This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Seraphimblade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting[edit]

  • Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

  • If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
  • If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
  • If you are here to discuss edits made to an article, please use the article talk page, not this talk page, to discuss them. If I made the edit and the question is specifically directed at me, you are welcome to ping me.
  • If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
  • If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
  • While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
  • I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

I believe that you are in error.[edit]

Re: "Essentially, several arbitrators are saying that WMF "own" Wikipedia, when they don't, and shouldn't. They just own some hardware. Saying WMF owns the actual website would be a fundamental change to our licensing policies; as of today, while contributors agree to irrevocably license their contributions under a free license, they do still own them. WMF does not own the site, it owns some computers."

First of all, the WMF doesn't own the computers. They spent $2.3 million USD on hosting last year.

Secondly, they own the domain names. Thirdly, they own the trademarks on "Wikipedia", "Wikimedia" "Wictionary", the globe made out of puzzle pieces, etc. Fourthly, and most important for this purpose, they are legally responsible and can be sued if The WMF allows any of the following to remain on the site after the WMF is notified of it: privacy violations, child protection, copyright infringement, systematic harassment.

We, the content creators, don't own Wikipedia any more that the creators of videos own YouTube or the people writing tweets own Twitter. True, all of those sites would fail if the users abandoned them (and Digg did fail when the users did abandon them) but that doesn't make the users the owners. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, Guy Macon, saying they own some computers may have been a simplification of saying that they own contracts for use of some computers. But since they are in control of both those contracts and what is done with those machines, that seems rather a distinction without a difference. So far as owning the trademarks, I already said at User talk:Worm That Turned that they do indeed control those, but saying that's "owning the website" is rather empty. If YouTube's video creators, or Wikipedia's editors, left en masse, those who control the trademarks would be left with an empty shell, as happened with Digg. But more importantly, it is the content that makes those sites what they are, and neither YouTube nor WMF own that. Saying they "own" the sites because they own the trademarks is like saying Toyota owns my car because it owns the trademark rights to the nameplate on it. That may be, but without the tires or engine, it's no longer a working car at all. They don't own the parts that actually make the thing go, or that actually make it what we call "a car", and WMF does not own what makes Wikipedia, well, Wikipedia. No one comes to Wikipedia to see the name or the puzzle globe. They come to see the articles, and those are owned and produced collectively by Wikipedia's contributors, not the WMF. Take away the content, and there's no more Wikipedia. Change the logo, and very few people would notice and even fewer would care. So, as to who owns the essence of Wikipedia, that being its content—well, you, and I, and thousands of others, do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
You are entirely correct about the essence of Wikipedia, but you are dead wrong about the legal concept of "ownership". If you buy a Toyota you own it (that is to say you own A Toyota, not that you own Toyota Motor Corporation). If you lease a Toyota, then Toyota owns it. See General Motors EV1#Who Killed the Electric Car? where GM took back cars from unwilling leaseholders and crushed them, refusing to let the leaseholders buy them at any price.
Perhaps I can make you understand by putting it a different way. We both agree that if YouTube's video creators, left en masse, those who I claim to be the owners would be left with an empty shell. But it would not, as you claim, be an empty shell owned by the video creators. The video creators wouldn't be able to sell it. The video creators wouldn't be able to reinstate any banned video creators. Legally and practically, the WMF are the owners of Wikipedia, and your claims to the contrary are wishful thinking not grounded on the reality of the US legal system as it exists today. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's possible we're talking past one another. You're talking about ownership of the name Wikipedia, which I certainly won't dispute is indeed with WMF. I'm more talking about what most people refer to when they talk about "Wikipedia"—the encyclopedia itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
And I agree. I agree enthusiastically. As long as you are talking about what most people refer to when they talk about "Wikipedia" I am with you 100%. My problem is when you take it out of the context of what most people refer to when they talk about "Wikipedia" and try to assert that it is equally true in the context of Arbcom/the community vs. T&S/WMF making content decisions. Like it or not, the WMF allows us to make content decisions. They have no legal obligation to do so. They really don't. They also have the technical ability to override any community decision, which they demonstrated with Superprotect.
The one thing we have going for us is the fact that the board of directors has been consistent in sending the following message to the WMF: "don't exercise your legal authority over content other than dealing with copyright violations, child pornography, etc. If you are not willing to let the community determine content, you are fired, and we will hire someone who is willing". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for Assistance[edit]

Hi. I was hoping to get your advice or assistance in relation to recent changes to the lead of the article, Parental alienation, and how to edit that article without triggering an edit war. (Or perhaps whether to walk away, given the dominance of a couple of editors who have strong feelings on the subject.) Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Arllaw, I note on the article talk page, you made this comment: The inappropriately reverted former opening is biased and replete with error, misrepresenting what the sources actually say.... When making an assertion like this, it is important to provide details. What language do you believe is biased? Why? What information is erroneous? What's correct? What references support that assertion? Which references does it misrepresent? How does it misrepresent them? What do you propose as a correction? Details like that can be a good starting point for discussion, but the comment just seems to be asserting that your version is superior to the other and that the other is of poor quality, without going into detail as to why. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand that the talk page is difficult to follow. Discussion of the lead was started on August 26, at Talk:Parental alienation#Opening paragraph 2, considerably before any proposed changes subsequently made -- so while I agree that discussing this sort of issue in detail is generally helpful, it didn't work this time around. There are two editors who have strong opinions on PA, and whose accounts reflect little other activity, Skythrops and DrPax. Editor Skythrops chose not to participate in that discussion. DrPax disappeared from the talk page over the same period after posting a comment suggesting that he edits using multiple accounts and being asked to elaborate. They both returned at the same time to support reversion, despite having made no prior comment or objection. There would have been more discussion of specific issues had any questions or objections been raised. Editor Guy Macon has made some comments some of the issues I mention below, as well as some other issues with the article, including how efforts to implement even minor changes are transformed into epic battles.
In regard to the present lead, DrPax and Skythrops have been insistent that PA be described as "a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence". That's not consistent with the content of the article and, at the time the most recent discussion started, there was not even content within the article below addressing whether or not PA was a form of child abuse. I added content about the abuse theory as an attempt to try to avoid this type of situation, so that a corrected comment about abuse could justifiably remain in the lead.
The source for the "distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence" phraseology is an article (footnote 4) that, within its own title, contradicts that assertion -- "Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence". If the position were generally held, it would be acknowledged. Within the Wikipedia PA article (footnote 70), one of the co-authors of that original article is referenced in relation to the continuing controversy and, while citing to the footnote 4 article that he co-authored in support of the point, states on page 142, "The arena of parental alienation is fraught with controversy, particularly regarding the question of whether parental alienation is a form of child abuse and family violence." (As for the other sources, Duhaime's law dictionary (5) does mention PA as "abuse", but it's not an authoritative source nor does it support the broader assertion. The Baker article (6) speaks of self-reported consequences of perceived PA, but does not include language or assertions that support the claim made in the lead.)
Similarly, the claim about "the most common cause" is not supported by the sources cited, nor is it supported by the content of the article. Claims about the consequences of PA in the lead are overstated, albeit toned down a bit from past versions. Mention of controversy has been deleted from the lead. Arllaw (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Arllaw, I've taken a bit more in-depth look. First, this edit: [1] was totally inappropriate. You should absolutely not be "closing" a discussion you have participated in; it should remain open for anyone else who would care to participate unless formally closed by an uninvolved editor. For the rest, it appears there's been quite an extensive discussion among the editors already involved, so you may want to consider a request for comment on the subject to gain input from previously uninvolved editors. But don't attempt to close the RfC yourself; if a formal closure is necessary, someone uninvolved should be the one to do it. If once the RfC has run for 30 days you think formal evaluation and closure is needed, you can request that here. Of course if a clear and unambiguous consensus is reached, that may not be necessary. Remember to phrase your RfC request neutrally; attempting to "push poll" in any way is not permitted. If you'd like to draft the RfC request in your userspace, I'd be happy to look at it and point out any problems before you actually put it up for comment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. I was trying to address the problem of having multiple overlapping discussions, with editors participating in multiple discussions, which seemed to be making a convoluted talk page and discussion of editing issues even harder to follow (what editor Gary Macon fairly characterized as "walls of text"). It won't happen again.
On the issue of a request for comment, I very much appreciate your advice and offer of assistance. Given Gary Macon's fair points about the article at large, though, perhaps the issues he raises merit discussion in advance of a RfC about the lead, as I think that issues pertaining to the lead could be subsumed in a resolution of those larger issues.
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide this sort of guidance. I appreciate how much time it must take, for you to support the project in this manner and through your other efforts here. Arllaw (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

T&S Survey[edit]

An extraordinarily long but sparsely-advertised survey that has a lot of questions about global strategy, community health (amount of abusive editors, sexual harassment, ability to accommodate culturally different editors, sufficiency of local civility policies et al) & T&S, software quality et cetera. Oone of the questions is :- In what ways, if any, can the Wikimedia Foundation do more to support the safety of individuals, resolve disputes, or protect against abusive community members? Leaving a note, in case you are interested, because I believe the results will be weaponized during the upcoming consultation ..... WBGconverse 15:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

meta:2019 Community Insights/Thank you seems to be the sole on-wiki documentation. WBGconverse 16:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, uh...well, holy hell, that's about a monstrosity of a survey. You should tell people to make a full pot of coffee before they go to look at it; one cup wasn't enough! But, I did go through it (if anything, mine might have been longer than yours; when I ticked "yes" to being an admin and involved with a local user group it gave me questions specific to those things), and my only conclusion is that the questions are often so poorly designed and vague that they're not useful for a single thing at all. Not to mention the sheer length means they'll only get responses from people with time and patience enough to actually sit through it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing changes[edit]

Hi, thank you for getting in touch just now, I was not aware that I was violating any rules and am sorry if this was the case. Can i ask why the external links were deemed inappropriate? I added some facts to a few pages, and then added citations which directed to relevant external sites (where the facts can be found in the anchor text), I didn't add any external links to actual text (at least not intentionally, I might have made a mistake!). I would be grateful for your assistance as I don't want to make the same mistake again. Thank you!TomLambertLDT (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

TomLambertLDT, first off, your username indicates that you are paid to make contributions here, which includes being asked or expected to edit Wikipedia as a duty of employment or internship. If this is the case, you will need to make the required disclosures before editing any more. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't know about that, sorry. I will make sure to disclose on my user page before editing any further. Thank you for your help!TomLambertLDT (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

TomLambertLDT, thanks for doing that. In addition to that, the site you are linking to ([2]), is not a reliable source, but a commercial booking site. It is not appropriate for general use as a reference, so please stop adding "references" to it. If you would like to add information about particular events, the event's site would be a more appropriate source, but an independent source (which is reliable per the criteria in the above link) would be better than either. Continuing to add links, including as references, to this site, is not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I have now updated the User Page, is that all ok now? Re linking to the website: although part of the website is a commercial booking platform, we also include long-form content to inform our users; this has facts and information about a range of events. We also have a blog which is not linked to the booking platform. Would it be permissible to use these pages as appropriate references? We always hope to create content that is useful and informative for readers, so we feel like it would benefit some wiki pages to reference usTomLambertLDT (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

TomLambertLDT, the answer to that is "no", and will remain no however the question is rephrased. Wikipedia is not a means to drive traffic to your site. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)