Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:26, 8 October 2009

Computing B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Systems B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ITIL article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Historic Talk Content

Due to the volume of discussion, some of which should be kept as it provides a historical understanding of how these pages have developed old talk content has been moved to an archive:Talk Page Archive to April 2006

Diagram

Image:ITIL framework.PNG does not seem to be adding anything to the article. Perhaps it is simply missing an explanation. What is the significance of the arrangement of the various boxes? What relationships are being diagrammed?

Is it essentially copied from the handbook it mentions as its source, or is it a re-creation of a similar diagram based on the underlying ideas? I ask for copyright reasons. It is currently marked as "fair use", which for a diagram which could be easily re-created, is not an adequate license. -- Beland

A framework or not

Just a quick comment. The opening sentence of this article begins, "The ITIL is a framwork of ..." One of the criticisms state, "The OGC also doesn’t claim that ITIL is a framework." I would think the OGC is an authorative source for the description of ITIL. So I guess what I'm saying is if the OGC doesn't think ITIL to be a framework, the article should describe it as one.

Linkspam

Reverting out ridiculous unproductive row about self-linking. The Misplaced Pages guidelines are extremely clear: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked".

Please adhere to this.

Version 3 Integration

Some of the general v3 stuff needs to be cut from this page, with a subset of the v3 page added. Not an easy task, granted.

External Links

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. Misplaced Pages 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). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Challenge NPOV of the "Precursors" section

I wont modify the page but I think it should be done. Is it good practice to quote IBM as an authority on IBM's contribution to ITIL? (Refs 5 and 6). How about this from Brian Johnston, author of 5 of the ITIL version 1 books: "I wrote five of the original books under the supervision of Dr John Stewart the person who DID create ITIL. In that time I did not consult anyone from IBM, I did not refer to any of the IBM 'body of knowledge' nor did my colleagues to my knowledge... John in his research period did talk to people at IBM but he did not base ITIL (in fact GITIMM as the acronym was at that time) on the IBM materials it was only one of a ton of influences that were distilled. John did his research and NOTHING fitted the scope of what he wanted to build, so the IBM claim is like many others, a stretch." http://www.itskeptic.org/node/29#comment-66 From Alan Nance, also an original author: "What is undoubtedly true is that the thinking from IBM’s ISMA heavily influenced the first ITIL books (Helpdesk, Problem and Change Management). Traditionally there was particular criticism of the helpdesk book for this reason and also the fact that it did not jive with the other later books. In fact had the CCTA not changed course quickly, I doubt that ITIL would have been anything more than an echo of IBM speak. ...the growth of ITIL to international best practice was really forged in the later books. Brian in particular reached out to experts and thought-leaders from across the sea and in different walks of life like Hans Dithmar, Martin van Kesteren and myself and of course many others whom I know less well. These efforts lead to real assimilation of best practice and the strength of the books today." http://forums.datamation.com/service-management/32-history-itsm-itil.html To read this Misplaced Pages entry as it stands is to think IBM wrote ITIL, which is a great distortion of fact. Pukerua (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed external links

Quick check on external links, removed the following in accordance with WP:EL:

• itil.org.uk

Registrant: Mr Stephen Addison

Registrant type: UK Individual

Registrant's address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.

• itilcommunity.com

Appears to exist to promote itil-toolkit.com which in turn exists to sell an unofficial "toolkit".

• itlibrary.org

Claims to be run by the "ITIL community" but is vague about ownership.

• www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/95672

External article link that should be in-line if at all.

—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any potential confusion for later reviewers, please note that in the following discussion User:Binarygal was initially editing under the anonymous IP User:86.167.136.66 as they later clarified here diff.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This was an ill considered edit. For example, the community site has more unique ITIL content than any other website, with contributions from some of the most well known exponents of ITIL. Deleting the link because it has a link on board to a commercial product? Goodness me! The Open Guide, again, unique valuable content, as well as the voluntary Certification Register. Deleting it because of so-called "vague" ownership? What sort of basis is that? The other two have other rationale. Please do not simply chop article content without proper consideration and discussion, and certainly for such ambiguous and tenuous reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.136.66 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Before adding all these non-governmental commercial sites back in, please add some specific justification for the particular site, you may find WP:EL helpful. If these sites are important to the deployment of ITIL then it seems surprising that they cannot be included within the text of the page and added as references rather than unjustified external links. It is otherwise unclear why these do not fall foul of WP:SPAM or the guidance of WP:EL.—Ashleyvh (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please cease what appears to be a one man campaign to control this article for unknown motives. The clear flaws in your arguments have already been explained. In fact some of your statements actually verge on the actionable in a legal sense. Taking two of the links you deem problematic:

You state that the community "exist to promote itil-toolkit.com". That is actually outrageous, and a slur on their 15,000 members. I have in fact alerted them because of this. They simply have a link to that site on a tiny fraction of the pages, yet you somehow engineer this as being the purpose of the community! Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. There are thousands of pages of unique ITIL content there, more than any other site. Obviously, to everyone else at least, that much unique content cannot be added to Misplaced Pages itself. It is also interesting that the ITSMF site actually sells products directly, has less content, yet you happily retain it.

The ITIL Open Guide? The content has already been referred to, as has the fact that it houses the voluntary certification register. Yet you choose to delete on the basis that it is has "vague" ownership? Since when has ownership been a barrier to inclusion? It simply isn't! The content is what matters to Misplaced Pages, NOT who owns it. This is a basic principle. For whatever reason, ownership appears to matter to you a great deal, but it is not relevant here.

And here's another fact: There is no problem in listing "non-governmental" sites in Misplaced Pages. None at all. And by the way, commercial sites are fine too, provided that they offer unqiue, compelling and relevant content which supports the article in question.

Thus, before butchering important and useful links/content again, please do take the time to research to establish at least a basic understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and principles. Then discuss it if you are stuck. Don't simply hatchet an article without any form of consensus whatsoever. That is not acceptable. 86.167.136.66 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a moment to actually checkout the guidance of WP:EL. As I previously pointed out, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from making sites as references in the body of the page if their content is that relevant to ITIL, without in-line references they still appear to be tack-on external links. I'm interested in your apparent threat of legal action, it sounds like it could be a ground breaking case.—Ashleyvh (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, YOU should read and understand WP:EL as well as the ethos of Misplaced Pages. You appeared from nowhere and simply butchered long standing content. No debate, no consensus, no rationale. External links on an article are fine, and some of the ones you deleted are extremely valuable, more so than at least one of those you retained.

Also, I didn't threaten anything, so please do not twist my words. I stated that your allegation might be actionable, and they might be. Your motives here are also somewhat questionable, as there is little logic to your actions, unless you are promoting the ITSMF site or similar. The rationale for the links are above: so please do not delete any content from this article without consensus. That is most definitely contrary to policy.

CONSENSUS is a key word and central to the whole ethos of the Misplaced Pages project. Your repeated edits without concensus, or indeed logic, are entirely contrary to this. Please cease your repeated disruption of this article. 86.167.136.66 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than engaging with someone writing from an anonymous IP address in what seems to be a personal attack, I'll slow this down and take each link in turn.—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the truth is that a great many people have been editing Misplaced Pages for many years, without feeling a need to claim kudos or recognition or whatever via identifation. Ironically, the words "engaging with someone writing from an anonymous IP address" could be considered to be a personal attack of sorts. It is rather misplaced, and is probably not appreciated by anyone who has edited without registering. I'm just making the point.

Link: American ITIL

• http://www.govtech.net/magazine/

This is a link to a magazine article (dated 2005) which is not referenced in the main page. Such links would conventionally be a footnote reference to substantiate something on the main page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Link: itil.org.uk

• itil.org.uk

This is an website with brief descriptions of some commercial ITIL related toolkits and books that can be purchased through TSO affiliate links (affiliate number A10112). The website registrant is Mr Stephen Addison. The website is not referenced anywhere in the body of the page and appears to add no value that a direct link to the TSO publisher's site or the APM Group's ITIL-officialsite would not provide in a more detailed or up to date manner. Following the guidance of WP:SPAM this link should be removed.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain my interpretation of consensus and how it usually works. It is something with is established prior to making changes to articles. Making changes and then seeking to discuss them retrospectively is not how things are generally done here on Misplaced Pages. It could even be interpreted as bullying, but at least, is contrary to Misplaced Pages ethos as discussed earlier. Please do not keep repeating it as it is not helping. Talking is good!

Regarding those two links, I agree that they are much weaker than the others: although I do note that you regresttably feel the need to bring ownership into the equation again, when you have already been made aware above that it is not an issue of substance here on Misplaced Pages, as the content is what matters. I am sure as well that the person in question is less than impressed at your actions in posting his name repeatedly on this page as though it is somehow problematic. Please desist from such conduct, not just on this page, but generally on Misplaced Pages. It just isn't necessary, nor necessarily pleasant. Can you not see that, and how it appears or might appear?

Although I do agree that they are weaker than the others, I will replace them for now on the basis that you have not yet established a consensus. Please suggest the change here on the talk page, and then see whether support materializes for the suggested edit. That is the correct approach to changes to long standing content. I would imagine that consensus might well emerge on those two links, but frankly, to bypass the correct and established process and simply assume is simply wrong. Can you see that point?

That route may lead to where you want to be, and I think it will do with those two particular links, but the established route should be followed, especially where there is contention.

I just think that this is the best way to proceed here and is aligned with how Misplaced Pages operates. Suggest - agree consensus on the talk page - then edit. I am sure that would also go some way to preventing friction and difficulty.

I hope you can see the sense in this?

Addressing your points one at a time:

1. It would be helpful if you could sign your edits otherwise the talk pages tend to be confusing. In the past I have encountered the use of sockpuppets to cover up conflicts of interest and creating an account to edit from helps avoid the suspicion of this being the reason for your POV.
2. Ownership of the particular website above is relevant if it is to be recognized as a spam link with no official relationship to the ITIL guide.
3. I have been editing wikipedia pages for less than 3 years but my understanding is that no editor needs to gain full "consensus" to edit pages, this would only be relevant when proposing a Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. In this case as you have reversed my simple attempts three times to remove what I believe are unnecessary and unreferenced external spam links from the page then I suggest a third party help resolve the matter. For this reason I have already followed the process of WP:3O. Hopefully this will avoid any more accusations that in the process of removing surplus external links I have been "bullying", making "personal attacks", on a "one man campaign" and that "your statements verge on the actionable in a legal sense" (these quotes directly from the paragraphs above).—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The basis for linking to an external website does not pertain to ownership, but content. Official status, whatever that means, is certainly not a pre-requisite. This is a red herring.

Perhaps you should take up that point on the talk page for WP:EL as the guidance there refers to "the subject's official site, if any." I'm sure a clarification could be added.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re consensus, following the first edit, when it was clear that consensus was not achieved, the appropriate route would have been to discuss and to seek that consensus, rather than simply repeating the edit several times to try to force it through, with only retrospective commentary. This is surely not the way to behave on Misplaced Pages in my opinion. Regarding alleged accusations, I would hope that a third party might read my actual words in context, to see how they are being distorted. I don't understand it at all, and don't find it to be pleasant.

As you persist in not signing your ongoing comments and justifications it is quite hard to read them in context.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

WP:EL makes it clear that links should serve a particular purpose within an article (i.e. to enhance it in ways that adding content to the article cannot, or to link an article on a notable organization or public figure to their official website if one exists). The links added here violate that policy as they are only indirectly related to the subject and serve no real purpose other than to be promotional - and since the editor who originally added them has an admitted conflict of interest, this also violates the Misplaced Pages policy on WP:SPAM. If ILL toolkit becomes notable someday, someone who has no conflict of interest will come around and write an unbiased, neutral article about it. I'm going to leave the 3O notice open but I think its clear the links don't belong. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is even more contention here. Which editor has admitted conflict of interest? I certainly have no interest here if that is what you infer, other than seeking to prevent an extremely dubious edit, and ensure fair play by the rules for all contributors, as I tend to. I hope that it means someone else, because if not, I do find this to be offensive.

The ITIL Toolkit is already referenced above. Are you suggesting that every site that links to it should be debarred from Misplaced Pages linkage? What sort of approach is that, and why? And what of the ITSMF website which you retained: that doesn't only link to commercial websites, but actually sells materials! There is no consistency or logic here whatsoever. Indeed, two of the links deleted were actually to sites which are widely regarded as functionally part of the fabric of the topic.

I hope a senior third party will attend to this in a timely manner. It is quite unpleasant.

Who, in your opinion is a senior third party? Also, please sign your posts using ~~~~ - 2 ... says you, says me 17:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not argue to keep the ITSMF link unless the organization is mentioned in the main body of the text. You will notice however that the ITSMF website has a page explaining who they are and what they do, something that the ITIL Community Forum fails to do. I like the way you refer to a "senior" third party in an attempt to make the current third party opinion sound "junior". Most amusing. Your statement that two links deleted were widely regarded as functionally part of the fabric of the topic seems doubtful if they are not mentioned once in the body of the article. As previously stated you could easily add a section to the article to correct this lack and make any external link an in-line reference. Please don't be offended yet again but you may find WP:TALK useful if you need help working out how to sign your posts.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words, and desist from the patronising remarks. It is simply uncalled for and unnecessary. I have no interest in an argument or slanging match with you.

All these arguments are red herrings. There is no such rule stating that a linked website must be referenced in the article itself. None at all. However, the difference in content between those two sites is clear. Just look at the number of unique articles on the community site and who wrote them, and compare it to the others for example. I actually think that both links should be there, but to use constantly changing arguments against one of them suggests a non-Wikipedian motive.

And the old ownership argument, yet again? This does not matter to Misplaced Pages: only to you. Even on this though, the site itself states that it is "a collaberative project between many individuals, across various territories, with the objective of supporting those using itsm best practice frameworks". What exactly do you want, names and addresses? It is simply ridiculous that you want to delete a link to an important site for this. Please leave it to a third party.

And for the record, the reasons I referred to "senior" third party was because given your tone I was somewhat concerned that a collague of yours might pop along as a 'third party' at any moment. For peace of mind, I would like an experienced Wikipedian to be involved and ensure that the integrity of this article is preserved. I think that is reasonable given the circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarygal (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have attempted to answer any of your issues. It is self evident that I am wasting my time discussing my edits with someone who constantly resorts to personal attacks.—Ashleyvh (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack from me, unlike the one you just hastily edited. I am simply the person who brought this to a head, by not resisting your strategy of simply repeating an edit until others give up. That is all. I have no enemies or opponents, because I have no mission and no related interests. Life's easier like that. BinaryGal (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether I agree with deleting the links to govtech and itil.org.uk or not, we are awaiting a third party opinion as already discussed. Please do not jump the gun: leave the original link set so that the senior editor can make a valued decision on all the links under discussion. BinaryGal (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A third party opinion is above that supports my edit and you have already disagreed with it.

Interesting that you refer to a "senior editor" again, perhaps you can find some WP guidance for me to refer to that would help to define that term. How do you propose to get an opinion from a "senior editor" that would be a true third party and how many more third party opinions or warnings against personal attacks placed on your talk page do I have to wait for until you will allow me to edit this page?

It seems to be that you are reversing my edits for the sake of it, not because of any logical argument that my edit is incorrect according to WP polices. Note that if you or I personally approach other parties to contribute their opinion then this is not following the WP guidance for the third party process.—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not making, and have not made, any personal attacks. Please cease that line of argument and stick to the topic itself.

I reversed the edit because it is pending third party opinion. I have in fact approached an Admin on this matter simply because I feel so uncomfortable with what is happening with this article, and I wish to preserve its integrity. The appropriate behavior is surely thus to leave the staus quo, exactly as it was referred for third party input, until that third party opinion is expressed. That is all I am seeking BinaryGal (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also came from 3O and also agree the links do not belong here per our WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But which links? There are actually 7 links there in total. I am hoping the Admin may pop along soon. BinaryGal (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There are four external links that I originally removed, explicitly spelt out at the beginning of this talk section above with some basic original rationale. After you reversed my original edits I then attempted to remove two of these which I believed were uncontroversial as they are so obviously covered by WP:EL and I included an even more detailed rationale in order to satisfy your objections. Based on the discussion above the two third party opinions added so far refer to these two external links. I ask again, how many third party opinions do you need before no longer reversing my edits; or are you now saying that you will not accept the third party opinion process but are now making up a new process that requires an Admin?—Ashleyvh (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So we are down to two links under debate (govtech and itil.co.uk). That wasn't clear. However, I would still like an Admin to look at this, and one has promised to do so shortly. I think there are other aspects, and I would like a senior person to clear them up, not least allegations made against me, and some of the arguments made previously. There is no crazy rush to do it as all 7 links have been there for years, so waiting a little while surely shouldn't be an issue. BinaryGal (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on your statement I have to infer that you do not accept the third party opinion process. It seems perfectly clear that my edits to remove the two external links in question are not controversial and justified under WP:EL. I am unclear as to what constitutes "other aspects" that could justify you continuing to reverse my edits or why I am obliged to wait considering it has already been six days since my original edit. Perhaps you could explain these aspects in simple and direct terms so they can be addressed without any confusion on my part?—Ashleyvh (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already approached an Admin. It is simply reasonable to wait until he has done so. BinaryGal (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me attempt to summarize: On this talk page there are now two third party opinions that support my edits that you are prepared to continue reverting. Despite initially appearing to agree with following the WP:3O guidelines you now expect me to wait an indefinite period until the particular Admin you approached over a day ago (making them a second party) finds time to make some comments. You have referred to "other aspects" with regard to my edits and "allegations" made against you (I hope you are not referring to anything I have written, if so please point these out to me) but are apparently not prepared to explain them in simple or direct terms. On WP:WQA you are referring to me as a person who "demonstrated no civility whatsoever" based on my attempts to address your issues on this page.

Based on my current understanding I have to say that no, it is not reasonable.—Ashleyvh (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Then we just have to agree to disagree. Waiting for the Admin to check this whole saga out, when those two links have been there for years (the desperate need for instant removal I don't understand), is not unreasonable. There are more aspects than just those two links, which I do not wish to debate with you. I just feel that it is best for someone who is actially part of Misplaced Pages to take a look for their future reference. BinaryGal (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be clear I am most definitely not agreeing to disagree. However I thank you for the object lesson that one person can most effectively censor another on Misplaced Pages. After spending seven days attempting to explain to you why my edits are simple applications of WP:EL, applying the recommended process and sitting back to let others provide you with warnings and explanations of why your behaviour is obviously wrong, the only advice from other Wikipedians appears to be to "let it go". It is a great pity that you appear to have learnt so little from this process and are still arguing that you have been subject to a series of wrongs, are representing a consensus (when not a single other person has yet agreed with you) and have been right to accuse me of bullying, having a mysterious political agenda and rudeness. Perhaps someone else could step in and apply my edits now as your problem appears to be with me rather than with correctly editing this Misplaced Pages page? Congratulations, you have worn me out.—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps YOU could just do what is patently reasonable and what I have asked for at least 3 times: wait for the Admin to look at this rather than trying to force an edit through beforehand. It is a replay of the earlier attempts to force an edit through without consensus. I find it extremely strange.

And no, the issue isnt jus't about the deletion of govtech and itil.org.uk. I have always been happy with that, so long as it was done properly, cosensually and with due process. That due process, given what has unfolded, now clearly includes a viewing by Admin, for the longer term benefit of the article and Misplaced Pages.

So yet again, please just wait for the Admin. That is all. BinaryGal (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As it has now been 2 days since you contacted Kuru perhaps you should try a different Admin? Though I'm not sure what you expect this to achieve as the guidance given at WP:DR seems quite unambiguous stating that "Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors". If you still believe that everyone who has contributed here and at WP:WQA is wrong then you may find it helpful to review the process described at WP:DR as you may wish to follow that long established and recommended process rather than one you are making up for yourself.—Ashleyvh (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution does not require an admin anyone can give a 3O. Try contacting Misplaced Pages:WikiProject External links. --neon white talk 07:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for re-enforcing my point about waiting for an Administrator.

I'm not sure that WP:WPEL fits the bill for resolution as this page does not suffer excessive links just a few not referenced in the page body or representing organizations not mentioned in the main text. Earlier discussions on this talk page (e.g. #External Links) relate to the links to sites that claim to be open forums that may be well subscribed but are not mentioned in the main page and not officially endorsed by organizations mentioned in the main page (may be inappropriate sources in accordance with WP:SPS). Having exhausted the WP:3O process, if no editor is prepared to take the simple step of explaining the relevance of these web sites in the main page, rather than buried in discussion on this talk page, then the links should be removed in accordance with WP:EL and WP:SPAM. For the avoidance of doubt, and considering the simple alternative just mentioned, I propose to remove all external links not directly referenced to the main text in order to avoid any further allegations of a secret personal agenda by being perceived to prefer one apparently commercial organization, non-commercial organization or company over another.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject External links is a project dedicated to cleaning of WP:EL. As this seems to be the issue here, it would seem like the appropriate project. I fail to see how links not being referenced in the page body or not in the main text is relevant. Is your objection on the grounds that you believe them to be only indirectly linked to the subject? You're assertion that links should be "directly referenced to the main text" is misleading and seems to confuses external links with citations. To be honest i fail to see how http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/95672 is not linked to the subject it seems reliable and relevent to be. The other one is possibly commercial and should be left out. --neon white talk 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I only gave WP:WPEL a brief look through, I will take your tip and review again to think of how to make better use of it. I read too much emphasis on its relevance to "overly long lists" as opposed best practice of WP:EL.

I agree with you about being misleading regarding external links being germane to the subject as opposed to directly referenced. I fully withdraw this as an interpretation of WP:EL as I should have stuck more strictly to the guidance of WP:ELYES.

With respect to the govtech article this would appear to be an ideal article for a citation rather than an external link falling under the guidance from WP:EL that If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. though considering its age (2005 publication, making it before ITIL v3) an editor would probably want to try tracking down a more recent article on the same subject of ITIL globalization.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that the procedure does not usually require input from an Admin, but I feel that there are more issue involved with respect to this dispute. Hence I would like an Admin to look at not just the page but the parties involved in the debate, which I feel is in the best long term interests of the article itself in indeed, Misplaced Pages.

Again I ask, could you please clarify what these issues you refer to actually are? By stating that an Admin needs to "look at ... the parties involved" it appears that you continue to assume bad faith on my part and the only other issue that concerns you is that I might have a secret mysterious agenda and I might be part of an ITIL related organization.—Ashleyvh (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I want the Admin to look at the parties involved. That is all. I have no intention of debating this with you. BinaryGal (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure mediation is needed at the current time. --neon white talk 20:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already covered several times the matters relating to some of those links, but again, as we are going around in circles, there is no requirement for an externally linked website to be mentioned in the main body of an article, and their content (and the status of their contributors) speak for themselves to any ITIL aware person, in terms of value and support for this article, and indeed establishged place within the ITIL fold.

My repeated suggestion that an editor can take the simple step of explaining the relevance of these web sites in the main page seemed pretty reasonable. Is there some reason that this would be overly onerous or contentious? You will note I am not objecting to any of these links being included in the main page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add something. It isn;t necessary though to do that in order to include a link. BinaryGal (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading this again, your statement seems contradictory with your reversal (diff) that went out for review under the WP:3O process. At that time you stated "Reverse: I personally agree with the edit on those two, but they should be discussed properly prior to actualy change." Now you are claiming that your reversal was due to the value of the links to the article. Further, by stating that this is clear to "any ITIL aware person" you are making the assumption that I have no awareness of ITIL. Please do not make assumptions about my background or understanding of the topic or make such public statements here.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to govetech and itil.org.uk. Equally, you have taken my general comment about ITIL awareness and simply applied it to yourself in order to accuse me of something I haven't done. Yet again. BinaryGal (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The apparent desperation to push deletions through prior to an Admin investigating is puzzling. BinaryGal (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"desperation" seems a highly emotive way to describe my edits when my original edit was 8 days ago (see diff) and I have given you (and any other editor, though none has chosen to support your views so far) generous opportunity to discuss the matter and was courteous enough to explain my original edit at the time of executing it by adding this section to this talk page. Again your statement makes you appear to be assuming bad faith and in practice constitutes a continued personal attack.—Ashleyvh (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Every time I post you make a reply very quickly, arguing. This applies whatever I say, even if I am just asking for time for the Admin to take a look (who I have posted another note to). Desperation seems to be the right word, to be frank. BinaryGal (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The advice I'd get at this point is to follow WP:DENY. Until User:Binarygal is prepared to take some of the advice given to them at WP:WQA by other editors, any attempt at discussion seems pointless. My edits to Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library from this point on will take that approach.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is not going to help matters, please refrain from removing the content until the matter is settled. --neon white talk 20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As per Neon White's comment - please refrain from removing content until the matter is settled. You have, yet again, deleted those two links prior to this.

I have restored them and left another note for Kuru. He may well re-apply them, which is absolutely fine, but it is important that he takes a look at all the above too, so that it is on the radar for the future health of the article. I agree it is pointless debating, so please simply allow the matter to be vlosed in this sensible manner. BinaryGal (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit waring applies to all editors. --neon white talk 10:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful if I were more specific with referring to WP:EL in reference to the original four links I removed. For the discussion forum sites itlibrary.org and itilcommunity.com the relevant section to consider is WP:ELNO point 10 which states that unless these sites are official pages of the article's subject that discussion forums or groups should be avoided (I am summarizing for convenience, please review the original). The remaining two links I removed are more straightforward and have been discussed above as part of the WP:3O process. If an editor considers the discussion forums are fundamental to the article they could show these sites have official recognition by referring to published sources supporting their view in the article in order to cater for the guidance of WP:ELNO. Please note that I removed what I thought at the time were the least controversial external links. The remaining external links might also be candidates for removal using the same WP guidance.—Ashleyvh (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• My analysis of the external links in the article:

1. The official ITIL website: obviously suitable as an external link
2. The OGC website: not relevant as it isn't specifically about ITIL, and doesn't even mention ITIL on the page that is linked. OGC is a partner in the official ITIL website so there's no reason to link to OGC here unless the site contains a section specifically about ITIL, in which case that section should be linked rather than the main page
3. itSMF: Relevant in my view as one of the most-recognized organizations dealing with ITIL
4. www.itil.org.uk: Unsuitable - very little content if any beyond what is already contained in the article.
5. The ITIL community forum: Potentially useful but not encyclopedic link - dicsussion forums are explicitily included in links to be avoided in WP:EL
6. The ITIL Open Guide: A wiki that has not really expanded into a source of information beyond what is in this article. Small list of contributors, and appears to fall into the category of links to be avoided: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Perhaps marginal whether this should stay.
7. American ITIL: A reasonable source but one which would be better cited in the text of the article if it is deemed relevant. If it contains nothing that is worth citing in the article's text, it's probably not worth including as an external link.

I haven't followed the detail of the above discussion, but this is my view of these links with respect to the accepted guidelines. Make of it what you will.--Michig (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On your point on the itSMF, the article's Certification section labels this organization "the recognized user group" (in turn quoting from the text of the ITIL® Service Management Practices V3 Qualifications Scheme document). On this basis it would be easily classed as an "official site" falling within the guidance of WP:ELYES.—Ashleyvh (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The American ITIL should be fine as an external link, linking to articles of interest is common. They don't always necessarily have to be useful in terms of referencing the wikipedia text but if that can be done it is preferable. --neon white talk 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Open Guide includes the voluntary certification register. If that isn't a relevant and useful link for this article, I don't what is.

The Community site has more 'articles' from leading named ITIL industry figures than possibly all the other ITIL websites put together, and certainly more than the ITSMF site, who are no longer officially linked as suggested, and are not the official user group for ITIL (there isn't one). It is important not to mislead by stating sales pitch from their site. Equally, trying to dismiss the ITIL Community as a 'mere forum' is ridiculous given what is posted on there and by whom. Finally, given the position of the two groups, removing one and not the other is simply not sensible.

The OGC link is an historical relic. It used to be value, prior to APMG/TSO's involvement.

Finally, links surely have to be valuable to the article and not included/deleted based upon symantics, or worse. I strongly believe in applying common sense: deleting a link which is clearly useful to a reader of the article on the basis of some sort of esoteric meta rationale is detrimental to both the article itself and Misplaced Pages. BinaryGal (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the voluntary certification register as remotely useful or encyclopedic - it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of ITIL. Links have to be of encyclopedic value, rather than being 'directory'-type links. Being useful is not enough, this is after all an encyclopedia article not an ITIL portal.--Michig (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point User:Binarygal is making about the itSMF. The statement I quoted above is in the current Misplaced Pages ITIL page (I did not suggest anything and I specifically made no statement to the effect that the organizations were linked, I did not use the term official user group and I quoted nothing from the itSMF so I could hardly be accused of having "mislead by stating sales pitch from their site"; please do not misquote me or be so quick to assume bad faith), this is a straight quote from a TSO published document endorsed by the OGC dated 12 Oct 2008 available directly from itil-officialsite. If there are more recent published sources contradicting the statement that itSMF is "the recognized user group" then these should replace those quoted in the current Certification section of the page. You will note that section 8 of this same OGC endorsed document states "itSMF International is the not-for-profit user and vendor group for the ITIL community". I can do little better than be guided by currently available official publications, anything else would be original research. Perhaps a different editor would be kind enough to clarify if necessary?—Ashleyvh (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no official user group for ITIL, although there is for PRINCE2, which is also managed by APMG. There are two large groups of ITIL users: one with focus via corporations, the other mainly direct end users. ITSMF is the first, ITIL Community is the second. This is the reality of the situation, regardless of whether the term 'official is banded around or not, and regardless of what either of those groups put on their individual sites. Both have very significant contributors to their content, although ITSMF charge a fee to join, whereas the Community is free of charge. The Community has much more content than ITSMF, although ITSMF has a physical presense in some territories. Both links should clearly stay, IMHO, but certainly neither one should go individually.

There you are. Some of that could even go in the article.

The ITIL Open Guide was originally set up to document free and open information on ITIL by members of one of the two user blocks (which I have just documented). It is managed by a hierarchy of members, although now it has long transcended its original base. This is all openly documented on several websites. The Voluntary ITIL Certification Register is in fact the only register of certifications which I have encountered. The foundation register is here for example: http://www.itlibrary.org/index.php?page=The_ITIL_Foundation_Certificate. The site also maintains a voluntary register for ISO 20000, which I think BSI may have been involved with. Again, all this is widely documented and known, and perhaps should be mentioned in the article itself. The site should either be placed in the references or in the external links section.

The OGC are still relevant because they still own ITIL, contrary to what is often inferred or believed. Whether this is sufficient to retain the link is debatable, but it is still relevant for this reason.

Govtech has the least case of all of these to stay linked, but it does have some useful content. Unless there is a witchhunt or a pressing need I would probably leave it, despite it being marginal.

The external links are a reasonable and useful cross section of 'further and useful information' in terms of someone reading the article and wanting more. The issue becomes whether there is a need to reduce the number, and if there is, I would probably delete govtech and itil.org.uk. To butcher half the links though given the status, usefulness and importance of some of them, for no really pressing rational reason, weakens rather than strengthens the article itself. BinaryGal (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please try to take on board some of the advice other editors have given in the alert raised for you at WP:WQA or generally at etiquette or ownership. "Witchhunt" and "butcher" are inappropriate and confrontational terms to describe the comments and edits made by others in good faith, particularly when in response to a third party opinion request.—Ashleyvh (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is in my opinion yet another wholly unnecessary, misplaced and provocative comment. In addition to the false inferences, those two words are taken entirely out of context (and from many days ago!). Neon mentioned 'edit wars' above. Please cease immediately: it is just unpleasant to come here and repeatedly read these and similar from you, and it is why I will be retiring from editing when this is reviwed by Admin. BinaryGal (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if my reference to your own edits was not clear enough. To be absolutely clear, you used both terms in your previous edit on 14 April 2009 which is one immediately before my response, see diff. This was yesterday, not days ago. Using cut and paste from your own text, you said "butcher half the links" and "Unless there is a witchhunt". My statement and good faith advice stands and I would be delighted for any Administrator or any third party to review it.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just stop it: stop misrepresenting my words as though they are some sort of attack on you (I am NOT interested: in fact I couldn't be less interested). If you are "delighted for any Administrator" to review it, that's great, because that is exactly what I want. So there is no need to come back and repeat all this yet again. Leave me alone. BinaryGal (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this dogfight but the following is such a gross distortion of fact that it cannot be ignored: "There is no official user group for ITIL, although there is for PRINCE2, which is also managed by APMG. There are two large groups of ITIL users: one with focus via corporations, the other mainly direct end users. ITSMF is the first, ITIL Community is the second. Both have very significant contributors to their content, although ITSMF charge a fee to join, whereas the Community is free of charge. The Community has much more content than ITSMF, although ITSMF has a physical presense in some territories".

itSMF is a professional organisation of over 50,000 members in over 60 countries. It is the only professional organisation representing ITIL practitioners. It was formed out of the OGC by the original authors of ITIL. It funded, organised and executed the worldwide launch of ITIL V3 for and on behalf of OGC. It officially approves all ITIL core publications on behalf of its membership and its logo appears on most ITIL core books. It has contracts with OGC to provide translations into multiple languages of all the ITIL core books. It publishes a number of ITIL books in its own right. The former Chief Architect of ITIL is the Chair of the itSMF International. It runs the nearest thing to an official OGC-sanctioned forum that the ITIL community has. To suggest that itSMF is not an official body is absurd. To equate it with the ITIL Community Forum is beyond the pale. To suggest that the ITIL Community Forum has "more content" than itSMF is delusional.

Incidentally the correct link for OGC in this context of Misplaced Pages is http://www.best-management-practice.com/IT-Service-Management-ITIL/ which has quite a bit of useful content.Pukerua (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One further thought. Calling these external links "The ITIL definition site" and "The ITIL Forum" imparts to them an official status that neither deserves. 'The' ITIL Definitions Site is now the official glossary at http://www.best-management-practice.com/Glossaries-and-Acronyms (which did not exists when the link was fist added) and 'The' ITIL Forum does not exist, but the itSMF-run one is nearest to official status.Pukerua (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-added the community link: whoever deleted does not appear to have read this page nor understand the complexities in play. I really don't want to repeat again the place of that community, as an open and ITIL specific focused alternative to ITSMF, nor enter debate on how some sort of "official connection" somehow constitutes a valid reason to add a link, but the background and politics of ITIL are complex, with many vested interests.

There are two factions in play: open and proprietary. Those in each camp will argue for inclusion of sites associated with their own camp, and for exclusion of others. We see ITSMF aligned people arging against the community, and vice versa. The role of Misplaced Pages is not to take either side but to document the reality. BinaryGal (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We can debate the merits of ITIL Community Forum if you wish but please don't take the opportunity to quietly restore the commercial site itil.org.uk at the same time. It's presence here is indefensible

And suggesting that adding the official sources of ITIL (Best practice, ITIL Offical Site, itSMF...) to the external links is excessive ("No more links") while fiercely defending your own links' presence there is not a defensible position either.

ITIL is NOT an open community. It is a proprietary trademarked copyright product of the OGC owned by HM the Queen (unlicensed use of the term ITIL in the naming of your websites is possibly infringement of trademark and may at some point attract the attention of the OGC lawyers). There ARE official sites for ITIL and they ought to be in the External Links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukerua (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. Please get your facts straight. I didn't re-add itil.org.uk at all. Take a closer look at what I actually did on my last edit. And none of these are 'my' websites, so please...

ITIL itself is indeed propietary, which is in fact a source of contention, particularly as it was government project and is still owned by the government. That does not prevent there being an open community, and indeed there is a very large one. It is natural that your membership of ITSMF is going to make you oppose a different group though, particularly a free and open one. But Misplaced Pages must view the whole picture. It has to be objective and cannot pick sides.

Regarding trademarks, ITIL in large characters is what is protected, not small ones. Please note too that official status does not grant the right to be listed Misplaced Pages. Content and relevance are what matters. BinaryGal (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Binarygal, please stop ascribing motivations to other editors. In the above note you stated your membership of ITSMF, whereas Pukerua had made no declaration about their membership of any institution in the preceding statements. This is in breach of wp:outing and attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.—Teahot (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

External link itil.org.uk

There is overwhelming consensus of opinion that this particular website adds no value to the article with third party opinions contributed earlier on this talk page supporting that view. It was originally removed over seven weeks ago and I am removing it again on the basis of the extensive (and possibly pedantic) discussion since then.—Teahot (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

External links itilcommunity.org and itlibrary.org

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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

RFC: Links to itilcommunity.com and itilbrary.org

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)

• Oppose Both links clearly fail WP:ELNO on the basis that they are open wikis or discussion forums.—Teahot (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above.--Michig (talk) 10:42, 23 July 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages terms Pukerua (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Link to itilcommunity.com

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)

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)

• Oppose This is a forum with no official status and does not meet WP:ELNO.—Ash (talk) 12:47, 7 September 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Oppose As far as I can see, only the first two links meet WP:EL. The other links to fora and random news articles should be removed. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per EL. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but these arguments apply pretty generally, and are part of why we have WP:EL. If the article is unbalanced, seek coverage of any omitted points. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support This re-voting exercise is contrary to natural law. It is being discussed on a blog I found and shows Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages hierarchy, because it brings Misplaced Pages 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)

• B-Class Computing articles
• Top-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• C-Class Technology articles
• WikiProject Technology articles
• B-Class Systems articles
• Top-importance Systems articles
• Unassessed field Systems articles
• WikiProject Systems articles
• Misplaced Pages external links cleanup/DMOZ category needed