Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132

• 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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC

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.

---

This already happens a little bit but there has been no actual community grant to allow this to happen. TFD already allows this per WP:BADNAC. Due to the extremely low participation at FFD and the even lower admin participation I would like to have the community grant non-admins the ability to close FFD discussions as delete. Afterwards the {{db-xfd}} template would be used on the file page to indicate that the image is ready for deletion. This would massively help reduce the backlog by allowing competent individuals who have a handle on file maintenance tasks the ability to close discussions in this manner. Of course, the deleting administrator would be responsible for double checking but with discussions that are still open from August I don't see any other alternative.

Note: I have posted a notice on WT:FFD and will be posting this to T:CENT in a moment. --Majora (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. --Majora (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support because some discussions are open from May, relisted in August, and still not closed. Full disclosure: I already do this for a very small number of discussions that have been open for similar lengths of time because WP:NACD is a guideline, and "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

   Support: I think this might be a good way to help reduce the backlog at FFD. There have been previous discussions/proposals on ways non-admins can help reduce backlogs such as Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal which have failed, but I think this one makes more sense because it's scope is limited to FFD, does not involve giving out "limited" admin tools and ultimately leaves any deletion of a file up to an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly to change from Support to Neutral. -- 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)]

3. Support - This will save admins a significant amount of time. I expect this to be a surprisingly drama-free timesaver for admins. It should be noted that if a nonadmin closes a discussion, an admin deletes it, and the close is successfully challenged, that should not be the admins fault. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   Yes, it would be an admin's fault if an admin deleted something they should not be deleting. An admin is responsible for every action they make. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   Support - no drawbacks, although I do not believe this will substantially reduce the backlog, because an administrator still has to review each NAC before processing the delete. -FASTILY 02:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) same sentiments, but moved to neutral -FASTILY 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Support Even if an admin will still need to review the cloture, being able to tag items with a CSD tag will get more eyes at FFD speeding up the process. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
5. Strong support --A noble way to partially reduce the backlog without giving the actual tools to those who are not admin.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
6. Support - yes, of course. I proposed the same thing for WP:RFD discussions some time ago, although the community didn't go for it. The backlog at FFD is far worse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
7. Of course amid the infinite backlogs and I hope this gets extended to other venues in the future. Esquivalience (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
8. Strong Support could help with reducing the backlogs of unused and or low quality files that need deleting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
9. Support: It could help with our backlog especially those who are not admins. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
10. Support less bureaucracy. Kaldari (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose In my experience FFD is too bureaucratic, at the expense of common sense, and so we should not encourage blind deletions. If there are non-admins who think they have the competence to judge such issues correctly then they should apply to be admins. If they don't have such competence then they shouldn't be making closes. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose as non-admins do not have the technical ability to carry out such closes. Anyone I would trust closing such discussions, I would trust with the toolset, so let's send those would-be non-admin closers to RfA. I wholeheartedly believe that having backlogs encourages people to run for adminship, and if we apply a band-aid to "fix" the backlog (read: push them onto the CSD admins), then all we're doing is discouraging people from running for adminship. This also creates double the work, as BOTH a non-admin closer and the admin reviewer would need to look at the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   Moved to Oppose - Moved from Discussion section. 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Moved all to Discussion. George Ho (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose due to "Of course, the deleting administrator would be responsible for double checking", meaning this proposal simply doubles the work for the community, with little benefit. This is very similar to Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Archive 9#Allow non-admin delete closures?. TfD allows non-administrator closes as orphan. Somewhat echoing Tavix and Andrew Davidson above, if a contributor is trusted enough to close discussions as delete in one venue, there's no reason they shouldn't be in others. Personally, I'd be more likely to support such a proposal if it applied to all deletion venues, though several incarnations of that have been solidly rejected. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose -- for all of the above reasons & more. "faster" is not synonymous with "better"

   tl;dr -- this kind of work is not "time-critical".

   if a file is copyvo, malware, or libelous we have procedures to deal with it quickly. (if we get something that violates US national security, that's probably an office action :p) if we have enough time sit down & have a discussion about something, we have enough time to decide properly.

   there are more important things than "clearing the list".

   now, if we want to talk about creating "deputy-admins", with (only) demigod powers & some proper qualifying requirements, then let's consider that. if we want to change the admin system, to make it easier to become an admin (& to get rid of them when they do a bad job @ it), let's consider that.

   but this kind of proposal is a "workaround" for the problem of "we don't have enough admins to do the job"; & not even a very good or effective one. so, fix the fundamental problem & get enough admins.

   instead of handing out yet more complicated half-assed categories of user "rights & privileges", with half-assed qualifications. in this case, it's not even a granting of actual "powers" on the wiki, just a "right" to declare that a discussion is "closed".

   & then, a "proper" admin still has to go & do the actual work, if any action needs to be taken. so, not that much of a labour-savings there.

   it literally just moves backlogged stuff from "list a" (discussion) to "list b" (queued for deletion).

   AND the whole thing becomes another point to argue about when disputing the legitimacy of closing decisions & deletions.

   Lx 121 (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Tavix. This creates more work, because the admin would still have to go to the discussion and assess the consensus themselves. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Tavix, and my opinion from similar RfCs in the past. Sounds like some FfD regulars should go to RfA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Tavix's arguments. Image/file deletion is a particularly challenging area and discussions should not be closed by editors who have not shown particular competence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I stated directly in my proposal that closers would be competent individuals who have a handle on file maintenance tasks including copyright. There is also nothing stopping an admin who doesn't know copyright from closing things now as delete. Nor is there anything stopping non-admins from closing things as keep when they shouldn't. This is true on all XfDs regardless of the area. --Majora (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Well, why don't we just say that competent editors can do anything admins can? It's all very well to say that only competent editors will close discussions under your proposal, but Wikipedia is strewn with examples of destructive behaviour by editors who overestimate their own competency. I obviously hold a low opinion of the admin corps collectively, but image/file deletion is one of the areas where it has performed relatively well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

8. Oppose. This is a solution that fails to address any actual problem. FFD turns out a very little amount of users, even less admins, and some discussion are simply too complex to close. Allowing non-admins to close discussions as 'delete' wouldn't reduce the backlog as those that have been sitting there for months are clearly not easy 'delete' closures. Per WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. This is exactly what's currently sitting at FFD. What FFD is in dire need of is more participation to allow reviewing administrators to better determine a consensus, and more admins to do them—not what is currently being proposed. — ξ^xplicit 04:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Users are made admins not just for their ability to press a button, but for their skill and judgment. Either it's a complicated case that requires an admin to close anyways, or it's part of the vast majority of simple, tedious cases that the deleting admin would still have to spend the same amount of time double-checking in the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose for now per Travix. That said, if there are in fact people who couldn't pass RfA for reasons unrelated to sound judgement (say not enough content creation) and would clearly be good FfD closers, I could perhaps be convinced that we should move in this direction. But generically, and for any non-admin, I'd have to say it's not a good plan. Hobit (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose per all above, especially Tavix. The proposal is promising but has so many flaws. Even as a non-admin, the work would be very time-consuming, especially when deletion tools are not given to editors and db templates are all we have instead. I may know which ones are obviously unneeded but not more complicated cases. The proposal might reduce backlog but does not increase voting participation. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose As with articles, a non-admin should not be closing a discussion as delete when they lack the permissions to delete same. I don't think the backlog is enough reason to make an exception here. Why not start recruiting these non-admins for RfA? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Usually, I'm all for non-admin closures as delete, but FfD is rather unique in that there are significant copyright legalities. Some of those legalities aren't even well-explained in enwiki policy, but they must be applied nonetheless. At RfA, we ask complicated copyright questions to candidates operating in the file space to make sure they understand the complexities. If editors without the copyright knowledge were to make closures at FfD, it would be disastrous. This sounds like it will increase the backlog due to required cleanup/shooing away of non-admins who aren't familiar with the copyright complexities rather than lowering it due to more closes. Also, the CSD tags will likely draw in admins unfamiliar with the file space who may make deletions without being aware of what they should be looking for, believing them to be uncontroversial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
14. oppose, per Tavix and Godsy, i.e., first, this increases the work as the closing admin must do at least a quick review; second, if a user is trusted to close (more so as deletion) then, please, become an admin and do it. - Nabla (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
15. Weak oppose; the admin deleting should still be checking the FFD, so this adds little. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Oppose because any sensible admin will read over the discussion and come to a conclusion on its consensus anyway since they will be the ones ultimately responsible for bad closes. Sam Walton (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I won't oppose this outright as a real problem has been identified and a concrete solution proposed. I appreciate that, and I know this is a problem, I just don't believe this will fix it. The reason is that any responsible admin reviewing these nomination would feel obligated to go and review the FFD the tagging was based on before deleting. This is the functonal equivalent of jst closing the FFD themselves, and so I suspect it will just move the problem rather than solve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral I agree in principle, but I think we need to set out explicitly what closures non-admins can do here and what actions they can take. For example I do not like the route of letting the NAC orphan an FFD that was agreed to be deleted, but rather add the right tags to the image file to alert an admin to clear out the image appropriately. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   Neutral - Seems appropriate. However, a more controversial case should be handled by an administrator (or very skilled expert). Not all cases that still lacks participation asks for deletion but rather something else. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC); re-changing my vote to "oppose". George Ho (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Neutral - I switched from "support" to "neutral". While I originally thought this might be a good way to help reduce the backlog at FFD, I think that some of comments made by those who oppose this raise some valid points that need to be addressed. Non-admins are already allowed to close discussions at FFD per WP:NACD, so it's not clear how this is an improvement on that. Also as pointed out in some of the oppose comments, this does still ultimately require an administrator to review things so it's not clear that any time would actually be saved. If reducing the backlog at FFD is the primary concern, then there may be better ways to achieve this such as by being bold and simply removing a file or by using one of the various speedy deletion templates related to files and leaving FFD to only those cases where there appears to be some clear disagreement. I still think this proposal may have some potential to turn out to be something good, but there are still lots of details which need to be worked out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Neutral no drawbacks, although I do not believe this will actually do anything to reduce the backlog, because an administrator still has to review each NAC before processing the delete. -FASTILY 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder if allowing an "orphan" closure for non-free images may make sense instead. A fair amount of NAC ripe old discussions are about whether a non-free image's use is OK or not. These don't need admin tools to close and enact. And because of NFCC they are equivalent to deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically if it is a non-free file a non-admin can mark these for deletion without actually going about it. Close the FFD as Remove (or don't even do that), remove the file, and then tag it F5. Sure it would take an extra 7 days to take effect and it smells a little to close to gaming for my tastes but it can be done right now. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Jo-Jo. We should be tagging more often than executing in FfD closures. A perfect example is deciding which of two fair use images to keep—make the call and remove the other from the article. A bot will tag it as abandoned fair use, and all is well. Expanded below. czar 07:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: The problem I have with this is that it is deleting in practice but not in name. When we do this would we remove the {{ffd}} tag on the image page? Wouldn't the deleting admin look at the FFD anyways in this situation? I'm fine with doing this but since the practice does result in a deleted image it seems like we would need community permission to act in this manner wouldn't it? It would be a non-admin, essentially, deciding what image to delete and what to keep after all. --Majora (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean an issue with the proposal or what Jo-Jo proposed? Contentious closures are usually left to admin. If the issue is closing a discussion with a clear consensus, as in Jo-Jo's example, the point is that bots handle the cleanup (with a built-in delay) if the issue is deciding which fair use image to abandon. czar 18:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So, FFD is one of the few areas where quorum is nonexistent. Take the example where someone brings two images (both under fair use) to FFD to decide which one to keep and which one to delete. There is no activity whatsoever in the 7 day window. It is relisted. There is still no activity in the next 7 day window. According to the FFD rules, this is a noncontentious decision (even after the first 7 days) and the (normally) admin closure would just go with whatever the nominator stated (hopefully they did) and delete one of the images. If a non-admin does this by removing the stated image from the article and tagging it F5 that is, in my mind, a backdoor deletion performed by a non-admin with the help of CSD. To me, that seems like gaming the system in some fashion. To me, that would seem like it would need some sort of community allowance since it results in the deletion of a title. --Majora (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, this reminds me of an interesting discussion I had earlier this year with a user who, instead of nominating clear NFCC violations to FFD, goes ahead and summarily removes those files from their articles, causing them to be tagged by a bot later as F5. I thought this was circumventing the discussion process, but they explained that it was okay because anyone can revert it within the 7 days and later take it to FFD, which I could understand as something similar to WP:BRD. Given that this practice of orphaning non-free files happens already as an alternative to FFD, I think I'd be okay with letting Jo-Jo's proposal of letting non-admins close preexisting FFDs as "Orphan" move forward. Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• If this were to gain consensus, I would recommend including in the guideline a recommendation to non-administrators to wait at least a week to allow admins time to normally close the discussion, which is much more efficient. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – There may be an initial inclination to oppose this on the basis that "an administrator would have to review the discussion anyway before deleting, so no time is saved". This was a popular argument in past proposals similar to this one, but it is unsound because represents a misunderstanding about how the non-admin closures are applied. The wide, wide majority of closures at places like FFD and RFD are uncontroversial, with the nomination being either uncontested or unanimous. It is these uncontroversial closures that sometimes form a backlog, and only uncontroversial closures are suitable for non-administrators to perform (see WP:NACD). A non-admin closure would draw the attention of an administrator patrolling CAT:CSD to the uncontroversial discussion (using {{db-xfd}}) and make the process more efficient. In other words, yes, an administrator would have to review the uncontroversial discussion anyway before deleting, but without the non-admin closure, the administrator would likely not have reviewed the discussion in the first place. This is already in place at TFD. I haven't formed an opinion on this proposal yet, as I'm not too familiar with the backlog at FFD. Mz7 (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to amend my prior statement here a bit. Czar makes a sensible point below that the kinds of issues at FFD are different from issues at other deletion venues in that they often revolve around complicated legal questions about copyright, like the threshold of originality, freedom of panorama, and de minimis. On the other hand, I'm sure there exists non-administrators who are competent enough to handle these kinds of closes (keep in mind, non-admin closures are already allowed for "keep" outcomes), but Tavix is correct above that this is a "band-aid" solution to the underlying problem that there is a need for additional administrators to perform these closures. My position is "Neutral" on this for now. Mz7 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Although I support this proposal and think it's a good idea, I do think it's important that this only be done in cases where there is a clear consensus either way, the non-admin doing the close is not involved in the discussion and it is clear that the close was made by a non-admin. (For reference, these are general concerns and not specifically directed towards any particular editor or editor(s)). I am also not sure if it should be done for discussions where there is basically just a nomination statement and no debate. Some editors not familiar with FFD have made claims that files have been removed/deleted without discussion strictly based on one person's opinion, even though FFD discussions can technically be closed after 7 days and no debate/objection basically means a de-facto consensus has been established to remove or delete. It might be best for a non-admin to relist these once, check to see if people have been notified, use {{Please see}} templates to notify others if possible, and wait a bit longer before closing the discusison. Regardless of the specifics, if the proposal is approved, then I think WP:FFDAI should be updated accordingly to reflect it (perhaps a new "NACFFD" subsection) since WP:NACD and WP:NAC are more general discussions related to all XfDs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly to reflect change from Support to Neutral. -- 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)]
• I have FastilyBot tracking the day-over-increases/decreases in the number of files listed at FfD; it's useful for visualizing the backlog. -FASTILY 02:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• There is a fair amount of specialized discretion in resolving FfDs such that the backlog is more about finding someone prepared to handle the question's nuances than getting an admin to close the discussion... And I'd rather see the discussion stay open and get the right response than to steamroll over it with a db-xfd tag. Non-admin ability to delete is not the bottleneck, as far as I can tell. No prima facie objections to non-admin closures, but I think Jo-Jo is on the right track in that the better solution is encouraging template tagging as FfD resolutions (e.g., tag for needing FUR rather than adding it yourself, tag as delayed speedy if no one responds to the source/permission clarification request). But I don't see how the process is improved through the proposal: If a discussion should be closed as "delete", as a closing admin, it's much more helpful to see the relevant rationale/policy linked within the discussion itself than it would be to click several more times in processing a speedy queue, verifying the closure was done correctly, doing my own checks of the relevant copyright policy, etc. czar 07:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know... Sometimes a non-admin might not handle complex cases, especially when participation is lacking. For example, at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 26#File:Maynemedical.jpg, someone closed the discussion as used. However, the image is already orphaned at the time of the closure. I told the closer about this, so the closer reverted the closure to reopen the discussion. I wonder whether a person would appropriately apply the rules on one file or another. George Ho (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC) (Moved to oppose) George Ho (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Comment re-moved to here. 01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  And, no, I don't have the capacity to determine whether image usage is appropriate or not. Instead, I am dependent on admin's rationale about any image. George Ho (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Moved portion per Majora's comment. 01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  @George Ho: Quite honestly, saying that you oppose because someone made a mistake seems a little odd to me. Everyone makes mistakes. Someone getting the mop doesn't make them infallible. The point would be that the mistake was brought to their attention and they undid it. --Majora (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  ...Good point. Moved comment to discussion. George Ho (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  Before my re-voting, Majora, I'll try to brainstorm my opinions about this idea then. George Ho (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  As I was brainstorming, I suddenly remember Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 15#The Groove Line, which had "keep" votes and no "opposes" on some images that I uploaded. However, I uploaded a freer image at The Groove Line, and the image got then deleted by Explicit. I don't think an NAC would handle some old yet open like this, right? George Ho (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  During brainstorming, I end up writing more cons and very little pros. Pros: reduces backlog and spares time. Cons: Lots of things, I think. What about reading the rationale for discussing or deleting a file, determining copyright status of a file, considering NFCC, considering readers' ability to understand the image with or without a fair use content, etc.? George Ho (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  What makes this any different from what normal non-admins do with every FFD? Copyright and NFC policy are the two "pillars" (if you will) of the file namespace. People who comment there regularly should already have a firm understanding of those topics to a degree that will allow them to participate in a well thought out and rational manner. As for reader's understanding, most of the time it is actually pretty clear cut. It depends on the critical commentary on the article more than it depends on the reader's understanding. And in cases like that WP:BADNAC would insist that an admin close it anyways. NAC is only to be used in non-controversial matters when the decision is clear. For FFD that may be a no quorum situation but that would be the same for an admin as well. --Majora (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  Well... I won't support this, but... I'm now convinced. I'll explain at the Neutral section. George Ho (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Lx 121, can you move some parts into here and then add "(see further below at Discussion)"? The structuring of the comments is breaking the numbering list format. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  Alternatively, you can use <p> instead. --George Ho (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

not clear on how it's "breaking"? the "vote-count" numbering looks fine on my end. but i'm not as familiar with the mediawiki formatting mark-ups as you are; if you want to move/copy part of my comments down to "here", feel free; just please leave my "oppose" (& agreement with previous points raised, + "further") in place & put an internal link section-to-section? (honestly i'm just trying to finish one last thing now & them i'm going to sleep, for the first time this year; not the best time for me to try to learn a new thing in formatting mw) Lx 121 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Lx 121, it was fixed by someone else before you got here. All good. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that a better solution would be to look for more editors to serve as FFD-focused administrators (or any other administrative process where there tend to be unreasonable backlogs). I have not looked at the RfA process recently, but I recall that it was not very targeted. Perhaps various wiki communities like FFD could put together wanted ads for RfA, like "Preferred qualifications: knowledge of NFC", etc. This may encourage those with the required qualifications to come forward, and those wanting to earn adminship to focus on those knowledge areas. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2017 (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.

Sourcing policy question

With the sourcing policy on Wikipedia, how is it taken into consideration when a reliable source seems to make an obvious error that can be shown with other reliably sourced raw data? I know that secondary sources should be used in place of raw data but in this article it says that Carman, MB has the record for the Canadian city with the highest humidex rating, but the data for Castlegar, BC shows that it has an even higher rating. What does Wikipedia policy say about something like this? Must the secondary source be used or is it up to consensus? Please show me the policy if possible. I also ask because there's been other times where I have noticed a major news organization make an obvious error, even more obvious than this, and I've supplied them with data to show them their error so that they could make the correction, but they didn't and the errors persist even to this day. So are their articles and thus mistakes always considered final and absolute? Thanks Air.light (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally, where sources differ, WP:Editorial discretion applies and you may ignore a source that has an error, even if the source is normally reliable. Mistakes happen all the time. WP:WPNOTRS may help a bit but at the end of the day your edits need to be reasonable. If there is disagreement about what is an error or what should be done about it, consensus should be sought and possibly the article should end up mentioning the disagreement between the sources (if the difference is editorially important). Such considerations are not matters of policy (I think) but of judgement. In this case I think you have found (in a downloadable csv file) a humidex of 53.4 for Castlegar, British Columbia back in 1961. Has this been reported in a secondary source or have you just found it by searching? If searching, my advice would be to ignore the item of data. Hence we will end up only reporting the Carman, Manitoba figure. Don't aim for perfection in reporting data because this will often fail – some place may achieve a higher humidex this summer and whatever we have done now will be "wrong". Thincat (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Environment Canada climate normals are used extensively through out Wikipedia. But they should be used with caution. For example look at the 1971-2000 data for Cambridge Bay and the extreme maximum for January of 7.8 C. This was corrected in the 1981-2010 data to -4.9 C. The 7.8 was used in Wikipedia for years because there is no other sources. There are/were other examples of Arctic communities having temperatures above freezing in the winter. So I would use the secondary source is probably correct. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Family members in nav boxes?

I am wondering about the appropriateness of the recent addition of family members (albeit, notable individuals with their own articles) to {{Carrie Fisher}}. Is this a thing now? Feels wrong to me.— TAnthony^Talk 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I cant see any reason why not as long as they are all notable people with articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally I would remove them - Family members should only be in the article, If we allow them in navboxes it then means editors are going to fill them up with more unneeded crap, Best just sticking with films or songs/albums for navboxes. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This makes some sense in this particular case since the listed family members are well-known for the same thing as Carrie Fisher - acting and entertainment. I would recommend creating a sub-template called {{Eddie Fisher Family}} and include that in the infobox of all members of the family. It would not make sense to do this if most of the well-known family members were not well-known for a common reason. I see no harm in NOT having this in a template at all and only having it in the article(s). In short: This should be an editorial decision made on a case-by-case basis, we should not be looking to "make a rule" that such templates are always okay or never okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this only makes sense in cases where all the family members in the navbox are notable as well. It's not entirely unprecedented per {{Sarah Palin}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

why not use disclaimers on medical pages?

@Jytdog: Folks, I'm a newbie, shocked that there is not a statement at the top and bottom of every medically-related wp page that states something like "the information in this article is for educational purposes only. For medical advice related to this subject, consult your health care professional." Has anything like that been discussed before, or am I an even biger oddball than I think? DennisPietras (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, DennisPietras, it has been discussed many times. We don't do disclaimers in articles. We have site-wide disclaimers, however, including one on medical content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I never bothered to notice the disclaimer at the bottom. Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposition regarding signature length - notification

For the following proposal . Let your voice be heard. KoshVorlon 14:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DAB and "name" articles

Does MOS:DAB apply to (the list-of-people parts of) given-name pages like Zoltán and surname articles like Macdonald? They sure look like dab pages, but they don't call themselves that. If MOS:DAB doesn't, what comparable policy (about format, content of entries, etc.) does? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. older ≠ wiser 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

image policy: is eye candy appropriate?

Hi! I'm a newbie, but retired and I am making a big commitment to upgrading wp articles, especially in biology in general and genetics specifically. I noticed today's featured article, Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service. Being a science geek, you can probably imagine that I'm not real interested in the topic. I see what the plane looks like in the first image. Fine. The rest of the images in that article are, IMHO, only eye candy, adding nothing to understanding of the subject. But, I can appreciate that somebody who served in one of them really likes the pix, so, OK, include them. My feelings about eye candy continue into scientific articles. It seems that every article about a protein has a colorful ribbon diagram of it. Those diagrams are crucial for scientists who know what they are looking at, and are able to compare sequences of different proteins, yada, yada. But, for wp viewers, those diagrams are nothing more than eye candy, IMHO. My question: is there some specific wp policy about such images? If so, could you please direct me to it? BTW, in case you've gotten the wrong impression, I am in support of including eye candy to attract viewers and keep their interest, and have had some eye candy images that I've added deleted by other editors. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:IUP, especially section 3. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Those diagrams are crucial for scientists who know what they are looking at...But, for wp viewers"—You seem to forget that more than a few Wikipedia readers are scientists. An image that looks pretty to most people, and is potentially informative for at least an appreciable minority, strikes me as a net benefit. (And usually the infobox right below those ribbon diagrams contains links to structural biology databases, so the image serves to draw attention to useful external resources.) When deciding whether or not something is just "eye candy", one must consider the staggering breadth of skills, interests, and expertise of Wikipedia's millions of various readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service does not use images inappropriately. The number of images is far from excessive and doesn't even come close to creating a layout problem. Each image shows a different angle or livery; only one shows the rear loading door open. In contrast, someone recently added a photo of Donald Trump and his wife to Donald Trump. The photo showed Trump waving, his wife looking good. The article already contained enough images showing what he and his wife look like, so that was not an improvement to the article. I removed it. I feel that articles benefit from having a certain minimum number of images just to keep them from seeming dry and uninviting, and I'll lower the bar if there simply aren't enough "informative" photos available for the subject. That doesn't mean we have to be People magazine or a coffee table book. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, I think most editors would be opposed to pure eye candy. The key here is that we have a pretty broad view on what makes images useful for various readers. Let's consider the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service case. My first impression is that all images are highly relevant to the article. My second impression is that they depict a variety of useful aspects of the subject, although the lop-left black& white image is lower quality and seems largely redundant to some of the others. My third impression is that I know jack squat about the topic, and closer examination reveals that virtually all images depict different models. The black&white image is the initial C-130A model. I don't see anything special about that one, but I know jack squat. That image is extremely valuable to someone interested in the evolution of the design. Bingo. It's an excellent collection of useful images. A reasonable number of readers will find concrete encyclopedic value in each and every image. There's good information at WP:Manual_of_Style/Images. Alsee (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Two new proposals

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.

---

Creation of material at offensive titles is a big problem. After studying Special:ProtectedTitles, I've created two policy proposals about creation protection of those titles: Wikipedia:1SHOT and Wikipedia:Preemptive salting.

The first proposal covers creation protection of pages with offensive titles if one of two criteria apply.

The second proposal covers creation protection of project namespace pages. More precisely, it covers creation protection of sockpuppet investigations or long-term abuse logs of administrators, deletion discussions of policies critical to Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, or deletion discussions of featured or good articles.

If my proposals were accepted, Wikipedia will have less vandalism and attack pages. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm unclear fromt he way you have done this where you want to discuss these, so I guess here?

The 1SHOT proposal is not needed, such matters are already within the realm of administrative discretion.

The preemptive salting proposal is a hot mess and is DOA, I can assure you of that. It's poorly thought out and flies in the face of numerous long-established policies. Breaking them down point by point:

Points 1&2:Admins are not and should not be a protected class with special rules. Admins have totally been caught socking before. If someone is creating spurious pages attacking specific admins we delete the pages and block the user.

Point 3 solves a problem that doesn't exist, or at least is so vanishingly small that we don't need a specific rule for it

Point 4 is far too subjective and rules out the possibility that the anyone can try and convince the community to change its mind as well as solving a problem that doesn't exist or is insignificant enough not to merit a specifc rule.

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any benefit to this. Some high quality pages were originally attack pages, got deleted, and someone else made them legitimately. And I agree with Beeblebrox on the issue of Admins getting special treatment. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• What's the motivation for this? You'll need to provide some evidence that this is a "big problem" before these proposals will receive any support. Sam Walton (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. Protection can already be applied as needed based on admin discretion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I will advise you to withdraw, as almost all pre-emptive protection cases end in snow close, and, from my recollection, the one that got anywhere near positive s-o ratio got shut down by WMF. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - I disagree that offensive titles are a huge problem. We have occasional vandals that make ridiculous titles but largely offensive article titles are not an issue and those that are tend to be handled swiftly, as is the case with most salted articles. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - One thing we don't want to do is create a list of offensive titles; SALTing them does just that. What we should do when such pages are created is add appropriate entries to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. As to the second: Unless youcan show a significant' amount of disruption of this type, I see no reason to preemptively SALT them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Nope nope nopity nope. We already regularly deal with attack pages and admins have sufficient clue to know under what circumstances to salt them. The preemptive salting/blacklisting is not appropriate for several reasons, first it is a solution in search of a problem - see my prior point. Second admins sometimes sock, we had one desysopped and blocked for just that a couple of months ago. Third, who is going to define offensive? - ex. Pussy Riot who would have thought that would be a legitimate article until is was? - Even if it could be defined we would eat up all of our disk space (or CPU using regex) W!tH A// 0v de PoSsiBle titles. Jbh^Talk 15:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  Well... Pussy Riot is supposed to be (mildly) offensive. That is the point :-) Nabla (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• wrong place (so, no). This kind of issues are already covered on wp:Protection policy » Creation protection. We may always improve the existing policy, but these may already be done when the need arises. Anyway, you're welcome in trying to improve. Nabla (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2017 (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.

Citizenship, Immigration status, & BLP policies

I propose that, as an emergency temporary measure, that BLP policy discourage edits that remove references to the subject's US citizenship or legal immigration status, as such edits might, under current political circumstances, cause the subjects of these entries difficulties with international travel. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Immigration authorities are not going to be using WP as their confirmation of citizenship/immigration status. WP is not considered a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since Immigration is apparently already using social media information as part of screening, I think there is no reason to believe that they would, for example, ignore a discrepancy between a WP entry and a passport. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for that, but if they were really using WP for citizenship status, that would be something our existing disclaims would clearly state they shouldn't be trusting that information to any degree. Contrast to social media where I presume they are looking at the accounts of these people which is something they (theoretically) have control of; they don't have control of WP information. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Immigration status would not be allowed under existing policy unless it was cited in a reliable source. I think you could argue citizenship status there too (in fact, I'm pretty positive that I have seen BLP's removed of all nationality references due to a dispute/lack of sourcing.) If there are reliable sources for it, its already public information so authorities would have access to it. No need for an emergency measure. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If we have unsourced or poorly sourced info on someone's citizenship or legal immigration status now would be a good time to prioritise editing that removes such information or replaces it with well sourced info. That doesn't require a change in policy, maybe just a call on signpost or a noticeboard. As for Masem's belief that immigration authorities don't use Wikipedia, I admire the belief but don't 100% share the confidence. ϢereSpielChequers 15:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

While immigration status isn't mentioned directly Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy sets the tone for this, especially WP:BLPPRIVACY, considering that given current events, someone's visa status they would likely consider private. If it is not mentioned in existing reliable sources, BLP policy clearly favours privacy and it should be removed. I would not be opposed to adding a line about nationality to BLPPRIVACY if people think it is warranted, but I also think any editor would be justified under existing policy to remove unsourced private information about a living person. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a relevant bit of the policy is "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." Information on certain citizenships and nationalities is clearly contentious at the moment. ϢereSpielChequers 19:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

FTN discussion - cont.

I'm continuing this here because you're the editor I wanted to respond to. Feel free to move this to the village pump or elsewhere, if you think it best.

Wow, imagine someone saying that a year ago today when Trump was just a candidate? Obama's White House was definitely a reliable source, wasn't it?

Honestly, I would have to say "No, for many uses." Think about how many times Obama's White House addressed some issue of partisan politics publicly. While we may personally agree with Obama's conclusions (or not, as the case may be) about how obstructionist and petty the Republicans are, would we ever take that to be a definitive as -for example- a well-structured PoliSci-Psychologist-Sociologist conducted study that examined thousands of factors and concluded that individual politicians more likely to engage in obstructive tactics, and to put party loyalties above their duties to the nation were also more likely to become Republicans than Democrats? I would say "No". Even in the face of such a study, I would report the conclusions in the most objective way, and attribute them to the author instead of writing something like "Republicans are measurably more obstructionist than Democrats^[1]".

That being said, there's still a yuge difference between the two administrations. But that's to be expected. Bush Sr.'s, Reagan's and Obama's administrations were about as reliable as they get, whereas the Clinton administration was not so trustworthy, and I'm honestly not sure if the Nixon administration was any better than the Trump administration. Bush Jr's administration would have been generally reliable, except about WMDs and Iraq. Getting back to the Obama administration, I would have trusted them on statements about climate change, diplomacy, economics and even the size of the crowd at the inauguration, even as I dismissed claims about politics (and some about diplomacy) as unreliable.

All that being said, I appreciate your response. It brings a lot of perspective to the issue to point out what a difference there is (at least in public attitudes towards them) the two administrations. And I agree, it's a bit mind boggling to realize that we're sitting in front of our computers having a serious discussion about whether we can trust our own chief executive to tell us to truth about even simple things, and the answer seems to be a pretty obvious "No". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Added to village pump per suggestion. Roches (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bringing it here out of context is worse than nothing. Is there a policy issue or proposal you're raising? Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: use International English (-ise) for all non-American-related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Speedily closing as WP:PERENNIAL. The proposal is also misleading, as well rehash, in that -ise is not "International English", but one variant of British/Commonwealth spelling, while -ize is the other (known as Oxford spelling); meanwhile -ize is not just American even aside from this, but is also the more common variant in Canada, which in some other ways (e.g. -our and -re) leans toward UK English. If WP were to permit only one spelling, it would probably be -ize, since it is a variation found across all dialects. But WP has no reason to permit only one spelling, per MOS:ENGVAR. About the only thing can be said here is that -ise does not belong in American English (other than for words not encountered with -ize, such as advertise).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

I propose to use International English (-ise) for all non-American-related articles, and use American English (-ize) only in America-related articles. What is your opinion? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση 2001 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal and there is very strong consensus against it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, and I would add that when proposing massive, sweeping change that would involve thousand of hours of work and literally millions of edits, it's a good idea to explain what problem you would be solving by doing what you have proposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2017 (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.

New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators

New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.

• Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February
• Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March

See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

How accurate is CheckUser?

OP has been CU blocked, what a surprise

I'm starting to question how accurate CheckUser is when used to stop vandals. I know that the current belief is that if a user is editing from the same IP address as a blocked user, they are almost unquestionably the blocked user committing block evasion. However, I would like to challenge that, because there are a couple of reasons that I can think of where that would not be true: A shared hotspot. Many providers like XFINITY and others have public shared hotspots where millions of people can connect at once. This means that a blocked vandal could've have disrupted Wikipedia from the south side of the city, and a legitimate editor could be editing on the north side of the city from the same hotspot. Therefore, the IP's would be the same or very similar, and yet they are not the same person. Family members. I think that this is probably the most controversial one, and I may eventually take this to RFC, as there is not an official policy on it yet. I'm going to throw WP:BROTHER out the window here, because I think that's it's more humorous than helpful. The blocking policy makes absolutely no mention of a de facto block on family of a blocked user, and neither does the sock puppetry policy. If a family member of a blocked user is editing, of course their IP would be the same because they live together (at least normally). However, they should not be blocked just because their opinions are similar and they share an IP. DCHP reset. Some Internet Service Providers have the ability for their sysadmins to scramble the IP addresses of all of their customers. This is really difficult to explain without giving an example, so I will give an example. A blocked user is editing from IP address 12.34.56 A legitimate user is editing from IP address 78.90.12 Both users have the same Internet Service Provider Randomly, a sysadmin from the ISP scrambles all IP addresses Now the legitimate editor has 12.34.56 and the blocked editor has 78.90.12 A CheckUser is suspicious, runs a check, and blocks the legitimate editor for block evasion Block appeals are declined from the legitimate user solely on behalf of the "CheckUser evidence" Now what happens? Please share your thoughts on all of the above. The three reasons I've presented are designed to question how accurate CheckUser is, and how literally and strongly the technical data should be enforced when handling unblock requests. Please keep all comments constructive. Thank you. Trevor! --- (talk - contribs - email) 22:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Checkusers should normally be taking these factors into account. Additionally the user agent header is used, which can add additional check. On top of that, behavioural evidence is used. Your initial assumption that "if a user is editing from the same IP address as a blocked user, they are almost unquestionably the blocked user" is faulty. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Yeah, you don't appear to be aware of the nuances of how checkuser works. I'm probably one of the least experienced CUs and I can tell you that it comes down to more than similar IPs, and CUs are already well aware of everything you've mentioned here. Also, due to the confidential nature of the information gathered, there is a lot that CUs do that is invisible to the general public. There is near-daily discussion on mailing lists and at the CU private wiki to co-ordinate and to ensure that CU actions are being done reasonably. Checkusers ofthen double-check each other's findings, often by request. It's a pretty well organized system and most CUs are very willing to ask for second opinion if they have any doubt. I don't think there is a demonstrable problem that needs solving here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Not being personlly involved with sockpuppetry enforcement myself, I can tell you that you can't even ask for a checkuser check without borderline evidence of sockpuppetry; this evidence would be details of editing, which all admins have access to - and where each piece of evidence seperately was accessable to all users earlier on. As mentioned above, the user agent header (information of the user's web browser) can filter cases of different computers. What still is a potential issue, in my opinion, is dfferent family members who tend to have the same point of view on some topics, may shae a sinngle internet computer and otherwise are likely to have trhe same software involved, and use the same IPa address - although I'm sure that checkusers have means to reduce the risks of this, too. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts

See also: § Time for a fake news policy?

I may as well ask, because it's going to come up at some point, but how should Wikipedia deal with deliberate misinformation from the Trump administration? WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE seem to be good first defences but if some sections of the media pick up on certain "facts" and they become a significant or even dominant version of the truth then it seems that WP:DUE and WP:VERIFIABILITY could make editors complicit in spreading misinformation. With some things such as the inauguration numbers it is easy to debunk the misinformation but at some point we're going to get misinformation that is not easy to debunk. For instance, the administration could pull grants from legitimate climate change research and start funding climate change sceptics disproportionately, and then what you get down the line is a FRINGE position producing more publications simply because it is funded. Maybe I am just paranoid, but I am concerned that Wikipedia's policies could be manipulated to spread misinformation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, arguably, we have the same problem from reliable sources too, in that they they will sensationalize a topic, use emotive/opinionated journalism which gets taken as fact, rather than claims, and causes the same type of problems. Any source can be tainted this way. The larger issue encompassing all factors is what is our ability as editors to explore the topic beyond what the walled garden of RSes say as to make a determination with regards to NOR/NPOV as to how to present material. It is rather easy, for example, if the Trump administration says "Unemployment is at 2%", and a non-government recognized expert comes out the next day to disprove that in reports published in many sources, we have an easy route. But it becomes difficult that if the same claim is made and no one challenges it, but a WP editor can observe that no state alone reports unemployment less than 10% at the end of 2016. There are some that would use RS policy to say that there's no way to challenge that number and should be stated as fact because nothing within the walled garden of acceptable RSes report differently, but I would argue that we have every ability under NPOV/NOR to evaluate the situation and the claim using any reasonable resource, and while we can't say the claim is wrong nor include material from non-RS sources, we can certainly frame it as a claim rather than a fact. Now with this administration, any claim that is possibly suspect is likely going to be intensely reviewed by the media, so this is not likely to happen, but we still have this situation of how far past the walled garden's walls we should be able to look. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that the press is currently very interested in "fact checking" I don't think we need to depart from our usual practice of relying on Reliable Sources. The chance that this administration would make a significant false claim and nobody in the press would mention it is close to zero IMO. A joke I saw at one political satire site was a fake "announcement" that since taking office Trump has created 4 million new jobs - for fact checkers! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As MelanieN said, it most likely won't be that big of an issue. There's plenty of reliable sources that fact-check Trump. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Climate change is a high-profile issue internationally, so if there's action taken in the US to delegitimize existing research or stop funding new research, it's likely the world scientific community will push back, and private investors will fund continuing research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that deliberate misinformation should not be mentioned nor should undisputed facts as per WP:PRIMARY. Concerning the numbers at the inauguration there was no misinformation, merely an "alternative fact". The reliable sources who are mostly the mainstream media presumed that Trump was merely talking about the people who were physically present for the inauguration. However Trump is a businessman with a big ego who likes to put the most sell-able spin on things, and bigger numbers sound better. As he failed to to get an adequate people at his inauguration his press sec/comms director deceptively chose to include those physically at the inauguration via the proxies of the womens marches as well as viewers through media such as TV and online. CNN understood this and joking made fun of the Trump administration for being so sneaky and deceitful as per [1]. If the reliable sources pick up on something inaccurate, dodgely worded, or a blatant lie we must not include it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking as a fringe theory noticeboard denizen, my feeling is that we do not want to be the venue for dealing with this sort of thing. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oh good, let's have all the wingnuts coming to FTN to defend their idol's bullshit. On second thoughts: maybe not. DS are active, and WP:NPOV per WP:RS is still a thing. Follow those, and if there's an intractable problem then let's have an RfC. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is very unlikely for any Trump facts to attain a reasonably high status compared to studies that do proper checks. If they did then yes we would have a real problem. But until then we can just attribute anything like that as 'Trump has said' and then detail and list the reliable sources showing otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• If reliable sources report that the Earth is flat, we report that the Earth is flat. (Of course, we may want to re-evaluate if those sources are really "reliable", but at some point the definition of "reliable" becomes fairly circular.) But the current situation is that reliable sources report that NASA funding has been affected to proving the Earth is flat, which can be reported without any problem. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that there's not much risk in the long run of us endorsing one of these "facts", but the sheer quantity of Trump's misstatements is a problem. First, there's the various partisans passing though who have to be reined in, but second, they threaten to bury everything in people having to record every stupid thing he says. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources report that the Earth is flat, we report that the Earth is flat. This attitude is what I think is a current problem with WP, not just related to Trump but anything dealing with the current social issues that have left-right sociopolitical aspects. The wording of this implies we should never question what "reliable sources" print, which is all fine and good if reliable sources were perfectly objective. A decade or so ago, this would have been a reasonable description of them, but in the years since, it is very difficult to find objective sources; most RSes today engage in some type of subjectivity, even the NYTimes and BBC too. As such, RSes may publish statements as facts but based on skewed data or absent of other views. Now, this itself would be something that we have covered under NPOV, but now we have to consider that many many right-leaning sources, due to poor journalistic activities in the mid-late Aughts and since, have made them very much unreliable for facts, generally for good reason (eg Breitbert). This leaves RSes that average out more left-leaning. Thus, when it comes to Trump and potential mis-information, there is almost no question that all statements he makes will be intensely reviewed by the subset of media that we treat as RSes because of their political stance, so the concern raised at this point is unlikely to be an issue.

But if you flip the situation around, where the predominately left-leaning sources state some claim as fact, it is very difficult to show any usable RSes to counter that point, even if unreliable right-leaning media sources try to counter it. For example, I have seen many cases go by on BLP/N of right-leaning people being labeled as "white supremacists" because several left-leaning media factually identified them as that, despite self-claims and others from the right contradicting that fact. Taking the stance that we can only report what RSes report without question is harmful in these type of cases, and we need to have the ability to peek past the walled garden of these sources to evaluate such claims. We cannot directly counter such mis-claims in WP's voice, but we can at least avoid stating these claims as facts, and we can use normally non-RS sources to provide counteropinions as needed. Unfortunately, this becomes a battle over how strongly we should enforce UNDUE, because I have seen argued that if the opinions are not coming from RSes, then they are not opinions to be considered under UNDUE. This is very harmful to us to stay neutral in today's social climate.

We still need to make sure this type of approach is not used for extreme fringe theories to gain traction, but we have to be aware of reasonably larger issues of dissent compared to "facts" reported otherwise by normally reliable sources and use that understanding to avoid restating these contested "facts" as facts in WP's voice. It will be easy to do that with any potential mis-information from Trump, as noted, but there are many many other situations that we need to consider this. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What Masem said in the first sentence is very important. When we falsely make claims like "we should report what reliable sources say even if such sources are wrong", we miss the point entirely. Being wrong on something makes a source unreliable as a source for that information and being consistently wrong makes a source generally unreliable. "Verifiability" means "able to be proven true" not "written down somewhere", and we need to recognize that when we say "Verifiability not truth" we don't mean that we don't care whether something is right or not, we mean that assertion of truth is insufficient, it must be able to be proved to be true with source material which is reliable. "Veri" from latin "veritas" meaning "truth"; -ify- meaning "to make" -able- meaning "can be done". Can be shown to be true. If the source material itself is wrong, it shouldn't be used, period. --Jayron32 00:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How do we know what's true? Do any of us have firsthand knowledge? Did we see the thing with our own eyes or hear it with our own ears? If not, what we "know" to be true depends on which sources we choose to believe. And, according to what you just said, the sources we choose to believe depend on what we "know" to be true. That's more than a little circular, wouldn't you say? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In some cases, we as editors may be able to verify that something reported by reliable sources is false or wrong by looking outside the walled garden of reliable sources. Again, I use the examples of many right-leaning people being called "white supremacists" by and large by the walled garden of left-averaging RS sources, but if you turn to the self-statements made by the person in question, or to other sources, that claim is clearly false or challenged. This is what we need more of, not circling the wagons to only use RS and what RSes say is true, that's otherwise creating an echo chamber. There is a whole lot of careful use of sources that has to be put into play in such a situation, it's not simple to do and I can easily see very long consensus-driven discussions to determine how to evaluate that type of situation, but its necessary we have that tool available to use. Unfortunately, the idea that we must report what the RSes say and only what the RSes say is far too prevalent nowadays, moreso worsened by this last election cycle. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, if we don't know we have other options 1) We can say nothing. If a particular contentious statement is only covered in one or two independent sources, and there is doubt as to the source's validity, then maybe the fact itself isn't relevant enough to mention. Things which are not widely covered anywhere have low relevance anyways; and reliability is also a function of how many truly independent sources mention it. It isn't merely good enough to say that "I found this written down". Where, and how often, and by whom are all important. 2) We can represent differences in sources explicitly. When it isn't clear which of two competing perspectives represents reality from multiple, reliable sources, we don't speak in Wikipedia's voice, we can quote and name the source directly in the text, to let readers know that there is not agreement on this. All of this requires work beyond doing a google search and cherry picking sources based on whether they support what we want to say rather than whether the sources themselves have a reputation for reliability and whether the preponderance of such sources is in agreement or not and whether the fact we're trying to include is relevant and important to the narrative in the article. That requires people to spend time and energy and use discernment and be detached in their assessment. --Jayron32 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Facts are the reason science is losing during the current war on reason, thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Betty Logan - I think it's simple. Just convey what's said and say who/where they come from, make no effort to distinguish whether the fact is alternative or not. The concern and potential for censoring is inappropriate and counterproductive. Articles need to show what everyone says to have any credibility and to adhere to WP principles. Correct WP:VNT is to just follow the cites and tell what everyone says on a topic in WP:NPOV style by due WP:WEIGHT, and to show attribution. It's a issue for WP:NPOV or WP:OR to try and filter out some or to anoint one source as 'Truth', and counterproductive when the goal is to encyclopedically show what everyone says on a topic and who says what as best one can. The WP:INTEGRITY is to convey closely to what all WP:RS say, where 'reliable source' mostly means just it can reliably be said where it is found rather than what it says is something correct. You just have to be sure to attribute it as to who said it in case it is at all WP:BIASED. Markbassett (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"reliable source' mostly means just it can reliably be said where it is found rather than what it says is something correct" Did I understand you correctly? That "Reliable Source" means what we quote is a reliable reflection of what the source says? I must have misunderstood, because that's not what Reliable Source means. A Reliable Source is a source with a reputation for editorial control, fact checking, and accuracy. We do not give equivalent treatment between sources that have such a reputation and sources that do not, and we need to maintain that standard. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:FTN for my opinion on why "alternative facts" should not be treated as fringe theories. In short, fringe is pseudoscience and conspiracy theories developed and believed in by a small minority of people. WP:FRINGE does not, in my opinion, mean that minimal coverage should be given to "alternative facts". Instead WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT should be used to provide an appropriate amount of discussion of the alternative facts when they are mentioned in the article. Roches (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Umm.... Why is this even a discussion? With the current administration, statements from the White House about just about anything can be generally considered unreliable (according to the most reliable sources we have), with the obvious exception of the White House's official position, or the opinion of the person making the statement, or even Trump's opinon. So really, this thread seems to be asking "Do we treat unreliable source X different than any other unreliable source because X is the White House?" To which the answer is clearly "No." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN - Yes you understood -- I'm saying it is a common misunderstanding of guidelines to interpret 'reliable' in WP:RS to be 'correct' or a matter of trusting a source. It's important to note that a lot of the guideline is functional, that to be capable of being cited and useful for WP:V it must be published meaning "available to the public" (versus something unpublished, behind a paywall, or transient) that would not reliably be available to demonstrate the article has (WP:INTEGRITY) of accurately conveying what a WP:SOURCE (type of work, author, and publisher) provided. Verification is showing that article content exists somewhere, not that what is published is necessarily 'correct' or 'truth' or 'Truth'. The identifying reliable sources starts guiding that it is to have multiple POVs and not a 'correct' one: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and in the next section "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." They're all just POVs of large and small groups, and while we prefer ones that have given scrutiny to production qualities we desire. Further, note where WP:SOURCE say "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." and para 3 of WP:RS starts "In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. ". This is making clear that sourcing is the higher interest here, and that we're directed that sometimes the usual preference for textbook over book over newspaper etcetera is not the way to go. In conveying alternative facts or anything political ... I think showing any POVs is not going to be in textbook, but to convey what the alternate POVs are is going to have to go to to odd places and may be unable to find someone 'third-party'. Focus more on simply conveying all significant views should outweigh a lot of 'quality' because that's the only way to convey the whole picture. Markbassett (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a novel understanding of the Reliable Source guideline. Maybe you should propose a change in RS policy to eliminate the requirement for editorial control and "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not novel. RS policy does not state that we are required to assume that all statements made by an RS are 100% truth, only that we have selected RSes that generally have shown the necessary editorial control and fact-checking that they are principally reporting the truth. The problem of late as I've identified is two-fold: that our stable body of RSes have lost some of their objectivity and engage more in subjective/emotive reporting that word statements of opinion as factual without being clear it is an opinion; and that editors have used the stance that if an RS states something it must be fact and anything outside RSes would be UNDUE or inappropriate to include. This situation allows no judgment of a larger picture that is not covered by RSes in how we should use questionable RS claims or put doubt into an RS statement of opinion that appears written as fact (eg the "white supremacist" issue.) Both BLP and NPOV has aspects that we are not held to only accept what RSes say, only that material from RSes can be included for verifyability, but we can adjust our wording to assure what really are opinions and claims are presented as attributed opinions and claims, rather than assuming they must be fact because an RS printed it. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I defy you to distill this into a set of concise guidance that can be managed by the average editors who comprise a large majority of the editing force. Without that, local consensus will usually be wrong. If the rare editor like you happens to be present, they will be overridden by the rest.
This is far from the only example of en-wiki making things so complicated that they can only be comprehended by an elite 5% with upwards of 5 years and 50,000 edits. We can't RfC every issue, or take every issue to this page or a noticeboard for attention from that elite. Simplification should be very high on our priority list, but it is getting almost no attention at all; to the contrary, we keep making things more nuanced and complex. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

From any policy standpoint, the simply fix is to make sure it is clear in policy that the text printed in an RS does not be taken at face value, particularly if it seems contentious, which is then tied to WP:YESPOV in how to actually include the potentially not-accurate RS information that otherwise meets WP:V/NOR/NPOV. Everything else required to take this approach is spelled out in policy and guideline. Now, more practically, one would need an essay to explain the broader situation, to be clear how to judge contentious information (eg: just because flat-earthers exist that question the shape of the Earth doesn't mean we should mitigiate our writing to accept that; eg that is where understanding the difference between what is a true fringe theory verse what is a minority view is on a controversial topic). --MASEM (t) 18:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the applicable policy is far from that simple, and that you will get very little community commitment to making it so. Such decisions are dominated by the elite, whose reasoning is: "If I can understand it, there is no need to simplify." Without that commitment, it won't happen, and high-level discussion like this is fairly pointless in the end. En-wiki p&g continues to be crafted by the experienced, for the experienced, blind to the fact that most editing has to be done by the less experienced. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Point regarding the elitism in how P/G are crafted taken as is, what I have seen are the same elite "circling the wagons" around a strict enforcement of RS/UNDUE to eliminate any attempt to bring in reasonable discussion of what is outside that circle of RS. Which feeds back to crafting "stronger" by those same editors, and becomes a tighter and tighter circle. This is why the community has a whole has to agree that this type of "what's only in the RS" approach is harmful. I still argue there's very little actual policy that needs to change as the ideas already resonate within existing policy, but there does need to be both essays, guidance, and a commitment to assure that that adjustment of policy is clear in intent and practice to prevent the "circling of wagons" idea. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

MelanieN No, I simply point that the whole policy has directions that say when to overrule that even for sourcing, and that all of this is in service to showing all POVs on a topic. Pre-press copyreading is a secondary item. See, before the snippet you quote WP:BIASED first shows "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." I'd also point to guide of WP:NEWSORG may occur often for this kind of thread, and it clarifies Fact checking to pre-publication checking of the content (for typos and factual errors) and reputation as demonstrated by retractions. (Do not confuse self-check fact-check with the later creation of similar named FactCheck.org review of what someone else said.) We're in the realm of WP:BIASED and WP:OPINION and WP:Politics here, most of the politicians are going to be posturing manipulative lines and all the reporting is going to be oversimplified sensationalizing so it's simply report all the significant POVs as best one can and give attribution and cites because it's all suspect, and move along. Whether the POV sourced is going to be best done by a Breitbart or WashingtonPost may simply be a feature of the cases.

In any case, you should not interpret that snippet as overrulling the WP:Core content policies -- and I think this means it *is* simple here : convey what's said and say who/where they come from. Focus is to say what each POV is and not trying to pick 'right', then accept that sometimes that the best source for a POV in context is unusual. It's going to be a problem if folks instead editorialize when they should make no effort to do so, to say in the article that the fact is "alternative" if that's not the wording sources used, or mis-conveying the 'other' definition of 'alternative' to mean 'wrong'.

1. Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) – All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
2. Verifiability (WP:V) – Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source.
3. No original research (WP:NOR) – Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Cheers, over & out Markbassett (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, I asked this again below as I hadn't equated "fake news" with "alternate facts". Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  18:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps add to NPOV, which is basically our policy that says look at many reliable sources to give the full picture ("neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias."): Given issues like fake news and predatory journals, it is especially important that editors research and write with focus on quality, depth and wide review of sourcing.
  • Calling that out in NPOV makes sense, but I think the line "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." needs to be reviewed to. Per WP:V we need to use vetted sources, and for facts, those have to come our reliable sources, but when it comes to NPOV which relate to opinions and claims, we technically should not be not limited to the same set of works as long as we are using attribution, and the works that don't fall into our definition of an RS are still considered authorative or expert enough that their opinion is appropriate to the topic. Prime example is a work like Brietbart. Never ever going to be used for anything factual, as confirmed by RS/N several times over, but they are recognized as a leading voice for the right, and so opinions of staff there should be considered in evaluating an NPOV issue (also a point agreed to in RS/N discussions). But as quoted, NPOV suggests that because it is not an RS, we should ignore its view and others like it, which makes coverage lopside when the net average of our RSes are left-leaning. This is type of language that leads to the walled garden of RS/UNDUE that does not allow us to sometimes properly evaluate controversial claims in a broader light. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No. It's a terrible idea and there is no need to change the very foundation of NPOV policy - it is also further spelled out in NPOV policy at WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:PROPORTION and WP:VALID, etc. WP:BESTSOURCES is probably where we should put my proposal: Given issues like fake news and predatory journals, it is especially important that editors research and write with focus on quality, depth and wide review of sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I would argue all those parts of NPOV policy were written years ago when the issue of objectivity in most media sources wasn't a major problem, but today, because of numerous factors between political and financial problems most newspapers now face, no longer holds true when you couple with how we have created a set of RSes (via process of elimination of the right-leaning ones) that averages as left-leaning. It is very easy for a view held by a non-trivial portion of authoritative sources on the right to be completely ignored by our subset of RSes, and many articles when the left-right political scale come into place mirror the left's view and ignore the right, because that otherwise approach "follows policy" with UNDUE/RS/etc. But that clearly breaks NPOV. There are a few ways to solve this, and one way is recognizing that we do allow opinion from authoritative sources for that view that may fail otherwise to be RS for fact. (Which is a point that is affirmed in several RS/N discussions). As more of our articles become directed at covering opinions on a topic rather more factually discussions of a topic, we need to adapt to the changing media landscape to keep our neutrality. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No. There were always loud claims such as yours, even when those policies were adopted - arguments that go down such an impractical and useless path (you're far from the first to claim nothing can be real, nothing can be common understanding, nor argue everything is POV). It's partly why such policies were adopted, in the first place. It's bedrock policy (and common sense) not to turn encyclopedia articles into 'he said, she said', regardless of how difficult one may find it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet things change and the situation probably does need re-evaluation in light of the last year. I would also assert that the mere existence of WP:YESPOV in policy implies that we should not presume that "statement made by majority of RS" = truth, among other policy and guideline that say we should take care in assuming truthfulness of statements made by RSes. Case in point is the situation of labeling people as "white supremacists" factually simply because the bulk of our RS have opted to call those people out as such. Keep in mind, though,much of this is coupled with the excessive amount of editors that are trying to write about breaking/current news stories (which runs against WP:NOT#NEWS) and in as rapid a manner as possible (against WP:DEADLINE) and on principally Western politics (against WP:BIAS). These trends highlight issues that were not a problem to this degree from years ago when these policies were written, and there is something to be said to having moratoriums on breaking controversies to avoid some of this. It is a complex problem with no simple solution, but does require looking beyond policies and asking how do we stay neutral and reasonably unbiased on controversial topics when our sources no longer are reasonably assured to be objective. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But, as has been noted, nothing has really changed. "Fake News" is just a new name for an old thing -- perhaps some more people may really enjoy buying into it, or are being exposed to it, or enjoy spreading it - but that just means attention to sources, as policy requires. You lost some editing disputes? It happens. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, or at least that saying "fake news" covers all the problems. Truly fake news - websites that appear to be legit by mimicking the format of other reliable sources and reporting news that is fake without calling itself out as a parody - are easily dealt with by RS policy. What we're dealing with are stories that are driven by opinion published in both RS and non-RS, where there are facts and "facts" being thrown around, and using both facts and "facts" to justify a specific reporting angle that is far from objective. This had already been a practice that right-leaning sources have used since mid-Aughts, but it is now a practice used more and more by the left-leaning as well, starting at least as early as the last election cycle. It's not fake news, and it very much harms WP's reputation if we start becoming an echo chamber for one political side just because "our policies" say we must turn a blind eye to a good fraction of opinions from non-RS sources on controversial subjects. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that traditional media is dying. Many news services have sacked journalists, cut budgets etc. Copying information from the Internet is cheaper than serious research, let alone investigative reporting. And opinion is cheaper than reporting. So there's a proliferation of "content" constructed around various talking points, with a scant regard for the facts.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• This thread is dedicated to the victims of the Bowling Green massacre. Let us never remember. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the addition of "merely-verifiable listings" to WP:INDISCRIMINATE

Please discuss the addition of "merely-verifiable listings" to the policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the talk page Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § Merely-verifiable listings. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Give anonymous IPs equal treatment

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.

---

As above, just because I choose not to create an account, I shouldn't be restricted from editing some pages. Who's with me on this?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.247 (talk • contribs)

Nobody. Too many unwelcome, disruptive edits are made by unregistered editors, unfortunately. There is a lot you can do, though. See this essay for an explanation of the very few ways in which IP editors are limited in their editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Implying that unwelcome and disruptive edits cannot be made by registered editors. Wow. Just wow. 128.227.125.70 (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really, we block registered users all day, every day. The problem is that when disruption is coming from an IP user, in many cases blocking is not an effective detterent because they can simply reset their device and do it again from a different IP. That's why protection is used, and in many cases it also prevents newly registered user from editing as well. I suggest you read up on the protection policy and observe the recent trends, which show the community is in favor of more forms of protection, not less, and come back when you have a serious, concrete proposal as this obviously isn't going to accomplish anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

128.227.125.70: There is no such implication in my post above. The words say what they say and no more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Statistics show that while close to 80% of anonymous edits are non-vandalism; they also show that nearly 80% of all vandalism is done by anonymous users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu:, without indication of the fraction of edits made by IPs, or the fraction of vandalism made by logged in editors, these numbers are irrelevant. If eventually, (only) 70% of logged edits ware non-vandalism, or 90% (anything above 80%) of all edits were made by anonymous users, then anonymous users would be more reliable. I presume that is not the case, I have not searched for the stats, and I would be not surprised at all if logged in user are much more reliable (I mean, non-vandal) than anonymous. But I am pointing that your stats are incomplete and as they stand they do not prove anything. long time ago I had to solve the following problem (more or less). In a given planet there two races: blue and green; and each person is either poor or rich. 70% of the rich are blue and 70% of the blue are rich. Does this prove that the blue race is favoured over the green race? (the answer is: no :-) - Nabla (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I am with you! It is not fair. My IP address has been blocked before, and I think its unfair. 71.6.6.210 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Blocking is hardly limited to unregistered users. 2. 99.9999% of blocked users feel their blocks were unfair (including me), so you're hardly unusual in that respect. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Why create an account?. The choice is yours. Countless editors have registered, and I know of very few who have later regretted doing so. Many, many of us strongly feel that unregistered editing is a net negative for the project, so count yourself lucky to have the choice. For example, only one of many, I've spent a good part of the last three days trying to communicate with an unregistered user who keeps making good-faith but incorrect edits to a wide range of articles. The problem is that their IP address changes several times a day, and this is beyond their control. By the time I can get a note posted on their talk page, it's no longer their talk page. Constantly spending valuable time dealing with things like this is highly frustrating, considering that it could be so easily avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you're not as "anonymous" as you believe. I'm fairly sure you are somewhere in the southern half of the island of Great Britain. 128.227.125.70 is in the Gainesville, Florida area, 71.6.6.210 in the San Jose, California area. Do you know anything about where I am? And it would be fairly easy to launch denial-of-service attacks or other types of mayhem against any of you, but far more difficult against me. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. The argument that editing from an IP is somehow more anonymous is nonsense. It is unfortunate that good faith users get blocked when their IP is blocked because of somebody else, but they can permanently avoid that by registering an account. It's a choice, you made it, live with it. Wikipedia is pretty much the only user-generated website that does not require you to register an account to contribute. Try using Facebook as an IP, see how that works out for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• A more concrete proposal might be "give this IP or subnet confirmed access because ...." Unless the "because" contained a very good reason why the person could not register the account AND a very good reason to believe the IP address or subnet was controlled by a single individual, expect it to go nowhere. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Equal does not necessarily mean the same. An account should only be used by one person, once we are sure that person is a vandal we block the account indefinitely. IP addresses are not unique to a person, they may involve different people at the same time or over a period of time; so when we learn that an IP address is currently in use by a vandal we usually only block temporarily. An established account can be used to edit some high risk pages that Ips and newbies can't edit, but the more established and experienced your account the less tolerance there is for newbie mistakes. ϢereSpielChequers 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Tell ya what, IPs — if you can figure out a way to have the same IP number pop up every single time you edit and never edit WP using another IP number as a de facto alternate account, I'll be on board for full rights for IP editors. Failing that, you're merely unleashing a multitude of socks on the project with the misplaced blessing of a few deep thinkers at WMF and in the WP hierarchy... Carrite (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, IPs should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, if someone is serious editor she will create an account. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση 2001 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2017 (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.

RfC on the use of edit filters against unreliable sources

Posted here: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#RfC:_use_of_edit_filter_against_unreliable_sources. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Pre-creating users for editting event

I would like to know (a) whether I'm allowed to pre-create usernames for attendees of an editing event and (b) whether I'm allowed to pre-qualify them for auto-confirmed status (probably using WP:HOTCAT edits in the new pages feed)? Yes, I've had Wikipedia:Account_creator a couple of times for events, but I'm looking to front-load all the work. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: how are you planning on getting their information in advance of the event? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOSHARING. Preforming edits to pad their accounts is a problem. It violates policy, and if we need to review their edits in the future then we expect all edits on the account are attributable to one person.

Pre-creating zero-edit accounts and having them change the password... well at that point I think it's just messier for them to change a password than it is to simply create an account themselves.

Is there some particular reason that autoconfirmed is an issue? I haven't been to an event, but there's generally not a lot that new accounts can't do. And presumably whoever is running the even is at least extended confirmed and could preform occasional support edits. Alsee (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: making edits as other people is not allowed. An admin can flag accounts as "confirmed" to skip the intial if they are identified at an event (or possibly before). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Deliberately bypassing the requirements for confirmation with a whole group of people who don't know what they are doing strikes me as a singularly poor idea. If we were going to allow it, the proper way would be to request early confirmation at WP:PERM, but the answer would almost certainly be no. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone, message received. I'll put my thinking thinking cap on to see whether there is another way to do what I want to do. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

New policy that templates should be in English with English parameters

In recent months I have come across two separate templates that were written in German to facilitate the copying and pasting of Infoboxes from the German Wiki to the English Wiki: Template:Infobox Fluss (German Rivers) and Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug (German Railway Vehicles). I am really having a hard time understanding the logic behind having a template on the ENGLISH wiki where the parameters are in German. The argument in favor of this, that multiple editors have made, is so that one can easily copy and paste data from the German wiki. That is an absurd reason IMHO. You can't copy and paste the whole page anyway because it has to be translated. The same should be true for the Infobox. This whole infobox should be in English. I feel that this opens up a dangerous precedent as you could make that same argument with any page, in any topic and any language... For example, I would like to be able to copy and paste soccer teams from the Spanish Wiki... So do we now create a Template:Infobox football club that is in spanish so that I can copy and paste this data?

Additionally, why are you copying and pasting data from another Wiki?? Other Wikis are certainly not WP:RS... Now I want to be super clear here, before anyone WP:ABF, this has nothing to do with being anti-german or anything like that! What this actually grew out of was me converting Infoboxes to use {{Infobox}} as a base. I had a hard time with these two templates because the parameters were completely foreign to me (not speaking any German myself).

My goal here with this policy request is to establish a firm policy around whether or not foreign languages can be used in Infoboxes. There are obvious exceptions and this is not a debate about whether we are using "color" or "colour"... but I feel strongly that having entire Infoboxes written with all parameters in a foreign language is not good practice for an English Wiki.

If the decision is made to implement a policy that all Infoboxes should be written in English, then I will commit to converting not only all templates that are in a foreign language, but also to converting all transclusions. I don't think the fact that these transclusions already exist should be part of the discussion as to whether or not they should continue to be used. I should also say that if there are certain individuals who feel the need to continue to copy and paste templates from foreign language wikis, I don't see any reason that custom templates cannot be written that once substituted are converted to their English equivalent.

I also want to be clear that this discussion is NOT about merging templates. There are separate conversations about whether Template:Infobox German railway vehicle and Template:Infobox locomotive should be merged (for example). That is NOT the topic here! This is simply about whether or not to use foreign language in the Infobox.

I look forward to hearing discussion on both sides. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify (no opinion in here).

1. On dewiki there exists template de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug, with parameters like |Steuerungsart=. It is used in de:DR-Baureihe 01. All fine so far.

2. Now an editor starts sister article en:DRG Class 01, and copy/pastes the full infobox wikicode from that article. That is, de:copy/en:paste. The new article here is not broken, because enwiki has {{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}} (a redirect to {{Infobox German railway vehicle}}), with parameter name, exactly: |Steuerungsart=. Then the editor goes offline for a while.

3. So {{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}} has all these German language parameter names, this RfC is about. Of course, for |Steuerungsart= it shows label 'Valve gear'. But not all parameters in dewiki have clear English meanings. That is: apart from the correct language translation, there is also the meaning/definition to 'translate'.

4. Two editors want to improve. One goes to the article, and does not read German (parameter names), so cannot edit. The other one wants to improve the template, but can not research the actual meaning or definition of an obscure German-language parameter. The improvement fails.

5. This RfC purports to have these German language parameters translated, resulting in a set of English language parameters in that same template. With this, the simple de:copy/en:paste will not work: and editor (or a bot?) will have to change parameter names.

-DePiep (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to what you claim, what you wrote here strongly conveys an opinion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

CFCF Then point it out or strike your remark. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, Carl CFCF, please do point out what you so "strongly" see. If you do so, I can improve. But I am not to guess your thoughts and opinions. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:Bermicourt

Regrettably Zackmann08, albeit I'm sure in good faith, has misunderstood the point of these templates and the huge benefit they are to translators and to Wikipedia as a whole. The issue is not that we should have a proliferation of foreign language templates in article mainspace on English Wikipedia; of course, we should not. However, it is very important that we allow the existence of infobox substitution templates that can handle foreign parameters in order to help editors build the encyclopedia. Let's take a German example. There are thousands of mountain articles that exist only on German Wikipedia e.g. for the Alps. The process is this: the body of the article is translated and created on English Wiki; the infobox is imported from German Wiki 'as is' but, thanks to the substitution template, Template:Infobox Berg, it displays immediately and automatically in English; finally, within 24 hours a bot comes along and substitutes the template with its English equivalent. Thus we have an English infobox in the English article. The German infobox only exists in the article for a few hours. Check the links to Template:Infobox Berg - there are none in article mainspace; they've all been substituted.

Of course, translators could sit for hours tediously translating the same old German parameters and data manually into English to achieve the same result as the above. But why, when a clever substitution template and a bot can save all that time? If you're not a translator, you may not care that you're wasting masses of other editors' time. But I've translated over 4,000 articles and this process is an absolute lifesaver. Without it, I'm outa here. I'm not going to waste time on repetitive stuff that I know can be done automatically. That's crazy. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You'd be right, Bermicourt, if that bot existed for {{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}}. It does not sound fair that you AGF-blame Zackmann08 for that omission. In fact, you are supporting this RfC proposal by admitting that these parameters should be translated (by a bot and within 24h). Rephrasing this RfC: do you agree that when no bot is available, this de:copy/en:paste should not be done? (Note that you rely on a bot as an argument; however we cannot enforce someone to build such a bot). BTW, let me note that in the long run Wikidata is supposed to make this issue moot. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: you're right actually... I don't think I DID understand the use case here... I also think DePiep hit the nail on the head. First, I was not aware that such a bot existed and that the flow worked the way you described. You will note that I did not mention Template:Infobox Berg which, as your pointed out, has 0 transclusions in the mainspace. I did however mention Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug with 313 tranclusions and Template:Infobox Fluss with 288 transclusions (obviously safe to assume some of those are testcase/sandbox but the majority are in the mainspace). I would like to clarify that I have ZERO ISSUE with a template in the flow that you described, where it is short lived and replaced by an English equivalent via a bot. If the same were try for Schienenfahrzeug and Fluss I would have no objections. I do appreciate you explaining the use case. I did not fully understand that and having you shed some light on it helped tremendously. Given those comments, what are your thoughts on the following.

1. Foreign language templates (that is to say templates that have all params in a foreign language) should not be transcluded in the main space UNLESS there is a bot that comes behind and translates them to an English equivalent.
2. For these templates that DO get cleaned up, such as Template:Infobox Berg, lets create a new {{Ombox}} that is placed on these templates that says something along the lines of "This template exists to facilitate translating from <insert language here> to English. While the template may existing in an article for a short period of time, it will later be converted by <botname> to use <other template name>." This will serve a few purposes. First, helps group these templates together but secondly it will help prevent a rekindle of this debate down the road by saying very clearly that while the template has no transclusions, it is still very much in use. (I know that the {{substitute}} template covers this a bit, but this will go more into depth.
3. For those templates that do NOT have a bot (Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug and Template:Infobox Fluss for example), lets get a good policy in place for making these bots happen. I have a bit of bot experience and am happy to help!

Thanks again for chiming in. You really helped me understand this issue. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

dePiep it's a fair point and I don't think I meant to blame Zackmann08 for the omission. Zackmann08 - d'you know what? I'm really impressed by your response - it's constructive and helpful. I'm frustrated that some of these templates haven't yet had the "Infobox:Berg" treatment. Trouble is, I'm not expert enough to make it happen! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: thanks for your response. Glad we can work together on this. Most of the commenters below have not bothered to read the discussion at all, just the heading and immediately objected. Do you agree with those three points for policy? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: thanks for your response. AFAIsee, only three editors are actually working on ths (Bermi, Z08 and me). Others I call "Armchair !voters" -- those who are not involved in the actual maintenance. Everybody can say 'keep it and make a bot to do it' for free. I don't know where this ends, but we'll meet & improve again. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to learn how to create the substitution template and implement the bot, maybe by starting with a simple case (not Infobox:Schienenfahrzeug!). We could then apply the same process to others. But meantime we should draft some guidelines and see if we can get them accepted on the relevant WP page. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:Jonesey95

This can be read as a reply to #Opinion by User:Bermicour

There is already a bot that does this template substitution. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster and Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted for details. You can find many foreign-language substitution templates in that category. The hard work is programming the template in question to replace foreign-language parameters with English-language parameters when it is substituted. This has already been done for many templates. I would support a policy stating that foreign-language templates should not exist in mainspace pages for longer than it takes for a bot to do the necessary substitution. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, could you specify how this works out with the two example templates (500+ transclusions today)? By now, we all see the bottleneck with the availability of a bot/automate/subst in this, of course. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It would work roughly like this:

1. Someone adds code to the template to allow it to be substituted and converted to its English-language equivalent. Example code is readily available in templates in the category that I linked above. See this edit to Template:Internetquelle to see an example of this conversion.
2. The {{Subst only}} template is added to the documentation, as in this edit to Template:Internetquelle/doc.
3. User:AnomieBOT substitutes all of the existing transclusions. The bot will also subst any future transclusions that are added to pages.

There are a few other nuances, like adding subst-specific code and forcing the bot to start the first batch of conversions, but that is the basic idea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jonesey95, in this section you have said all that needs to be said, except possibly that there should be more emphasis on the need for the author/translator to immediately subst the template (the bot only being there as a backup in case said author/translator forgets to subst it). There is also a possible problem in that AnomieBOT won't subst any template with more than 100 transclusions unless listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force, so we need to get consensus for that. The rest of this RfC, with only a few exceptions, is just time-wasting. --NSH001 (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:NSH001

Let's start with the important bit: Document the template properly. The documentation should make clear that the template is meant to be substituted. It should be substituted immediately by the translator/creator of the article, and the bot is only there as a backup in case the editor in question fails to do this. Once substituted, we have a normal infobox, in English, perfectly translated from German (or whatever language it's allowing for). No problem whatsoever. But until these templates are documented properly, we're bound to get a steady stream of red herrings like this one being posted by well-intentioned editors. --NSH001 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@NSH001: I think you make a great point about documentation. I'm not sure these are redherrings though. It is not clear to me that everyone IS in agreement that Template:Infobox Fluss (for example) SHOULD be substituted. I certainly think it should and agree with you 100%, but I think part of this discussion is to ensure that is the consensus and then to document it. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, this is definitely a red herring. The authors of these templates, from the outset, fully intended them to be substituted. They make no sense otherwise. They're there purely to save time and effort for article translators. It's just a particularly egregious example of the endemic failure of template editors to document their wonderful templates properly. Wouldn't be very difficult to code up a little template to produce the appropriate warning message, and transclude it in all the documentation pages for these templates. --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Fluss substitution, but are you saying NSH001 that Schienenfahrzeug just should be subst:-ed an everything is fine? Well, that subst does not exist. You are pushing a non-existent solution. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry my bad, I didn't check all the templates in detail. Template:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug is indeed not subst-able. It should either be re-writtten in subst-able form or deleted. Doesn't affect my main point. The solution is to fix the problem, not more policy creep. Worth pointing out that it would probably take less time to fix the problem than arguing over it. --NSH001 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

re NSH001. (Then does Fluss have a subst:? Why must I ask at all?). No need for your gratuit solutions. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@NSH001: I'm trying to have a constructive discussion... Doesn't seem like you are interested in such... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:Someguy1221

The whole complaint seems like unnecessary policy creep to me. It does not appear that anyone on Wikipedia is arguing the foreign-language template should be kept in favor of actual or hypothetical English-language templates, and the foreign ones are apparently getting replaced where an English version is available. The end result of banning this shortcut would simply be to make good content disappear, just because it's not perfect. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: No one is suggesting banning anything... This is a discussion around whether or not having foreign language templates is helpful or not... If you actually read the discussion and supporting material you would have seen that the foreign ones are NOT getting replaced a lot of the time. THAT is the discussion. If you aren't going to actually read the whole discussion, then don't just read a bit and jump to a conclusion. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read the discussion. Did you? No one has argued for foreign-language templates being kept in perpetuity. No one thinks they are ideal. Everyone would prefer they be replaced as soon as possible. If you didn't want a ban (which DePiep supports below, I guess you didn't read the whole discussion), what's the point of codifying that in policy? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I do support a ban. As I described. No reason to blame Zackmann08 for that. Now what was your question? -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:DePiep

I fully support the aim of this RfC. We should not allow foreign-language templates (that is, foreign language parameter names & definitions). In practice, this means that examplary templates like en:{{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}} that are not converted into English should be forbidden. (Of course and clearly, this allows for a bot or subst Übersetzung, being complete & correct). -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:CFCF

I entirely oppose the aim of this RfC. We already have policies in place, such as WP:ENGLISH & Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English that concern mainspace content. Templates are used outside mainspace and are often employed outside mainspace. Additional criteria are solutions in search of problems and policy creep. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Both links you provide are about mainspace ('articles should be in English': duh). Please post again when you did get a read, or at least a gest, of this RfC. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF: did you even read my opening to this discussion??? Your comments do not address the issue at hand and indicate you didn't even bother to read the material, just the headline. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by Od Mishehu

The foreign language templates may exist, only provided that they are always substituted, not transcluded. This may be enforeced by a bot, provided that the bot actually runs on each transclusion intorduced, within a few hours. Dodumentation for tese templates must also make it clear that they should only be substituted. There is no reason we should have 288 transclusions of {{Infobox Fluss}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Now the point is, that such a bot does not exist for Fluss. What next? -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:Agathoclea

I oppose the aim of this RfC. While I strongly agree that those templates should be substituted or bottransformed I disagree with the aim of the RfC to ban the use of such templates while due to the difficulty of producing such a transformation is not yet possible. This would place an increasing burden on content creation without providing any benefits.

• It does not benefit the reader, as the output is already in English,
• It does not benefit the mono lingual editor, as they will not be able to verify any information against non English sources (with parameters in the source language they at least can make an educated guess)
• It does not benefit the multi lingual content creator, as it will waste significant extra time in matching parameter names.

The often sported argument that this allows for unsourced material to be introduced is, at least in the content area I have been working in, bogus, as information is sourced. Obviously the editor should also provide the source of the material (which again is of no use to the mono lingual editor). The template that sparked this discussion is originally sourced from government publications and that information can be easily confirmed. So all in all I feel that the political benefit of destroying non English parameter names is in no proportion to the practical benefit lost. The issue will be temporary at any rate, because eventually Wikidata use will solve the problem for us anyway. Agathoclea (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

well,

• It does not benefit the reader, as the output is already in English Sure. But we are encyclopedic, so that reader must be able to trust the info. How do you (we all) know the English wording is OK?

• It does not benefit the mono lingual editor, as they will not be able to verify any information against non English sources (... educated guess) — Eh, so being unable to read & check a source is a reason to keep it???
• It does not benefit the multi lingual content creator, ... extra time in matching parameter names -- well, that is what translation is. You are somehow saying "translation does not benefit the translator".

All in all, we need Uebersetsung (great German word), not a blind copy/pasting "translation". -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually according to your argument we will not need any translation at all as you will never be able to verify if the translation is correct. Neither would we allow print sources. But current policy does allow the use of non-english sources, current policy allows for print sources regardless. What you call blind copy/pasting "translation" is actually the way to ensure that each term is transferred correctly. That way only the validity of the data needs to be checked. You find it difficult converting the template into a selfsubstitung template but you expect editors to waste at least am extra half hour per article on the several thousand that either have no data yet, or are missing on enWiki altogether. With more to come, as even deWiki by no means even close to being complete in this category. As to other points you raised. How do you (we all) know the English wording is OK? You might never know, but we do know in the case of a templated translation because any error can be fixed in a central position to allow for consistent translation. The risk of error is far higher in a every-man-on-his-own approach. being unable to read & check a source is a reason to keep it??? - Maybe you should reread the statement. I was saying the people who only can read (and hopefully comprehend) English should be able to verify the data if the parameters are in the same language as the sourcematerial. Minor point - not enough to stand in the way of an automated transformation but showing that an outright deletion while such a transformation can't be done, is utterly pointless. "translation does not benefit the translator" - Deliberately wasting translators time is not benefiting the reader either.

As I said at the outset automated transformation is the desired outcome. If at this moment in time that is not possible yet, I am arguing that the aim of this RfC - outright deletion - is damaging to Wikipedia. The third option would be to wait until Wikidata catches up. Its a bit like the question of how much you will spend on repairs on your old car if the new one is already ordered. But you would not scrap the old banger ahead of time. So far the beauty of the English language Wikipedia has been, that it brings in information that otherwise would never be available that detail in English, which is in stark contrast to the rising xenophobic approach today. Do you really want us to go in that direction? Agathoclea (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:Nabla

(unsure why this is in this format, but... when in Rome...) There should not be foreign language templates in mainspace. If used as translation tools (bots translation, auto-magically-translated-subst'ed-templates, whatever!) fine. But if they sit in mainspace they become unhelpful and unwiki because they make the next editors' task much harder. Helping the translation does not trump regular editing. Nabla (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinion by User:Unscintillating

• Oppose  This proposal may be a bit like proposing that English dictionaries should not have words in Latin, and that the proposer will translate all the Latin words if we agree to get rid of them. 

  How will Template:BAB-Dreieck be translated?  "Dreieck" translates as "triangle", but has a technical meaning as a T intersection of autobahns.  The answer is that it doesn't need to be translated and should be considered an extension of English for use on en.wiki autobahn articles.  Nor should we rename Template:Internetquelle, which is used to port references from the German Wikipedia.  The template stops working if renamed.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Short opinions by those who don't need their own whole subsection

• Oppose. Even if this were a real problem, it would not be addressed by a new policy; this simply doesn't rise to policy level. We have bots to resolve this, and if a new templates needs to be added to them, then that's the fix. Yes, we don't want new templates unrelated to translation, to be created in non-English here, and this happening is rare, and quickly resolved (usually by translation, unless the template is redundant or pointless).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Time for a fake news policy?

See also: § Alternative facts

How does the becoming-endemic phenomenon of fake news affect Verifiability? There is the worrying trend to manipulate video to change what people say as evidenced by tonight's BBC Newsnight report. Further, mainstream media outlets—otherwise considered here as reliable sources—are starting to fall for it and report it as fact (if they didn't actually invent it...). Even the British government are concerned. Won't fake news cause problems when adding apparently verifiable information to BLPs in particular? But then perhaps Mrs. Cambridge's fictitious dog has just become a humorous aside in the annals of the press compared with the alleged fake news surrounding the US elections and the aftermath? Shouldn't we have something in the Policies warning about fake news and how to attempt to handle it? Just a thought — Iadmc♫^talk  00:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is related to the discussion in the above "Alternative facts" section, but to me a lot of this boils down to two points:

1. We are not a newspaper and there is no rush for us to include information in WP, particularly if it is "hot off the press". Many news stories are easier to write about several days after the fact when everyone's got their stories straight.
2. Reliable sources are not infallable nor should be presumed perfectly objective or unbiased. As editors we need to have the ability to judge based on the larger world picture (which may include observing the situation from non-reliable sources) to know where the actual "truth" might stand, so that we can incorporate what reliable sources say with any claims/attribution statements. If a fact sounds fishy from a RS and they do not explain how they back up that fact, we should probably treat it as contentious. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Ah! Thanks for the pointer upwards. That seems to be dealing with my question, more or less. Just to say, your comments chime with my own thoughts. That's how I would deal with all new "news" stories, actually: body swerve for a week or so then source, source, source... OTOH, I tend to avoid stuff like that and leave it to others to deal with. I'm more into classical music which might be affected by this only if, say John Adams were reported to having said/done something as his article is a WP:BLP — Iadmc♫^talk  18:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I raised an issue about the quality of "George W. Bush" bio page at Talk:George W. Bush#Quality of the article. Most of the references are news articles, yet the page is tagged as a Good Article. How would the whole "fake news" issue affect the bio page and other pages that primarily use news articles? George Ho (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho:Your point about the lack of anything other than news articles (mostly) is a good one. This could indeed be a problem, IMO. also see my reply to SMcCandlish, below re changing WP:RS — Iadmc♫^talk  08:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have primarily used news articles for TV-related pages, like Cheers-related pages. I occasionally used books, which lack good references about BLPs, like Ted Danson, Shelley Long, and Kirstie Alley. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is a legit concern, but it probably only requires a clarification to WP:RS guideline. As I see it, there are two fake-news issues:

1. Sites that masquerade as news sites but are simply fake news in intent. This does not mean every word they publish is fake news, and some of the most successful/damaging of these sites have made a point of mostly publishing legit but unimportant material then making all their big stories be fake, as a way to lull suspicions.
2. Fake news stories spreading into mainstream media outlets.

The first issue is already dealt with by RS requiring that a source be from a reputable publisher as one of the criteria for it being considered reliable; any known fake-news site, or an unknown site that seems to have some real and some questionable news, is already excluded. Where people try to include them anyway, we have WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE to fall back on, and usual processes of weeding out PoV-pushing attempts to warp our articles.

The second problem is more serious. We have an a long-standing operating presumption that major newspapers and TV news programs in Western democracies, other than those with an established reputation for sensationalism and nonsense, are reliable sources. This assumption now seems increasingly questionable, both because of regurgitation of fake news, and because of increasing and well-sourced indications that quite a number of them are "playing ball" with political powers. So, some kind of adjustment to WP:RS is probably in order, to remove the assumption that news outlets are reliable for any topic that is controversial, and to treat them as only middling-quality sources by default, with every publisher/publication evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and that evaluation subject to change over time.

This re-examination and shift of approach has probably been a long time coming, and has been needed even before the recent US election cycle. Fox News, for example, has long been known to have an extreme right-wing bias and to air falsehoods, while similar-level claims can also be made of various far-left publications. It's not just about news. Our default blind trust of "other encyclopedias" goes too far. For example, World Book Encyclopedia (at least in the late 1970s through mid-1980s – I have not examined every edition) suppressed a large amount of information about the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and other communist countries, and what information it did have on them read as if it had been written by the CIA's propaganda specialists. The more we get [back] into an age of "truthiness", "post-truth", and "alternative facts" (never mind the "Net of a Million Lies" effect predicted by Vernor Vinge), the more WP has to tighten the constraints of what it considers reliable. Especially as the editorial pool shrinks, public use of WP increases, and consequently both the ability to get away with skewing its coverage and the propaganda value of doing so rise simultaneously.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:Should we change WP:RS then? No activity there since 2013, so it's probably about time, IMO. Since my present account is pretty new (I had to create a new one because I lost my log in for the old one), I'm wary of doing anything... — Iadmc♫^talk  08:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the whole "fake news" panic started out with... Well, if Donald Trump didn't start the panic about "fake news", who else did? George Ho (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling ME on en:Wikipedia... — Iadmc♫^talk  08:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would think the community should discuss the nature of the problem here in VPPOL for a while, then WT:RS could host a more focused discussion on what RS needs to say about the matter; I certainly wouldn't go rush to make major changes to our most central content guideline. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair point... thanks! — Iadmc♫^talk  10:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of otherwise reliable sources incorporating fake info, sometimes WP is actually the source of that fake info. See for example the problem I've been fighting for nearly a decade at Talk:Cardboard box#Sir Malcolm Thornhill, where the fake info from a drive-by editor ended up in two books already. Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is to be a fake news policy or guidance I think it should mainly concentrate on how to get rid of such stuff. I remember the problem I had some years ago where a textbook said something just plain wrong and this person was insistent it should be in an article. Unfortunately there was no reliable source saying it was false - why should they mention it? It was eventually removed with an RfC. I can see some more minor bits of fake news having the same problem where they are manifestly wrong but the only sites that say so are some blogs rather than another reliable source. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather see a fake-news policy than a fake news policy. Dicklyon (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support adding the hyphen per WP:PRECISION. A fake policy concerning news is not what we're after... ;) — Iadmc♫^talk  22:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I totally understand what people are saying here, but I hope if there is a revision of WP policy, this will still allow articles such as Spaghetti-tree hoax which was incredibly funny. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this is already covered in the policies such as WP:Reliable sources: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Unfortunately a lot of the Knights Templar who cite these policies don't actually read them. Editors often argue it's in the New York Times, and that's all that matters. That's not the policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

And that was an April Fool joke revealed the next day and is attested as such in multiple reliable sources. Our problem is deliberate obfuscation of the facts and then the innocent/not-so-innocent regurgitation of those falsehoods which then apparently have to be reported as facts in Wikipedia since they are reported as such in our usual RSs — Iadmc♫^talk  22:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's my first point above: WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DEADLINE are being ignored to try to make WP up-to-the-second with the news, which is becoming more and more a problem. This has been slowly building up as an issue with en.wiki before (we had to create NEVENT to help stem the tide of current event articles) and this whole situation between fake news and sensationalist reporting feeds that cycle in a very bad way. We need to have something in place to tell editors that if a story of questionable merit appears in the news, particularly with BLP, give it a few days before including. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is WP:NOTTRUTH. This leads to editors claiming that the truth doesn't matter, only the sources. There should be room to have an argument based on fact-checking, rather than just the consensus of sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

But there is also WP:NOTFALSE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I've ever seen someone cite that, but I have seen WP:NOTTRUTH cited countless times by the Knights Templar of Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fake news is by no means a new thing. See for example Hungry Beast#Pre-broadcast marketing and in its first version. The only best protection is proper research and investigation. Something which many of our "relialbe sources" now fail to do with ever growing churnalism. Aoziwe (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• I mostly stay clear of "news" articles, too much confusion for my liking, so I have no large experience about this, but... I think Masem got the main points, I highlight that most recent events which are not obviously notable and immutable (exeptions would be a death - the fact, not the details -, the Super Bowl score, and so on) should be on hold for a short while; we are not the news, Wikinews is, maybe we should cooperate more?... Nabla (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, that could only make things worse. If anything, Wikinews has an extremely poor track record at properly contextualizing news. It is very vulnerable to fake news, way more than Wikipedia; it is not out problem, and most importantly it should not become our problem by entering into some kind of cooperation with them. We've decided years ago to reduce to virtually nil our collaboration with them, removing all links to Wikinews from the Main Page / Portal:Current events because of the many issues that affected and continue to affect Wikinews (here's one of the many discussions on this). And trying to get rid of this problem (which is properly handled in the vast majority of cases) by redirecting users to a site that badly fails to handle this specific problem would be irresponsible towards our readers. As for putting not obviously notable event on hold, I think this is covered by WP:NOTNEWS (point 2), but this is often subject to debate. Cenarium (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't moving the efforts from making news here - where we do get decent "news" articles, and updates - to making news there, improve the quality of Wikinews. I do not know shit about Wikinews, I never ever read or write there, but if we have two sites, from the same organising entity, one aimed at the big picture (WikiPedia) one aimed at news (WikiNews) why are we making the news here? If Wikinews is beyond redemption, then it should be closed and maybe we should assume that WP IS also the news. Otherwise the discussion about NEWS/NOTNEWS will keep on for(ever?) a long time. Nabla (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think a core change that does have to be re-assert or added to policy is in regards to any contemporary or ongoing controversy that with the current situation in the media (the rising amount of "fake news", and the lack of objective journalism) that editors should be extremely cautious about trying to keep articles up-to-date on any opinion or controversial elements in these types of topics. We generally can write a more holistic picture a few days/weeks/months/years after the event(s) when the dust has settled and there's better look-back as to what is a broad and more academic analysis rather than news-reporting angles that can be used to judge the situation. We can still write objectively about those controversial events, but we should be trying to avoid too much opinion while the event is still controversial, or trying to apply elements like UNDUE to enforce or eliminate viewpoints in a yet-determined situation. There is no deadline to get these opinions covered in the article, and most of the time is better to get the big picture - which takes time - to understand how best to present the views and opinions in an encyclopedic manner. That also gives us the ability to judge "fake news", "clickbait", "churnalism", op-eds posing as news stories without the op-ed banner, and other problems from the journalism side with a better historical view rather than trying to match the press minute-for-minute. This doesn't change anything about policy or guidelines, just that editors respect them more, though I do think explanation of these issues needs to be discussed in an appropriate guideline or an essay.--MASEM (t) 15:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we also need a policy on the documenting of fake news in articles like the Bowling Green massacre?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

African American, Afro American, or either

There is an article African Americans. For someone of such background, Is it OK to pipe [[African Americans|Afro American]] or should it be directly linked to "African Americans"? Is there policy on this? If so, I would like to get a link. An anon was piping Afro American (can't remember the article now) which I thought was strange, but couldn't find any policy. I have seen this several times over 20k or so edits I've viewed. My watch-list is near-full, please ping? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I don't know that there is a policy, but nobody says "Afro-American" anymore, so that seems like a term we should avoid, espescially given the charged nature of such terms. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. Standard usage today is "African American" and other terms should only be used in direct quotes. When speaking in Wikipedia's voice, just use the unpiped link. --Jayron32 16:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

But be aware that this is not universal; "Afro-Caribbean", "Afro-Cuban", "Afro-Brazilian", etc., remain in common usage, as do parallel constructions with other prefixes. There's only a "charged nature" with "Afro-American" (which, like various other terms like "Colored", was once the preferred one; that too is not universal, and "Coloured" with a somewhat different meaning is still used in various parts of Africa).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That may all be true, but the OP did not ask about Afro-Cubans. --Jayron32 16:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing the Grandfather Clause for BLPPRODs

Interested editors may comment at: Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause?. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I have now suggested that {{Empty section}} (along with the preceding header) and {{Expand section}} should be removed after a certain time limit, mainly because they don't seem to actually result in expanded sections in the long term. Please share your thoughts there:

• WP:Templates for discussion/Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section

Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" user categories

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

You may wish to participate in this RfC in relation to the question of whether WP:USERCAT should be amended to say that Wikipedians should be allowed to add "joke categories, categories pertaining to likes that do not directly address the encyclopedia and other categories not covered in the list of inappropriate categories. (e.g. Category:Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band)". WJBscribe (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

There is a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. The proposal is to remove "irrelevant likes" and "jokes" from the list of inappropriate uses categories and add them to the list of appropriate uses of categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and admins

Is it appropriate for a wikiproject member to post on a wikiproject's TP asking for admin involvement on a related article's TP? Considering the most likely admin to see the request will also be a member of that project, it doesn't seem completely above-board. Primergrey (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

While there is a risk that an WP:INVOLVED admin might see the note and take admin action, it's not a large one: Just because you are INVOLVED in a WikiProject doesn't mean you are INVOLVED in every article that is under the auspices of that project. I think we can trust admins to know when they are INVOLVED and abstain. For example, if I were an admin and I was INVOLVED in WP:WikiProject Biography, by your logic, I should never take any administrative action on any biographical article. That is simply incorrect. We don't need to add more rules for admins, the existing rules and procedures for handling violations is adequate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much that, INVOLVED is the relevant policy, but without context this question can't really be answered. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

By my logic? I am familiar with INVOLVED, as you obviously are with involved (the word). I never asked the question that you appear to be answering. I'm simply concerned about a request for admin intervention on a project page instead of at AN. If for no other reason than the optics of it. Nothing to do with where admins can or cannot act. Thanks for the condescending reply, though. Primergrey (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Admins in the WikiProject are more likely to undeerstand the issues in volvedwith th at WikiProject. That may be a areason to ask on a WikiProject talk page, in sttead of AN. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be problematic if the request is neutrally worded... "Edit warring is occurring at Article X. Some admin intervention would be appreciated" is fine, "User XXX is ruining our projects articles, we need editors to revert the additions and kill the suggestions on the talk page, and an admin should block him" is (at best) not an appropriate posting. EdChem (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not appropriate to canvass involved admins from a wikiproject to act as enforcers of the wikiproject's preferences at articles they claim "scope" over. Without getting into details and scraping scabs off of mostly-healed wounds, I have to note that as recently as 2014, one wikiproject was using "pet" admins to run what amounted to its own private anti-WP:RM process, speedily mass-moving articles to comply with the wikiproject's preferences and against site-wide guidelines about such titles, and bypassing all "outsider" opportunity to have any input. This activity was eventually stopped, but only after a drawn-out RfC (which focused on the underlying title formatting question, not the admin behavior, so to this date the admin behavior actually remains unaddressed).

We don't need any more "we're just going to get our own private admin mercenary force to deal with you" behavior out of insular, WP:OWN-ish wikiprojects.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand there are some weird cases of vandalism that are only visible to those familiar with the project. Trying to explain the backstory to someone else is a lot of effort. WP:GER for example had a guy (IP hopping) who edited bogus municipal mergers. In the end only a global lock on some IP ranges put a stop to it, but must admins would have not immediately identified the vandalism. Agathoclea (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is a big difference between going to an admin that is escentally in your back pocket and going to an admin that is knowledgeable in the subject area due to them being more likely to notice subtle vandalism.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Elections for NPP/NPR coordinators

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. New Page Review and its Page Curation is a core MediaWiki extension. The process of expertly vetting all new articles is a critical issue needing a couple of 'go to' people. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will try to keep discussions in the right places and advance negotiations with the WMF.
Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment and contribution to a Wikipedia guideline on page protection

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.

---

Request for contribution and comment on WP:PPG

Hello Wikipedia people :). I would appreciate some comments and contributions on a Wikipedia guideline for the protection of pages found here at WP:PPG. Any edits and or talk which positively contribute to this guideline would be greatly appreciated Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 13:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I still think that our protection-policy page here would be the right venue to discuss this. I'll post a link there. Lectonar (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

edit conflictAs you know, there is already a protection policy. Why is a guideline needed to document reflections on this policy? That is, who needs additional guidance on protection and what additional guidance is not already captured in the policy? The outcomes of the three-prong test proposed seem to be covered better, and in less subjective terms, in the policy it references and the rest reads like a personal essay about distaste for the whole process. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Thank you, I really appreciate you doing that for me. Also @Eggishorn: I have seen that many admins are over eager to use page protection so I am seeking some remedy to it. Hopefully this proposed guideline will open some constructive lines of discussion on how to approach the issue. The current form of the policy is not working otherwise there would be less page protection going on and more proactive admins using other tools to effectively deal with problems which might otherwise result in page protection. I have no bias against page protection being used but only when required as it offends the spirit of WP:5P3. Furthermore, I believe this is reflected in the WP:PPG but I’d appreciate any comments or contributions you have which might make it more balanced. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 14:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's a fine personal essay, and I'm not saying that I disagree with its spirit, but I don't see this as becoming enshrined as a formal guideline. WP:PP is sufficient as it is. --Jayron32 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with Jayron32; the problem imho being mainly that different admins interpret and implement it differently (admins discretion). Protection policy as it is is well written and of course represents the consensus that has been built over years and years. For what it is worth, I think too many pages are protected too quickly, but with editors and admins being in short supply, it is difficult to keep track of all our more than 5 million articles (+ Wikispace-the subpages), so sometimes protection is the lesser evil. Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Before editing the guideline or even commenting on the details, there should be a demonstration that the guideline is needed and addresses a current situation. Guidelines are supposed to be broad reflections of a large portion of the editor base. The proposed guideline, and the premise that informs it above, are really personal opinions. The premise: "I think the admins are wrong and here's what they need to do." is always going to be a difficult one to justify. You will need to point to actual evidence in order to sustain that premise. Not mere anecdotal or individual cases-type evidence, but larger bodies of data. Has there been a sudden upswing on page protection? Are too many requests for page protection accepted? What is "too many" in that context? Are IP editors complaining with any change in frequency about not being able to edit protected pages? Is the backlog as requested edits growing? If it is growing, is it because more requests are made or that fewer requests are handled? Not all of these questions need answering, but they are the type that have a bearing on the need for a guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strikes me as windy and legalistic, with many odd word choices ("contempt", "totalitarian"). What's the need? Also, I think it's a poor idea to allocate shortcuts to early-stage proposals that may never gain traction. EEng 14:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be some ambiguity about the proper use of template protection. The policy quotes that it can be used on “high risk” content however, this is subjective. As you have mentioned, @Lectonar:, it is one of those things which can be widely interpreted. Considering that editors relinquish their contributions on Wikipedia to the public domain and that anyone can edit Wikipedia it seems rather counterintuitive that a policy would allow for pre-emptive protection of content including Templates without first having been disrupted. It seems to give a clause or loophole which can be exploited to protect content on Wikipedia without having a tangible risk being demonstrated but rather allow for protection based on the speculation it is high risk. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 14:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Which template do you need me to fix? If you tell me the template and the part you need me to edit for you, I'll see what I can do. --Jayron32 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And this detail can of course be discussed at WP:PP. Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @EEng: | Fear of change is dangerous Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 15:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not when the change is from a useful, concisely-written document to what you have there. Then it's not "fear" but blindingly good common sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to summarize what I'm seeing: In about 80 minutes, the premise has gone from, "We have a real problem," to, "I think the admins should do this," to, "Just don't fear change." Is that about right? Because I'm seeing less and less evidence of a need as that line of arguing progresses.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: @Eggishorn: When something isn’t working then you can either keep trying to make it work with a protectionist onslaught of bureaucracy or opt for a change of perception and try to overcome the challenge with progressive and meaningful adjustment. Whichever way you look at it, reverting to a point another editor made, the constant decrease of editors and administrators makes over-eager page protection implementation more appealing to resolve issues as a matter of convenience but it also puts us further away from being an open Wikipedia which anyone can edit. This essay / guideline / proposal or whichever semantic terminology one would adopt for it brings about discussion and a press for meaningful adjustment to how things are currently working. Furthermore, the statement I made in relation to change was not exclusively referencing this matter. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 15:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: You say our protection policy isn't working. Prove it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Go to the page for protection requests, click history then look at the recent accepted requests. From there evaluate yourself which of those requests have resulted in the protection of a page which did not need to be protected in order to protect it. Furthermore, take a look at template protection requests and how they are accepted. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 15:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: Actually, that's your job as you are disagreeing with an admin's judgement, how they interpreted protection policy, or the policy itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict

Asking @NeilN: to produce your evidence for you is exactly the kind of anecdotal or case history-type evidence that shouldn't be used to justify the premise here. Before engaging in attempts to fix a problem, I like to know a problem exists. You have re-iterated your obviously strenuous opinion that it does, but that is, again, your opinion. Is it a widely-shared opinion? We don't know. Is there a "a protectionist onslaught of bureaucracy"? We don't know. Is there a challenge that has to be overcome? We don't know. Vague handwaves towards the five pillars aren't any help in answering any of these questions. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "Anyone can edit any article in any way without any repercussions." There have to be actual reasons to make restrictions on editing, true, but those reasons are already there in the policy you yourself linked to. There equally have to be reasons to undercut restrictions, and personal preference is a poor reason for doing that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Contempt", "dystopian", "totalitarian". Congratulations on getting me to not take you seriously. In any case, the checks and balances you propose (alternative remedies, consideration of the severity of disruption) are already largely woven into the policy, except that you make them unhelpfully legalistic. BethNaught (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• @BethNaught: @NeilN: Guys, I think you are underappreciating a certain factor here and that is while I spend some time writing things for Wikipedia, I write at about 80 – 90 wpm and am just casually jotting things down while I am working on real life business. I don’t have the luxury of time to dedicate to endlessly seeking out diff links to prove that Wikipedia’s protection policy isn’t working properly when I have already told you which places to look. It feels like I am in a piranha tank with editors eager to prove their points without doing much themselves but express hot air. Things like “Congratulations on getting me to not take you seriously” just make me reluctant to contribute further. There are two screens at work here and Wikipedia is on one of them, but not for long now as I have other things to be doing than argue semantics. Anyone who can be bothered to check out the recently accepted page protection requests might be better informed as to why I think there’s a problem. I must do work which I am paid for now so you guys enjoy. Sorry if you feel I made an invalid point. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 16:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's disrespectful of your colleagues' time to submit something you just casually jotted down while distracted by something else, especially on an important policy matter. And the 80-90 wpm explains the excessive verbiage. EEng 17:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I think you can go to WP:VPIL to incubate your idea. Also, you can question the policy at WT:protection policy or the process at WT:RPP. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: "editors eager to prove their points without doing much themselves but express hot air" - I think you've very accurately expressed the problem here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• @NeilN: Are you trying to | bully me? Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: How can it be bullying when I quoted your own words? Also, tip: Being asked to defend your point of view or arguments (or even being told plainly you're wrong) is not bullying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Instead of merely condemning swimming in a tank of hot-air breathing piranhas (and ain't that a mental image to treasure?) or make bad-faith accusations, may it not be productive to consider why there is resistance? Assuming there is a problem and then assuming others will provide the evidence of that problem isn't the way most productive debates proceed. I dare say, it isn't how most business decisions at successful companies work, either. I get that work life restricts ability to produce research which is why @George Ho:'s Idea Lab suggestion is a good one. On the other hand, why not revisit this later, when you do have time, and provide support for the hypothesis that the RPP process is broken instead of just becoming dismayed over other editors not instantly agreeing with your assessment of the RPP process? Just a thought. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: I don’t know if you asserting a perception of something makes me wrong because it differs from your opinions. However, I will say that, Neil, you are using your position of authority or power to marginalize and condemn my opinions in an aggressive way hence why I proposed it to be bullying, but I don’t assert it as an absolute, it’s just how I feel. Regardless, if this isn’t your intent I am sorry, it’s just the perception I am getting from you. @Eggishorn: This is a very well balanced comment which you have just made and I will return to this and do what you mentioned when I have time, thank you. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 16:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: I haven't told you you are wrong. I have asked you to provide evidence to back up your assertions. Vague hand-waving is not providing evidence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You guys. I think we need to move on before the discussion gets heated (and then closed or hatted). George Ho (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Page protection is dystopian and can be counterproductive especially when used without merit. Are there any examples of this? I'm not doubting it's happened but I don't see a significant pattern. It has also been my experience that most admins are reluctant to protect a page unless there has been significant, ongoing disruption. What would be an alternative for, lets say, persistent disruption by several IP ranges or newly registered accounts? Warnings frequently go unheeded, otherwise blocks wouldn't be necessary and neither would page protection. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• there is literally no chance we are going to replace the community-created protection policy with one users hyperbolic rant on the subject, so we can probably all jst walk away from this discussion right here and now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Feedback, as requested: I disagree with nearly every word in that essay, which is more like a rant against common best practices on protecting pages. Those practices are based on experience with long-term disruption. Page protection should be handled on a case-by-case basis, just as is currently being done. I propose that essay be moved to userspace since it reflects only the views of a single editor, and consensus here is clearly quite strongly against the opinions expressed. First Light (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @First Light: There are plenty enough logical fallacies in this discussion let alone having the religious flocking in. Do you want to expand on what you disagree with and why? Also, moving to userspace is not the only option for essays which reflect minority views, they are converted from proposed guidelines to essays. Also if you have read the discussion comprehensively you would note that there is consensus against it being a guideline but not an essay. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 08:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee:"Relgious?" That's a comment I don't understand. If you are referring to me, the vast majority of my GAs, DYKs, and 300+ articles created are plant articles. Does that mean I'm a plant? I also edit religion articles of all kinds (eastern and western religions), though I would definitely not define myself as "religious." I'm also not a saint, even though I've edited several articles about saints :-). Anyways, if I were religious, or a saint, or a plant, would that be reason for dismissing or belittling my views? Regarding what I disagree with in your essay, I'll just take the first three sentences, since I don't have the time to respond to every sentence. 1. "Wikipedia page protections are, by their nature, in contempt of Wikipedia:5P3..." Well, no. Those five pillars include basic policies like NPOV, Reliable Sources, not a soapbox/advertising/anarchy, no plagiarism or copyright violations allowed, respect and civility. Far from being in contempt of the five pillars, page protection supports the five pillars. Your sentence #2: "Page protection is dystopian and can be counterproductive especially when used without merit." Dystopian? definition: "an imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad." Protecting encyclopedia articles from long-term vandalism/advertising/soapboxing/copyvios/anarchy/plagiarism is "unpleasant or bad?" I disagree. I think it's quite pleasant and good. And real, not imagined. Real people (BLP) need protection quite often, as do many other topics, from vandalism/etc. Regarding "... counterproductive especially when used without merit." Editors need to explain the merit of page protection before the page is protected by an admin. Enough said. Your sentence #3: "Applying any form of protection to a page de facto removes the technical ability for anybody to be able to edit content which damages Wikipedia as it can inhibit useful contributions." There is much more damage due to the long-term vandalism/advertising/soapboxing/etc. that page protection prevents. And no, there is no de facto removal of the technical ability to edit content. Editors can still suggest changes on the talk page. Many do just that. It's quite productive, it engages editors in discussion, productive edits are done, vandalism/soapboxing/etc. is prevented. Page protection is a win-win situation. I won't get into the rest of your proposed policy, except to say that it's not just a minority view. It's essentially your view, a very personal essay. I think it should be moved to userspace. First Light (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Call for vote

• @Chrissymad:, @George Ho:, @NeilN:, @Eggishorn:, @Lectonar:

After having spent some quality time reading through replies, I have identified that many editors would like substantive evidence that a systemic problem exists with the current page protection process. Thus, I move to a vote on the following motion:

Every day for 31 days I will go to the page protection page and note the following data:

1. Total number of template requests made by type of protection requested

2. Total number of accepted requests made by type of protection requested

3. Total number of rejected requests made by type of protection requested

4. Total number of accepted template protection requests with the reasoning being stated to be “high risk template.”

5. Total number of requests accepted by time span protection is implemented

6. Total number of requests accepted for content with 1 - 2 users engaging in misconduct* on the article

7. Total number of requests accepted for content with 2 + users engaging in misconduct on the article

Alternative option As NeilN suggested one could conduct qualitative research with a defined rationale as to why I found an article necessarily protected or unnecessarily protected. For example, x amount of articles protected of x the y amount are unnecessarily protected in those 31 days.

• Misconduct would have to be further defined as edit warring or vandalism.

The rationale behind this form of collection is that I have concluded that by providing diff links it will not only be overbearing in respect of workload required to substantiate the claims I have made but it may unfairly single out any single administrator and open them to personal scrutiny. This would result in an objective bias being created in the discussion. I would also like to request other editors input in the data values collected and other propositions for this research. Thank you. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 03:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

None of the four points you propose to collect data for will show a systemic problem exists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Propose another set of data which might more accurately reflect a systemic problem exists? I have also added some data sets. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 04:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

To expand, evidence must be qualitative as well as quantitative. That is, you can say, 750 protection requests were accepted during a month. But then you have to analyze each one of those protects and say which ones were unnecessary or unnecessarily long and why. If there's a significant percentage, then propose changes that would curb those unnecessary protects. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: The problem is analyze each one of those requests and say which ones were necessary or unnecessarily long is rather subjective when used for research. Unless there is a distinctive definition for what would make a page protection necessary or unnecessarily long that is widely accepted. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 04:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sure analysis can be subjective. But raw numbers are useless with regards to determining whether or not there's a systemic problem. So there's 750 protects (and don't forget protects are often done without a request at RFPP). So what? Maybe all 750 were justified. Maybe 400 were (in which case... systemic problem). My point is, you need to show there's a problem with the protects themselves, not the number of protects. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: I could always conduct qualitative research with a defined rationale as to how I determined if page protection was necessary or unnecessary? Furthermore, doesn’t the rights log allow for filtering out page protection? Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 04:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Of course it's subjective. There's no avoiding that. This discussion is a complete waste of time. You haven't even provided anecdotal evidence that there's a problem. EEng 04:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Wiki-Coffee: Use the rationale every admin is supposed to use - WP:PP. And if you disagree with that, state specifically how it could be improved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @EEng: I have provided an account, not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research in my body of text which I have wrote above but you would have to read it to know that (body of text being the discussion before this one on voting for research. I could just technically conduct the research without consensus however that would prove useless especially when users like NeilN have just proven they can contribute very positively to the discussion and result in a positive change of approach. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 04:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't even parse your first sentence, so I quit reading. EEng 04:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: I think the policy WP:PP Adequately sets out an accepted standard for what constitutes a necessary page protection and what does not. I don’t think the goal of this research is to invalidate any part of the PP however, I would like it to show that the page protection policy is so far widely interpreted that it can result in systemic unnecessary protection of pages. An example would be the clause in the PP for the protection of templates which says any high-risk template can be protected. This, on the face of it, seems to be systemically used to indefinitely protect template pages without first having any vandalism occurring to them. Another issue I have recently faced is that administrators seem eager to sysop protect pages to force discussion on the talk page. Clearly the policy in its current from is not preventing that as it wouldn’t be happening. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 04:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: High-risk templates are high-risk because any disruption on them could effect thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of pages. Vandalize one page and you vandalize one page. Vandalize the right template and you could cause millions of readers to be exposed to that vandalism. As for full protection, there are times where that is preferable to blocking multiple editors who have temporarily lost their wiki-sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: But that notion defeats placing trust in the editors to be able to edit Wikipedia. It offends the spirit of WP:5P3 and which is embodied in Wikipedia’s own slogan the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. With respect to hesitance blocking editors, then a warning might be the more effective option rather than offending Wikipedia’s core principles? Sysop protection seems to me something that should be used sparingly not as a mere convenience to prevent the need to take other less-disruptive actions against an editor? The point here is to show that there is an increase in unnecessary use of page protection privileges and that increase will not stop unless something is done to curve it. The burden of proof is on me to collect data to reflect that problem exists, as I know it does. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 05:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: You might want to read the essay Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact, inspired by Jimmy Wales. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Less coffee might help too. EEng 05:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Dogmatically engaging in protectionist fear-driven actions is the folly of all great things. To contravene your core principles of freedom and openness for the ideal of protectionism and censorship foregoes all notions or expectations of freedom. If the very foundation of what you are aiming to protect is based on freedom, then you are ravaging those foundations and thus protection of what you are destroying is meaningless. If there is indeed any way you can protect a process inherently rested on freedom of those who make it be without foregoing any of the freedoms themselves this way ought to be the most logical means to keep both the foundation and those who protect it equally balanced. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 05:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Wiki-Coffee: You say they're dogmatic actions, I (and probably most of the community) say they're pragmatic. And don't forget anyone can still effect change on protected pages by using edit requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: If they are indeed pragmatic, then one would be able to evidence objective proof that sysop protecting a page to force discussion when less totalitarian means are available is more practical than those alternatives. I would argue that this form of protection damages Wikipedia’s public image, that is it gives an impression it is not able to be edited by anyone and that it prevents useful edits for the duration of the sysop protection. Whereas, so far as I can see, the only practical benefit for the administrator is not having to warn specific disruptive users or take further actions against them if required. Surely warning or preventing editing from disruptive editors is more practical than preventing the whole of Wikipedia and the public from editing a page? Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 05:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• My comments were mostly directed towards your objection of preemptive protection of high risk templates. Preemptive protection is a pragmatic solution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: On another note you have stated “I (and probably most of the community) say they're pragmatic.” If you have used “and probably most of the community” to give weight to your argument, then I would find it rather ironic if not contradictory that just moments before you gave me a link to Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact which suggests “Wikipedia is not a democracy.” How would placing weight on the suggestion that the majority agree with you bare any consequence if Wikipedia is indeed not a democracy. Wiki-Coffee ^Talk 06:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think you missed the most relevant part of that essay - "this is not an experiment in anarchy". That is, we don't just keep our pages wide open, tell the world, "hey, do what you want", and hope for the best. The community has developed a set policies and guidelines over the years that in part set up pragmatic editing restrictions that help with our goal of building an encyclopedia (I think you've lost sight of the fact that we're not a dogmatic experiment in editing freedom on the Internet). That's what I meant by "most of the community" as these restrictions developed through community discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Page protection arbitrary break 1

[unnecessary personal attacks redacted]

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.

Removal of POV tags

The current policy (Template:POV) is that a tag can be removed when a dispute is "dormant". This is problematic in at least two cases: (1) when the issue has been noted by several people episodically over a long time, but no one has fixed the article, (2) when editors who support the POV of the article refuse to engage in discussion and simply wait it out, rendering the dispute "dormant" after some lapse of time. On the other hand, case 2 creates a perverse incentive for challengers to keep arguing the point indefinitely to stop the discussion becoming "dormant".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You have mis-identified the problem. The problem is editors who care but don't take effective steps to deal with it. In the first case, if none of the alleged supporters of the POV claim lift a finger to fix it, then the claim is dubious. The tag can be removed and any editor who just fights to restore it is better served by editing the article instead of fighting to preserve the tag. In the second case, if there really are editors who are pusing a POV by refusing to engage in discussion, then the editors who care need to use effective WP:DR to put more pressure on the silent holdouts to participate, and that failing the editors who care need to make an effective appeal to ANI or AE. If the holdtouts still won't reply to reasonable efforts at RS based discussion but edit war over the tag or status quo, they'll be blocked. So I don't see the problem. What article are we talking about anyway? Is it already under discretionary sanctions from the arbs? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a specific article. I've just noticed it in a number of articles. Ideally, editors should fix the problems they identify, but this is a voluntary project, and some of the problems are intractable. My question is: if there is a problem, why would dormancy fix it? No one would say that a lack of references is going to be fixed by a lack of discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Many people who are - I mean, of course - 100% neutral freak out when articles are biased, and I mean obviously seriously any moron can tell biased. So they tag these articles POV for purposes of "warning the reader". Every single one of these editors are absolutely correct, obviously. ........... OK, you get the point hopefully. No one questions lack of sources because you look at the article are there aren't any sources. Regrettably to determine the existence of POV you have to read and think and can still reasonably disagree. I hear what you're saying, but it all stems from "if there's a problem".... IF there's a problem. Says who? Some drive by tagger wanting to "warn the reader"? And how do you tell the honest drive bys from the partisan? So in my view, we should nuke dormant tags and expect anyone who cares to invest energy in BRD to fix the problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

To give you a counterexample, History of North Korea was tagged since 2011 (not by me). Several editors had made criticism of its lack of neutrality over the years, but the tag remained until I removed it last year after putting hours of work into the article. No "drive-by nuker" removed the tag in the interim. But according to the policy one could have done because there were long periods of "dormancy". In fact, there was no dispute at all, because no one defended the state of the article. But why would any sensible person remove the tag in that situation? Who knows. But that is what the policy suggests should happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A sensible person reads and thinks critically, and would recognize that there were problems, so even though the rules would allow tag removal, the sensible person you describe would leave it alone if they didn't have time or ability to fix the problems. A POV pusher who likes the status quo might remove it to push their POV. Such is life at Wikipedia. I have a lot of climate related pages on my watchlist. In that subject area we deal with this all the time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So why have a policy that encourages editors to do something that is not sensible? The policy should say: "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, and no outstanding issue can be identified".--Jack Upland (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

First, you're reading in "encouraged". It doesn't say that. What it does say is "In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." operative word "may". Not Should nor encouraged, just "may". Second, it doesn't include the part you wish because sensible people don't need the extra hand holding. See WP:CREEP As I read my own words Jack they sound a bit biting, and I apologize. Don't mean it that way. Just tired. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The reality is that many editors are bureaucratic and love enforcing perceived "rules". I have seen several editors remove tags with the reason that there is no discussion or the discussion is dormant, NOT based on an assessment of the issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you know unless you assessed it yourself? And if you assessed it yourself and found the problem, why are you posting here instead of fixing it there? See WP:SOFIXIT.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear how adding "and no outstanding issue can be identified" is going to be of much help. Who is going to judge whether an editor removing a tag added by someone without any talk page discussion should have identified an issue? Are we going to seriously consider sanctioning someone for removing an undiscussed tag because we think they failed to notice an issue? Doug Weller talk 10:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• To my mind, the removal of tags is simple... if an editor believes the issue has been addressed, or can not identify what or where the issue is, he/she can remove the tag. If another editor disagrees, and thinks the issue remains, the tag can be re-added. At which point, the two editors (and others) engage in discussion, and work together to resolve the issue. This is part of the normal editing process. There is no need to make additional rules. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree with everything you said, but I think the issue that was raised is the status of the tag when the discussion you just described does not occur. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can start a discussion. If you remove a tag, and someone else returns it... reach out to the other person and ASK them to explain what the problem is. Then work with them to resolve it he issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But of course. And when they don't reply? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's no response to that. In response to Doug Weller above, no one has suggested "sanctioning" someone for removing a tag. But I think the issue needs some clarification. One of the things that led me to raise the issue was this at the Era of Stagnation page in 2013:[2] The editor misquotes the policy to say, " Remove this template whenever..." instead of "You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true..." Overall, many editors seem to have a bias towards "nuking" tags. But why? Why are tags so bad? Will Wikipedia be better with less tags?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

One answer to "why are tags so bad?" From the reader's perspective—which surprisingly hasn't been addressed here yet—a tag is a red flag saying essentially that 'this article isn't reliable.' The way some readers think due to WP's reputation, they would add "...so don't bother reading it." So far so good, that's one of the reasons why these tags are placed. But most of the time, you click on the link to see the talk page explanation for the tag, and there is .... nothing. So what is the poor reader supposed to think? As an editor, I would guess that most of the time I see such tags, there is no explanation on the talk page, just a drive-by tag where an editor was too lazy to explain. At least half the time in such cases, I see no issues with the article, so I remove the tag. Because I'm thinking of the reader, and because I think 'lazy editor, if you want to put the tag back, then you owe us an explanation.' If they put the tag back, then they do owe an explanation, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no dispute from me, that if there is no explanation forthcoming, it's OK to remove the tag. The issue I raised was dormancy, and I was particularly thinking of articles which have a low traffic.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This is just normal BRD stuff. If a tag has been around on a article for a long time, the presumptive consensus is that it belongs there. If you remove it and others object to the removal, and can provide sane reasons for their objections, and you remove the tag again anyway, then you are revertwarring and need to stop. Yes, tags are a red flag to readers. This is intentional, and is their primary purpose. Otherwise we would only use hidden HTML comments and invisible cleanup categories. "It really cheeves me that there's this ugly PoV tag on my article" is an indication that a) you need to resolve the PoV problem (or whatever was tagged) and ask for help in doing so, and b) need to read WP:OWN and WP:MERCILESS – it is not your article no matter how much time you spent on it. It's our article. Some further points: Yes, you can remove a tag if you disagree with it or it doesn't seem to make sense, and that's fine if you don't get reverted or get objections raised to doing so. Yes, if you tag an article, you have a responsibility to make it clear why you did so and what needs to be resolved. It is best to do this with |, a repeat of that sentence in the edit summary, and with a talk page post going into more detail; only putting it in edit summary is not enough, since later editors are not going to see that in most cases. No, "the editor who placed the tag should fix the problem" isn't valid reasoning. If they knew how to fix it and had the time to do it, they would have done it instead of placing the tag. Aside from the primary user-warning purpose, that's why we have tags in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

However, Template:POV says: 'Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.' I don't see the problem with warning readers, but that's what it says.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just noticed that a POV tag had recently been taken off Human rights in North Korea with the edit summary: Removing Template:POV per "You may remove this template if the discussion has become dormant." A flurry of messages in late November and then nothing since then. Clearly some editors interpret the policy as "dormancy = removal". I'm not pushing for a tag to be returned to that article, but it is notable that discussions about POV have been going on for over a decade.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on routine file deletion

You may be interested in the RFC about splitting off routine file deletion from normal deletion that is taking place at FFD. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Future years- how far is too far?

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.

---

See Category:Years in the future

This is a follow-up on the discussion of the recent years guidelines further up the page. While looking into that mater, I discovered that we have articles on years in the future, going all the way up to 2099, and articles are future millennia going all the way up to the 10th millennium. In addition to general information about predicted astronomical events and so forth, these articles contain speculative material as well as useless minutia such as what software may stop working properly 75-8,000 years in the future. While having articles for years in the immediate future seems reasonable, having articles for years that most of us will not even live to see, and cannot possibly predict, seems .... well frankly it just seems a bit silly. Should we develop a policy that prohibits articles on some future years? If so, what should be the cutoff? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Depends on the circumstances. For instance the Olympics are rarely cancelled, so based upon the assumption that a worldwide nuclear holocaust doesn't break out, its likely that they will continue ad infinitum. Nonetheless I think that the absolute limit should be 25 cycles of the activity (such as 25 FIFA cups, Olympics, etc), or else 100 years, whichever comes first. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm talking about the articles on the years/millennia themselves, i.e. 2075 or 7th millennium, not articles on specific events. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lazyges: 25 cycles in these examples does seem even a bit too much. What actual, verifiable, relevant information could be available today about the 2116 Olympics for example? Having an article on an event about which precisely nothing is known is blatant WP:CRYSTALBALL. And, by extension, having articles about years the same time away is predicting the future. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the material in these articles is speculative (or cruft about fiction set in the future), especially once you get past 1 or 2 years. I would suggest that we limit future year articles to at most 10 years in the future. And I would say only 1 century or millennium in the future. Otherwise, it quickly gets into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Kaldari (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment — it is very silly. For example, in 2050 were told that "Sexual encounters between humans and sexbots will outpace intrahuman sexual activity", and this claim is repeated twice. I'm not sure that a policy could deal with this, but I certainly think articles that serve no useful purpose should be deleted. I disagree with Iazyges's comment about the Olympic Games. The modern Olympic Games only started in 1896, and, yes, several have been cancelled. I don't think it is likely that they will continue "ad infinitum". Nothing ever does. And until the host city is announced, there is very little we could write on the Games of that year. We really can't predict that far ahead. These future year articles seem to be a depository of trivia: scheduled events, random predictions, policy targets, and mentions in fiction. This seems to be totally pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Well, but what's wrong with those example articles, 2075 and 7th millennium? Here we learn useful things. At 2075 we learn that Mary Shelley's seminal The Last Man takes place in that year, and that is not the sort of thing that inspires me to go "Well, we can't tell our readers that! They must never know!". Why remove this information from the Wikipedia? Who does that help? 7th millennium tells us that Mars occults Regulus on August 25 of 6727 (I for one can't wait) and you can take that to the bank.

Granted, these articles are not very useful, but that applies to many of our articles. Just now, working in Category:1966 songs, I've read The Brigands (band) (band may not have existed) and Ajax Hup Hup Hup (human words do not exist to express how ineffably marginal this article is). So why pick on the future? The future, unlike the past, hasn't done me any harm. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at a few past year artuicles which I can link to specific works of fiction (2004, 1968, 2001) I see nothing about such works of fiction. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally, in fiction sections do not belong in year articles. They add nothing to the reader's understanding of the actual year. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and fine, and its defensible. But it's still just an opinion. How to "understand" a year, or any concept... we can define that broadly, or narrowly. To say "a reader's understanding or even apprehension of X cannot ever be enhanced by describing how writers of fiction viewed and used X"... I dunno. That could be true I guess, but its certainly not a statement of settled objective fact. It's an opinion. Since it's just an opinion, I would tend not to make it an enforceable you-can't-do-that rule. Herostratus (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this was codified into the editing guidelines at WP:RY several years ago, but it is unclear if those guidelines would cover articles on future years as there is no defined scope for them. (if your interested, a discussion of what the scope of RY should be is still active further up this very page) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well "Recent Years" is not the same as "Future Years" so I don't know how applicable any of that is. (I do note, regarding User:Od Mishehu's point, that "In fiction" sections are supported for past years; 1984 has one).

Generally, I'm not finding the level of argument at the discussion you point to above as being particularly rigorous. There's some general grumbling along the lines of "Seems like" it's too soon to have articles at all on years more than 5-10 years into the future, or "seems a little nuts" to have articles like this, or "we shouldn't" have articles like this. With no actual reasons given (except that they are created as "easy way to up their editcount", and people please don't make insulting "arguments" like that). So far it sounds like it's a matter of "I think these articles are silly", which the solution is "then don't work on or read those articles".

What I want to know what is the actual problem you are trying to solve here. You want to erase existing information and prevent other editors (who apparently do find working on these articles interesting and useful and are willing to volunteer their time and energy to do it) from creating these articles. What I want to hear is "It will be a service to our readers to erase and prevent these articles because _____________." "If a reader should, for whatever reason, want to look up the year 2247, it will enhance his experience here if we don't have such an article, because ___________." Tell me what goes in the blanks. Herostratus (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that argument amounts to anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is that the less eyes and interested parties there are on an article, the more likely it is to contain errors (intentional or otherwise) and not be updated when predicted events, don't transpire as they should.

"It will be a service to our readers to erase and prevent these articles because they contain nothing that couldn't be contained in another, better maintained and controlled article, category or list and is therefore less likely to be wrong."

"If a reader should, for whatever reason, want to look up the year 2247, it will enhance his experience here if we don't have such an article, because the decision making process that ensures that accurate, well presented and verifiable information that resulted in them having to access the content in slightly different way also means that many other things that readers might want to look up are also not there, such as gossip, propaganda and errors." Scribolt (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"them having to access the content in slightly different way" means "them not finding the information". You can't put the reader's mind in a straitjacket. I don't find to be compelling arguments like "Anyone who is interested in that astronomical phenomena can look at the relevant article"; that fictional events in 2110 should be found in the articles for those works of fiction, not gathered together in a year article, and so forth because no one is going to access them that way. We don't know how or why people want to access information. We are not paper so its cheap to present information in two different places, organized in two different ways, to catch different ways people are approaching a question.

Maybe the reader is writing a story set in 2110 and wants to see what other story writers imagined that year would be like. Maybe they saw a fact about 2110 event and got curious about other possible events in that year. Maybe they are just browsing diffidently though future-year articles to distract themselves from what Jenna said last night. Maybe they are settling a bet. Maybe they want to figure out the average year of the end of of the world in fiction. Maybe they remember a book set in 2110 but can't remember the title. Maybe they're idly curious about what's going to be happening when their daughter turns 100. Or any number of other things which I can't even think of -- and neither can you.

You are OK with telling all these people "Well, we could tell you this stuff -- in fact, we have these articles now -- but we're not going to. Instead, how about you Google it and take 15 minutes to find it and maybe never find it". I'm not on board with that. That's not how to make the internet not suck.

I don't see any "gossip, propaganda, or errors" in these articles. A lot of them have unsourced assertions, but that's general Wikipedia problem. I looked at bunch of these articles at random. They're fine. Herostratus (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus. I take your point to a certain extent. I wasn't claiming that the future year articles contain gossips, errors or propaganda, more that the reasons why I think we should be careful about providing content in articles such as this are the same reason that other articles don't contain them (well, hopefully not for too long). And whilst I agree that it would be nice to present all of the information in every single way that someone might want to access, I disagree with your statement that this is a the unsourced nature of these articles is a general Wikipedia problem. It's a problem that is magnified when we replicate information in so many places that there aren't enough editors to monitor, protect and update them. At some point we have to say, is the benefit of providing this information in this format outweighed by the risk that it's going to be wrong or outdated. I chose 3 years at random and I don't think they're fine.

2057: 1 unsourced claim of a double solar eclipse in a calendar year, 4 star messages reaching their stars (reference in their articles), an unsourced claim that the m6 toll contract will expire then, a 2008 natgeo prediction that the worlds oil supply is going to run out (dynamic information), the 2057 in fiction section and 2 infoboxes, one entirely in red links and the other filled with 2057 in various calenders.

2034: A partial lunar eclipse in September (sourced), a supermoon (sourced) the release of Alberto Fujimori (sourced but dynamic) and Switzerlands phase out of nuclear power (sourced, but dynamic). Plus year in fiction and date conversion infobox.

2021: India plans to conduct its first space flight (sourced to a 2015 article, dynamic info and almost exact example I used in the earlier RfC), some cicadas will emerge (sourced), and Costa Rica's pledge to become carbon neutral (dynamic info, sourced to a 2008 article). A red linked infobox.

So, the only reliable information that can be provided in these articles (that is not dynamic and unlikely to change and thus become outdated without anyone knowing) are the astronomical events and the year in fiction. Who is going to update the progress of Costa Rica's carbon neutral pledge? We shouldn't be have this kind of crystal ball gazing in something like this. So, is the best way of presenting what's left to have an article about a year? Or have articles, 2021 in fiction, 2021 astronomical events etc. There's probably some fancy way of having a category (novel set in 2057) that then have a list. All of these options seem to be better and more reliable ways of presenting this information. Scribolt (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I could probably populate future years endlessly with significant events from Astronomy alone (total exclipses, regular comets etc) - obviously not every individual year, but easily past 100 years in the future. It cant hurt making a guideline that states FY's should only contain facts not fiction or speculation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you could, and that would be pointless. Anyone who is interested in that astronomical phenomena can look at the relevant article. For example, Halley's Comet returns every 75-76 years, so you could create articles indefinitely. Pointless, but probably right (until some cosmic mishap befalls our feathered friend). With regard to scheduled events: pointless, and often wrong. With regard to fiction: pointless, and totally trivial. "1984" is an obvious exception, as the book was named "1984" and was still considered relevant in that year.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If the argument 'its pointless' on wikipedia as a method for exclusion was considered valid by a majority of editors, I estimate the article count would be sitting at around 1-2 million instead of 5+. Given its entirely subjective, there is probably a middle-ground here. (FWIW, I dont disagree scheduled future events are pointless, just that people do seem to find them interesting and relevant.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any other method. Do you think there would be any point in extrapolating astronomical events into the distant future through year articles??? I don't think you do. Part of the problem with these kind of discussions is that it is trying to put "objective" rules onto "subjective" subjects. I think the ultimate answer to "Who does it hurt?" is "Wikipedia". You create more and more articles with more and more trivial content, and these are patrolled by fewer and fewer editors. It is an empire that can't be defended. The legionaries just left Hadrian's Wall.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well quite, but I think we reached that point 3 million articles on roads ago... So arguing that this is some sort of extra step in pointlessness seems futile. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So fighting futility is futile? I might as well become a Vandal.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Either remove the future year articles or enforce a strict no predicted future events policy within them. For the reasons I cited in the original RfC (dynamic info not being updated, Wiki is not a calendar). I can just about see a justification for predictable astronomical phenomena, but even that would be better off in the parent article, or a category or list). FWIW I've got nothing against the future year articles per se, it's just that they contain nothing but predictions, which I do have a problem with. Scribolt (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Ten years is a reasonable limit. The scope of global changes in a decade means that no events can be predicted with certainty. In 1991, people were talking about peace breaking out; in 2001, they started talking about the War on Terrorism. And I don't think that many events are scheduled that far in advance. While some people make good predictions, most people make bad predictions. Wikipedia is not equipped to differentiate between the two. That would require some complex meta-analysis — and it still could be wrong. Wikipedia's policies and structures do not allow us to choose one expert's opinion over another, or synthesise various opinions and data. The predictions in the future year articles are just a random and somewhat bizarre selection of citations. Even if they're right, they don't give a coherent picture of the future, and they're likely to be all wrong. We can't tell readers what the world will be like when their daughters are 100. We just can't.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think there's any particular need for a crackdown on these articles. Articles about years in the far future seem to consist mostly of discussion of how the year has been portrayed in fiction, and where individual forecast events are mentioned it tends to be things that are virtually certain to happen (astronomical events in particular) and the occasional forecasts which are more speculative are still made by credible sources. The mere fact that events take place in a far future doesn't mean we can't write high quality encyclopedic content about them - take a look at Future of Earth, a GA which discusses things that won't happen for billions of years. We don't currently have articles on individual years beyond about the 2090s, when there starts to be too little content about each individual year to write them, I think that's a reasonable standpoint. Hut 8.5 22:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Future of Earth reflects the state of current science and talks of probabilities. Assigning events to future years creates a false perception of certainty. Astronomical events can be predicted with a level of accuracy, but even astronomy can be wrong. Supernovas were originally thought of as new stars, and Pluto was recently thought of as a planet. More mundane predictions are notoriously prone to error. See:[3] It's OK to put these opinions in a book, column, blog etc, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia article because they are simply idle speculation. And for every opinion, there's a contradictory one. While the articles might be limited at the moment, I predict that if unchecked they will continue to expand. The compilation of lists of random mentions of a particular year also falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland as you may know our, standard for inclusion is WP:VERIFIABILITY not certainty.--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia represents to its readers what the current thinking of reliable sources is on each subject. If those sources decide that something is certain (or virtually certain) then we are justified in representing it like that. I don't think predictions of astronomical events like eclipses or occultations are remotely comparable to the other things you cite - people have known how to predict them with a very high degree of accuracy for centuries, and they certainly aren't comparable to speculation about immortality. If you can find any vaguely suitable source which casts doubt on the credibility of these astronomical projections then please do share it. Hut 8.5 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You have both misread what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason to remove them, if they have useful or interesting information. Benjamin (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• I also don't see any reason to remove them, I find the current content interesting. I don't see the benefit to removal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think you could make a strong case for deleting several of these future year articles, so I don't support including articles for every year from 2017 to 2099, but I don't think there is an underlying problem with all of the articles. I think we should treat each article on a case-by-case basis. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• There are plenty of predictable future events (comets returning, leap years, etc) that can be sourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • But do we need an article for every leap year to infinity???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Feel free to point out where I say that we do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: These articles are very helpful to, for instance, science fiction fans and writers. Lyrda (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any restrictions at all. I've been following this discussion for a few days, and ruminating on the implications of a restriction for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that there really is no harm in leaving these articles around, and letting people maintain them as they will. Where we impose restrictions on content and on behavior of editors at Wikipedia, we do so to protect from real threats by people with motivations outside of the aims of Wikipedia: we curb self-promotion, bias, attacks on others, etc. Almost every policy we have that restricts editing at Wikipedia (aside from the basic principles of WP:42 and WP:5P) is to protect Wikipedia from that kind of crap. We simply aren't well served by restricting editing that is harmless except that it seems to some individuals as silly or futile. If "I don't care about it" or "I think you're wasting your time doing this based on what I am interested in" were standards at Wikipedia, we'd all be worse off. This is simply not the kind of article that presents an imminent threat from people who would use Wikipedia's high visibility to promote their own aims above those of writing a neutral encyclopedia. Because there is no such threat, insofar is it is possible to write verifiable content, we needn't place any restrictions on people so interested in writing it. --Jayron32 15:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• In most instances, between eight and ten years seems about right. The main exceptions are comets and science fiction settings. Comets would be best dealt with with a SINGLE article mentioning the next appearances of selected comets. I'm not entirely sure science fiction settings need even be mentioned at all; but it could be dealt with in a manner similar to comets. As for things like "when will the world run out of crude oil?" or "When will Social Security run out of money?", or "When will software program X become obsolete?", we're pretty sure that those things will happen at some point in the future, but we don't even know exactly what year it will be, and, as such, shouldn't be mentioned. pbp 16:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see any point in an arbitrary time period, whether covering events more than ten years away, less than ten years away or between eight and ten years away all such proposals just read as pointless bureaucracy - rules for the sake of rules. I quite like the idea of only going a certain number of events ahead for repeating things like the Olympics. But the general value of such articles is in the synergy of what happens when they are written - all these astronomical events, material coming out of copyright and a religious prophecy all in the same year. etc. ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Why is it pointless bureaucracy? Can you point to a lot of real-world details we know for sure about events 15, 20, 30, 50 years in the future? A full article's worth? pbp 19:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I know this about articles on years, not events, but I think this discussion is topical:[4].--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2017 (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.

RFC: Definition of WP:OVERLINK, indent two

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.

---

This is an rfc on the definition of the second indent of WP:OVERLINK. There are three options:

A: Remove the guideline of not linking to major geographic features.

B: Leave the guideline as it is. (Right now it says The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...))

C: Propose limits on the use of the guideline. (specify your reasoning)

See also: User talk:J947.

I will add to this proposal once I am off mobile. J947 23:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B - I see this RfC as an unnecessary reaction of J947 – an editor with 4 months' experience – to having his drastic interpretation of WP:OVERLINK (plowing through articles removing all links to "New Zealand" in several hundred of them) questioned by a number of editors, and his edits undone individually by many editors and rolled back en masse by me. I don't think there's any particular need to change OVERLINK, I believe J947 simply needs to have a better understanding of what the guideline means, and of the difference between an editing guideline and a mandatory policy. At this point, absent any compelling argument for the need to change, I think B is the only reasonable option, but I'd further suggest that J947 should withdraw this RfC entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This RfC should have been posted on WT:OVERLINK. I'm putting a notification there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Right now it just says any geo feature should not be linked, which goes with why I unlinked all the NZ links in the first place. What I am doing here is to try and make the guideline clearer. J947 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B Please don't start an RfC over every trivial difference of opinion. Guidelines are guidelines and should not be used as weapons to make a point. The guideline is fine as it is, given that it is applied with common sense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B there has been no evidence that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. The RfC seems to be an ill advised over-reaction and probably should be withdrawn and seen as a learning experience for the OP. Jbh ^Talk 00:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B AGF is being tested really hard for me here. Removing links to only one country from articles which have links to many other other countries isn't what "policy" says to do., Moriori (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. Seems to work OK. BTW IMO editors who are finding a rule to be non-optimal are certainly justified in making an argument to change it. I can understand that at the margins there's room for dispute. "major" is certainly a vague rule. Surely "United States" is major, "Andorra" (also a sovereign nation" ) maybe not. New Zealand is kind of small so I can see the argument "Well, maybe schoolchildren etc. are not as familiar with it as they might be of say Russia" so you could go either way. But what are we going to do? List every case? We could give more examples I guess. But it seems OK now. Herostratus (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• It's a bit hard to consider this without the proposer's specifics having been added yet, but I distinctly remember having been confused by the second indent myself when I first read it. It may well be useful to put a bit more guidance around the usage limitations, or maybe provide examples. Schwede66 00:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a new editor who, after following a guideline's (interpreted) instructions, was descended upon by multiple editors and had a number of his edits (de-linking New Zealand in the coin collecting and cyanide articles for example) innapropriately rolled back. As a reaction to this he is seeking clarification of a guideline. The accusations of bad faith and POINTy editing seem to be coming from cynical and jaded veteran editors who may need to be reminded that the policy and guideline pages are used by new editors to understand policies and guidelines. Primergrey (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• One doesn't "seek clarification of a guideline" by holding an RfC on changing the guideline, one goes to the guideline's talk page and asks questions -- or one could listen to the advice offered by those very experienced editors who "descended" on the editor's talk page to explain what he was doing wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Primergrey, I'll put my hand up for "jaded veteran editor". His edits were questioned by El C, BilCat, MilborneOne,NewYorkActuary, Meters and Beyond My Ken and he responded with "sorry to everybody" which I took to be him seeing a consensus against his reasoning. Then less than an hour later he files the RfC. AS I said above, AGF is being tested really hard for me here. Moriori (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

When multiple editors are telling someone that they are wrong, yet the guideline shows that, in fact, they are not, why wouldn't an editor seek to change the guideline to reflect actual practice? It happens all the time.Primergrey (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is little doubt that some of J947's edits were appropriate -- which is why I said on their talk page that any editor who wishes to revert one of my rollbacks should go ahead and do so. But citing a handful of cherry-picked correct changes does not alter the fact that J947 trolled through a large number of articles and removed all links to "New Zealand", even when it appeared in a list of other linked countries. That's not appropriate in the least. An editor with more time on their hands could have laboriously checked every edit one-by-one, but I felt that rolling them back and allowing normal editing to take care of those that were appropriate was a much more efficient process. The rollback didn't break the encyclopedia, nor did the occasional correct edits that got reverted. The encyclopedia was simply returned to the state it was in before J947 began his rampage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Cherry picked correct changes" are correct changes. Your ham-fisted rollback leaves other editors to do the work you couldn't be bothered to do.Primergrey (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're citing only a handful of correct changes while ignoring all the other changes - that's what "cherry-picking" means, and it's an example of Confirmation bias.

If I may offer some advice, if you think that the rolling back of J947's edits did significant damage, then it would be better for the encyclopedia if you would spend your time correcting those which you feel were incorrectly done, rather then continuing to restate the same argument here ad infinitum. I'm not going to agree with your take on this, and it doesn't seem that many others here are lining up on your side either, so wasting your time here seems counter-productive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The guideline may be ambiguous, but let's see how the RfC goes. Moriori (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• A review of the removed links show some of the links being used are inappropriate linkages of countries. There is no need for the NZ link on cyanide as there is no geographic relevance for the topic here, whereas on coin collecting as we are actually talking about countries and geo-political aspects the link is germane. So yes, some of the unlinking was overzealous but some of it was proper and OVERLINK doesn't guide well enough to this. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It, indeed, must be unclear when two editors who are familiar with WP can arrive at cross-conclusions as to what should be linked. I don't see the link being germane to a coin collecting article but certainly can see how you might. The disruption occurs when mass rollbacks are performed on non-vandalism.Primergrey (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• The MOS is just advice, and this proposal seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a specific incident. That's usually not a good approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The MOS is a set of style guidelines, which I'm sure you are aware of. Primergrey (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of point you think you're making - a guideline is just advice, the consensus advice of Wikipedia editors. What it is not is mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But reverting guideline advised changes is disruptive. That's my point.Primergrey (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, but it's an extremely weak point, since making the edits isn't mandated, and because removing hundreds of links without consensus or the proper understanding of the underlying guideline is far more disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that rolling back the mass removal of the links was appropriate. Meters (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B Perhaps some clarification could be entertained if the proposer were to return and actually justify this RFC. As for the comments re AGF and POINT, yes, some of the removals were valid. Any mass change based on interpretation will likely catch some valid removal cases. In this case the removals seemed to be both indiscriminate (some of the links were very clearly not overlinking) and targeted (why only remove New Zealand links and leave other country's links in the same articles, sections, and even sentences). Meters (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. The OP hasn't posted a reason justifying Option A, and from where I am standing, it is content deletion without a reason. (Is there an undisclosed history behind this RFC?) Option C is basically a "bring your own option" choice. Essentially, this RFC is proposing nothing and Option B is the only valid response to it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• The history behind this RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely Option B. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Option B. I can't shake the feeling that the reason we are here is simply that the proposer used Twinkle's "unlink" function to perform an encyclopedia-wide removal of links to New Zealand. If this is true, it explains why the proposer has been so reticent about engaging in substantive conversation about his edits -- he himself didn't know exactly what edits were made until he started getting questions on his Talk page. As for the RfC itself, others above have already noted that there is little to do here in the absence of a concrete proposal. For those who are interested in this issue, there was a good deal of discussion last year on the Talk page of MOS:LINKING (see several sub-sections in Archive 18, here). Perhaps the proposer might withdraw this RfC and open up a new discussion at WT:Linking. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – There is a lot of ambiguity in the guideline and that is why I originally posted this here—to get consensus around the guideline. When I read it I saw it as opportunity to remove all links to the 'New Zealand' article. Plus, why does twinkle even have a 'Unlink' tool? J947 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that the guideline as written cannot be applied mechanistically: it doesn't say simply that the names of major locations are not to be linked; rather, it says that they should not be linked unless they are particularly relevant ("A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.")—something that requires carefully evaluating the context in which the link appears. Also, removing links to New Zealand but leaving equally-inappropriate links in the same context (example) makes the text appear sloppy and is highly likely to offend.

The "remove backlinks" function exists to remove links to articles that have been deleted and ought not to exist. See Twinkle documentation § Unlink. It isn't intended to be used for removing excessive links to legitimate articles. Rebbing 19:46, 26 February 2017 (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.

Italicizing article titles

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Words as words about elaborating on the policy under WP:ITALICTITLE to specifically mention "words as words" as an instance of where italics are used in running text, and should therefore be used in article titles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

IP Editors as Bot Operators

An RfC regarding the Bot policy is open to determine if non-registered editors may be bot operators. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Are.2Fshould_IPs_be_allowed_to_run_bots.3F. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

PD- Copyright templates for public domain files

At present there are a considerable number of nominations at WP:TFD to delete unused public domain licensing templates on the grounds that they are unused and that PD files should be uploaded to commons in future. Several editors have been making these nominations and some are in batches. So far as I know there is not a policy disallowing upload here but there is certainly a preference for commons and files may normally be moved there from here. Some templates are being kept and others deleted. Sometimes there are objective reasons for treating templates differently, other times it seems to be a matter of who turns up. A particular aspect is for files temporarily transferred here from commons for protection purposes. A broader view could be useful. Note these templates start "Template:PD-". Thincat (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these templates should be kept as long as they could be used, even if they are not currently used. There are plenty of editors who avoid commons, and this just makes their work more difficult for no good reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I was trying very hard to word my statement neutrally! Thincat (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"If it is PD it should be on Commons" is an inaccurate statement Thincat. Commons requires two completely different sets of "free" licenses to be there for it to be acceptable. It needs to be free in the origin country and in the US. Enwiki only cares about the US side of things. That is why we have things like {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}}. Saying that we should delete the template just because it is not in use and it is PD is not helpful as long as it is a legally valid template. Deleting them doesn't serve any real purpose. --Majora (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There were also a whole bunch of older CC templates that were deleted recently. I would certainly support having a centralized discussion on what to do with the whole class of templates, rather than have totally disjointed discussions across various TFD noms. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and (at least arguably) these are templates associated with policies that, even according to WP:TFD should not have been listed there but should indeed have been discussed centrally. 08:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no. These are a vast number of PD- template deletions, going back at least to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 31. Thincat (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend crafting an RFC on the subject. There's no rush to take care of these templates, one way or the other, and then after we can have community consensus on whether to delete them all, or resurrect the deleted ones. And then never have this discussion again. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It hadn't occurred to me that files that are PD in the US may not be so in the source country. The converse is frequent: PD files in the source country remaining in copyright in the US (URAA).Thincat (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

$100 in cash to any editor who can break my record in March.

In March of 2012, I challenged myself and set the all-time record as Disambiguation Hall of Fame Bonus list champion (the bonus list includes all disambiguation links from disambiguation pages with four or fewer incoming links). The record I set is 4,936 bonus list links fixed in a single month. Since then no other editor has even come within a thousand fixes of my record. I therefore offer a bounty of one hundred dollars in cash to be awarded to any editor who can beat this feat in the March 2017 disambiguation contest. That comes to about two cents per edit, bearing in mind that the fix must be correct and has to stick. Five years is a long time for an editing record to stand. Let's see what happens. bd2412 T 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I used to deliver newspapers for about $0.01 each, nearly 50 years ago when a penny was worth something. Your offer of $0.02 per edit is not very motivating. So I'll join in matching your offer, $100, in cash, check, paypal, or whisky, for each and every editor who beats your record; and I invite others to join and up the offer, to see if pennies and dollars motivate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! You may want to cross-post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#‎$100 in cash to any editor who can break my record in March. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Huh, I hadn't realized that the WP:Bounty board is closed.

I wonder whether User:Nick Number might be able to win the prize here. (Also, you should probably provide links to the list, so that new editors can figure out how to get started.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid this type of incentive runs counter to my personal ethics and system of motivat...wait, did someone say whisky? Nick Number (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Actually, I meant to post this to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), where it fits more naturally. As for links, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links should provide the necessary guidance for newbies, although I can't imagine such a contest being won by someone who isn't at least a lightly seasoned disambiguator. Also, note that the bonus list winner is invariably one of the top three finishers for the month, and will therefore also win a t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation. bd2412 T 00:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this paid editing?

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if you break the record. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC Inclusion of WP:1 Rule as a guideline, policy or process for the English Wikipedia

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.

---

Proposal

I propose that WP:1 Rule be included on the English Wikipedia as a guideline, policy or process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Why

It's very simple and straight forward. I believe it condenses the core and essential issues of determining if content should or should not be included on Wikipedia without putting through editors though hell and back trying to make sense of the current amount that exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What it is not

This does not intend to outright remove the applicability of other guidelines but act to complement them. I think that it will be a lot easier to read and understand by those who are not into reading 100 lines of policy to understand what should or should not be included on Wikipedia. At the moment, even I cannot be bothered to read it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Please keep this civil, it took me enough courage to propose this in the first place. Editors keep going on about the need to encourage others to put forward their suggestions - well this is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "A neutral source is a source that has an impartial or unbiased view on the articles subject." No. Just no. I'd rather not scrap every WP:MEDRS source because they have a biased view of health care. Similarly, I'd rather not have to search for sources that say, "Was 9/11 a conspiracy? Both sides have valid viewpoints!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Which MEDRS sources have a bias view on health care? Furthermore, why would you ever want to include information sourced from a bias source anyway? Would that not make the resulting content a representation of a viewpoint rather than a factual assertion about the subject itself? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 21:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• All of them, according to those who practice alt-medicine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Well the term bias is rather clearly defined as to cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something. How does any source in MEDRS cause a person to feel or show an inclination of prejudice for or against alternative medicine? For example, if you had an article on alternative medicine and you wanted to enter in information from a study that objectively disproved a notion of alternative medicine this is not a bias source because it is grounded in fact... how does that source have a prejudice against alternative medicine? They didn't go out of their way to bring about a certain outcome and if they did then why should they be included as a source on Wikipedia? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And alt-medders will say the results were biased because those who typically undertake MEDRS-compliant studies are shills for BigPharm/BigHealthCare. That's why we use the term "mainstream" instead "neutral". Wikipedia is biased - biased towards representing the mainstream viewpoint. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Then is it not on the so called "al-medders" to prove their assertions to discredit a sources impartiality. Otherwise their assertions are un-grounded and meaningless. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose There is tons of totally uncontroversial content that is under-cited. Our current system works quite well, when someone, in good faith, questions the validity of a claim, they can remove it and ask that it be cited per WP:BURDEN. This throws that away, and says if it doesn't have a cite, just remove it, even if its obviously true. That is a terrible approach when we are here to spread information, and would result in removing tons of true and informative content, just because it isn't cited right now. WP:V isn't cited, or verified its verifiable. Monty₈₄₅ 22:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Monty845: I did not think Wikipedia was a place for people to keep information they believe are facts but have not proven them to be facts. I do not think just because something appears to be true it is true and every little scrap of content on Wikipedia should have a source to support it or be removed until it has that source. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are talking about a radical shift in policy. The reason WP:BLPPROD is a thing is because we couldn't even agree that all new articles needed even a single reference, let along to be perfectly cited. If you want to move Wikipedia that way, the first step would be to require all new articles to have a citation, then start working through all existing articles to achieve that. But even that would be a huge way from every claim in every article being cited. Monty₈₄₅ 22:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: "A neutral source is a source that has an impartial or unbiased view on the articles subject." Who is to decide that a source is impartial or unbiased? Members of the Church of Scientology? Antivaxxers? The National Rifle Association? The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? All of these groups have strong opinions regarding what sources are impartial and unbiased. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The dictionary defines what is impartial or unbiased not the organisations you have quoted. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)}

_{(contributions)} 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A dictionary might have a definition of neutral but this is a case where people will just read the policy as "I find this source biased therefore I remove it and the content it supports". Wikipedia is edited by people not thinking machines and we have to have some flexibility or else WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue will no longer apply. Nthep (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: I find it reassuring to know that Wikipedia is edited by people who do not know or accept the definitions of basic words like impartiality, bias and neutrality. Pray tell how Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view when the information written into it is sourced from non-neutral sources. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention non-neutral sources, just non-neutral editors. A policy such as you propose gives anyone with an axe to grind, carte blanche to remove any content they disagree with using your proposal as their justification. Read your own nutshell;

• "A reliable source is a source that is consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted." - as the recent Daily Mail RFC and aftermath shows all sources can be poor in quality or performance at times so no source probably meets the definition of "consistently good". So if I wanted to remove a source I could easily justify it with "this source hasn't shown itself to be consistently reliable" therefore as defined by rule 1 it is unreliable and it and the content must be deleted.
• "A neutral source is a source that has an impartial or unbiased view on the articles subject." Good editors will tend to apply a Reasonable person test to sources, poor editors or those with entrenched views will not and will claim bias against any source they don't like. Again easy justification for removing source and content. Nthep (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Okay so the definition of reliable is "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted." So you do not think sources on Wikipedia should be reliable. Furthermore, if a reliable source cannot be sourced what does that make of the content itself. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as contradictory to WP:V which states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." (emphasis mine). Sam Walton (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: So you think because it says should be removed in WP:Rule 1 you think that this contradicts WP:N that it may be removed? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Rule 1 compels editors to remove any unsourced content they see. Users would technically be breaking the rules if they made an edit that didn't also remove any unsourced content present in the article they were editing. WP:N only states that unsourced content can be removed. Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: This is a very good point. For that reason I will alter must to can remove. Thank you :-D →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:  Done Thank you for noting that. If you read it now it should reflect the changes. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I've read through this three times now, and I'm still not understanding why it is proposed. It looks like a solution searching for its problem. Is this a replacement for WP:V? A supplement to WP:NOTE? It uses unclear language that is open to interpretation and argument that doesn't seem to have any promise of clarifying the situation. If I'm having a dispute with another editor, I want to be able to point to a policy document that is much more definite than this. It doesn't help if the dispute moves from, "That's not well-sourced" to "That source is biased/No it isn't/Yes it is." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: You think a debate about if something is bias or not is worse than a debate about it being "well sourced" and that "well sourced" is less ambiguous than "bias". I mean at least there is an established definition of bias to go from. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that. What I am trying to convey is that the proposed policy doesn't seem to offer any definitiveness. When I turn to a policy, what I am looking for is to see if it supports my actions or not. Turning to this policy, vast swathes of potential actions could be justified. That fosters arguments, not discourages them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think I will drop this in here now; For the sake of humour on my own part. The definition of neutral is an impartial or unbiased state or person. It is very interesting seeing people contradict the definition of the N in WP:NPOV. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • NPOV is about keeping editors from injecting bias into an article, not about keeping biased sources out. See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOVS for why biased sources can still be reliable. clpo13_(talk) 23:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clpo13: How can a source be consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted if it is bias? You consider something that is bias to be trustworthy on the subject that it is bias towards or against? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I consider the sources on a case-by-case basis, since there is no such thing as a completely neutral and unbiased source. Bias alone does not make a source untrustworthy. The New York Times is left-leaning, but it's still widely considered reliable due to it's editorial policies and reputation. Of course it can be biased with regards to certain topics, but it's up to us as editors to eliminate that bias when using information sourced to it. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. clpo13_(talk) 23:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Clpo13: So what is the argument then? WP:1 Rule re-affirms this in a non-100 page way. It states that content gained from sources which are bias against or for the the subject of the Article in which content is contained can be removed. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm arguing against, though. We shouldn't throw out information just because the sources are biased. We can work around that bias so that the Wikipedia article is neutral even if the sources aren't. clpo13_(talk) 00:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So you would support removing the 60+ references to the NY Times from Donald Trump, given that they have taken sides on issues against Trump? Not to mention CNN, BBC, and all the other news sources that have gotten in disputes with him? Then someone will come remove all the other sources, for having a pro-trump bias, and we will then delete the article for being unsourced per that part of your policy... Even in organizations that strive to avoid bias, it almost always seeps in to at least some extent. We need to be willing to accept a moderate amount of bias when it comes to sources, or it just isn't going to work. Monty₈₄₅ 00:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Monty845: I think that D.T. is a lousy statesman and very controversial. I do not particularly like him but he is no worse than the elegant Obama who deported more illegal aliens than any other President before him, Truman who declared War without congress's approval. Does my disdain for those people or at least certain characteristics they have mean I want to include information on Wikipedia that are sourced from places with a proven bias against them the honest answer is no because I realise that despite my own personal opinions, its our job here to give people the facts so far as possible. If we know a source is bias we should be suspicious of any content derived from it without first glancing at personal views. There are plenty of reliable and impartial sources which one could use to build an article on someone like D.T. and I refuse to believe if one was to remove all content based on bias sources from said articles that they would be any less truthful and any less informative, in fact I would argue the opposite. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - While we (WP editors) need to remain neutral in what we write, our sources do not. Sources can take a stance on what they discuss, and authors can state their opinions. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Blueboar: As I have proven in my above comment, having an opinion on something does not mean you must be bias for or against what your opinion is on. Bias is worth quarter of an observable fact, opinion is worth half and observable facts are worth it all. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my take on this will not change. Sources can and do form opinions... our job is to be neutral in discussing the opinions stated by the sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Welp, pack up all of your sources, folks! Our numerous sources suggesting nestboxes to help with the conservation of animals are heresy! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @RileyBugz: Great example! Lets say a statement on Wikipedia said "nesting boxes have been proven useful for the conservation of animals". Per this WP:Rule 1 if the source was from lets say "SAVE ANIMALS TODAY" who had a track record of bias for or against nestboxes then the source from that organisation would be considered bias and another one would have to be sought. If nest boxes are truly "proven useful for the conservation of animals" there would be a source from, say a university which does not have a clear history of bias in favour for or against nestboxes. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The core problem here is that to summarise a lengthy and nuanced set of policies into a few sentences requires generalisations. To enshrine these generalisations and summaries into policy isn't going to happen because they create different policies, which conflict with the existing nuances and caveats found in the lengthier pages in small but substantial ways. It especially isn't going to happen in a community like this one, that cares very much about the details of these things. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• snowball Oppose this is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten. Dumbing down the rules like this goes against our core principles. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (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.

RfC - The creation of a simplified and unified policy document for editing Wikipedia

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.

---

Ladies and Gentlemen, there comes a time in the progress of any establishment from Wikipedia to Sovereign States that those whom govern it must either adapt or slowly whither and eventually die. Each one of us is responsible for our own decisions and we must forever live with their consequences be those actions Online or not. The reality is, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge for millions worldwide, a pinnacle of free speech and sometimes the only access to free and uncensored documents a person has. We, each one of us, play an important and equal role in sustaining this great project not just for today but for generations to come. Those who sit on their responsibilities while knowing true in their conscious that something must be done to alter a clear and infallible destruction of one’s own cause are guilty of nothing but cowardice. While realities sometimes give, us displeasure they must at all costs be confronted, never should the desire for ignorance commandeer one’s path. What we are faced with is nothing short of a road for disaster, new editors signing up for Wikipedia are at an all-time low yet article creation continues to grow. Eventually we will confront a situation which there will be not enough editors to keep articles updated, let alone build them and perform other tasks. If we are each true to our own experiences, surely many of us will find that this burden is already becoming apparent.

In the face of this impending tragedy we will each make a choice on what we want the record of history to say. Do we want Wikipedia to be consigned to the books of history having not fought for keeping what we have worked so hard to create? Or do we want to take a stand now and turn this ship around, do we want to work together on letting the historic record show that Wikipedia pioneered new and innovative collaboration which resulted in its thriving. Each one of us is entrusted with this wonderful masterpiece of human ingenuity, however, we must adapt to thrive. We can either continue to identify problems and seek solace in inaction by justifying it or we can accept them as problems we must change.

As the founders of the great United States said, we must never grow complacent. If our hands are forced we must act otherwise we will become nothing.

Therefore, to begin this Wiki-Revolution of sorts I hereby propose a notion which would completely change the game. My proposition is that we immediately move to implement a streamlined policy for the editing, creation and deletion of articles on the English Wikipedia. A policy that is colourful, interactive and understandable to the common new editor. A policy that fits into one WP: article. This proposal merely seeks to set in motion the creation of such a policy rather than discuss the contents of it and thus is it important that now we keep to the discussion at hand as to if this type of one page policy should exist. The reason for this suggestion is very simple, editors are being put off by the complexity of policies on Wikipedia and they currently foster an environment of arguments between editors about which policy supports their notion and which does not rather than maintain a clear a decisive document which can or should be agreed by all who use Wikipedia. Finally, we may move united together against what should be a common enemy, the tyranny of bureaucracy.

If we do not act now then when will we act, and by this time will bureaucracy and adversarial policies have gotten the better of us. Remember also that now we have room to test things and see if they work but I say it is not a time to stand idle and be complacent.

Long live the simple Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia anyone can and should feel happy edit.

@Jayron32: From previous related discussion.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Points simplified

• New editors registering for Wikipedia are at an all time low however demand for new articles increases. Thus creating a situation that we will have not enough editors to maintain the Wikipedia in any orderly fashion.
• Combating the aforementioned issue can be difficult and requires people to make hard choices.
• The current amount of policies and guidelines are contributing to the lack of new editors.
• Policies and guidelines as they stand are used to foster conflict between editors who are trying to better each other based on which policies they can use rather than concentrate on making Wikipedia better.
• The adversarial environment created by the current system of guidelines and policies effects new editor intake.
• To combat the issues above I propose the creation of a single policy document which unifies all policies in a streamlined way. This new document should be colourful and easily read by new editors with all ranges of intelligence.
• The request for comment is not about the content of such a page but is merely to initiate the process of creating it.

Comments

• I fell asleeep trying to read this, think you might try and sum it up a bit, this is a terrible way to start an RFC. See my essay on RFCs for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The first three paragraphs could just be removed for a start. To the point of what you're proposing, you don't need an RfC to write a policy/guideline overview page, just go ahead and do so, though I suspect they've already been written. If you're proposing actually simplifying existing policies and guidelines, you're going to need to propose specific changes you think can be made or this isn't going to go anywhere. Sam Walton (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: I am just going to be brutally honest. The current situation of throwing around policy links left right and centre to justify ones points is unacceptable. I get WP:GNG here get WP:GEO there and anything that could ever possibly mentioned. People just normally don't have the time to even read them let alone anything else. New editors will just find Wikipedia boring unless they are somewhat addicted to policy reading after a short time. I just don't know why Wikipedia can't get with the program you know the world is moving on for gods sake... it's not exactly the hip or rave place to be and edit and I think it could and should be.... I mean who actually wants to have to be a bloody scholar on Wikipedia editing policies to be able to contribute effectively. Like come on. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we could do a better job when it comes to new editors and policies, but I'm not sure why you're proposing this here. You can go and write an overview document and start using it without anyone's permission. See Wikipedia:Trifecta or Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset, for example. Sam Walton (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Samwalton9: Well you see the problem is that while those documents you just showed me are supposed to simplify the process, in practice I have never seen a single one mentioned by any editor anywhere. Surely this is a problem because if I had to come to a policy discussion and write a god knows how long essay to get that then imagine how hard it is for editors who cannot be bothered to go through with all of that to get that information. Practically speaking we have GNG, GEO, BLP etc etc etc which while seemingly daunting could be merged practically into one cohesive policy on notability. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The vast majority of our policies are the result of problems that occurred before the current policy was put in place. While we do occasionally loose ourselves to the bureaucracy and create a policy preemptively, we are really pretty good at not doing it. Unless you are proposing a single monstrous 50MB policy page, there is no way to distill all our policies into one page. I realize that part of the goal is to reduce the total number of policies, and maybe some could be paired back or eliminated, but getting to one page just isn't feasible. Try to reduce deletion policy to one or two paragraphs (about 12-16 lines), make sure to fully explain fair use, and copyright considerations when writing it, but also fit all the rest. You wont succeed, there is just too much important information. But that is what it would mean to even start to fit all our policies in one page. Monty₈₄₅ 00:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Monty845: Yes I agree that specialised aspects of Wikipedia policy like copyright (which exist for legal reasons etc etc) should be kept as is. But they are only really referenced by those who are dealing in them areas. Whereas GNG, ORG and most of the notability policies and essays, guidelines etc etc are scattered all over the place with not much cohesion between them. There has to be a better method of simplifying Wikipedia's notability policies into a single set of clearly defined documents or even document designed to hold the attention of new editors without frazzling their brains. The extent of notability policies is just idiotic to be honest there are so many of them and most are interchangeable with each other it just adds to confusion of which one applies over the other. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• There has to be a better method of simplifying Wikipedia's notability policies into a single set of clearly defined documents or even document designed to hold the attention of new editors without frazzling their brains. I think our notability guidelines are crystal clear, actually: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. You couldn't ask for anything much more concise than that. The subject-specific notability guidelines help editors determine which topics under those subject are most likely to be notable, but if you only read the aforementioned excerpt from WP:N and never look at another notability guideline, you'll never have any problems. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a nice hypothesis but actual practice shows that people care fuck-all about the ability to actually prove anything the write with reliable sources, so long as they have a random subject-specific notability guide which they can shove in your face and say "YOU CAN'T DELETE THIS. I HAVE THIS PAPER THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT." The GNG would only be empowered to provide its promise you claim it shows if and ONLY IF we burned down all of the specific guidelines and reduced documentation to just that one principle. Good luck with that. --Jayron32 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: @Juliancolton: I think the input you both have had in this discussion reflects the overall problem with the notability guidelines in of itself. Everyone seems to be interpreting them in their own way. In fact this isn't just limited to here, I find it on almost every issue that someone asserts a notability guideline to support their argument - almost every interpretation contradicts the interpretation of another. Policies which are this widely interpreted should not be policies at all as they are failing to do one of the most basic precepts of being a policy; that is to adopt a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual. If they are not clearly defining how they should be interpreted then everyone will apply their own interpretations making it useless. Jayron's suggestion of having a single, simple and clear cut notability guideline seems to be the only rationale solution. Either that or have a single page asserting what makes something notable for Wikipedia and leave it at that.→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not have "policies" on Notability, precisely because there is no agreement to have a policy - the best we have come up with is guidelines. But think about what you are saying, '1) We need more people to contribute 2) We will somehow get more people to contribute if we have an iron rule of article exclusion.' That just does not follow. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

2) is not what he or I is saying. People would be more likely to become long-term contributors if expectations were clearer and easier to understand. To new users, our rules (whatever word you want to use to describe them) seem arbitrary and arcane. That makes entry hard, as people don't understand why some content is allowed and other content is not, and it seems like we're being inconsistent. If we just told them "If you've got good independent sources you're fine, and if you don't, then you need to find some" that's easier to understand than "Here, read these 25 different pages of arcane text, and if you don't understand it people are likely to destroy your work." --Jayron32 13:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors do get told this all the time, and they come back with lots of questions for clarification such as what qualifies as independent. (Unsurprising, since if the editors were acting in good-faith, they already believed they had adequate sourcing suitable for an encyclopedia.) The notability guidance essentially says this in its nutshell summary, too. isaacl (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is fine and expected, but we're talking here about the subject-specific notability guidelines, which contains NO useful information in that regard, and instead encourages the creation of articles which will not meet our sourcing guidelines. That's the problem with subject specific guidelines in a nutshell, they encourage the creation of articles of unverifiable text. That's wrong. --Jayron32 15:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the subject-specific notability guidelines, a number of them seek to clarify what is considered adequate sourcing: namely what should be considered routine coverage and thus not meeting Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. Eliminating these would just replicate the same discussions on this over and over. There are others that put forth rules of thumb for presuming notability; the sports-related ones very clearly state that they do not supersede the general notability guideline and so adequate sources must be found eventually. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Most of them contain language which indicates that they supercede or provide alternative routes by which someone could create an article even without any source text to work from. For example: WP:NMUSIC states "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Statements like that imply that if you can find them on a national music chart, you can create an article without any sourcing at all. I know that isn't the intent, and I know that other policies still apply first, but intent, as always, means shit. All that matters is effect. And the effect of these guidelines is to encourage gaming and WP:WIKILAWYERing instead of encouraging people to find and cite independent, reliable sources. If we had a guideline that said only "here's a list of good places to find sources" I'd be TOTALLY behind that. Instead what we have is a bunch of guidelines whose effect is to tell people "Can't be bothered to find sources? Don't worry, here's a checklist. Check off just one of these and your article is immune from deletion!" Again, that may not be the intent. I know that. But intent doesn't mean ANYTHING. Effect is all that matters. --Jayron32 16:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I listed some that explicitly state they do not supersede the general notability guideline; you've listed some that don't. I fully agree with changing the ones that don't. isaacl (talk)

If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you read Clay Shirky's "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy". The elaborate set of policies and guidelines is an attempted substitute for having a hierarchy in place to rule on content disputes. At some point, English Wikipedia's editing community may decide that the disadvantages of trying to maintain all of this guidance in a coherent manner outweigh the disadvantages of ceding editorial control to a non-consensus process. But until then, drastically eliminating most guidance will mean every point will get re-argued in every dispute. Even ignoring biased editors and those not interested in contributing productively, consensus decision-making doesn't scale; larger groups just don't have the necessary strong alignment in goals and principles. (For example, some editors may think articles should be written at a grade 5 level, to be accessible to a broader audience, while others may think it should be written at a grade 8 level, for greater concision. Neither groups are wrong; they just have different goals.) That being said, the consensus editing process can lead to a lot of repetition and overlapping guidance. Making efforts to streamline the policies and guidelines is welcome. (Be forewarned, though: it tends to lead to a lot of discussion with very little changes to show for it in the end.) isaacl (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's where you're mistaken. We don't need guidance, we need sources. Sources solve all problems, and lack of sources causes all problems. --Jayron32 04:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need sources? Because we agreed upon it. What sources qualify as ones that can be used? We need to have a discussion to agree upon that. It's like saying "good-faith editors solve all problems". But they don't, because good-faith editors can still disagree, without any of them being wrong. isaacl (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"What sources qualify as ones that can be used?"... that depends on the context in which they are used. Many sources can be considered reliable in one context and yet completely unreliable in another context. We always need to ask: "is this specific source reliable (and appropriate) in this specific context?"... and that question often requires discussion and debate to answer.

Yes, our editors can disagree, and disagreement can be messy... but disagreement is not a flaw. It is actually built into the structure of how Wikipedia works. In fact, we have a Policy that tells us how to conduct discussions and debates and resolve disagreements (see WP:Consensus). Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did not say that disagreement is a flaw. My point is that sources don't solve all problems by themselves, as was asserted. Disagreements still need to be worked out, and a policy for resolving them is needed, so eliminating this policy is not feasible. Additionally, discussion can be made more effective by noting what norms have been established through previous discussions. Another issue is not everything that is sourced is suitable for a Wikipedia article, or worthy of equal weight. Again discussion is needed to resolve competing desires. isaacl (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with Wikipedia is not the guidelines and policies, but the culture. You cannot legislate away a cultural problem. In fact, Wikipedia remains so successful in large part because of these guidelines, in spite of its toxic culture of vested interests, crackpot fringe-pushers, officious bureaucrats, internet trolls, narcissistic sociopaths, political ideologues, and innumerable cabals of uncritical groupthinkery. It's really no wonder potential new editors tend to stay away. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: No but you can try and make Wikipedia more appealing for those who do not suffer from psychiatric illness. Having a number of guidelines which are used selectively as policies just makes no sense. Its akin to having a chocolate bar labelled with the guidance "you might not want to eat this" and then you being thrown in prison by a over zealous police officer after you eat it - And the imprisoned not being able to do anything about it. Its nothing short of legitimised lunacy. The movie Stonehearst Asylum, based on the short story The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether is a brilliant work of the arts which could be compared to the current situation here. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 14:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the problem is not the guidelines, WP:AINTBROKE. In fact, my point was exactly the opposite. The only reason that Wikipedia remains successful is those guidelines that you dismiss as "legitimised lunacy". Just like the problem is not the UI, or any of the other things folks have suggested. For example, the WMF believed that the problem was that the user interface was just too hard for new users to figure out. So they created Visual Editor and Flow to "fix" the problem, despite everyone saying that this would do jack squat. Guess who turned out to be right. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: "The tragedy of life is often not in our failure, but rather in our complacency; not in our doing too much, but rather in our doing too little; not in our living above our ability, but rather in our living below our capacities." You have an opinion which is the guidelines which are not even used as guidelines but as policies are not a problem. I believe you are in the land of faeries if you think that people coming onto Wikipedia want to deal with the environment created between editors which breeds conflict over collaboration as a result of guidelines being selectively enforced as policies. It might be that some people thrive on conflict, and those number of people are in such large quantity in the world today that they are able to keep Wikipedia afloat for today. However, history has shown that conflict never ends in constructive outcomes. It is all well that the masses usually take what is said on Wikipedia as a given, and for so long this may continue to be, however, we all know that the "knowledge" often imparted on Wikipedia is the result of those who want people to see an issue in a certain way rather than understand the issue for what it is. This is nothing short of disgusting, enlightening people to the facts of the world does not mean indoctrinating them and from how I see of the workings within Wikipedia at the moment, this is exactly what is being allowed to happen. Notability guidelines are being used as a tyranny against truth and facts by those who would use them to justify the inclusion of content which serves no other purpose than to make the writer - right - in his own, impaired mind. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No comment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: Read The plot for Stonehearst Asylum, this will enlighten you as to some things which I am making points about. Its actually a brilliant movie, you should watch it sometime. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have a shortage of editors who want to work on articles that breed conflict. We have a shortage of editors who want to work on "boring, traditional" encyclopedia articles. And "history has shown that conflict never ends in constructive outcomes"? Really? Have you really thought that statement through? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can you provide me a case in history that conflict has produced more constructive results than could be been produced without the conflict? The answer would be that one could only speculate. However, we can compare situations that people have collaborated and look at those results over situations in which created a result from conflict. Of course, I use the term conflict rather specifically which does not extend to the definitions of constructive competition and debate. The term conflict I have used here is a means to define "A serious incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests." Fostering debates on incompatibility between two opinions could hardly be said to be more constructive than fostering debates between two opinions that both parties accept can be changed - for which there is a distinct difference. Having these so called guidelines fosters an environment of incomparable opinions, principles or interest rather than an environment based on a set of principles which most can agree to start from and work as a goal to reach collaboratively. It is not a good thing that Wikipedia editors are more interested in clashing incompatible viewpoints rather than finding a principle they can or ought to agree upon and then work on that goal together rather than working on a principle they will never agree on. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not your assertion. You stated that "history has shown that conflict never ends in constructive outcomes". Not "history has shown that conflict never ends in more constructive outcomes that I could come up with fantasizing about alternate history". And again, controversial topics are going to attract opposing viewpoints, opposing sources, and opposing opinions as to weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: This might be an example, we are for some reason not agreeing upon something as is implied by the adversarial tone you have chosen to adopt. Having an opposing viewpoint is different from having an incompatible viewpoint. Guidelines as they stand do not foster constructive debate, they foster debate from two sides who are convinced their viewpoints are correct and are not ever prepared to meet in the middle. This type of debate is hostile in appearance and many an editor who could be a great asset to Wikipedia is lost as a result of this type of almost aggressive and adversarial conflict orientated environment. We need to do more to stop this type of behaviour because it is not helping Wikipedia be an environment anyone can edit. It's making it an environment for argumentative people to thrive while everyone else can take a hiatus. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines are not written in a way to foster conflict. On the contrary, they are written in a way to minimize conflict. An easy way to put an end to many conflicts would be to have administrators actually enforce the guidelines, and block those who violate them. Unfortunately, the guidelines are usually applied unevenly. Get on the wrong side of an administrator, and you can find yourself blocked very easily. Stake out a blatantly partisan position in a discussion (which is against behavioral guidelines) and, as long as you don't get an uninvolved administrator upset with you, you probably will not be sanctioned. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The subject-specific guidelines are written in a way to maximize conflict because they create contradictions in guidance. First we tell people that all articles should have verifiable content WP:V, WP:42, WP:NOR, etc. Then we tell people to go ahead and create articles with almost no verifiable content so long as they can check off some property of the subject on a checklist, such as that they have reached some milestone or received a vaguely-worded "major award" or some such. If we didn't tell people it was OK to create articles under such presumptions, they wouldn't feel the need to do so. --Jayron32 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you here. I've never liked the presumption that sources exist "somewhere" that show a subject in a particular field meets our general notability guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you're passing off your opinion as absolute fact then of course you're going to get called out on it. For that matter, this is what a large part of our policies and guidelines are designed to prevent - stopping editors from injecting their own personal opinions into articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I absolutely agree with Jayron32 and his experience with Wikipedia is showing in his contributions here. It is quite bizarre that we have a "general" notability guideline but then have "specific" notability guidelines which contradict the "general" one. As WP:GNG is used so much it becomes hard, in fact extremely hard for editors to know which notability guideline should or should not apply. The fact the contradiction exists in the first place makes one feel the guidelines are not even applicable or practically usable. I have seen Geo notability used to contradict WP:GNG and WP:GNG to contradict WP:INHERIT and that is not to mention all of them. This is a problem which I think needs to be resolved one way or the other. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to be an environment where anyone can edit, then that means it will have to deal editors that have a "serious incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests." So there will be no way to avoid conflict as you define it. What Wikipedia environment needs is to foster collaborative behaviour by rewarding it over actions that increase acrimony. Unfortunately there are many structural issues that are barriers. isaacl (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: Do not get me wrong, I absolutely 100 percent agree with you that the guidelines are not intended to foster an environment of conflict between editors. However, there is a difference between what happens in theory and what happens in practice. I think we both agree that guidelines are not supposed to be applied in your own words "unevenly." But they are being applied in this way and it is not something which is a small scale problem. The existence of so many guidelines which are de facto used as policies creates an inevitable problem of power belonging to those who enforce selective "guidelines" which not every editor is even aware of in order to press a specific agenda. An example of this can be found in content that promotes causes, religious content and generally other controversial content. The burden of proof in those situations shifts from providing reliable sources for information to who can quote the most so called notability guidelines and have them enforced by an administrator. I would very much like a policy which clearly and unambiguously defines acceptable and non-acceptable content on Wikipedia to make it, if anything, easier on new editors and even somewhat experienced editors like myself to actually understand what should or should not be on Wikipedia. Not only that but something that admins will actually conform with in a unified fashion. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have just realised that some of the documents I assumed to be guidelines are in fact essays. For example, WP:INHERIT is actually an essay. The problem is people keep saying that the leads identify if or not the guideline/essay or whatever contradicts things like WP:N. But the fact is when people click on shortcuts they get taken to a specific section of the page and many people only read that section thinking its some sort of "enforced" guideline. I do not think everyone can be bothered to read the whole page just like people don't usually read the whole terms and conditions section (I do but being a Lawyer I get paranoid about them.) If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia anyone can edit these sorts of things need to be made clearer. If guidelines are asserting themselves as policies and essays are asserting themselves as guidelines then something isn't right. It is not about if an intent exists for these sorts of assertions to be made by the text it is what is in fact being asserted to the reader. If one uses a shortcut it cuts to a section that imposes itself as if its a binding Wikipedia policy so a reader takes it on face value. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the reason administrators do not enforce the guidelines is that there are too many of them. It is rather that the responsibility is so diffuse that no one steps up. They know what the guidelines say, but cannot be compelled to enforce them, unless you make yourself a target. Again, the problem is a sociocultural one, not one to do with the existence of too many guidelines. There really aren't that many. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: @Jayron32: @Samwalton9: How do I start the process of making WP:1 Rule an official policy? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This contradicts existing policies and guidelines, and it is unlikely to gain any support (let alone become official policy). But you would do so by properly starting an RfC here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: Which policy and guideline does it contradict? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's too reductionist. You are taking a whole bundle of policies and procedures with nuances and trying condense them down into a black-and-white "you must do it this way" rule. Wikipedia just doesn't work like that. If you can't live with a little vaguely and the spirit of WP:IAR and WP:DGAF you're not going to have an enjoyable experience editing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:V to start with. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: You think there is a problem with only using reliable and neutral sources for content here? Shouldn't content on Wikipedia need to have reliable and neutral sources? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 21:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a Have you stopped beating your wife? question. I've already explained that it is more nuanced than your oversimplified rule would make it out to be, that's why it won't work. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. That's kind of first-day material for a basic understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2017 (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.

I'm the relative newbie who, without knowing this discussion was ongoing, started the next topic. It was refreshing to me to read about many of the policies/guidelines/essays mentioned above, particularly Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Thank you to all for taking the time to add to the discussion. DennisPietras (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES

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 guys and gals, I have a query or request for policy / guidelines here on Wikipedia to be clarified.

Goal of this discussion

The goal of this discussion is to ascertain if there is consensus to make WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES less confusing and more comprehensible.

Key questions

• Does WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES override or amount to an additional element of WP:GNG?
• Can WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES be used as a set of reasons or logical basis for a delete vote on deletion discussions?
• Does the RfC discussion on school outcomes in February 2017 have any binding elements on editors?
• Why are administrators as shown here still arguing that a school which does not pass WP:GNG can still be included on Wikipedia on the grounds that it is notable for its mere existence?
• Should it be made clearer to editors as to what the editing policy is on establishing the notability of schools?

Discussion outcomes

• To make the guidelines on assessing School notability clearer and more comprehensible for editors.
• If necessary, implement guidance on WP Guideline/essay/policy pages related to school notability which directs an editors attention to the most relevant policy for establishing school notability.
• To gain consensus on if or not school outcomes should be made less confusing and more comprehensible to editors.

Side note and conclusion I have not been actively involved in any of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES debates thus far and want to make it clear that I am not trying to seek to overturn or even edit the conclusions of those previous debates. The mere purpose of this proposal to clarify is so that editors like myself are able to better understand which policies are in play with respect to determining school notability.

Informing editors of this debate ^{These editors have all been involved in recent and relevant discussions about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES}

• @Shawn in Montreal:
• @Necrothesp:
• @Tazerdadog:
• @Primefac:
• @The Wordsmith:
• @Someguy1221:
• @Cullen328:
• @King of Hearts:

The size of the ping list is beyond practical. If editors would like to ping in previous discussion contributors, it would help.

Thank you →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging Masem, Kudpung, Jbhunley, and Cordless Larry. There are many editors who were involved, but I know that these four had a part in planning the RfC or its aftermath. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• The cynic in me wants to say you're here because you're annoyed that an admin disagrees with you in an AFD. For the record (on the off chance the original RFC gets archived), here's the outcome:

I believe that answers the first three (and the most important) of your bullet points. As for the rest - people are allowed to !vote however they want. A !vote of nothing more than "keep" is still a vote, even though it won't be counted. You're welcome to request clarification from an editor, but you cannot change their opinions. If someone feels a school is inherently notable simply because it exists, then they are allowed that opinion. The consensus/majority may decide otherwise, but that's how debate works. Primefac (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I will say that this was something of a wacky RFC. In addition to support and oppose having no correlation to the opinion that followed each !vote, this was a rejection of a guideline that would have formalized SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which got closed as a narrow rejection of SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself. I think we got the close right, which would empower any admin closing an AFD to simply disregard AFD votes based on that premise. I agree with primefac, there is no policy that voters have to avoid bad arguments, but admins are supposed to consider policy/guidelines when closing an AFD. I had actually wanted a followup RFC to clarify the original - I suspect there would be support in the community to make some types of secondary schools notable by default, since much of the opposition to SCHOOLOUTCOMES was based on its being overbroad. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Primefac: @Someguy1221: Okay, there seems to be a problem here and that is a fundamental issue of understanding that some editors (especially inexperienced ones including myself) find it exceptionally confusing when a conclusion for an RfC states "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" should be added to a list of arguments to avoid making in AfDs yet on the other hand asserts something as an editing guideline such as "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Furthermore, a summery of this RfC is posted raw on the SCHOOLOUTCOMES page without any explanation so it reads like an inherent contradiction. Firstly it basically amounts to saying "arguments on this page should be avoided on AfDs" yet on the other hand it infers an editing guideline like "schools should not be presumed notable simply because they exist." Given that generally, as Someguy has said, admins are supposed to consider policy/guidelines when closing AfD's how can they consider something which asserts itself as an editing guideline which is listed on a page and in the same breath as saying "you should avoid using this argument on an AfD." It just makes no sense to me. Furthermore, I have absolutely no idea which guideline is supposed to be used to determine school notability in the first place, and that SCHOOLOUTCOMES just makes it even more confusing. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Primefac: @Someguy1221:

Furthermore, I have profound respect for consensus. However, in this case, there is no clearly defined summery of consensus on the issue of how to determine school notability. When I nominate an article for deletion, I hope to do so as informed as possible about the guidelines and policies for editing because otherwise it’s simply asking people for their subjective opinions on if an article should be deleted or not. The article, Yeshivat Shaare Torah is a veritable example of how the policies and guidelines contradict each other. Firstly, there are no sources about this school other than self-published thus it would be non-notable per WP:GNG. Furthermore, it is a company, as it is a for profit school, and thus theoretically would qualify for speedy delete under non-notable company/organization. However, as a school it seems to gain a “special status”, it seemingly does not need to pass GNG or company guidelines for notability. Therefore, one would refer to a guideline specifically for schools, which is supposed to exist in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However, this essay now states it should not be used in AfD debates so what can an editor refer to regarding assessing notability of a school? If GNG and CSD does not apply to schools then what does? And can this be made clearer if there is indeed a relevant guideline / policy that does in fact apply to schools? Furthermore, is the statement associated with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that reads “secondary schools should not be assumed notable merely because they exist” an editing guideline or not and if it is why is it not written into CSD criteria or GNG?

I realize that there is some attempt to design an outcome here which does not open the floodgates for deletion requests for a wide array of schools and as someone who is a judicial minimalist, I fully understand it. However, there is a difference between trying to avoid frivolous deletion requests and completely undermining a procedure by use of contradictory imposition, that is the intensification of a burden for those who follow a procedure rather than the proper opposite. There is a minimalist way to demonstrate the points raised in the RfC closure, which balances the need to establish notability for schools with the need to prevent frolicsome deletion requests, however, the current format does not do that. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 05:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see what the problem is. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as I believe was intended, the RFC closure is only meant to discourage arguments based on common outcomes from being used in AFDs on secondary schools, not to disregard all policies and guidelines. N, ORG and GEO would still apply. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Well you see the problem which is getting me is that un-involved editors might not even be aware that there is a history of arguments based on common outcomes or even if they are aware they, just as I did, read SCHOOLOUTCOMES as is presented. This is what :::I got from reading SCHOOLOUTCOMES:

• Secondary schools are not to be presumed notable simply because they exist
• SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be avoided in AfD debates
• The first point I noted above is listed on SCHOOLOUTCOMES thus should also be avoided in AfD debates
• Notability guidelines like N ORG GEO should be considered as guidelines for school notability

I found myself with a rather simple but compelling question: "Does the point that secondary schools are not to be presumed notable simply because they exist classify as an argument to be avoided in AfD's and are schools classified as notable geographical locations simply because they exist as would be inferred by GEO (WP:GEOLAND Populated, legally recognized places') but contradicted by the aforementioned statement about secondary school notability." I personally absolutely agree that just because a secondary school exists it does not or should not create a presumption of notability, however, I just do not think this is made clear by the context it has been asserted in. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The process of closing the RFC did not include adding the RFC to SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself. That change was made by @Jbhunley:, who was not one of the closers. It looked fine to me at the time, but I didn't see it the way you do, which is completely reasonable, and that page should probably be clarified - the RFC closure was never meant to be self-referential. Regarding GEO, that is not the way to read it. A 'legally recognized place' is to be read in the context of a populated place - legal recognition would constitute a postal code, state-recognized local government, or a census designation. Some schools do have permanent residents and even a postal code, and may qualify under that, but that's not typical. The "building" section of GEO seems more likely to be relevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The statement that "Secondary schools are not to be presumed notable simply because they exist." is correct according to my interpretation of consensus, and should be brought up at an AFD if it is relevant. The wording of the relevant policies/guidelines/essays should be updated to reflect this. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The only argument that we found consensus in the RFC to discourage at AFD was the circular argument "We should keep this secondary school because we always keep secondary schools. Many of the arguments in the AFD cited above are of this form, and should be at least partially discounted when the AFD is closed. All of the policies that apply to the rest of Wikipedia apply to articles on secondary schools. The other major effect of the RFC as far as an AFD is concerned is the need to dig more deeply than usual in order to check whether the GNG has been met. The minimum bar for this check is that it went beyond an internet search, and included some local print media. This search has not occurred to my knowledge in the specific AFD cited above, and would need to occur before the article is deleted on notability grounds. I hope this clarifies things to some extent. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've made a bold change to how the RFC was presented on the OUTCOMES page, to hopefully avoid this confusion in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)`

  @Someguy1221: Thank you :D that seems to make it a lot clearer. This said I think the points raised in the RfC and the establishment of the principles in the closing are so significant that they should have wider exposure, perhaps integration into articles on notability which are commonly referenced in school AfD's for example GNG, ORG N, GEO N etc. The final point about offline sources seems impractical and unless there is a procedure established for requesting, gaining and knowing the progress of finding offline sources the process could go on indefinitely. I think that perhaps it should be less broad and have time limitations imposed. Furthermore, the request for offline sources to be found should have a broad presence on an article so that readers, interested parties and other editors have the information that offline sources are needed in the first instance. Furthermore, I think there should be more clarity on if the finding of offline sources apply to public schools or for profit schools, as technically speaking for profit schools would qualify for companies and there is a substantial risk of Wikipedia being used as a platform for advertising. Especially in cases of very small private schools which seek merely exposure on Wikipedia for whatever reason. I think that finding offline sources should not counteract or overrule the CSD criterion on advertisement or non-notable companies and it should be perhaps clarified in some way that for-profit schools are in fact companies and thus should be treated as such. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 06:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: In practice, here is an example. The article Yeshivat Shaare Torah which documents a school with 60 half day seats meaning 60 students. The Wikipedia page itself is viewed 8 times as a daily average which goes to show something about its notability in of itself. The article itself does not assert anything that would be notable per WP:GNG nor do the self-published sources on the page. The only conceivable reason this would be on Wikipedia would be for purposes of legitimising its presence as a school and likely some form of venue to advertise it. This is a for profit school (company) and the fact one would have to find offline sources per the current situation makes no sense and merely makes it more difficult to stop Wikipedia from being used to advertise things. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 06:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In truth, the statement that editors should consider the possibility of offline sources is nothing new - that is supposed to happen at the AFD of any article in any topic area, if the deletion is proposed on the grounds of lack of notability. It was emphasized in this case due to the specific concerns by many participants in the RFC. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• No article should be allowed to stand if reliable sources could not be produced that can be used to fill the article with content. No article for which such sources exist should be deleted. I'm not sure why this is complicated. --Jayron32 12:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes it complicated is the presumption that sources exist. This can be taken to extremes... where those who question the notability of a school must jump through hoops to "prove" the negative... to "prove" that sources don't in fact exist. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we already had an RFC on this end, which definitively showed that the community rejected the notion that you are complaining about. We already fixed the problem. Move on. --Jayron32 13:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: What Blueboar has said makes sense and I can further expand to say that a presumption of reliable sources is equivocal to a presumption of notability. The obscure nature of the issue of presumed existence of sources is particularly troublesome with schools... How the hell can you prove with absolute certainty that no sources exist and furthermore, if they do exist they could as well only inherit notability. This whole lot is completely confusing and frankly it is a disgraceful mess... I have never seen policy or guidelines so obscure and contradictory in my entire life and that is saying something. As a strictly personal opinion, if this issue is a problem for me as a Lawyer then it sure as hell will be an issue for new editors on Wikipedia. While I appreciate the need to increase content on Wikipedia its vitally important that editors can clearly understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines without there being contradictions. This goes far beyond school guidelines and extends to the entirety of the guidelines and policies here on Wikipedia.They are de-centralised, it is not clear if they are in fact binding or not and administrators seem to selectively pick and chose which policies / guidelines best apply to their own beliefs.... this is not what policy or guidelines are supposed to be for. I am frankly sick of seeing [[WP:]] policy links spread everywhere and never getting a clear understanding of if they actually apply or not... in fact its almost a mockery of Wikipedia, it makes me feel that the project itself is not professional and it ought to be. As Wikipedia progresses into the future it becomes apparent to me that bombarding the younger generations with a fuck tonne of policy and guidelines without a clear tone or them even being followed universally is utterly destructive. We need to delete content and make sure content is notable because otherwise WP will become a list of crap and nothing more or less... Policies are unclear.... Guidelines are unclear.... If I want to create a new article I know that I need sources and am afraid to not provide 100's of them to back up my points...... This is how it should be. Not a free-for-all of contradictory principles that admins don't even have to follow. What is the point in even having any policies if Administrators can elect if to apply them or not? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, if people are arguing with you about these matters, here's the trump card. Make the following statement and then watch them squirm when they have no response "Where does the content of this article come from?" If their answer is "Here are all the sources we used" then fine. If they answer is <crickets>, then delete the article. Wringing our hands because people are stupid is useless. Delete it, ignore the stupidity, and move on. --Jayron32 15:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify My central points are these (to the above comment.) And the problem won't go away unless its addressed its that simple:

• Are guidelines just that. Do they have any binding authority or can editors actually disregard them.
• Are policies actually policies? In that they must be followed. Can administrators close an AfD as keep even if consensus is to keep in spite of a member of the discussion having proven the article should be removed per a policy.
• Presuming reliable sources exist is presuming notability exists and does this not contradict the need for an article to establish notability.
• How can someone prove a negative such as no sources exist especially offline sources.
• Why does policy exist if administrators can elect to enforce them or not.
• Why can't the sum of policies and guidelines be streamlined and made into a quick and easy to read "do's and do not's of Wikipedia" so that new editors don't have to be bothered to read copious amounts of policies and guidelines just to make a contribution that will stay on Wikipedia.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have to be able to deal with much uncertainty, here. "Why is Wikipedia a hot mess?" Well, there are many reasons, but just try to hold onto when it's not and make improvements where you can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker: @Jayron32: I do feel bad about bringing “the shit out of the woodwork” because I do like Wikipedia. But at the same time, it is important to sustain it. There has recently been a significant decrease in new editors signing up for the project and it wouldn’t be so farfetched to say that it could in part come down to how policies and guidelines here are implemented and displayed. I find that when you keep getting policies and guidelines screamed at you from every corner yet on the other hand you have what are supposed to be experienced administrators justifying inherited notability or even contradicting core so called content policies you begin to not even take notice of policies. At this point one begins to have less faith in administrators overall, this is despite the fact I have met some wonderful ones. Additionally, new editors must be absolutely daunted by those policy / guidelines, I mean not everyone is so clued up and I think we need to make Wikipedia inclusive for them people as well. It just strikes me as fundamentally unfair that being a Wikipedia editor seems to be about being picked apart rather than collaborating to make things work. I am tired of arguing points with editors and having policies which are not even upheld by administrators to fall back on. I’d also love to see Wikipedia be more inviting to those who show less intellectual prowess but can offer a wider variety of views on things, this can’t be done if Wikipedia is all about reading and applying content guidelines and policies which take a genius to decipher. Sometimes when I come on here I honestly feel like I am in a club of geniuses who want to do everything to keep out anyone who is not part of that club. There is a place on Wikipedia for naivety, as it breeds creativity, there is a place for geniuses as it breeds factuality but more importantly there should be a place for both to work collaboratively to improve Wikipedia. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• YES YES YES. That's why for 10 years I've been consistently demanding WP:42 or nothing. Every stupid, extra, subject-specific notability guideline just confuses the hell out of the core problem. The ONLY thing we should ever ask for when there is a dispute over whether or not an article is appropriate is "Show me the sources". That should be the ONLY question EVER at Wikipedia, TBH. If we just reduced ALL deletion discussions to one simple rule: Show me the sources, then new editors wouldn't get so overwhelmed with all of the instruction creep. --Jayron32 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's probably just too organic for all that -- my best advice, generally try for small incremental changes here and there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Nothing is completely binding. Everything is up for discussion. As to your question "Why does policy exist if administrators can elect to enforce them or not?", you could equally ask why, if the "rules" have to be followed, do we have AfD discussions in the first place? It would usually be obvious whether an article met the criteria laid down in the "rules" or not and any that did not meet them could be deleted by an admin without discussion. The fact we do still have AfD discussions points to the fact that we do not have immutable rules. And even as an admin, I for one am glad that we do not. One of the problems I have noticed on Wikipedia in recent years is a serious increase in the number of editors who seem to be under the misguided impression that we do have such rules and have a desperate urge to enforce them, even though they don't actually exist. They commonly do this by "shouting" loudly and browbeating newer editors into agreeing with them. With those of us who are more experienced and can't be browbeaten, they attempt to do it by claiming they know best and are acting for the good of the project (as if we are not), patronising those of us who don't agree with them (many of us having been here much longer than they have), and poo-pooing our preference for discussion and consensus over following their beloved sacred "rules" (that aren't) to the letter and laying down everything in stone (it seems to be very confusing and upsetting to them to not have such immutable rules to follow, so they resort to claiming they exist when they don't and trying to lay down detailed policies and guidelines for absolutely everything). It's a growing problem and one that is certainly undermining my desire to continue contributing and undoubtedly that of many other experienced editors as well. Wikipedia worked perfectly well before these people started appearing and it will continue to work very well after they've got too worried by the lack of rules to continue and left. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• The RfC close was overreach beyond declaring no consensus for the proposition, put forward. Being not that interested in schools, it makes little sense to contest that overreach, but let's hope such overreach does not continue from these closers, if they are to continue closing things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Even the the most fundamental structural of wp:notability is ambiguous. Do you have to just meet one of WP:GNG or wp:SNG (in which case the the SNG can override GNG on the side of inclusion), or must one meet both (in which case the SNG can override GNG on the side of exclusion). Wikipedia (mostly) makes this work in it's usual way....sort of a fuzzy combination implemented in a fuzzy manner, and I don't mean that in a negative way.

IMHO the goal of WP:Notability is (vaguely) to apply requirement for the existence of articles, probably a combination or real-world notability and how encyclopedic the topic is. And at the core of that solution is the "suitable coverage" criteria which is IMO the best choice. But then there are two big problems with this metric which I think that all of the tens of thousands of words of GNG and SNG's are trying to deal with:

• The proportion of WP:suitable coverage in WP:RS's in proportion to real article-suitability varies wildly. My son's grade-school football team probably has 20 times am much coverage in wp:RS's than most of the plant and animal species which an encyclopedia should cover, but my son's team shoudl probably not be in Wikipedia.
• Some fields are far more prone to people hammering the system to get some article included, e.g. for commercial or fandom reasons.

I don't know the answer but I suspect it is to make GNG the center of things, and evolve some new metrics into it to handle the above goals and issues, and then, someday years in the future, phase out SNG's. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the best solution here is to start a separate RFC that cannot end in a "no consensus" decision, of whether WP:NORG (or a new NSCHOOLS) should establish subject-specific guidelines that presume any secondary-school (with any cavaets like for-profit schools) is notable (aka codifying SCHOOLOUTCOMES into notability guidelines), or eliminate SCHOOLOUTCOMES altogether, and making sure NORG reflects that secondary-schools are expected to meet the GNG. Predicated on this is that with the latter outcome, there will be a grandfathering clause to prevent mass deletion of schools for at least 6 months to a year to avoid the fait accompli issue. This discussion would need to focus on the biggest issue about schools: how appropriate are local sources to be used for notability evaluation, within the scope of NORG. (don't answer that now, I'm just framing what this discussion should be about). Key to recognize is that the status quo of letting SCHOOLOUTCOMES stay just doesn't work, and either we should bite the bullet to promote it to a notability guideline or eliminate it. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  WP:AUD is pretty gosh-darn clear about how local sources should be used (and perhaps WP:N should reflect that clarity): The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. --Izno (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, AUD exists but it is often seemingly ignored when people say a secondary school meets notability guidelines. Several examples in the previous SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC were presented of well-sourced articles that relied solely on local sources, yet editors considered them acceptable for notability. This also is part of the systematic bias around school notability that favors US + European schools over other parts of the world, that should be part of this discussion to understand if we can actually craft a notability guideline for schools. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with Masem that a follow-up RfC is needed. If someone can get a US/European high school deleted through AfD currently, I will publicly eat my hat. The systemic bias concerns were noted in close, and I think moving towards a notability guideline that takes in the concerns of people on both sides of the recent RfC is necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, this discussion has been badly contaminated by a series of falsehoods that Wiki-Coffee has been spreading about Yeshivat Shaare Torah, both here and at its Articles for Deletion debate. This editor has stated the school's enrollment is 60 half day students. That is false. The fact is that this organization operates a preschool program, a boys elementary school, a girls elementary school, a boys high school and a girls high school, with a combined enrollment of well over 1000 students. The editor claims that it is a profit making business. That is false. The organization is a registered tax exempt non-profit educational group. The editor claims that the only sources available about the organization are self published. That is false. I have added eleven independent references which verify the claims made in the article. Anyone who wants to cite Yeshivat Shaare Torah as an example of why we need to delete articles about secondary schools should rethink their position. Instead, it is an example of failure to properly research the topic before nominating an article for deletion, and a willingness to rely on falsehoods in an enthusiastic drive to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sighs Okay while you are on a Witch hunt and clearly not assuming good faith, I have been busy with other things. Now to address this issue:

• 60 students - source
• The source you provided here says it's name is YESHIVA SHAARE TORAH INC. In the United Kingdom Incorporated companies are different from charities and have a completely separate registration process and are separate legal entities. I am from the UK so I go by that, If I am wrong about this and in the USA Incorporated companies can still be charities then I apologise.

Finally, how does this have anything to do with my nomination reason for this article? Have you read it? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

60 students in their pre-kindergarten program (for 4 year olds), not the entire organization. Yes, it's a private school, nobody is disputing that. The alternative is a government school, which is incompatible with it being religious... but did you notice you linked to a tertiary college that awards a 4-year bachelor's degree? So, probably not the same as the program for toddlers, right? Plus it says the type of school is "Private not-for-profit," which contradicts your assertion that it is for-profit. Finally, in the US, registered charities are required to be incorporated. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Jacknstock: Hmmm I did not realise that the link for tuition fees was to a completely different institution. The name is so similar I couldn't tell. It came up on a google search must have been that pesky auto search thing. Yeh, in the UK incorporated companies are completely separate entities from registered charities. Thank you for the heads up.→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 02:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wiki-Coffee, my "witch hunt" is in favor of truth and against falsehood. That is because I am an encyclopedist. I happily assume good faith on your part, but the evidence here shows that your research regarding this matter was sloppy. You may well be a fine fellow but you made significant mistakes here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 11 March 2017 (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.

Dealing with unreliable news sources

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 guys, I have noticed recently that there are lot's of discussions about what to do about news sources which appear to be unreliable. I have created a proposal User:Wiki-Coffee/News Sources for consideration.

Please kindly note this is not a policy request as yet and is merely a request for comments on how to improve/rework/whatever else the proposal that I have made. I would love to see this become a good quality document with your help.

Once again this is not a formal proposal stage policy. It is to be considered as a work in progress and comments here will assist in that. However, if editors feel no need for this please indicate this also. Thank you.

Comments (unreliable news sources)

• The whole "Request for Comment on unreliable news sources" is contrary to WP:BRD and WP:NOTBURO. Also, this discussion really belongs on the essay's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• You might want to consider discussing that individual published articles from otherwise reliable sources can be unreliable for facts themselves, but this doesn't necessarily affect the reliability of the source. That is, editors must be aware of op-eds, which should always be taken as opinions, as well as watching for editorializing and opinionated content in articles that aren't necessarily labeled as op-eds (points to discuss on talk pages). Also, following from many past RS/N discussions, that opinions from unreliable sources are still valid to be included, but as to be judged by appropriate weight, authority, and other factors on the talk page. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem: " You might want to consider discussing that individual published articles from otherwise reliable sources can be unreliable for facts themselves, but this doesn't necessarily affect the reliability of the source." Is an extremely good point which I had not considered. I will factor in a way to write this in there unless you want to try? With regard to opinion based reporting do you mean make it clearer that editors should not factor in opinion-based articles published by news sources as evidence for being unreliable sources? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• What I meant is that a source may have already been determined to be unreliable for facts (as we have for Breitbart), but that doesn't mean that opinion pieces from people with appropriate authority on a topic published in this source can't be included in WP as attributed statements of opinion. However, whether to include that has to be a talk page discussion on the authority of the opinion-maker, the weight of the opinion relative to other viewpoints, and similar facets. In terms of determining if a source is reliable, editors should not worry too much about opinions shared in articles labeled as op-eds; but editors should be on the watch for opinion and editorializing in articles that are not labeled as op-eds, since this can deceive editors that these opinions can be treated as facts. If a work does this editorializing without appropriate op-ed disclaimers on a regular basis (arguably, this is what the Daily Mail was doing in part), then it may be evidence that the source in general is unreliable. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• The essay probably needs more attention to WP:SOURCE just laying it out. Also, as today's news is almost entirely WP:Primary (and likely would alll be primary to a historian, we should maybe expand on how we really, really mostly want secondary not today's news. 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem: I have made some changes in line with your suggestions. Btw it has a new link :) WP:UNS Please tell me what you think so far and if you have anymore ideas for it. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's just nonsense, and the elephant in the room - we already have Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where confused editors like Wiki-Coffee can come to ask if a source in general or a particular article could be considered reliable or not, how they could use the source etc. I would suggest, instead of creating proposals here on a near daily basis, Wiki-Coffee needs to run along and actually create content, experience the perils and pitfalls of sourcing, and then once they've become competent (because, let's face it, we're seriously into WP:CIR territory with Wiki-Coffee now) they can make proposals to deal with broad and/or specific issues they've encountered. Nick (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with having a means local to article talk pages to guide the nature of discussing reliability of a work or individual articles. RS/N should be seen as a step in a chain of dispute resolution if local talk pages can't come to consensus, not as the first point for discussion. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Nick: "No human being will work hard at anything unless they believe that they are working for competence. - William Glasser" I have created some content and I usually stick to anti-vandalism when the time arises. I am actually not entirely confident to say anything about the essay WP:CIR as it seems like a means to slander other people, however I may stand corrected. From what I have understood from your comment to me, you would prefer that I spend more time creating articles than policy content on Wikipedia. I accept this criticism and I will try to stumble on more articles to edit while I am undertaking anti-vandalism work. I mainly avoid making edits to populated or main articles because I do not want to induct myself into the potentially toxic atmosphere of editor conflict which I have seen ripe on them. I made attempts to edit Jeremy Corbyn a while ago which led to hostility so I generally just avoid it now. I felt that contributing to policy here on Wikipedia could do two things; Teach me more and help me research issues related to how policies etc are enacted on Wikipedia and furthermore to try and contribute positively in helping make some places more tolerable to edit. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• The problem we're encountering with you (almost on a daily basis at VPP at the moment) is that you're trying to write policies, launching consultations and developing proposals without having a genuine, deep-seated understanding of what it is these policies will do. You write so little content and make so few article edits, that you're largely or completely unaware of the impact your proposals will have on our content creators. You're so inexperienced, I doubt you can genuinely tell whether or not your policies and proposals are actually needed, let alone wanted by the community. What have we had in the last couple of months from you - a proposal about Wikipedia having no religion, a proposal on the verification of qualifications, you leaving when the community wouldn't agree with you over the Virgin Killers image, proposals concerning page protection guidelines, the abandoned Wikipedia:Rule 1 proposal (which may or may not still be at the top of the page, pending archiving) and now a new proposal on reliable sources.
  You've spent an incredible amount of time and effort working on these proposals, but none have been accepted by the community and I think all have since been deleted at your request. You've frequently been given useful advice from experienced editors about gaining experience first before launching further proposals for consultation, and yet days later, we're back at VPP discussing yet another proposal. It's clear this is a good faith endeavour, but at some point soon, the community is going to say 'enough is enough' and request you stop launching quite so many proposals quite so frequently.
  I genuinely think you need to gain a much greater understanding of content creation, to understand the finer nuances of sourcing, referencing and reliable sources before trying to develop policies on areas such as Reliable Sources and Referencing. Nick (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: To answer your additional points:

• I am currently conducting research that looks into how international operating sites like Wikipedia interact with the Laws of jurisdictions they operate in. The goal of the research is to:

• Establish the current role of International Law in internet regulation and determine what level of compliance there is from internet based sites.

1. Evaluating conflicts between free speech and harmful content.
2. Intellectual property protection
3. Assessing the approaches to privacy issues.

• Evaluate the future role of international law on regulation of the internet and how this may affect internet based sites.

In order to conduct the aforementioned research, the use of multiple methods to study a research problem (methodological triangulation) is required. All of my work on or with Wikipedia is in some way related to the research goals. If however you have a complaint about the research I will be happy to email you contact details for the affiliated institution. Furthermore, if there are terms on Wikipedia which I am violating by the conduct of this research (for which I am not aware) please inform me of these and I will cease further conduct of research which violates these terms. Thank you. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 11:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying your repeated proposals are part of your research effort ? I would very much appreciate you e-mailing both me and I'd guess, if you haven't done so, @Jalexander-WMF: (the Manager, Trust & Safety, Wikimedia Foundation) with details on this research work. Nick (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Nick: No problem, I do not believe that you have an email displayed on your Wikipedia homepage so would you provide me with your contact details. Furthermore, is there anything specifically you require in the details for the research? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 11:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Email this user is available on the left side of my user page, under Tools. You can use Special:EmailUser/Nick directly. Just send through whatever you're comfortable with. Nick (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are introducing proposals primarily to gauge reaction as part of your research, and without a serious expectation of being an engaged member of the community affected by the proposals, then I am concerned about the amount of time and consideration you're implicitly requesting to be invested, without making your motivation clear. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Nick: Hello, sorry for the delay. I have been working on other things off-Wiki. I've found some information and sent it via email as requested. Thank you. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've received the document. I guess, thanks are in order, though it raises many more questions than it answers. It doesn't even begin to discuss your recent edits to Wikipedia and it's confusing why a Senior Executive at Defense Intelligence Agency and a Vice President of Boeing would be involved in your research on Wikipedia. I'm now beyond confused as to who you are, what you're doing and what your motives are, because that document tells me nothing useful at all. Nick (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I think we're reaching the point at which a topic ban on the OP, either from Wikipedia space in general or more narrowly from making policy proposals, needs to be considered. I don't know whether we're being played or whether this is a competence issue, but this non-stop creation of doomed-to-fail proposals which display a misunderstanding of the most basic fundamentals of Wikipedia is wasting a lot of time of a lot of people. ‑ Iridescent 18:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, a solution looking for a problem. I agree with Nick and Iridescent that Wiki-Coffee's proposals are becoming tedious, but when I had 3,700 edits I was also sure that I knew how Wikipedia ought to work, too. Several people have suggested that W-C engage in more content creation before launching more proposals, but let me note that there is an alternate path: becoming a dispute resolution volunteer, starting with giving opinions at Third Opinion, then after a couple of dozen or three moving on to DRN, remembering all along the way that in doing DR work that the important thing is dealing with they way that things are not with advocating for the way you think that they ought to be. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• WikiCoffee needs to slow it down This is yet another example of this user jumping the gun, moving what is clearly just their opinion into project space, and opening a discussion hee while explicitly stating that it isn't actually a policy proposal at all. I woud suggest the following:

• Move it back to user space until it is ready.
• Close this and, if you insist, open a discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), which is explicitly for discussing vague, unformed proposals and shaping them into something that ois ready for prime time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox: What are your views on unreliable news sources being used in BLP's? "Unreliable news source" being as termed in the essay. →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am of the opinion, as with your previous loaded question when we discussed your previous poorly thought out proposal, that we already have adequate guidance on this subject and your essay/non-proposal/whatever it is as written adds nothing new and is therefore of little to no value to the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: While the quiddity of current policy might be to débarrer the subsistence of capricious news sources, there is no substantiation that in-praxis it works. The pre-eminent facet of policy should not be its mere existence but rather that it is actionable. Many a great article on Wikipedia stands ravaged by conjectural and suppositious detritus derived from unbecoming news sources. The panacea for this Mephistophelian problem is the fashioning of a versatile policy that is verily enforced.→ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now you're just taking the piss. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

+1. I'm starting to think you're NOTHERE at this point. Sam Walton (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just now coming to this after reading the whole conversation, I'm agreeing with Iridescent that its about time to consider a tban from policy proposals. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: @Primefac: There are articles about living people which are sometimes almost entirely based on secondary sources. Is it possible to form objective content on the basis of conjectural or suppositious sources? There are policies like WP:V which are theoretically supposed to prevent "sources with a history of bad fact checking" however, they still seem to make their way onto articles about living people which shows there is either a problem with how people understand the policy or there is a problem with enforcing it. Either way the problem still prevails so it is only suggested that something different is tried. However, I am in no way experienced on Wikipedia to even attempt to touch the issue with a view to resolving it anytime soon. But I thought I would give my view on the matter at hand, that is all. →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"There are articles about living people which are sometimes almost entirely based on secondary sources." That you think this is a bad thing shows that you don't understand WP:V well enough to be attempting to form new policy surrounding this. Sam Walton (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As you've said all your edits are related to your research goals, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Researchers don't usually try to affect or influence the community they're doing research on, so what is the purpose of this line of discussion? isaacl (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for Wiki-Pharaoh now live. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2017 (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.