other points I make above, including that the Comunnity website is clearly a source of significant further information which cannot tenably be dismissed as a mere forum (noting that the ITSMF website has a forum on board too). Equally, it has already survived a vote to remove it: the answer to which seems to be put it up for voting yet again! I cannot see how this can be right. BinaryGal (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This re-voting exercise is contrary to natural law. It is being discussed on a blog I found and shows Wikipedia in such a poor light that people are laughing. The politics of ITIL strike again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.40.43 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
— Strike out comment on the basis that the user has been blocked for 5 years.—Ash (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. ITIL isn't some centralised monolith; ITIL has a community of different people doing different work in different organisations, and http://www.itilcommunity.com/ is a window into this. At the moment the ITIL article is mostly an official list of ITIL components and I feel that this is too narrow a view. If the OGC themselves were actually the only people doing ITIL work then, sure, maybe the OGC would be the only people worth linking to... Bobrayner (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a community or directory or political platform. My further comments on these sites (both itilcommunity.com and itlibrary.org) can be found in previous talk. Pukerua (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually there was no consensus at all. The first vote was simply ignored because it was equal. This time a support vote has been striked out of a close vote, and an assumption has been made. Let's not therefore assume there has been anything democratic about this, because there hasn't. It has been nothing short of a joke, and an affront to natural democracy and justice.
I'd like this to be taken seriously by the Wikipedia hierarchy, because it brings Wikipedia itself into disrepute. The reality of the ITIL arena has been bulldozed aside and hidden through these edits, in support of what is perceived to be 'official'. Political platform? What is really political is the removal of a link to the ITIL independent community, something which is obvious to most professionals.
No wonder people are laughing at the article. BinaryGal (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with BinaryGal here. Put it to a vote, then when that vote doesn't deliver the required result, hold another vote, strike out one of three people who vote the wrong way, and then call it consensus...
I must confess that I am unfamiliar with wikipedia etiquette here, but what's wrong with a link to a useful and informative ITIL resource? Bobrayner (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What seems to be wrong with it Bob is politics. It has more ITIL information on it than any other website on the internet. But it is free, and is outside the 'club', hence the hocus pocus and crude manipulation to get rid of the link.
I am sure the people at the top of the Wikipedia hierarchy would be appalled at this, if they knew, but they don't. Thus democracy is cast aside, and this article becomes even more of a laughing stock because it reflects the real ITIL world even less than it did before. It is a disgrace. BinaryGal (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually this entry is a laughing stock because it links to external sites so bad they are now themselves the object of mockery and satire Pukerua (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that a 26,000 strong community of ITIL professionals is only the object of negativity by those within a rival/competitor group. The undemocratic raidroading removal of that link, to a site which has more quality ITIL pages than any other on the internet, reflects this reality. Attempts to crush an open movement, to benefit commercial interests, are not uncommon on the internet. Wikipedia should rise above this sort of thing, and understand the core politics in play, before before allowing its articles to be devalued so significantly. BinaryGal (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Though the link fails to meet WP:EL, if it is that important a site then it ought to be worth a mention in the article body rather than being vaguely tacked on at the end. Why not try a positive approach, get your finger out, and integrate the link rather than continuing to promulgate your fantasies of a secret conspiracy within the "Wikipedia Hierarchy"?—Ash (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no conspiracy within the upper-echelons of the Wikipedia hierarchy, just a lack of appreciation of the core politics which allow this sort of undemocratic abuse to transpire. The removal of that link is counter to the reality on the ground, and is thus damaging to Wikipedia, because the article is dramatically de-valued and is even ridiculed. Various observers have stated this, and highlighted the politics behind it, yet the deletion was railroaded through in a shocking manner. BinaryGal (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I see you are ready to hand out daft accusations on this talk page until the cows come home, but not prepared to actually get your finger out and make a positive contribution to the article. How boring.—Ash (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am pointing out the reality of the situation, and the political motives to suppress websites like this one regardless of content value, which unaffiliated professionals in the field out there can see very clearly. Perhaps one day the hierarchy of Wikipedia will investigate and see for themselves what has gone on and who has been involved. BinaryGal (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at your edit history, I can see you have made no contributions in 2009 under your BinaryGal account apart from argue the toss about external links on this talk page. You may find the guidance of WP:SPA helpful. I shall not waste my time any further here as you obviously have no intention of making a positive contribution or helping reach a consensus viewpoint.—Ash (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that has something to do with how appalled I am that Wikipedia has been undermined in this way, with a horse and coaches driven through democratic process. Consensus is not reached by ignoring a vote just because it came out in favour of retention. Consensus is not reached by ignoring the real world situation, in which an open ITIL dimension exists. But I know that sooner or later the Wikipedia hierarchy will indeed review what has happened here, from a position of understanding the politics involved: and they will be as appalled as I am. BinaryGal (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Remove the open wiki http://www.itlibrary.org from External links?

Should the Itil Open Guide http://www.itlibrary.org (an open Wiki site) be removed as an external link for this article? Previous discussions dating as far back as 2007, an earlier RFC and some third opinions have failed to firmly resolve the issue. The site is not mentioned in the body of the article.—Ash (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are objections to doing so, rather than the normal 30 days it is suggested that this RFC close on 4 January 2010 to allow for the holidays.—Ash (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are objections. This has been done to death already, 'debated' for years, been subjected to goodness knows how many attempts to remove the links to the open movement, and more. Enough is enough. I have to wonder what is coming next. BinaryGal (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone apart from Binarygal have an objection to the closure date suggested above?—Ash (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps the other way around - does anyone apart from Ash actually want to extend this debacle to 6 weeks rather than 4? BinaryGal (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw my comment, rather than argue, I'll leave it to Binarygal to reach a consensus on closure date in accordance with the guidance of WP:RFC.—Ash (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Remove; with only 11 contributors listing themselves on this open wiki (see http://www.itlibrary.org/index.php?page=Contributors) there is no evidence that the site has a "substantial number of editors" to be an exception as per WP:ELNO#12 and would never be suitable as a reliable source. The site does not appear particularly active, with 16 edits made over the last 3 months. The site has no official status or affiliation with any recognized ITIL association or body. Consequently as an external link the site is not exceptionally beneficial for an encyclopaedia article and could be a source of misinformation for the reader.—Ash (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Not because of any supposed anti-community/open movement bias or any such nonsense, before these accusations start flying, but simply because it is not a good enough site to be included as an external link. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What a surprise: having removed the link to the largest open forum/community on the topic, the largest open wiki is the next target. If it wasn't wrecking the article and so clearly political, it would be laughable. On ITIL, it is a far better wiki than this one, and even holds the voluntary certification register (http://www.itlibrary.org/index.php?page=The_ITIL_Foundation_Certificate), which is obviously a unique resource in itself. I wonder what the thousands who have registered there think about what is happening here? I know what I think: I think that attempting to hide open ITIL from the public will not stop it from existing and flourishing, but it may bring further ridicule onto Wikipedia. I just wish that there was an investigative hierarchy on here to look into this formally and properly, and understand what has been going on. I suspect that the irony of Wikipedia being used in this manner against the open movement would not be lost on them. BinaryGal (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that example page, it appears to prove my point. For anyone who has not checked the voluntary certification register it is an unauthorized, unverified and non-definitive list of people who claim to have the foundation certificate (assuming they entered their own information). Being an open wiki this information is unreliable and may contain misleading information about living people, including email addresses and some phone numbers. As for your repeated allegations, you are free to use the process described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Considering your edit history over the last year, you appear to prefer handing out unsubstantiated, and frankly eccentric, accusations rather than doing anything positive, like, say, integrating the external link you think is so essential to the article into the article body (as has been previously suggested to you).—Ash (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The determination to shut out the open movement and thus benefit commercial interests would be funny if it wasn't so damaging. Like the open wiki itself (Wikipedia is apparently becoming closed), the certification register is OPEN. Hence, of course people can freely add their details. That is the idea. It doesn't claim to provide comfirmation to employers or anyone else, who can get that via references or whatever. It is open, it exists, it has unique information, it holds a register which thousands use, and it is outside the control of the closed world of ITIL. Hence the desire of some to make Wikipedia pretend it isn't there, and to hide it. As you want to make this about me, rather than the political removal of links, I stopped pro-actively editing when I saw how this article was being abused. I said so at the time. It is appalling. BinaryGal (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you specify why you believe an unverified and hopelessly incomplete list of people with ITIL certifications is something appropriately linked to in an encyclopedia? It seems to me that it doesn't tell the reader anything about ITIL (figures for how many people are certified at each level would be worth including), and that is the point of having external links here - to point the reader to quality external sites that provide a greater depth than is appropriate in an encyclopedia article. An "official" register would be equally inappropriate as an external link. If there was an "open" website that was good enough to link to I would have no problem including it as an external link, but this one isn't good enough.--Michig (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Not that you are biased of course, but for the ITIL professional seeking local contacts, or even an idea of ITIL penetration in his/her location, it might just be a tad useful? No? That's just one example of course, but it illustrates how easy it is to damn even the best resources if you just don't want to see good in them. It's the same sort of approach that points to misplaced, inappropriate and ambiguous Wikipedia dogma in a desperate attempt to remove a valuable resource link, because it happens to be open. The content of the article should be about what is actually out there in reality, not politics. Already the link to the website with the largest volume of ITIL content in the world has been removed, now it's the turn of the largest ITIL wiki. The connection? They are both open and provide information entirely free of charge. Whichever way you cut it, it is disgraceful. BinaryGal (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Maybe you should have a read of WP:AGF rather than just ranting at people with a different view to your own. I don't see any evidence to justify your assertion that (a) I'm biased (for or against what exactly?) or (b) the issue here is that the site is "open". If an ITIL professional is "seeking local contacts", that isn't something that an encyclopedia should be concerned with. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
              • (Note) I suggest any further discussion along these lines is held separately from this RFC as it is drifting off-topic. However I can recommend the guidance of What is a troll? before doing so.—Ash (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
                • (Note) I suggest that someone from Wikipedia examines your clear abuse of me, and perhaps considers what might be the reasons and motivations for your abuse. It is absolutely pathetic. They might also examine the long term interest in removal of links to the open community. BinaryGal (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Go with the lady. Open must be protected from the Piranhas. 96.31.92.185 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Alan.
— 96.31.92.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Ash (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The site appears to have been down for the last few days. If the site isn't operational, it certainly shouldn't be linked.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Strike that, it appears to have come back.--Michig (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It looks like everyone who votes the 'wrong' way is going to be the subject of nasty and negative suggestions. I can see why you chose that word Alan. And we know from the ITIL Community abuse that this is isn't a democracy, but a political/commercial campaign. BinaryGal (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • BinaryGal, Unless you are prepared to substantiate your repeated complaints by following one of the dispute resolution processes, please stop making snide vague accusations about motivation against other editors. As you use a single-purpose account, which in the last year you have only used to make edits to this page, dishing out accusations of bias and conspiracy against established editors and then declaring yourself a victim is ridiculous.—Ash (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Snide is what I have been subjected to from the moment I objected to the political assault on the open ITIL community. Snide are the remarks you have repeatedly made against me (eg: "troll", in case you forgot). Snide are the remarks made against Alan because he voted the wrong way. Snide is your latest false allegation that mine is a single purpose account, when in reality I lost confidence in Wikipedia when it allowed this campaign to continue. Wikipedia need to investigate the political and commercial nature of this assault, and the abuse you are subjecting me to for pointing it out. BinaryGal (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Feel free to raise your concerns at an appropriate venue, e.g. WP:ANI - I for one have nothing to hide. Otherwise there's little point you banging on about it here.--Michig (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I am part of the majority: those whose sole interest is content, not bureaucratic administration of delivery systems like Wikipedia. My words about the politics of this undemocratic assault will ring true with anyone who has a clue about this subject matter (ITIL). That Wikipedia is allowing itself to become a vehicle for this is the problem: there needs to be a pro-active system in place to identify those with commercial/political interests and who exploit Wikipedia for these ends.
            • This particular case is appalling: a subject which is heavily politicized and with an active and emerging open community - yet the link to the most content filled website in the world is deleted via a bogus vote, and even the topic specific open wiki is now under attack. And just look at the vigor and fervor here: in the context that every other article on Wikipedia seems to be full on junk links. Yet this link seems to be a massive deal. Doesn't this say something? It really is appalling. BinaryGal (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Binarygal, do not make any further accusations about motivation against other editors. You have been advised several times as to the correct process to follow if you wish to make a complaint. Repeating the same unverifiable argument multiple times on an RFC is not appropriate and may be considered disruptive editing, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your edit history shows that over the last year you have repeatedly made accusations about motivation and conspiracy and then claim to be a victim of attack when you get a response. Your passive/aggressive behaviour is not acceptable and shows that you have no interest in building a consensus here.—Ash (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Do not make any further accusations against me, and do not abuse me: do NOT refer to me as a troll again, directly or indirectly. Do not refer to my recent edit history when it is a direct reflection of my experience with respect to the attempts to remove all references to the ITIL open movement. Do not make comments to me about consensus following the undemocratic nature of the removal of the link to the community (see above). Do not make false allegations of aggressive behaviour, when it is I who have been subjected to clear abuse. BinaryGal (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • Rather than continuing to take this RfC off-topic, this WQA raised due to your behaviour here would be a better forum.—Ash (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • There is nothing wrong with my 'behaviour': in fact your repeated accusations, and your abuse of me above, say a lot more about your behaviour than mine. I am trying to protect this article and make sure that it isn't censored to hide the open movement, and have been subjected to abuse and a constant string of allegations for my troubles. Whilst others can decide for themselves why this is, I have had enough of it and it must stop. I feel like I am being bullied, as I have stated on that other page. BinaryGal (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:LINK burden of proof is on the argument for including the link. Web users looking for links should more appropriately use search engines than Wikipedia. As of this writing a Google search for "Information Technology Infrastructure Library" lists www.itlibrary.org as the third link so the information about the site is readily available. Gerardw (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a strange idea that a website's position in a search engine is in any way relevant to inclusion here. Better remove all the other links too, if that is the case, because they rank there as well. BinaryGal (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - My first vote or edit so you will probably bin it, but I can see the picture as well. There is a campaign to make itil money money money and getting rid of all the free sites is part of it. Not everyone is blind Binarygal. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.9.155 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you would like to explain why your first edit is to contribute to this RFC, do you have a special interest? It is unusual for new editors to do this and frequently taken as a sign of misuse of the process. That is why such contributions are treated with circumspection.—Ash (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it is more unusual to challenge ad hoc contributors like this. It hardly encourages participation. Democracy in action, again. BinaryGal (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia policy explicitly states that the site is not a democracy. Wikipedia operates by discussion and consensus, not voting, and one off comments by IPs such as the above generally do not build consensus. - MrOllie (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
          • You really need to give a far more substantial reason as to why you oppose the link being removed. We do not oppose or support the "open" movement (regardless of the licensing we use on Wikipedia) due to our policy of providing only a neutral point of view. We also do not care one way or another whether ITIL makes money. We need a reason why the site should be referenced on Wikipedia - you have not provided us with that information. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose *Comment for the RfC (it is still listed as active): I think the link in question should be included. There are currently 4 external links, and the link in question seems to have some content that may be of interest to the readers of this article. Also, I think the link in question is the least of the concerns for this article. The entire article reads as bullet points taken from a presentation selling the ITIL concept, which I have no idea what is even after reading the intro of the article and random sections. I think you should leave the link issue and instead do a major rewrite of the article. Labongo (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. What now? Is Labongo's opinion going to be dismissed on some ad hoc basis too? BinaryGal (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Added 'oppose' pre-tag, which for some reason was not placed when the comment was moved here. BinaryGal (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
        • This was moved in compliance with the guidance of wp:RTP. In this case you have added formatting and potentially changed the meaning of another editor's contribution from "comment" to "oppose". It would be good practice for me to revert the contribution but you would probably call that an attack or harassment, so I will leave it up to you to change back.—Ash (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it is very bad form of both of you to request for comments on a question and then using someone who comments on the topic to attack each other (there is no reason to believe that my opinion will be dismissed, nor should there be any question whether I think the link should be included or not). Neither of you are showing any constructive attitude so I see little hope of you two ever agreeing on a solution, so I don't see any point being further involved in this. Labongo (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised you feel like that Labongo. He moved your comment, I just added the tag because it was needed given where he moved it too, and you can see what happened next. I have been chased around like this for many many months now, so you can imagine how I feel. I am absolutely sick of it, and have been screaming out for a Wikipedia police officer for a long time to deal with it, but to no avail. I am sorry you were dragged in to it. BinaryGal (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a 'Wikipedia police officer', but administrators have the power to deal with an editor who is editing against the rules. If you feel you have a case to back up accusations of bullying, bias or anything else, click here, scroll down until you see a line with "Click here to start a new discussion thread", click on the link, then add details of your accusations and evidence to back it up. It will then be investigated, and anyone found to be at fault will be dealt with appropriately. If anyone makes further claims of wrongdoing on this talk page I will raise their actions myself for investigation. This needs to stop now, one way or another. If you are still unsure of how to go about doing this, please let me know and I will help out.--Michig (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether they are called Wikipedia Police Oofficers (that was obviously only an illustrative term!) or whether they are called Administrators, but someone has to step in here to stop this. It is on record that I have been asking for this to happen for many months, repeatedly calling for a full investigation. Whether I have asked in the right or wrong places, that is all I want. BinaryGal (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary

The RFC closed after 30 days with absolutely no consensus or majority wish to remove the link to www.itlibrary.org. This was the second failed attempt to remove it, so hopefully this issue can now be put to bed. BinaryGal (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your summary is biased, please ask an independent party to close this RfC to achieve a credible summary of consensus as you seem to be emphasizing the contributions of doubtful SPAs over established editors. Note that 30 days is a convenience for the RfC bot, and is not intended as a time-limit for reaching consensus.—Ash (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
For goodness sake, this is getting past the point of being pathetic. Two attempts now to remove all references to the open community have failed to attract sufficient support. Yet STILL there is determination to push it through.
The effort exerted to try to remove this is almost unbelievable, and two votes are still not enough to stop it. I have constantly asked for an investigation into why this is happening, and I still do. This is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute.
There have been two open votes, but because they failed to support the attempt to remove it, we see another effort to subvert democracy by suggestions that some votes should count more than others. There is no appetite to ignore the reality of the existence of the open movement in ITIL. Please accept that reality, as I would have had there been. BinaryGal (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Calling me pathetic does not change how RfCs are intended to work to achieve a consensus and does not help your argument to include this link as an exception to WP:ELNO. I believe that there has been an attempt to corrupt this RfC by the inappropriate use of anonymous accounts and to be fair on the opinions expressed here, it would be appropriate for this RfC to be summarized by an impartial experienced editor who at least understands the difference between counting "votes" and the RfC process.—Ash (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I am just here to edit. I stopped though when I saw what was going on with this article. I have been appalled at the efforts to subvert the article to misrepresent the reality: and the reality is that there IS a significant open movement.
This has gone on and on and on, WAY beyond the meaning of a single link. There is no logic to the magnitude of the efforts to remove the link other than for what it represents. Look at the countless hours and words spent trying to remove it. Just look. Objective people will work out the logic of that.
Look at how a much less useful and important link (American ITIL) escapes ANY of this. Why? Because it does not represent a threat to the closed corridors, and vested interests.
This all thing sickens me, because Wikipedia is supposed to be open too. The irony is that it is now being used as a vehicle to attack another open entity and movement.
I don't want to be confrontational, but please, can a really senior editor come along and address this by investigating fully what is behind it. BinaryGal (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The WP:DR processes have been explained to you many, many times by several different editors (and they have been invoked more than once to deal with your behaviour here), why do you persist in filling this talk page with daft accusations if you are never prepared to complain in the correct forum? As for the American ITIL link, this was discussed on this same page 8 months ago, see above; you were banging on with the same unsubstantiated arguments about a secret Wikipedia conspiracy back then so you ought to remember.—Ash (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And a number of things have been explained to you by various editors, both recently and under the name you formerly edited under. But you STILL persist with making foul allegations against me and attempting to remove this link despite its clear importance in the ITIL landscape. I have never encountered such hostility or determination on any link, let alone one of value, hence my numerous requests for an investigation.
Ditto my remarks on the American ITIL link, which is clearly of far less value yet somehow avoids this sort of campaign. I wonder why.
Attempting to characterize me as a conspiracy nutcase is simply more abusive behaviour, and bullying. An investigation is essential. BinaryGal (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the RFC section, I see three in favor of removing the link, and one in favor of retaining it, with two obvious sockpuppets (one has been blocked as a proxy, a clear sign of sockpuppetry) also in favor of retaining. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry instructs us to ignore those comments, so it seems that the consensus as evidenced by this RFC so far is in favor of removing the link, even if we resort to head counting - MrOllie (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the other one out, and that is an open web proxy as well. This looks very bad. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It is also worth looking at the votes in the previous failed attempts to remove this, with the same people supporting the move. On such a handful of votes, and given the multiple attempts and clear campaign, removal would be ridiculous and wholly undemocratic. Hence another reason to support for my requests for an investigation into what is behind this. BinaryGal (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Make your request for an investigation at the appropriate venue please (e.g WP:DR or WP:AN depending on what you perceive to be the issue) or give it a rest. Repeating it here is not going to achieve anything. If you want an admin to investigate, present them with your evidence that you believe supports your accusations. --Michig (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The record shows that you are the other party who has engaged in this issue. This is a moot point.
I am simply an editor, with particular expertise in ITIL, rather than in the mechanics of Wikipedia. I would hope that there is a system in situ to protect editors like me against those who misuse their knowledge of Wikipedia procedures for dubious motives. Wikipedia would be of little value without those who engage with subject knowledge rather than Wikipedia system knowledge. I feel that this is rather overlooked, enabling what is effectively bullying to ensue.
I have been systematically bullied in this manner and via abuse throughout by one editor, with another engaging from time to time. This is on record for anyone who cares to research it. Colleagues have been sickened by this.
I again request that a senior editor investigates urgently, and takes remedial action.BinaryGal (talk)

(outdent) Based on MrOllie's analysis above of sockpuppets and use of open web proxies, the current consensus of this RfC is to remove the link in compliance with WP:ELNO with the only objection raised being Binarygal's assumption of a conspiracy against open ITIL. Does anyone wish to keep this RfC open for a few more weeks in case other editors (hopefully non-sockpuppet) wish to contribute or are we ready to close the RfC on that basis?—Ash (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Based upon my analysis above and the lack of a current consensus of this RfC, and the previous votes, to NOT remove the link. I propose that the RfC is closed with the link remaining is situ. I further propose that a senior editor investigates the very lengthy campaign to remove the link. The continued abuse and bullying of myself by the above editor, under his current and previous names, should also be addressed. BinaryGal (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just in case any editor might be tempted to consider Binarygal's accusations against me of bullying, abuse and mis-use of Wikipedia process seriously, please start by reviewing WQA's raised due to multiple allegations by Binarygal - see this link. Binarygal is free to follow any of the WP:DR processes and has been advised many, many times to do so, but prefers to continue making allegations here with the unfortunate consequence of de-railing sensible improvement to this article and delaying consensus on the most basic of issues; hence RfCs being raised for elementary compliance with WP:EL.—Ash (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Just in case anyone buys that, those two links are BOTH to sections created by this editor himself! And then he SELECTIVELY cites them as evidence here. Is this not another example of what I suggest: the playing the Wikipedia procedures, along with direct abuse, as a form of bullying? Regrettably it is just the tip of the iceburg. I have felt sick many times but have stuck with it because bullying should not prevail and because the accuracy of the article should be protected.
Here is a better idea: go through the whole of this issue, spanning years, and look at all of the edits. Watch the campaign unfold, against Open ITIL links, and against me for defending the reality that Open ITIL exists. BinaryGal (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As Binarygal (talk · contribs) has reverted my addition of an external link to the Open Directory Project, I would like to point out that such a link is specifically covered by WP:ELMAYBE and potentially resolves some of Binarygal's own endlessly repeated objections above on the basis of a conspiracy against Open sites. In particular the current list of sites on the ODP includes the ITIL certification register that Binarygal has been so vocal in defending a link to. Links that may not be appropriate for this article can easily be added to the ODP directory. Does anyone have any non-conspiracy related objections to the inclusion of this link to the ODP? I am loath to raise yet another RFC for single link just to appease one editor who has made themselves a "protector" of this article.—Ash (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Personally, I don't see any value in that as an external link, as it is again tending towards turning this into a 'directory' rather than an ecyclopedia article. As it simply links to other sites, and since the list isn't particularly definitive, I don't thit is has sufficient value. If any of the sites that it linked to were suitable I would prefer to see them linked directly. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Clearly there is no value at all in adding that link. It is just a page with 4 other links on it!!! To put that forward basically to replace the ITIL Open Guide is frankly ridiculous, and transparant. BinaryGal (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You have, a number of times. You have stated:
  1. "I think that attempting to hide open ITIL from the public will not stop it from existing and flourishing ... I suspect that the irony of Wikipedia being used in this manner against the open movement would not be lost on them"
  2. "The determination to shut out the open movement and thus benefit commercial interests would be funny if it wasn't so damaging."
  3. "Not that you are biased of course"
  4. "The content of the article should be about what is actually out there in reality, not politics"
  5. "It looks like everyone who votes the 'wrong' way is going to be the subject of nasty and negative suggestions. I can see why you chose that word Alan. And we know from the ITIL Community abuse that this is isn't a democracy, but a political/commercial campaign."
  6. "Wikipedia need to investigate the political and commercial nature of this assault, and the abuse you are subjecting me to for pointing it out."
And so on...
Please refrain from comments of a personal nature. Also, continued assertions of conspiracies can be seen as disruptive and certainly are frowned on here, as they rarely (if ever!) lead to collaborative editing practices. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go with Binarygal's objection that this ODP link is "ridiculous and transparent". The link doesn't go in.—Ash (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I have just sent a message to BinaryGal, but I think that it bares repeating that we discourage adding external links about "a site that you own, maintain, or represent".

So far, I don't believe that consensus has been achieved to add these external links - in particular I haven't really seen any good reasons to keep the external links to these sites, except for a vague assertion that there are a lot of people who use the site.

However, I am also a bit concerned that things are getting fairly heated here and I'm seeing a lot of accusations of a personal nature making an appearance from all sides. Please refrain from accusations of bullying, trolling, or anything else of that nature that is not on topic. It's not helpful and it muddies the debate when third parties try to see what's actually going on. It also leads to bad feelings, and is not conducive to calm and level headed editing practices. Wikipedia has enough drama, we don't need more drama about, of all things, ITIL...

However, for those that believe the external sites in question are significant, then I have a few suggestions before we can really determine that they are worthwhile linking to:

  • Is there content that is unique to the website and that could not be used directly by Wikipedia because it is opinion, original research, etc?
  • I believe that the site has forums - or at least a mailing list. Are there any significant people on this, where are the archives?
  • BinaryGal has noted that there are about 60,000 users of the site - what evidence do we have of this?
  • Have the websites been referenced by any other well known or significant ITIL sources? If so, then this would give the site reasonable weight when determining whether to keep or not.

This is the sort of on-point, factual and non-personal information that should be argued about. Conspiracy theories and accusations of trolling need not apply here - please assume good faith. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no affiliation with it at all. I wouldn't be defending the link if I had for the reasons you state.
I would also note that the link is there and has been for years, and the campaign is to remove it. That is the action which requires consensus, and there is none, and there wasn't any with previous attempts to remove it either.
You are also confusing the links being referred to. This discussion relates to the ITIL Open Guide, and not the ITIL Community Forum. The latter link was in fact removed, wrongly in my opinion, because it has far more ITIL specific content than any other website in the world.
Regarding links generally, it is also worth considering why other links have not been subject to this sort of situation. Why the American ITIL link with relatively minimal content for example, is seen as perfectly ok, whilst this one with significant and unique content and position is not.
Please also understand that this is a very political topic. There are significant commercial and vested interest groups, which oppose an open movement in ITIL. With respect to this perhaps you can also see that recognizing the existance the open movement is important to the quality of the article, and thus why this last remaining reference is important. All the other references have been edited out over the months!!!
This aspect is core to understanding the context. BinaryGal (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you aren't really telling us why the links should be kept. I would have thought that the fourth point ("Have the websites been referenced by any other well known or significant ITIL sources?") would be relevant regardless of the site.
With regards to the other links, there are currently 4: the first two are absolutely on-point as they refer to the OGC (the creators of ITIL) and the other is the official ITIL website. The next two are the ITIL Open guide, and a govtech article which is probably not appropriate. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the American ITIL link. This takes users to an article, but given the contention we have about the external links section, it's not really appropriate to give excessive and undue weight to this article when there are thousands of other articles online about ITIL. We really need to keep the external links section to a minimum. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have again removed the ITIL Open Guide link. There was a detailed discussion above, of which the only points that had any substance was that an unmonitored, unreviewed list of ITIL practitioners is hosted on the site and there are a large number of articles on the site. Apart from that, aside from a number of accusations of political interference and unsubstantiated and wild claims of anti-Open movement bias, no other reasons have been provided, and certainly there was no justification as to why the site is significant to the ITIL world in its own right.

I have removed the link again, unless some good reasons can be given to keep the link (and this does not include accusations of political attacks or conspiracy theories!) then it should really not be readded. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to close the RfC above on that basis? It may be confusing for newcomers for the RfC to remain open and I am probably not the right person to attempt a closure considering the accusations made earlier on this page.—Ash (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it can remain the way it is... consensus is to remove the links currently as I say. If it is readded we might ask that it be added to the blacklist. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What consensus? There is no consensus there at all, and everyone can see that. Have you even read all the material across the talk pages and more? Consensus means broad agreement and acceptance. There is none of that at all. None. And you even start to issue threats. Why?
Is it because I am interested in ITIL and not Wikipedia procedures/etc? One thing for sure is that it is not based upon the concrete facts of the ITIL world.
The reality is that the open movement exists, and the article becomes a bit of a joke if it totally ignores it. Most people who know about ITIL do know about the vested/political interests, and will work out the situation without having to look at this talk page. If that is what you want, well done. Oh, and goodbye. BinaryGal (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of consensus to remove the links. I'm curious though - if there is a significant Open ITIL movement, why is there no mention of it in the article? Why only use an external link?
If you are uninterested in Wikipedia procedures and practices, may I suggest that you stop editing Wikipedia? There are many other forums for your attention! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Very nasty. Are you proud of those words?
There is not "quite a bit of consensus" at all, even over the repeated votes in the repeated efforts. Stop destorting the truth which people can read for themselves.
There is no mention in the article because it would have been reverted out just like the link. Like all the other open movement links were. I was told months ago by those involved in the open movement to avoid Wikipedia because with ITIL it was overrun by vested interests. They saw this coming when I didn't.
And don't worry, I have stopped editing Wikipedia, because of people like you. Congratulations. Beware though that one day the truth will emerge, and what has gone on here will be exposed.
One last prediction. The void will eventually be filled by more links and references to closed and vested interest websites. That is what this all about, however strenuously you deny it. I am finally glad to be out of it. BinaryGal (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you leaving? That's unfortunate. It would be nice if you could contribute to some Wikipedia articles and make some improvements, whether on ITIL or elsewhere. However, I don't think there will be a great loss to wikipedia if the only difference is that you choose to stop sniping and making angry comments on talk pages about how "vested interests" are, err, still letting you snipe and make angry comments on talk pages. I would ask you to reconsider and stick around to make some contributions to Wikipedia articles.
Personally, I'm quite new to wikipedia (and I actually agreed with one of your points way back when you were actually talking about the ITIL article) but I quickly learned that there are other people using wikipedia who disagree with me for legitimate reasons, not because they're nasty or because they're agents of some shadowy yet omnipresent "vested interest". Bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can't see it now you never will. I just wish you could look into the background of those who have driven out all references to anything not part of the cartel, for want of a better word. If you don't even know what I mean, you know very little about ITIL, and equally why this article written as it is.
It was never about a simple disagreement, it was about vested interest and consequential abuse of Wikipedia. Truth has a way of catching up with people though. One day it will catch up with those involved.
Goodbye. BinaryGal (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the decision on the incidents' page to declare (by tbdsy lives, using archiving) BinaryGal to have left the editing of Wikipedia to the rest of the planet, at least temporarily. So far, I see no evidence that she *was not* the victim of a conspiracy, however. Julzes (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I had to read that last sentence a few times (negatives followed by a negative almost always confuse me). I see no evidence that shows she is the victim of a conspiracy! All I can see so far is a bunch of ranting and accusations from Binarygal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not repeat offensive accusations that cannot be proven one way or the other. After 10 months of tedious discussion on this issue, no evidence (such as talk page canvassing) has been produced and obviously it is ridiculous to expect all contributors to this talk page and article to prove they are innocent of some sort of strange unexplained conspiracy before making contributions. If you believe something is going on then go ahead and investigate and raise another ANI if you find any evidence. Alternatively you could use your time to find independent sources and add a section to the article on the open forum in question, properly sourced and relevant material was never an issue here.—Ash (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The truth remains that I am an innocent and honest editor who understand the cartel nature of this market and the vested interests within in it. I have been accused of being a consiracy nutcase releatedly for demanding a full investigation, and Ash STILL comes back to effectively repeats this. I wonder why. I will continue to defend myself whilst he does this.
Wikipedia has allowed this article to be abused by vested interests. It doesn't explain ITIL, it sells it, and in the process it now wholly avoids any reference to Free ITIL and Open ITIL, as per the interests of the commercial cartel. Anyone who doesn't understand what I mean by that should work out the money and control tree, the careful licensing of everything that moves, and more. The manipulation of the market for closed commercial interest.
Then go through the edit history and the talk page archive.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work it out,, and to work out who the abusers are and their vested interests. BinaryGal (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Produce some evidence (see WP:DIFF) or go away as you have promised several times to do. Your unsubstantiated drama is tedious, boorish and disruptive. You will note that in my paragraph above you were not mentioned and your words consiracy nutcase were not used. You are obviously using this page as a personal soapbox with the thin excuse of defending yourself.—Ash (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I did not repeat any accusations. BinaryGal, it's harmless to have strangers say bad things about you to other strangers and you have said goodbye repeatedly. You at least need a break from this. And this little bit should be archived. Talk pages on articles are supposed to be about the changes one can expect might possibly be made to articles. One of the parties here has lost a fight over that, I believe. Perhaps it's temporary--I have no way to assess that--but it's definitely the standing position until someone other than you makes an issue out of it, BinaryGal.Julzes (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there was a fight that was won here, it's more that one editor has not been able to substantiate the reasons why certain external links should be kept on the article. In my view, editors did seem to make good faith efforts to find out why it should be kept, but if there were any good points they were largely drowned out by personal attacks and high emotions from Binarygal. If some good solid, specific reasons can be provided, then the disputed links may well be able to used in the external links section, however currently no good reason has been provided to link to the Open ITIL guide or the ITIL community forum. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying I'm in no position to judge this without study I don't plan to undertake at present. My first reaction, and it hasn't changed, was that BinaryGal had a fair amount of verisimilitude. I think perhaps becoming a SPA was a decision s/he should regret.Julzes (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but I have looked into the matter from an outside perspective and I feel from a fairly unbiased point of view, and when I tried to determine the reasoning behind why the links were important I could not see any real or reasoned argument from Binarygal. Whether she used a single-purpose account or not is really irrelevant, what matters is the reasoning behind the importance of the links, and no arguments have been provided why it should be kept in this article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
If you keep talking about me I have every right to reply. What is "tedious, boorish and disruptive" is your campaign and abuse, Ash. You are twisting the truth as usual. You have referred to "conspiracy" many times on this talk page, referring to me. And here, typical of you, you pretend my reference to being accused of being a "conspiracy nutcase" is somehow misplaced. Yes, it is absolutely cowardly how you bully and abuse me whilst you hide behind a keyboard.
It was up to YOU to produce evidence to change the status quo re the link. The link was in place. You spent months trying to remove it and never got anywhere near to a consensus. You also even changed your name midstream, presumably to avoid identication. I wonder why.
Regarding Tbsdy, you imply that you have been objective ("a fairly unbiased point of view"). You haven't. You have backed the guy who knows the Wikipedia protocols. It is as simple as that. You haven't researched the cartel, the political landscape of ITIL, or even begun to study the vested interests. So how an earth can you make an objective decision, when you haven't got a clue what is actually going on? You have taken a shallow lazy superficial view, and taken the easy option.
Working out who the abusers are and their vested interests is simple with application and study. Watching how Wikipedia has failed to prevent them from subverting this article and profiting from it is very enlightening though. I'll never view it in the same light again.
My goodbye is a goodbye to editing. If I am abused I will reply. BinaryGal (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please stay on point on this page. Nothing you have written here has anything even remotely to do with ITIL. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to deeply involve myself in this; but Tbdsy lives, you really shouldn't involve yourself in the editing process and claim at the same time that you are looking at things from an outside perspective. Your other fights--and I use the word with some hesitation--are also some slight reason for me to question your position as an honest broker. That much said, BinaryGal should just give it up and stop treating Wikipedia like it has or should have a police force of any great magnitude or that there is a good excuse for feeling abused by strangers over the long-term (It really sounds like a waste of time). I am absolutely done here.Julzes (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? I only saw this issue when I reviewed ANI and I only removed the external link well after I had thoroughly reviewed the reasonings behind why the link should/should not stay in the external links section. If there is a suggestion that I have done any blocking or protecting I respectfully point out that I can't as I'm not an admin anymore :-) However, I do have an outside view on this matter as I was not involved in the discussions before I was made aware of the issue on ANI - thus I was not involved in the original debate and thus I am an editor is external to the original argument. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm treating that as a rhetorical question. No debating. No issue. I'm not the least bit involved unless I'm addressed, and you've made what appears to be a more authoritative case. This subject no longer holds any interest for me, nor did it have much in the first place. Hopefully, I've accomplished something positive with some of what what I've said. 'Twas superstition brought me here; common sense and the fact that I'm busy made me leave.Julzes (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't. I think that I've made my point also, and I've also got better thing to do than debate this :-) I'm just merely pointing out that I am an outside viewpoint to this issue, and I made an edit in such a manner. You made some excellent points. I'm now bowing out also! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Want an example of how you are not impartial Tbsdy? Just look above. Are you blind or can you not see words like "tedious, boorish and disruptive" and abusive references to me because I used the words "conspiracy nutcase"?
Of course you can see it, but they were written by Ash, or whatever he is currently calling himself.
But you criticized me and only me (for responding) didn't you?
People aren't stupid you know. They can see exactly where you stand, because this is just one example of something you have done since you engaged in this fiasco. You made yourself an arbiter, arrogantly removed the link, and pretend to be impartial. You are nothing of the sort.
I will never edit again because of you and your vested interest mates, and now Julzes has walked away too, as others have. The article is a sham, distorting reality and supporting the 'cartel'.
What a great result for Wikipedia! It is why someone has needed to investigate and kick out the Wikipedia abusers for months. Instead the honest folks have been marginalized, have become sick of fighting vested interests without support, sick of the cowardly abuse, and given up.
This is the truth the matter, however much you squirm and deny it. BinaryGal (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please either start discussing ITIL or leave this page before I file an RFC about your behaviour. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss ITIL and not ME. I am responding here, NOT starting arguments.
I have pointed out the truth, which you clearly don't like, and YOU keep coming back at me. If you stop attacking me I will stop replying. If you continue to attack me, I won't stop defending myself. You can make as many threats as you want, because ultimately I really want that full investigation into vested interests and the hijacking of this article.
If you don't want my comments, STOP commenting about me or referring to me in any way. BinaryGal (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 10 months of lobbying this talk page and now you think everyone's out to get you. There have been two WQAs and an ANI. If you think you have a case and the independent investigations so far have all been biased then raise it on WP:ANI again or go away. Your comments here have become so negative against the rest of the world that I don't think there is anyone left to take your complaining seriously.—Ash (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yet more abuse - "now you think everyone's out to get you". You have done this throughtout, and it is the mark of a coward.
It was YOU who raised "WQAs and an ANI", and citing them as evidence against me as if they have validity is typical of your bullying. If anyone ever does investigate the abuse of this article and your role in it, they will see through nasty tricks like this immediately.
Don't tell me to "go away" and don't add further abuse like "anyone left to take your complaining seriously". You may have pulled the wool over the eyes of the shallow and the lazy, but plenty of people out here know what you have done, and some have actually worked out why you changed your name, and a lot more.
If you abuse me again I will respond, so just leave me alone and go away. I am prefectly happy to wait until the day upon which someone in the Wikipedia hierarchy can be bothered to clean up, both this article and the abusers of Wikipedia responsible for it. BinaryGal (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiastic archive problem

The recent archive of this page has also archived an open RfC - see Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library/Archive 2#RfC: Remove the open wiki http://www.itlibrary.org from External links?. This RfC is still listed as open on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology and now confusingly points to the archived version.—Ash (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I've closed the RFC. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have deleted the text on the RfC listings page. This gets automatically regenerated by the RfC bot. To close an RfC you need to remove the tag in the source page. See {{rfctag}}—Ash (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ITIL alternatives section

ITIL alternatives appears to be a magnet for LINKSPAM and is obviously off-topic for an article about ITIL (they might be relevant for a more general article about IT standards and guides). I suggest that either alternatives are linked in the See also section or removed entirely. Any alternate without a Wikipedia article would probably not be notable enough for a mention anyway. A long term solution may be to create a new category under Category:Information technology management. Thoughts?—Ash (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that ITIL has alternatives seems quite relevant. For instance, MOF is an alternative, this seems a good place to discuss this. I also think that a "see also" section might link to articles that are not necessarily alternatives to ITIL. Removing it because of link spam isn't really a good reason to remove the section, better instead that link spam be removed from the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This section might be better placed within the IT service management article and rewritten to give an overview of all of the alternatives, of which ITIL is only one. I would imagine, given my experience with ITIL, that there might be some coverage out there specifically related to ITIL's shortcomings and alternative approaches that specifically address these (the 'criticism' section currently lacks mention of how alternatives compare), which would be more relevant to this article. --Michig (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I see what you mean, but ITIL is fairly specific, and ITSM covers things like Six Sigma which is a business mgmt strategy. Things like the MOF and ITUP would be better compared in this article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your point on the See also section, I was not intending an exclusion. IANAE but I believe MOF is a derivative of (or rather, was based on) ITIL, so a mention somewhere seems appropriate; perhaps the section could be narrowed to mapping standards with a direct relationship to ITIL (the ITIL-family could be interesting to map out)? However a section which generally catalogues any possible alternative, historic alternate or related specialization (such as CMMI, COBIT, ISO 9000, ETOM...) seems a content fork of a wider article on IT standards and guides and by its nature would not necessarily exclude any other IT related standard whether open or commercial.—Ash (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. When comparing we should really only be detailing alternatives that are similar to the ITIL framework. I only know a bit about MOF, nothing really about ITUP other than what I've read here. What ones should stay and which ones would be best to be removed or taken elsewhere? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
After some pondering, defining "relationship" is tricky as other standards bodies would probably be loath to say "we based ours on ITIL...". As a proposal for a verifiable inclusion criteria (in essence this is an embedded list) how about just including IT standards that have an officially published map to ITIL (rather than a historical relationship). Consequently we can fairly easily reference such published mappings for MOF (from Microsoft's site), ETOM (from the TMForum) and ISO 20000 (does the itSMF have any non-commercial map?).—Ash (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
With this logic I have trimmed the paragraph on COBIT and added the mapping reference as a footnote. I suggest the other entries are trimmed in the same way (if they are notable enough for inclusion that is, I suggest only standards notable enough for WP articles remain). Ash (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(Change done) I have re-structured this section. Unless anyone objects, I plan to remove other frameworks that have no published map to ITIL and are not variants of ITIL from this section as being off-topic for the article. Ash (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, Ash. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ICT

ICT is NOT Defined on this page. Please define it!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.90.129 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You could link it to Information and communication technologies. Ticaro (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Best" practice

Who says? Show me some statistics, or GTFO. Citation desperately needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.39.223 (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Lean-IT ?

A reference to the Lean-IT concept is surprisingly missing in this article ! I did not know about "Lean-ITIL", by the way. Anyway, if someone competent thinks this should appear somewhere in there, here is the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medewik (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms are Criticisms (comments by user:198.103.223.52, moved to talkpage by user:bobrayner)

Criticisms...and meant to stimulate areas of thought and research!! Prove that they are wrong 1st before deleting - Raynor This should not be considered an advertisment like most delusional "defenders of the faith" like to imagine. "Sniping" would be a calculated and considered attack but does not diminish the fact of truths, but may seem threatening to those over zealous fans with either; little actual knowledge or experience in the subject matter or perhaps, only knowledge in that subject matter.

No,the person making the claim has the burden of proof. Many of these criticisms are flatly wrong. For example, the ITIL books are available online through The Cabinet Office. None of these criticisms particularly stimulate thought or research.Emmaname (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The availability of the official OGC books (of which I have stacks) and the cost (which is less than university fare), is held up as a criticism of the ITIL. This is neither true nor a valued, intelligent criticism entry for this subject. It does not offer critical insights to the pros and cons of ITIL.
"Accusations that...." that entry might be considered "sniping" since it sounds like a hotly contested issue about to be deliberated upon - where as it is merely inflammatory semantics and lexicology, but did not suffer arbitrary deletions in wikiadvertise
And as originally pointed out...Additionally:
1) Anyone can institute ITIL and create service levels so low that the claim for successful implementation can be made. - absolutely True and the way it is currently being implemented in many sectors.
2) The flexibilities required to intelligently deploy are beyond the hosts of average left hand brain constrained business executives. - Most execs are very inflexible and hold up names of things as a method of not providing CSI and doubtful if they might even identify the interdependencies and linkages.
3) The language used in all the manuals meanders from overly obvious generalities to ambiguous inflations without clear validations. - True look yourself
4) Senior executives can arbitrarily decide to subjugate ITIL to their personal preferences without analysis or proofs. - True and the general way it is most often implemented.

I moved these comments to the talkpage because there are some problems that may need to be resolved before they can appear in article space.
Complaining about other wikipedians disagreeing with you is not the kind of thing that the public should be reading; least of all arguments that any wikipedian who disagrees with your unsourced criticism must be ignorant.
If there's a good basis for these criticisms of ITIL, I'd love to see them implemented in the article. But first, there may need to be some structural change.
"somebody can do a half-arsed implementation of X, thus undermining the intent of X" is a criticism of practically any IT standard. Similarly, criticism of execs reflects a problem with execs rather than a problem with a specific family of technology standards.
bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed this quote as it is inaccurate (it may have been accurate in 2002 but not now) As Jan van Bon (author and editor of many IT Service Management publications) notes,

There is confusion about ITIL, stemming from misunderstandings about its nature. ITIL is, as the OGC states, a set of best practices. The OGC doesn't claim that ITIL's best practices describe pure processes. The OGC also doesn't claim that ITIL is a framework, designed as one coherent model. That is what most of its users make of it, probably because they have such a great need for such a model...[1]

Because - OGC *DO* claim that ITIL is a framework. The ITILv3 Official Introduction says "After twenty years ITIL remains the most recognized framework for ITSM in the world. While it has evolved and changed its breadth and depth, it preserves the fundamental concepts of leading practice." There are many many places in the OGC docs where they refer to ITIL as a framework and a cohetent model. Davebremer (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarity of Text

I may be out of my depth here, but "Features include: 

   * single point of contact (SPOC) and not necessarily the first point of contact (FPOC)

"

If there is a single point of contact then surely there is also a first point of contact (only one in fact). If I've misunderstood, which I suspect I have, then the text isn't clear enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxbyct (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Impact of policies and procedures for technical supports (impact on cost, user experience, escalation process, tired support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.117.215 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge sections "Frameworks mapping to ITIL" and "Variants of ITIL"

I believe that these sections contain overlapping and redundant information.

I'm new to editing wikipedia. But I'd be happy to try to re-word these two sections into prose which both lists and discusses: COBIT, MOF, BECTA's FITS, IBM's ITUP and eTom.

But that seems to be a major change and I don't feel comfortable just diving in without warning ... I guess I'm not really looking for approval so much as checking to see if there's any objection from anyone watching this. Fecnde (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that there's some redundancy. Looks like a good idea.
Go ahead and try making some improvements. If you need a hand with anything, just ask here (or try the helpdesk). I look forward to your contributions. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees with you, in which case we can come back here to discuss the best way forward for the article; we won't bite! bobrayner (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're doing a lot of rearranging, it can be helpful to use the "Show preview" button every so often, to get a feel for what the page will actually look like once you submit. It's important for content to be sourced, so where practical, try to cite a source for things that are non-obvious or potentially controversial. (As a minimum, if you want to cite some other webpage, just put the URL in square brackets and somebody will come along and tidy that up afterwards). bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll see what I can do (btw fecnde is me - changed user to my real name instead of nick). Thanks for the quick feedback. Davebremer (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ok ... that's done(ish). I'm not totally happy with some bits of that section (now merged just one) but I think that's cleaner. It feels wrong editing the live page. Is it possible to save something as a draft somewhere? Davebremer (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting a copy of the text in your userpace, at User:Davebremer/ITIL, where you can play around with a "draft" as much as you like; when you're happy that you've perfected it, you can bring it back to live. That page won't show up in Google searches &c. Hope that helps? Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks! That is exactly what I was after. It felt really wrong editing the live version. When I'm done, do I just copy/paste the code or is there a merge feature? I guess I should rtfm :) Davebremer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

Next to the preview button is a "show changes" button which presents a diff of the current article and your proposed changes. Apart from that, it's just copy and paste. Merging page histories must be performed by an administrator, you can request it by placing {{histmerge|page to merge histories with}} in the article. MER-C 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If all the changes to the userified text have been done by a single person, and any changed sections would be just pasted into the existing article not unlike a normal edit, and would all be attributed to the same person, do we really need merged histories?
Davebremer: the draft in your userspace is not a complete replica, because "live" articles have things like categories at the bottom which could be problematic if they appeared on a duplicate article in userspace, so I omitted those. Don't just overwrite the whole article, instead it would be better to replace the bits that you've improved. Other people might have worked on any part of the live article in the meantime, so be careful of that; MER-C's suggestion is helpful. bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoid Restatement

The article should not include a re-statement of what ITIL is, contains, addresses, etc. The sources referenced will do this -- or the article won't stay. As an article, it ought to be an overview of what the framework provides but not by specific applications. There needs to be enough detail so that similarities and differences from other frameworks can be shown. Kernel.package (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing article for Strategy Management topic

Under ITIL Service Strategy is a broken link for ... "Strategy Management". I fixed a link for ... "Financial management for IT services", as it was just a typo, but cannot find an article for this topic. I could just make a stub, but that would be a waste, if the real one is floating around somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwaustin-wiki (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability ? Usage and Case Studies

This article seems to be pure theory restating what ITIL is and says nothing to the extent that the framework has been adopted in practice and how widespread is its use. I think it needs some examples of notable organisations and details of how the best framework has been implemented and some factual statistics. Otherwise, on its own it is meaningless. It could be published by a government department but lots of documents are published by government departments that have zero notability or credibility. How many users are certified at least basic level ? For all readers know only Bob's bookstore in Tuvalu uses the thing .... --Technofish (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think, there shall be no examples, how to implement ITIL. Why? Every organisation have to do it's "own" ITIL implementation. For this, we can include some hint about the facts about implementing. The idea about information around certified persons is nice. For the we need sources about the numbers and at least an annually review. --Bernd F Dollinger (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering ITIL cannot be "implemented" because it is not a methodology and does not contain enough detail to allow for implementation, this is really a moot point...Flybd5 (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

See Also - AtTask

why is a product, namely AtTask, named in the See Also section? Is this correct? Andreworg (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving to a different title - ITIL

If anyone feels this needs to be moved to a different title then it should be moved, not copied and pasted. I would suggest gaining consensus here first might also be a good idea. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As Michig, suggests, if you agree that the outdated title of this page 'Information Technology Infrastructure Library' means that it should be moved to the page 'ITIL', and, instead, the old, outdated title moved to a redirection, please note this here. Fustbariclation (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a cut-and-paste from course material

I don't think detailed information of a commercial training belongs in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.126.92 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Definitive" library

There are both expressions in the article in here: Definitive Media Library and definitive software library. Is that how it should be or is there room for improvement in this article? --Alien4 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Harmonised ratings

I've revised all ratings on the page to C-class - since the page is tagged for further citations, it automatically fails the B-class assessment, but is far more extensive than a Start-class would suggest. A B-class review (then updating all three WikiProject ratings) would then clarify if the citations template is still valid, and act accordingly. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Why is ITIL v2 given so much detail?

We are talking about a framework that is literally a decade old at this point (as of 2017), and has been superseded by a 2 new versions. To me, including so much v2 information is confusing and superfluous. Would anyone have a problem if all the v2 information was broken out into its own article, with clear notes that it is no longer considered best practices? BobTheMad (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ van Bon, J.(Editor) (2002). The guide to IT service management. Addison Wesley. ISBN 0201737922. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ITIL/Archive_2&oldid=1153451845"