Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169

Village pump
- Policy
- Technical
- Proposals (persistent)
- Idea lab
- WMF
- Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Discord logs

Latest comment: 3 years ago127 comments45 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Option 4, that is, Discord should be treated in the same was as IRC. Several contributors (including some who voted for option 4) expressed the view that guidelines on the posting of material from external sites should be made more liberal generally. This close does not in any way prevent that from happening in the future. SpinningSpark 10:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to personal information posted off wiki and also prohibits connecting an editor to accounts in other places (e.g. Twitter) unless the editor has disclosed that onwiki. Historically this has meant that IRC logs of Wikipedians are oversighted if posted onwiki and are considered personal private information. Recently there have been questions about whether or not Discord logs on servers linked to from Wikipedia (e.g. WP:DISCORD, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers) should be oversighted as well. A few key differences between IRC and Discord are that Discord logs are kept centrally by the service, anyone who joins a server may access these past logs, and several Wikipedia linked Discord servers explicitly note that they are public. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

When, if ever, should Discord logs be eligible for removal (up to and including oversight)?

Possible answers

This is a non-exclusive list of answers someone may give to the question:

Discord logs from any server marked as public on the Discord server may be quoted/linked.
Discord logs from any server linked to onwiki and marked as public on the Discord server may be quoted/linked.
Discord logs may be quoted/linked if the person has authenticated/linked their Wikipedia account
Discord logs should be treated the same way as IRC logs

Discussion (Discord logs)

I don't believe options 1 & 2 could be viewed as reasonably complying with OUTING policy, and I certainly don't want to change that, so I think that leaves us with 3 & 4. Option 3 is, functionally speaking, the status quo, to the very limited degree that posting of Discord logs has happened, without it being directly stomped on. There is a question as to whether that is wise, as well as being somewhat anomalous compared to the major IRC channels. I'll have a think as to whether option 3 or 4 is best, but I would note that option 3 should probably be nuanced to something like "public channels", so as to exclude moderated comments and so on. [Disclosure: Discord mod] Nosebagbear (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
To clarify my actual position, I think I shall support option 4, neutral option 3, and oppose 1 & 2 as against OUTING. That let's us be synced up with IRC (which may be advantageous if we split over a bunch of different off-wiki fora) and prevents some potential issues. Obviously if dubious stuff starts coming up then it should be taken to ARBCOM if it's bleeding onto Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not an authentication issue. We have cloaks on IRC, so you can verify you are the holder of a NickServ registered account, but still IRC logs cannot be posted. Whether a Discord account is authenticated or not is mostly irrelevant IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I lean 4. As ProcrastinatingReader notes, IRC has an authentication method as well and doesn't change anything about posting of content from there. I recognize that IRC has had it's own history and issue over this topic, some of it predating WP:OUTING. WP:OUTING requires that such offsite connections be disclosed "on Wikipedia", bolded, in the first sentence. It goes further in paragraph 4, including that editing under your own name or other easily searched identifier does not allow for posting off-site opinions or doing opposition research. That may be a hard line black and white take of the current wording, but if I am posting publicly on Facebook about editing Wikipedia and link an example of one of my edits (Therefor identifying myself to FB readers), but have made no such disclosure on Wikipedia, it is my understanding it would be forbidden to link or quote publicly by WP:OUTING. That the Discord servers denote their public nature is a privacy warning, a critical one, but it doesn't change anything about OUTING in my view, anymore than the fact Twitter or Facebook have public posts. *deeeeeep breath* Furthermore, the use of direct links to specific Discord messages should likely be disallowed entirely, as even if the particular message was posted by someone who has publicly disclosed their Discord account on Wikipedia, it will by nature expose comments from users who have not. Summary: Follow IRC-esque rules regarding "no posting of logs" on Wikipedia. Adhere to strict OUTING interpretations. Limited private disclosure as necessary and allowed under OUTING in paragraph 5 (I.e. to admins/functionaries/arbs/WMF/etc for reporting). Disclosure: Discord mod and server operator. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Question - Isn't the Wikimedia Community Discord (and some of the others) technically "private servers", in the sense that the invite link is not technically public? For example, if Nitro subscribers were to use an emote from these Discord servers on another server, the emote will show up as being from a private server, not a public server. If my understanding is correct, options 1 and 2 are out of the question anyway for these servers. Epicgenius (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how Discord classifies them exactly, whether it indicates they are available in Discovery, Partner, or what. However the technical label within the service falls, the invite links are publicly viewable on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ferret: I believe it is classified by Discord as private and not partnered. A month ago I sent a screenshot as a joking response to a comment by Izno (a Discord mod), which showed an emote from the Wikimedia Community Discord server, followed by "Wikimedia Community - private server". I'm not sure if this is still the case. Epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought most IRC logs are revision-deleted per WP:RD1, as copying them here is a violation of the copyright policy. This does not apply to linked pages containing the original content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
If there's a copyright argument to IRC copy and pasting, I'm quite confident that Discord falls into the same. Certainly there's no disclosure from every participant that their messages are free and clear to copy and paste. -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, IRC logs can't be linked to in their original form. Discord logs can. Linking to the original should be fine copyright-wise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, was agreeing on the specific of copy and pasting. -- ferret (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I think there are at least two separate issues in play. First is outing. It is difficult, given the point ProcrastinatingReader makes above regarding cloaks and authentication, to argue that Discord should be treated differently as far as outing goes. But there is something beyond outing that I have a hard time articulating succinctly.
Even if someone authenticates, even if someone discloses on-wiki what their Discord username is, and even if it's unambiguous that it's not outing, I think we should still at least discourage linking to what the person has said off-wiki. In doing so, we're recontextualizing things said in a space which is not governed by the same norms and expectations (nevermind policies and guidelines) that apply to on-wiki discussion. That doesn't mean some basic policies don't apply, but it's a very different platform for communication such that the context (not just of the words, but of the platform) matters an awful lot. It's not just "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to hide"; the photos you post on facebook don't have to be incriminating for you to not want slideshow at a job interview or family reunion. The discordance (ahem) can be jarring and uncomfortable. Another analogy: Wikimania is subject to some basic behavioral policies like Discord, and similar outing policies. That doesn't mean it should be acceptable for anyone to record my casual conversations there and post them to Wikipedia. Yes, we should all be mindful to be sure we're not doing things that we would find embarrassing if recorded, but even a reasonably innocuous conversation can sound strange or worse if recontextualized in a more "serious" setting.
So while it's not so much an outing issue, I'd prefer to see some language about strongly discouraging these links or logs, if not disallowing them, except when it's necessary to, for example, provide evidence of egregious canvassing or harassment. And perhaps then it should only be sent to arbcom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Erring on the side of Option 4 based on the above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 is safest. It is difficult not to accidentally breach OUTING while linking to any Wikipedian's offwiki activities. Social norms are different in different spaces, so repeating something said on Discord onwiki without context is problematic, while presenting the full context might expose and involve other people. Harassment taking place offwiki can be reported to Arbcom without posting logs onwiki. —Kusma (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This discussion should consider the similarities and differences with the previous RFC about SUL onwiki at WT:Harassment/Archive 20#RfC: Clarification of OUTING. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would prefer a better definition of "personal information" this time around. It appears that RfC only covers information like names, ages, jobs, contact information, etc. Posting of private correspondence (chat logs) doesn't seem to fall within a normal definition of "personal information". The relevant policy appears to be Wikipedia:Harassment § Private correspondence. I'm of the opinion that what happens offwiki is offwiki (except if reported to ArbCom or T&S), and editors do not need to be worried about people prying into their private lives, nor do they need to feel like they're 'on the record' all the time. Offwiki political views or other such statements are irrelevant to ones Wikipedia account. To that end, I think it would be better if the relevant section is updated to codify existing practices (eg relating to IRC logs) better and more generally, as it seems to be a hole bigger than just Discord. Currently it appears the sometimes-enforced prohibition derives from an ArbCom principle on copyright status, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't pulled the "fair use" card before. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
~~Option 2.5~~ Option 1. IRC gets to avoid having logs posted because they post "no public logging" in the MOTD. In IRC there is no way to "see the history" of the server unless you've logged everything. On Discord, history on a public channel is stored and visible to everyone who ever joins a server unless that history is deleted or hidden. I would like to see a combination of these two options that anyone who is authenticated and posts in a server publicly linked from onwiki can have their logs posted; as well as the ability for servers to choose to not have logs publicly posted onwiki. I'd also like to elaborate on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones thing which Barkeep mentioned as a reason for this RfC. For the past several months stealth canvassing has occurred from that (publicly accessible) server to onwiki by a certain authenticated user who I won't name at this time (due to the lack of clarity on WP:OUTING rules). This might look like it's just about a certain admin candidate who expressed certain views offwiki but this RfC would cover a lot more than that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Why discourage authentication? —Kusma (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
If someone isn't authenticated there's no proof that the person on discord is the same person. I'd like to see at least some kind of protection against that possibility. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
So you are saying that only people who don't authenticate should be protected? That doesn't compute. —Kusma (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if you don't want your Discord activity to be linked to your Wikipedia activity, you shouldn't link your Discord account to your Wikipedia account. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

as well as the ability for servers to choose to not have logs publicly posted onwiki What do you envision for this? Is it simply a declaration? -- ferret (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Same way IRC gets to say "no public logging" and have that respected. Put it in the rules of the server and what channels it applies to. Servers should make their expectations clear if they don't want logs going onwiki, but they should understand this means that this forces problems to go to ArbCom as a first resort. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've struck my original !vote after reading what Only in death said. The premise of a lot of Option 4 !votes is that ArbCom will deal with reports of off-wiki harassment. I've seen people acting abusively on Discord and was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to ArbCom on that front to decide whether or not to deal with it. That was one of the premises of my !vote, that cases where people have linked themself to their onwiki identity in a Wikipedia related server can be dealt with my the community and that ArbCom would have the capacity to deal with grey areas where joe jobs are a possibility. But after hearing from another person who has had the experience (backed up by evidence) that ArbCom doesn't wish to deal with offwiki harassment I doubt that ArbCom would be able to effectively deal with these "edge cases". On another note, that !vote made me disagree with the current way that we deal with IRC logs as well and I would like to see some kind of change to that. A significant proportion of the Option 4 !voters voted the way they did because any other option would create an inconsistency between Discord and IRC. I believe what we really need is a change in the OUTING policy itself and not just a change that addresses Discord logs.

It's tempting to discuss this in terms of "controversial political opinions" since the last event where Discord logs were posted onwiki dealt with a person who made comments promoting the destruction of Israel and calling the IRA's actions "justified" but editors should bear in mind that there are very real cases of abusive conduct on Discord. If an editor was to say "someone should get his stupid ass fired" about an indeffed user who was revealed to be a contributor to a YouTube channel? What if that editor pinged another editor and told them to track down the aforementioned indeffed user on a Discord server for that YouTube channel and to "get him fired" based on their onwiki conduct? These are cases where the community might take a different approach than ArbCom. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 2 I don't think the community can or should be subject to the strict masquerade that nothing exists in discussion other than the pages on this site. IRC logging was always problematic, both in IRC culture and in technical reasons. Discord pages are semi-officially endorsed by the community, have a publicly-linkable archive, and have user authentication to prevent Joe Jobs and other abuse. If a participant in the Discord does not want their account linked to other Discord servers or their real life identity, they already must take precautions; there is simply no real privacy benefit at stake here by prohibiting it on-wiki. There is concern about copyright when copying archival logs here, but linking to public Discord logs should always be permitted. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward option 3. While the server is "private", this is only a technicality of how Discord functions, as the invite link to the server is public. The mods have not disabled the ability to see message history, but they also have not disabled the ability to set a custom nickname, and so any user can create any nickname they want. The only way to verify if a user is who they say they are on Wikipedia is through authing. As for outing, Discord profiles can carry across dozens of servers (up to 200 with Nitro and 100 without). People who wish not to be outed may create an alt entirely for Wikipedia use and have their existing account just not join the Wikimedia server. Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Eh, I don't see much point in doing anything other than treat it similarly to IRC, lest we then have to make further judgement calls for the Next Big Chat Platform that ends up getting used? - TNT ^😺 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 Consistency between IRC and Discord should be used, if we change the discord outing rules we should also change the IRC outing rules.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 While I see people above mentioning the fact that Discord users choose to authenticate as a argument I would like to point out that A) there is as far as I'm aware not a way to undo such authentication, and B) because of a Discord LTA currently almost all channels are locked to non authenticated users. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 17:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 3 – this really isn't like IRC, as IRC servers don't maintain a public record of anything that was ever said, and is therefore generally unusable as evidence. This is more like Twitter. If you have publicly linked your Wikipedia account and your Twitter account via a link on Wikipedia, it is not a violation of WP:OUTING to refer to those tweets publicly. The same principle applies to Discord – if you have publicly linked your Discord account ~~via an edit on Wikipedia~~, your messages on Discord can be publicly discussed.
More practically, handling Discord evidence as private means that the only way problematic behaviour that affects Wikipedia can be handled is via ArbCom. ArbCom has received far too many complaints about Discord already, and they should be handled by the community instead. For comparison, ArbCom almost never receives complaints about IRC, and when it does, they get referred to the IRC operators. ArbCom occasionally receives complaints about Twitter, but only handles them in cases when they cannot be publicly discussed.
Going with Option 4 essentially puts ArbCom in charge of dealing with problematic behaviour (canvassing, harassment, etc.) on Discord. I don't think the Discord crowd wants that, and ArbCom definitely doesn't want that. Clearly establishing that Discord logs are public information is the best way to discourage misbehaviour. – bradv^🍁 17:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The same principle applies to Discord – if you have publicly linked your Discord account via an edit on Wikipedia, your messages on Discord can be publicly discussed. This doesn't occur though, in the main. Linking is private via OAuth. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I struck the words "via an edit on Wikipedia". The point is that the identity of the account is proven, which is the reason for that line in the OUTING policy. – bradv^🍁 18:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Already linked in this discussion, but Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_20#RfC:_Clarification_of_OUTING suggests even SUL is not considered sufficient for OUTING. It was particular to personal information, though. -- ferret (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Right. I don't think the name of an account on a Wikipedia-specific Discord channel, for the purposes of discussing Wikipedia with other Wikipedians, counts as personally identifiable information. If some changes are required to make this clear to people on Discord, or to change the governance structure, server settings, or advice to new Discordians, I would encourage the leadership to enact them. – bradv^🍁 18:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure anything is required yet, at least for WP:Discord (I cannot speak for any other servers, the other two mentioned here or the 20+ others linked from Meta). The server is already very clear that anyone can read anything posted and to be mindful of it. Any changes required would need to result from how the community wants this handled (via this discussion). To be clear, in the end, I accept whatever the community wants. I've simply chosen to argue a more hardline take on OUTING, especially the paragraph dealing with opposition research. If the community feels otherwise, that's fine. The server itself cannot dictate the community's position and how to handle things on wiki though, hence the need for the discussion. Even the server declaring "Our logs are not to be posted on Wiki" (As suggested by Chess) is untenable UNLESS the community agrees with that position. -- ferret (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) if you have publicly linked your Discord account via an edit on Wikipedia, your messages on Discord can be publicly discussed. Discord accounts are not linked like this. On Discord you have a link to the user's Wikipedia account, but there is no disclosure or linking onwiki. The verification of this authentication is also in the hands of whichever user hosts the verification bot (ie, they could make up an auth and nobody else can verify it, unlike enwiki revision history). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Presumably, a login checkuser could. -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure, technically speaking, but the WP:Checkuser policy does not allow checks for the purpose of confirming/denying whether offwiki messages are authentic, or selfrequested checks. (nor should it) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is more like Twitter. Hmm... If I (or someone with my name) made a Twitter, and on that Twitter set the bio to "Authenticated as "ProcrastinatingReader" on en.wikipedia.org" are any Tweets that account posts citable onwiki as if I wrote them, even if I don't make an onwiki link to that Twitter account? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If we say Discord is like Twitter, we should still discourage (or even prohibit) the quoting/linking to messages that are not connected to Wikipedia. It is one thing to publicly shame Discord users for attempted votestacking in an RfA, and a very different thing to link to their posts in an offtopic channel about whatever political or other opinions they hold (possibly in jest). It may be "public" that User X said "I hope Trump dies from COVID" or "We need a dictator now to fix climate change" or whatever on Twitter or on Discord, but it is nobody's business on Wikipedia. (There are some outrageously bad things that should get a user removed from Wikipedia by T&S, but that's not the type of things I'm talking about here). —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any of this really matters in practice. Imagine that you see something relevant on the Discord system. You could:
- Quote it on wiki
- Put a link to the log/archives on wiki
- Say "Well, I don't want to fall afoul of any policies, but let me just say that anyone who joins Discord can see everything ever posted, and I'm talking about a comment that was made at 19:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)."
All of these have the same end result, namely that anyone who wants to read it can. This policy is just about as privacy-protective as someone saying "Oh, noes, I'd never doxx someone on wiki. If you want to know that editor's name and his employer's phone number, you have to e-mail me instead". I don't know what the current practice is, but in the past, we haven't even been willing to warn people who post on wiki that they're willing to share personal information off wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
That's why Option 4 isn't feasible. IRC doesn't have server-side logs, nor does it have pre-join scrollback. If you weren't in the channel when the message was sent, you can't ever read it. – bradv^🍁 18:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, logging bots are very common on IRC. The #wikipedia-en channel prohibits them so there is no 'official' log, but any user can setup a logging bot, add it, and spread the URL around, and nobody would be the wiser. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
True, but the authenticity of the logs cannot be verified, and posting them on Wikipedia violates our copyright policies. The point is that, unlike Discord, messages can't be linked, and unless you maintained a log yourself, you can't read past comments. – bradv^🍁 18:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
It violates an ArbCom principle on copyrights, but falls entirely within US law on fair use: the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment ... or research ... is not an infringement of copyright, which seems to cover both the archiving, and I would imagine that pasting a sentence or two of a user's IRC-expressed political views to oppose their RfA is "criticism". It's also of a "non-profit" nature that doesn't affect the "commercial value" of the "work". Not to mention, you could link to the full IRC log, and I can't see how this would be any different to linking to web.archive.org as far as copyright law is concerned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Violates our copyright policy" has always been an unconvincingly lame excuse against the posting of IRC logs. —Kusma (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 3, with caveats. Since Discord is publicly logged and authenticated users have chosen to make an explicit, public connection between their Wikipedia and Discord accounts (FWIW almost everyone on Discord is authenticated) I don't think it makes sense to treat these messages as private information. Anyone who joins the server can read the entirety of the message history and the user authentication logs.
With that said, we should still be mindful of privacy issues and not treat this as a carte blanche to engage in opposition research. Discord is a different environment from Wikipedia and some users may feel encouraged to share information there that they wouldn't post on-wiki (particularly because Discord messages can be deleted by the poster whereas Wikipedia edits generally cannot). I would not consider it appropriate to repost personally identifying information or otherwise sensitive material that has been posted on Discord but not on Wikipedia. Posting a log of someone discussing Wikipedia-related matters is probably fine. Logs of someone stating their real name or location, discussing personal issues, etc. are not fine, and should be eligible for revdel or oversight. Spicy (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 because it avoids having unofficial non-wiki platforms be de facto extensions of Wikipedia where we can block people for what they say on them (yes, I'm aware ArbCom can for other sites and that we've had ArbCom cases over IRC stuff, but that's been a long time ago...)
I'm not a fan of the environment on the Discord. I'm not a fan of Wikipediocracy. I'm an IRC regular, but I also try to separate it from what actually happens on Wikipedia. The entire point of these off-wiki platforms is that they're a way for people who like Wikipedia and want some social aspect of it to talk, network, and discuss things without the strictures of the rules we have on here, and if we allowed linking to them, we'd effectively be expanding our rules to a non-en.wiki platform as, yes, we'd have someone inevitably be blocked for what they said there at some point. That's just how it goes. People can be jerks in chatrooms, oftentimes more so than they can be on wiki.
The short of it: many people who are active on this site have preferred off-wiki ways to communicate, some of them open for the public to view forever (forums and Discord); others aren't publicly logged (IRC.) Traditionally we have not allowed people to link to these communications unless the user in question consented.
I don't really see why we should treat Discord any differently than we treat other public off-wiki sites, and I'm very skeptical of any attempt to extend regulation of conduct off-wiki more than is absolutely necessary such as in cases of off-wiki harassment. Allowing linking to Discord logs would be a huge step in that direction, and I am very much not comfortable with it, even if it's not something that will impact me as much. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4. I concur with Ferret's comment above. Authentication by a private process whose results are not made publicly visible on Wikipedia itself (i.e. OAuth) is analogous to posting publicly on a Facebook or Twitter account about editing Wikipedia under a given account. WP:OUTING has historically made very clear that this FB/Twitter example is plainly insufficient for allowing quoting/linking of external comments, even if an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches. The defining factor is not accuracy nor ease of identification, but the location: public identification (PI) must have been made on Wikipedia itself, not simply in a semi-public location like Discord. As Izno raises above, the 2019 RfC established that PI made even on other Wikimedia wikis can be an insufficient form of PI for OUTING purposes, particularly if it requires much "research" to find or if it is non-consensual. Discord is even further removed from Wikipedia than other Wikimedia wikis are, so allowing quoting and linking from Discord without further and narrow stipulations (like the "too much research" or "consent" ones for other WM wikis) would constitute a major and inadvisable reduction in the policy's sensible requirement for on-wiki declaration. — Goszei (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
My comment above is mainly concerned with the identifying information tied directly through Discord accounts/links/usernames or posted in messages, but I want to also express my concurrence with several editors here (Rhododendrites, TonyBallioni, ProcrastinatingReader) who have commented on norms and the "wall" that should be maintained between the on- and off-wiki environment. The atmosphere created by opening the door to free posting and linking of off-wiki opinions, possibly out of context, would not benefit the encyclopedia -- what happens on Wikipedia should certainly be transparent, as Levivich opines, but the accountability of its editors should not extend to any and all online expressions. — Goszei (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Copying/quoting them here is almost certainly a copyright violation. Linking I guess isn't terrible. I guess that translates to option 3?
Not relevant to the present poll, but I abhor the use of Discords or other off-wiki fora for discussing matters that should be discussed on-wiki. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't do Dischord, so I have no clue what the rules are, and what I'd like to see clarified is if accounts on WP-related Dischord have some vetting process to link them with WP accounts. If the accounts are confirmed as the same operator and the whole thing is viewable by the public I don't see the problem with linking or quoting. what I would expect however is that anything submitted here as evidence in support of a sanction had better be really egregiously out of line and not just "something you wouldn't normally say on-wiki." Dischord is not subject to WP's rules and neither arbcom nor the community should be acting as the thought police. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 Substantively, I'm in agreement with TonyBallioni, and believe the other options are flawed and inconsistent (per my comments above). More importantly, I'm concerned with any attempt to formally make thoughtcrime a violation of Wikipedia policy. What a user says in their private time offwiki - privately to their friends or publicly on their Twitter feed - is none of our business. Every user has probably at some point in their life expressed a comment, somewhere (online or in person), that they would not repeat here. Ultimately, all other options permit editors to do opposition research to effectively harass other editors without consequence. I do not think Beeble's 'strong discouragement' will work; such wording is toothless, and when it comes down to it someone will violate it, and it's unlikely others will challenge the posting, especially if the comment is unflattering, and even if it should not have been posted in the first place. Sometimes things are better left unknown, even if we can't consciously make the decision to ignore it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Treat the same as IRC. The differences between IRC and Discord are real, in particular the authenticated log. I agree with Kusma that the "copyright" reason has always felt a bit flimsy. Ultimately though my line of thinking aligns with Tony. Unlike IRC where we're all on a single server with control of channels by individuals, in Discord's case we're on a multitude of servers with the whole server being under the control of individuals. Beyond the 3 discord servers I linked when formulating the question I am aware of at least 5 other Wikimedia/Wikipedia related discord servers none of them publicly advertised. So ultimately when the differences are real, I don't think they're real enough to overcome our general protections against OUTING (which as noted, offer limited protection on enwiki even against onwiki disclosure on other language wikis). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are similar to what Kevin says in their close at Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 20#RfC: Clarification of OUTING, and functionally I think that ends up with something similar to option 4. I also like TonyBallioni's take. Ironically, what follows is an adaptation of something I said in Discord, but I digress. Personally I find digging through old conversations for something to discredit someone with is smarmy. We should have a norm if not policy against doing that. Erring on the strict side has the benefit of disincentivizing rumor milling. Imagine if User:Example just started posting things on wiki about how bad those Wugapodes are and all the bad stuff I say, with quotes but links that don't work for some reason. Example explains (falsely) that I deleted them. It will be hard if not impossible to disprove, but if posting logs or quoting messages was disallowed (and redactable), we sidestep that whole issue. On the other side of the coin, it incentivizes responsible reporting. Rather than taking accusations to ~~the pillory~~ AN, the private evidence is sent to admins or arbcom who can figure out what if anything needs to be done before a frenzy rather than trying to clean up afterwards. — Wug·a·po·des 06:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 per Wugapodes - been following this discussion for a while but their reasoning convinced me stronger than anyone else's. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 1/2. Lets be clear about this, the IRC 'rules' that prohibited logging were entirely in place to protect abusive IRC members from having their actions and statements challenged on-wiki. These were not channels that were unrelated to Wikipedia, they were specifically set up to deal with on-wiki issues, run by wiki-admins, donated to by the WMF and intricately tied in with WMF staff members (the history of WP-on-IRC is a dark and murky one that a lot of editors are going to be unfamiliar with). Some people may not have been around for the the issues of IRC logging, "throatpunching", Arbcom declining to do anything about an admin making comments about bathing an editor in acid - and keep in mind these are not examples of calculated abuse by secretive IRC members. They were just unpleasant people saying unpleasant nasty things and getting away with it for a long time because of secrecy rules that protected them. The actual outcome was of course that they were logged, and acted upon, but it took a far greater amount of effort to get any traction on them, and in the meantime they continued with their abuse. The Super Secret Sockpuppet hunting co-ordination etc (amongst other IRC groups) was arguably far more calculated abuse due to its secretive nature when it targeted editors.

So when I see the same people who refused to do anything when IRC secrecy was abused, advocating for the same approach that led to abuse previously, who deliberately avoided doing anything about that abuse, arguing in favour of applying the same process here? They either learned nothing at all, or have an ulterior motive in keeping their own activity hidden. I will also take 'hopelessly naive' for a third option.

And let us also be perfectly clear on this: Discord is logged, everything you do there, as well as your online identity (that you use for Discord) are kept and will be used against you if you step out of line. The only question is do you want it addressed on-wiki where your peers are likely to take a more understanding approach? Or do you want to go down a path where because of a prohibition here, you are discussed at say, Wikipediocracy, maybe a news article from a sympathetic journo. You have no protections against harressment or outing in other venues. By forcing people to seek redress elsewhere, you will end up (as has previously been the case) in attracting the attention of a group of people who rarely have any sympathy when it comes to abuse and are willing to be more direct in their attempts to bring it to light.

This is another example of why the Outing policy is hopelessly unfit for purpose and needs to be adjusted to take account of reality and experience, not attempt to adjust reality to suit the outing policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The community has the power to amend the arbitration policy to broaden the scope of when offwiki evidence should be considered. If they wish users could ask prospective arbs a question about how they will handle offwiki evidence and vote for the ones that promise site bans for offwiki evidence like your examples. So I don't see why what the 2015 ArbCom did or didn't do is relevant.

where your peers are likely to take a more understanding approach Let's be clear, the most recent onwiki Discord incident (that I know of) was quoting a user's offwiki political views at RfA, and people were not sympathetic. Are you saying fellow editors will be (or even should be?) sympathetic if actually problematic content is reported? IMO the problem here isn't really about problematic content, which should be dealt with appropriately, it's about non-problematic content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Option 4. Per TonyBallioni. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 per Wugapodes and Spicy. I especially strongly agree with Spicy's take on the environment Discord provides, as I myself am open to disclosing information about myself to a select few who were part of a conversation (or to any authenticated user in the server at the time, for that matter) on Discord, but not on Wikipedia. The RfC that Kevin closed (linked repeatedly above) also has comments on opposition research (This RfC does not constitute a green-light to snoop around...) and disclosing personal information from off-wiki venues in general, both of which I strongly agree with. Given that, Option 4 would be the only decent choice here that follows the RfC. My own take on the matter is that personal information, such as birth dates, ages, names, etc., must not be quoted/linked at all, no matter what. Additionally, ArbCom should be sent the particularly nasty or egregious comments (pertaining to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects, including its users) made on Discord by an authenticated Wikipedian to decide what should be done to that user. Bringing those comments up in a publicly-viewable venue on-wiki (God forbid, ANI) for Wikipedians to lynch the user in Wikipedia's special version of cancel culture based on possibly out-of-context comments can and will start a mess and possibly cause damage that can't be undone, even after oversight, which can and will happen if we went with Option 1, 2, or 3. Disclosure: I moderate the RedWarn Discord server, which requires SUL authentication. My thoughts, however, focus more on my experience with WP:DISCORD. Chlod (say hi!) 07:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I would worry about vague references to Discord that aren't specifically links. I get the argument for linking to specific messages being bad, but I wonder about if I said something onwiki like "per a discussion on WP:DISCORD a few hours ago". Or imagine I mentioned the channel specifically. Once or twice I've said something like that myself (like: "I asked for advice on WP:DISCORD and they directed me to policy XYZ"). I worry about such vague references being considered not that far away from direct links. Leijurv (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 5 : Discord chatroom logs are public and IRC chatroom logs should be as well — My opinion is probably not gonna count for much but I might as well chime in. Anything that could have been read by anyone present in the chatroom at the time of its posting should be available to be re-read by anyone. Any other policy that tries to implement a fake feeling of privacy through "you had to be there, now you'll never know" is completely ridiculous. As a good example, this is the way logging happens on Wikimedia projects. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
We should have a new RfC on "logging" practices in general, honestly. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 1 (aka Ben's "Option 5", applying this to IRC as well) per OID, Chess, and Ben. Public means public. The notion that on this public website, we would be prohibited from quoting or linking to something on another public website (or chat server, or message board, or a published print magazine, or whatever), just doesn't make any sense to me. If people on other websites don't want to be quoted elsewhere, they should lock down (make private) those other websites. Otherwise it seems like we're making a rule that people can say things in public and we have to pretend here that it didn't happen, simply to ensure that the speaker avoids any consequences here for what they said elsewhere. Balancing the competing values, I come out with: if you said it in public, you said it in public, and having everyone pretend like it didn't happen isn't helpful or productive in any way that I can figure. This especially true when we have a page in projectspace called WP:DISCORD that points editors to the Discord server. Even if the page says it's "unofficial," it's still part of the Wikipedia ecosystem by virtue of being linked in projectspace. We don't have a WP:WIKIPEDIOCRACY or a WP:WIKIPEDIAREVIEW or a WP:WIKIPEDIASUCKS, etc. In my view, the projectspace page, and that it's mostly moderated by admins, makes it at least quasi-official. (Same with WP:IRC.) Particularly where this is Wikipedia, where our strongest values are transparency and accountability. We keep a record of everything everyone does, of every change. All future generations will know it took me multiple edits to write this comment :-P Prohibiting linking/quoting to other public wikipedia-related conversations runs directly counter to those values of transparency-and-accountability-through-excellent-recordkeeping. Levivich 17:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not strongly opinionated regarding which direction is taken for logging, as long the approach is made clear. (In any case, I think the question of what off-wiki actions can be used as grounds to evaluate an editor's overall characteristics is going to be more prominent.) I am concerned about maintaining the current minimum requirement for full participation in the English Wikipedia community, which is to be active on this web site. I wouldn't want on-wiki discussions to start pointing to external servers to lay out arguments for whatever topic is being discussed, or for off-site discussions to become the central point for decision-making. If IRC/Discord/Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/any external forum becomes essential to participate, this will have a significant effect on the editing community. isaacl (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this, but will note that I have learned through my UCoC work that in quite a few communities this isn't true. That is substantial project coordination occurs in Telgram groups or through a particular affiliate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that many users like to use more real-time modes of communication. I'm not sure how well it would work with a global community the size of English Wikipedia's. Can you share any info on the size and number of time zones spanned by the communities you have in mind? If all of the interested parties are able to participate using another service, at least they still have a say. I fear, though, with the size of English Wikipedia, that wouldn't be the case. isaacl (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't any copy-pasting of Discord logs into Wikipedia be immediately revdel'd on the spot as a copyvio? Leijurv (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The copyright issue is less pertinent to Discord than IRC because Discord logs can be linked to thus avoiding the question of copyright altogether. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4. Even if it is a public server, a Discord username can still be considered personally-identifying information, especially if someone uses a different Discord name than they use on-Wiki. The only possible mitigating circumstance is that unlike IRC, Discord requires a registration and it's harder to see someone's IP. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Discord username is PII? Citation needed. Levivich 13:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
If my Discord username were my real name ("Alex Smith" or whatever), it could be. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
What ^^ said. PII is anything that allows you to personally identify someone. So any Discord ID that allows you pinpoint a person is PII. The mistake is in thinking that because something is PII it is also not public information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
If you use your real name as your username on a public discord server, then you've already made it public. There are reasons to oppose this but privacy is not one of them: were talking about linking to public logs. Imagine the reverse argument: that people who use their real name as their username on Wikipedia can't have their contribs linked to on another website because it's PII. I mean, LOL that makes zero sense :-) The person choosing to use their name as their username would be the person who made the PII public, not someone who later links to it. Levivich 14:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of policy was that if you looked up where "Alex Smith" lived on Facebook (say they disclosed they lived in a cottage in rural Kazakhstan) and you said that on-wiki and the "Alex Smith" on Wikipedia had not linked to their Facebook profile or given indication of their Kazakh abode, that would be outing. Even if "Facebook Alex" said "oh I'm an active Wikipedia editor called 'Alex Smith' too", linking to that on-wiki still would not be allowed. Couldn't you argue that that is roughly analogous to the Discord username problem, since "Facebook Alex" had made that information public? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes that's my understanding of our outing policy too. But this isn't an RfC about giving people permission to link usernames on WP and Discord. One can link to discord server logs without doing that. Even that aside, Discord requires OAUTH authentication to post in (most?) channels, so that link between accounts is made public anyway and saved in public logs, using "official" WMF tools to ensure the link is correct. So much for outing, then, since Discord requires you to out yourself anyway? Levivich 14:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 per TonyBallioni and Wugapodes. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 5 per Ben, Only in death, Levivich, and Iridescent here and here. I have thought a lot about this, considering the role the Discord server played in my RfA. My vote may thus be surprising, but in the Discord server I am on record saying "If you don't want to be revealed as being an asshole, don't be an asshole". My RfA showed the proof in that particular pudding, and in hindsight I see it as an inevitable spark for the discussion we're having now. Regardless of the officiality of the Discord server, it still wears the black W on a white field, is still staffed by admins, and has hundreds of members who have publicly linked to their Wikipedia accounts. It is part of the WikiSphere. Everyone in that server, as the landing channel hints, should be prepared for the consequences of their actions there. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 5 (no restrictions on posting public logs, per Ben). If you send a message to someone, you can't control what they do with it. If you send a message to a public board (like Discord), you can't control what anyone will do of it. And if that message is signed with your Wikipedia username in a Wikipedia-related forum you can't expect others not to make the link. The alternative isn't keeping this correspondence private; it's an absurd situation where everyone knows that "X said Y on Discord", but they have to pretend that they don't on-wiki. The fact that we sometimes (very inconsistently in my experience) apply a similar logic to IRC, email, Wikipediocracy, etc. is part of a legacy of well-meaning, but ultimately futile, hyper-sensitivity to privacy that we also need to shrug off. – Joe (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
But we don't allow public twitter messages to be used in this way. Why should someone have less protection on Discord than Twitter? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
We don't? For example, earlier this year someone was sanctioned at ANI for a BLP COI based in part on their tweets, which were linked to, quoted, and discussed in the ANI thread (and without which the COI may not have been so apparent... along with some of the editor's blog posts). This wasn't an OUTING violation because the editor had already linked the accounts (same with Discord auth). If we had a rule preventing quoting/linking the Twitter account, the community may not have been able to address the COI; that's the type of danger I hope we can avoid and why I'm supporting options 1/5. We've similarly seen Twitter, Facebook, etc. be linked/quoted on-wiki when dealing with off-wiki canvassing. To me, the other options (like 4) would make Discord be treated differently than other social media like Twitter. Levivich 15:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
same with Discord auth and the same with IRC cloaks. But if we want to discourage people from using that authentication, this is good motivation. AFAIK linking to Twitter is only allowed if (a) it has been linked to from the English Wikipedia (authentication on Discord doesn't create a link in that direction) and (b) if it's being used to illustrate COI. At least that's what's outlined in the "specific situations" at WP:OUTING. The rest should be done through off-wiki channels (e.g. emailing an admin). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
But the reason why we require disclosure in one direction (disclosure on-wiki of the off-wiki account and not the other way around) is for authentication reasons (we can't be sure the off-wiki account is controlled by the wiki account holder unless the wiki account says so logged in on-wiki). By using mw:OAuth, Discord authentication satisfies this concern. OAuth is the key, for me, for why it's not an WP:OUTING concern. Levivich 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
That's not the only reason, no. If what you say were true, we would not say
If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.
In that case, someone has already verified that it is their account, but we respect their wish not to connect the two. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how being allowed to un-verify changes anything? But either way, we can honor that for Discord just as we do for any other off-wiki site. And even putting the linking-accounts thing to one side, we can allow linking to Discord logs without allowing OUTING... I can link to a message without saying which WP editor posted that message. Levivich 17:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how being allowed to un-verify changes anything you just said the purpose of not allowing linking is for authentication reasons. But it's not, as evident by our stance that even if someone has authenticated, if they've decided not to share it later that must be honored. It's not unauthenticating or "unverifying", after all; it's choosing not to share what one shared in the past. When someone decides to oversight it, they're not saying "actually, I'm not that person" they're saying "actually, I'd rather not share." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My argument is that whether it's Twitter, Discord, or anything else, rules like this don't offer any "protection" at all; just the impression of it. If you are posting on a public, off-wiki forum under a name that can be linked to your Wikipedia username, you should assume that people you talk to on-wiki are capable of finding it. And if they're not, Wikipediocracy will definitely do it for them if they think there's the slightest nugget of drama in it. If you don't want the two things to be linked, the only true solution is not to link them. The taboo against mentioning that link on-wiki is at best a means of obfuscation, but I think in reality just a polite fiction. – Joe (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
It is simply not true that there are no shades of grey here, as you seem to imply. While information may be out there and could be used by stalkers, we can be better than these stalkers and not link to everything that is technically out there. It is simply disrespectful (consider WP:5P4) to mention/link to all the idiotic stuff User:X said to you yesterday while ranting, whether in the pub or on Discord, to the entire Wikipedia community, which is a far more public area than many of the other technically public places on the Internet. Let's be better people on Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
"Wouldnt it be nice if everyone was nice" is no basis on which to formulate policy given the ample examples of where that is blatantly ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I find talking behind people's backs to be far more uncivil than calling out people for acting badly off-wiki. It is not "stalking" to merely acknowledge what we all already know: that there are places, other than Wikipedia, where Wikipedians talk about Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, Wikipedians also use these places to talk not about Wikipedia, and there is no reason to ever bring up such conversation onwiki. More concretely, I find things like User:Chess bringing up Vami IV's non-Wikipedia related chat history during the latter's RfA to be wholly unacceptable and want this to be clearly disallowed going forward. Yes, it's all technically public, but if you want to shame people for whatever non-Wikipedia related thing they do offwiki, do it offwiki. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't the first person who brought the candidate's Discord history up. Many people voted support because of their interactions with Vami on Discord. Would those support votes be disallowed as well? And for those unfamiliar with the context, that nominee said "oppressors exist to be killed by the oppressed" in an #offtopic discussion on WP:DISCORD about whether the IRA/Hamas were justified in their actions and brought up that the existence of Israel was "intolerable" in an on-topic channel with no prior discussion of Israel. These are not normal political beliefs. These are extreme political beliefs that were expressed in the quasi-official Wikipedia Discord server.

I get that you're angry a candidate you supported lost their RfA and you want to prevent evidence from being brought up that could change the community's opinion in the future. But these comments were said in a Wikipedia related Discord server with a big old Wikipedia related logo with accounts authenticated with the user's Wikipedia related account. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not that the candidate lost, I have no problem with that. There were reasons brought up to oppose the candidate that I found absolutely valid, based on recent onwiki evidence and mentioning actual issues with candidate edits or attitude. But "candidate says idiotic things in non-Wikipedia related chat" was one of the really low and unfair blows (bringing up onwiki POV-pushing or actual evidence of following a nefarious agenda would have been ok, or of evidence that the candidate's judgement is terrible in their actions on Wikipedia. There are already more than enough ways to sink an RfA without sifting through a candidate's chat logs in addition to everything they ever said onwiki). —Kusma (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

don't offer any "protection" at all - The protection isn't that nobody can read it; it's protection on Wikipedia that we don't want people to post users' off-wiki conversations except in very specific circumstances. Basing policy on Wikipediocracy won't do seems scarily cynical. there are places, other than Wikipedia, where Wikipedians talk about Wikipedia - presumably, then, if I go to Wikimania or Wikicon or a local meetup and record or transcribe (whichever allowed by law) the conversations people have over lunch, there would be no problem uploading those recordings to Commons and posting transcripts here? Most of the people involved have identified themselves by their username, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
A rule that prohibited us from talking about anything anyone said at a wiki meetup, or posting video/audio recordings from meetups, would not make sense to me. We post videos from meetups all the time. Imagine if we had a zoom call and then couldn't quote the transcript of the zoom call or post the video of the call. Why don't we want to refer to off-wiki public recorded discussions on wiki? It's so very easy for people to create private safe spaces online for themselves if they want privacy. But public is public. Levivich 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
You missed the point of "over lunch." Yes, conference sessions can be recorded and posted. Likewise any other time people give their consent (although at Wikimedia meetups anyone can typically indicate when they don't want photographs of them to be posted via a colored lanyard or a sticker or something). The point is, Discord doesn't include just the "conference proceedings" part of the conference; it's also what's said over lunch where, yes, people can hear you and you still shouldn't say anything you wouldn't want other people to hear, but where we nonetheless treat it differently. In that context, it would be creepy and inappropriate to record conversations, even if people are self-identified by their username and even if people know they're where other people can hear. It's an imperfect analogy, granted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I actually think it's a pretty good analogy, but I disagree about this: there is no "over lunch," all of Discord is the "conference." All of it is being recorded and saved all of the time--all of it is public, all of it is logged--so it's all "the conference" part to me. "Over lunch" would be DMs or private servers/channels/whatever. What makes it "conference" and not "lunch" IMO is that it's linked from WP, the OAuth, and the public logs. Levivich 17:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 I just don't see the need to support these things and best to have these "conference" within Wikipedia. if they're in these lunch situations, then even less reason to support them. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Option four. To me, it doesn't really matter if you're certain that they're the same user or if they've indirectly outed themself using the OAuth system – the distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki behaviour is one that should be maintained. I am aware of at least one former administrator who was desysopped and banned due to conduct off-wiki, and another editor who was banned for similar reasons. Should behaviour on off-wiki platforms prove problematic, the Committee has been willing to take action against such individuals in the past, and they should now. To be honest, even if an editor outs themself on-wiki and you are working within the policy at OUTING, you should not be posting such opposition research anyway. I can think of an RfA, an RfB and a Committee candidacy that failed because of those reasons, which was regrettable. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that nearly everyone has missed the point here, which is that we should not endorse any external platform for discussions that have any impact on what happens on Wikipedia. We shouldn't have done that previously for IRC (just look where that's got to) and we shouldn't do it now for Discord. Any discussion that is not on Wikipedia, or, if it needs to be private, via secure email with trusted functionaries, should not be taken into consideration here, and then it wouldn't matter what's said in Discord or whatever the flavour of the day is because it would be ignored anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that people can't un-see undesirable behaviour. If someone is uncooperative, aggressive, or unduly dismissive in some off-wiki venue, those witnessing it may well take it into account, and there's no way to avoid it. As I wrote previously, I do personally agree that discussions that lead to decisions on what happens on English Wikipedia should take place on English Wikipedia. I appreciate that some editors find it more effective to use a real-time discussion tool for preliminary discussions such as brainstorming. However in order to include the entire global community, we need to have patience to establish the consensus view. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point, it's just not reasonable. You already carved out an arbitrary exception for email, so why should your particular off-wiki communication be preferred over others? It's not even particularly secure; I would bet few of us host our own SMTP servers, so most email gets routed through a major corporation's surver farm and is thus vulnerable to both data leaks and corporate introspection. You don't want to endorse any external platform, except that Discord isn't endorsed by Wikipedia or the WMF. I don't see anything at WP:IRC saying that it is an official mode of communication. They're no more official than TheWebsiteThatMustNotBeNamed, they just have fewer banned users. If by "endorse" you mean "has a project page" then that's a pretty low standard. Lots of in-person meet-ups have project pages and I wouldn't want to suggest that we "endorse" them all in any sense of the word or create that implication. Even if we could avoid that, they'll just get moved to Meta since they relate to the wider wikimedia ecosystem and you'll have a hard time getting MediaWiki.org to endorse a global on-wiki-discussion requirement. For all the hand-wringing about Discord and IRC these are fundamentally places where people with similar interest gather to talk about their shared interest. Unless you want to turn Wikipedia into a social networking site where I talk about the Pidgey cards I've been collecting or forbid me from playing chess with Kevin, you'll need to accept humans having social relationships. Trying to control how people choose to associate in their free time off the website is not only dystopian but futile. The best course is what we're doing right now: determine the relationship between off-wiki conduct and on-wiki discussion. Like WP:CANVAS it probably won't be a clear line but a set of considerations ranging from most to least acceptable. It's a nuissance, but it's far more sustainable than pretending nothing exists off Wikipedia. — Wug·a·po·des 22:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree it's fruitless to try to stop people from having conversations elsewhere, because social interactions are the norm. But I do think it's reasonable to strive not to provide privileged access to participants in other forums over those who participate solely on English Wikipedia. I don't want to have to participate on sites A, B, C and apps X, Y, Z in order to be able to influence decision-making or gain greater insight into the decision-making of others. Of course people will often kick around ideas in email, IRC, Discord, or whatever communication tool they use. Nonetheless I feel we should migrate discussion on-wiki as soon as possible, to be more inclusive of the entire English Wikipedia community. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but from the manufactured moral panic in this discussion one could easily get the mistaken idea that there is some massive off-wiki conspiracy taking place where things are decided in secret rooms with no oversight from the wider community. The Discord has apparently existed for quite some time before I joined a few months ago and at no point did I ever feel like I was unable to participate in Wikipedia decision-making; my participation has largely been making bad puns and answering newbie questions. I haven't used IRC in months and have managed to participate in Wikipedia decision-making just fine. I've responded to non-sensitive email requests on the emailing user's talk page instead of by email. We're arguing about a hypothetical situation that simply doesn't exist.
How are we currently not being inclusive? One of the major arguments (repeated just below this comment) is that the Discord is public so it is very difficult for me to take arguments about "exclusivity" particularly seriously. Who is being excluded from what decisions? It feels like everyone's gotten together to complain about how the band kids always sit together, except instead of high schoolers its middle-aged and retired adults complaining about how the youngest segment of our editor base chooses to engage with the site. Many of the editors on Discord weren't even born when you and Phil started editing under your accounts; I was 10 years old when you made your first edit as Isaacl, and from your writing style at the time I would put money on me being your junior.
Critique and reasoned discussion about how we should engage with the site is fine, but part of that discussion should be the recognition that this discussion is part of a pattern where editors socialized in the ways of the early internet try to avoid the reality that the internet has changed in the last two decades. Evidence is largely non-existent given our anonymity, and I haven't done a particularly systematic investigation, but it is my impression that opinions on this RfC are distributed by age---personal or account (probably both). Your essay, User:Isaacl/Consensus requires patience, is one of my favorites, but ours are not the only correct philosophies on how wikis prosper. Quite the contrary: wikis work because they can support multiple contradictory workflows and philosophies simultaneously. Many wikis like MediaWiki.org work well with real time communication strategies, while others like MetaWiki work best on glacial time-scales. While I agree that it is best for as much discussion to happen on-wiki as possible, it is disingenuous to say that it is the only way for a wiki to operate. If we want to be inclusive, and I believe that is our shared goal, we need to recognize that not everyone likes or works best using our favorite mode of communication. If we want Wikipedia to survive another 20 years, we need to figure out how we can engage younger internet users who did not grow up in the age of dial-up internet in our discussions and wiki-culture without explicitly or implicitly saying "our way or the highway". Regardless of the specifics, I believe there is something wrong with older editors saying "our favorite communication methods are privileged, but your favorite method has no such privilege and can be used in whatever character assassinations we want." — Wug·a·po·des 20:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I've said that the only way for wikis in general to operate is through on-wiki discussion. In many (perhaps most?) situations, wikis are used solely to store info, not communicate between users. I agreed that people like all kinds of communication methods, and that's just the way it is. (*) However English Wikipedia isn't starting from scratch today, and so there are existing expectations. If the community decides it wants to alter the minimum requirements for full engagement, so be it; I just think the community should make a conscious decision around this and establish new expectations. (For instance, it would be really hard to jump back and forth between a real-time, logged messaging app and a talk page to discuss a dispute; the new standard might be for all conversation to take place on the messaging app, with the talk page used to host any desired wikitext examples that can be referred to from the messaging tool.)

(*) Regarding using information from other venues to help make decisions on editors, that's a separate issue from changing the requirements for participation. Part of the problem is that dealing with behavioural issues in an large group conversation is terribly inefficient and frequently counter-productive as it engages in open speculation. For better or worse, though, it isn't going to change in the intermediate future. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I think we're in a heated agreement, and I'm sorry if I conflated your and Phil's points. To be clear, my point is that the rise of IRC never changed the minimal requirements for participation, and neither has Discord. It's simply the next iteration of that technology which routinely, and particularly on Wikipedia, is met with moral panic. A great example is xkcd 1227. In the 1800s commentators were concerned that letter writing would die out, that we would be so obsessed with reading books that we wouldn't talk to our compatriots. Of course, we still write letters, and we still talk to people on the train. Those morphed into how emails ruined our ablity to write letters, or how we're too invested in playing on our phones to talk to each other. It's an anti-pattern, and we should be aware of it. Centralized communication is useful, and since we all work on Wiki, coordinating on wiki is often easier. That's why it sticks around despite changes in other technologies. We should be aware of how new technologies can change the dynamic on wiki, but we should be wary of making them seem more consequential than they are (unless you do want more pictures of my pokemon card collection...) — Wug·a·po·des 01:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Although they both occurred before either my time on Wikipedia or in paying attention to such things, the eastern European mailing list issues and WP:Esperanza are key influences on how English Wikipedia editors currently eschew off-wiki discussion forums to make decisions. I don't think a shift is imminent, nor do I think anyone is panicking, but it's something that I feel we should keep an eye on, if only to determine that new procedures would be desirable. (I'm guessing by "rise of IRC" you are referring to some point where participation on the Wikipedia IRC channels increased? IRC predates Wikipedia considerably and as I understand it, Wikipedia IRC channels predate the WMF.) isaacl (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the Wikipedia IRC channels and the original mailing list predate almost everything, including the MediaWiki software.

There are notes at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Tools in use about different communication methods. Every group/sub-group seems to have its own.

There is also a mini-history of communication, mostly focused on the English Wikipedia, at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Discussion tools in the past. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, as someone who used the Wikimedia IRC channels before I started editing, I don't think much decision making is done in public channels, or think anyone needs to participate in those areas to be full users of the community. I got to know certain editors better, probably got better advice than I would onwiki, and it's much faster to request deleted revisions etc. But otherwise I don't think it makes a huge difference. If you're a content editor IRC is not as useful I think, but the Discord might help you find editors to collaborate with, review your FA, etc. I don't think this is particularly distinct from the real-world advantages gained by knowing people from other contexts. Overall I don't think offwiki venues provide meaningful advantage in the influence decision-making or gain greater insight into the decision-making of others area. That's true of the public IRC channels anyway, not necessarily the private ones. Personally I think English Wikipedia's "always on the record" that some editors pride is actually not a good thing anymore. The concept doesn't even correlate well to real world interactions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
To everyone, there's no need to keep pointing out that decisions are being made on English Wikipedia, as I agree with that. But this isn't a happy accident, as can be seen from Wikipedia's past history that Whatamidoing kindly provided, and the integral use of various communication tools by many groups. It's a deliberate decision, which we could choose to maintain or alter. Regarding gaining insight, there are other venues where editors don't feel constrained by English Wikipedia guidance in how they express themselves, and so feel more free to provide greater detail in their thoughts. I appreciate why that's the case, yet my personal preference remains that we should encourage this type of info to be discussed on-wiki. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Re You already carved out an arbitrary exception for email, so why should your particular off-wiki communication be preferred over others?: well one big difference is that email is private, and the public Discord servers are public. But in fact, we have no rule against disclosing private email communications on-wiki (AFAIK anyway; Wikipedia:Private correspondence was a failed proposal), but we have a rule about not disclosing public IRC conversations, and may soon have a rule against linking to public Discord logs. That's really backwards, eh? Levivich 15:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Publishing private e-mail messages would have to comply with copyright law, which is a barrier to posting them on wiki. I don't know what terms the Discord system sets for copyright, but that would have to be investigated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

IME posting emails is generally frowned upon even if not explicitly forbidden. I cannot find any project-wide discussion that rejected the proposal you linked, and from the talk page it seems that the authors never decided to see it to completion. It seems that the 2008 draft proposal was in response to the arbitration committee stating unequivocally in 2007 that private correspondence should not be posted on-wiki without permission. See July 2007, reaffirmed December 2007, where they link the posting of private email to a violation of the copyright policy. Regardless of how backwards you think these rules may be, as I said above, we should have a norm if not policy against digging through old off-wiki correspondence to find things to discredit people with per project-wide consensus. Despite the occasional exceptions (see WP:IAR) you point out, we have a robust norm against posting off-wiki correspondence regardless of the mode, and even UPE have had evidence from undisclosed Twitter or Facebook accounts redacted because of this. Quite simply, it would be backwards to give carte blanche to posting Discord links or logs when such behavior is at the very least discouraged for all other modes of communication. — Wug·a·po·des 20:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that norm needs changing. Copyright is the silliest fig leaf (of course quoting an email doesn't violate copyright, and no, we don't own the copyright to every word or every sentence of an email we write... entire paragraphs or emails, maybe, but then there's fair use to consider... copyright is so overcited on this website). "Option 5" is right on: public communications are public communications; prohibiting them on-wiki seems to me to be a contortion to allow people to escape any on-wiki consequences for public off-wiki behavior. Levivich 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that copyright concerns are overblown. (I feel there is a good case to be made for an implicit licence being provided for many group conversations. Plus copyright enforcement is about protecting the author's rights for commercial exploitation, which is non-existent for the vast majority of messages.) However in the interest of not marshalling inaccurate arguments in favour of this conclusion: a writer does own the copyright to every specific expression of ideas in a message that is written, and explicitly quoting someone is literally copying their words. The writer doesn't own the underlying ideas, though, so paraphrasing is fine, and even using the same words is fine when there are limited ways of saying the same thing. isaacl (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyright definitely constrains what we can do in large-scale ways. You could normally quote a small section of an e-mail message without running afoul of copyright, especially if you comment on it; however, you couldn't routinely publish long e-mail exchanges – or, more relevantly, whole logs of every comment posted to any chat or social media system – without suitable copyright licensing being in place. I see this as a surmountable problem, but it's still a problem.

Given that we've blocked and de-sysopped editors for what they've said on IRC in the past, I think that concerns about not being able to punish people for bad behavior if we can't copy their words directly to the wiki (rather than sending it via e-mail to arbs or similar) are overblown. I've no doubt that it's frustrating to a few busybodies, but we seem to be able to manage overall. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Context matters. People routinely quote entire message exchanges on mailing lists and bulletin boards. As this is the norm, expectations are set appropriately and thus anyone participating is implicitly agreeing to this behaviour. In the general case, people communicating with each other haven't consented to posting the contents in other venues, but in specific cases, such as people working up a proposal, the nature of the work implies an agreement. But the issue isn't really copyright, which as I said is more about protecting the author's rights to profit from their work and doesn't prevent paraphrasing, but privacy. Open discussion forums should make it clear what the ground rules are regarding privacy. isaacl (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe they're overblown, the links I gave show that your premise is flawed, and as isaac points out your conception of copyright is flawed to start with. I don't particularly care about the copyright status of email; I pointed to them because you said we have no rule against disclosing private email communications on-wiki which is not accurate since the arbitration committee has said it is a violation of copyright. You may disagree or wish to change it, but that doesn't change the fact that your starting premise is flawed. If your ham-fisted principle, public communications are public communications, enjoyed consensus we would not have WP:OUTING. For all your concern about on-wiki consequences for off-wiki behavior, you have aboslutely no regard for off-wiki consequences of your unflinching support for the right to post my tweets. When people have expressed concerns in this thread about privacy or outing, you blow them off as if having your information posted on one of the ten largest websites in the world forever is a minor inconvenience (ironic, considering you make a point in your rationale of how revisions are stored forever). Post your social media accounts and email publicly, right here, if it's no big deal. I'm sure you would love for us to comb through your posts; you have nothing to hide yes? Of course this is rhetorical, because I assume you're intelligent enough to know that you're being disingenuous. There is something unsavory about actively lobbying to make it easier to harass people while working very hard to maintain your own anonymity. That alone would be gross, but not only are you using simplisitc slogans to advocate for decimating an editor's ability to have a private life, every time someone points out how incoherent your arguments are you shift the goalposts or move on to a new argument that contradicts your last one.
Your original opinion (which you repeat here) is that not posting off-wiki communications on wiki is somehow designed to prevent on-wiki consequences for off-wiki conduct. Nevermind that I and others have pointed out how this can acctually incentivize proper reporting, let's assume you're right: if so, I still wouldn't trust your opinion because you gave your own counter example in reply to Barkeep ("For example, earlier this year someone was sanctioned at ANI for a BLP COI based in part on their tweets, which were linked to, quoted, and discussed in the ANI thread...We've similarly seen Twitter, Facebook, etc. be linked/quoted on-wiki when dealing with off-wiki canvassing"). So clearly you know that we can and do santion people on-wiki for off-wiki conduct, but incorporating that nuance and assuming people are sane enough to apply WP:IAR would undercut the asinine tautology you keep repeating. Moving on, you later say that we should be allowed to out people's real names ("If you use your real name as your username on a public discord server, then you've already made it public" which points out how frivolous this argument is because if taken to its logical conclusion we could post anyone's real names because if you choose to use your real name on Facebook or your driver's license you've made it public, sorry) because you say that we have no rule against linking editors who use their real names to their external contributions ("Imagine the reverse argument: that people who use their real name as their username on Wikipedia can't have their contribs linked to on another website because it's PII. I mean, LOL that makes zero sense :-)"), except that we do have such a rule. When someone points that out to you, you reverse course ("Oh yes that's my understanding of our outing policy too") and show a complete lack of understanding of this RfC or its context saying that Discord requires OAuth (it doesn't) and that this isn't an RfC about linking WP and discord usernames (it is, unless you just want to be able to post random discord links with no context). Rhododendrites does a good job of pointing out the flaws in your argument, and it again illustrates how you keep interpretting OUTING however you want without regard for what it actually says. Now, here, you say that somehow the norm of not posting off-wiki communications doesn't extend to email (it does) based on a proposal that was never put up for community discussion, and when that is pointed out you move on to saying that pointing to the copyright policy is invalid (by making inaccurate claims about copyright law as isaac covered). Arguing with you about this is tiring, which presumably is the point (see Gish gallop: "The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved"). If you seriously think that there are no consequences to indiscriminately posting off-wiki communications and radically altering our OUTING policy, I really don't know what to say, but to speak candidly, given your anonymity, I think you do understand the consequences. If that norm needs changing, be the change and post your social media accounts for inspection. Until you out yourself or make a consistent argument I'm really not interested in continuing this conversation with you. — Wug·a·po·des 00:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Tbh I didn't read all of that. If you want to believe that quoting someone's email constitutes copyright infringement, go ahead. Linking to Discord logs, which is what this RFC is about, certainly doesn't raise any copyright issues, so copyright is not relevant. Similarly, OUTING is not relevant because Discord uses OAuth to link Discord usernames with Wikipedia usernames. So that's not an issue. Discord isn't comparable to email because Discord is public and email is private. Discord isn't comparable to IRC because IRC doesn't do server-side logging. If you want to think I'm disingenuous for believing that we should treat public communications like public communications, go ahead. I'm still supporting options 1/5. Levivich 01:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment: This proposal is hard to understand. Which is the most permissive and which is the most restrictive? Please ping me if required since I do not watch this page. If anything, Option 5 (which sounds like the least restrictive) sounds like the best choice. Leaderboard (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
1&/or5 Vami's post in compelling. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Option 5 per Ben, et al. If it's public, it's public, fine to post, common sense. Of course, posting a link between two identities could still very well be outing if it hasn't been made public by the user. Benjamin (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Option 3. As I said above, if someone doesn't want their activity on Discord linked to their activity on Wikipedia, they shouldn't link their Discord account to their Wikipedia account. I cannot imagine anyone thinking that they have an expectation of privacy when they've linked their accounts in order to post on a publicly-logged server. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Option 3. I'm concerned though by the framing of this debate as Discord vs IRC. Wikipedia-related discussions are now held on a smorgasbord of platforms not run by WMF, not just IRC and Discord but also Telegram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and more. We don't seem to have a coherent rule on what is acceptable cross-posting from such off-site discussion channels to Wikipedia. I would suggest to make the policy coherent along the lines of:
- Any publicly logged channel where Wikimedia policies are explicitly stated to apply (e.g. other WMF wikis, and public mailing lists and Telegram channels where mw:Code of Conduct applies) should be considered "on-wiki" and can be quoted;
- Logs from other publicly logged channels can be posted as evidence if the editor in question has previously declared an identity link;
- Private logs can only be posted on-wiki by permission of the person making the comment (if crucial to an investigation by e.g. ArbCom, such evidence can be emailed to the investigator privately)
With these principles in mind I think Option 3 is the closest to consistency, but I would implore us to have a coherent approach towards the posting of Wikipedia-related discussion logs from other platforms. Deryck C. 15:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Option 4 - treat as IRC logs - that is, to oversight, etc., per, well, just a lot of well-reasoned comments above. Oppose 1 and 2. We should not be guessing through our own original reasearch whether some off-wiki account name is equivalent to some on-wiki account name. - jc37 02:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MediaWiki:Signupstart

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your comment is requested at MediaWiki talk:Signupstart#Protected edit request on 4 September 2021 regarding how we should ask new users to name themselves at signup. Izno (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Policy on articles that contradict each other

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

I was hoping to seek some clarification on the wikipedia policy where two articles contradict each other. I have a situation where two articles contradict each other with wording, this is in regards as to whether Ufology is a pseudoscience:

The article Pentagon UFO videos only states that Ufology is psuedoscientific: "including those focused upon psuedoscientific topics such as ufology".
The Ufology article, however, is more specific and states that only some people think it's psuedoscientific: "ufology is regarded by skeptics and science educators as a canonical example of pseudoscience."

In this case, does policy say that the wording in the Pentagon UFO videos needs to be brought into line with the wording in the main ufology article so that wikipedia expresses the same content in the two articles? Or is it allowed for them to have two contradictory wording? (This is being discussed on the talk page, so I thought it best to get clarification on policy). Thanks for your assistance! Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Note I can see there is a template to highlight where this has happenned Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think articles should align with each other—when there's a contradiction, one of the two positions is necessarily the correct one, and we should try to get both articles to whatever that position is. I don't think there is (or should be) any formal policy about it, but generally, the more prominent article or the one where the topic under discussion is more the main focus takes precedence. WP:CONLEVEL may be relevant reading, and WP:FTN may be helpful if the discussions on the talk pages are having trouble resolving on their own. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that we don't need new policy on this, existing policy is fine. Also it isn't or shouldn't be about the relative importance of the articles, at least not directly. Where we have articles that contradict each other we should check the sources and try to resolve the anomaly. For example the death anomalies project used lists of Wikipedia biographies where the subject was alive according to your language's Wikipedia but dead according to another language. Usually on investigation the issue was that one version of Wikipedia had been updated after the person's death and the other hadn't. But you had to check the sources as sometimes the situation was very different. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

thanks {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk - yeah I don't particular want policy written on it, but wondered what the policy was in this instance, so thank you. Ϣere. Yeah, I don't think this is so much about one page being old and outdated and the other one not, though it certainly may have been in the case you described. Would be great to get a few more opinions on this particular example, so I can begin the process of bringing the two together so they say the same thing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, death is usually more definitive and less a matter of opinion than whether something is pseudoscience. In the case of UFOs it is more complex as I don't think there is dispute that there are unidentified flying objects, and that explanations such as Sun dogs are scientific. The pseudoscience only comes in when people jump from "we have this sighting and we don't know what this is" to "aliens from other worlds". Ϣere SpielChequers 08:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction. Two statements are made, and although they use the same words, the claims are different:

This subject is X.
Some people believe that this subject is one of the most important/obvious/indisputable examples of X.

I don't see any contradiction here. We might need a link to wikt:canonical, or to use a simpler word there. Maybe people are skipping over the somewhat math-geeky word and misinterpreting "Some people say it is the most important example of X" as meaning "Only a few people say it is X (and the rest disagree)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I get you WhatamIdoing - ah, it may depend on what sense you are using the word. In the sense "a situation in which inconsistent elements are present" I would say it is a contradiction. One article is definite about a status, the other article says only some people support a status. It's certainly inconsistent. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, @Deathlibrarian. One article says that the (narrower) subject is pseudoscience. The other article says that some people believe the (broader) subject is a canonical example of pseudoscience. It is entirely possible that everyone (with any sense, anyway) agrees that the broader subject is pseudoscience, but that the disagreement is over whether it is a canonical example or just a regular example.

Consider two people talking about apples. One says that the apple is a canonical example of fruit. The other says that in his tropical country, the apple is an exotic fruit (because it doesn't grow well his native climate), and the canonical example of fruit – the one any child in his country would name first, the one any locally written textbook would use as an easily understood example – is the mango. They do not disagree over whether an apple is a fruit; they disagree only over whether it should be regarded as a canonical example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would note that Deathlibrarian has started an RfC relating to this topic at Talk:Pentagon UFO videos#RfC about sentence in "potential explanations" section. In my view, further comments regarding this question should go there and not here, unless we want to have a general discussion about whether we should make a change to Wikipedia policy. Mz7 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? Why should it be expected that there will be no internal inconsistencies among the 6 million articles in English Wikipedia? Let's go back to the WP mantra... WP is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Wikipedia policy itself has internal inconsistencies ... which explains why we have some editors who just delete unsourced content, while other editors will add {{citation needed}} in the same situation. Remember, each editor is free to do what they want, within the bounds of WP policy, at least, so if you see something that's inconsistent, you're free to change it. Just remember, WP is not a reliable source, so it's not proper to cite a WP article from another WP article. Fabrickator (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is correct that this is not a particularly good example of a contradiction. The way to solve the problem of two opinions that differ is to present them both as opinions. This is different from plain statements of fact that cannot both be correct (Josephine died in 1882 versus Josephine died in 1886). In the latter case we should do something about it, such as looking at the sources to see if one has a better case for reliability. As always, Wikipedia is a work in progress and we can't expect perfection at any one moment. Zero^talk 08:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

We should not always present differing opinions as equal. Only do that when there is genuinely no consensus amongst expert scholars. If a contrary voice does not come from an authoritative source on the subject, we probably should not be covering it at all. For instance we would not change Coronavirus vaccine gives protection against the disease to the weasely Some scientists believe coronavirus gives limited protection but other commentators claim it is a government conspiracy to allow Microsoft to implant trackers in everybody. Reliable sources can undoubtedly be found showing that some people do indeed believe that, but it would be so wrong to put it in this presentation. SpinningSpark 14:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The use of kiswahili as a major language.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kiswahili accounts for 75% of communication among East and central Africans. Tap into this language and we'll have a good platform of knowledge exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2c0f:fe38:2400:1c52:f4a2:dfb5:c271:8b7d (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, you may be interested in Swahili Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Original research exemption proposed

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments13 people in discussion

I am closing this section per WP:SNOW. Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:OR is Wikipedia policy.

I propose an exemption to one article, List of countries by English-speaking population. Proposal: The article List of countries by English-speaking population is exempted from original research policy by allowing editors to mix data from different sources and make calculations.

The article has a disclaimer that reads,

Some numbers have been calculated by Wikipedia editors by mixing data from different sources; figures not attributed to sources and given with a date should be treated with caution.

This exemption is very sensible. The article is useful with minor original research. Charliestalnaker (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support As above. Charliestalnaker (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Charliestalnaker Did someone raise a particular concern? -- GreenC 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
This makes absolutely no sense. It is certainly possible to populate that list without engaging in original research. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - we give the sources, and note what they say. You aren't talking about OR, you are talking about WP:CALC and WP:SYNTH. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Lee. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Lee Vilenski. If attribution within the article is a concern, perhaps use hidden text or a robust notes section. Cavalryman (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC).
Absolutely not if only because this is a dark path that once we start down will forever dominate our destinies and consume us.--Jorm (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hell no. WP:OR is core Wikipedia policy. It shouldn't be ignored on a whim because someone thinks it is 'useful' to do so. And it is grossly improper to make such a proposal here without even discussing the issue on the article talk page first. How the heck are contributors to that article supposed to know this proposal has even been made? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Per Jorm. This would be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. RudolfRed (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear God, no per Lee et al. and as a spastic, reflexive response to this mention of one of my recurring nightmares. We have enough trouble with this approach even when we don't make a policy exemption for one page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose No exemption is needed for mixing high quality sources as to create a total list, as long as each entry is sourced (or if only 2-5 sources are needed, they are given as a whole to cover the entire list). As long as no novel conclusions are reached (such as then trying to claim what % population of the world speaks English based on using the country population) then this is acceptable already. --Masem (t) 02:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Jorm says it better than I ever could. MarnetteD|Talk 02:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Added comment by the original poster How about abuse of original research by piecing together sourced statements to come to a conclusion that none of the sources made or to suggest a pattern that none of the sources made? I say that should be strongly condemned as original research, particularly since the vote and comments above are uniformly against original research. Charliestalnaker (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion on presumption of notability of Olympic athletes

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, editors here may be interested in an RfC on whether all participants in the Olympics should be presumed notable. JoelleJay (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy vanishing and redirecting talk page to Wikipedia main page

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

When someone is given Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, is it normal for their user talk pages to the Wikipedia main page? The guidance notes that deletion of user talk pages is a rare exception (and needs a compelling reason) but says nothing about redirects to the main page - if they were not vanished then this practice would seem to go against the advice in WP:User pages "User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user..."?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Normally they just get {{Courtesy blanked}} if blanking. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Does it need to be undone if it has occurred, or is it OK to just leave it? In the example I encountered, the user:talk page was redirected by the user themselves to the Wikipedia main page a few hours before the rename was done as part of the vanishing - now the only way to get to the talk page history is via the user's contribution history (or presumably the contribution history of anyone else who has posted there.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I've undone it. It was indeed the only one. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

INVOLVED and Appeals

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

As of current, WP:INVOLVED provides a caveat for admins engaged in administrative business as follows:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.

I believe this wording needs to be reworked. The reason I believe this is because the policy mentions no restrictions regarding specific cases of administrative behavior. One very important case is in the case of appeals. Currently, the policy as written allows for admins whose opinion has been incorporated in the decision of a case to then interact administratively (in deciding/closing way) on a subsequent appeal as a literal reading of the policy regards them as UNINVOLVED provided they are not the primary admin closing/deciding the initial case.

I believe this a significant oversight which creates the potential for abuse and favoritism, perhaps even leaning against neutrality. I would like to hear feedback from the community about this and whether the community feels a rewrite is in order based on my proposal or not, and if so, possible text amendments to the policy. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

While I would generally be inclined to agree (we'd still want to hear from them, just have them note it and not be counted for consensus purposes), however, I would note the example of ARBCOM, where all ARBCOM appeals are going to have some arbs who blocked them in the first place. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Statements very welcome. Just not part of the admin consensus deciding the appeal. Sitting arbitrators could be given an exemption due to the nature of the position. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what you are proposing. Could you give a (hypothetical) example of the kind of abuse the current text of WP:INVOLVED could allow? – Joe (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what situation @Gwennie-nyan is thinking of, but imagine that Alice Admin closes a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and then closes the appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review as well, or that an admin blocks the same user twice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I can give you an actual example. But in many cases, admins weigh in as a group to determine an admin consensus for certain actions, especially in more formal processes like ArbCom/AE-related cases. Basically like WhatamIdoing described.

Imagine Admin A, B, C, and D all were part of the admins deciding (not merely weighing-in) an AE sanctions case against User X. Admin A closes the case and enacts the given sanction/remedy. User X appeals their case decision on some grounds. Admin B/C/D (choose one) who was part of the consensus deciding the case is now allowed, by current measure of the policy as written, to also weigh-in on the deciding (not merely giving statements) directly deciding how the appeal of the case goes. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This is allowed under policy, and AFAICT generally accepted, especially at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. For an actual ArbCom case, if a member of ArbCom happens to have been involved in the disputed conduct (whether as an admin or otherwise), then the ArbCom member will recuse from the case. But at AE, if you block someone for a violation, you can be involved in every part of every subsequent step in the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the subject of the appeal is an admin action, admins who weighed in on what the original admin action have an interest on that admin action, which is why they should not be resolving an appeal of that action. However, that does not inherently mean they cannot act as an admin in the topic area, or with respect to the editor, in which the appealed admin action is taken. To try to put it more simply. The subject of an appeal is an admin action, not a topic area, nor a an editor. So admins who have weighed in on an admin action are involved with respect to that action, while not involved with respect to the topic area, and editor. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is limited to the admin actions they specifically weigh-in on and the appeal of said actions. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There's been some reasonable objection above to proposing a policy change based on an ongoing incident. I believe that appeal is now closed. In broad strokes:

admins Alice and Barbara supported an AE TBAN against editor Zoe
admin Alice implemented the TBAN
editor Zoe appealed at AN
admin Alice participated in the appeal as an involved party
admin Barbara participated in the appeal as an uninvolved admin

I get Gwennie-Nyan's point about admin Barbara: isn't the point of an appeal to solicit the views of new, independent arbitrators? On the other side, do we have enough AE participation that fresh admins are available to review appeals after the regulars have opined in the initial AE request? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the point of an appeal to AN is to seek the clear and substantial consensus of ... uninvolved editors that a sanction should be modified or removed (WP:AC/P#Appeals by sanctioned editors). Nothing precludes involved arbs, admins and other editors from expressing their views there, nor should it; it is the consensus that must be of uninvolved editors, which can but need not include uninvolved arbs or admins. NebY (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Can involved arbs or admins express their views as uninvolved editors is part of the question though. If not, the question is then: are admins who participate in an AE 'Results' section involved? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

For the first question, no, an admin is an editor and an involved admin is an involved editor. For the second question, AE sanctions are performed by a single admin, not by a panel like Arbcom, and administrators having discussed administrative actions are not normally considered involved for that reason alone (cf appealing blocks). But is that relevant? In practice, it would be an extreme case if only the views of admins who had previously discussed the matter meant there was no consensus to modify or remove a sanction, or to put it another way, if the views of other uninvolved editors formed a consensus to modify or remove, contrary to the views of admins who had previously discussed it. That wasn't the case this month. Has such a case arisen recently or in your memory? If not, shouldn't we leave it to the community to deal with it if and when it arises? If hard cases make bad law, legislating just in case a hard case arises is worse. NebY (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Your point about AE sanctions' single-admin action is a good one. I agree, but it seems there is disagreement below. As for relevance, I don't know! This could apply equally to AE and AN appeals, and it seems that a new interpretation of INVOLVED could affect a decent chunk of appeals. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I rather disagree that it's just a single admin. Yes, just a single one imposes the actual sanction and limitations formally. However, in practice, this admin often represents the opinions of other admins who worked together to form an admin-consensus who express belief in a specific remedy or sanction to be appropriate for each case. Even if one of those admins formally imposes, the admin-consensus opinion is what they represent, and other admins which formed the consensus should not, in my opinion, attempt to consider themselves uninvolved admins for the purposes of appeals. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not propose policy changes in response to a current issue. See "You already INVOLVED yourself there" in this WP:AN appeal which refers to this WP:AE request. Re the issue, I'll leave others to argue the philosphical background and merely note that Wikipedia works pragmatically—disputes often involve hard-to-follow and long-term issues and there is not a magic pool of admins with the time to study the history of a random problem. That means we often need to rely on admins who already have some familiarity with the particular problem. There is no need to change how INVOLVED works. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Knee-jerk proposals in response to a single incident are almost never a good idea. Most admins do not review their own decisions, I don't see a serious, ongoing problem that this would solve. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
INVOLVED works pretty well now, I don't see a need to change it. I often council fellow admins to be highly conservative when evaluating if they are involved or not, but basically the policy works as is. As for the example given above of closing an AfD and then closing the review of that at DRV, if any admin tried to do that, they would get slapped down pretty quickly; that's about as blatant a violation as you can get. I don't think I've ever seen it happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of however "jerk"-y the proposal is and whether or not it results in a change, it at least provides discussion of this case of behavior/action in regards to policy, and thus, if a future case of similar happenstance occurs, we have, at the very least, documented a prior discussion regarding this type of thing. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with NBB's and Kyohyi's comments above. Generally speaking, no one should judge an appeal of their own actions. Levivich 05:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

INVOLVED and topic area

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

A recent ban appeal tested our shared understanding of topic area as it's used in WP:INVOLVED. Some Wikipedians, mostly admins, expressed (to my reading) an understanding that topic area in this policy refers to the page(s) under dispute and closely-related pages. As far as I know, no editors/admins contested this reading as the status quo practice for admins. Other Wikipedians, mostly non-admins, clearly read topic area to mean roughly the same thing that it means when discussing discretionary sanctions. I strongly support the former, more narrow reading, for reasons I'll go into if it matters. More importantly, we have a non-trivial disconnect in policy language and reasonable interpretation.

It appears that "topic area" was first inserted in January 2011 (diff) in a rewrite that sparked this discussion. The editor making the rewrite clarified in the talk page discussion that her change from topic to topic area was not meant to broaden the scope of the policy. I am not expert enough in wiki-history to know, but were discretionary sanctions common at the time? Would editors mostly see the phrase topic area as a reference to DS?

If the narrow reading of topic area is the desirable one, I think it's sensible to return to the less-DS-y topics. This change would strike 'area' twice and lead to the relevant section saying "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic." I would support even stronger narrowing language if others feel its needed to rule out the broad interpretation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, I think this is a case of Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard. She didn't "intend" to broaden it, but she inadvertently "did" broaden it. What's wanted is something in between "involved about this specific edit about whether this lab leaked a virus that caused the pandemic" and "involved in the entire broad topic area of medicine". This is definitely bigger than one edit, and could be bigger than one article, but is not as broad as anything and everything about the pandemic, or anything and everything about the pandemic.

Switching back to "topic" and perhaps adding a footnote that says that "a topic" could involve several articles might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the bigger point of disagreement comes from a few of our very broad topics that are under discretionary sanctions. An admin can unilaterally remove people from a more narrowly construed topic by hitting the larger topic area. A narrow topic in which that admin may have a vested interest in. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I always thought "topic" as used in INVOLVED and DS had the same meaning as "topic" as used in WP:TBAN. Whatever ambiguity there may be, please let's not resolve it by creating some distinction between the term "topic" and the term "topic area". Those should mean the same thing; if they had two different meanings, it would be confusing, and our WP:PAGs are already confusing enough. Levivich 22:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the phrasing that should be used, but I've generally interpreted it to mean the same thing as the rare, but occasionally-seen, "narrowly construed". In effect, that's the topic of the article, and other articles that are fundamentally an equivalent topic. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing Policy

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

(non-admin closure) No intelligible policy proposal has been put forward. Mohmad Abdul sahib has received advice on how to address this content dispute. JBchrch talk 20:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I moved the discussion here so that a policy issue can be judged.Mohmad Abdul sahib 12:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ⤵⤵⤵⤵

User:Mohmad Abdul sahib, you copied a discussion (apparently, about the Buzzer article) from User talk:Just plain Bill#Hi although the last of that exchange was User:Just plain Bill suggesting you go to Talk:Buzzer. I see you have never edited Talk:Buzzer and tried to resolve the specific issue there. You have also not explained here what "policy issue [you want] judged". Additionally, you have ignored the statement at the top of this page that the purpose of this forum is to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.

I have therefore taken the liberty of deleting the confusing exchange between you and Just plain Bill. I advise you to discuss matters regarding the Buzzer article at Talk:Buzzer, personal matters about Just plain Bill at User talk:Just plain Bill, and new policy suggestions, if you ever have them, here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

▶There are commercial sites already, but they display scientific and studied materials without placing any advertisements. Commercial This is unfair. There are many sites that allow others to place their ads such as YouTube. The link is not considered commercial because of the presence of advertisements within the site. So, as this is allowed, articles free of ads must be allowed and are not considered commercial links because the site is commercial. There is a difference between a commercial article and a site commercial.Mohmad Abdul sahib 10:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Bumping thread for 7 days. Mohmad Abdul sahib 15:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mohmad Abdul sahib, the advice you received was to post your concern to Talk:Buzzer. This page is "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)", not "Talk:Buzzer". Please post your concern about an article on the article's talk page. If you need help figuring out how to post your concern at Talk:Buzzer, then try this direct link to the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

▶WhatamIdoing You are not understand, not me!. I want to change the policy and put a clause stating that non-commercial links are allowed and not considered commercial links because the site is commercial!. This is to prevent the problem from recurring.Mohmad Abdul sahib 19:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transwiki to enwikt

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Today I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meal train as transwiki only to learn that Wiktionary considers the transwiki process obsolete and no longer accepts transwikis from Wikipedia (see this related TFD.) Is this true across all projects? If so it might be helpful to replace Wikipedia:Transwiki with some information to that effect rather than having the soft-redirect to Meta. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, even if enwikt doesn't want to do transwiki's - it doesn't mean that it can't be done to the hundreds of other WMF projects as appropriate. I suppose enwikt wants copy/paste done and is expecting that the author manually provide attribution somehow? In any case, I don't see this changing any policies here on the English Wikipedia. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Filelakeshoe: as far as your AfD closure, can't see a enwiki policy problem either - the determination is that this is not an appropriate article here, and that we will provide a redirect to an enwikt page. If enwikt doesn't want the page, then it would be a broken redirect speedy deletion at that point. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll drop a note at wikt:en:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour to see if they have any insight to add here. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As an en.wiktionary admin, I can state that we simply do not want transwikis. We don't want copy/paste, either — we don't want to deal with another wiki's dustbin, as the entries that have been transwikied are rarely useful or appropriate. That's why I nominated Template:Copy to Wiktionary for deletion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: thank you for the note, would you prefer that our authors just create a new wikt entry from scratch, following your inclusion and style criteria? We could just refer them there and let them know that after they have an acceptable wikt entry they can make a cross-wiki redirect here. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

New entries are always welcome, provided they belong in the dictionary and at least a vague attempt at the correct formatting has been attempted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just an ordinary Wiktionary editor, but I can confirm that every transwikied entry I've come across was worthless, usually for several reasons, just causing us unnecessary clean-up work. If the term seems worthy of inclusion in a dictionary, it can be listed at Wiktionary:Requested entries. --Lambiam 13:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Tag-teams

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

User:Shrodger created: Margaret Martonosi, and User:Mmartonosi created: Susan H. Rodger. Other Users are new page approving each other's work. FWIW. Also, should it be noted on their article that they have a wikipedia User account? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx: what is the policy or guidelines proposal you are wanting to discuss? If you think this is an instance of inappropriate use of user rights, please move to WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I am not proposing policy, I am looking for clarification of policy. Also, should it be noted on their articles that they have a wikipedia User account? 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Both those articles were created back in 2013. Neither editor has the current Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers user right, so this appears to be entirely moot. MB 19:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

User Shrodger created the article Margaret Martonosi several months before user Mmartonosi created the article Susan H. Rodger. Both have been active creating and editing articles on notable women computer scientists. Susan Rodger even authored the commendable article "Writing Wikipedia Pages for Notable Women in Computing". The qualification "tag team" is, IMO, completely inappropriate. I can discern no conflict of interest. --Lambiam 13:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? Editor A creates an article about Editor B, and Editor B creates an article about Editor A, and you can discern no COI there? I can discern at least the appearance of quid-pro-quo: "I'll write an article about you, you write an article about me." Whether this is what actually happened or if it's just coincidence, I don't know. The most recent edit was in June, so it's not that long ago. Still, if this isn't a pattern (if it's the only instance) then it's probably just coincidence. Anyone with these kinds of specific concerns should raise them with the editor(s) on their user talk page(s) in the first instance, and then if necessary, at WP:COIN. It's definitely not allowed by policy for editors to write articles about each other (at least without disclosing COI), but it may just be coincidence. It's not hard to imagine computer scientists might write articles about other computer scientists and thus two of them might write about each other: they may not even know each other IRL or even on-wiki. WP:AGF is also a policy, after all. (And no, their Wikipedia usernames shouldn't be included in their articles unless it's reported by WP:RS.) Levivich 15:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Them having had what is at least the appearance of COI, and perhaps an actual COI, 8 years ago is nothing to deal with now. Unless you.can provide evidence of recent COI, there's nothing we can do. 46.116.237.47 (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The most recent edit was in June, so it's not that long ago. Levivich 16:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not allowed by policy for editors to write articles about each other. Do we have any policy or guideline that specifically disallows editors writing articles about each other, or is it that writing about someone establishes a COI relationship with them? Or perhaps more precisely, imposes a COI relationship on them? NebY (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI is the guideline, specifically WP:COISELF: You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know. If Editor A creates an article about Editor B and Editor B creates an article about Editor A, that doesn't establish a COI relationship or impose a COI relationship. What it does is raise an WP:APPARENTCOI where there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI but by no means does it prove or establish a COI... it simply raises the question (especially if Editor A and Editor B are in the same field like both are computer science professors) whether the two editors have an WP:EXTERNALREL:

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.

In addition, a quid pro quo (you write an article about me and in exchange, I'll write an article about you) could be view as WP:PAID editing: payment through exchange of labor. Another way it might be a COI is if the two editors are in some way competitors of each other, i.e. "revenge editing".

Now, it's worth repeating again that just because two editors create an article about each other does not mean that it was intentional, or there was any quid pro quo, or any ill intent. It simply raises the question of WP:APPARENTCOI. Levivich 17:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it raises the question, but the answer is pretty obviously that there is no COI involved here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice for establishing Wikipedia:Notability (television) as a guideline

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a notice that an RfC has been started requesting comment on if the draft of Wikipedia:Notability (television) should be implemented as a guideline and a WP:SNG. Comments are welcome at the discussion, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A elongation: The questions for the candidates into Drafting Committee Movement_Charter

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Into 2021-09-29 11:59:59 UTC You can suggest the questions for the candidates into Drafting Committee Movement Charter. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Help regarding notability

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

(non-admin closure) Wrong place, but solved anyway. JBchrch talk 02:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! Sorry if this is not the right place to ask. I was searching in the Wikipedia namespace to find some information in regard to movie production companies and their notability inclusions criteria but wasn't sure what to read specifically given that the only page I was able to find related to that was in regard to movies which dealt only with the movies per se. Can someone guide me what notability criteria should I be looking for? I do understand that that information might not be in one single page. - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This belongs at the Wikipedia:Help desk. As to the answer, see WP:GNG, then WP:NCOMPANY which applies to all companies. Herostratus (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus, thank you! Would it be somehow possible to find an example of a reliable, independent secondary source for a movie company (whichever) which would suffice to the rules explained in WP:NCOMPANY? I just want to see an example to understand how to apply the said rules to this case. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Klein Muçi, again, this is not the proper place for this discussion, but you should take a look at the referencing in the various articles mentioned in Major film studios. Notable movie companies will have received significant coverage in major daily newspapers, trade publications like Variety and Billboard, respected business journals and books published by university presses and other respected publishers. This applies worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328, thanks! That's what I was hoping to see. As for the discussion being out of the correct place, I was made aware of that in the first reply, as you saw but I was waiting for an admin to move it in the needed place, not wanting to "break more stuff" along the way. Anyway, I got the needed answer now so you can consider it closed. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The removing process of Techyan's links

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

In Chinese Wikipedia's related talk page, a wikipedian said:

(translated) The Foundation has said that any links to sites held by global blocked users should be removed. This issue is a snowball clause, actually.
— Wikipedian 1233 on Chinese Wikipedia

So, should I remove all related links? I have a bot program (with optional manual mode, which is perfered now in enwp) at [1], with the following config:

{
   "replaces":{},
   "replaces_regex":{
      "\\[https?(:\\\/\\\/)?[a-zA-z0-9_.]*?wmcug\\.org\\.cn.*? (.*?)\\]": "\\2",
      "\\[https?(:\\\/\\\/)?[a-zA-z0-9_.]*?wmcug\\.org\\.cn[^ ]*?\\]": "{{Redacted|Chinese Wikipedia OA2021}}",
      "(https?(:\\\/\\\/)?)?[a-zA-z0-9_.]*?wmcug\\.org\\.cn[^ ]*": "{{Redacted|Chinese Wikipedia OA2021}}"
   },
   "skipped_ns": [2600],
   "api_php": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php",
   "username": "Example@BotPasswordUsername",
   "botpassword": "LOL",
   "delay": 10,
   "summary": "Remove links since Techyan was GBBed, ask Emojiwiki for details",
   "find_method": "exturlusage",
   "m_exturlusage_defs": {
      "euprotocol": "https",
      "eulimit": 500,
      "euquery": "*.wmcug.org.cn"
   }
}

Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 11:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Emojiwiki: This question may be better off at WP:VPP

~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime:Since I don't know how to move a conversation, can you help me to move it? ty--Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 11:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Emojiwiki: Done

~TNT (she/they • talk) 11:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Has the WMF actually confirmed that this is policy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:Not policy right now but is answered by WMF staff in English in zhwp page.—1233 ( T / C） 12:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and 1233:Ask 1233, actually I dont know (I only use commons sences)--Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 11:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Are we talking about external links to wmcug.org.cn? There are only two and they are not important: link search. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:Yes, BTW if this aproved, I will suggest this on all wikimedia sites--Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 06:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see a need to run this here; indeed, there are only 3 instances of related text. Izno Public (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC started on track listing sections

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An RfC has been started at MOS:MUSIC relating to song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What even is a reliable source?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia says that we should not judge things by whether they are true, but what "reliable sources" say about them. Why should we just trust "respected commentators" for no reason? How do we decide if someone is respected? Why should we believe everything reliable sources say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalaa324 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to media commentators? If so, We DON’T believe what they say. We DO, however, report what they say (using in-text attribution to indicate that what we are reporting is an opinion, and not necessarily fact). We should ALSO report what other “trusted commentators” say (especially if they disagree with the first commentator). See WP:NPOV for more on this. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Two remarks:
- There is no consensually accepted definition of what a reliable source is (pinging WhatamIdoing, with whom I have discussed this at WT:RS). The guideline WP:RS gives some pointers by instructing editors to refer to sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:REPUTABLE). The rest simply follows from there. At WP:RSN, the practice is for sources to be considered unreliable if they have a history of publishing falsehoods or fabrications.
- Wikipedia's policies postulates that such reliable sources exist and are a valid basis on which to base an encyclopedia. You are of course completely free to reject this notion. However, the practical (as opposed to theoretical) question is how would you build an encyclopedia, then? JBchrch talk 13:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
In re Why should we just trust "respected commentators", the answer is: sometimes we don't. Sometimes the disreputable source is the reliable one. We've cited tens of thousands of social media posts. If someone is accused of a crime and claims to be innocent of crimes, we might cite their denial of guilt, even if we think they're lying. The accused person is the most reliable source for what the person says about their guilt. (NB: not for whether the person is guilty, but for what the person says.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Policies on lists of fictional characters

Latest comment: 3 years ago47 comments16 people in discussion

I recently nominated List of Warriors characters for deletion. After a discussion on policy, it became clear to me that my nomination was not supported by policy, so I withdrew it. But I wanted to discuss the underlying policies here more broadly.

The article in question, which describes characters from a kids series with dozens of books, had grown to a remarkable 440,000 bytes long in March before being cut down to its current 35,000 by some very diligent editing. Clearly, the March version had some issues with WP:FANCRUFT. But under our policies on WP:SIZE and WP:CSC, these kinds of articles are allowed to exist even if they cite zero independent, reliable sources. Why? Because they are considered extensions/splits of the main subject of the article. So if Warriors (novel series) is notable, then List of Warriors characters is acceptable. This follows from WP:CSC #2, which states that standalone lists can work if "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria."

Of course, this issue affects many franchises. Look at List of The Sopranos characters, or List of Warrior Nun Areala characters, or take your pick from Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium.

These pages present a number of issues. They are magnets for bloat, tons of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, un-encyclopedic writing, and general fancruft. Because of this, they regularly need attention from experienced editors, who must either spend hours trimming them down and re-instituting WP:SUMMARY style, or else nominate them for deletion (as I did), sparking pushback from page editors. These pages strike me as a basic loophole in our notability criteria, that allow huge lists to proliferate without ever coming close to meeting the WP:GNG. Some individual fictional characters are certainly notable - Tony Soprano, for instance, or Severus Snape - they should have standalone, linked articles. I would propose modifying the WP:CSC criteria to say explicitly that lists of fictional characters are not covered by the criteria. I'm interested to hear what others think about this issue. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as a general observation - this isn't a problem exclusive to character lists, this slow accumulation of cruft is an issue that affects huge numbers of our articles on fiction. I've had an eye on Elder race for a while because it is really badly exhibiting the symptoms, but I'm not really sure what to do with it: the article consists of a rather self contradictory intro where it lists a load of thing that an elder race may or may not be, followed by an enormous list of 90 examples, all unsourced, most not notable enough for their own article. It's a difficult issue to address because these articles are always going to attract drive-by edits adding their favourite character/example/thing to an existing list. Perhaps we need some stronger sourcing requirements for inclusion in lists of fiction things or a clarification of criteria 2, e.g. each item must have been discussed in a manner that relates to the list in at least one source? "Does not warrant a standalone article" doesn't mean "has no coverage at all". 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Lists of characters should be still be striving for some type of sourcing, and if that sourcing simply doesn't exists from reliable sources, then there's very little reason to have a long detailed list of characters when they can be summarized in the main body of the article. We don't expect the list of characters to necessary meet the same level of notability as the work itself, but WP:V is still a required facet, and just using the primary work as the source doesn't cut it (articles should be based on third-party sources). Likely what has happened is that while we have significantly pared down on how much standalone fictional character articles, those meant for deletion end up merged into these lists, with all content left uncheck, and create the long lists. These pages do need to be within WP:NOT#PLOT aspects too.

But I know that trying to say that these lists need to show more notability goes against WP:NLIST and has been a long-standing issue. I don't think its necessarily the existence of stand-alone lists but the amount of cruft they accumulate that needs to be addressed first and foremost. --Masem (t) 13:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that WP:CSC allows for a somewhat loophole to subvert WP:GNG, which very passionate editors can cite to add information that does not meet WP standards. Although WP:SPLITLIST does set forth that articles need to be kept "as short as feasible for purpose and scope," and that "too much statistical data is against policy," I think these principles can get lost in areas like fictional characters where editors are very passionate about adding information they find important. I'm not sure about a singular WP:CSC carveout for fictional character lists, because I think the problem is broader and should apply to more than one specific category. I agree with Masem that the underlying cruft needs to be addressed first. Fancruft and over-reliance on WP:CSC should not allow for the subversion of the basic principles of WP:V and WP:RS, which are meant to protect the integrity of all information on WP. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've been objecting to this for a while now. The reasoning seems to be that Captain Blamtastic being notable automatically entitles List of Captain Blamtastic characters to an article. As well as, no doubt, List of Captain Blamtastic locations, List of Captain Blamtastic villains, and List of fictional weapons in Captain Blamtastic. None of which require sourcing because the parent article allegedly contains the required sources (it doesn't) and dependent articles acquire sourced status through some vague notion of trickle-down referencing. The result is fans writing a lot of reprehensible TV Tropes garbage that can't be verified and is all original research. Reyk _YO! 14:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The cruft around Harry Potter includes not only List of Harry Potter characters, which is so long it needs an alphabetized index and most of which are redirects to article sections, but also List of supporting Harry Potter characters, none of which have articles and which includes several character profiles that are longer than many blps and mention everything that character ever did. I do not understand why we would need a standalone list of non-notable fictional characters. I'd support requiring fictional characters to be notable enough for their own articles for inclusion in list articles. A list with no lengthy descriptions within the parent article should be plenty. —valereee (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There are cases where in a list of characters, some of the characters may be sufficiently notable for a standalone, but other characters at the same level of importance to the work are not (case in point is Characters of Overwatch (but this is where I know we've tried to drop 3rd party sourcing all over the place) - in such cases, it makes no sense to omit the characters at that level just because they aren't notable. What is essential is two fold: that these lists need to be limited in how "deep" they go: major and maybe the next minor level of characters (eg if we're talking a TV show, the characters played by the starring and recurring roles and not limited use cameos or roles) to keep the cruft in check to start, and that their creation should be based on if a good chuck (but not necessarily all) can be sourced to third-party RSes. We shouldn't be trying to be complete character lists for a work if that's simply not supported by sources (which in 99% of the time, they aren't). --Masem (t) 16:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a question of Wikipedia:Balancing aspects, rather than verifiability or notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I was reading through this thread and noted the link to Elder race. I PRODed that article after doing some searching for any sources which discuss the trope as a literary phenomenon (or a phenomenon in fiction more generally). I actually meant to RfD it, but the caffeine still hasn't kicked in yet, so I'll do that if someone contests the prod (which I expect). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: I don't think you'd have much luck getting an article deleted at RfD either...
  Interestingly your thoughts are the exact opposite of what I'd do, I was tempted to remove the enormous unsourced list of examples and turn it back into a stub containing the information that was present when the article was written, which does seem to have been sourced to the encyclopaedia in the "literature" section. I did think of prodding it, but the encyclopaedia suggested that there might be some decent sourcing out there (I couldn't find it though). 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  That was my issue. I thought there would be sources which were easy to find covering this, but to my surprise, this trope (as common as it is) seems to have very little coverage in the sources.
  
  My suggestion about trimming it to the list is based on the fact that I know several of the entries are explicitly described as "elder races" in the works in which they appear; if that were the criteria, we could maintain such a list in an encyclopedic manner.
  
  But that's literally the only way I can see this article not running afoul of our policies. The lede as it currently stands is just 1/2 OR and 1/2 wordy-expansion of the sourced content from the encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  Give me a break, I despair when deletionists say they can't find sources for things like this. Clearly not really trying. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has a seven page entry for "Elder races". I'm going to deprod this, if indeed it's survived this long. SpinningSpark 08:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm specifically looking at this bit from the original comment by @Ganesha811:

> these kinds of articles are allowed to exist even if they cite zero independent, reliable sources. [...] This follows from WP:CSC #2, which states that standalone lists can work if "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria."

I don't think that's true. It's possible to fail notability even if independent reliable sources exist.

CSC #2 is meant to cover things like a "List of minor Pokemon characters", in which we know something about the subject, but editors don't agree that it's enough for standalone articles. One common reason for this is editorial judgment, but another is that the independent sources don't contain Wikipedia:Significant coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing here because it's also possible for a list article to be notable without citing any reliable sources, but I think policy pretty much requires at least one reliable source (maybe in the lede of the list) for the article to be included in the encyclopedia, while the entries themselves do not have to be notable for inclusion according to WP:NNC. However, entries still need verifiable sourcing if they are challenged or likely to be challenged regardless of whether they are permitted without notability or not. This is the current interpretation that I think many people get confused. I think the confusion around how to interpret it correctly is what needs to change rather than the policies themselves. Huggums537 (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It is better to have a list article, than an article on every character. Also if secondary sourcing is flimsy, then please consider writing at Wikibooks instead of Wikipedia. Quite a few similar pages have already been transwikied there. (even after long past deletion). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What specific policy changes could we propose?

Masem, PinkElixir, Reyk, Valereee, IP editor - thank you all for your thoughts. I'm glad to see that this is an issue that others have noticed as well. What specific policy changes would help fix this? IP 192.76.8.91, I agree it is part of a larger issue, but it may be too heavy a lift to re-think how we approach all fiction - if we go one step at a time, we will probably get further. Do you all think that a change to WP:CSC criteria #2, saying "This criteria does not apply to lists of fictional characters/elements" would be effective? Or perhaps a requirement that lists of fictional characters be sourced to *secondary* sources only, so that huge amounts of primary-sourced WP:OR are no longer allowed? What other changes might work? Ganesha811 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Starting with CSC#2, I think there needs to be emphasized that such lists when created still must meet WP:V with thorough sourcing to third-parties (and lists only sourced to primary works or poor RS are thus not appropriate), and when talking about fictional works, WP:NOT#PLOT still applies: these are not lists to get around the limitations on plot regurgitation that apply elsewhere. Thes are policy level set points that absolutely can be used there. Any further advice can then be included in WP:WAF (writing about fiction) to spell out what these lists should focus on, avoiding trivial level characters or details, etc but based on the principles of CSC#2. --Masem (t) 14:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Complying with WP:V does not require third-party sources.

This is one of the fundamental problems with this type of discussion, which turns up once or twice a year:

Fact: Any given sentence/list entry about a book/fictional universe can fully comply with WP:V (and all related sourcing rules) if the content can unambiguously be found in the book itself.
Fact: Most editors want independent/third-party sources in articles. (NB: Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. We're basically talking about sources that the subject didn't create or pay to have created.)

Problem: There is no rule that says absolutely every article must contain a citation to an independent source. There isn't technically even a rule that says it must be possible to add a citation to an independent source to absolutely every article.

We have recommendations, and encouragement, and even a few written rules that say articles about certain subjects (e.g., businesses) must be verifiable in independent sources, but there isn't an overarching, absolutely-no-exceptions-even-for-your-special-subjects-we-really-mean-it-this-time rule that says that at least one fact in every separate page must be verifiable in independent sources.

Because of this situation, IMO if you want this article to comply with that standard, then we need to first create a rule that requires it. Until we make such a rule, we'll continue to have these discussions, with the one side correctly saying that each sentence is fully verifiable in an appropriate (primary+non-independent) source, and the other side complaining that it does not meet the unwritten, exception-riddled rule that most articles, about most subjects, under most circumstances, "should" contain an independent source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Are you not describing WP:N? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No. WP:N (you probably mean the GNG subsection of it) is a guideline, which some editors believe means that following it is optional. Also, there are alternative notability rules that undercut it. For three typical examples, consider:

Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which says you can write an article about any university employee whose "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" – and the method of determining this is: a Wikipedia editor says so. Consider also "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", which has the same rule for figuring out whether the person is notable. As far as PROF is concerned, once you meet these allegedly "objective" requirements, the entire article can be sourced exclusively to the subject's CV.
For Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which says nearly all professional athletes are notable. For most popular sports, an athlete is notable if he is paid to play a game even for one second. Under those rules, it's perfectly fine to determine notability from the team's website, and to use only the team's website to source the article. (In practice, that's not what experienced editors usually do, but it's "legal".)
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers says any actor who has had "significant roles in multiple" films/shows is notable. All you need to prove notability is the film credits (which are a primary+non-independent source). For American actors, "multiple" is generally interpreted as "two".

We don't actually have a general rule requiring an independent source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, just a quick note that, per the first sentence and the FAQs at the top of the page of NSPORT, meeting sport-specific criteria only presumes GNG and GNG sourcing is ultimately required. The second sentence refers strictly to meeting WP:V and showing evidence the topic is likely to have SIGCOV. So the guideline isn't actually an alternative to GNG. I just wanted to clear that up since a lot of people have this confusion and it encourages creation and more importantly retention of indiscriminate database-like microstubs on athletes. JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm not sure you're correct in saying that "Complying with WP:V does not require [secondary] sources." WP:V, under 'Original research', says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." Meanwhile, WP:NOR states "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

Taken together, this suggests to me that articles primarily based on primary sources are not allowed under current policy. I think these cruft-accumulating lists of fictional characters are exactly the sort of problematic issue the policies caution us about. In-depth descriptions of fictional characters may be "verifiable" in the most literal sense of the word, but they usually are not verifiable in reliable, secondary sources, which is a real problem. Wikipedia is not a plot sponge. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, I didn't say that, because I know that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. We will never make progress on this subject if editors can't keep those two separate concepts straight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, fair enough, you're right - "third-party" sources are not necessarily the same as "secondary" sources. But I'm not sure what difference that makes to the rest of my reply - articles based primarily on primary sources are clearly discouraged by current policy. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Third-party reliable sources are very frequently not secondary sources. Most of the content in your local newspaper is primary, for example.

It's also possible to have a secondary source that is not independent. A meta-analysis of your own prior research, or an analysis of all the reasons why your grandfather was the best _____ ever, would be secondary but non-independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, WP:V does say "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (under WP:SOURCE). "base" here wouldn't mean every source has to be independent (which by nature has to be third-party for fictional works), but that should imply a significant majority of content should be based on those independent sources. When coupled with WP:NOT#PLOT, that strongly implies that lists of characters that only stay to in-universe aspects and otherwise dont include external sources are violating two key policies. --Masem (t) 21:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WP:V makes a recommendation to have articles WP:Based upon independent sources. However:

you know that recommendation is routinely ignored, and sometimes vehemently rejected, in all of the cases I mention above, and
that still doesn't mean that "any given sentence/list entry about a book/fictional universe" isn't fully compliant with WP:V.

If we want every article to contain a citation to an independent source, we will have to change a policy to say "Add one or we will eventually delete it, even if you have an SNG rule/WikiProject opinion/20-year-long tradition that says you don't have to bother". And to make it happen, editors will have to agree that this is the right approach, even though that approach has some obvious downsides (e.g., making it much harder to write articles about professors who don't hire publicists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need a change in V or NOT, if we are specifically codifying issues with fictional works. The fact that WP:V is ignored does not mean it is right. A lot of our issues on fiction are a combination that pre-WP:N days, these were some of the most popular and largest pages that were written (it was routinely joked that we had more on Pokemon than severe world topics) and we're still seeing these linger, and that there's the monkey-see, monkey-do aspect that newer editors see these lists and think that's appropriate (or they're coming from TV Tropes or Wikia and think the same ideas work). We want to try to tackles these, but in the least disruptive manner to those that have maintained those. That we can do by altering CSC and WAF - guidelines, not policy - to be explicit about the expectations for lists of characters or similar material.

Also to keep in mind, we are specifically targetting the plot-related elements of a work. I can expect that you can find any random list of TV episodes and outside of ratings, it will be mostly unsourced. In that list, ignoring the short summaries, all those items (episode title, air date, etc.) are all things that can be sourced to the primary work, but that's because that's not the "fiction" of concern here. What we are worried about is keeping the short summaries concise there, and that's the type of thing that has to propagation to all elements involving a work's plot, whether on the main page about the work, a list of episodes, or a list of characters. NOT#PLOT specifically warns about this, and WAF echoes that. Unless you can provide the secondary or independent or third-party sourcing (it really doesn't matter), we do not want long summaries of a plot as that's just not encyclopedic. That's why when WP:V and WP:NOT are combined here, it clearly asserts that we should not be going into extreme depth about characters if they aren't discussed by outside sources, even if we can absolutely source that all to the primary work. --Masem (t) 01:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Again: WP:V is not being ignored for any individual sentence or list entry in that entire page. WP:V is the policy that says you can source a novel's plot to the novel itself, remember? Every single sentence in that entire page complies with WP:V. WP:V is about individual claims, not whole articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's realistic to rethink our entire approach to fiction in this discussion (which would be a herculean task), my thoughts were that I don't see why we should restrict this reform exclusively to lists of characters, I think that whatever is decided here should apply generally to lists of fictional elements be it locations, items, powers, storylines or whatever. Masem's thoughts sound very reasonable, I think we need some kind of clarification to point two along the lines of "It should be noted that "not notable enough for a standalone article" does not mean that lists of unsourced or primarily sourced material are acceptable. Each entry should be supported by secondary sourcing that demonstrates why it belongs in the list." (The wording could really use some work). Whether this should just apply to fiction things or more generally I'm not sure. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I see what you're saying - lists of fictional characters came to mind first, probably because they are more common than other lists of fictional things. The discussion could be renamed "Policies on lists of in-universe fictional things" or similar. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

192.76, could you make up an example of something a secondary would need to say to justify the inclusion of an item in a list? Imagine that you're writing a List of Harry Potter characters or one of the Lists of superheroes. What's the minimum that you want the source to say, to demonstrate that Harry Potter, or Superman, or whatever other obvious content belongs in the list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, inclusion in those two lists would be very different metrics. For the superhero list, since that's cross media, I would expect that inclusion must be based on either WP having a standalone article on the character specifically or multiple RSes that speak about the hero. Whereas for HP characters, that would be a level of discussion needed by consensus, but I would say it would have to start with all significant recurring characters in the books, major one-book figures, and the like. --Masem (t) 14:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not answering my question about what a secondary source would need to say to justify its inclusion. The statement is "Each entry should be supported by secondary sourcing that demonstrates why it belongs in the list." Your proposal here about "significant recurring characters in the books, major one-book figures, and the like" means "use primary sources", and therefore does not answer my question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I think there's an ambiguity with the request in the specific example of List of supporting Harry Potter characters. Would secondary sourcing that demonstrates why it belongs in the list be a source that calls the character in question a "supporting character"? Or is it simply enough secondary sources that prove the character is relevant enough to be considered "supporting"? —El Millo (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo, a secondary source provides some level of analysis. I'm not convinced that a sentence that says "Alice is a supporting character" counts as analysis. A paragraph or two that blathers on about something that would please your literature prof would count, but merely labeling all the characters except the protagonist as not being the protagonist doesn't sound like an analysis to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I was asking in order for it to be unambiguous and clear that there was no need for a reliable source to explicitly refer to the character as a "supporting character", that being significantly covered by reliable sources was what was required to be considered supporting, not as opposed to protagonist, but as opposed to minor or non-notable. —El Millo (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, I think this is true because if it is being argued that inclusion is allowed without any secondary sourcing, then it certainly would be no problem allowing an inclusion using a third party source that says, "X was a supporting character" without any secondary sourcing analysis. This is the difference between 3rd party and secondary sourcing that WhatamIdoing was talking about earlier. Huggums537 (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly so, @Huggums537. In terms of defining a character from a notable book as being "supporting" (vs main or minor), the sourcing categories we're looking at are:

The book itself is sufficient sourcing (primary+non-independent)
A passing mention in a book review is sufficient, e.g., "Supporting characters such as Alice..." (independent, but not secondary)
We need an analysis that explains why this character should be considered "supporting" (secondary, although not independent if it's written by the book's author)
We don't care about sourcing (unlikely, but I include it for completeness).

I think in many cases that the book itself is sufficient, and I'd be totally satisfied with a passing mention of the label in any independent source. I don't think we need a secondary source for this. But other people seem to think that we do (e.g., the IP who wrote "Each entry should be supported by secondary sourcing"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The extent that WP:Ver handles any text IMO it can handle this as well. If not challenged, an item can go on the list with no cite. Once challenged, it needs sourcing to establish that it meets the criteria of the list (given that its presence is an implicit statement of that) And the same WP:ver sourcing rules apply. Which means that in limited circumstance, a primary source is enough. BTW the list criteria is the main mechanism for assuring that the list doesn't have zillions of trivia listings. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

North8000, totally agree here, and think many editors, even experienced ones, kind of fall off track when they attempt to conflate notability with sourcing article content. Even worse, removing perfectly verifiably sourced content on the mistaken notion of said content not being "notable" when notability doesn't apply to content in articles. What they don't fully understand is that notability applies to whole articles not the content within them. Huggums537 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've got two points – firstly, these lists are very often not created by fanboys, but by regular editors. Why? Because they want to get the list out of the main article. Not everyone reading the main article will be interested in every minor character/thing, but readers going to a "list of <foo>" will quite likely expect it to be extensive. There is no reason in principle why we should not provide that service.

Secondly, it has long been the convention on Wikipedia that the source of plot summaries is considered to be the fictional work itself (MOS:PLOTSOURCE). To my mind, character descriptions fall under this convention. By all means demand citations for anything that sounds dodgy or SYNTH and cut down on fancruft. But we really should stop beating up people who get excited by fictional universes with threats of deletion and instead just quietly help them to write better articles. I also agree that lists associated with a main article don't really need to prove notability independently. However, a list that is not referred to a single, main article must show that "lists of <foo>" is discussed in sources. SpinningSpark 08:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I edited Warriors (novel series) to add an external link to external fandom wiki that provides more extensive character lists for the novels. It seems to be well maintained - at least much better than the Wikipedia list which started this discussion. My link to the external wiki is consistent with a similar link on Severus Snape. This raises some questions that I am baffled by as a relatively new editor. (1) Is there a policy regarding fancruft when a solid fan wiki exists outside Wikipedia? (2) Is there a basis for applying different policy to FireStar and Snape? ((3) Is there a basis for applying different policy to List of Warriors characters and Category:Harry Potter characters? I assume that there already is a separate policy for cleaning up cruft like this: Category:Literary characters introduced in 1997 although I do not yet know what it is (I would appreciate an explanation elsewhere that does not sidetrack this policy discussion). What matters to me is that keeping a cruft list encourages squandering of volunteer resources that could be better used to update and maintain the external Wiki that does a much better job of covering the same subject. I hope that whatever decision we make will take that into consideration as well.Annette Maon (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the external link I added (as mentioned above) was rolled back quoting WP:ELNO as the reason. Following the "see also" link there to WP:ELP I found the following quote: "Note that the standards for WP:External links and WP:Reliable sources are different, so that a web page might be acceptable as an external link, but not as a reliable source, or vice versa". My addition of the external link was a bold edit and I respect User:Nikkimaria experience in deciding to undo it. It only underscores the questions I raised above. Should the external link on Severus Snape be removed as well? Are there any Fandom sites that are legitimate for use in external links even if they are not reliable sources? I recall reading about someone mentioning Memory Alpha as a possible legitimate link but I have not seen a list of consensus opinions regarding fandom wikis similar to what is found at the end of WP:ELP Annette Maon (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Random Wikia/Fandom sites are typically not good EL; we're looking for sites with a strong history, so we're talking things like Memory Alpha for Star Trek, and Wookieepedia for Star Wars. Sites don't have to be notable like these, but they should have recognition beyond our own editors' assessment as a well-documented fan site. --Masem (t) 14:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't like it

I'm being sincere here. Please explain to me how any of the above is not merely 'I don't like it' or 'not in my encyclopedia'?

WP:PSTS/WP:PRIMARY and WP:CSC (among other things), would seem to apply here. So what, if anything, is that actual issue? - jc37 03:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jc37, there may be some of that. We have expectations about the right outcomes, and we have expectations about what outcomes our rules will produce. When the rules lead us to an unexpected outcome, we feel like there's a problem with either our expectations for outcomes or our current rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding several namespace shortcuts

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Boldly moving this to WP:VPI as there is no policy creation or modification being discussed here. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved to WP:VPI

While contributing to English Wikipedia, I found that some namespace shortcuts are missing. For example:

H: pointing to Help:
- HT: pointing to Help_talk:
T: pointing to Template:
- TT: pointing to Template_talk:

if we add these shortcuts to English Wikipedia, this will makes links shorter and easier to access, esp. with shortcut services. Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki _Talk~~ 12:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surname not found

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This really has nothing at all to do with the policies of the project, referring poster to other forums. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is an article on Rainsford Mowlem, but if you look for Mowlem, you don't get him. Could this be fixed?John Wheater (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@JohnWheater: this is not the correct venue for this type of help. Also, from a quick review I don't see any technical issues occurring. (A google search is able to find that article for example). You may use one of these forums for some general questions/help using Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Teahouse. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stale User Pages of Inactive Users

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

This question is about user pages of inactive users (inactive by several years), and specifically about user pages that have the nature of drafts. There are at least four kinds of user pages of long-inactive users:

1. Article-like pages.
2. Essays.
3. Stuff that is eligible for speedy deletion.
4. Other stuff, whether in sandbox pages or elsewhere in user space.

At Miscellany for Deletion we get a fair number of nominations to delete stuff in the user space of other users, active, semi-active, or inactive, and I am not always sure why the nominator was looking at it in the first place. I have written an essay, Ragpicking, that discourages looking at such stuff in the first place. However, we still get a fair number of nominations of stuff from inactive users, and some of the stuff is article-like.

This question is about article-like pages. The guidelines on user pages and stale drafts say that they may be moved to article space if they are ready for article space. They should not be moved to article space simply in order to be nominated for deletion, which wastes volunteer time. The guideline also says that draft pages may be moved to draft space, but they don't specify when. My thinking is that such pages should be moved to draft space if they do not currently satisfy verifiability and notability but have a credible claim of significance and so might be improved to be articles.

If there already is an article on a subject, then a user page can be redirected to the article, or tagged to be merged with the article. My real question has to do with stuff that isn't ready to be an article, but the topic is one that might have potential. When should these pages be moved to draft space, where they will be somewhat more visible, but will expire in six months? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think different standard practices may be in place for (Base userpages, e.g. User:Username), (Primary user sandboxes, e.g. User:User/sandbox), (Other user sandboxes, e.g. User:User/sandbox2), (User article drafts, e.g. User:User/Articletitle), and things you mentioned above like User:User/ProjectThingy. As such, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer here. For example, in most cases it wouldn't be appropriate to redirect a base userpage to an article - even if it had article-like content on it, nor to move a primary sandbox that had lots of sandboxing done in to a draft about only one topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- User:Xaosflux - I was asking about article-like pages. I didn't mention base user pages. Your breakdown is similar to but not the same as mine. It is the drafts that I was asking about. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  - @Robert McClenon: sometimes new users make what looks like a draft article on their own base user page. There are certainly a few ways these can be dealt with (such as moving their base page to a subpage, a draft, or mainspace) but what I was calling out is that this wouldn't be a good example of a page to leave a redirect on. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

They're not causing anybody any trouble, why do anything about them? If there's some reason to believe they need to be deleted (socking, copyright problems, BLP problems, etc), sure. But otherwise, I don't see any reason to waste any time even thinking about them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason is that some people consider tidiness to be a virtue. Personally I would much rather someone displayed more obvious virtues such as honesty, but many people seem to value tidiness. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:RoySmith - Well, the reason why I am asking about them is that other editors ask to have them deleted at MFD for various reasons.

Don't people have better things to do? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I have never understood the desire to clean out inactive user pages. There is no need. My call… as long as the inactive user page does not contain something we would ask an active user to remove, don’t do anything with it. Just let it sit there gathering electronic dust. If it really bothers you, I suppose we could place some sort of note saying that the user is inactive… but even that is not necessary. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Adminstats Templates

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, is there a policy regarding the unused Adminstats templates from page one of the Unused templates report? The templates are listed from numbers 274 to 446. I'm only asking as part of my task force idea to deal with the backlog of unused templates as part of WikiProject Templates. Do admins plan on using it somewhere on their user page or subpages? Otherwise, it could cause massive disruption. Same question applies to Template:Administrators' noticeboard archives/Search and Template:Administrator review. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

See here, it seems that these appear to be unused but in reality are necessary anyway. Fram (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Adminstats templates are useful if linked to from anywhere, and can carry useful historical data. Most unused templates should be left alone: the disruption caused by deleting them is much larger than the negligible harm from keeping them around. —Kusma (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Does the same reason apply to the last two non-admin stats templates? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The Search template is in use, linked from literally hundreds of pages (not having transclusions is not the same as "unused", even if they are incorrectly listed as such by some bot). The review template has been kept at TFD several times. There is no good reason to delete either. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. This was a big help. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Spekkios (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Bolding alternate titles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Further comments to clarify the situation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Bolding alternate titles would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC on regnal names in article titles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An RFC is open at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) regarding article naming conventions for (European) monarchs. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment on that page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Films About to Be Released

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is discussion in progress at the film notability guideline talk page about the notability criteria for films that have begun or completed production (principal photography or animation} and have not yet been released. There are two very different viewpoints as to how the future film guideline is and should be interpreted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability (cryptocurrencies)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to invite feedback on a new essay entitled Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies). It is an attempt at describing the current consensus regarding the notability of cryptocurrencies and blockchain-related projects. It has received positive feedback among editors who are active in the area, but I think it would benefit from having the feedback of the broader community. It is not intended for this essay to become a subject-specific notability guideline: rather, the idea would be to add a paragraph summarizing its main points to WP:NCORP, and keep this essay as an explanatory supplement (see also talk page discussion). Thank you. JBchrch talk 03:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Typesetters' quotation terminology

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Important note: please DO NOT confuse this subject with the subject on whether TQ should be used in certain Wikipedia articles.

I think we need some discussion about how to refer to typesetters' quotation. The only article that says anything about it is Quotation marks in English. It refers to it by the common name "American style". (See WP:LQUOTE for what I'm talking about.) Georgia guy (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not clear what you're asking, and nor I suspect is anyone else. Are you asking whether we should continue to use the phrase "American style" or call it something else? If there's only one article on which the topic arises, why do we need a site-wide discussion rather than just a question on that article's talkpage? ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The essay I linked to says "typesetters' quotation" (TQ) is the correct name. Georgia guy (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Essay" being the key word there—all that demonstrates is that whoever happened to write that essay thinks "typesetters' quotation" is the correct name, not that it's some kind of immutable truth. For the second time, if this only affects a single article why does it need a site-wide discussion rather than just a question on that article's talk page? ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear there's been any recent discussion of this at the article talk page, and I agree that's the best place to begin the conversation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages don't get much attention if the articles are obscure. I felt like putting it here because it gets more attention. Georgia guy (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This page is not for seeking additional attention to content disputes. I recommend withdrawing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: this section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. - what policy or guideline are referring to, and what exactly are you proposing be created or changed in such? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux, I'm trying to propose a policy that the rule that a comma or period adjacent to a closing quotation mark must always precede the closing quotation mark must be referred to as "typesetters' quotation" and not as "American style". Georgia guy (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So, I oppose creating a policy that would bar essay or guideline editors from using this term. This is extreme instruction creep and I don't see any project-wide problems that such a new policy would be necessary for. If there is a problem with a specific essay, go through the normal BRD and dispute resolution processes. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
And since it is also referenced, I strongly oppose any policy that would bar article editors from using such a term in encyclopedic articles - standard article content rules, including using common speech and terms from reliable sources should continue to be sufficient. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This has got to be the most pure example of painting the bicycle shed I've seen in a very long time. This is not an issue, and certainly not an issue requiring the creation of a policy mandating a particular label. Putting such a triviality here because of a desire for attention to a personal hobby-horse is not productive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Can you please articulate exactly what your concern is with referring to TQ by its American name? What is the rationale behind your proposed policy change for the naming convention? I am inclined to oppose simply because I can't think of any real need for such a specific and seemingly trivial point, but I am curious to hear what your underlying thoughts are. Particularly, if I am missing other WP policies or guidelines that support your position, please let me know. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Calling it "American style" will make it look as if (to people familiar with Wikipedia's MOS and when to use each English variant) it make sense to use TQ in articles related specifically to the United States (such as New York City) and LQ in articles specifically related to other countries (such as London,) finding it surprising that Wikipedia's MOS says to always use LQ and never TQ. Georgia guy (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: I do hear what you're saying, and I would still oppose. I have not seen instances of people taking the term "American style" so literally, so I'm not convinced there is a pressing need here. For what it's worth, I also think you might be conflating several concerns here, given the last part of your sentence above; you seem to be in favor of using TQ over LQ, which is a different proposal, and perhaps worth a separate section/discussion if you feel so inclined. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I support LQ in all articles. I support TQ be referred to as such whenever it is mentioned and not as "American style". Georgia guy (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy:, regardless of what you support, you have yet to identify an issue which requires a policy change. Please read the page on what policies and guidelines are supposed to accomplish. Minor typographical inconsistencies are not generally regarded as issues that require such a directive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Eggishorn, the problem I have is that it is always referred to as "American style" in all Wikipedia articles that mention it. Is there a reason here?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would guess the "reason" is that it's an alternative terminology to your preferred one. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely-distributed project with (at last count) >125,000 authors and a level of consistency displayed by, say Encyclopedia Britannica is neither possible nor desired. Let me ask you a question in return: Where and how do you think the readers' comprehension of one single article in this project is negatively impacted by this issue? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that only one article mentions it is only true in practice. It would be equally valid to apply this to a biographical article saying something like "Smith supports American style always be used." Georgia guy (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, Georgia guy. I sincerely doubt that there is a single article in this project that describes the quotation punctuation preferences of any notable person with any reliable source. Again: In what main space article that currently exists is readers' comprehension limited by this? As the person proposing a new policy, you should be able to justify it on more than personal preference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I justify it by the essay I linked to when I started this section; it taught me the term. It says that it's a misconception that it's "American style". Georgia guy (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you can't justify it and this should be closed. An essay is just that: an essay. It is not policy, it is not a guideline, it is not controlling over anything whatsoever. It is certainly not a mainspace article and there is no way that the average reader will have anything impacted by this. I would close this but I'm obviously involved at this point. You should withdraw the request or close/collapse this section yourself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Best practices for blocking

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion

I was looking at recent threads at WP:ANEW and noticed there is still a tendency for some admins to site block when a partial block may suffice.

As an example, consider this discussion, where there seems to be a clear lack of consensus that the administrative action was optimal. To cut a long story short, two established editors reverted each other three or four times, getting cross with each other in the process, which resulted in one editor getting a site-wide 24 hour block. In this scenario, I personally would consider a quiet word first, followed by a partial block of the page in question for a similar timeframe, and only progress to site-wide if the disruption spilled out and carried onto other pages.

I recall having discussions about the effectiveness of partial blocks before, and can't remember seeing a clear and obvious consensus for them. However, the feature's been around for a number of years now, and as far as I'm aware, most administrators are comfortable with it. The blocking policy doesn't make it clear one way or the other; perhaps it would be worth adding some sort of language along similar lines to the protection policy ie: "block at the smallest scope and duration that is necessary to stop disruption". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: eh I don't like it as a some sort of brightline policy statement. You know the type of vandals that only make NOTHERE disruptive edits for example, I'm not going to chase them around from namespace to namespace for example (because history and experience tells me that the only way to stop their disruption is with a site block). That being said, it does sound useful as some sort of guidance to consider... — xaosflux ^Talk 16:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

My take on partial blocks is they are of greatest utility in conjunction with wide IP range blocks. I'm loathe to site-block a /18 (or bigger!). If there's a small set of pages that are being vandalized by a roaming IP, the partial range block can be a good alternative to protecting the pages. For logged-in accounts, I find them less useful. If a person is misbehaving, it's the person we want to address, not the specific pages they're vandalizing. But, yes, they can be a useful tool and probably could be used to advantage more often. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that pblocks are a good first-line control attempt for rangeblocks. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A partial block is good way of dealing with some situations: a promotion-only SPA is one that comes to mind, where the user would thus be prevented from further inappropriate editing but left free to make useful edits elsewhere in the project. But in a situation such as this it would not be a good choice – there's no reason to believe that the same behaviour won't continue on another page, and no reason why the editor should not continue to edit that page as long as there's no further edit-warring. I don't see that any of this needs to be made policy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Have we gathered any statistics on the effectiveness of partial vs. total blocks for registered editors? My knee-jerk reaction is that if an editor has proven untrustworthy in one area then that editor is likely to be untrustworthy in all areas, so a total block would be better. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise by hard evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I've suggested before that a killer feature would be partial blocks based on categories, i.e. "block a.b.c.d/16 from any page (transitively) in Category:Foo". Unfortunately, I suspect that would be very expensive to implement. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: phab:T190349 is about this, it was declined for a host of reasons. One of which is that it could mean that pretty much anyone (even an IP) could stop such a category p-blocked user from editing, just by adding that category to pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's impractical, and fatally flawed, does not detract from the fact that it would be a killer feature :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the rule of thumb that a the smallest effective sanction is often best (eg. a p-block, a semi-protection). Disagree that a full-block/p-block criteria needs codifying: there's too many variables in each case for such a "bright line rule" to be of value. If any full block seems overly heavy-handed it can always be reviewed via talkpage discussion or at AN. The relative lack of such reviews (other than the single incident linked above) suggests this isn't presently an issue requiring policy change. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with most of those above, and I say that as possibly the least block-happy of all the regular admins. The main use case for partial blocks is for dealing with problematic IP ranges without the side-effect of rendering significant numbers of innocent editors, who happen to share the IP range, unable to edit Wikipedia. I find it hard to imagine the circumstance in which we trust a single, named, individual enough to allow them to edit Wikipedia, but want to prevent them from editing a particular page; if there's clear consensus that someone should stay off a particular page, they're warned to stay off that page, yet they continue to edit that page, then we should be blocking them site-wide since they're obviously untrustworthy and highly likely to cause problems elsewhere. ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I've never placed a partial block that way. My canonical example is where two established editors lose their heads a bit and go over 3RR, but have been around long enough to be trustworthy. As for, "I find it hard to imagine the circumstance in which we trust a single, named, individual enough to allow them to edit Wikipedia, but want to prevent them from editing a particular page", Eric Corbett would have been an obvious example. I think you're forgetting that there are certain classes of editors who will cause a drama explosion if they get site blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't see how Eric Corbett is at all relevant to this discussion; if anything, he's an example of why partial blocks wouldn't be of any use when it comes to established editors as opposed to problematic IP ranges. When Eric was actually given a specific topic ban from a particular page he stuck to it faithfully, and if he hadn't stuck to it faithfully it would have been perfectly fair reason to block him sitewide as unwilling to follow our rules. The actual problem when it came to Eric was that he got too closely invested in articles on which he'd worked and consequently would get in arguments when people disagreed with him; as such, the only way partial blocks would have been effective in his case would have been if he'd been blocked from editing any topic in which he'd shown an interest, which would obviously have been pointless since it would have beed a de facto siteban. The existing topic ban process is one which actually works fairly well; if someone complies with their topic ban then the problem is solved, and if they can't comply with it then it's a clear indicator that they're likely to prove a problematic editor. Except in the very few cases where someone is genuinely only causing problems on a single page, partial blocks are unlikely to be much use; most POV-pushers and spammers are interested in a topic, not a single page, and absent the ability to partial-block from categories or from adding or removing keywords a partial block from a single page just means the problem behavior moves somewhere else. ‑ Iridescent 10:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"When Eric was actually given a specific topic ban from a particular page he stuck to it faithfully" Perhaps in your view, he did, but I recall two arbitration cases where there was a serious disagreement amongst administrators about a) whether or not Eric violated a Gender Gap Task Force topic ban and b) whether or not he should be site blocked for it. Two of the biggest drama time wasters on Wikipedia of all time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How would partial blocks have helped in those cases, which were about talkpage interactions? If he'd had a partial block imposed rather than a topic ban, the partial block would have been from WP:Gender Gap Task Force, but since that wasn't the page on which the edits in question took place it would have had no impact—if anything, it would have made "This wasn't the page from which I was blocked so I was entitled to make these edits" a defense and led to even more of an argument. (I'm not sure if you're aware, but I'm fairly certain I've had more dealings with Eric than any other editor in Wikipedia's history—between his two accounts, he's made more than 1000 posts to my talk page and I've made over 700 to his—and I can say with near-certainty that most of his blocks were the result of comments made on his own talkpage. Since we obviously can't block someone from editing their own talkpage, partial blocks would have been of no help at all.) ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I used it this morning to block a user who was editing their own article and repeatedly running afoul of the COI policy and other guidelines and policies. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC, had that editor (who was editing their own article and repeatedly running afoul of COI policy) actually done significant productive editing on other topics? The issue I've seen with the vast majority of COI editors is that it's not just one topic they've got a COI with among 1000 they've edited productively. It's that all their edits are on those COI articles. —valereee (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A valid point, they have performed exactly zero edits outside the subject of themselves. This is why I am keeping a close eye on them and am very much ready to administer a WP:NOTHERE sitewide block if they continue being disruptive. Arguably I could have jumped straight to that, but sometimes - just sometimes, they become productive in other areas. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue goes back to before partial blocks were available. I suggested several times over the years that in situations of isolated edit-warring or 3RR violations ("isolated" meaning good-faith editors without a long history of edit-warring), rather than block for 24h or 48h, wouldn't it be better just to warn the offending editor(s) off that page for a few days? Most editors would comply, especially if told that a site-wide block would follow if it did not, and the editor could go on to make good contributions on other pages rather than stepping away from the project altogether for however many days. I never got anywhere with these proposals; I think the most common argument against them was that the supposed deterrent effect of the bright-line 3RR rule would be lost.

Partial-blocking from the page, as opposed to giving a typed (but enforceable) warning, has the advantages that compliance is enforced, that there is no need for the admin to monitor for compliance, and that there is a written record in the event the user's edit-warring develops into a habit. It has the disadvantage of a scarlet-letter effect of an entry in the block-log, perhaps producing greater resentment. In any event, I'd still rather see either of these mechanisms favored over a site-wide block in cases involving good-faith editors who get caught up in the moment or in strength of feeling on an issue and lose track of their reverts.

I've written before that our collective "failure to take stock of dispute-resolution successes and failures has struck me for years as a project-wide myopia. In the [then] 13½ years of English Wikipedia there have been, in round numbers, a billion edit-wars, yet no one knows whether most edit-wars get resolved by civil discussion reaching a consensus on the optimal wording, or by one side's giving up and wandering away (or sometimes by everyone's ultimately losing interest and wandering away)." It's hard to figure out what the optimal sanctions approach might be without that information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

But again, cases where the issue is genuinely confined to a single page are atypical. If someone is causing problems on Cheese, then a partial block from that page will probably just mean they move on to Brie, Mozzarella etc. In the absence of any mechanism to partial-block someone from Category:Cheese, we'd have to block them individually from pages, which would make their block log very long and cause a significant scarlet letter effect. On the other hand "You are topic banned from cheese, broadly construed" not only makes it clear that it's the conduct that's the problem not the page on which that conduct happens, it means we can immediately assess whether this is someone who's willing to work collabiratively or not. Blocking—whether partial or full—should be a last resort, not a first resort.

(If I ruled Wikipedia, I'd make minor blocks—partial or full—drop off the block log after a couple of months with no further problems, to avoid the Mark of Cain effect. We have the technical ability to do this already, but it would be a significant cultural change. In the absence of being able to clean block logs, we need to recognize that what seems from the admin perspective to be a minor technical action is essentially giving the editor in question a permanent and publicly visible criminal record which will affect all their subsequent interactions with other editors.) ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Row and column spans

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

To quote Jeff Goldblum:

"Your editors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"

I received a request from an IP yesterday, asking for help to edit a table: [2]

The request in question, related to the monstrosity at this article: List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series. It took me about half an hour to remove an entry that should ideally have only taken 30 seconds to do. I am not completely opposed to row spans if they are used sparingly (for example, to group by year such as at Angelina_Jolie_filmography#As_actress) but they seem to have proliferated to the extent that they are a plague, making many tables that use them virtually unreadable, and even tougher to edit. They put up a significant barrier to newer editors.

Is this an issue the community would care to discuss? Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to say it's a unique case here with

Many columns, esp. empty cells, require horizontal scrolling as it exceeds most screens
Many rows, otherwise alternative might be to turn columns into rows

It's difficult to read because of the long rows, as it's hard to determine which cells belong to the row. Sure the syntax is a bit more complex for table spans, but tables are also more complex to edit than rows. I'd be wary of making a judgement on the presentation primarily based off of the syntax. Ideally, the question should be what serves the readers best.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Betty Logan, have you tried the table editor in the visual editor? Deleting a row or a column requires about three clicks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Should previously linked Wikipedia articles be separated?

Latest comment: 3 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

I'm not sure this is the right place, but since this concerns the English Wikipedia too, I thought it was worth mentioning here: wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Should previously linked Wikipedia articles be separated?. Wikidata items names are more precise than Wikipedia articles names. So should Wikipedia articles about a subject, which were all previously linked together, be split into two different but closely related Wikidata items? The RedBurn (ϕ) 15:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't care what Wikidata does here. We can use {{interwiki extra}} if needed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What Pppery said. Wikidata is a completely separate site; we don't care about what they do any more than we care about the policies of the Star Trek Fan Wiki. ‑ Iridescent 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that changing those links on Wikidata does impact Wikipedia, so we should care. Wikidata replaced interwiki article links. Using {{interwiki extra}} doesn't prevent Wikidata editors from unlinking Wikipedia articles without us noticing. The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

RedBurn, please explain in more detail (and avoid technical terminology if possible). What do you mean by “unlink”, and how can editing something on Wikidata unlink our articles without us noticing? Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's explained in Help:Interlanguage links. The links used to be inside the articles (Local links), so removing a link was visible in the article edit history. Now that those links are on Wikidata, the only way to know about a link change is to watch the Wikidata item edit history. This happens regularly because Wikidata editors seem to insist on only linking exactly identical articles, not just articles about the same subject. It seems that they consider that Wikipedia's purpose is to serve Wikidata (by providing articles about a Wikidata item), not the other way. The RedBurn (ϕ) 15:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So, the example at Wikidata is for Blood pressure and Arterial blood pressure, two slightly different but closely related concepts which can most easily be discussed in one article, as has been done by at first glance all Wikipedia languages, plus all or nearly all sources. At enwiki, A redirects to B, and at frwiki, B redirects to A. In the pre-Wikidata days, the interwiki links joined the two (as is correct). But since Wikidata insists that 1. there should be two Wikidata items, and 2. redirects can't have Wikidata items linked, the frwiki article is no longer linked from the enwiki article, and vice versa. And the limited input at the Wikidata discussion so far insists that this is a good thing... Fram (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikidata does not prohibit sitelinks to redirects (although the software makes them annoyingly hard to add). The rest seems to be correct. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, if I am understanding correctly, the issue relates purely to linking in the sidebar (in desktop mode), where we note that there is an article at one of the other language WPs about the same topic. yes? Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know interwiki links were specific to desktop mode, but yes you do understand correctly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Blueboar was saying that they're in the sidebar in desktop mode. The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes… And as far as I know, they don’t show up (at all) in mobile view. So in both modes, it isn’t something that the average reader/editor pays a lot of attention to. Because they are “off to the side”, the interlanguage links are not seen as being “part of the article” in the same way as article text or infoboxes are… so are low priority for a lot of editors. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Those links exist in the mobile site. They're at the top of the page, about a half-inch underneath the article title, under the word "Languages". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Ooooh… so THAT’S what the icon of the little man dancing around a capital letter A does. I never bothered to click on that icon before. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If Wikidata editors are willing to take the time to add redirects to every single article previously linked before they move some of them to a different item, I'm probably OK with them separating them. The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If wikidata insists on doing this, then its probably time to bring interwiki links back under ENWP's control and start using local links again. (Which is basically what MisterSynergy has indicated at the above discussion on wikidata). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Or, as I suggested above, use {{interwiki extra}} to display interwiki links from two different items on the same article. I'm by no means a fan of Wikidata, but that sounds like an overreaction. For what it's worth, I did add the template to Blood pressure, which now displays the French interwiki. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If that solution is deemed OK, maybe Wikidata editors should add that template to all the articles previously linked when they move some of them to different items? Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to clean up the mess of Wikidata editors in my opinion. And Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to keep track of those "unlinking events". I think this hurts Wikipedia as a whole by making it harder to find content in different languages (to read or translate). The RedBurn (ϕ) 10:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Each language variant of Wikipedia should be able to choose its own article topics. Wikidata should facilitate linking analogous topics, whether or not the articles are exact equivalents of each other. isaacl (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is the same problem I asked about a while ago at which I was referred to wikidata:WD:Bonnie and Clyde. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bonnie and Clyde problem is a specific case that existed before Wikidata. Here it's about articles which were linked (one to one) before Wikidata but which got separated by Wikidata editors. The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Draftify as an Action at AFD

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

In Articles for Deletion discussions, editors sometimes !vote to Draftify the article, especially if the main concern is that it is too soon; and sometimes the close is Draftify. However, an editor has pointed out that the instructions for AFD do not include Draftify as one of the possible actions. So I think that my questions here are:

1. Is Draftify a valid action at AFD? (I think it should be.)
2. Should the instructions for AFD be clarified? (I think it should be added to Merge, Redirect, etc.)
3. Is this something that I should take to the Articles for Deletion talk page? (What is the venue to discuss this?)

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't life be so much easier if we simply did away with draft space and developed articles in main space, per the original idea of a wiki, and deleted them if their subjects were shown not to be notable by proper examination at AfD, rather than the evidence-free assertions that we see there all the time? Nearly every day I seem to see a problem or question that would simply not exist without the abomination of draft space. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add drafting (either to Draft: or user space) as an option for an AFD close. I actually don't think that one should read the list of actions listed at AFD as the only possible allowed set of actions possible (per WP:BURO), just that they are the most common options for what an AFD close can be (and particularly for non-admin closures), and including drafting them would be reasonable. --Masem (t) 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is removing the draftspace on the table in this discussion? All of you folks know this, but before the creation of draftspace the outcome choice was previously "Userfy" to user sandbox, which gave one editor a sort of shepherding responsibility, but was a bit harder to extinguish if misused. The draftspace system is less personal and therefore (IMHO) easier to manage if things go south. I agree "Draftify" should be considered a valid action and as part of the instructions as proposed. BusterD (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My call… There is no single “right answer”. Sometimes Draftspace is the best option, sometimes Userspace is the best option. Both are legitimate options, and both have drawbacks. Ask; which (if either) will best result in a viable article? A lot depends on the specific editors involved. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent addition. I don't think there is any reasonable possibility of draftspace going anywhere, so the next step is to figure out how to use it properly. BD2412 T 20:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding I actually don't think that one should read the list of actions listed at AFD as the only possible allowed set of actions possible, that's completely correct. In fact, WP:DISCUSSAFD says, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view.. People sometimes come up with "other" things which make a lot of sense. I've seen things like, "This is clearly not suitable for wikipedia, but it's a nice piece of writing anyway and would be very welcome at XYZ fan wiki". It's important that we leave the instruction flexible enough to allow for things like that. The question, "Is Draftify a valid action at AFD" is a little backwards. Draftify is in common use, and a page like WP:AFD is mostly there to codify common practice, so it makes sense to update the instructions to match what's actually going on. WT:AFD is a better place to discuss this, so my suggestion is to move this there (you can use {{Moved discussion to}} to leave a pointer behind) and see how people react. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Add it to the instructions, as a suggested consideration. Note that the suggested !vote terms are not to be read as limiting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved to AFD talk page

- Well, I recall at one AFD, that may still be open, one editor said that Draftify was the wrong answer, because it wasn't in the list. But maybe that is because they thought that Keep was the right answer. And disagreement at AFD is more common than agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Drafify certainly should be added as a named option - the current phrasing makes it permissable, but it's common enough that it should be named Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternatives to Draftspace

These are questions for critics of draft space, including User:Phil Bridger. If draft space were done away with:

1. Where would submissions by unregistered editors go? (I know one answer, which is to stop unregistered editing, as in Brazil, but that is piling questions on.)
2. Where would submissions by editors who are not auto-confirmed go?
3. Where would submissions by paid editors go?

Just asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the intuitive answer is that unregistered editors would just not be able to create articles, and the rest would go to userspace, or possibly project space. BD2412 T 00:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

1. Unregistered and un-auto-confirmed editors should not be helped to make new pages on new topics. This is advanced contributing, a new topic that no one has thought to create so far and proceeded in attempting, the chances are very high that it is not a good idea, and even if a good idea, it will probably be too difficult for an inexperienced editor. Newcomers should go to existing articles and improve existing content, for at least four days and ten edits.

3. All edits by COI editors, including paid editors, should be either on the talk page, or in draftspace. COI editors should not be editing mainspace, except for the defined exceptions such as reverting BLP vandalism, and that should be promptly reported to a noticeboard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

...a new topic that no one has thought to create so far and proceeded in attempting, the chances are very high that it is not a good idea, and even if a good idea, it will probably be too difficult for an inexperienced editor. I used to think this but I don't anymore. There are hundreds of millions of people with an internet connection and good-enough English skills to write a stub, and the world is a big, big place. If you stop to consider the number of books, articles, and other RS, in every language, ever written, and consider how many GNG-notable topics all those books and articles might support, it's definitely more than 6 million, like at least an order of magnitude more and possibly several. We could probably have an article about every star, every human gene, every species or even just family or genus or whatever, every reviewed book/film/album, every national-level politician and probably many regional-level ones, and so on and so forth. So I estimate hundreds of millions of topics yet to cover and hundreds of millions of people who could click "create page," bang out a paragraph on at least one topic, and press publish. Levivich 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: if you want to push for an opposition to this change on the basis of wanting to get rid of draftspace entirely, we'd first need a pretty major dedicated RfC support that IP editors shouldn't be able to create articles through AfC Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have not proposed any such thing. Please do not try to put words in my mouth. BD2412 T 12:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-Partisan Section Title

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Let's talk about how "consensus" is being used to squashed dissenting opinions on articles relating to society/politics/political philosophies, through everything listed on the "pitfalls and and errors" subsection.

Undue weight to "reliable sources" is so disproportionate at this point that articles/sections/subsections look more like hit pieces than fairly weighted articles. None of the "reliable" sources are giving fair coverage to Donald Trump's conduct during the January 6th incident[3]. The title of this section is another example of how unfair weight is being given to one side, but not the other.

To say that I am pushing fringe theories would not be a fair assessment of my intentions. Neither would it be good faith to use Fox News as a straw man argument.[4][5] Considering the fact that all of the "independent" news outlets are no longer independent, Wikipedia and it's editors seriously need to consider expanding on what is considered to be a "reliable source". CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to politics and events, our definition of neutrality amounts to presenting whatever the mainstream media and any formal academic sources say about the subject as being the primary and most important view of the subject. Obviously, it takes a while for academics to write books and peer-reviewed journal articles, so for events within the last year or so, we rely mostly on mainstream media. Following the mainstream and academic views is the definition of neutral on Wikipedia. It is explicitly against policy to treat all sides as being equally valid. I realize that this can be frustrating when people disagree with the mainstream view, but this is how it works on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The "peer-reviewed journal articles" are a part of the mainstream media. If that wasn't the case, the examples I pointed out would exist and my point would be non-existent. It's an safe space of obvious lies, where people who disagree are labelled, yelled down, and silenced. I've seen the reprehensible behavior right here on Wikipedia. You bring it up on an Administrator's noticeboard, and a biased administrator jumps on it and just completely excuses obvious cases of outing. Followed by either of the involved administrators abusing either the sockpuppet, beating the dead horse, or fringe theories policies in order to justify a block. Want a good example of the echo chamber of lies? Take for example the "Haitian illegal immgrants 'being whipped'" incident. How that's being echoed by the White House, which is in turn being by the mainstream media. Every source that says anything to the contrary to the mainstream media is "misinformation/debunked/disputed/fake news/conspiracy theories". Whether that by journal articles by Conservative journalists, or Conservative news outlets. "Journals present the most recent research, and journal articles are written by experts, for experts."[6] All of those "experts" are leftists. If you're going to tell me I have an axe to grind, please go back to my top statement, and re-read the line about Fox news. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel that your problem is not with our sourcing policies but with a degree of gullibility. Jorm (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The notion that peer-reviewed academic journals are part of the mainstream media is as bizarre as the notion that summarizing the mainstream media is a bad thing. Would you propose that we use fringe extremist media instead? Are you comfortable with the Revolutionary Communist Party and The Daily Stormer as sources for neutral encyclopedia articles? That's the path to madness and collapse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

oh ISIS pamflets. also really good sources ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with the problem sketch here. Rightwing media in the US are often fairly unreliable, leading us to exclude them and get slightly biased articles. High-quality foreign-language media may be part of the solution, as their reporting of the US is less charged. Femke (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have pointed out similar problems here. The current idea is to blindly follow and summarize sources that are marked as "reliable" without thinking for yourself. As such, facts reported from, for example, the New York Post should not be included, since if those facts were notable, reliable sources should have mentioned them too.'Given the current climate of deep partisan divisions in the USA, that statement is hopelessly naive. It assumes that reliable sources are always reliable arbiters of truth, which is not the case, unfortunately. Moreover, as a reporter from such a reliable source put it:

[M]y job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.^[1]

That is indeed about a degree of gullibility. See here the main reason I am not that active anymore on Wikipedia: copying a so-called reliable source that is merely copying "what the government thought" is not something I became an editor for. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Michael Massing (Feb. 26, 2004), "Now They Tell Us: The American Press and Iraq" Archived 2015-04-15 at the Wayback Machine, New York Review of Books

Technical or specialized terms

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Technical or specialized terms should be briefly explained in the body of the text as well as linked to a more complete article. Rationale - the general reader may need only a simple explanation of the term for general understanding, not the complete and lengthy explanation the article linked to the term provides. Wis2fan (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Our existing guideline already appears to say what you want it to say (Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using {{Technical}} or {{Technical-statement}} for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence.). What change are you proposing? If you're asking us to parenthetically explain any term with which readers might be unfamiliar, I'd strongly oppose that; on a global project with readers of all ages and all levels of fluency in English, virtually every concept is going to be unfamiliar to someone. ‑ Iridescent 05:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wis2fan, there was a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 15#Technical language last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

To give an example, in the article Arminianism, I just added "(doctrine of salvation)” after the term "soteriology". Why should a general reader be forced to jump to that word's link (as I had to) when 3 words give a basic understanding? This problem is endemic in Wikipedia.Wis2fan (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"(doctrine of salvation)” as an explanation doesn't cut the mustard, as I was left nonplussed by that three word phrase and was obliged to click on the link to achieve understanding. So yes, I agree that while some terms may benefit from a brief explanation, it may not be ideal. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's important to note that for users who have page previews turned on in their settings, hovering over a link shows a quick blurb of the page. In the Arminianism example, when I hover over the soteriology link, I see a quick 2-3 sentences without having to click and go to the page. Those 2-3 sentences are more helpful for me than the parenthetical "(doctrine of salvation)." To be clear, I don't have any problem with the parenthetical, but without the link there, too, the parenthetical would not be enough of an explanation to give me a general understanding. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Draftify at AFD (again)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have published an RFC at the Articles for Deletion talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 Phase 2

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 is now beginning and will use the following timeline:

10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
10/31: The 30 day discussion period has begun (where we are)
11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Updated: Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: amending parts of WP:NCELECT

Latest comment: 3 years ago44 comments23 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Passed. There is consensus for this change, and some objection was due to confusion over whether this would proscribe the use of an adjective or noun (which is the problem that this solves). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums claims to contain guidelines as to how to title articles about such democratic exercises. However, it appears to be a guideline which is not in sync with practice and which sometimes even leads to results which are outright contrary to the WP:TITLE policy.

Thus, I propose that all relevant phrases of NCELECT be altered to reflect actual usage, i.e. elections should be at [Date] [location name or adjective] [election], with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy (notably WP:COMMONNAME). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (NCELECT)

Support as proposer. This seems to be a typical case of a guideline not exactly following actual practice, but never having been updated to match, and this leading to problems when it is incorrectly applied in a spirit violating WP:NOTBURO; not to speak of the fact that this is incoherent with the basic article title policy: a particular issue is with the guideline's call to use exclusively adjectival forms for country/place names. This is not very uniformly enforced (the vast majority of articles for sub-national level contests are, without exception, at the [Date] [Location] [election] form, ex. 2018 California elections, not "2018 Californian elections"), mostly because it's utter nonsense (2019 United Kingdom general election is a very obvious example of where using the adjectival form - "British" - would be very thoroughly inappropriate, not only because "British", while technically correct, is not used in this fashion due to specific socio-historical issues, but also because nobody refers to these as such) and because it leads to titles which are not particularly natural to a reader looking for the topic (if you can figure out where the article about the 2019 San Marino election is actually located without searching, good job), thus violating WP:COMMANNAME rather unambiguously; all in the name "but it is a guideline" - apparently, an ill-defined guideline because the only major RfC I see about it on the talk page archives is this, which makes no mention of using an ajectival form - this was altered here by Number 57, having been put in basically unquestioned in 2005 and not altered or passed up to the community for actual formal approval at any point in time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Support Yup, makes sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose This would lead to even more inconsistency in election article title names. And British election articles really should be called just that. Number 5 7 08:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Weak Support - Consistency is good, but needs to be balanced with recognizability per COMMONNAME. Blind, over-consistency, can lead to readers not being able to locate articles. Redirects can help with that. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Support allowing either adjectival or noun form. We quite reasonably prefer 2017 French presidential election to 2017 France presidential election, but 2020 United States presidential election to 2020 American presidential election and 2017 Greater Manchester mayoral election to 2017 Greater Mancunian mayoral election, while 2019 British general election would be at best informal and more likely highly contentious. NebY (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Support. Found it! Had to search, though. JBchrch talk 13:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose proposal as-is. If I understand this correctly, the proposal calls for indiscriminately setting all titles regarding election articles to the "[date] [location] [election]" format, setting aside a very well-established consensus in place in Wikipedia for decades and affecting hundreds if not thousands of articles, under alleged "not in sync with practice" grounds (a claim which, otherwise, has been left unsupported by actual evidence) and because it "sometimes even leads to results which are outright contrary to the WP:TITLE policy" (so, rather than addressing the particular issue(s) at hand to make it/them conform with TITLE, let's dump the whole NCELECT altogether and disrupt the vast majority of cases where it works nicely, why not?). On the one side, adjectival forms are a natural way of referring to the election in question in the article's body (thus avoiding unneeded piped links): 2019 San Marino general election or 2019 United Kingdom general election may have sense, 2016 Spain general election, 2021 Germany federal election or 2017 France presidential election are awkward when used in-text and would like require piped-links or the creation of redirects. But then, it should be noted that the current convention has been expanded locally to allow for more WP:TITLE-abiding exceptions in specific situations, i.e. 2020 United States presidential election (not 2020 American presidential election) or 2019 United Kingdom general election (not 2019 British general election), because that's how sources commonly refer to those and that's how those would be naturally referred to in any given text body. If the problem at hand pertains to specific situations (and it clearly is, by the wording of the proposal and because it seems like it is deriving from this particular discussion), then I'd favour an amendment to NCELECT introducing an additional clause under which "location" can take precedence over the adjectival form in those situations where sources do prefer the former over the latter (this is what already happens de facto in many situations, in a similar way that there is a clause providing for situations such as 2021 Scottish Parliament election or 2017 Northern Ireland Assembly election). Let's don't turn this into a WP:BROKE issue by causing havoc where it is not warranted. Impru20^talk 14:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Impru20: You appear to indeed have misunderstood. The proposal is to allow either form, depending on which makes most sense in a given context. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: If that's the case, then yes, since that's what has been done locally for years without much trouble. Still, the formal text of the proposal is "that all relevant phrases of NCELECT be altered to reflect actual usage, i.e. elections should be at [Date] [location name or adjective] [election], with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy". Since I do not agree with it for the reasons exposed above and because it would leave the door too open to ambiguity, I keep my "oppose proposal as-is" !vote, favouring instead the incorporation of an additional clause (in a similar fashion as done "for elections to particular bodies or offices") which could be written as follows: "For elections in countries for which reliable sources prefer such format, default to the form "Date [country name] type election", as in: 2020 United States presidential election, 2019 United Kingdom general election, or 2020 New Brunswick general election". Impru20^talk 14:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Impru20: it sounds like you're missing the "or adjective" part of "[date] [location name or adjective] [election]" (as you did in your initial comment). There's no ambiguity. It allows both "2019 United Kingdom general election" and "2017 French presidential election" as written, in contrast to the existing guideline (which prohibits the former). It is more explicit in this than your proposed text. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Article names like "2019 United Kingdom general election" and "2020 United State presidential election" exist because it can be argued that using the adjectival form is problematic and an exception is made to the more natural article title form, which is the adjectival one. My issue with the proposal is that it gives equal weight to location and adjectival forms, whereas the latter should be preferred based on their naturalness. The risk is that we end up with worse article titles or time-wasting RMs because someone thinks it's better to call an article '2021 Germany federal election' and the proposed new wording of the guideline says this is fine. Number 5 7 16:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I have missed nothing, I am explicitly against the proposed change as formulated. I am in favour of having the current scheme of using the adjective first as the default naming convention, but allowing the use of the location in specific cases where appropiate (which is what has been done in Wikipedia for years already). This is in contrast to the or proposal, which would basically allow for an indiscriminate use of either the location or the adjectival form in any case, even in elections of the same country (i.e. the proposal would technically allow for both a 2016 United States presidential election article and a 2020 American presidential election article to co-exist, with both being technically equally valid. It is a drastic example, but the point is made). My proposal would basically turn this unwritten convention into written policy, which would achieve the same as RandomCanadian's current proposal while being much more harmless. Impru20^talk 17:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Impru20: I should have pinged you below; in any case see this for further explanation as to why I don't think your drastic example would happen under my proposal as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: The problem is that your wording leaves it just too open to interpretation and deviates from customary Wikipedia practice for many years. Your assurances do not matter, since you can just simply control the way other people would implement such naming convention under your proposal. Considering past precedence through Wikipedia on other NCs and MOS, it will get messy. I would rather prefer a straightforward solution that does not mean any drastic change to current policy. Impru20^talk 06:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, then, as I think the policy should not explicitly favour one form or the other (even if in practice one can expect that one or the other might be more frequent in some contexts), and also think that simply suggesting to follow the other criteria to fix any ambiguity as to which should be used will ensure that articles are overall at better, clearer titles (otherwise, as I also know from experience, people are going to argue "but the guideline favours adjectives" even in contexts where there is no reason to favour adjectives). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support. We've needed a general consistency here for a long time now, and the proposed pattern already agrees with most of our relevant articles. I detect some "United Kingdom" vs. "British" dispute in the background, and I don't think this RfC addresses it; it is better taken elsewhere. WP:COMMONNAME is already effectively our guide to whether in a particular case to use an adjective or noun form, though it would not hurt for the guideline to reiterate, something like "When choosing between a noun and adjective form, use the form most frequent in reliable, independent, English-language sources." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Perhaps on this topic, we should go via local consensus. I think there'd be opposition to 2024 American presidential election, for example. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: What are you opposing? If we followed the guideline as written, it should be "American". Obviously, the guideline is not in sync with actual practice, hence why I am proposing it be amended so that both forms are allowable, with the decision of which one to use for a particular country or region being left to local consensus. i.e. my proposal is basically this, but copied to the other three similar sentences too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Just pointing out, that if we attempt an across the board implementation (either option)? It might get messy. As for myself, I will abide but whatever this RFC's decision is. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: The proposal isn't to make it a free for all; I explicitly wrote what is implied by usual policy, i.e. "with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy" - i.e. it shouldn't merely be an arbitrary choice, it would still need to follow the usual guidelines (including naturalness [so no "Germany elections"] and recognisability/precision [so no "American elections"]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Changing to neutral. I'll abide by whatever the RFC decision is. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

We should go by local consensus at the country level, but not at the election level. If 51% of sources say "2016 United States presidental election" and 51% of sources say "2020 American presidental election", we shouldn't use different terms just because that's how the numbers played out; we should strive for consistency within a single class of elections. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Support: needs updating as it's out of line with current practice, and the proposal will cover essentially all current practice. Even the Sanmarinese example wouldn't actually need to be changed to match this new NCELECT, though it should be. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Support per nom, particularly to accurately document current practice and with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy. Levivich 23:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. Nomination makes cogent argument to have policy follow generally accepted practice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose but allow redirects. At minimun, the proposal and guidance should prioritize country name over adjective, as not everyone may be familiar with the adjective or the adjective may either be over- or under- inclusive. --Enos733 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. A fair point, but note that this proposal still moves in the right direction - at least it allows the country name, while the current guidance suggests adjective-only. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. On Wikipedia we tend to go by actual cases rather than follow some philosophical "this is how it should be everywhere" principle. It would be wrong to call any UK-wide elections "British" because that word is ambiguous - it can mean "pertaining to the United Kingdom" or "pertaining to the island that contains most of England, Scotland and Wales, but certainly not Northern Ireland". But carrying that case over to everywhere leads to such absurdities as calling the recent election in Germany by a name that is hardly ever used in English. Let's just use the normal rules for article titles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. Guidelines should follow usage, not the other way around. As a note, the change doesn't even forbid the adjectival form, so really can't see the issue with such a change at all - although, per others, certain flagrant examples like San Marino should probably be moved sooner rather than later. SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Support: I see this as leading to titles that are stronger on the "naturalness" criterion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Support: The current guideline fails Criteria #1 and #2 - and even without relevant policy, the San Marino example was extremely convincing when I first read it, and remains extremely convincing now. I'm not entirely certain we need any guideline to define this - I would think that we can come to reasonable titles on the basis of Criteria, perhaps with an explanatory essay pointing users in the right direction - but as we have one, the one we have might as well make sense. BilledMammal (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Whatever the result may be, I think there must be redirects made to allow for both forms. Have one form be where the article actually resides, while have the redirect of the other form to allow people to search using either form and also for links to be made with either form used. --boldblazer 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Support: Guidelines should allow actual usage to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Sam.gov (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Support - There are many cases where the adjective isn't the WP:COMMONNAME; in some cases, the adjective isn't even WP:NATURAL. (Thinking here of US states in particular... I can't imagine many people go around using the word, say, "Massachusettsian.") Amending this policy helps to ensure that NCELECT doesn't end up at cross-purposes with broader naming guidelines. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Support But also recognize that plenty of exceptions will exist no matter what the documented "standard" way of naming election-related articles is. ―NK1406 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (NCELECT)

Whatever the exact shady origins of NCELECT, or the outcome of this discussion, formalising this aspect via a proper process is likely to reduce potential for misinterpretation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The title of this section is misleading – the proposal isn't to deprecate NCELECT, it's to amend it. Also, why wasn't this done on the guideline's talk page like usual attempts to amend guidelines? Number 5 7 08:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The proposal is not at NCELECT cause that page has limited traffic. Also because as far as I see there's been an editor who's been editing the guideline without obtaining previous consensus for it; specifically on this point (diff), and that same person has been enforcing the guideline they wrote themself as though it were force of law. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
That edit was a simple correction, not a material change (as 'demonym' refers to the people of a country which wasn't appropriate for the guideline, although in practice, in most cases they are the same). And I am not the guideline's original author. Number 5 7 12:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
We have Year Canadian federal elections & Year United States presidential elections. We also have Year United Kingdom general elections & Year Russian presidential elections. They're all Year location election form. GoodDay (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Acoording to the guideline as written, it's supposed to be Year [Adjectival form] election (so "2019 British general elections", because "British" is indeed the demonym for "United Kingdom"). The guideline making no exception for other overriding policy concerns (such as the well known WP:CRITERIA), so should be amended to cover at least that. In addition, the guideline as written does not reflect actual practice, as demonstrated by countless cases like the California elections RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The amendment is required. PS - I'm trying to picture 2022 Oregonian gubernatorial election, 2022 Illinosian gubernatorial election, 2021 New Jerseyite gubernatorial election, 2023 Lousianian gubernatorial election, etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Keep Questions and Comments

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I have a few questions and comments about the Speedy Keep disposition on Articles for Deletion. Most of the times that I see it in an AFD, it is, in my opinion, misused. It is often used with a statement of a form such as "No policy-based reason for deletion has been given". That seems close to SK1, but SK1 is: "The nominator … fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection". The guideline further says: "Also be aware that the speedy keep criteria, particularly the first three, are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion".

So my first question is: Who can close a deletion discussion as a Speedy Keep? Is this limited to administrators, or is this an area where a non-admin close and a Bad non-admin close are possible? So my second question is: Is there a mechanism for speedy attention to a Speedy Keep request? I understand that tagging for Speedy Deletion populates a category that administrators work regularly, which is what makes them speedy. Or is the Speedy Keep just another !vote?

A non-question is whether a Speedy Keep can be appealed to Deletion Review. (Of course it can, just like a regular Keep or a Speedy Delete.) Is a Relist the action that overturns an improper Speedy Keep?

So this is partly a complaint that Speedy Keep is often misused, possibly due to misunderstanding of what Speedy Keep 1 really says, but the guideline is clear enough. Any unclear guideline will be misread, and any clear guideline will be misread.

Am I correct in assuming that, on a regular close (that is, after seven days), a closer should treat a flawed Speedy Keep as a poorly argued Keep? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly when closing RfDs, "speedy" is treated as a synonym of "strong" when speedy action was not taken (for whatever reason). Regarding admins, I think a non-admin speedy keep is going to be appropriate in some circumstances - for example NAC as SK5 and SK6 should always be uncontroverisal, as would a speedy keep following several established editors recommending it. In contrast, I'd advise against an NAC SK2c when the previous discussion was closed by a non-admin. Thryduulf (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a non-problem. Yes, some editors use "speedy" as a synonym for "strong", but this is generally obvious, and certainly not a reason to discount their vote for disagreeing on the exact parameters of what qualifies as speedy. Honestly, looking at that Wikipedia:Speedy keep page, I think the "What is not a speedy-keep" section should probably be removed or reworded as overly nitpicky. If someone cites WP:SNOW / WP:NOTBURO and says "speedy keep", their meaning is perfectly clear. If there's a technically accurate deletion rationale that evades the usual Speedy Keep clauses, but is just obviously wrong (nom'ing a plainly notable article), then emphasizing that an early close should happen by saying "Speedy Keep" sounds perfectly fine to me and useful information to would-be closers. But maybe a discussion for the talk page of that policy. SnowFire (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Four points:
1. With regards to the DRV question, relisting is clearly the normal overturn outcome: if the discussion was incorrectly speedied, then it typically didn't have enough discussion for the DRV process to support another outcome.
2. With regards to the complaint, I'm entirely in favour of fast AfD outcomes in many cases that don't fit SK1-6, so while I think trying to raise consciousness about what the SK guidelines actually say, I'm doubtful about tightening guidance. Example: fast closes are reasonably common where the nominator claims non-notability but has obviously not followed WP:BEFORE and brief research yields very many plausible-looking references. We have a good-enough working understanding of what constitutes "egregious failure of nom to follow BEFORE" on AfD, but I don't have a bullet-proof definition of this class that could be added to our guidelines (cf. Mkativerata's fears from 2014 about an overinclusive clause on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 4#Failure to follow WP:BEFORE).
3. With regards to NACs, I don't see why clear SK1-6 cases should not be closed by non-admins, but it might be worth adding guidance about closing speedies to say that non-admins should avoid speedying for the other rationales, and perhaps that closers should indicate whether speedies actually fit one of the numbered criterion if they make an expedited close.
4. I agree with SnowFire that the general use of SK in !votes to indicate impatience with a nom is not problematic, although misrepresenting what SK1-6 say is problematic, is good to note in close statements, and could be grounds for overturn at DRV if the misunderstanding shapes the outcome. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

AfD is primarily about deletion and so it's not sensible to bring other issues there. A prominent example currently is the featured article Armament of the Iowa-class battleship. If you look at its talk page, it appears that it was threatened with FAR for over 18 months and that it was sent to AfD as a way of putting this off. AfD didn't seem the right process for such a weighty topic and so I called for a SK. The result may well be some sort of split/merge but such restructuring is best handled at the article(s) by interested editors and projects. That's what the WP:MERGE and WP:RFC processes are for. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy keep is pretty bite-y, and rarely helpful when the nominator hasn't withdrawn, but there's no point making a rule against it because it's inherent in the nature of speedy closes that they're all, always, invoking IAR.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Best practices for closing RMs

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

The closing instructions for RM discussions are not very clear on the scope of cleanup work expected, or the order in which things should be done. WP:RMCLOSE says "Clean up after the move by fixing all double redirects, fair use rationales of images included on the moved page, the page's category sort key, and the talk page archiving;" but it doesn't say what to do if part of the close involves changing the old page name's redirect target to a disambig page, which could leave a bunch of articles linking to the wrong place, a disambig page, instead of the intended article target as they did before.

@力: – not sure why, but he invited me to complain about him in WP space after I reverted his retargeting such a redirect and tried to discuss it with him. Rather than complain, I'm seeking comments. Seems to me that one should get the links fixed before retargeting the redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: the quoted instruction shown above is merely the "nutshell summary" given forward to the actual instructions. The considerably more detailed clean up instructions begin at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Cleaning up after the move and consists of ten inclusive subsections including one which is dedicated to moves involving disambiguation pages. While it is all considered "post-move" clean up, it is expected to be accomplished as part of the closing process and includes the following stipulation: "you should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks listed [in the ten inclusive subsections]." In my opinion, shortcomings are more related to editors failing the instructions than to instructions failing the editor.--John Cline (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This bit at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Fixing redirects remains unclear to me. If a redirect is retargeted, that breaks the links from all the articles previously linking through that redirect. Should a closer fix that? Or wait for it to be fixed before retargeting? It's not so clear what that section is saying, or whether it needs an example. Elsewhere it says to fix double redirects, but those do get automatically fixed by a bot pretty quickly, don't they? Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Changing a title to point to a DAB (especially when a non-trivial portion of the incoming links are mis-targetted) doesn't break anything. And as I noted, these are generally "fixed" quickly; two of the voters at the RM were willing and able to fix all the links within 24 hours. If there's some policy that advises people not to close RMs unless they can personally and immediately use AWB or something similar to fix hundreds of disambiguation links, I am both unaware of it and would request wider community scrutiny of it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

As a practical example: I closed an RM on the page formerly at Rodrigo Vargas (footballer), which should be converted to a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Should I leave the redirect in place indefinitely, or point it to the DAB page so the incoming links will be detected and fixed? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. There are about 70 articles that link through Rodrigo Vargas (footballer), that would erroneously go to the disambig page instead if you retarget before fixing them. Exactly what I'm seeking advice on. "Indefinitely" seems like a pessimistic view of getting things in order here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's some automation in place that alerts people to fix this kind of transient brokenness (linking to the non-intended place), I'm not aware of it, but yes that could be a solution. Lacking that, my preference would be that the closer delay the retargeting until all the links are updated, e.g. by posting in the close that the people who asked for the move should work on that or seek help, and then do the retargeting. I'm not saying put it all on the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment in an ideal world, the closer would do the clean up, and I usually endeavour to do so, but I don't think this is mandated. Not everyone has the tools or mass editing skills to be ablt to do that job. And, as power says above, targeting a diambig page on a temporary basis is not in itself an egregious problem. In fact, when I do such clean up I very often find that a good chunk of the links were wrong anyway. So if a close has been made, it should be effected including the retargeting, since delaying just causes confusion and risks the close becoming void. There is quite an active project dedicates to doing the clean up, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, they usually sort out issues withing a fairly short time frame. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that WP:RMCLOSE isn't a policy or guideline, and the requirements it lists are so nitpicking that I don't actually believe it documents a real consensus. It says that an editor should not close a requested move unless they are willing to check and fix category sort keys, update template sidebars and nav boxes to bypass redirects, check and fix any wikidata issues, and check and reconfigure talk page archiving. I've never done any of those things. When closing a requested move, you close the discussion and move the page. You look around for a bit to make sure nothing major has broken, and then you trust that just like every other part of the encyclopedia, someone with greater subject knowledge will be bold and fix the minor issues. Like any essay, the wording of RMCLOSE can be worked out on the talk page, but if we're looking for project-wide consensus I doubt that there would be support for more than "do the move and then do your best to fix any major issues you notice". — Wug·a·po·des 23:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair. And I didn't ask about policy or guideline, just wondering what best practices are. To me, it seems best to not retarget a redirect that's in use, but rather to do things in order, but 力 feels it's better to go ahead and retarget, leaving all those links in the state that I refer to as "broken", and count on them getting fixed before long. Maybe that works quicker than I thought. When I've closed such things, or requested such moves, I did the fixing, or asked others to help, before doing the retargeting. So, since 力 asked me to come here when he shut me out of his talk page, I thought I'd seek advice on what's thought to be "best", and we'll both hear it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no point in having two people have an Argument Clinic on my talk page when we can have a useful discussion in project-space instead. Regarding Rodrigo Vargas (footballer), after 3 days of nothing happening, I changed the link last night and within 12 hours basically all the links were fixed. I intend to keep allowing the gnomes to fix these links when I close RMs. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't move pages

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I would like to pay attention to the problem with the moving of articles. Don't move pages if you are not going to update name in the lead and infobox (if exist) and Wikidata page. Don't do chaos. How many times yet they will mve articles without updating leads, infoboxes and Wikidata pages? Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

In the case that you link the change of name in the lead leads to it having a different meaning in that context, so I will revert you. Rather than say "don't move pages" you should think about what you are doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter:- Hello, what exactly is the policy concern here? Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@PinkElixir: If above situation exist then it's problem with policy. Eurohunter (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Often, talk pages archives are also left out, to be discovered elsewhere years later. Then there are mass moves done by vandals or in good faith but without consensus, that are later reported and need fixing. My impression is that moving pages can be disruptive enough that it should only be technically available to users with a page mover right or administrators. This may however be impractical, as it would also result in many requests and likely cause backlogs... —Paleo Neonate – 14:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Mnmh. I think page moves should be an exception to WP:BOLD, because undoing is more hassle than a regular edit. Particularly if someone edits the redirect page, then you have to flag down an admin to do it. WP:MOVE says to "consider" initiating a Wikipedia:Requested moves "If you believe the move might be controversial" but there's no requirement and no sanction except getting yelled at if you don't. Disallowing WP:BOLD on moves would help with enforcing internal changes in page I guess because at least one other person would be looking at. But, I've been shot down on that, and I guess the community thinks that WP:BOLD page moves are OK. =/

Anyway, WP:MOVE does already say "Since the article name is reflected in the lead section, that section may need to be updated to be consistent with the new name". May need. There's no mention of the article text below that tho. A sentence could be added there about that. Note also the WP:MOVE says "This help page is a how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting". So technically you can ignore it and things your own way I guess, and your own way can including not bothering to change anything in the article. Herostratus (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

with regard to adminship

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Today a prerequisite to adminship is having a Wikipedia account. That is not enough. Today an anonymous user, can become a sysop. So, the only information that we have about this sysop, is his nickname. We do not know nothing about his real name, his e-mail, his profession, his education. When a user is granted the status of administrator, this information should be public. ShlomoKatzav (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins often have to block truly problematic people (real-life problematic, I mean): as an admin, I wouldn't have been comfortable doing this when my personal identifying information was made public here. Getting stalked onwiki (as happens to many admins) is annoying, but getting stalked in real life is much much worse. Your demands would quickly remove many of the current admins, especially those willing to act against some of our more notorious long-term abusers. Apart from that, I have to wonder: why is someone who hasn't made a single mainspace edit (and just one content-related edit in general) in the six years they have been here, suddenly interested in the admin prerequisites? Fram (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fram

Thanks for your reply.

To some extent I do agree with you.

Shlomo.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@ShlomoKatzav: So, the only information that we have about this sysop, is his nickname.. Incorrect, we have over ten thousand prior edits, over a year of demonstrated behaviour, competencies, weaknesses, feats and flaws, we know what is most critical - how they are as an editor. Knowing their name, email, profession - what would they serve me? Not at all. We will continue to judge admin candidates by the only thing that matters...their actions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nosebagbear

Thanks for the message.

Generally, I accept the your vision.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@ShlomoKatzav: Why would someone's real name, email, profession or education be relevant to their status as administrator? Would knowing someone's email address have any impact at all on whether a person should hold administrator rights? The only thing that matters is their contributions to the project and a demonstrated understanding of policy. Requiring admins to post their personal information publicly would just result in them being harassed with no benefit. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, talk

Got your post, and I understand your standing.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this point is particularly important. Some children have made good admins, and I've seen some of the dumbest and immature behaviour ever from people who at least claim to be middle-aged people in very senior jobs (and are now indefinitely blocked from the site). Profession and education do not tell you that somebody will be productive on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's assume that an admin told you that he is male, his name is Jonathan Smith, and that he lives in New York City. He also gives you information about his education. How much of this is actually true? You can tell based on his edit times that he appears to live close to NYC's time zone, but have 0 data beyond that. 2A03:C5C0:207E:35AE:1A50:8111:CC34:8B49 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The right to anonymity is one of the very few actual rights that Wikipedians have. If that was taken away I'd predict a mass departure of many regular editors, myself included. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPSTYLE - Actions vs beliefs or identity

Latest comment: 3 years ago43 comments16 people in discussion

I suggest adding something similar to the following to WP:BLPSTYLE (the Tone section of the WP:BLP policy). Alternatively it may belong somewhere in the manual of style.

When controversial positions are reported by reliable sources about a person, it is usually better to describe known actions, rather than attempting to assess or describe one's personal beliefs, motive or identity. Instead of asserting in Wikipedia's voice that someone believes something, describing facts like that someone published material promoting a particular idea or position, is more accurate. The exception is when someone explicitly asserts their beliefs as such, or when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation.

A common example I can think of: in the case of someone promoting climate change denial talking points, writing just that, is better than: "is a climate change denier" (identity), or "believes that ..." (assuming that editors or Wikipedia can read minds). A previous version of my suggestion had "other than religious affiliation or gender identity", but it may be implied and unnecessary... It's even possible that my proposal is too obvious, but I tend to see a lot of "<foo> believes that" in biographies.

Here's an example where an uncontroversial assertion that agrees with the scientific consensus was presented as someone's belief (but WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL already cover this particular case). The above is for when claims are really controversial. A better example is Ann Coulter where experts disagree between what is manipulative propaganda and personal belief (and where the author sometimes asserted it was also belief).

Other examples: promoting racism, racialism or pseudoscience, rather than being a pseudoscientist, a racist, "believes that other races are inferior", etc. This is similar to WP:ATTRIBUTE but for cases where facts are widely reported about and need no third-party attribution, but self-attribution (but is not necessary WP:ABOUTSELF).

For widely reported descriptions, like "far-right", the part "when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation" may fit. In any case, input and/or variants welcome. It's also possible that this is redundant to other part of the policy, and that minor modifications like links would be enough. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 05:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems plausible. But can you give examples of where such guidance was needed? Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Coulter is an example above, another that immediately comes to mind is Alex Jones, but it's valid for BLPs in general. What is promoted is obvious, but personal convictions are unclear, except when sources really make it clear. Quoting Guy Macon at the talk page: "Q: Isn't Jones just an actor playing a role without actually believing all of that?" Since editors obviously cannot know, except when sources explicitly report about beliefs, it's best to report about the actions and what is being promoted instead... —Paleo Neonate – 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to drift off topic here..wasn't Alex Jones caught on the record once admitting that he just makes up the things he says and that it's not true? I thought he did, anyway.. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo is a type of article that in the past would have likely needed this type of advice (those presently appears to follow the above). Ngo's frequently labeled in the present with various far-right-leaning labels, but Ngo's definitely a situation where its better to explain as close we objectively can what he had done, and try to avoid any subjective labels on those actions. But this type of advice is generally true for anyone that is in that far/alt right area that mainstream media nearly always treats with distain. This type of advice is related to NOTNEWS/RECENTISM (we should be focusing only on factual/objective details we know happened in the short term) as well as WP:LABEL facets. We get editors that want to latch onto WP:SPADE, but BLP demands a higher degree of neutrality and impartiality that the media gives to these figures nowadays. --Masem (t) 14:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

So a specific example is where Alex Jones has "Jones believes that global warming is a hoax...", that should be rephrased to state who said so, instead of just citing a source that says so? Do such changes currently get resisted, so we need some policy help? Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If Jones has basically said that global warming is a hoax, that's a factually assertion. What would be a subjective statement is that he is a climate change denier from that fact, which would require attribution and sourcing. Further, a common issue in this area is "cherry picking" of sources, where editors can find one or two sources that support this subjective claim but when looking at all sources appropriate to the topic and specific aspect of the topic, these represent a minority or limited view of those sources. For example, I'm pretty confident that attributing "conspiracy theorist" to Alex Jones is not an issue of cherry picking since he's readily known for that. But taking Andy Ngo's case, the times I've seen it come up, there's lots of labels that I've seen editors want to use, but they aren't as commonly used as editors may think, and many times are just cherry picked sources, which is something we should be avoiding with labeling. --Masem (t) 18:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought the point was that the fact that he said such a thing doesn't imply that he believes it. Wouldn't it be better to quote him than to attribute a belief? Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It probably depends exactly what we're given in sources (whether he's quoted or paraphrased), and often it would be better to quote directly if we can. What is key is that we as WP editor cannot take a statement "Alex Jones said 'Global warming is a hoax!'" to jump to the conclusion "Alex Jones is a climate change denier." We can let third-parties make that jump though that should require attribution, of course. --Masem (t) 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In general, I like the proposal. I do think there is a tendency to assert that someone is X (even when X is not necessarily controversial) without connecting it to a specific action or including the phrase "is known as" (or similar). --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Something that needs to be included in this discussion is WP:No original research. For an article to state (in WP’s voice) that an action implies a belief, and that this belief deserves a particular label, we need sources that directly connect all these dots. This is why in-text attribution is so important. It lets the reader know who is saying what, and that WE are not the ones drawing the conclusion that the BLP subjects actions = some labeled belief. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that OR is relevant. A difference with ATTRIBUTE here is that this doesn't propose attributing facts reported by sources as being the opinions of other people, but to avoid attributing to the person (subject of the BLP) things that are not known by reading the sources (<foo> believes <idea> vs <foo> promoted <idea>, <foo> is a <description> vs <foo> is a member of <org>, promotes <idea>, etc). Per my original proposal, it may indeed already be partly redundant and perhaps could be shorter, or just a clarification made elsewhere, so thanks for the input. —Paleo Neonate – 23:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this proposal at least with respect to the very first sentence of articles. I've always felt that it violated the spirit of BLP, if not the letter, to refer to someone as a "conspiracy theorist" or "white nationalist" or "climate change denier" in the first sentence of their article, which is otherwise only used for nationality and occupation. Unless they self-identify with these labels, they should not be included in the first sentence. Mlb96 (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This concern appears to be distinct to my proposal, but relevant would be formulations like "notable for promoting conspiracy theories" vs "a conspiracy theorist". —Paleo Neonate – 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur that whether such labels are appropriate for the lead depends on if they are relevant to why the person is notable. A politician with some fringe views probably shouldn't be labeled a conspiracy theorist in the lead, but a media host who makes a career primarily out of promoting conspiracy theories could reasonably be given the label in the lead. I agree that this line of discussion is somewhat of a tangent to the original proposal, but it is worth discussing. Context is definitely important in these situations, and clarifying the distinction between actions/stated beliefs and inferred beliefs is important. ―NK1406 15:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone promotes conspiracy theories for a living, shouldn't that be included where any other occupation would be? It might not apply in many cases, but it's a possibility we shouldn't rule out. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A conspiracy theorist is not a profession or vocation, and should not be in the lede sentence or phrase, but if they are primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist, then that should be in following sentences or phrasing. Eg to borrow some of the current language (its not perfect) "Alex Jones is an American radio show host, prominently known for being a conspiracy theorist." is far better than "Alex Jones is an American radio show host and conspiracy theorist." as we are not implying in the former that the "conspiracy theorist" is a job in any way shape or form. Of course, this with specific with Jones where if you read about him in any source, you cannot but stumble over him being a conspiracy theorist. What we often have a problem with is when we get a cherry-picked label being pushed that far into the lead (again, Andy Ngo is one I've seen have happen like that). We are often far too quick to drop these "scarlet letters" on BLPs when we should really be asked "is a threshold of critical sourcing reached to actually include" (as in the case of Jones). --Masem (t) 16:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we imply that "conspiracy theorist" is a job? People work damn hard at it, and they make money. Maybe it's a side gig most of the time and typically not first-sentence material, but I don't see why we should exclude it from opening lines in principle. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it is still a highly subjective term outside of certain exceptional cases (like Jones), unlike professions and vocations which are highly objective. If we are writing neutrality, impartially and dispassionately, we should try to avoid any subjective aspects in the lede sentence to get the tone correct to start, and given that the standard form for nearly all bios and BLPs is "x is a (nationality) (professions/vocations)" we absolutely should avoid any subjective aspects here. --Masem (t) 16:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not "subjective" in the case of a person who has (objectively) spread conspiracy theories. Your formulation could lead us to have ridiculous article openings (e.g. "David Icke is a goalkeeper ..." which was seriously proposed in some forum as I recall). Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"David Icke is an author and public speaker, and a former footballer and sports broadcaster. He is prominently known for being a conspiracy theorist..." Easy. --Masem (t) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Putting the prominent thing un-prominently is self-evidently a contortion. Luckily Wikipedia doesn't do that, but instead tends to track the less coy ways of serious publications.[7] Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WP is purposely supposed to be "better" at neutrality than mainstream media. There is zero requirement to put the reason for a topic's notability in the first sentence, as long as it is covered somewhere in the lede at some point, while staying neutral, impartial, and dispassionate about a topic is required by NPOV policy. --Masem (t) 18:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Putting the most prominent (and in Icke's case definitional) thing first is just good writing, as well as being NPOV in giving most weight to what is most weighty, through prominence. Lesser stuff comes later. You are promoting an odd inversion of policy-based established practice, and odd insipid writing to boot. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No policy requires the most prominent thing about a person (or topic) to be written about it first. None. The only thing where prominence about a topic is important is to make sure that it is clearly states at some point within the lede. Policy does require that topics be presented in a neutral tone, so this does require starting from objective, definition-al material about a person before moving into the more contentious, subjective aspects, even if those aspects are the most prominent aspect about that person. That's just how one keeps a neutral tone to an article, consistent with MOS:FIRSTBIO and nearly every other bio article on WP. --Masem (t) 13:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence of a bio should state the main reason why the person is notable. No policy requires us to write insipid, wonky prose and down-play reality. NPOV means reflecting the weight of things in sources proportionately, and not according to some idiosyncratic invented mantra that arbitrarily labels some objective facts as "subjective". Starting with the "most prominent" aspect of a subject and proceeding in course to lesser details is the natural order of good-quality written English. Sometimes distasteful things are definitional to the point where they even make it into the article title: e.g. Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is more than just maintaining a balance of what reliable sources cover (as UNDUE is but just one part of that policy). It is also about tone and style to keep the coverage neutral, to keep wikivoice out of stating contentious aspects as facts, and other factors. We are not here to create "hit pieces" on people that the media routinely cover in a negative fashion (which coming out the door with contentious labels immediately sets the stage for), but that doesn't mean we whitewash away that criticism, either. Nearly every article I've seen where editors have pushed negative labels and other coverage first and foremost over fundamental definitions and objective statements can be fixed without losing any information or sourcing by simple reorganization of material in the lede which improves the tone and neutrality of Wikivoice - typically with the prominent criticism/labels entering by the second sentence of the lede, at times as a second phrase in the first sentence. It's very easy to want to fall into the practice of adopting the same approach the media does in labeling these people first and foremost and treating lesser aspects as more trivial factors, but we are not doing the same function as the media, as we are an educational work, not a news-reporting work, and need to be better in maintaining our neutrality for that end. This has gotten far too lost in the last several years due to the fact that as a whole, we've been fighting issues from IP/new editors that do want to whitewash away negative material from articles like this (which we need to of course prevent), but the reaction of making this articles even more of hit pieces or scarlet letters about these people is not the right approach, but instead to make the tone more appropriate to an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

To repeat: the first sentence of a bio should state the main reason why the person is notable. You seem to have some meaning of neutral in mind which is different from that of NPOV. "Neutral" does not mean wet, but means cleaving to decent sources. I agree Wikipedia should not use contentious labels in Wikipedia's voice but nobody seriously contends that (e.g.) Icke isn't a conspiracy theorist, now do they. It's just reality. Wikipedia is not an "educational work". You seem to have some very odd ideas about the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You're reading one line of MOS:FIRSTBIO out of context, considering that the previous line specifically says to avoid subjective and contentious terms, and that it further ends that this information can be spread out over the entire lede. And no, I'm pointing out that NPOV has multiple facets; one facet is bein neutral to how we represent sources, but another facet is neutral of how we write and treat subjects as a reference/educational work. Its why per YESPOV contentious terms are given attribution and not as fact, for example. This is all part of the first thing in BLP, WP:BLPSTYLE, which is too often ignored because editors are all too happy to follow newspapers/medias lead in freely reporting negative aspects without due consideration of tone and impartialness as a reference work. --Masem (t) 14:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence of a bio should state the main reason why the person is notable. Yes, avoid contentious labels or subjective stuff ("is the most evil man in Britain"). But the fact he is a conspiracy theorist is an objective fact and not contentious (or, do you think that fact is seriously contestable?). Icke is not just referred to as a conspiracist in (respectable mainstream) press, but also in scholarly works to set the context.[8] You would have us create some kind of milquetoast opening out-of-sync with relevant, competently-written writings on the subject. I am glad you have at least half rowed-back from thinking Wikipedia is an educational work! Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And my proposal is not about avoiding to specify in the lead what someone is notable for, or avoiding "conspiracy theorist" if reliable sources also use that, although I might still prefer "notable for promoting conspiracy theories" (or best known for, etc). —Paleo Neonate – 12:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

To meander from the lively discussion above, I like the concept of the proposal and would like to build on it. In my opinion the second sentence is somewhat redundant as published material by the subject falls under explicitly-asserted beliefs, which are mentioned in the third sentence. I feel that the third sentence could be revised somehow too, but I couldn't come up with another wording that I really liked. My one concern with the third sentence of the proposal as it is right now is that it labels explicit reports from reliable sources and explicitly asserted beliefs as exceptions. I know that is not the intention of the proposal but I would also want to ensure that it is not misread. ―NK1406 21:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is an excellent proposal. The last exception sentence might need a tweak to say reporting on specific facts regarding the individual, not reporting on specific opinions.North8000 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I also think this is a good proposal. This would bring things more in alignment with how we use ABOUTSELF. Per ABOUTSELF we don't take the claims to be factual (Mr Patel is for equal rights, vs Mr Patel says he is for equal rights). What Mr Patel actually thinks in his head is speculation. What he has stated is proof that he made the claim. I think sometimes we should be careful when sources take a gray area claim and turn it into black or white. Someone who has opposed lots of climate change legislation is likely to be labeled a denier or similar but may be motivated only by the belief that the specific laws are bad laws (fail on a cost benefit basis, are actually pork barrel bills or other reasons). So it's best to use the narrowest descriptor of what they oppose/promote. In this case, "has opposed climate change legislation" vs "has opposed climate change". Regardless, I think this is a good idea. Springee (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Commenting to this and at the same time about the last part "when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation". It's possible that "beliefs" or "convictions" be better than "motives". As you noted, "What he has stated is proof that he made the claim" and "we don't take the claims to be factual". These are indeed relevant to ABOUTSELF especially if controversial or self-serving. This extends the idea to independent sources because it's also possible for editors to report as one's beliefs things that sources don't necessarily report that way. If most reliable sources do, then it may still be adequate to report the way they do (per NPOV the article should reflect them). But if they only report on actions, like the promotion of misinformation for instance, we shouldn't editorially extend it to belief/conviction (only claims). My proposal is not to always attribute (existing policy like ATTRIBUTE and GEVAL already explains when it should be). Or to avoid using "promotes climate change denial" if that's what reliable sources say. I agree with you if sources only report on legal policy work that doesn't involve questioning the gravity of the situation (it's of course challenging to approach the problem). —Paleo Neonate – 12:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's surprising that this discussion (a) is taking place here and not the Talk page of the policy page that is being discussed (b) without even a note on that Talk page pointing to this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point, it's my omission and I just posted a notice there about this discussion. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 11:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal makes sense. Maybe it can be made a little more succinct. Pretty sure I would support this. Just only... for ledes, if the person has a quote in the text like "The white race is superior to others", could we (in the lede) describe him as a white supremacist, on sky-is-blue grounds? Maybe? But that might be a slippery slope... what statements, actually, would be enough to do that? Would "I believe in White Power" be enough? Would "Europeans are responsible for almost all good innovations, just saying"? So maybe not mention this... Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

While a primary quote could be used as an example, it would most likely have been reported by a secondary source to be considered DUE for inclusion, as well as to provide some analysis, then the article would generally describe the person or their actions in the way those sources do (I suppose that some editors would otherwise also complain about original research done with primary sources)... —Paleo Neonate – 10:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that this proposal would be a meaningful improvement. We already have consensus establishing, say, that contentious labels are inappropriate (i.e. WP:BLPRACIST and MOS:TERRORIST); I think that imputing beliefs to a person is similarly inadvisable, and for similar reasons. Of course, there are obvious exceptions. I think that, per WP:ABOUTSELF, we can accept something like "Jones is Catholic" cited to a passage in Jones' autobiography saying "I've been a Catholic all my life". But "Jones is a denier of the divinity of Gautama Buddha" is probably a little iffy (even if, by definition, being Catholic means you do not believe that). jp×g 19:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, this is where "The exception is when someone explicitly asserts their beliefs as such, or when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation." or similar wording would apply, —Paleo Neonate – 10:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, I think a good reason for making this change is the hairy situation of statements-about-belief for which the person can invalidate them by saying otherwise. That is to say, if our article says "Jones believes the Louvre is run by space aliens", Jones can simply say "I don't believe that the Louvre is run by space aliens anymore", putting us in a tight spot where we must either crap on WP:RS or knowingly make false claims. Contrariwise, if we say that "Jones said in 2017 that he believed the Louvre was run by space aliens", well, that's a factual thing that really happened, and maybe we can even add "In 2021, Jones said that he no longer believed that", but at no point must we impute beliefs to him or make claims about what is going on in his brain. I vaguely remember a mind-numbing saga (or perhaps several sagas) in which some BLP subject was described as being a member/adherent of some religious/political/etc group, showed up to their article to say that they no longer believed that, and was given the demand that they get a newspaper to publish a story saying that their beliefs had changed. If I recall correctly, their opinion of this was that Wikipedia was completely bonkers, and in this case I would have to concur. jp×g 11:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You are right. The addition When controversial positions are reported... is good, but without the third sentence The exception is when someone explicitly asserts their beliefs... --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Guideline on adding subproposals to long, contentious ANI threads?

Latest comment: 3 years ago43 comments22 people in discussion

Oh, does anyone think of the poor admin that will have to unravel this mess!

Hi! Recently there has been an insanely long ANI thread on WP:ARS, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic. My issue is that editors have added a large number of proposals to topic ban certain users within this thread, which has made it continue on and on and on and will create a massive load of work for administrators to tackle. I tried to close one such sub-thread as I was not entirely aware of WP:BADNAC, but thought it useful since no fresh opinions were being given, more than enough evidence had been given, and any further contributions would just be a WP:BATTLEGROUND (or something similar to my recently-written essay WP:KEEPTALKING). Is there some possible guideline that could be made such that this doesn't happen in the future (as much)? The thread devolved from:

There are issues with ARS that require the community to reappraise its role ->
There are issues with ARS that require the community to reappraise its role as well as editors within ARS being highly problematic ->
This discussion on ARS should probably happen elsewhere, and sanctions against some editors should be considered -> (no action taken on this) ->
Subdiscussions on tbans against 3 users that have very long debates, as well as 3 separate subdiscussions where editors attempted to close the discussion and move the whole thing to Arbcom.

In essence, a complete mess that reminds me of the Gordian Knot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear exactly what the concern is here; the three concrete proposals which emerged from that discussion seem to contradict the notion that no action will be taken on point #2 or that the thread will be difficult to close. A lot of people have a lot to say about ARS and there's nothing wrong with that. Why not split the proposals into their own section(s) if length is a concern?

I disagree with the idea of shutting down !voting after just one day while !votes are still coming in. –dlthewave ☎ 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

My perspective is that the tbans against 3 editors is not really addressing the concerns that ARS gives a wrong idea about what AfD is and facilitates canvassing, so once the tbans are/are not handed out there are in my opinion three posibilites:

No further action is taken towards resolving the issues with ARS as a whole (unlikely).
A separate discussion is started on the issues with ARS as a whole (which then seems counter-intuitive to me to have the tban sections within the "ARS is problematic" thread and then a separate thread on how to make ARS less problematic).
Both the discussion on fixing the issues with ARS as well as the tbans happen in the same massive thread (terrible for mobile reading, maybe accessibility, tons of scrolling up and down).

However, if it is the general opinion that my concerns are not as big an issue or won't happen to other threads in the future then I don't mind that being the case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In a forum already with too much DRAMA, creating guidelines for how sections may be created just seems like an opportunity for compounding DRAMA when (inevitably) it's done wrong by wound-up participants. Yes, that ARS thread is a hot mess but - that's WP:ANI folks! Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Do threads at ANI get to hefty lengths? Yep, sometimes they do. Do they get a bunch of people flying off in different directions? Yep, sometimes they do. Do they devolve into a lot of shouting? Sometimes, sure. That is, as Alexbrn accurately states, the nature of ANI. I've followed it on and off for many years now, and when things get too complex, I tune it out ... and so can anyone else. In the times I do, I'm sure that people carry on without my personal thumb on the scales.
But that being said ... when we're talking about debates that can lead to anything from temporary tbans to permanent community bans from using Wikipedia, we'd be very poorly served by any "reform" that would stifle or truncate debate. Ravenswing 15:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Some questions. Could there be any value in discussions above X size being move to a subpage? Would there need to be some pointer from ANI itself about any proposed sanctions so that people who tune out a generalized discussion but want to weigh in if discussion moves to a proposal could know? There have been a couple recent attempts to provide more structure to ANI reports, would that help at all? (At least on this last one my answer is no but I still think the question may be worth discussing). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and we've done that quite a few times, such as here, here and here. And on one occasion I know of, we've had sub-subpages, too. I see it as established custom and practice.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  @S Marshall I agree it was custom and practice at one time. However, I think it telling that the most recent example you have there is from 2010 and in a casual search the most recent example I can find is 2012. That suggests that this has gone out of style and is no longer custom and practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  - @Barkeep49 I did create one for the AN in 2016, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT, which the community accepted.—S Marshall T/C 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    Fair enough but that is a single example from 5 years ago. I think my underlying question remains: should this be a regular part of our practice? I think you and I agree the answer is yes. In 2021 alone I can think of probably 8-10 discussions on AN/ANI which would have benefitted from subpages rather than the zero we've had. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    - - Yes. I think some of the impetus for using subpages, historically, was to manage edit conflicts, and software improvements have helped with that part of it. I also think concern exists that once you bring discussion to a subpage, you stop attracting uninvolved people.—S Marshall T/C 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        You also stop attracting uninvolved editors once the section gets larger than the planet Jupiter, because no one is going to bother to wade through that. Being worried that moving a massive section to a subpage will discourage uninvolved editors from participating is like being worried that dumping a bag of salt in the ocean will make the water too salty to drink. Mlb96 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I advised (two or three times) that an RFC on shutting down ARS, be brought to Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) (since it's been 2 years this month, the last time it had), but nobody would take it up. Since then, the focus has shifted from ARS itself, to at least 4 members of it. IMHO, that long discussion at WP:ANI, should be closed - except for the sections concerning the individual editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Suggestion Instead of more rules and guidelines that half the people who post on here won't read- what about setting up some "clerks" sort of like at ArbCom who are responsible for formatting/organizing threads on there? There are quite a few of us who read/monitor the board anyway and will go through and close threads when they are finished- why not formalize that a bit? I wouldn't mind going through and slapping some organization on those longer threads, and I'm sure a few other people would volunteer as well. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Without commenting on any other issue here, I personally believe adding ANI clerks would generally be a bad idea. I was an ArbCom clerk for almost five years – ArbCom clerks function effectively because of ArbCom's unique institutional role. What might be interesting if there was a norm for administrators to stay uninvolved (don't comment on a thread) in order to help neutrally moderate/structure them if need be. But don't use the word clerk, or appoint a standing panel, I think. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
While I appreciate the sentiment, and have acted this way once or twice myself, I would suggest we use a different word than UNINVOLVED because an editor can comment on an AN/ANI thread and remain uninvolved at least in terms of that policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I do see what you mean about Arbcom being unique, and maybe clerk is the wrong word- but I think the admins have quite a bit to do already, and we do not have enough of them to go around, but interested (nosey? and yes- I'm talking about myself) editors with time on there hands are in large supply- thats why I suggested some of us take up the organization tasks. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
If a person is trusted enough to refactor things on ANI they are probably already an admin -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I Disagree. For example- those of us who volunteer on the WP:DRN most of us are not admins- but I believe we have proven ourselves trustworthy and capable. There is a large subsection who are capable and trustworthy- but have very little interest in the process that currently is the adminship gauntlet. There are quite a few editors who would be happy to help, are capable of helping, and do not have the admin cap. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support some sort of remedy - I think something should definitely be done in this department. "Walls of text" threads on ANI make it so that people vote/comment on first impressions without reading through the evidence. In the past, this has opened the door for liars and tag-teams to game the system, thanks in no small part to bandwagon voting and the TL;DR effect. I'm surprised this problem hasn't been a bigger focus (although I imagine some users like the system the way it is for the wrong reasons). In certain situations, if you are in a super-long ANI conflict with another user and that user outnumbers you, it doesn't matter what the evidence is or whose in the right, you're pretty much screwed if you don't start eating crow. Dark knight 2149 18:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally: I'm not sure if this is a hot take, but I also don't think contentious WP:ANI threads should be determined by voting or "consensus", but by evaluation of the evidence alone. Easier said than done, I know. Dark knight 2149 18:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is a common experience or observation. In fact I was advised by admin Sphilbrick after an ANI report about a now banned user that resulted in no action that I should shorten my ANI reports in the future in order to get the attention of admins. I have done so ever since, and the few ANI reports I had to file have all been properly processed. JBchrch talk 19:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment is in favour of shortening ANI reports and remedying "walls of text" threads. Dark knight 2149 20:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but if we don't agree on why we want to introduce a new rule, then perhaps there is no reason to introduce a new rule at all (per WP:CREEP and other accessibility concerns). Your contention, if I understand correctly, is that long walls of texts favor the drafter, while I contend that long walls of text are detrimental to the drafter. It can't be both: so the policy status quo should be given the benefit of the doubt. JBchrch talk 20:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

My point of contention is that long walls of text make it easier for dishonest users and tag-teamers to game the system, and it contributes to the TL;DR effect and "snowball" voting where people who can't be bothered to read through the evidence and navigate through everything automatically side with the user with the most supporters. At a certain point, it can become less about who is disruptive and more about who has the most supporters or who is the most charismatic liar. That's not how ANI should work. Dark knight 2149 02:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so feel free to take my opinions about how the administrators' noticeboard should be run with a grain of salt. It has always seemed strange to me how quickly discussions on AN/I will be closed and actions taken, even in very complicated situations. Of course, a lot of discussions are pretty straightforward (a sock/SPA is blocked, an inappropriate draft is deleted, editors are given warnings to stop doing something or other). But some of them are huge labyrinths: sometimes there will be a dozen parties to a dispute, each of them writing several paragraphs, each of them with a dozen diffs! Sometimes a thread will balloon out to a hundred kilobytes or more. In these cases, people tend to get very angry. I think part of this is because it's often unclear how long the discussion will go before closure -- so taking a day to sleep on it and write something more thoughtful may just mean you're too late to have any impact at all. This has certainly happened to me, where I came up with some brilliant and elegant way to solve a dispute amicably... then went to propose it and found that a few hours earlier the thread had been closed and both users defenestrated. And if it is stressful and confusing for uninvolved bystanders making comments, how much worse must it be for the targets of these threads!

In light of this, there are probably some things that can be done to make the process more reasonable. I don't know exactly what these would be (and invite others to come up with something), but off the top of my head, it might be prudent to move longer threads to a separate noticeboard, where there was a minimum amount of time they were guaranteed to be open for (say, a week, or two weeks). Maybe this could be determined by how many editors posted in the thread, how many words were posted in the thread, how many subsections it had, et cetera. Who knows. Or maybe there could be a process for electing to move it: some predefined number of editors in the thread could indicate to extend, and it would automatically be taken to the slower board. Frankly, I think any AN/I thread with an "arbitrary break" subsection is of a vastly different character than threads about "this guy keeps adding 'baba booey' to articles about train stations" type stuff. jp×g 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to echo some of my own comments at that thread, it is a near-perfect example of an issue that clearly is not going to be resolved at ANI and should go to arbcom instead, where there are, thankfully, word limits. I don't see a need for any new rules, an out-of-control discussion like that is evidence that the committee should take a case if one is submitted. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox I've always seen the two of us as having fairly similar philosophies on the kinds of cases ArbCom should and shouldn't take. I agree with your point that we've reached a point where there are some number of conflicts that ArbCom would accept a case request for which never reach our venue for consideration. However, a sprawling thread alone is not an indication we shouldn't accept a case or that the community can no longer handle it. If it were, we'd have both voted to accept our most recent case request but in the end we both declined, though admittedly I seem to have been a bit more "enthusiastic" in my decline than you. I think just because more cases could be accepted doesn't mean the community is wrong to say "we prefer to do this at AN/ANI instead" as there are pluses and minuses to that kind of decision making too. I will be curious to see how candidates at this year's ACE think about their standards for cases. I do think the community would do well to consider what kinds of issues, beyond ethno/political disputes and examinations of admins, ArbCom is well suited for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that the thread was the only piece of evidence, rather it is one of many pieces. If this does come to the committee I would probably be obligated to recuse myself anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I think rather than trying to reform ANI, it'd be better to just create an alternative forum and see if people will use that forum instead. It's a wiki: be bold and crowdsource it. Levivich 03:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I dream of a Wikipedia where ANI is used as a noticeboard to bring urgent incidents to administrators' attention, and all the ancillary functions it's gathered over the years are handled by processes actually designed for them. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "urgent" and "chronic" should be handled on two separate pages instead of the same page. The chronic stuff should have subpages; the urgent stuff doesn't need it. Mark AN/I historical just because that dog deserves to be shot, and create AN/Chronic and AN/Urgent. Levivich 19:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It took me four years of editing to even discover non-admins were allowed to post on any of the ANs! I like the idea of separating "urgent" and "chronic", or whatever terminology is chosen, as the I suspect a junior editor peaking in to an report incident would be very hesitant right now. Cavalryman (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

ANI is how it is. I have been here 16 years and there have always been threads like this. Sometimes they stay on ANI, sometimes they get moved to a subpage. But it is okay, that is just how ANI is. It is where things get messy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the ARS Mess

I have a few comments on what can be done to avoid something like the current Article Rescue Squad trainwreck.

First, word limits at WP:ANI are in order. An editor who presents a very lengthy complaint at WP:ANI with a great deal of evidence probably should provide a summary and put the bulk of the evidence on a user page. In that case, only a few editors reading the thread at WP:ANI will choose to read the evidence pages. The fact that large portions were collapsed is an indication that the posts were too length. I am not suggesting subpages of ANI, but that editors who have lengthy issues provide user subpages.

Second, should ArbCom occasionally take on a dispute simply because the volume of evidence is too large for the community to consider as a community? The purpose of ArbCom is to consider disputes that the community cannot resolve. This has normally meant disputes where the community is divided, splintered, or polarized, but maybe both the community and ArbCom should recognize that some disputes involve too much evidence for a community process.

Third, after one day of posts that could hardly be considered discussion, I made the mistake of suggesting that the pseudo-discussion would go on for one or two weeks if it wasn't closed. The pseudo-discussion has gone on for about ten days and has resulted in one topic-ban and a trainwreck. The usual Wikipedia examples of trainwrecks has to do with deletion discussions. This has been a trainwreck about a meta-deletion discussion, a discussion about editors who oppose deletion. My mistake was in even suggesting that the discussion be closed, because it resulted in a good-faith but misguided attempt to close, following my good-faith but misguided suggestion of closure. I said that there were three-and-one-half possible actions. One-and-one-half would have been to close then, which was tried and failed, or to close with no consensus after one or two weeks, which is where we are. I think that there is agreement that another MFD is a wrong answer.

Fourth, this dispute still should, in my opinion, go to ArbCom, but that isn't the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a smart post. I think there is definitely a threshold at which any given ANI thread becomes an unreadable disaster, and this noticeably affects the quality of discourse: sometimes the same point will be raised in multiple places, and the same conversation about that point will occur multiple times because the thread is just too damn big for anyone to scroll through. Other times, someone will raise a point that never gets addressed because it's lost in the sea of repetition. It seems like some limitation on verbosity (at least for people who aren't subjects or complainants) might be in order; my main concern is that this may be impossibly difficult to implement without a large amount of clerking, automation, or structured threads (a la Arbcom, where each party has their own subection). jp×g 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think moving lengthy evidence to a separate page would further incentivise people to not read it (which is part of the problem with "walls of text" threads to begin with), so I don't see that as a viable solution. However, you do make sound points.

"Second, should ArbCom occasionally take on a dispute simply because the volume of evidence is too large for the community to consider as a community?" is also reasonable. The point of ArbCom is to solve disputes that the community can't, and if the length of certain threads is hindering the community's ability to actually solve disputes and stop disruption (whether it's because of people not wanting to read everything, closing administrators being overly general because of the length of the thread, "snowball" / first impression votes, tag-teaming, or anything in-between), then I can see the logic behind getting the Supreme Court involved. That being said, it would be ideal to exhaust every potential suggestion or remedy first before jumping to the last resort.

I'll also add that I don't think ANI should be determined by pure consensus and voting, but by evaluation of the evidence alone. User input can inform that, but popularity contests shouldn't be the determining factor. That being said, I am aware that implementing a remedy for this would be extremely difficult, especially since the current system already assumes that everyone's input at ANI is based on evaluations of the evidence (that a lot of people won't read in bloated threads).

Lastly, on the topic of deletion discussions, I think something needs to be done about the general non-constructive WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset between many "deletionists" and "inclusionists". For example, Andrew Davidson's topic ban yesterday was well-earned (I agreed with everything but the prod ban), but I recognised a few self-professed "deletionists" there that are honestly just as bad as Andrew in some respects. But alas, that problem won't be solved here. Dark knight 2149 22:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon as I am not very familiar with the history of ANI discussions, do these insanely long threads usually occur mostly when incidents are brought up with groups rather than individuals? If so, would there be some kind of way to discriminate between those two? I wonder if dividing ANI into ANI-Individual editors and ANI-Groups and Communities could create different discussion cultures. It has been said in this thread that long threads are just part of ANI being ANI, but judging by reading through some of the current ANI discussions, there are different qualities between the two types I establish above. Thus, I wonder if there is the possibility that by dividing the two, that eventually the community (by pure habit and precedent) would find a way to deal with the long threads in a much more efficient and effective manner. Just a thought. I agree that ArbCom is meant for issues the community itself cannot solve, but I think that the ARS discussion could've perfectly well been solved by the community if it wasn't such a mess from the beginning. Perhaps putting everyone in a community-incident frame of mind would serve much better? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Observation: This big ARS thread that seems to have triggered a shorter but still sizable thread here, and is held as an example of how ANI is broken, started by rehashing some of the old arguments, then coming to the same conclusion we've come to in the past -- that there's not going to be consensus that the nature of ARS is a bad thing, and that we should look at specific problematic members in particular. Then, importantly, it yielded concrete proposals to do just that. The outcome is one indefinite tban, one 6-month tban, and one warning. In other words, despite generating a lot of text, some of it chaotic, it's not evidence that there's something that needs fixing. To me it's evidence that sometimes these things just have to get long and messy in order to get anything done. As long as we have experienced and competent users like Wugapodes to thoughtfully consider it all, assessing consensus and making hard decisions, it can still work. I'm mildly-to-moderately skeptical of most of the interventions floated in this thread, but since I'm challenging the premise, I'm going to take a pass on getting into specifics. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

+1. There was a similar discussion last week at WT:AN. Levivich 02:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Long ANI threads may be a necessary evil. Since commenting on editor conduct is prohibited in most places in Wikipedia, grievances can build up over the course of months or years. So ANI becomes one of the only places where editor conduct can be discussed. Such discussion is arguably cathartic for the parties involved, especially if legitimately aggrieved editors achieve some kind of resolution to their frustrations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have an ARS discussion every 6-8 months, and because up until now the community has taken no action, evidence has built up. Further, it is usually a different filer every time and often someone not involved in previous discussions. I agree with the above, long threads are sometimes a necessary evil, in this instance it was very ably closed. I suspect elements will be brought back to ANI within 12 months, and potentially a similar mountain of evidence will be presented again. At least ARBCOM have given every indication that they will accept the case in the future. Cavalryman (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

My initial suggestion was to have ARS shut down, at Village Pump (proposals), fwiw. Nobody took me up on that (it was attempted before 2 years ago), so I see now that attempts are being made to change its focus. Wish 'no' editors had been t-banned, but that's not what happened. FWIW, I been in many Afds & MfDs & never once (to my memory) felt any hostility in those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

References in languages other than English

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

When references are in languages other than English are they supposed to be delineated as such somewhere within the cite web/cite book/etc? I tried to find the answer somewhere around here but couldn't find it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The standard citation templates should have a |language= parameter you can use to denote the native language the article is in. --Masem (t) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but where is the guideline or policy page/section/paragraph that speaks to that? I always thought that if references were in a language other than English the editor was supposed to put Dutch or French or whatever in the cite but I can't find the policy/guideline that says so. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not actually see a place in policy where this is required, but I think its established unwritten practice to always provide it. The citation templates instruct this but those aren't policy. --Masem (t) 16:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Good practice… but not policy. (Not everything that is good practice needs to be mandated). Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason I am asking is that I am dealing with an editor whose references are almost exclusively in languages other than English (Dutch, German, maybe even Italian plus a sprinkling of others) so I wanted to explain it to them why telling readers that the reference is in another language other than English (since this is the en.wikipedia) is a good idea. I like the concept of "good practice"/commonly-accepted norm and there is that parameter... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

But please don't make a big deal of this. Most of the time it is better that editors should follow the usual wiki practise of fix things themselves rather than demanding that someone else should do it. It is much better to have a reference that isn't formatted completely to your liking than no reference at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Not making a Big Deal at all, not Demanding at all ok? I am always thinking of making it easy for readers to verify information for themselves, so, they should know that a citation is in a language other than English (Dutch/French/German/etc) Moving forward this enthusiastic editor that I seem to now be mentoring should at least know about the language parameter so they can utilize it. For WP:V purposes. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shearonink, the problem with this is that the actual rule is: make up a citation formatting style, and use it consistently throughout that article. If editors choose to use a citation formatting style that omits language information, then, um, well... they're following the rules.

What you can do is point out the existence of this parameter (assuming the article is using WP:CS1 citation templates) and ask whether they'd like (you) to add that for all the citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Good practice would also be to use the |trans-quote= parameter to provide a translation of the relevant sentence, especially if a fact is contentious. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

query on accounts noted as former admin

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I notice that the report of a contributions analysis tool producing the result: "Is administrator? ✗ (former admin)". Is that standard practice at our sister sites, or here? ~ cygnis insignis 11:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I'm not sure what proposed policies or guidelines, or changes to such, you are trying discuss? Those tools sound like off-wiki things that wouldn't really be subject to these, the presentation of such is up to the tool maintainer. "Former admin" status is generally publicly available via the rights logs (though it may be difficult to programmatically query for older accounts that had their rights managed with legacy processes). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Pardon the misplaced post, it was just the query and nothing else. ~ cygnis insignis 14:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"standard practice" in the sense that you were surprised it was specifically noted? Enterprisey (talk!) 10:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I think he refers to the fact whether similar admin tools exist on other sister sites, such as French or German Wikipedias, am I correct @Cygnis insignis:?--Filmomusico (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: It was a question that arose when I saw that reported on my contributions, 'previously unaware' rather than 'surprised', I haven't formed an opinion on whether that is a good thing. I would be interested in reading a discussion that resulted in this being standard practice for any and all sister sites, if there was one, or knowing why the decision to include former rights in public logs was made. ~ cygnis insignis 08:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please link where you see "former admin". I assume Special:Log/rights is public because MediaWiki in general is about transparency and there is no apparent reason to hide former rights. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

They are talking about xtools I believe. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Cygnis_insignis doesn't say former admin but https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikisource.org/Cygnis_insignis does, so they both omitted the tool and site. The bottom of wikisource:Special:Contributions/Cygnis insignis displays wikisource:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer which is blank by default. The editors of English Wikisource, English Wikipedia and many other wikis have added a link to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec which is not part of MediaWiki but can display statistics for Wikimedia wikis. I guess the tool authors chose on their own to include "former admin", and that editors adding links to the tool don't know or don't care. The information can be found in public logs like wikisource:Special:UserRights/Cygnis insignis so the tool doesn't reveal something hidden. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of TimedText Pages

Latest comment: 3 years ago34 comments11 people in discussion

Why are requests to delete TimedText pages, which are audio, considered at MFD rather than at FFD? I think I know the answer, which is because that is what the rules say. Why do the rules send deletion requests for TimedText to MFD, which is not otherwise a forum that concerns itself with files containing analog, audio, video, image, or other such information? Why not direct those requests to FFD? That isn't really a "good fit", but it is sort of "less bad fit" than MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: probably because they are relatively rare, I expect most TT deletions are speedy (G8 when the file is deleted), and the others are rather uncontested so they just lumped in to the "everything else" that went to MfD. Venue-wise, most FFD's are about copyright issues, which could pertain to TT's - but again it is rarely a concern. Aside, if we really wanted to move something out of MfD - I've always argued that Draft's would be the best (as their deletion arguments are almost always about content or content inclusion criteria - not about miscellaneous things). — xaosflux ^Talk 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

For reference, I looked over the last 20000 page deletions. Of those, 27 were TimedText - all of which were G8. Additionally, Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/TimedText shows that there have only ever been 32 TT MFD's. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, TT is not audio - it is plain wikitext. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that either of these locations are completely bad, but I agree with Robert that these requests would ideally be handled at FFD, even though that means taking a little effort to update the rules (and probably Twinkle, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to moving these from MFD to FFD, but think that the overhead of even worrying about any of the mechanics is time best spent elsewhere. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with xasoflux; it's just not worth worrying about. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that, if there have been only 32 deletion nominations for TimedText files since Day One, then it makes very very little difference where we delete them. Perhaps this is because everything having to do with TimedText files makes very little difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's not worth spending much time on. I can only think of three reasons for deletion: there is no associated media file, the associated media file is being deleted, or the transcription is significantly wrong and no one is volunteering to fix it, which for most cases doesn't require much discussion: an admin can watch the media file with the timed text and decide if it should be deleted. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, deletion of media files, sound like images, belongs at FfD, primarily because complex copyright concerns are interwoven, like with image files. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It not being a big frequent issue is not a reason to not improve something. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Drafts

On the other hand, the deletion of drafts is a substantive matter. User:Xaosflux writes:

Aside, if we really wanted to move something out of MfD - I've always argued that Draft's would be the best (as their deletion arguments are almost always about content or content inclusion criteria - not about miscellaneous things).

Where would we move deletion of drafts to? They should not be moved to AFD, because, although drafts are proposed articles, notability is the most common reason for deletion of articles, and notability is not a reason for the deletion of drafts. What forum is there to move deletion of drafts to? Should there be a WP:Drafts for Discussion forum to discuss deletion of drafts, that could also handle appeals of rejected drafts, or complicated issues about whether to accept drafts? If drafts are not miscellaneous, what are they? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: in my general opinion, miscellany is more about things that are ancillary to the project (mechanics, presentations, and niche things that never got their own home from VFD such as TimedText above) - while drafts are more aligned with the core mission of gathering/curating of knowledge. DfD could be the answer - there hasn't been enough push to bother before - but they are certainly a larger category than TT if we are looking at splitting something out of MfD. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been one of the regular participants at MFD for several years, and my unscientific estimate would be that most of the time it has slightly more "draft-like" stuff than anything else, and next to that is WikiProject-related stuff. An exception was that in 2019, it was mostly portals, until the portal deletions resulted in an ArbCom case that didn't settle anything. (ArbCom, reasonably, said that there should be a community discussion. Community discussion fizzled out because the community was too scattered even to have a focused discussion.) However, much of what goes to MFD is either drafts or draft-like stuff, such as draft articles in user space. So a lot of what gets discussed at MFD is proposed content. (And portals are also a device for presenting content.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we can move it out, by getting rid of that process to delete drafts. After all, we already have broad allowance for what drafts are allowed to exist, even if they wouldn't have a hope of surviving an AfD (we just delete them after they've been inactive for six months), and we already handle the things that need to be deleted (copyright, BLP, illegal) through speedy deletion.

With that said, this is just brainstorming; I have minimal experience with MfD. BilledMammal (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Drafts are frequently left to languish, which might be unfortunate but which is a fact of life, but when deletion is being discussed, I would prefer to see those discussions happen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. They should be deleted (or not, as the case might be) on the same grounds as any page that is already in the mainspace, and the most straightforward way to make sure that the same standards are being applied is to have the same process handling it. There has been a tendency among AFD and NPP regulars to sometimes reject drafts and new pages on notable subjects on grounds that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions rejects. I also wouldn't object if the preferred process looked like first moving the page to the mainspace and then immediately nominating it for deletion. Leaving that log entry in the mainspace might make it easier to trace histories later.

Also, once a page has survived AFD, it should not be in draftspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, once a page has survived AFD, it should not be in draftspace. Yes. This is something I strongly support making policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There are really only 3 reasons why a draft should ever be deleted:

The sole author requests it (G7)
It is actively harmful to the project (e.g. attack pages (G10), copyright violations (G12), and similar)
No human has touched them for 6 months (G13) - and I'm not fully convinced this isn't causing more harm than good in its present form.

For everything else, there needs to be a very good reason why it needs to be deleted before it is eligible for G13. Lack of notability and other reasons articles are commonly deleted at AfD are not examples of such reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether a page in the draft namespace is indeed a draft that could ever become an article. We do want to delete WP:NOTWEBHOST violations in any namespace, and draft namespace shouldn't be protected from that. (Howtos, manuals, gaming, various data dumps etc. should not be kept around based on what namespace they are in, but based on whether they have any conceivable use for the project). —Kusma (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

True. Any draft that violates any line at WP:NOT is welcome at MfD and is usually deleted there. The problem with most DraftSpace MfD nominations is that the nominator cites no WP:NOT violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:Thryduulf. Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD. Mostly, I think it is due to enthusiastic Wikipedians trying to contribute, who don’t consider that raising unimportant issues on a formal deletion page creates more work than the original problem was worth. I.e busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with User:SmokeyJoe's statement that "Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD." It is true that many of the draft nominations at MFD are mistaken, but proper nominations at MFD of drafts that were being tendentiously resubmitted are not uncommon. User:Thryduulf, above, says that drafts should only be deleted for three reasons, one of which is things that are actively harmful. I will agree with those categories IF it is recognized that tendentious resubmission is harmful to the project because it is a burden to the volunteer reviewers, and is often self-serving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD.

Maybe on average one per week. That is very small for arguing for a new XforDeletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sending all draftspace deletion to another forum would be good for mfd in removing much busywork from mfd. However, I predict that the new forum will be unattended. Most draftspace mfd nominations would have been appropriate for WP:N/N. Consider reviving that page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

For reference, there have been 71 AfDs for pages in the Draft namespace since its introduction in December 2013, out of about 175,000 AfDs total during that time (i.e. about 0.03%). Meanwhile, out of the 32,229 MfDs in history, there exist 5,656 for drafts. This works out to about sixty per month, or two per day. jp×g 04:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There are about 5 or so Drafts a day that amount to "INTRODUCTION OF MY PAGE' My name is famguy ,i write quotes, love stories, health and scientific THANKS" What do you propose should be done with them--leave them around for 6 months? Some , like this, may be an attempt at a user page, and we could establish a practice of moving them there. There are 2 or 3 a day, "I am szyr, master of the universe" Currently I nominate them as nonsense and they are almost always deleted as such. There are also 2 or 3 a day that amount to ""see, i can write on wikipedia" -- Currently I nominate them for test pages and they are almost always deleted as such. (We have a rule against deleting empty drafts, because the person might be in the process of writing content). Every draft that stays in 6 months has to be looked at by 2 or 3 perople at least before it gets deleted. Wouldn't it be better to remove things like this immediately?

The other reason for speedy on Drafts is G11. We tend of course to be very tolerant here as compared to mainspace, because they might be getting fixed. But how about. "We are an importer and distributor of rare seeds &. Please see our catalog on the web . We are the best company for this in the country. Or phone ...... " I have never seen a draft like that actually turn into an article. It usually doesn't even get submitted. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Drafts and Notability

User:WhatamIdoing says that drafts should be discussed for deletion on the same basis as articles. At least, that is what I understand they are saying. The most common reason for deletion of articles is lack of notability (where lack of reliable sources is a failure to establish notability verifiably). Does User:WhatamIdoing really mean that drafts should be deleted if they fail to establish notability? If not, what do they mean? Please explain. I think that I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that drafts should be deleted (or merged) if the subject is not notable. Mind the gap between "the draft fails to establish the notability of the subject by citing a sufficient number of reliable sources" and "the subject is not notable". "Establishing" notability requires editors to invest a certain amount of time and effort in locating and citing reliable sources. Not being a notable subject is a problem that cannot be solved by any amount of effort expended by Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

How much editor effort should go into deleting worthless hopeless drafts? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want the least-effort deletion, then letting it rot in the draftspace until it is automatically deleted for inactivity is probably the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems kind of backwards to me. Usually, we determine "notability" by the presence of reliable sources; the point of a draft is that you haven't gone through the whole ordeal of writing a full article (e.g. finding sources). Say, for example, I write this big block of unformatted text, with no references, about some monk from the 1400s nobody's heard of (who has zero Google results). This would certainly be deleted as an article. But this is the point of having a draft: maybe I am waiting to get my hands on some obscure, out-of-print books (which far and away provide SIGCOV) to source it. If we're not going to allow for stuff like that, why have drafts at all? jp×g 21:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability doesn't depend on whether you've cited any sources. It depends on whether sources have been published in the real world. It's true that what you're talking about would probably get deleted, but this would constitute a mistake on our part. This is an expected mistake (because admins aren't omniscient), but it's still a mistake.

In terms of notability, the guideline is that three scholarly sources generally means its notable. Are senior theses written by undergraduates considered sufficient for determining notability? Not all of the sources they cite are accessible online, and in particular the ones that would prove the notability of the subject. There's more than enough that is available to write an article, but I'm not sure if it will get taken down or not.

The Draft: namespace was started because people (WMF staff, not volunteers) thought it would make article creation better for newcomers. It didn't work (according to the same WMF staff members that proposed it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I don't think it affects any of your main points, the RFC for the creation of the Draft namespace was started by an editor who was not a WMF staff member and supported by various other regular editors. (As described in the RfC discussion, the concept had been discussed by WMF staff previously.) isaacl (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How can we know that the subject is non-notable if nobody looks for references? We could' look ourselves, and that would amount to asking the reviewers at AfC to write articles for everybody who doesn't know how to do so. I will do this once or twice a week, but who would stay an AfC reviewer if they had to do this for every such draft? Better that we send it back, and tell the user to find some. Sometimes they do. Further, even in mainspace, we have a rule that no one or even two people may delete for lack of notability. One can Prod on that basis, but then the entire community has a chance to look at it. ata prominent place (at least in theory). We can speedy some types of articles for lack of significance, but that's a very low bar as we interpret it.--see the examples at WP:CSD. I suppose we could use that at Draft also, but the equivalent there is to reject, not decline an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability Guideline for Future Films

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a Request for Comments at the film notability talk page to rewrite the guidelines on notability of future films. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The particular section link can be found here. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

[:0-1] Michael Massing (Feb. 26, 2004), "Now They Tell Us: The American Press and Iraq" Archived 2015-04-15 at the Wayback Machine, New York Review of Books

[1]