Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2005-10-03
New speedy deletion criteria added
Two new criteria for speedy deletions were added this week. The first criterion for speedy deletion, allowing for the deletion of certain copyright violations, was added to the criteria this week, following a two-week voting period.
The new criterion states that blatant copyright violations may be speedily deleted. The proposal resulted from the immense backlog facing administrators at the copyright problems page, where violations would often sit unattended for weeks at a time. The vast majority of the time, there were no further edits of the article in question, resulting in articles being deleted in the same shape they were when they were listed. Thus, the massive backlog, combined with many administrators spending unnecessary amounts of time deleting the articles, caused Bluemoose to initiate the proposal.
The exact wording of the new criterion is as follows:
- The following shall be a criterion for speedy deletion.
- An article that is a blatant copyright violation and meets these parameters:
- Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service).
- The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits.
- Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely.
- The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).
- Notification: When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using wording similar to {{Nothanks-sd}} or an equivalent message. Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should do so. If the creator was not logged in and did not use a consistent IP address, such notification is unneeded.
Similar attempts at adding criterion regarding copied contents have been tried in the past, but to no avail. A similar proposal, part of the multi-proposal addition to CSD criteria, was voted down in July of this year, mainly because the proposed criteria was too general in scope. Also, a similar measure was not passed in January, also because of the generality of the wording. Both times, Wikipedians feared that the wide range of the criterion gave users too much leeway and feared that the criterion would be used inappropriately.
This time, though, the proposal was worded in a specific manner, narrowing down the range. This, combined with the growing backlog on WP:CP, led to the proposal's approval.
The voting lasted two weeks, from 17 September to 1 October, 2005. Using the previous proposal's guidelines, the vote was only open to registered Wikipedians with over 50 edits at the opening of the vote. In addition, a 70% support was required to pass the proposal.
With 100 votes supporting (though two votes were later disregarded because the voters did not meet the guidelines), six opposing, and two neutral, the proposal was passed on 1 October. Most of the opposing and neutral voters were worried about loopholes in the proposal. "I have come across several instances in which people were accused of copyvios when in fact the material had been copied from the Wikipedia article. Since experienced editors have accused other experienced editors of copyvios on these grounds, I am unwilling to put that decision in the hands of a single admin," Guettarda commented. In addition, others were concerned that the criterion would encourage biting of new users, and that the criterion "broadens [the previous proposal] substantially." However, most people praised the proposal. "[The criterion] would relieve a lot of the unnecessary load on WP:CP," stated TenOfAllTrades. Others expressed their frustration at the current problem, and echoed TenOfAllTrades. "[I am] sick and tired of all this copyvio being cut-and-pasted into [Wikipedia]," declared Ral315.
The criterion was added to the official Wikipedia policy page as criterion A8.
A second criterion was also added, based on Jimbo's statement that all orphaned fair-use images could be deleted. The criterion encompasses images that were uploaded under the "fair-use" provision and are not used in any articles. The exact wording of the new criterion is as follows:
- Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which are not currently used in any article, if more than seven days old (so-called "orphaned fair use images"). Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.
Though similar to the new criterion regarding unsourced images, this criterion covers those images whose copyright status is claimed to be fair use, but are not used in any articles.
About the Arbitration process
A chat with the elected Arbitrators
6 February 2006
Jimbo Wales appoints 11 arbitrators, increases committee size
23 January 2006
Arbitration Committee elections continue; ArbCom member resigns
16 January 2006
ArbCom candidates (part two)
9 January 2006
ArbCom candidates
2 January 2006
Straw poll closes
19 December 2005
Jimbo starts new poll regarding election
5 December 2005
Last chance to run for ArbCom
28 November 2005
ArbCom voting process
14 November 2005
ArbCom duties and requirements
7 November 2005
A closer look: the calls for reform of the ArbCom
31 October 2005
A look back: the 2004 ArbCom elections
24 October 2005
Current ArbCom members
17 October 2005
Criticism of the ArbCom
10 October 2005
About the Arbitration process
3 October 2005
The history of the Arbitration Committee
26 September 2005
Introduction to a special series: A look at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections
19 September 2005
|
|
|
A chat with the elected Arbitrators |
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost examines the role of the ArbCom and the functions of the committee.
The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process, hearing cases ranging from charges of administrative power abuse to point-of-view pushing. The Committee, consisting of 12 respected Wikipedians appointed by Jimbo guided by annual elections, has the authority to dole out remedies, including permanently banning users, and is the only committee, aside from Jimbo, that can punish users for anything other than simple vandalism.
The process begins when one or more parties makes a Request for Arbitration. Under the Arbitration policy, anyone can file a RfAr. After doing so, the initiating party must contact all involved persons, informing them of the pending Arbitration case. Next, the initiating party must either demonstrate that previous steps under the dispute resolution, such as requests for comments and mediation, have been tried and failed, or prove that those steps would be futile. Finally, a brief summary of the dispute must be provided; each party has the right to give his/her own summary. While the statement is officially limited to 500 words, it is not always strictly enforced; parties have been known to give far longer statements without any consequences.
Following the filing of the request, Arbitrators then decide whether to hear the case or not. Each Arbitrator can either accept, reject, abstain, or recuse themselves from the case. Four accept votes are required in order to hear the case; after the fourth vote is collected, a minimum of 24 hours will have to pass before the case is accepted.
After a case has been accepted, the process moves on to the evidence collecting stage. Anyone, not just the involved parties, may collect evidence in the forms of diffs. If any evidence or claim is contested, counter-evidence must be provided.
During this period, a workshop for each case is created. The workshop serves as the place where the evidence is analyzed, and proposed findings of facts and principles are discussed. At this point, either party or the Arbitrators may motion for a temporary injunction, which are binding decisions in effect until the closure of the Arbitration case. In addition, the Arbitrators propose and discuss principles, finding of facts regarding the actions of the user in question, remedies, such as probation or banning, and the appropriate enforcement. In addition, the evidence is analyzed and discussed. Both the involved parties and Arbitrators can participate in commenting on the evidence and proposals; however, the comments are divided into sections for Arbitrators, involved parties, and other non-involved parties.
After the discussion at the workshop, the case proceeds to the voting by Arbitrators. Each proposal discussed during the workshop stage is voted upon; a simple majority of votes by active, non-recused Arbitrators is required to pass the proposal. Following the vote and an unspecified period of time, Arbitrators must motion to close the case. Four net support votes to close the case are required to close the Arbitration case; each oppose vote discounts one support vote. A case cannot be closed until a minimum of 24 hours after the first support vote by an Arbitrator.
After the motion is passed, the Arbitration case is closed. The remedies and enforcement take place, and an announcement is usually made at the administrators' noticeboard. Once a case is closed, the case cannot be appealed to the Arbitration Committee; all appeals must go directly to Jimbo.
Next week — Criticism of Arbitration Committee
ArbCom member resigns
A chat with the elected Arbitrators
6 February 2006
Jimbo Wales appoints 11 arbitrators, increases committee size
23 January 2006
Arbitration Committee elections continue; ArbCom member resigns
16 January 2006
ArbCom candidates (part two)
9 January 2006
ArbCom candidates
2 January 2006
Straw poll closes
19 December 2005
Jimbo starts new poll regarding election
5 December 2005
Last chance to run for ArbCom
28 November 2005
ArbCom voting process
14 November 2005
ArbCom duties and requirements
7 November 2005
A closer look: the calls for reform of the ArbCom
31 October 2005
A look back: the 2004 ArbCom elections
24 October 2005
Current ArbCom members
17 October 2005
Criticism of the ArbCom
10 October 2005
About the Arbitration process
3 October 2005
The history of the Arbitration Committee
26 September 2005
Introduction to a special series: A look at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections
19 September 2005
|
|
|
A chat with the elected Arbitrators |
This week, Daniel Mayer, known to the Wikipedia community as Maveric149, announced his resignation from the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. On Wednesday, Mayer moved his name on the ArbCom listings to the "pending resignations" section. Mayer had been listed as "away" since 25 June, first due to a vacation, and then due to working 50-60 hours a week. Citing that he had "no free time", Mayer announced that he would resign as soon as he is replaced; this effectively means that he will not be seeking re-election this year.
Mayer has been an Arbitrator ever since the beginning of the ArbCom in early 2004 and was appointed by Jimbo. A part of Tranche β, his seat is up for election this year. Because he had been away for so long and his seat was already up for election, it is unlikely that the change from "away" to "pending resignation" will have any immediate impact on the functioning of the ArbCom.
However, his resignation means that at least two of eight seats up for grabs in this year's December elections will not have an incumbent running. Mayer joins Nohat as the two arbitrators who have announced their resignations.
Official Wikimania host bids identified, two finalists chosen
Wikimania will take place in North America in 2006, after the bids to host the event were narrowed down to two finalists on Sunday. The final determination, between Boston and Toronto, is expected by 15 October.
As of the deadline for submitting bids on Friday, four cities officially submitted bids to host Wikimania next year. Besides Toronto and Boston, the other cities competing for the opportunity were London and Milan. In addition to the two finalists, the US and Canada each had one other city preparing a possible bid (Cleveland and Vancouver, respectively), but these were not officially submitted due to a shortage of people committed to the work of organizing the event. Other locations in the UK were also considered before settling on the London bid, and a Romanian bid was started but never got off the ground.
Originally, it had been planned to choose three finalists to consider for two weeks before making the official selection. However, the panel in charge of selecting the host city indicated that having only four bids left them with fewer good options. The panel decided that the proposed venue in London was too expensive; in the case of Milan, the suggested accommodations were too far away from the proposed conference location. Since Wikimania was held in Frankfurt this past August, having the next gathering outside of Europe was also a consideration.
Both of the finalist cities take advantage of opportunities made possible by working with local universities, the University of Toronto and Harvard University. In the Toronto bid, most events would be at the university's Bahen Centre for Information Technology. The Boston proposal would actually make Wikimania a joint event with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, of which Jimmy Wales is a fellow.
While a precise date has not yet been set (and will depend on the availability of the venue), it likely will happen around the same time of year as Wikimania 2005. July or August are considered preferable as many students will be out of school and have more flexibility to attend, and with respect to the finalist bids, it may also reduce competition for space at the facilities.
News and notes
Mediation changes
In the wake of criticism that the Mediation Committee was falling behind on their caseload, a wave of sweeping changes were made. Two new mediators, Redwolf24 and Flcelloguy, were admitted to the committee; in addition, there are also five new applicants wishing to join the committee. Redwolf24 also took over as temporary committee chair, replacing MacGyverMagic, who has temporarily become inactive due to scheduling problems. The requests for mediation page's backlog has now cleared, and new cases are being actively assigned and mediated. Redwolf24 commented that the Mediation Committee hopes to take work off both the mediation cabal, which has been mediationing in a unique manner while the MedCom was bogged down, and the arbitration committee, which is at present overwhelmed with cases. Since the reorganization of RFM, seven cases have been assigned, one to each active mediator.
In addition, the chair contacted each inactive mediator, inquiring if the mediator would be returning anytime soon. Redwolf24 was also criticized for assigning all the active mediators a case before taking on a case himself; however, Redwolf24 states that he mediated a case on IRC. Improv is doing an email mediation, and the other disputants have chosen to do their mediations publicly. All the cases are moving forward without problems at this time.
Wikiversity vote continues
The Wikiversity project, which currently resides on Wikibooks, started a vote on 15 September to move to wikiversity.org, which currently hosts a near-dormant German Wikiversity project. The vote will last until 1 November. Currently, the vote is about 76% in favor of the project (a two-thirds majority and board approval is required to start a project beta period).
Briefly
- The English Wikipedia has reached 750,000 articles.
- The Simple English Wikipedia has reached 5,000 articles.
- The Ukrainian Wikipedia has reached 20,000 articles.
- The Kapampangan Wikipedia has reached 100 articles.
- The Polish Wikipedia has reached 120,000 articles.
In the news
Esquire investigates Wikipedia
Writer A.J. Jacobs asked Wikipedians to edit an Esquire article about themselves last month (see previous story), and was pleased with the results. Several publications noted the effort, including ZDNet (and its many syndicators), and CyberJournalist.
Are educators hostile to Wikipedia?
On September 27, blogger Andy Carvin posted a query to the blogosphere after a discussion with Jimmy Wales. He wants to know how educators really feel about using Wikipedia in the classroom, and received several thoughtful replies in comments, and several discussions in other blogs, including Wikipedia in the classroom, Hostile towards Wikipedia?, Are Educators Hostile to Wikipedia?, another Are Educators Hostile to Wikipedia? and Wikipedia - Quality Content?.
Citations
- The Times, on Walter Wolfgang [1]
- Daily Nation in Kenya, on electric shock [2]
- Toledo Blade, on business scandals [3]
- Munster Times on the Elephant Man [4]
- News Tribune on Alexander Hamilton [5]
Technical glitch delays admin promotions
The creation of new Wikipedia administrators was delayed last week as technical problems left bureaucrats unable to promote new candidates. The Special:Makesysop function, which is used to make the change, was deactivated for a few days. Ultimately, ten new admins were promoted after this was corrected. Meanwhile, six articles, one list and three pictures gained featured status.
Makesysop glitch
Tim Starling reported on Thursday that developer Domas Mituzas had disabled the function temporarily to deal with a technical issue. When it was restored, the software reverted to a default setting in which bureaucrats have unrestricted ability to change user rights (currently they only handle the creation of admins as well as username change requests). Thus it had to be disabled again until this could be corrected.
Because this left bureaucrats unable to act on new requests for adminship, the possibility of suspending nominations was discussed. However, Starling restored the feature to normal operations on Saturday. Once this was confirmed by the bureaucrats, Nichalp took care of the backlog by promoting nine new administrators en masse.
Meanwhile, the adminship process continues to be tweaked, as the instructions for nominations have been changed. The instructions now call for the candidate, if nominated by someone else to accept the nomination and answer the standard questions before any discussion starts. This is done by having the nomination subpage created first, but not adding it to the Requests for adminship page until the initial steps are completed.
Admins
Eleven users were granted administrator status - Bovlb (nom), DESiegel (nom), RoyBoy (nom), RobertG (nom), Jdavidb (nom), Who (nom), Jaxl (nom), Marudubshinki (nom), A Man In Black (nom), Journalist (nom), and Shauri (nom)
Featured content
Six articles were promoted to featured article status: Denis Law, Husein Gradaščević, Kammerlader, Nepal, Palazzo Pitti and TARDIS.
One list was promoted to featured lists this week: List of Test cricket triple centuries
Three pictures were promoted to featured status:
-
A Marine waiting on the beaches of Da Nang, Vietnam -
Lavender flower
The Report On Lengthy Litigation
The Arbitration Committee closed a case this week against AI.
AI
A case against AI has closed, banning him until his legal disputes with Wikipedia are complete, and imposing other sanctions on him as well.
AI, whose main edits were to Scientology-related articles, has also been blocked from editing any articles related to the subject, and this block can be enforced by temporary blocks. Another provision prohibits AI to remove comments from any talk page other than his own, owing to the removal of numerous comments which he feels violate Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, a belief that the ArbCom and other parties disputed. Finally, AI has been prohibited from editing with IP addresses or other accounts.
Other cases
Cases against 12.144.5.2 (user page, a.k.a. Louis Epstein), Rktect (user page), DreamGuy (user page), Ultramarine (user page), Keetowah (user page), Maoririder (user page), Onefortyone (user page), -Ril- (user page), and an IP dubbed DotSix are in the evidence phase.
Cases against Stevertigo (user page) and Rainbowwarrior1977 (user page) recently entered the voting phase.