Talk:ITIL/Archive 1

removed: copyright violation from www.enterprisemanagement.com/online-store/ scstore/02182002%20Article.pdf

I can't find the first So I'm working to improve things. I'm hardly an expert on ITIL--maybe after I've revised the wording, I'll be closer. :-) If there are experts out there who think I'm getting it wrong, please help me get it right.

Here's my plan of action: What I have done, and what I'll be doing in the short term.


 * Re-worked the intro to conform more closely to standard Wiki practices (much more needs to be done).
 * Moved various sentences around, again for clarity, focus, and flow.
 * Moved the 'Process' section to the bottom. This was mostly to get it out of the way for a while. A new reader wants to know what ITIL is right away. I need to figure out where this very important Process stuff belongs.
 * I want to describe the eight 'sets' in the framework, and each of the disciplines within them.
 * And of course there are various small repairs to spelling, grammar, and language.

When all of that is finished, I'll probably make the next pass at a plan of action.

Just to re-enforce, I'm not at all an expert on the subject, so if you have the knowledge, I need the help. If I'm going down the wrong path, please help me to get back on. [ But, be gentle. :-) ]

DanielVonEhren 20:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made various improvements for about a week. My thoughts are moving in the direction of splitting up the article into about 10 different article. I'm envisioning


 * A main article with overall descriptions of ITIL
 * Eight separate article, one for each of the sets
 * An ITIL Glossary


 * I'm noticing that the article is already quite long, and the material so far only covers two of the eight sets.


 * There's a lot of work left to do even in the simple 'small repairs' on what's already in place: Lots of spelling, and grammar, and prose, and organization issue. I'm looking at that as on-going. For the short-term, I'm going to create the separate ITIL Glossary article. One of the most important benefits of ITIL is the definition of common vocabulary, which allows people to communicate in a shared language. I've noticed the problem that the article talks, for example, about an incident several times before having the opportunity to define it. A Glossary in a separate article with linkable words ought to solve that chicken-and-egg problem nicely.

DanielVonEhren 15:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is IT Service Management a separate layer
Looking at OGC's web site and various other sources, I'm not seeing IT Service Management as a separate layer, with Service Delivery and Service Support as sub-specialties, so I'm going to take it out. However, I'm happy to put it back if it turns out that I'm missing something.

It's looking like it will be most clear to organize the article around the the eight physical books. That provides a natural hierarchy for structuring the presentation as well as a reader's thoughts.

DanielVonEhren 14:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images and comments
I think the flow of the existing document is good-- I like the focus on presenting the information similar to the base ITIL books.

I do think that the choice of JPEG compression for the line drawings was poor-- JPEG blurs the text badly since it was designed for photographs instead of drawings. A better choice would be PNG since this uses a lossless compression which squeezes large areas of the same color down nicely. The image size would be comparable and a whole lot sharper.

Sbonds 20:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2

~anonymous 16 May 2005

I agree re "In one of the images, "deplanning" should be "deplaning" x2 " Mind you, wonderful image of people being rushed off a plan (yes, we've all had daft managers telling us to forget about the plan...)

Content of Article
Hi Daniel,

I am an ITIL consultant and a qualified and accredited trainer, but new to the Wikipedia.

If you Wikify this article I will happily keep an eye on the content for you.

Lynn Jackson 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some references to ISO20000, BS15000 etc.?

ITIL
I think that this should most likely be reorganised. I have some experience in ITIL (though I'm by no means an expert!). I migth give it a shot some time later. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be inclined to hang on. ISO 20000 is due to be published: but we all know ISO and dates. It should be in a week or so, but I guess longer. Creating something now which will need re-working so soon is probably not a good investment of time.BinaryGal

ITIL uses "process" loosely
In BPM terms, ITIL's use of process is loose. A process is a repeatable series of events resulting in a value-add outcome for an identifiable stakeholder. This applies to Incident, Problem, Change, and Release. Configuration Management is in a gray area, and the "tactical" Service Delivery areas of Capacity, Availability, Finance, and Continuity are clearly closer to functional areas as defined by classical BPM - they are made up of many processes, some of which may cross boundaries.

The ITIL author's insistence that Service Desk is a function not a process is further indication of their lack of clarity in this matter. A Service Request is also a crisp, event-driven repeatable process.

For further information see Hammer or (especially) Rummler & Brache.

65.25.216.35 04:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Charlie Betz (charb@visi.com), www.erp4it.com.

Objective point of view, real world experiences
The handling of this subject is excellent, better than I've seen almost anywhere else. I note (regret) the absence of two things, firstly some context and reference to equivalent standards or attempts at standards, and secondly some observations on the issues around successfully implementing. This is not to distract focus from ITIL, or belittle it, but to avoid the impression that one might othervise get that it is purely theoretical and idealistic. I appreciate that the authors KNOW that it is not, it is just an observation about how well the article conveys that. I'll pull together some studies and post in the next week or so. Tban 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could someone knowledgeable please provide pronunciation guide- "Long I or Short I", Eye-til or it-il??? I have been hearing both ways.

Pronunciation update
As I understand it 'eye-til' is the US pronunciation whereas 'it-il' is the UK.

Added some information on Infrastructure Management
Found an excellent summary on the Service Management disciplines but very little on the Infrastructure or Application Management elements. I've added some initial thoughts under Infrastructure Management and hope that people will be happy with the tone and structure. Mark G 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Incident Management Definition
The Incident Management definition includes the phrase : "... .The definition means that an incident is a problem but without a root or cause. If the incident has a root cause, the incident becomes a problem or a known error...."

I'm not so sure that this is helpful to those new to the ITIL framework and even less sure that it is accurate. As ITIL is quite clear that Problems are distinct from incidents it would seem unhelpful to say that and 'incident becomes a problem or a known error'. Neither that an 'incident is a problem but without a root or cause', the ITIL books seem to suggest that a known error has a root cause, but a problem need not have a root cause this would suggest that this also needs updating.

Does anyone else have any views? --Mark G 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---01 April 2006---

Incident is a service call which demands immediate attention for closure or a workaround. If a number of incidents are logged by various users with a similar fault description, then the incident becomes a problem. In that case, as per incident management, closure of the incident through workaround is done as quickly as possible. Problem is handled as per problem management. Every problem has a root cause. Till the time, root cause is unknown, the problem remains and is called an unkown error. When the root cause is found out through root cause analysis, the problem becomes a known error.

--- Contributed by Ganaraj Pawaskar---01 April 2006

---02 April 2006---

I've updated the relationship to problem management section in Incident Management, I'd appreciate any feedback. I hope it's a little clearer.

Mark G 22:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Spellings US v UK
I've just seen an edit on this page: someone has changed every spelling of 'organisation' to 'organization'. It raises the issue: which spelling should be used, US or UK? Most of the Wiki seems to be in US (should it?), but ITIL was born in the UK (does that make a difference?).

Is there any formal policy on this? --Binarygal 1 March 2006

I would think that since ITIL is a UK developed library then 'organisation' is more appropriate - but then I would i'm in the UK!

--Mark G 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links to Blogs on the ITIL page
I have redefined the conversation that appeared to be going on between ITServiceGuy and 80.47.x.x so that it doesn't consume high level headings and discourage others from reading or contributing to the other discussions on this page. Discussion is below.

Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the ITIL V3 Overview External Link Should Stay on Wikipedia
I am writing this to kindly request that editor 80.47.XX.XX stops deleting the external link to the ITIL V3 Overview article and slide deck that I believe should be in here.

I wish to objectively provide my case.

To provide the core facts:-

- Yes, it links to a Blog page - Yes, I own the Blog - Yes, the Blog has Adsense on it

However:-

- The Blog exists to provide free information about ITIL - not for self promotion. - The Blog does not sell anything - nor is it commercial. - The Blog provides valuable infomation and places it in the public domain. - No copyright is broken - everything is my own work.

In terms of the actual article:-

- The article is informative and accurate. - The article is an introduction about ITIL V3. - The article contains a FREE download of a valuable pack I personaly put together for the benefit of ITIL V3 interested parties. - There is no-where else on the internet that you can read the FAQ's that Sharon Taylor (Chief Artictect for Version 3) answered. - Sharon Taylor herself left a positive post on the site - expressing how pleased she was that were postively covering ITIL V3.

The precident:-

Two of the other external links contain a lot of advertising and sponsor links. One contains 6 sponsor links and 10 advetisements, along with links selling a toolkit. I do not object to these links. Therefore the 'made for Adsense' comment is a non-issue.

The quality of the article and slide deck within it are superior. I have received a lot of feedback telling me so from ITIL practitioners around the world.

That's my case stated - openly, honestly and fairly.

I look forward to reading your reply.

(missing a signature)

Why You Should Stop Spamming the Wiki with your Adsense Site
In your desperation to add a link to your 'Made for Adsense' site and thus grab a few pennies, you miss the key points entirely.

The page you point to is almost worthless. It is lightweight, with the content covered in MUCH more depth on the official OGC site, and many others. It simply does not justify being linked to in any sense.

The wiki is NOT a link list. Simple. Repeatedly Visiting here explicitely to add your OWN site, with minimal useful content, and Adsense all over it, is unnacceptable and unethical.

Ask yourself: if that page was elsewhere and NOT owned by you, would you repeatedly spam the link to it here? Of course you wouldn't. Case proven. Your motivation is clicks on the Adsense box, not the good of this wiki. Please refrain from doing it.

(missing a signature)

Why Are You Preventing ITIL Practitioners from learning about ITIL V3?
Thank You for leaving your comments. I wish to respond as follows:-

I am certainly not desperate to add a link and 'grab a few pennies'. The Adsense on my site offers ITIL Practitioners the chance to access free reports and other information from a variety of vendors - without having to spend valuable time looking elsewhere around the web. It's just a service I provide, along with the other quality information on the site.

For your information - the small amount of 'pennies' I do receive from Adsense each month goes straight back into buying reports and other items (such as the $200 ISO 20000 standard that I'm currently writing articles about - most of which I forked out for myself) to help educate visitors to my site.

You seem to have me down as a ruthless entrepreneur who is trying to turn a fast book out of a single Wiki link. Not exactly the master business plan is it?

If I was trying make some money - then I would be trying to post affiliate links to actually sell a product (such as a 'toolkit' - which funnily enough - IS featured on some of the other external links that you do not seem to have a problem with).

Double standards?

No, I actually think there's more to this...

Overall - I do not believe that Adsense is your major concern here. Just a way of cleverly painting a dark picture - which is totally innaccurate.

My track record and reputation is being questioned here - and I intend to professionally continue to present my case.

Here's the thing...

I honestly believe (having absorbed the content and context of your objections) that you have some 'other' reason for not wanting the information to appear.

I thought that purposely preventing information for others to learn from is actually NOT what the Wiki is about?

Let's resolve this 'censorship' issue once and for all.

You mention (above) that the article is 'lightweight' - then please do all the visitors to Wiki a BIG favour and add some external links to where the information CAN be found on an alternative site.

For example the answers to the important questions about ITIL V3, as provided by Sharon Taylor, are - to my knowledge - available NO WHERE ELSE on the web. Not even the OGC site.

I challenge you to find this same information (answers to the FAQ's) and provide an external link to it on the ITIL wiki page.

Now, if you can do that, then I will see no alterantive but to not post the external link - since you have found a suitable alternative for eveyone to benefit from.

If you cannot I will seek further guidance from Wiki on ensuring that the Link is posted and remains posted.

I am only interested in ensuring that all interested ITIL parties have access to all the relevant facts and information to help them in their advance planning and preparation for ITIL V3.

There should be no censorship on Wiki.

Do you accept the challenge?

(missing a signature)

Because You Are a Link Spammer
It is staggering that you still persist with this vandalism. You just don't get it do you?

The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?

We have been here before on topic after topic all over the wiki. People persisting in posting their own site blindly because they cannot grasp what everyone else can.

Desperately slagging off other links in defense is also common. FWIW the other links are justified because they offer genuinely unique or original content. That is why they have been left in place for years. The issue isn't the odd link to commercial areas on the sites the wiki links to, it is the content on them and the whole value of the site (or lack of it).

In your case it is crystal clear that the so-called 'blog' is a 'Made for Adsense' entity, known as an MFA site, You have lightweight content here and there to try to provide hooks. Your growing desperation to link to it here simply re-enforces that fact, and exposes your mission.

In terms of the flimsy article you are pressing, the same information is available all over the place, including on the OGC site which is already linked to. Furthermore, there is a wiki page on v3 specifically. Even IF your MFA site jsutified a link, which it DOESN'T, that is where it should be.

If you carry on like this, the next step will be to block you from posting at all. Why don't you step back, look at what you are doing, and instead of link spamming try to add CONTENT too the wiki? But no, I guess that isn't what you are really here for is it?

(missing a signature)

Thoughts from an outsider
Gentlepeople, it does rather appear as if emotions are running high here, and while I would like to distance myself from the more personal debate that is occurring (above) I felt it might be useful to provide a view from outside the discussion.

As the initiator of the wikipedia page on ITIL v3 (early last month) I too saw a general need for more and better information on ITILv3 and the ITIL refresh project. Personally it concerns me that our unknown editor 80.47.x.x feels unable to make at least some identity visible, it is therefore not possible to identify if he/she may have an agenda – however it is a (largely) free world and so his/her prerogative.

I am however concerned that the ITIL wikipedia pages could very easily become overburdened with links to umpteen blog pages across the web. With a blog, it is often difficult to discern the agenda of the author and as such lending credibility through an ‘encyclopaedia’ entry would appear to be ill advised.

Wikipedia ‘best practice’ and ‘policy’ appear to err on the side of caution when linking away from Wikipedia:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally

“…Not very often. If the site you are linking to is an article, history or timeline, then wikipedia should have its own article on that subject, not just an external link. The web is already full past capacity of sites composed of links to other sites.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

specifically adds:

“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.”

I am sure that everyone would appreciate any Wiki-ethos compliant content being added to the ITIL v3 page by anyone who has a contribution to make, but on balance I would be in favour of tight control over links made from these pages. If the demand is there for ‘advocacy’ style pages then perhaps an ‘ITIL Advocacy’ page would be an option as I am sure that others who have equally valid and useful ITIL commentary would like to provide access to their blogs as well.

Mark G 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

ITIL Version Three on Wikipedia - IT Service Guy Response
To mystery editor 80.43.XX.XX,

Thanks for providing two sets of feeback: (i) your direct comments and (ii) the comments made above to ITILuser.

Please can I kindly request that you maintain your professionalism in this discussion forum and try to avoid unkind or untrue phrases (like 'spammer' and 'lightweight'). This is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it - however - I have never questioned your anonymity, agenda or writing style once. I am trying to focus on what I see as the key issue here which is the availability of information on ITIL Version Three.

You failed to declare whether you accepted my challenge which was to add external link(s) that present the Wikipedia readers with the FAQ answers that are contained within the free download slide pack attached to the article that I am trying to post a link on Wikipedia too.

[Notice also, that whilst we are debating whether the link should be on Wikipedia, I have not tried to replace it or do anything underhand, I have been openly and honestly laying out my side of the story.]

As you know, my present concern is one of 'censorship' and freedom of information around ITIL V3.

One indivudal should not be allowed to prevent others from accessing important information.

I cannot see any links that you have provided to allow people to read the answers to the FAQs. The reason they are so important is that they provide ITIL practitioners with an advance view of what's going to happen later this year with respect to education and possible changes in the syllabus for ITIL Foundation and the Managers exam.

I have been unable to find this information on any other ITIL site, including the OGC. Therefore I suspect you are also unable to offer the ITIL community alterative links with this information on it.

To avoid us all going around in circles I believe that there are several options on how we can move forward here - but I want to do so with concensus and approval from the ITIL wikipedia guardians and other editors, as well as yourself.

Option [1] - Add the link again. (Obviously it will be removed straight away - so not a viable option)

Option [2] - I can extract the content and add it to the ITIL V3 pages. (subject to concensus and approval from others)

Options [3] - Ask the OGC to put the information on it's site somewhere and then you can provide an external link to the relevant OGC page.

Option [4] - Not put the information back on - and we all stay in the dark (not really a fair option - especially given that I know how important the information is].

At this stage - can I please ask other editors to 'come in' and provide their opinions - perhaps there are more options that I've not considered.

I hope by presenting these options, that I am showing a genuine interest in the information being available regardless of where it is located.

Finally, for the (still) myserious editor 80.44.XX.XX - I wish to respond to your main point in your last response, "The real challenge was the question of whether you would post the link again and again and again if the site didn't belong to you. In other words, if it didn't make you money. Funny that you didn't answer that isn't it?"

I want to let you know that I was the one who placed the OGC site links on the ITIL V3 pages initially and also, in my online work particularly at the IT Service Blog, I always link out to sites that do not belong to me, to present important ITIL information. It's in the very nature of Blogging - sharing information for the good of everyone who's interested. I answered the money part in my previous response to you. (ISO 20000).

So, in summary, please can we have some additional consensus views, rather than let one anonymous individual decide.

I will honour the consensus view - as is the Wikipedia way.

Thank You.

(missing a signature)

Follow the Rules
The consensus is already evident. And as Mark G already points out, the Wikipedia itself clearly states: "“Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain".

What part of that is it that you don't understand?

As for my anonymity, all that means is that I haven't created an account. I am no more anonymous than the people who have but not completed their details. I have no agenda, other than stopping link spammers and helping to protect the wiki. Why should I make myself a target for them, and paint a bulls eye on my head for them, by identifying myself? People who spam are usually capable of other despicable acts too.

Regarding your 'options', IF you have any unique content obviously you can add it to the v3 page. So obvious in fact that you could have done that originally. But you didn't want to did you? You just wanted the link to your Made for Adsense site, which is what this is all about, rather than some mythical unique content which is actually lightweight.

Finally: JUST FOLLOW THE RULES! The wiki is NOT here for self promotion of YOUR OWN sites or for link spamming.

(missing a signature)

Additional comments & thoughts
Gentlemen, I believe that the wikipedia approach is clear. "Wikipedia is not a blog and is not a directory of links" and having looked around the 'pedia for other similar issues it is not deemed appropriate to maintain links to content.

Robin, I believe that everyone would welcome your contributions to the ITIL v3 page, your challenge to our friend at 80.42.xx.xx indicates a concern on your part that ITIL v3 information that is in the public domain, and appropriate to a 'pedia style publication is missing from the v3 pages. Perhaps this section of the discussion should continue on the talk page a ITIL v3. I have reviewed your slides and believe that all of the relevant information is now included on the page, i have made a few minor updates to try to ensure this. My preferences would then be for you to follow options 2 and 3 of your selection and to persuade OGC and the Refresh project to continue the excellent project communication that I have already observed, and which I believe that Sharon was partaking in in the webcast that you initially reported.

Let's try to make these pages ITIL and ITIL v3 as comprehensive, independent, and succinct as we can so that this reference source can continue to be referred to in that light. If there is a belief that there is a deficiency in v3 information on the v3 pages, lets take the discussion to Talk on ITIL v3 and lets stick to the Wikipedia guidelines to avoid links to external sites unless the information cannot be legally duplicated in Wikipedia and unless that same information is indispensable to the aims of the encyclopedia.

Mark G 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion carried across to ITIL V3 Discussion Page - As Requested.
Thanks Mark for providing this much needed mediation.

I will continue this discussion over on the ITIL V3 Discussion Page - as suggested.

At this stage - I'm not bothering to respond to our mysterious editor. I'm only interested in ensuring that the content is available to those that would benefit from it.

I'm keen to get back to writing about IT Service Management and ITIL - afterall I have over 1,300 global ITIL practitioners to keep happy - which is a far more meaningful experience.

Here I list eight key points - plus some other considerations for possible inclusion - subject to concensus being reached:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITIL_v3

Thanks, Robin.

User:ITServiceGuy 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the V3 link to ITIL on WIKI?
I have not been able to find the WIKI page link you reference in your statements below. NOR is there a specific link on the OGC site for V3.

Any help would be appreciated.

Answers for Itiluser
The wiki page for v3 is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIL_v3

Our link spammer friend had been at that too but I cleaned it up.

For the OGC, you will find official info here: http://www.itil.co.uk/refresh.htm and a lot more if you look at news releases here: http://www.itil.co.uk/news.htm#ext

However, there is also tons of stuff on many ITIL sites out there, a lot better that the lightweight link posted by our friend above.

I hope this helps.

University of Utrecht ?
I am a little confused by the banner (that has appeared on this page). While the University seems to be active and is adding valuable content to the Wikipedia, including on ITIL - much of which I hope the community will be able to peer review over the coming weeks/months I do not believe that the banner is either accurate in saying 'is a part of', nor can I find significant contributions from members of the project. I am not sure what the general consensus is with regard to this?

Mark G 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Full reply on Centralized_discussion/Method_Engineering_Encyclopedia
 * Also see my talk with the wiki admin R._Koot here: MEE project spamming
 * --Goonies 07:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Edits by members of the project to this article seem to be resticted to the following additions:
 * (but also see ITIL Planning to implement service management)
 * (but also see ITIL Security Management)
 * (but also see Change Management process (ITIL) and Change Management (ITIL))
 * I haven't carefully read those other articles, but do you have any ideas? Keep them separate (and add main links), merge them, delete them? Cheers, —Ruud 23:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The other items, specifically listed above are useful elucidations on the basic outline in this main article, I imagine that in the longer term this larger item will need to be broken down into the constituent processes and remain only as a summary and waymarker; this will be particularly important with the introduction of ITILv3 which will share many/most of the processes and will need to co-exist with v2 for some considerable time. I think that for now certainly these articles do not constitute original research and are fully in keeping with Wikipedia ethos (if not style etc). There are minor copyright concerns but I haven't had time to thorougly review them against the defining texts as yet to see how close they are. Mark G 00:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag added to the page
I can't see any serious violations of the NPOV criteria on the main page. Would whoever has added it please explain their additions? ITIL is an internationally recognised best practice, embodied in the ISO/IEC 20000 standard and produced by an international co-operation of authors from vendors, government and industry. I would suggest that if there are no specifics provided that we remove the tag in a week or so. Mark G 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The introduction currently says:


 * The Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is a customizable framework of best practices that promote quality computing services in the information technology (IT) sector. ITIL addresses the organizational structure and skill requirements for an IT organization by presenting a comprehensive set of management procedures with which an organization can manage its IT operations.


 * This sounds like it comes straight from a press release. Wikipedia should not be making a pronouncement about whether or not the standard does or does not effectively "promote" certain techniques, whether or not those are actually "best practices", whether or not the standard adequately addresses certain needs, and whether or not it is comprehensive.


 * It may seem like this, one of the key issues here is probably that those proponents with adequate subject knowledge to produce content tend to be proponents of the standard. Unlike any corporate body e.g Microsoft Operations Framework etc. no-one makes money directly from ITIL, it is all service based around ITIL ideas and so the promotion is not so much of a product (although it might appear that way) but of an idea - none-the-less this is a point well taken - I'll see what I can do! Mark G 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Completed a first pass, would appreciate any comments from others. Mark G 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The CCTA created ITIL in response to the growing dependence on information technology to meet business needs and goals.


 * Huh? This sounds like marketing PR.  What was the actual problem the government was trying to solve, if any?


 * Have updated this to be more accurage Mark G 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help a lot if the article explained how this standard is actually used in the real world. Usually this sort of thing is explained up front, so that non-technical readers can understand the social context of the subject of the article, before giving up when they hit the detailed technical sections. I've reordered the sections of the article accordingly.  From the article in its current state, it's not at all clear what kinds of "information technology" applications this standard is meant to cover.  Software companies?  Phone companies?


 * Unlike many other standards, ITIL is a framework and applied to (as is evident from the core subject areas) all ICT operations from government departments to small five man firms (although its success at the smaller end of the scale is less well demonstrated.


 * Work still to do here Mark G 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Benefits of ITIL
 * This entire section has a promotional POV.
 * And is (was) pretty vague. Comprehensiveness is not, in and of itself, a benefit to anyone.  If anything, it's a negative because it makes something bigger and more expensive.  Comprehensiveness may be a necessary feature of something, but it needs to be explained why comprehensive==good.  As there was only one sentance left, I've removed the heading and let the sentance join itself to the introduction. Regards, [[:This section is normative and tells people how something should be done.  Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and neutrality requires that it avoid normative statements.


 * I don't like Process theory which is a backgrounder being included in the opening section of the article - will look around for a better description elsewhere in Wikipedia and try to link/update this. Mark G 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The scope and details of the X set are defined in the book
 * This statement appears several times, and looks like someone trying to promote sales of their book. The citation to the book is more appropriately contained in a reference-style footnote.


 * Unless there are objections I will look to move these to reference footnotes (which I had previously done for ICT Infrastructure Management, Service Delivery and Service Support. Mark G 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleanup completed. Mark G 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Details of the standard
 * This section contains a huge amount of normative guidelines - "should" statements. These need to be changed to third-person statements.  It's the standards body that's proposing these guidelines, not Wikipedia, and the language of the article should reflect that.  I would carefully consider the purpose of this article before simply neutralizing these statements.  There is currently a lot of content which is simply a regurgitation of the standard itself.  Personally, I think an adequate article just needs to establish the social context of the standard, and give a basic summary of what topic it covers and the gist of its recommendations.  A point-by-point summary of all its parts and terminology is probably more than is needed.  If people want to write something which is really an introduction to the standard for people who want to understand it in detail, or who will be using it in real life, that's going to be very long and boring and abstract and probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, but perhaps appropriate for a Wikibook.


 * Boring is a subjective interpretation. To an IT professional an article on Fish_farming might be boring, to a fish farmer, the inverse.  In order to be useful in understanding a topic there has to be enough information to critically evaluate the topic or subject against similar or contrasting topics.  Most process, framework and standard material is dry, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be communicated, shared, evaluated or adopted.  Mark G 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism
 * There are no negative comments about the standard in the article whatsoever. Surely someone must have published something at some point citing at least one drawback to the standard?
 * -- Beland 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of the negative that is available is in personal blogs of those who would prefer to avoid 'best practice' or 'standards' as a whole, Wikipedia is against in general making links to such commentary and so it requires that someone write content to include in the article - I am sure that such content if well authored and reasoned would be welcome. Mark G 15:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have reviewed and added some little that I am aware of, a blog identified by Charles at itilskeptic may prove a useful source if any of it is referenced. Mark G 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will talk to the ITIL Skeptic about getting some academic rigour arround some of the blog entries. BTW, the referenced column by Meyer, while excellent, is purely unreferenced opinion. If it is a valid reference then I think the skeptic blog is too ;-)Pukerua 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Skeptic, there is little enough positive research let alone any negative so further references in the blog are not possible.  What do people think about refering to it along with Dean Meyer? Pukerua 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If we hold ourselves to a standard of peer-reviewed research we will not be able to publish any criticism. The fact that a publication of CIO Magazine's stature has published criticisms by one of its staff columnists is a significant fact in and of itself. We don't need to go any further in looking for that columnist's sources, in my opinion. He has the professional standing to make these statements and they are ipso facto relevant.


 * The only concern I have about the blog is its possibly more transient nature. CIO Magazine will be referenceable for the forseeable future, by virtue of print copies being held in libraries. The blog might disappear tomorrow. On the other hand, this is the virtue of Wikipedia, in being able to respond more quickly to such transience.


 * So, if pointers are put into the article to ITIL Skeptic I for one will be OK with that. However, there is a freelance vigilante (with no constructive material to offer) who is obsessed with purging Wikipedia of all links to advertising-supported blogs. We've had some disputatious go-rounds on that very topic. I for one think that this obsession is unhealthy and unconstructive, and am willing to take that vigilante on if others will back me. I have a blog myself (www.erp4it.com) with a few ads on it. (I have garnered a total of $1.00 from those ads, against a $15.00/month blog maintenance charge.) Charles T. Betz 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Not that I intend to link to myself. I think that's bad form. Charles T. Betz 01:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now for the reality. Many many 'blogs' exist for one thing and one thing only: to get clicks of their adsense links and thus derive income. They have lightweight content, and are heavy on ads. They have no place on this Wiki or any other. They are simply a device to make money. Your actual income Mr Betz is immaterial. The concept of placing 'MFA' sites here is not ('Made for Adsense'). You will find that there are many people prepared to combat this. If I were you I would support those attmepting to keep the Wiki clean, rather than those trying to make a fast $.
 * And how pray tell do you distinguish between MFA sites and those who have a valid message or content to communicate but prefer not to fund the site out of their own pocket if a simple mechansim exists to generate a few bucks? Are you objecting to every bit of content on the web that carries advertising?  and just where do you draw that line?  The itSMF and the OGC sell ITIL books, and for far more than the cost of printing.  ITIL is not available free anywhere.  How do you rationalise that with your position? If you were to be reasonable about this, you would understand that any content should stand or fall on its merits regardless of how it might be delivered. Pukerua 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I am objecting to MFA "blogs" which are full of ads to line the authors pockets. Almost all of these add no value and are designed for clicks. I might also point out one other issue: blogs are almost all OPINION. That is their nature. Wikipedia is not a message board or forum for opinion. Don't you understand that? Don't you see the difference? Let me guess: you have a blog too right (like Mr Betz, surprise surprise)? Thought so.
 * A personal log (blog) is normally heavy in opinion and not fact. Thus is not ideal for a wiki, which is factual. If Wikipedia was the platform for opinion it would disintegrate into anarchy. That will not be allowed. Hence the careful approach to blogs: for this reason, and because they are too often cluttered with Google ads, being largely MFAs. Surely this is clear to anyone who bothers to think about it (or actually look at these 'blogs').


 * I see it as Blog=opinion, Adsense-Blog=made-for-adverts, Wikipedia=Factual. Therefore Adsense-Blog=Not-Appropriate-For-Wikipedia. There may be exceptions if the content is truly remarkable, but none of the above is anything like that. Audit9 11:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The tone here continues to be not constructive. Wikipedia is not about pretending there are no opinions. There is nothing in the NPOV guidance to suggest this. If an industry thought leader has a blog, and posts a criticism of ITIL to it, that in and of itself may be significant, just as an ITIL criticism in a magazine article may be significant. The more interesting question is how do you define an industry thought leader? IMHO it would hinge on professional standing, i.e. academic credentials, positions held, appearances at professional conferences, quality of writing (including blog and Wikipedia contributions), and publication in forums other than the personal blog. Again, my concern is more regarding the transient (and therefore unreferenceable) nature of blogs. Charles T. Betz 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My final comment on this one: Audit9 has a valid point about Wikipedia not being a forum for debate. However we are now veering into the post-modernist tarpits of distinguishing between fact and opinion.   If Audit9 is unable to differentiate between MFA and advertising  then I prefer not to go there. Pukerua 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it is key here that blogs only be added if they have significant, deep content to add. In fact even then I would only support the linking of specific articles.  Unless the blog is by an appropriately well respected luminary then without references the blog fails to carry adequate weight.  If it contains valid points then summarise them and include them in the article here.  Certainly without some general rules like that pages will end up simply terminated in 10, 20, 30 or more blogs that are perhaps vaguely relevant.  How then do we decide which to keep, or which are 'of value'.  There is enough work to do in extending, maintaining and editing WP content without having to assess and judge blogs on their merit.    By deinfition, most blogs are POV rich, if a POV is to be included IMHO then it should be explained why - if we are going that far why not summarise and include rather than link.   WP is, after all, not a directory.  Mark G 11:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Further on criticism of ITIL: how about the published articles on ITSMWatch by the IT Skeptic? Unless we get into a debate on CIO website vs Datamation website, then these articles would seem to have equivalent status to the Meyer article.  They also open fresh areas of criticism: the closed, non-participatory nature of the content development process, and whether ITIL can validly be described as "best" practice Pukerua 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sheesh! Back again eh Pukerua? Do you never give up? It is obvious that you have a blog or your colleague does, probably one to entice Adsense clicks as suggested above. Banging on and on to try and change opinion so that you can use Wiki as a vehicle to get those clicks is not going to work. If there is a unique essential insight, simply explain briefly what it is. It does not need a link to a page designed to get clicks. I see this too often on Wiki pages. Bloated opinion rather than fact, usually created for Adsense. Others articulate this better above than I do, but it is clear. The answer is simple: just summarize what the ideas or schools of thought are in the Wiki. Job then done.(unsigned, added by 70.84.56.177)


 * Perhaps the criticism of ITIL sub-section should have its own wiki page. I feel that the criticisms themselves are generally growing in intensity, and cannot be reflected properly as a sub-section of this page. The risk is that opinion is obviously a major factor here, which is why the row has errupted above. A new page would provide the space for the criticisms to be properly documented, without the need for links to blogs, articles and forum posts. Would this not address the concerns of both parties above, at least partially? Binarygal


 * I do not favor splitting out derivative "criticism" articles. I think that we have at least 3 new ITIL criticisms:


 * closed refresh process
 * lack of quantitative support for value proposition
 * difficulty of CMDB implementations


 * We can summarize and cite these concisely by linking to the ITSMWatch site, which is not a blog. Let's not link to it generally, however, let's cite specific online articles appropriately according to WP:REF. Charles T. Betz 18:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ITIL itself is but a point of view. It is in the opinions of the authors the "best" way to do something.  It is therefore by definition subject to debate.  It is not fact, it is a postulate.  It has become a significant phenomenon in its own right and therefore deserves the Wikipedia entry it has, but it does not deserve to be defended from debate.  Yes I and my associates have a POV but in this context a POV is valid content if substantiated.  the Meyer article which has been cited here for a long time is pure opinion without evidence, from someone who is not, as far as I am aware, otherwise a thought leader in the ITIL community.  But his article deserves to be here as an influential piece.  Personally I don't give a toss whether we cite or summarise the concepts in the recent Skeptic activity; I'm not here to "get clicks". Pukerua 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging ITIL and ISO 20000
(thanks for adding the merge-tag and not opening a discussion section here)

IMHO the Articles should not be merged. Yes, ITIL and ISO 20000 are covering the same field of information service management and ITIL was one source when ISO 20000 was developed, but they are developing into different directions. I.e. it is not possible to certify an organisation after ITIL, ISO 20000 is a certification standard. The ISO 20000 article is rather short and needs to be expanded, but also the standard is rather young. There is no need to put apples and tomatoes into one article just because some of them are red. -- ghw 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I would definitely disagree with this. They are NOT the same thing at all. ISO 20000 operates at a much higher level and is designed to work along side different frameworks, not just ITIL. To treat them as part of the same would be a serious error. BinaryGal

What about Service Level Management and Change Management (ITIL). They seem pretty stubby and look like they're completely covered here. I think they could replaced by redirects to here with no great loss of information? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) PS. the usual way to sign your post is with ~. Wikipedia automagically expands 4 tildas to your name and a date.

I think folks need to understand the difference between all these things before commenting. The idea of merging them can only have come from someone who is clueless on the topics themselves. - unknown/anon

Currently some articles about ITIL are a little 'stubby' but this doesn't mean that they don't have value in and of themselves, nor that they should be merged back into the main ITIL page. In many ways, I would advocate splitting the ITIL page down into its constituent processes/functions and leaving the main ITIL page as more of an index. There has much been written about each process individually and increasingly there is overlap between CoBIT, ITIL, ISO/IEC20000 and other standards and methodologies such as PrinceII where harmonisation of techniques and approaches are concerned. I have to admit to being bias in these matters as an ITIL qualified practitioner in a number of areas. On merging, the reduction ad-absurdum is to suggest that all processes or methodologies in ICT should be merged because they are all processes/frameworks or methodologies. In some cases the differences will only ever be understood by the professionals (as an analogy we might have one page for anti-biotics in medicine but I would expect each family of antibiotics to have its own discreet description - their function, composition and application are different). ISO 20000 (or in-fact correctly ISO/IEC 20000 is a proscriptive standard and most importantly only covers ITIL Service Management and not the other ITIL disciplines, ITIL is not a proscriptive standard but a framework of processes for adoption and adaptation the two are related but quite separate IMHO. Wikipedia is unique in offering no limit as to scale (number of pages) and so unlike a print encyclopedia the need to edit is not driven by the need to reduce detail, but to improve quality.  I don't see how quality is served by the reduction in overall accuracy or detail that would result from content being eliminated.   Mark G 00:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good summary Mark. BinaryGal

Along the same lines, the proposed Service Level Management merge is also inadvisable. ITIL did not define this. I agree with Mark's direction I think - we should call out the individual practice areas, and reference the frameworks that attempt to define them. That would 1) reduce the length of the ITIL article and 2) recognize the non-ITIL contributions (and perhaps divergences) on key concepts such as Change and Configuration Management. The main question I have is how to identify these concepts as IT domain concepts. I wouldn't want to see a Wikipedia article on "Change Management," it should probably be on "IT change management." This won't be easy or quick. Charles T. Betz 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the merge tags because the version of the ISO 20000 article that was up at the time made it sound like it was simply an officialization of ITIL. I've posted a request on the ISO 20000 talk page for expansion, to explain what it actually is. I've also removed the merger tags.  Thank you all for the clarification. -- Beland 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Change Management (ITIL) and Change Management process (ITIL)
There have been concerns raised by myself and others about the level of overlap between the blue book and the Change Management process (ITIL) page, there is also a proposal to merge the separate Change Management (ITIL) page into this page, which I believe is a mistake (see below). Anyone wishing to assist with remediation of these two issues is welcome to contribute to the Change Management (ITIL) page where I hope it will be possible to generate a replacent (actually the Change Management (ITIL) page appears to pre-date the Change Management process (ITIL) page that was developed by the Utrecht Method Engineering guys.

Okay so why not merge in here?
 * 1) There is much of value in the Change Management Process (ITIL) page that is useful to the community and that clearly describes the purpose, function and best practice ideals of the ITIL Change Management process,this is valuable in any comprehensive reference and adds to the IT Management content in wikipedia.
 * 2) I believe that in the medium term the ITIL page itself will have to fragment into its constituent processes as it is already long and the main page should aim to serve the wider community who's interest is more in an overview that the detail.
 * 3) I believe that with the impending arrival of v3 there will be considerable overlap and duplication of content under v3 will be avoided by referencing common content.
 * 4) As it is likely that many orgnaisations ?Microsoft included? may at least in the short term stick with v2 it will be neccesary for the two to co-exist, and indeed there may be critisism of the v3 approach or modifications that will be more easily represented by maintaining a single page for each core process and allowing the page to explain the critisism that exists.

Mark G 16:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is always more than you think
I have come to this link via Service Level Management where it has been commented that that article could be moved into an Information Technology Infrastructure Library. My perspective is business management. I believe Service Level Management relates to all kinds of 'Business Process Outsourcing' Service Level Agreements such as legal services, billing, customer services, etc not just IT. The information is undoubtably more advanced in the IT sector because BPO is further along the outsourcing evolutionary chain than IT outsourcing. However, it is now growing more quickly than ITO because the savings that BPO can provide were identified some years after ITO became popular. The outsourcing industry is currently split approximately 75:25 IT to BPO and worth approximately $75bn (source: The Economist Magazine).

Therefore the common principles should be identified distilled and recorded under a general top line heading 'Service Level Management'. The IT actions required will be different to the BPO actions but the management rationale will be the same.

Translation is time consuming but also a learning process. To mitigate this, the IT stuff could be held in detail in the ITIL and for the meantime be referenced from the Service Level Management section which can then develop organically as a top line heading.

PS I too am not sufficiently expert to edit this entry.

MS

I also come to the ITIL page via the redirection from Service Level Management, which I referenced while editing Rich Internet Applications. Because I am a specialist in the field of information technology, with a focus on software and application performance management, I am also familiar with ITIL. Even so -- and without even considering the concerns expressed above by contributor "MS" -- I agree that it is not ideal for the only material about the subject to be buried under ITIL. Even within the domain of software and information technology, the term Service Level Management has a wider meaning than the way it is defined in the ITIL standard.

The ITIL standard, because of its focus on IT, tends to emphasize those aspects of SLM that have traditionally been the responsibilities of IT organizations. It pays less attention to the design, creation, and testing of software applications, because traditionally most IT organizations are responsible only for deploying already developed applications. However, to be really effective, SLM concerns have to be considered more holistically, because it is much easier to deliver acceptable levels of service if they have been designed and built in from the start.

Merging SLM into ITIL removes the opportunity to discuss wider SLM concerns like this, and reinforces existing misconceptions about who is really responsible for delivering acceptable service levels.

Chris Loosley 00:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page
Can we do so? How? Charles T. Betz 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We could move everything before the 'University of Utrecht' section to Talk:Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library/Archive-Pre-April-06 ?

I vote yes, but not sure how to create a new talk page. Charles T. Betz 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Done - old content now located at : Talk Page Archive to April 2006 Mark G 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Process theory section
I deleted this section. Process principles are referenced briefly elsewhere, and this section is not germane to ITIL per se, especially given the article's considerable length challenges - more cross references can be added if desired.

I also disagree that ITIL is an especially good example of an application of process theory. It's more a set of best practices. Many of what it calls "processes" are actually just functions.

Next up: figuring out what to do with each of the detailed sections that (in the eyes of some) are simply regurgitating the standard in a manner incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. Charles T. Betz 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent - an improvement, think we need to mention a little more clearly the extent that ITIL draws on Deming in order to develop it's approach. Mark G 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with ISO 20000

 * ITIL Service Management is currently embodied in the ISO 20000

What does "embodied" mean? Inspired by? Quoted verbatim in its entirety? Excerpted? --- Beland 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, it means "officially instantiated." The OGC is not a de jure standards body. ISO is. Charles T. Betz 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that ISO 20000 is simply ITIL quoted verbatim in its entirety with an official stamp of approval? -- Beland 02:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not quite, and there are others paying attention here I would defer to. I do not personally have the ISO20000 source doc, and so am somewhat limited in my ability to comment. The ISO standards have their own approach, objectives, standard format, etc, but there is no question the provenance of ISO20000 originates with ITIL.


 * Can we be clear here. There is no such thing as ISO 20000, ISO/IEC 20000 is a standard for Service Management and draws heavily on ITIL Service Management, this is narrow and includes only reference to Red and Blue book contents.  Furthermore, not all of the red and blue book suggestions are embodied in the standard (Part1) and not all of the remainder are included in the Guidelines (Part2).  Mark G 11:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
It was requested that given the recent work done on the article, that I review the need for the NPOV tag. The introduction has indeed improved quite a bit, though there is still one problematic statement, which I have marked. The addition of a criticism section has also helped round out the overall perspective of the article. The "Details of the ITIL Framework" section still has POV problems because it contains normative ("should") "how-to" suggestions. It is an official policy that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This is mostly to enforce the vision of writing an encyclopedia, rather than simply a collection of all the useful information in the universe. The value of information which is too detailed for an encyclopedia is recognized, and Wikibooks is provided to host such useful works, including how-to manuals. -- Beland 02:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I continue to think that the best solution for the details section will be based on splitting each practice area into its own article, and noting that ITIL basically was neither the first nor the last word on any of them. I have a 1980 IBM publication in hand for example that details Change Control, Capacity Management, Problem Control, Recovery Planning, and Service Level Planning.

I am still concerned about the namespace issue, and would recommend that (instead of tagging the practice areas with ITIL) we tag them with ITSM. For example,


 * Change Management (ITSM)
 * Capacity Planning (ITSM)
 * Service Level Management (ITSM)

We can then go into origins and pros and cons of each one systematically. But I think the ITSM page should be the master, not the ITIL page.

Thoughts?

-Charlie

Charles T. Betz 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You only need add a parenthetical tag to the title of articles if it would be ambiguous. Since there is no existing article on change management, for example, it would be fine to put an article on change-management-in-general under the title "Change management".  Certainly articles discussing these topics in general would be much more appropriate to an encyclopedia than merely documenting the subsections of one particular government standard.  And any respectable encylopedia should have an article on something as important as change management. -- Beland 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My concern is that we will quickly get into disambiguation. "Change management" would also merit an entry for "organizational change management" which is a different beast. Agreed that the parenthetical shouldn't be ITIL though. ITSM is a discipline and not owned by anyone, that's why I propose it.Charles T. Betz 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Can one of you guys better qualified than me also take a look at Service management please? In my view the existing entry needs work Pukerua 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusion tag
I've added the confusion tag to the overview section because it uses lots of jargony acronyms, does not define the technical terms that it uses in plain language, merely lists the names of subsections instead of explaining what they say, and may be duplicative as an outline. Both the "Details" section and the automatically generated table of contents already provide outlines of the rest of the article. I think what lay readers may need from an overview is less of a table of contents, and more of a prose explanation summarizing the recommendations of the framework.

There are several lists of things which sound to lay ears like synonyms, which the article seems to think are technical terms with distinct meanings:
 * "systems, applications and services"
 * "processes, functions or disciplines"
 * "strategic management, operations management and financial mangement"
 * "technical implementation and operations"

If these distinctions are important, they should be explained, preferably with concrete examples.

The mysterious acronyms ICT, CSF and KPI, are used without explanation.

-- Beland 02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, lots of things to noodle on here. All of those apparent synonyms do indeed have distinct meanings. But to expand on them is perhaps a secondary priority to figuring out a more workable, modular article structure? Current state is just too much of a muddle IMHO.


 * ICT: Information and Communications Technology
 * CSF: Critical Success Factor
 * KPI: Key Process Indicator


 * There should be brief articles for all of them.


 * I really do appreciate your keeping us honest and taking time to bring an experienced Wikipedia eye to this set of articles; this is a great partnership. Some of what you are asking will take some time...

Charles T. Betz 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I definitely appreciate the interest that people have taken in these articles lately. I figure that the least I can do is ask questions that will help later readers, even if I can't answer them myself. 8) -- Beland 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and we do actually have the articles Critical success factor, Information technology (apparently a synonym or other-dialect equivalent for ICT), and Key performance indicators. -- Beland 02:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ICT is not quite IT. It's a linguistic distinction meriting further digging. Its provenance is more Brit than US. Any comments from that side of the pond?Charles T. Betz 03:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Beland (and Charles - it's good to collaborate) for the input. Lets see where we can go with this. I'd suggest we make modules within the article more independent and then look to graduate them out of the article - but we need to ensure that they are strong enough to stand on their own - otherwise other wikipedians will likely seek to merge them back in!   Mark G 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the ICT side, the inclusion of 'Communications' moves the emphasis away from 'just' the 'technology' required to host a service, and to include the communications infrastructure and communications services. Typically an ICT department will manage telecommunications (both switched and VoIP).

ITIL precursors
Added this, and it's a rich field for plowing. The yellow books aren't everything! In particular would like to get some of the Brit/Dutch history I hear about from time to time.

I have no financial stake in IBM but their role here is clearly of historic interest; I hope no-one feels this is overly commercial.Charles T. Betz 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring project
Let's start a new thread. In response to Mark - if we "make the modules more independent" that means (to my mind) including non-ITIL background in the process areas; we may run into objections there as well... it's kind of a Catch-22.

Do we need a dedicated project page to coordinate this?

How many of the process areas already have their own articles? Charles T. Betz 12:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reference
They are a commercial operation (with whom i have no connection) but I do think we should include a reference to the Visible Ops group as an alternate approach to ITIL based on some solid research. Thoughts? Pukerua 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We cannot ignore the commercial contributions here; if it weren't for IBM, HP, and the rest, ITIL and IT Service Management as we know them today would not exist. Just need to be extremely NPOV when referencing a vendor's material. Charles T. Betz 11:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation fixes
I put all citations in strict Chicago style. The Office of Government Commerce is the only name that appears on the title page, so that is the ITIL author for the formal cite - the Chicago Manual of Style is very clear on this. The only exception is the security book; I have the hard copy and the authors of that book do appear on its title page. Charles T. Betz 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-ordering of Support and Delivery
I also put the Service Support section before the Service Delivery section. I am not aware that Service Delivery comes "before" Service Support in any meaningful way (as was stated) - please provide evidence if I am wrong. Most organizations start with Service Support. Charles T. Betz 11:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, I think that Service Delivery does come before Service Support as Service Delivery covers those areas that requre the engagement of the customer and the setting up of Service Level Agreements and Financial targets / budgets etc. Without these implementing Service Support fails to have the business buy-in etc that is required for a propper implementation.  The Continuous Service Improvement Programme that ITIL prescribes be used for implementation (Planning to Implement) is expected to be under the management of Service Level Management and so from that perspective again SD comes before SS.  However, I agree that in practice most organisations implement SS first (or at least a component of it) as typically they look to ITIL as a part of a 'new Helpdesk/Service Desk' project.  There are however others who arrive through governance with an initial priority on IT Service Continuity and others still who start with Service Level Agreements (actually usually an iterative process starting with SLR). Mark G 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevance
I propose that the first paragraph needs to state how many organizations say they have adopted these practices, or perhaps how many organizations claim to require them of vendors. Without a statement like this, it's impossible to definitively state this topic is even notable. Tempshill 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that the topic's notability hinges on this. There is much discussion and coverage of ITIL in the computing press, and the national ITSMF meetings attract thousands. It is probably the most significant development in large-scale IT management in some years. Metrics as to ITIL uptake would be good, but not essential to justifying the article's existence. The trouble is that such surveys are typically undertaken by fee for service organizations. Charles T. Betz 11:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this reads like a big ad in some ways, or at least an article attempting to convince IT managers that the topic is important and that they need to purchase a large number of seminars and workshops for their staff, I think the notability has to be established up front. If you have any statistic that's comparable to uptake, then that might very well suffice.  This isn't just to avoid editors posting this article to AFD, by the way; it's also for the benefit of the layman reader, who would otherwise conclude quickly this is useless marketing jargon, and go elsewhere.  Tempshill 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We have significant disagreements over interpretation. Can you provide specific support for your assertion that "this reads like a big ad in some ways, or at least an article attempting to convince IT managers that the topic is important and that they need to purchase a large number of seminars and workshops for their staff." Which sections?


 * Re: business motivation implication. ITIL is owned by a governmental agency; the framework itself is quite inexpensive. Charles T. Betz 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Moving our discussion from Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia to here, the appropriate spot: The Google search is ample proof of notability, thank you.  I for some reason didn't bother to do the most elementary step.  My comment still stands that the article at present doesn't adequately assert its subject's notability right up front, which will cost you readers.  Tempshill 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Method Engineering
I have removed this tag because I do not believe there is any basis for it any more. ITIL is a significant topic in and of itself, not owned by the Utrecht group. The article does need to continue to be pared down and split out into constituent ITSM process areas as discussed. Charles T. Betz 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ITIL disaggregation
As discussed earlier, I have started moving the detailed ITIL material into standalone sections, such as Change Management (ITSM). Speak now or hold your peace... Assistance please...Charles T. Betz 01:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Large deletions
I have made some very large deletions and condensations. The material was good, just too much of it. We need to drive towards more terse, link-rich material. Apologies for oxes gored, but there are well-justified challenges from the Wikipedia community on this article's length.Charles T. Betz 03:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just realized we lost the actual citations for the 6 non-ITSM ITIL books. That's a loss. I will replace or someone else can.Charles T. Betz 13:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very disapointed on a number of fronts with the significant restructuring that has occurred over the past couple of weeks. Firstly, the very large volume of material that was on these pages, while messy was (like ITIL itself) the voices of many editors built up over many many months.  The changes now leave the pages with a withered very single sided view of ITIL that fundamentally excludes the disciplines outside of Service Management.  This is one of the biggest failings of the community as a whole (to fail to understand ITIL as a suite of best practice) who are so focussed on the Service Management elements as to loose sight of the whole.   Your comment about 'link rich' is only valid if the links are to sources within Wikipedia, there has again been a tendency to link to blogs from these pages over the past few weeks, something that I find a problem as it cannot be done with a single blog or small number without inviting everyone and their dog to add their blog to the article - more significantly it is against the Wikipedia ethos of being itself definintive.  The goal of Wikipedia to offer itself up as a single source is diminished each time an external reference must be used in description or explanation. Also, when those links added are by the blogger themselves (not in your case but in others) then there is a statement here that their own publishing medium is more important, they have the ability to contribute 'content' here and the NPOV advises against including opinion or advocacy which clearly blogs promote.    I need to take a step back and read through the changes and the new daughter pages, I am wary about re-adding much of what has been deleted and think that reverting the whole page would be inflamatory and would throw out much of the good summarisation that has been performed.     I am fully in favour and belive that it is the right way to go for these pages to be broken down into their re-usable parts and advocated this some time ago, however I think that moving so hastily and without discussion or input risks alienating the community, and certainly the current article has a much less balanced and comprehensive view of ITIL than we had only seven or eight days ago. Mark G 09:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing that can't be un-done, lost material that people feel added value can easily be restored short of a wholesale reversion - nor would I take the restoration of material personally. I've restored some of the sections you've expressed disappointment in losing in the interest of harmony. Link rich to me does mean mainly within Wikipedia, although there are valid exceptions.


 * I've addressed most of the rest of the points below. Not sure how the blogs are relevant here - that's a different discussion.Charles T. Betz 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect this does validate the point I made on evolution, rather than revolution. These changes have ocurred way too quickly. Regarding "link-rich", I suspect Mark is referring to your comment "We need to drive towards more terse, link-rich material". Fast on the back of the blog discussion, this gave the impression that you referring to blog links. Like Mark, and many others, I do not think they are generally appropriate here. I'm glad to see that some of the other content is returning really, because I think plenty of others will be taken aback when they come here to see such large removals in such a short time frame. Kudos for the flexibility in terms of response though. Binarygal

Incident management
Split this out tonight. Little bit at a time. At this rate I'll be done breaking up the article in a week or so. Help would be appreciated. Haven't had ANY comments pro or con since I started this - a little surprised. Considered making Incident and Problem just one article, but figured that would cause too much angst. ITIL article no longer shows up with a length warning on edit, that is progress I think. Charles T. Betz 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason you have not had any comments is probably because you have rushed into your next change. People do not visit here every day. I think that you should wait weeks between significant changes like this, rather than just a couple of days. The page has been like this for a long time, and merits collective evolution, not revolution. Binarygal


 * Well, Wikipedia says Be Bold - and these issues have been in active discussion for some time now. Do you agree with the direction? Charles T. Betz 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rationalization is fine in concept, but you do have to give people a chance to review this before pressing on ever further. If it was a brand new topic, dramatic changes may be expected. But this page has served visitors well for a long time, and radical change should be introduced at a rate that enables due consultation. Binarygal


 * There is no hurry. I will wait as you suggest. But (while a stub existed as early as 2002) most of the content in question seems to have been created last spring and summer, which is not a particularly long time in my view. Charles T. Betz 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Charles, over 35 people had added their voices in the past year to this and its related pages. Many as a passing interest, small correction here or there or addition/enhancement of a section.  Like you I am driven by a desire to see the information here be as accurate and accessible as possible, but the terms baby and bathwater spring to mind as well as some serious concerns that the pages end up 'owned' by one or two individuals rather than by the community.  I think that persuing this one section at a time and giving people a week or more in-between section moves would have been more appropriate - people have lives and jobs and the risk of loosing their contribution is high, especially if content drops from their watchlist because it has moved or there are so many more pages that they don't have the desire or will to visit each one.  Moving page/section at a time would be more likely to encourage them to visit the new page, add their thoughts and return every now and again.  All at once changes like this risk loosing more than we gain.   Also - IHMO - it is difficult to present something like ITIL with its strong devotion to a level of control without drawing people used to that environment, to then make ad-hoc major changes is likely to pull against the opinions as to what is 'best practice' that the subject matter experts believe.   Is this fixable? Mark G 11:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Three sections have been moved, and I am happy to wait for a while. I have had a sense of urgency due to other postings from more mainstream Wikipedians who seemed to be increasingly critical of the article, which did merit the criticms and template tags being applied to it IMHO. (I was not the person who added those tags.)


 * I honestly can't quite parse your last sentence. Can you please re-state? Of course everything is fixable - this is Wikipedia. Charles T. Betz 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias toward Service Management
The precursors section in this new page talks about service management exclusively. This innaccurately represents ITIL. Mark G 10:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure that "representing ITIL" is the purpose of that section. Simply trying to accurately identify the history, which started with the IBM Yellow Books. If there are other documented precursors let's put them in.Charles T. Betz 11:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

relevance of external reference?
The Enterprise Computing Institute publishes a set of coordinated books covering general issues of large scale IT management. This may be a fact but what has it to do with ITIL ?
 * ITIL is a library. The ECI library is the only other coordinated collection covering the same ground I am aware of. Helps put ITIL in context. We could put this in the ITSM article instead perhaps. Charles T. Betz 11:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Great - thanks for the clarification. Mark G 09:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

tendency to turn into a religion ?
This seems a bit extreeme? I think that this critisism needs to be removed, or re-described from an NPOV and without the loaded metaphor. I have been working in environments where ITIL is heavily used for many years and have yet to encounter anyone who believes it is a religion. Plenty of people who become obsessed with process over purpose maybe but never anyone who has formed a formal belief system around it. Mark G 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is clearly in bounds for Wikipedia. If you want to further NPOV it (which I did try to do) go ahead, but the simple fact is that a noted CIO magazine columnist said this in print. I have heard it said by many others. It's a valid criticism of ITIL. Maybe it's more of a problem in the U.S. where ITIL is having the misfortune to be the "next big thing."


 * One of the criticisms of this Wikipedia article was that it was too rah-rah ITIL, which I agree with. We need more material in the criticisms section for a balanced view. Charles T. Betz 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in my experience: it most certainly can be a bit of a religion sometimes. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe "cult" or "fad" are less emotive terms than "religion". Meyer used the word "religion" - I remember thinking that was a bit extreme when I read it.  "Fad" is a bit too mild but "cult" sounds about right to me Pukerua 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In the context of IT "religion" is commonly used to refer to anything that people form an emotional attachment to. It could be used to describe either technology or process.  Once people have bought into something, they can become quite heated defending it.  It doesn't mean they've actually formed a belief system around it.  It just describes their behavior.  It should be considered jargon, and should be avoided for that reason.  Jayscore 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

reference to uneven quality in volumes needs clarifying
There is a reference to 'uneven quality' in the main article. Does this refer to format (lack of consistency often critisised), rigour (some areas clearly less rigourously defined than others) or validity/accuracy (not sure?). Quality here needs defining in order for it to avoid being an 'empty' statement. Mark G 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rigor and consistency, I think, also proper domain coverage. The thing I have heard is that the Application Management and Security Management volumes are viewed as particularly weak. The AM volume was criticized in a keynote speech at the Chicago ITSMF last year that I personally attended. However, that statement is not verifiable, so I used the quote included, which is verifiable. It's not the place of the article to do original research into the quality question, just noting that it is an issue is I think sufficient. By the way, I personally think the AM volume is useful. I am simply trying to provide some balance.
 * Do you have any criticisms of ITIL that you can add? Or is the thrust of your comments that the Criticism section should be removed? I would be concerned that that is a step backwards. Charles T. Betz 11:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we need to retain the critisism section, although in an ideal world i would include the critique with each of teh relevant sections just to balance the article rather than adding this section as a counterweight, at least for the moment I think it should stay. Mark G 09:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

removal of library overview opening paragraph
This was, i believe useful to non initiates. Not sure how it's removal adds value. Comment in article says for 'brevity', however see : [] for a description of why brevity need not be an aim in itself. I believe that many valuable contributions by other editors to these pages have been lost in an unneccesary quest for brevity. Clarity, yes please. Division/Separation of pages for re-use elsewhere - yes please. Removal of valid content - no thank-you. Mark G 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have restored this in the interests of working through these issues amicably. I do think that the text needs some further tweaking.Charles T. Betz 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Charles - I'll have a look at it again from a clarity perspective. Mark G 09:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

removal of Non Service Management content
IMHO this is not acceptable, these sections have been removed while others have been relocated out of this main page. Relocation - sure no problem. Deletion without re-provision amounts to the willfull removal of valuable information. A reader of this article could now quickly and very wrongly form a view that ITIL simply covered Service Management. These sections should be restored or reprovided in their own page-space. I am concerned that there needs to be a solid committment (consensus) from the WP community before proliferating pages as I have previously suggested and was waiting for, without such a consensus there will be insufficient voices to defend the content from deletion by those wikipedians who (incorrectly IHMO) believe that this content is not relevant. I really don't think that meeting an arbitrary 34k page size limit is really a good reason to jetison valuable information, especially when the net result is to weaken the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the article such that it risks rendering it misleading.

Sad that we are back to almost a April 2005 view of ITIL from a WP perspective and have lost many of the contributions of the 30+ individuals who have added their voice over that period of time. We must progress, but with consent and consensus and without being bound by unneccesary and arbitrary guidelines that serve more as information than regulation. Mark G 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My view is that describing the non-Service Management volumes is not the place of Wikipedia. It's simply providing advertising for the OGC. Splitting them out doesn't work for me - I'd question the value of a page dedicated to (for example) the Planning to Implement Service Management volume. It's not notable enough, nor is it an established IT practice area in the sense that Service Desk or Change Management are. That said, if those volume descriptions are restored to the ITIL artcle, I will defer. Charles T. Betz 11:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little concerned that we have lost Security and the ICT Infrastructure Management, clearly the 'in small units' and 'planning to implement' can be accomodated to some degree or another in the Service Management pages. However Application Management, Security, ICT Infrastructure Management and to a lesser extent 'The Business Perspective' do not overlap with ITSM in the ITIL/MOF/CoBIT sense and describe distinct management  processes and functions for areas of IT Management outside of ITSM.  Of note, Capacity Management relies on 'managed Technical Support' from the Orange Book which is heavily drawn on by other disciplines.  Release Management requires (often but not always) input from 'Deployment Management' from ICT IM.  Application Management has key application lifecycle management elements and creates the interface between an ITIL 'world' and development methodologies such as Unified, RUP, XP, etc etc.  Security, while being not a perfect volume provides the interface between ITIL and ISO/IEC 17799 and several other security processes.  The Business Perspective covers processes and functions for the operation of an ICT unit as a business unit and is very relevant to both modern outsourcing operations and internal 'profit centre' based ICT as well as being the predicate upon which many of the moves from 'IT Director' to 'CIO' as the strategic position in large businesses - it helps to clearly define the provider/customer boundry for IT - often a problem in the implementation of large systems.   Why do you believe that ITSM elements of ITIL deserve Wikipedia coverage and these other valuable 'practices' don't?  Mark G 12:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added these back in in the interest of working through this amicably. I do think that all these practices should be covered in Wikipedia, but not necessarily using ITIL-based names for the articles. The Application Management and Business Perspective volumes I think would be covered in Wikipedia by Software Engineering and IT Portfolio Management. I think also that an Application Lifecycle Management article would be good, as that is a term emerging in the industry. Charles T. Betz 12:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny, I put in Application Lifecycle Management expecting it to be a new page - but someone just created it today!Charles T. Betz 12:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

retention of brief introductions as we move sections out
As sections move out and gain their own independent life e.g. 'Service Desk' etc. I am wondering if we should be keeping a short 2-3 sentence introduction here. I am concerned that for the first time visitor seeking information on ITIL we will be directing them out to maybe up to 20 sub pages that ultimately will make it impossible for them to get a good overview without much reading. Mark G 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am fine with this. Charles T. Betz 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

a very small NPOV change
I changed the wording in the intro re "claim to." It seemed too much a concession to some of the criticism leveled re: not NPOV enough. I think it is more accurate and sufficient to say that ITIL is "intended to" do X. Whether it succeeds in these objectives are where we strive for balance. Picky I know but that wording has been bugging me every time I read it. Charles T. Betz 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Service Desk reversion
I reverted the last change because it wasn't working right - while we've agreed that we can retain brief introductions for individual sections, the change that was made deleted the link to the Service Desk standalone article and had some complications I didn't quite understand.Charles T. Betz 16:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's archive this page...
OK? Charles T. Betz 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so too, assuming you mean the talk page! Binarygal

Add link to "Service catalog"?
The Service Catalog entry is flagged as having few or no incoming links. I would think the ITIL page would be a good place to add a link to service catalog, but being relatively new to ITIL, it's not clear to me where in the ITIL article such a link would go. Any suggestions? Are there other articles which could link to service catalog? West81 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After learning a little more about ITIL, I added a Service Catalog link in the Service Level Management section. West81 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Added to the intro
I addded the reference to the Microsoft Operations Framework at the top of the page. I think it is necessary since the page seems to be masquarading an a Goverment lead inititive, but is actually a Microsoft led scheme. I thought it necessary since there is no mention of open standards and this will explain why.


 * Are you serious? Masquarading as a Goverment lead inititive? Have you checked the history of this? I suspect you will find that if there is any 'masquarading' it is entirely in the opposite direction. I think this needs to be changed back to what it was Binarygal


 * This is one of the more off the wall edits I've ever seen. Support the revert. Charles T. Betz 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I just couldn't leave such sheer nonsense there Charles. Talk about re-writing history! Binarygal


 * The following article may put our Miscrosoft friend's edit into perspective: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-24-microsoft-wikipedia_x.htm?POE=TECISVA That is simply disgraceful. Binarygal


 * Hmm. I'm thinking that Rick Jeliffe was probably working more on XML related things. But could be... Charles T. Betz 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Patches to plug bugs in a software?
In the section 'Details of the ITIL Framework/Service Support/Release Management' the explanation of the Delta Release uses as an example: "Security patches to plug bugs in a software". I don't believe that this text is correct, but I don't know how to fix it. Someone, please, correct this problem. --Marcelo Pinto 19:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Registered trademark of initials ITIL?!?
I'm not an expert in trademarks, but it seems to me strange that this article has a registered trademark symbol after the first use of the initials ITIL. Two questions:
 * is it really these four letters in no matter what font etc. which form a registered trademark?
 * do we really need to put the symbol here on the Wikipedia article?

Rugops 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The trademark covers upper case only. This is, or was, clearly stated on the OGC website. Archive.org will confirm if it isn't still on there now. Binarygal


 * Nonetheless, we don't need the symbol here, all the less since the text just below makes it explicit that the name is trademarked. Wikipedia style is to avoid trademark symbols, so I've removed it. 81.86.133.45 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

TMF/eTOM
I saw this added as an ITIL alternative, and reverted an attempted deletion. The TMF/eTOM work is highly regarded and is in fact a viable ITIL alternative, especially for telecomm providers. (I did not add the reference originally). Charles T. Betz 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is for telecoms. If you are going to add an 'alternative' for every industry it will never stop. Where Do you stop? Think about it for goodness sake.
 * Nice bit of linkspam adding TWO links as well. We are not daft you know.


 * Quite apart from that, how many other frameworks on wiki have 'alternatives' listed?


 * The CORRECT route is to add an INTERNAL wiki link to the wiki page describing the so-called alternative.


 * It shouldn't be here, but if it HAS to be, THAT is the route.


 * Not every industry would be relevant. Service Management in an IT context is an essential perspective for the telecomm industry; not so much for other verticals. That's why they built eTOM which I have seen and believe is a notable framework. (I don't have the time to create a new Wiki article. Where does it say that external links aren't permitted, by the way?) There are many other external links within this article and I think they add value as well. Charles T. Betz 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Itil Open Guide
This external link appears to be covered by the WP:EL guidelines as one of those specifically to be avoided (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors). I removed it but it was re-added. This site doesn't seem to me to have much useful content that is not either covered in this article or in the other external linked sites. I am not suggesting that this site is not a worthwhile venture (although expanding the ITIL content within Wikipedia seems a more worthwhile activity in my view), but unless it is an authoritative source of information on the subject beyond what is covered in this article and the other sites, the guidelines suggest it shouldn't be linked. Why should it stay? Thanks.--Michig 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a long established 'Open' site dedicated to ITIL. I believe that it is associated with an dsupported by at least 3 of the major forums, and I do know that many people edit it (so it does have a substantial number of editors). Further, it includes the voluntary certification register, and the voluntary register of ISO 20000 certifications. Also, the content does extend beyond this Wiki, and in different areas. Your opinion that extending this Wiki is "a more worthwhile activity in my view" is not attractive at all, as it perhaps clouds your judgment. I don't like to see that to be frank, as it introduces Wiki rivalry, which we certainly don't want.


 * You simply seem to have come along, with limited of ITIL or the history, and taken a pop at another Wiki, for dubious motives. That is widely considered to be an excellent Wiki. Chopping it without commonsense rationale, using a misinterpretation/misuse of a guideline, for questionable motives, is not a positive development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.210.85.50 (talk • contribs).


 * Try to take the heat out of the debate guys. FWIW, I wouldn't want to see that link go either. It is quite a pivotal site, fulfilling multiple functions and with some useful information. There is surely room for both wikis. Binarygal


 * I asked why it should stay, and you replied with a reason - thanks. The site only lists a small number of contributors - if there are in fact many more then the issue would be more clear-cut. Your suggestion that I have dubious or questionable motives and a lack of knowledge veers close to a personal attack in my view. I have explained why I removed the link, and am happy to accept this as an external link if the consensus is to keep it.--Michig 21:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the ITIL_v3 merge proposal
I've suggested over there that indeed a further split is what's warranted. Particularly: All the ITIL should be separated from this article into another. 198.49.180.254 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SVG version of the Green pin.
I created a first draft for a SVG version of the ITIL green pin at. Maybe we could use at this article? --Pinnecco (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ITIL Certification
There used to be a large segment explaining the v2 certification scheme (Foundation/Practitioner/Manager). This is an important aspect of ITIL, yet it is now missing. Does anyone know why? Perhaps it has been moved somewhere? 86.130.173.212 (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was replaced in September with a block of vandalism (see diff). The vandalism was removed but the section was not restored. I have restored the section, since it appears to have been removed inadvertently. Tjarrett (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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
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)
 * http://www.govtech.net/magazine/

Link: 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)
 * itil.org.uk


 * 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 Wikipedia. It could even be interpreted as bullying, but at least, is contrary to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.
 * 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 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. ) 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)
 * 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, Wikipedia.
 * 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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)