This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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.
"Infoboxes are neither included or omitted by default" is the rough consensus choice. None of the additional proposals below the main poll received any significant support. So, it's back to discussions in the talk pages. - Donald Albury 15:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In closing the Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case, the Arbitration committee recommended...well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted. As an editor who has not previously been involved in favor or against infobox usage and therefore a (hopefully) neutral party, I'm opening this discussion here. A prior call for discussion did not clarify standards for infobox usage. That leaves two policy questions in this latest recommendation:
Are infoboxes necessary for articles generally
How editors decide if infoboxes are necessary on particular articles
It seems logical to decide the first before the second.
The spectrum of options for the first question logically runs from "infoboxes everywhere" to "infoboxes nowhere". The previous infobox Arbitration decision, however, found that: [t]he use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. The extreme policy options of "every article should have an infobox" and "no article should have an infobox" are therefore not offered as options here. The spectrum of remaining options is:
Infoboxes are used by default on most articles – removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus
Infoboxes are used by default on broad class(es) of articles (e.g., biographies, biological species, etc.) – removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined class(es) by default omit infoboxes.)
*Infoboxes are used by default on some more-restricted subset(s) of articles (e.g., music biographies, invertebrate species, etc.) – removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined subset(s) by default omit infoboxes.)
Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default – adding one to an article without one or removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus
Infoboxes are omitted by default on some more-restricted subset(s) of articles (e.g., music biographies, invertebrate species, etc.) – adding one to an article without one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined subset(s) by default include infoboxes.)
Infoboxes are omitted by default on broad class(es) of articles (e.g., biographies, biological species, etc.) – adding one to an article without one requires talk page consensus (Note: the obverse is therefore also true, articles not in the defined class(es) by default include infoboxes.)
Infoboxes are omitted by default on most articles – adding one to an article without one requires talk page consensus
Wikiprojects would be the most logical place to determine which articles come under the "broad classes" and "some more-restricted subset" options, where active projects exist.
Request to !voters: To assist the future closers of this RfC in assessing consensus on so many options, it is requested that editors only place a support !vote in the subsection below that most closely aligns with their preferred option. Oppose !votes are not necessary and should be assumed for the remaining other options. I recognize that this "support only one option" request eliminates nuanced views but this is by design. Previous discussions have not yielded much clarity, so clarity is preferred here over nuance. Discussions to determine the exact parameters of the selected option, as well as question #2 listed above, will be presented later. Thank you in advance for your help. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes are included by default on most articles
This is the de facto status quo (and thus, this !poll is unhelpful) - the issue being around what is meant by "most", and under what conditions exceptions should apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Support inclusion of Infoboxes wherever possible but agree with Pigsonthewing that "most" need to be clarified. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot to be said for standardization. And hobgoblins.--GRuban (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- with reserve: Mostly per Andy's description of current practice, 'this is the de facto status quo', but 'the issue being around what is meant by "most", and under what conditions exceptions should apply' is open to further discussion, so I'm not sure that 'de facto' is entirely accurate and that it should be adopted as a guideline. 'Default' means that there can be exceptions and there are serious exceptions as I've mentioned in another section below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes are included by default on broad classes of articles
Consistency between similar articles is helpful, both to us editors and to the readers. And this consistency can best be achieved by consensus at the WikiProject level, where the discussion can also address exceptions to whatever general rule might be fashioned there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Something that had been brought up in a previous discussion is the use of infoboxes when it helps to place people or other topics in a system that has a very strong hierarchical nature. For example, politicians, professional athletes on teams, leading executives of public companies, etc. That's usually where there's a lot of detail that doesn't need to be repeated word for word in the lede prose, but should be summarized quickly for placing that person or topic in this strong hierarchical structure. That's principally the only cases where such infoboxes should be a requirement, but that should be decided prior by appropriate discussion. Outside of this, the use of infoboxes should not be mandated (for or against inclusion), and decided on a more narrow basis. --Masem (t) 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Handling the issue at the Project level is the only option that makes sense. Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Most articles fall under several wikiprojects.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
For many classes of articles, infoboxes present data far more efficiently than prose. feminist (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It does depend on the topic--many topicsare unsuitable. That does not mean giving the editors at a project the final say; as in other matters, their view of what a project requires needs at least acceptance confirmation by the general community to be effective. (As examples, among the sorts or articles I thin should always require an infobox are all biographies in all fields, regardless of the views of the editors in that particular field.) DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- with reserve. We have many different kinds of articles and where, just for example, taxonomy, bios about politicians, human settlements, geo features, and schools, benefit from infoboxes and probably should have them, some bios such as for example (IMHO) Edward Elgar look more serious, formal, and cleaner without one. So there will always be exceptions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes add a third "layer" to the article in addition to the lead and the body content. Some readers may only want the most basic facts, some readers want a summary, and some readers want the full information and articles should be written to suit all of these readers. Esquivalience (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes are neither included nor omitted by default
For the umpteenth time this is the only "default" option that makes sense. It is the only option that truly is "one size fits all". Since the last time one of these came up I have edited on several thousand articles that don't have infoboxes and they don't have enough info to support one. There should not be a policy forcing one on them. It is my hope that this ends the repetitive nature of this. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the current policy is perfectly fine. A small subset of editors have behavioral issues in following existing policy, but that doesn't mean the policy is bad. I think ArbCom did a disservice by trying to advise the community that they should change policy when it's not clear that there are any current issues with it. This discussion is itself likely to get contentious, and I doubt anything will change. ~ Rob13Talk 00:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This will have to be determined on each article's Talk page, I'm afraid. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
If an RfC can help (which I doubt), it's not about policy. Policy can't decide if an article is better with infobox or without. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes obviously make sense on some articles (e.g. Golden Gate Bridge), they obviously do not make sense on other articles (e.g. Memory), and on other articles the answer is not obvious either way. Therefore this is the only policy about their default inclusion or exclusion that can actually work in practice - and it has been working. The problem around infoboxes is one of behaviour not of policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this what we have always, consistently come up with? Consensus over many years of discussions has ALWAYS been that Wikipedia policy is agnostic on the use or non-use of infoboxes. There is no way to reliably predict which articles it is appropriate in, and which it is not. As noted several times above, the problem is not the infobox per se, the problem is that some people aren't willing to work well with others; the problems in this field have always been with behavior. People who have been sanctioned about infobox wars would have been sanctioned for something else anyways. We need to continue with the default, existing, stable position we've always had, which is "Wikipedia has no position for or against the use of infoboxes in articles". The realm of when and how to use them is the scope of the Wikiprojects and of talk page discussions. --Jayron32 14:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This has already been discussed to death. Natureium (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes should be included if they are useful in a particular article according to local consensus. This proposal seems unnecessarily WP:CREEPY. AdA&D★ 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This really needs to be stated again?! How many nails does this coffin need? Jbh Talk 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Any BLP, or geographic location, or many other classes of articles should have an infobox. None of the alternatives in the RFC seem to cover this properly. If someone adds a useful infobox then it should not be removed. Certainly to get a B class or GA or FA rating there should be an info box. But for stubs, it is not expected. It should not be "required" for articles, but their absence proves the immaturity of the article, and demonstrates their lower quality. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree that it's down to an article-by-article basis. The !vote above on a quality bar has been dismissed before on several grounds (rightly, in my opinion), and to claim a lack of IB somehow demonstrates lower quality is laughable, given the large number of GA and FA articles without. The presence or absence of an IB is not, and never has been, any indication of quality. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
First, we are not writing a database, we are writing an encyclopedia. Articles are just fine without as long as they contain what they encyclopedically speaking should contain. There is no need to introduce an infobox to have a good article. That being said, for certain subjects having an infobox summarizing the key 'immutable' data certainly has encyclopedic value (and I am a strong believer that having a machine-readable infobox can help us in protecting and identifying the subject directly). On certain classes of subject it makes sense to, nearly standard, include one (as sometimes they include data that is senseless to put in prose, but is encyclopedically relevant) (e.g. as a chemist: unique identifiers for chemicals are senseless in prose, but are needed in the document as to uniquely identify, help in expansion and to be able to uniquely find it from outside Wikipedia). On other subjects it is less relevant as there is no (or not a significant amount of) unique/identifying/immutable data (memory, or as a chemist again, chemical reactions). So as a rule: certain classes of subjects should (not must!) have an infobox. That is to be decided on a per-class basis (which could be guided by WikiProjects) but with the strong realization that within said classes there will nearly always be odd cases within a class where an infobox does not make sense. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Seen some !votes on the 'Infoboxes are included by default on broad classes of articles' I want to clarify myself here on a point: strictly speaking, 'classes of articles' do not exist. Yes, it makes sense to have an infobox on all living people (after all, they have some immutable data like a day of birth), but there will always be exceptions. 'Things' can fall into different classes, where one class is a 'generally yes', and another class is a 'depends strongly' - or some 'things' belong strongly to two classes where both classes are a 'generally yes', but would have distinctly independent infoboxes (chemical compounds are sometimes classified both as a 'chemical', but also a 'drug' (which is a chemical after all), when the situation is 'more drug than general chemical', then a drugbox is included, if the situation is 'a drug, but more general chemical', then a chembox is included - but there are chemicals which both have a strong drug-use and a strong chemical (Lithium is an extreme example, it is an element, a chemical and a drug). Many chemical elements have mainly a chemical use (and the elemental form is not encountered in real life), still we do not chose a chembox. And whereas metals are elements, chemicals (and sometimes drugs), mixtures of metals (alloys) are also chemicals (and some have distinct chemical use in chemistry), still this 'class' of articles does not have infoboxes (and IMHO, should not have).
All those cases need independent discussion, even when belonging to multiple infobox-wielding classes, and independent solutions need to be found. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors are capable of determining which articles would benefit from an infobox in each article's talk page, without need for some global rule. Whatever wars start up over infoboxes are problems of individual editor behavior, not flawed policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a behavioral issue that follows a familiar pattern: An editor goes around to dozens of articles adding/deleting infoboxes, changing every instance of "analyze" to "analyse", realigning photos or what have you. When reverted and asked to explain themselves, they act like you just told them that they should wear their pants inside out and give some variation of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT ("Disrupts the flow", "Looks atrocious", "it's disrespectful to summarize this person's life this way"). It's a tremendous time sink as editors are made to justify basic, commonly-accepted practices. I'm not sure if we have a specific policy for this, but it's the type of disruption that we should shut down immediately rather than humoring with endless content discussions. –dlthewave☎ 17:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- whether any given article should have an infobox (or not) should be determined on an article by article basis. For some there is an obvious benefit to having an infobox, for others there is a benefit to not having one, and for yet others it does not really matter one way or the other. So no default... decide on an article by article basis. The key is: If reverted (in either direction) -DON’T EDIT WAR over the issue... instead, go to the talk page and discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
This is clearly the site-wide consensus, and anything other than this risks driving some contributors to abandon the project. There are a variety of factors that can take a part. We should be talking about what factors to use, trying to break it down into a clear and consistent formula, not debating a general rule that won't work. Tamwin (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
There cannot be a rule about it. Infoboxes are suitable for some articles but not others and their use must be determined by consensus on a case by case basis.Smeat75 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't micromanage style. Carrite (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Kaldari (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
This can only be done on a case-by-case basis. AIRcorn(talk) 05:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree that this can only be handled cogently on a case by case basis. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
While ideally my preference would be to include infoboxes in broad classes of articles (the option above), I wouldn't be fond of a strict implementation in practice. Like, are infoboxes necessary for very short articles? I think they're useful and articles should ideally have them, but absolutely requiring them is unnecessary and editors should have at least some common sense on when they're needed and when they're not. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the idea of having them on broad classes of articles, but I think such a thing is probably unworkable. I'd prefer a situation in which an infobox is only added where it can be shown that it is superior to a well written lede in imparting information to the reader. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC).
Qualifiedsupport: The originator stated this as: "Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default – adding one to an article without one or removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus" which clearly conflates two separate questions:
(a) Whether "Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default" - and this is the only option that makes sense; and
(b) Whether "Adding one to an article without one, or removing one from an article with one, requires talk page consensus" - and this is an unduly heavy-handed approach. It tries to legislate the behaviour of editors who are clearly (in the main!) capable of reaching consensus without talking a topic to death - often silence implies consent, and many unexceptional edits are made daily to articles that require no further discussion at all.
Also, while it seems that we're likely to find an infobox on most biographies of public figures, there are a few about whom we don't have enough facts for them to be useful - think, for example, of the founders of the major world religions, about whose lives little is known with factual certainty. Infoboxes do give facts at a glance, and aid categorisation and automated maintenance. They can also act as useful prompts to editors researching new articles, as to what facts to look for. An article is not automatically unencyclopaedic or of lesser quality because it lacks an infobox. Conversely, it's not automatically better with one. How about relying on the common sense of editors, and assuming good faith? yoyo (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - I don't think any other policy can account for all the situations we encounter in articles. As I have mentioned earlier, we need to focus our discussion on what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted., as suggested by arbcom. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't micromanage style. Local consensus decides. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
As (nearly) all experienced editors know. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
"Don't micromanage style" sums it up for me. Maybe if we came up with a way to make infoboxes less intrusive: smaller type, collapsing by default, less "white space" hogging the page, etc. then the lions could lie down with the lambs and this issue would resolve itself. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems the most sensible of the options on offer. Personally, I would like to see the death of the infobox, which gives Wikipedia a child-like appearance and, in the case of more complex subjects, often gives a misleading and sometimes, wholly incorrect summary.--Ykraps (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Should be on a case-by-case principle. We have many different kinds of articles and where, just for example, taxonomy, bios about politicians, human settlements, geo features, and schools, benefit from infoboxes, but some bios such as for example (IMHO) Edward Elgar look more serious, formal, and cleaner without one. As Gerda Arendt says: "Policy can't decide if an article is better with infobox or without". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. Personally, I don't like infoboxes. For one thing, they're magnets for vandalism and unsourced editing—many are the times I've had to deal with unsourced numerical changes (populations, etc.), reports of death in biographical articles, and changes in other fields that aren't reflected in the body of the articles. I recongnize, however, that they're not going to be eliminated. Editorial discretion is the way to go, especially if some editors can be convinced to abandon their notion that no article is complete without an infobox. Deor (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Infoboxes are omitted by default on most articles
Support This is just how much I dislike the misinformation that is spread by infoboxes. Omit be default; gain consensus to add them on an individual basis (not a WikiProject basis). A medical article should not be forced to have an infobox whose parameters force inaccuracies into the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry Sandy, but infoboxes are already generally included as a de facto default (per Andy above) on most articles. Nevertheless I do perfectly accept that there are clear examples where infoboxes are best left out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry too :) I can still object to the inaccuracies they introduce! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Additional proposals
Here are some additional proposals for the community to chew on. Maybe they'll let us get something out of this RFC. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk Page Template
After a discussion on the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox in a page has finished, a template should be placed near the top of the associated talk page. At a minimum, this template should include a link to the discussion, the date that the discussion concluded, and the result of the discussion.
Support
This will allow editors to quickly see if there is an existing consensus for an infobox on any given article. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't make it policy, but it wouldn't hurt to have a link at the top of a talk page to an earlier conversation about an infobox or any other detailed discussion that results in consensus on that specific article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I think infoboxes clearly are special in this regard, otherwise we wouldn't have been discussing them for this long. This provides a clear record of prior discussion so that hopefully avoid discussing things over and over again, or at least make people think twice about starting another discussion without a good reason. Tamwin (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I support a some type of logging process for all RfC discussions at the top of the relative TP, not necessarily a template just for infoboxes. Example in use: Talk:Donald_Trump also includes open RfCs and decisions as well as local consensus. Atsme📞📧 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose - WP:CCC, and hammering a talkpage with discussion like this is just plainly disruptive. Infoboxes are not special. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Dirk Beetstra. Segregating all things infobox from routine editing is merely continuing in the wrong direction at an accelerated pace.--John Cline (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as noted above, the problems with infoboxes are the problems with the people editing disruptively, not with infoboxes in general. If the people involved just stopped being a problem (either voluntarily or with some "help" from the community) this would all go away, and we wouldn't need to remind people of these discussions. If we need to have the discussions, have them, but otherwise there's nothing inherently controversial about infoboxes. --Jayron32 14:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose For the most contentious cases, an {{faq}} is sufficient. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Per Beetstra, and because there's already so much at the top of many talk pages that folks ignore it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Beetstra, this isn't a long term solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose When discussion on any issue has ended, why not make it a good editing practice (not policy or guideline!, just something that thoughtful editors do) to make a final entry summarising the apparent consensus at that time? That would be helpful. If more of us did this, we'd all save a lot of time trying to digest pages and pages of historic discussion now of no particular moment, in order to see whether an issue that concerns us has been canvassed before. yoyo (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose consensus can change, talk pages are already too cluttered, and infoboxes aren't worthy of further talk page template clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose . As far as new pages are concerned, most patrollers don't even check the the talk pages, if one has been created, and anyway, are we going to further complicate the issue for new users by including more bureaucracy? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, normal talk and referring to it is enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion intervals
Unless the article has changed extensively since the last discussion, a discussion on the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox should not be repeated within X months of the previous discussion closing.
Support
As proposer Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose - per above, WP:CCC, and there is no time-limit for that. It takes only one diff to significantly expand an article whereupon an infobox may be warranted. However, hammering a talkpage with these discussions may be disruptive. Infoboxes are not something special. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, instruction creep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - it doesn't happen often, and if it does, it tells you something about the lack of consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Proper value of X
Six months seems like a good floor, I don't think consensus is likely to change that quickly.
Non-stub biographies default
If a discussion on including or excluding an infobox in a non-stub biography reaches a result of no consensus, the result should be:
Include the infobox
The vast majority of non-stub biographies should ideally have infoboxes. This nudges the process in that direction. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Exclude the infobox
Maintain the status of the longstanding version before the discussion started
As for pretty much every other sort of discussion where no consensus can be reached. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC).
N.B: The "broad classes" and "some more-restricted subset" options given above include to some extent their own obverse interpretations. The reason that I have given both options is that defining these groups by inclusion or by exclusion may yield different results. Thank you. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this again. The ArbCom proceedings haven't gained any clarity and it keeps coming up over and over again. If we don't try to nail down something it will just keep going and going... Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Its going to get 'no consensus to do anything about infoboxes whatsoever' again because infoboxes are a subjective content decision that is highly variable depending on the article content, and so cannot be mandated yes or no on a site-wide basis. The very premise goes against consensus article writing. Which is why it hasnt gone anywhere previously and is unlikely to go anywhere now without a mass-exclusion of people from both sides of the constant infobox argument from participating. And the more choices in an RFC the less likely any sort of firm consensus will appear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The options in this RfC don't really make much sense. As far as I can tell, every single option amounts to the same thing: "Infoboxes should be used on some articles but not others". Using nebulous terms like 'broad' and 'most' are not going to stop discussions on individual pages, even if consensus could be reached (it wont). RfC's with multiple options almost always fail, but in this case I don't even really see more than one option. In any case, just more wasted time arguing about infoboxes. The RfC could have asked something simple like: "In the case of articles where there is no consensus about whether to include an infobox, the default should be to include/exclude the infobox." (i.e. override the current situation of 'maintain the status quo when there is no-consensus'). In that case it might have been food for thought (not that I would expect a consensus anyway). But as written, this RfC is even more of a time waste than the infobox discussions themselves (no offence meant toward Eggishorn). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 22:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere:, no offense taken, although I think that summary misses the explicit requirement to get consensus before changing infoboxes. I tried to present options based on prior discussions. From what I can tell, the pattern has been: raging argument on some page -> AN/ANI community -> punts to Arbcom -> Arbcom Case/AE -> ArbCom punts back to community -> around we go again. If this RfC fails, well, so be it. At least its then clear that RfC's won't work. I obviously hope that editors will read the options closely and pick just one. Maybe they will, maybe they won't but at least it will have been tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 19:01, March 28, 2018 (UTC)
This RfC should be withdrawn as it cannot help and is only another place to berate opponents. Either infoboxes are mandatory or they are not. Anything else cannot solve the problem of what happens when drive-by editors add an infobox to an article they have not developed and do not maintain. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I have simplified the options based on the feedback so far. SInce nobody has indicated preference, I doubt this changes anything. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
But what should happen when a drive-by editor adds an infobox to an article they have not developed and do not maintain? Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: whatever happens to any other "drive-by" edit. Drive by edits have no inherent lack of worth and article maintainers have no ownership of articles. If the consensus was that adding an infobox required talk page consensus, then one added without discussion, whether by a drive-by editor or not, would be removed. If the consensus was that adding an infobox was the norm, then one added without discussion would be an improvement. It's no different from drive-by BLP edits, for example. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It's easy to say that, but here we are after years of fighting. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
There are also drive-by infobox removers. The real problem has been that, until now, edit-warring has been the usual way of deciding on infoboxes. Requests for Comments are a better way of deciding than edit-warring. I am aware that there will be a lot of RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we give this a break for awhile? It hasn't been very long since the last discussion/RFC, so I dont think you're going to consensus if you haven't already. Please try again later. RudolfRed (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The extreme options not being offered due to ARBCOM commentary is way off the mark (mind you, I doubt you'd find consensus for them), as ARBCOM wasn't saying "the community is not allowed to require such" (they don't get to decide that), ARBCOM was saying that "these !rules literally don't exist right now, so anyone acting as if there are !rules on the matter is offbase". --Izno (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
As much as I don't like it. It appears as though an 'article by article basis' is the only way. An across the board rule, just isn't going to get an agreement :( GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This RFC won't solve anything. My opinion is that talk page consensus should only be necessary for inclusion or exclusion if an infobox is disputed, with the "no consensus" outcome dependent on how long the infobox was in place for. Iffy★Chat -- 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree. Unfortunately, unless WP:INFOBOXUSE is changed, this kind of sensible approach is superseded by the guideline. A review of this discussion can shed light on the kinds of argumentation one can continue to expect unless the guideline formally recognizes "consensus through editing" which it currently does not.--John Cline (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@John Cline:, I believe that the results here, being a more high-profile and better-attended area of the project than the MOS talk pages, can be considered adequate to modify the Manual of Style section. For example, this page has 3,235 watchers and the MOS talkpage has 243 watchers. Please correct me if that conclusion is wrong. Thank you for your comment. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Eggishorn, I take issue with the phrasing of option three, Infoboxes are neither used by default nor omitted by default – adding one to an article without one or removing one from an article with one requires talk page consensus.
What happened to WP:BRD? As far as I'm aware, the status quo is that people can usually add an infobox to an article without taking it to the talk page first. AdA&D★ 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Eggishorn and Anne drew Andrew and Drew: BRD does apply in practice - in almost all cases where someone adds an infobox to an article it is uncontroversial and no discussion is required because people, by and large, don't add infoboxes to articles where they are not appropriate. The addition or removal of specific fields in an infobox requires discussion more often, but again this is a minority of cases overall. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment It would be best if this RFC ended with a consensus on what factors should be weighed in the decision to add an infobox. I think there is a broad consensus that arguments to the effect of "I don’t like how infoboxes look" are not valid reasons to exclude infoboxes (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). In contrast, I feel many editors would likely agree that infoboxes should be excluded if the proposed content is subjective classifications for which WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Billhpike: I agree that your first example is "IDONTLIKEIT", however your second example is not a good one as the answer depends on context - e.g. what other fields are the in the (proposed) infobox? (i.e. one subjective field does not alter the objectivity of other fields), is or can the subjective content be attributed? (infoboxes can contain references), how relevant is this to the subject's notability? is there an alternative way of expressing the information that is (more) objective (e.g. putting "the hardest-working man in showbusiness" as a nickname rather than known for)? How controversial is the subjective statement? (e.g. if essentially everybody agrees that Major General Smith was the most flamboyant commander of the Fooian Wars that's very different to describing someone as the most controversial president of the 20th century (a quick google search suggests arguments are made for JFK, Nixon and FDR at least)). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Billhpike:, I thought, in structuring the RfC, it would be best to determine inclusion status before inclusion factors. That is, if the "all by default" or "none by default" options were to gain consensus, then that would create a different follow-up question than if the "broad classes" option were. I hope this helps. Thanks for your comment. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment All the options seem to want "talk page consensus" to add or remove an infobox. Personally, I think they are helpful to some articles, and I have added them without realizing that talk page consensus is expected. They don't usually contain contentious or dubious content, so why do we need "consensus" to put verifiable facts into a concise format? If I put a proposal for an infobox on a talk page, do I need one person to agree? Ten people? Do I wait a week and add the infobox if nobody replies, assuming that means there are no objections? Or does it take a month? On the other hand (although I'm not sure why anyone would remove an infobox if the entire content is relevant and verifiable), if someone wants to remove an infobox, do they need one person to agree? Ten people? Wait a day, a week, a month? This makes what I thought was a routine inclusion in various articles (such as buildings, companies, locations, people) into a contentious issue, despite the fact that I don't remember ever seeing anyone object to an infobox on my watchlist. I've never had a dispute with anyone about either adding or removing an infobox, and rarely even about the content of an infobox. Why are we having this discussion? Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
No you do not need to 'consensus' first. You only need consensus when someone objects. If no one has objected previously, and no one objects to you after adding it. Consensus is considered to be implicitly given. WP:EDITCONSENSUS - the likely explanation is that you have not added an infobox in a topic area/article where it doesnt really suit. If so, great. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock:, thank you for your comment and to add to what Only in death says, the reason we are having this discussion is the Arbitration Committee decision linked in the RfC statement above, which is actually the second time the issue of inclusion or omission of infoboxes has been brought to that committee. There have also been innumerable other infobox disputes, AN/ANI threads, and other disruptions as some of the above comments and !votes indicate. There is a Manual of Style page on infoboxes which says: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article and that inclusion or exclusion is determined by consensus. You've been obviously complying with that already. The options here add to that the explicit requirement of talk page discussion to add or remove one and also clarify whether infoboxes should or should not be considered the default option. The rest of the questions will (optimistically) be clarified in later discussion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I imagined "talk page consensus" was different to implicit consensus (i.e., involving an actual talk page discussion). Only in death does duty end seemed to say that was not the case, in which case I can go on my way and consider this no further. However, Eggishorn has muddied this by saying that "the options here add to that the explicit requirement of talk page discussion to add or remove one." So, I'm still confused. The current consensus seems to be that I can WP:BOLDly add an infobox. All the options offered seem to involve adding to policy "explicit requirement of talk page discussion" before I can add an infobox. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jacknstock:, Only in death is correct, you don't have to change anything in your editing at this time. Whether you will in the future or not is still undetermined. Even if the RfC determines that talk page consensus is required, then simply stating you have added one is likely enough in the articles you have been editing (see (WP:SILENT). Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that all four listed options include "requires talk page consensus." Another option is to keep the current policy that does not require talk page consensus. I support this fifth option. The vast majority of editors implicitly (there's that word again) support the status quo; if not, we'd already have literally millions of discussions about infoboxes on talk pages, yet, from my experience, it appears the vast majority of articles with infoboxes do not have a discussion about the infobox on their talk pages. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
CommentThe Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted. A possible outcome of this discussion would be "No, do not adopt any policy", but the RfC jumps right into "What should the policy be?". I believe that the ArbCom remedy will be sufficient to address disruptive behavior that is already counter to our community standards without adopting additional policies. –dlthewave☎ 18:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm very concerned that everytime this is brought up, there is a broad group of editors very interested in shutting down any type of discussion about it, it doesn't seem right and it prevents us from having a meaningful discussion. Perhapse we need an administration intervention to start a discussion where users are not allowed to criticize the meta aspect of the discussion itself.I think, at this stage. this is the only way this can be sorted out. --Deathawk (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this is going to go close as status quo as I really don't see any huge movement to change things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I feel that the best resolution would be for us to reach a consensus on how different factors should be weighed in closing individual infobox discussions. If we reached such a consensus about meta issues, we could avoid much of the acrimony in discussion about infoboxes in individual articles. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment despite all the sturm und drang here, there actually is a consensus in most areas of the project as to where infoboxes are useful (with figures in the entertainment industry (actors, composers, etc.) being the primary exception). I don't see any of these options being beneficial at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
An RfC on the use of Wikidata in infoboxes has just started. Please !vote and/or comment on the RfC page.--Moxy (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2018 (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.
Articles about survivors of the Parkland shooting
It seems to be a violation of WP:BLP1E to have articles about the survivors of the Parkland shooting. I'm uncertain whether this extends to survivors who have been involved in major activist movements surrounding the event (my intuition is that they too do not pass WP:BLP1E, which would mean removing David Hogg and others). Regardless, the case of students who are only notable for expressing opinions on television, such as Kyle Kashuv, seems to be a clear violation of WP:BLP1E.
Because of the multi-article nature of this issue and its inherently political nature, I figured that it was best to come here first, as opposed to filing a dispute on those pages right off the bat. When Kyle Kashuv was nominated for deletion, editors voted to keep on the grounds that Kashuv was a "conservative media darling". However, their status as a darling is only relevant in connection to the event that made them famous, and doesn't seem to be sufficiently distinct from it to not violate WP:BLP1E. David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez were nominated for deletion toward the end of February, and the decision was keep due to the fact that media coverage had yet to wane. I'd argue that this itself is a violation of WP:TOOSOON, but that point is moot. Media coverage has now waned, and the activists of Never Again MSD have yet to be known for anything not related to that event.
These articles amount to self-promotion; it's absurd that teenagers who have been politically active for all of three months already have extremely detailed Wikipedia pages. Yes, part of this is due to the media attention and not necessarily the conceited work of promoters, but Wikipedia is not a news source and we should not be blindly following the lead of mass media sources and creating personality cults around teenagers. The fact that self-promotional content has been removed to provide a relatively neutral POV does not address the issue that creating the article in the first place was an act of self-promotion. Rosguill (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you saying that the creation of the articles was an act of self-promotion? Did the subjects of these articles create them? It seems to me that the news coverage of these individuals is more based on their activism than on their role in the shooting, so it's not clear to me that BLP1E applies. CapitalSasha ~ talk 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Having nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hogg (which I do not regret - I still think it should've been deleted at the time) - I do think Hogg passes WP:GNG for multiple events presently - as evidenced by a simple search for in google news - he is continuing to receive significant coverage for his activism (which is separate from the shooting, though drawing on it). I do however suspect that some of the other student survivors may not be notable going forward - but it is probably best to assess that in a year or so - seeing they (or many of them) passed AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with these statements. My original reason for arguing that even the more prominent activists are BLP1E is because I viewed their activism as essentially belonging to the same event as their original cause of notability.Rosguill (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Frankly I find your rationale for deletion for articles such as David Hogg based on them being "teenagers" to be somewhat puzzling. I await your call to delete Lamiya Aji Bashar's article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say that it's less that they're teenagers, and more that they've been politically active for less than half a year, around a single cause, directly related a single event without which they would not have received attention. Lamiya Aji Bashar has won a significant award, which is an immediate criterion for inclusion. Rosguill (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Many notable people can probably trace much of their career back to a single event. BIO1E says that we shouldn't have articles about people who are only notable for their role in a single event. But if that event leads to other things, then that's not just one event anymore. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I find disturbing the presumption that because a person is a survivor of the Parkland shooting, they now become permanently ineligible to have an article at Wikipedia about themselves, regardless of whatever else they do with their lives. It is self-evident that both of the cited examples, Hogg and Gonzalez, have articles that clearly demonstrate that they have done much more than simply being in the building when the shooting happened. If it were true that all that had been written about them was their presence in the building that day, then the OP may have a point, but in choosing examples to support their thesis, they have completely invalidated it. Hogg and Gonzalez have both received ample coverage of events in their lives which happened besides the shooting. If a specific individual were only noted in reliable sources solely because of their presence there, I would support deletion of that article. But the idea that because they were there, then their article should be deleted regardless of what else has been written about them seems very odd. I can in no way support such a notion. --Jayron32 14:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you see that I argue that any of these people are permanently illegible. My original position was that despite receiving attention from multiple news sources over the course of weeks, this attention was all sourced to a single event and its direct aftermath, and that it's misleading to conclude from this that they thus have lasting relevance beyond this event.Rosguill (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Every person you have cited above has information on coverage of multiple events which have occured at different dates, times, and places than the shooting itself. For that reason, they have perfectly legitimate reasons for supporting an existing article. To claim otherwise would be like claiming Martin Luther was ineligible because he was known for one event (nailing a piece of paper to a door), and that everything he did after that was related to that one event. --Jayron32 17:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
They're not actually being covered as "survivors of the Parkland shooting". Our article is quite clear - there were about 900 students in the building, if we were just covering the survivors we would have 900 articles, while we only have 10 or so, and they weren't really that involved in the event itself. They're being covered as activists related to gun safety (or gun rights). Being an activist is not an event, it is more of an occupation - we've lots and lots of articles about activists. So they happened to become activists because of an event very near them, that doesn't make them unique, plenty of activists become activists because of some specific event. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This argument convinces me with respect to the more prominent of the leaders of Never Again MSD.Rosguill (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I did particpate in this discussion, but despite that I am closing this as there is obvious, overwhelming support (around 90%, which is about as good as anything gets around here) for the change and leaving this open is unlikely to change that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings. I recently attempted to change the template on Wikipedia:Competence is required from "essay" to "explanatory supplement to WP:DE", reflecting my perception that the page is not just an opinion piece, but a thoroughly established, widely accepted concept that WP:DE itself references in its very lede. I was reverted on the basis that 'many editors' have a 'huge problem' with that page, and that it should not reflect any sort of community backing. Thus, I'm seeking a straightforward yes-or-no clarification on these conflicting perceptions: does WP:CIR have the community's backing, as its inclusion at WP:DE suggests? Thanks to all in advance. Swarm♠ 02:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Obvious support practice is policy and CIR is frequently used as justification for blocks. This is evident elsewhere even if not labeled CIR: unsourced blocks, copyright blocks, and any other indefinite block that is not based on someone being a jerk or vandal is a competency block. CIR is just a general principle that we apply daily. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Before seeing this I reverted the revert because people are blocked for CIR reasons. That will forever be the case because all the good faith in the world cannot help if an editor is unwilling or unable to follow advice about procedures. In the end we don't care if disruptive editing is due to obstinacy or incompetence, because an indef is often the kindest outcome to protect the community and CIR is an accurate and understandable reason. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ironically, the essay says it isn't a good idea to tell people who lack competence that they lack it, so pointing to the essay as a basis for blocking goes against the essay... Nonetheless, if someone is, for whatever reason, unsuited for collaborating in Wikipedia's community, I agree it's kinder to disengage, rather than offering false promise. isaacl (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support This deserves to be, and is already treated as, more than just an essay. What are these huge problems it is claimed that many editors have with CIR? I can see a discussion on what constitutes sufficient incompetence to warrant a block, but does anyone actually think that there is no level of incompetence sufficient to warrant blocking? That's taking "anyone can edit" too far. For example, I write only English and French, and would deserve (and expect) the equivalent of a CIR block on any other language Wikipedia if I were to attempt anything other than the most trivial of edits. Meters (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support, with the caveat that the practice of CIR blocks should be applied taking the essay into account. Users should be given specific feedback when they are blocked, and not simply linked to the essay or be accused of lacking competence (as the essay suggests). Such blocks should be made for repeated behaviour that demonstrates a lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines, when there is no indication that the blocked individual will change their behaviour. Maybe someone who is better at prose construction than I am can come up with a more concise way of saying that. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - Such blocks are clearly preventing disruption to article space. Now it is possible that something akin to a "standard offer" should be considered since some of the editors may gain competence over time though I would not know where to begin in adding this possibility to the CIR guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 05:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Competence is definitely required to actively edit here. I'd be interested to learn why Oiyarbepsy objects to the hatnote change. Has anyone tried asking him? I looked at User talk:Oiyarbepsy/Archive 16 and User talk:Oiyarbepsy and didn't see a thread off-hand. Swarm, is there a reason you didn't post this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Competence is required? That seems like the more natural place, with a pointer from here. Or at least have a pointer from Wikipedia talk:Competence is required to this discussion. (I've now handled pinging Oiyarbepsy for you with this note.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This issue (is CIR supported?) arises periodically and I think discussing it on this policy page is best. It is at Template:Centralized discussion which is also good to get wide input. I just added a pointer to here on WT:Competence is required. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support of course. Double sharp (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear god YES Obvious support, at least on principle. While it is nice to be able to immediately spot a disruptive wikilawyer by their invoking the "It's just an essay" meme in relation to this particular page (and WP:BRD), or even refer to its citation as "uncivil" or a "personal attack" (when it is in fact the most AGF explanation for a lot of problems), obviously this makes sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support, it's definitely more than an essay. SarahSV(talk) 06:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support per all the above. It's one of those things that should go without saying, but sometimes it needs to be said! LugnutsFire Walk with Me 06:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support – Yes, I also agree that "explanatory supplement" is an accurate description of the community's views on the page. Mz7 (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to clarify my comment a bit for the editors who feel that the essay is uncivil. I agree that in general, it is not okay to tell someone, "You're incompetent", on Wikipedia, especially in response to something like a content dispute. I think, however, that the page is useful in practice as a supplement to WP:DE because it is a more coherent way to express the principle that "a disruptive editor can still be sanctioned even if they are contributing in good faith". It is not a tool to be used as an argument in a content dispute (that would be a personal attack), but guidance in cases where we have a good faith editor who is persistently being disruptive. I would generally advise admins to avoid using WP:CIR directly in a block reason and instead explain exactly what the disruptive edits were, and indeed, the page itself sort of recommends this practice as well (WP:CIR#This essay...). However, as a matter of being there for guidance, I think "explanatory supplement" is an accurate description of the page. Mz7 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - per all the above. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support yeah, basically reflecting practice and common sense Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support already possessing competence is not, and should never be, a requirement for starting to edit here. But willingness to acquire it is, and should remain, essential. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Hell, I'd make it a policy. Yunshui雲水 08:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Second that. Ping me when the day comes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support If I did not support this, I would be saying that incompetence is acceptable, and that would make me incompetent. Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Yes. I saw it in action in the attempt by several experienced and patient editors to onboard a new user and ex-univ. professor, which ultimately foundered on the shoals of CIR despite everyone's best efforts. A frustrating but enlightening experience, but another proof, if one was needed, of this indispensable facet of being a successful editor.
That said, if this motion passes as it appears to be doing, I'd like to request that the lead be tightened up. Normally, one can expect a clear statement of what the essay or guideline is about in the first sentence or at least the first paragraph; imho however, the real meat about what CIR means is first mentioned only in the second half of the third paragraph. In the meantime, this proposal deserves our support. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. Of course. The one-sided edit-warring on Wikipedia:Competence is required was inappropriate and border-line disruptive. Ironically, competence comes to mind! SilkTork (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. I'd make it a policy too. I've handed out my fair share of indefinite blocks where the underlying reason is insufficient proficiency in English (the symptoms being copyvio and failure to communicate). MER-C 09:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think it needs some cosmetic work before being established as policy, but I support that as well. It's not my favorite, and might be insulting or a candidate for over-use, but the fact remains that, more than anything else, it is true; it will be applied regardless of its existence. Anyone can edit, but once we get into some weightier discussions or disruptions, competence is required, and the stronger and clearer we make this the better and less ripe for abuse it will be. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 09:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes As a community which seeks to be inclusive we have to draw lines somewhere. I also like the recent change elevating the status of that rule from "essay" to "supplement". Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The trouble is that "competency is required" doesn't draw a line, certainly not a fine line. It draws a ridiculously broad line. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Comment: Per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Considering we are having a thorough discussion about this now, shouldn't we consider making it a guideline instead? On a side note, I restored the "essay" tag for purely procedural reasons since the discussion is still ongoing and should conclude before the tag is changed to avoid appearance of bias. While the consensus seems pretty clear so far, the RFC has not even been open for half a day, so let's allow those challenging the change to make their argument as well before we decide whether to make a change. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support because obvious is obvious... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP. The difference between an essay and explanatory supplement is inconsequential – we should not have so many levels of complication and nuance. And the page itself is imprecise and unclear with irrelevant tangents about other issues such as the bearing of grudges. Competence in a general sense is clearly not required as we generally encourage new editors to be bold and even veterans have many gaps in their knowledge. For example, the editor Giano is dyslexic but has worked on many FA-level pages and so teamwork and collaboration is more important than omniscience and virtuosity. My impression is that what's really wanted is not competence but some other traits such as compliance or conformity. Until the page makes this clearer, it should not be used as a vague, blank cheque for arbitrary sanctions. Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: Dyslexia =/= incompetence. Most of the time I've seen CIR invoked (in ANI discussions), it rather describes an editor who is incompetent to engage in teamwork and collaboration: this is actually the case in an ANI thread you just commented on earlier today and another earlier in the week. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
When I commented, the page in question clearly stated that "language difficulty" was a valid example. When the page was first written, it talked of "language incompetence". Now I notice that the page is being massively rewritten so who knows what it will say by the time the RfC is over? We're getting a pig in a poke now and so the RfC should be voided until we have a stable text. A consensus cannot be claimed for a text which has been changed partway through the process. Andrew D. (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The "language difficulty" thing clearly referred to non-native speakers of English who have difficulty communicating, or even editing articles without copy-pasting large chunks of text. Nothing to do with dyslexia -- everyone is a non-native speaker of some language, so implying that there was something ablist about the text of the essay seems like a needless attempt to smear it. On top of this, it just came to my attention that AD has himself recently been issued with a threat of sanctions for CIR behaviour,[1] in editing in specialist topic areas without familiarizing himself sufficiently with these topics (and perhaps should be warned more broadly than on just the Indian castes topic); whether or not this has coloured his perception of CIR and he is acting out against it as a result can be left in the air, but the fact that editors can be sanctioned and AD definitely knows this is just evidence that CIR already has, in principle, the status of a policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. This is a collaborative project. The ability to work cooperatively with other editors is a must. An inability to do so, whatever the underlying reason, is unacceptable, particularly when it wastes our most precious resource - volunteer time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. A well-established essay that is already a de facto official recommendation. Experience shows that this is one of the most essential "rules" on Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose Regardless of its intended purpose, in real life, this essay serves to insult people who happen to disagree with another person's edits. There is no fucking way in hell that this essay, a blatant violation of everything we claim to believe about civility, should be promoted to be anything more than an opinion. The multiple deletion nominations should be a huge red flag that there's a big problem with this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing uncivil about the essay at all. It is extremely polite and restrained. This is the same thing as WP:VANDAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE or WP:SOCK. Sure, in reality, there are (incompetent) editors who wrongfully accuse others of vandalism, disruptive editing or sock puppetry (for example because they disagree with them). This doesn't mean that WP:VANDAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE or WP:SOCK shouldn't exist or that these essential rules are impolite. Wikipedia cannot work properly without them.—J. M. (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy: Your last sentence is curious. The page has been nominated for deletion twice (not "multiple" times like you claim): once in 2011 and once in 2015. In 2011, the nomination was universally opposed and withdrawn by the nominator. The 2015 nomination was supported by you and one other (a sock-abuser whose account was globally locked the same day they !voted) before being closed as SNOW keep. Essentially what it seems like you are saying is that the page should not be promoted because you and three other users (one of whom is blocked for socking) don't like it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I added a bit back in January to try to better address exactly your point, and it seems to have stuck fairly well. GMGtalk 13:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes The idea that we would knowingly permit incompetents to edit the encyclopedia is simply bizarre. Sadly I have had to block a handful of editors on CIR grounds and the one and only editor I have placed under WP:ACDS editing restrictions was for CIR reasons. IMO WP:CIR is so widely accepted and cited, it constitutes a de-facto guideline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I agree CIR is an accepted issued throughout WP and do not disagree that we should warn editors when they show CIR behavior. But raising past an essay to a guideline, meaning that it can start to be enforced, raises several issues that could see action taken against newer editors, those with english as a second language, or other situations where their editors trying to learn the ropes of how to work with WP could be seen as incompetence and lead to premature admin actions. CIR in association with other problematic behavior is certainly a blockable issue, but CIR alone should be very very carefully judged before a block issued against CIR is used. --Masem (t) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that the misunderstanding here is that WP:CIR should be a guideline. It will not be a guideline because it is not a guideline (and it was never written as a guideline). It is an explanation, and that is exactly what this suggestion is about: make it an official explanatory supplement to WP:DE. WP:CIR will not stand on its own, separated from guidelines such as WP:DE.—J. M. (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - This is not the opinion of a handful of editors. This is a de facto policy which has been pretty much agreed upon by the entire editing community - competence is required. If you are not competent to edit, you do not edit. Simple.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The mission statement does not include qualifications. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course there are qualifications. There are clear rules such as no spamming, no vandalising, no disruptive editing. That's why the blocking policy mentions editing privileges, not editing rights. A disruptive user (whether intentionally disruptive or just incompetent) may lose their editing privileges. WP:CIR merely explains one form of disruptive editing: unintentional disruptive editing. But disruptive editing is disruptive, whether it is intentional or unintentional.—J. M. (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
That is an excessively legalistic interpretation of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It is true, anyone can edit Wikipedia, relative to an actual paper encyclopedia in which only a select body of writers and editors can make changes. I can go onto the Donald Trump article right now and put that he's a big orange-haired lizardman from space. I can do this. That does not mean that I should. That "anyone can edit" does not in and of itself mean anyone who demonstrates proclivities contrary to the mission of the project can be allowed to continue editing interminably. And subsequently therefore, anyone who demonstrates an inability to edit competently will, as J.M. stated above, lose their editing privileges. Theoretically, they can still edit under a different IP address, though we obviously don't endorse this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can edit is not the same thing as Everyone can edit. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - While WP:AGF is a principle, there does come a point where it's unreasonable to distinguish between bad-faith disruptive editing and good-faith but incompetent disruptive editing. It is not an excuse to bite new editors or punish the occasional mistake, but if an editor is truly editing and learning in good faith then their own actions should eventually exempt them from CIR being applicable. If nothing else, we need CIR to dissuade trolls from just claiming over and over that they're "only learning." Ian.thomson (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support In many discussions at Wikipedia, for many a year, WP:CIR has been given weight to indicate that the community clearly considers it good guidance. The terminology at the page should reflect that, as being more than a mere essay. --Jayron32 14:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose endorsing essay beyond its current station. It already achieves more by its measure than rightfully due. Sadly, I've seen it misused to bludgeon competent editors unwilling to conform and prefer that such proffering not be done in my name. 90% of the competency required to edit Wikipedia is evident by the edit's manifestation. It's the remaining 10%, more closely scrutinized, where problematic editing is born. Over reliance on this essay is a sign of incompetence itself; a lazy refusal or inability to cite the actual problem at hand. Let us not encourage it more.--John Cline (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I will note, by comparison, "vandalism" is frequently misused as a term to bludgeon ones opponents in a dispute, but that is not rationale to downgrade WP:VAND to an essay; by comparison CIR is as valid a principle as "don't vandalize Wikipedia intentionally" is; that people misuse doesn't mean it isn't valid. We have to deal with that for every concept at Wikipedia. The rationale that this concept is any different only because people may misuse it doesn't make it different than any other. I have no objection to a well reasoned oppose here, but you're hanging your entire rationale for opposing on spurious grounds. --Jayron32 15:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Having been on the receiving end, I don't accept that my rationale hangs on spurious grounds. I resent having to defend my stance and will not acknowledge further prompting. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Peter Coxhead summed it up most eloquently. Blackmane (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support CIR hasn't just been an essay for a long time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support upgrade; policy and our documents should reflect rather than define actual practice. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support make this into a supplement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
No telling a person they are not competent to edit is a personal attack. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
It isn't. When we block a vandal for vandalism, a diruptive editor for disruptive editing, a spammer for spamming, it is not a personal attack to call them vandals, spammers, or to call their edits disruptive. This is what we do every day. A spade has to be called a spade. And since WP:CIR is just a supplement to the already existing WP:DE guideline, an incompetent editor will be blocked only if their edits are disruptive. WP:CIR is not about telling people they are incompetent.—J. M. (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You're making my point for me. You don't need to call the editor incompetent but the edits disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since you're here, it's only been eleven years. Have you found mainspace yet? GMGtalk 16:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
How does attacking me have any relevance here? There's no edit count requirement to participate here. We're all here because we love Wikipedia and want to see it succeed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah. So no. Here's a helpful link then. You know, being here primarily for the purpose of having an opinion doesn't actually really help us build a better encyclopedia all that much. GMGtalk 17:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that people who are criticizing WP:CIR didn't actually read it. Calling people incompetent is absolutely not the point of WP:CIR and the essay actually says that explicitly and clearly. It merely discusses one aspect of disruptive editing in more detail, which is very useful for recognizing and dealing with certain behavioral patterns.—J. M. (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support making WP:CIR an explanatory supplement to WP:DE per the arguments of others above. This just clarifies what is already common practice: on a collaborative project, repeated incompetence (whether badfaith or not) is disruptive. Ajpolino (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support If I could travel back in time I would name that essay "Abilities are required". If you join a volunteer choir you need the ability to show up for rehearsal, remember the words, and sing. If you consistently show you can't hold a tune, you're going to be asked to leave (or "promoted" to administration - hmmmmm). Same thing here. If you don't show or can't learn basic technical, language, and social abilities then eventually you're going to get blocked. This is different from disruptive editing where you possess the required abilities but don't care to use them, for a variety of reasons. --NeilNtalk to me 18:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps "Capability is required". Being able and being capable are 2 different things. Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support I have some qualms with some of the wording, but an explanatory supplement is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. It's clearly more than an essay. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support I have seen too many editors not having a clue how to write in the English language. (and other failings) The Bannertalk 18:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support Jayron32 version per above. While CIR may not fit a dictionary definition of "disruptive editing", it appropriately discusses the disruptive editing norms on Wikipedia. wumbolo^^^ 18:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
OPPOSE in the strongest possible way Wikipedia has gotten by pretty well without this as a policy, so I'd suggest we don't need it right now. It's instruction creep and bitey, and against the very raison d'etre of Wikipedia. We all remember what wiki means, and the point of anybody being able to do anything. You don't need this as policy, you just need to issue a good trout slap. HidingT 20:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
When you are opposing something (especially in the strongest possible way), you should know what you are opposing in the first place. Nobody suggests this as a policy. (BTW, competence is required for trout slapping, too. Not only for the person who whacks someone, but there is no point in whacking an incompetent person with a trout, as a really incompetent person is incapable of realizing they are incompetent or that there is anything wrong with their actions. This is the Dunning–Kruger effect mentioned in WP:CIR.)—J. M. (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, several editors in this thread have suggested to make it a policy, but that is not the matter under discussion here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming community support for this page, I'm regretting not proposing we formally upgrade it to a guideline. Perhaps a followup RfC is warranted? That said, this isn't an RfC on making this a policy. @Hiding: Perhaps you should have read the RfC question before opposing a completely unrelated concept? Swarm♠ 22:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm:@J. M.: Five people before I entered the discussion commented to the effect this should be a policy. The discussion is not limiting itself to the question raised in the rfc, and I am engaging with the discussion and seeking to guide consensus. An I not within my rights to disagree with those people in this debate that risk to have this made policy or guideline and express that here? I note nobody has challenged those editors the way I have been. Curious... HidingT 08:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
See aristocracy. The real problem with WP:CIR is its non-specificity. It makes more mysterious what is called for. Its use generates aristocracy—an "in" group and an "out" group. I can think of no reason we need to invoke WP:CIR. All that is called for is a specific articulation of the problem. This clarifies for the problematic editor and it re-articulates those best-practices for all onlookers. WP:CIR is a broad cudgel when specific articulation is called for. There are good-natured guidelines and there are invective-oriented guidelines. Compare WP:Assume good faith to WP:CIR. One is positive while the other is caustic. It is OK to use broad language if it is not hurting anyone. But when true negative criticism is called for, we should try to be specific. (I'm using the term "guidelines" loosely, whether or not these are truly "guidelines".) Bus stop (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Every single policy, guideline or supplement on Wikipedia that rejects unacceptable traits in editors (such as promotional or tendentious editing, vandalising or simply chronic lack of competence described also in the broad "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia" description, which is one of the common rationales used by admins for blocks, too) generates an "in" group and an "out" group, if you really, desperately want to look at it that way. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. It is inevitable. "Good-natured guidelines" like AGF are limited and cannot describe things described in the more negative ones. WP:CIR is not invective-oriented (there are no invectives in it at all, it is purely descriptive, observational and largely very positive), and definitely not written from an aristocratic point of view. It only describes the problem, neutrally but accurately, without judging people as "superior" and "inferior". Describing the problem, naming it, is necessary. Problems thrive in an environment where naming them is prohibited. This is a proven historical fact. Basically, there are only two types of Wikipedians: those who haven't met an incompetent editor, and those who have been here for some time. Experience confirms that dealing with incompetent editors is one of the most painful and desperate ways of spending time here. This is where WP:CIR comes in so handy. As a description, explanation, guidance, and last but not least, as moral support.—J. M. (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
You say that "Describing the problem, naming it, is necessary". WP:CIR does not describe the problem, except very broadly. You say "Problems thrive in an environment where naming them is prohibited." The problem is always more specific than that "competence is required". It is repetitiveness (of which I'm guilty now) or spamming or copyright infringement or incivility or some other specifiable problem. Please tell we why we would need to invoke the broad heading that is WP:CIR. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not written as a guideline ("Guidelines are sets of best practices"). It would have to be substantially rewritten, and I'm not sure how. I think WP:DE should actually be expanded and introduce two main categories of DE: intentional and unintentional (and explain that in the end, it does not really matter if the disruption is unintentional). The latter should offer a brief overview and point to WP:CIR as the main article.—J. M. (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. WP:CIR has long been used. Yes, it is not a red cape to wave in front of a difficult editor, but it is something to use when considering how best to protect the encyclopedia. Glrx (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a terrible idea. The WP:ESSAY known as Competence is required is bad enough. It needs no greater heft. We all have a burden to bear. That burden is that of accommodating other editors. Some of us have learned to express ourselves verbally and others are still learning to do so and are struggling with it. This essay is too broad. The burden is on every one of us to articulate a complaint tailored to the exact problem observed. Nothing is accomplished by referencing a broad essay like this one. And brief blocks are called for to alert the would-be editor of the need to interact socially in this collaborative environment. Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia has to bear the works of an editor who does not understand the principles of copyright. And when explained ten times, refuses to adhere to copyrights? The Bannertalk 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. And long before the tenth time they should be blocked. This essay is verbal abuse. It is preferable to block the editor. Why do you suppose the page needs the cautionary advice "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors"? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Mr Ernie. You cannot call someone incompetent without also insulting them on a personal level. If anything, CIR should be amended such that it doesn't read so arrogant - whoever wrote that clearly deems himself or herself "competent" but some unnamed parties "incompetent" (read: inferior). Banedon (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I still wonder where people get the idea that WP:CIR is about calling people incompetent. It just isn't. In fact, it is already so cautiously amended, edited and diluted with courteous benevolence that it almost doesn't say anything anymore. When you have to block someone for disruptive editing, incorrigible incompetence, vandalism, spamming etc., you have to say they are blocked for disruptive editing, incorrigible incompetence, vandalism, spamming etc. And yes, there are demonstrably people who are competent and people who are not. Policies, guidelines and supplements should naturally be written by the former, while many of our policies, guidelines and supplements inevitably describe features of the latter—there is nothing arrogant about it, and this applies to many standard guidelines like WP:VANDAL or WP:DE. If a vandal, spammer, disruptive or incompetent editor takes offense at being called a vandal, spammer, disruptive or incompetent editor, I don't think that's anything Wikipedia should be concerned about.—J. M. (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
You say you wonder where people get the idea that WP:CIR is about calling people incompetent, yet you use the word "incompetence" later as well. I don't see how saying "I'm blocking you because of WP:CIR" does not carry the implication that "I'm blocking you because you are incompetent". Of the other examples you raise, vandalism & spamming violates good faith and so are different. "Disruptive" is a less loaded word. Incompetence is almost always bad, but disruptive isn't - disruptive innovation is actively good. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Using the word "incompetence" in a general discussion does not mean calling people incompetent. This is not what WP:CIR is about at all. Disruptive editing on Wikipedia is always bad. Even if it occurs in good faith. Incompetence itself is not a reason for blocking anyone. Disruptive editing is. (To give you one more controversial example: Pedophilia is not evil by itself. Child sexual abuse is. If an incompetent editor does not make any edits or only makes simple edits that are not disruptive, there is no problem.) The only point of WP:CIR is explaining this specific form of disruption in more detail. Calling people incompetent is not its purpose at all. The word incompetence only naturally occurs in the essay because you cannot discuss the issue without it.—J. M. (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you are calling me incompetent, but your agreeing that you cannot discuss CIR without using the word incompetent backs my point up. Quoting CIR on anyone implies they are incompetent, and that word is too loaded to not offend. There's no way to avoid it. Disruptive editing is always bad and blocks should be handed out for that, but the block should be because of disruptive editing and not because of incompetence. You can argue that CIR's purpose isn't to call anyone incompetent, but that's what it comes across as. Banedon (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
J. M.—labels can be problematic. Can't an editor be blocked for a specific problematic behavior, or do we need reference to a broad category of behavior? You mentioned spamming. You say to that editor that they are using Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle, and if they don't stop, they will be blocked. In other words you use plain English to endorse our commonly understood practices about the contrived placement of material meant to advertise some entity that an editor may be linked to. You don't need the broad tract of writing called "competence is required" to accomplish that. You don't need to use a nuclear weapon instead of a flyswatter. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
An editor should always be blocked for specific problematic behavior, but sometimes incompetence is exactly the specific problematic behavior, or at least the most accessible description. You can warn a spammer or a vandal, and sometimes it even helps. The typical problem with incompetent editors is that they ignore everything and everyone, they are often incapable of understanding the problem. So, as WP:CIR explains, you give them a couple of chances, but when they keep doing the same things and ignoring everything, using the broader WP:CIR rationale in the block summary may be a suitable option. But again, calling editors incompetent is not the point of WP:CIR. The purpose of the essay is describing this common pattern of behavior, and giving advice on how to handle it. It specifically says it is meant for internal discussion (which is very useful—you cannot discuss and fully understand the issue without naming it), not primarily for public labelling.—J. M. (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The essay is unnecessary. There are commonly understood problematic behaviors and they can be addressed with blocks of increasing length. You say "sometimes incompetence is exactly the specific problematic behavior". No, incompetence is never the specific problematic behavior. Incompetence is a general heading for a collection of problematic behaviors. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree somewhat in regards to the labeling of editors. Certain words have become triggers for editors such that when any one of them is used, it triggers the recall of an essay/guideline/policy which can be used to slap down or block another editor . CIR is an obvious one, Tendentious and Disruptive are others. In many cases, the blocks and sanctions are justified but WP does tend to overuse such terms. Blackmane (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Regardless how one feels about the status of CIR. This edit certainly does reflect the attitude and consensus of the community, and therefore should be made. (I do agree with it though CIR ‘’’is’’’ important).—-AdamF in MO (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. Have you been reading my latest essay by any chance? In fact, I'd support its promotion to a guideline. It is certainly an essay in name only. Adam9007 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - I haven't ever used this "against" somebody but this is the English WP and competence to write clear in clear English is required. Also I have been involved in discussions with editors who obviously have not the slightest knowledge of the subject they are editing in.Smeat75 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support as an overdue change that should have been made a long time ago. In an educational collaborative setting where virtually everybody is allowed equal chance to edit then CIR issue is inevitable and this essay discuss that aspect brilliantly. In addition, (like some comments above), I think this change is largely inconsequential and this site-wide RfC has the prerogative of upgrading this well-established essay WP:CIR to guideline (or even a policy, per Yunshui et al.) which will be more effective and meaningful. Nonetheless, the proposed change is better than none. It is a one step forward. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - CIR should definitely be elevated to a higher standard than an essay, and in doing so I think it will be more clearly and effectively used. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support including it as an explanatory supplement to WP:DE, for the many reasons mentioned above. Competence is required for the project to function successfully. Richard0612 13:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support inclusion as a explanatory supplement to WP:DE. Over at WP:ANI editors are blocked using this rationale as it's part of disruptive editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - In some ways I disagree with it because it does come across as a personal attack or I guess could be perceived as such ... but on the other hand as noted above we call vandals = vandals, spammers = spammers and the choir example by NeilN is a great example too - You need to have the competency to edit here (just like you would with a job),
Also CIR has always been more than just an essay and as noted is a supplement of DE so we may aswell "approve" it, Overall I support. –Davey2010Talk 14:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
So why would we use a "personal attack" as a standard tract in our reasoning to be leveled against a potential editor? This is counterproductive. If the editor is engaging in vandalism then it follows that we should level the specific charge of vandalism against them. If the editor is engaging in spamming then it follows that we should level the specific charge of spamming against them. I haven't read this entire thread, but has anyone explained why the broad heading of "incompetency" is needed? I have always found it ridiculously offensive. It fails to provide constructive criticism. Even terms like "tendentious" and "disruptive" illuminate a sort of problem that can be rectified. But "incompetence" seems permanent and beyond the possibility of remediation. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Too me I just feel it is, "You've been blocked because you're an idiot" is realistically how i see it, I'd rather not get bogged down in whether this is a PA or not that's just how I see it really. –Davey2010Talk 15:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess a lot of editors favor the implications invoked in calling a potential editor "incompetent". Judging by the number of supports there is little inclination to use more specific language. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - As one of the most explanatory pages on conduct that highlights concerns with numerous types of misconduct that frequently occurs here. The page on WP:CIR is one of those pages that show how to deal with editors. We have handed blocks for WP:CIR[2] as well. Capitals00 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - We all have limitations. Most of us have some awareness of our limitations and attempt to operate within them. It's destructive and costly when an editor persistently fails to do so, and we need a way to deal with that. For example, there is no policy against introducing grammatical errors or just unacceptably poor wording, and there needs to be a way to say, "We're sorry but we can't allow you to edit the encyclopedia anymore, and this is why." For now, CIR is it, and it merits higher status than a widely-held opinion—I haven't given it much thought before now, but it's wrong to indef people with an essay as the main basis. While we try to accomplish both, Wikipedia's mission is to build and maintain an encyclopedia, not to give people something rewarding to do with their spare time. The product must come before the personal needs of any individual, and nobody has a constitutional right to edit. I'm sorry if that's too tough a stance for some folks. As for "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"—it's a marketing slogan, not one of the pillars, and marketing is never completely and literally true. The few editors taking the slogan literally should stop doing so. ―Mandruss☎ 16:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support As reflecting already established practice. Blocking or banning for incompetence is no fun for anyone involved, but sometimes it must be done, and it is, so this move makes perfect sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support I really much rather oppose but that would require actually thinking up some rationale, and try as I might,t he best I can come up with "we've gotten along without it" which completly lousy. And the rest of the opposes are not that good. Act right or go night night. L3X1◊distænt write◊ 19:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Support I don't see how you can dispute the assertion that there is some level of competence required to edit Wikipedia in a non-disruptive way, and WP:CIR does a pretty good job of outlining what that is and how editors who don't have it should be dealt with. If labelling disruptive editing as such was considered an unacceptable personal attack then it would be impossible to deal with at all. Hut 8.5 20:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
No and yes. Is competence required? Absolutely. But should that particular essay be promoted? No. It's written like an essay. To make it anything other than an essay requires a complete rewrite. (Also, I would remove the "social" subsection, which, though it does make an important point, is too easily turned into a requirement for conformity of personal style.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted that WP:CIR is not protected from editing. We could do a rewrite of it to make it more compliant with the expected tone of such a page. I myself have been doing so in bits and pieces. You (or anyone else) is allowed to also. No one has tried to stop you... --Jayron32 12:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Conditional Support. Change wording from "competence", which from its legal use connotes something you must possess to be considered a functional human being, to a word such as "diligence". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That’s rather silly. This clearly is not using it in the legal sense but rather the commonly understood meaning in spoken and written English. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not silly at all. It's simply a minority view. What is silly is when Wikipedia's leadership shows a preference for alienating the smallest minority of the Community when the entire CIR mission can easily be met with no such alienation at all. Do you really think this person came here to !vote so he or she could be told how silly his or her comment was?
It's intuitive that as people come to our site they will individually have their own personal understanding, and inevitable that some will interpret incompetence as an offensive pejorative. And they will bear that offense until someone of higher competence comes along and tells them how silly they are; teaching them the wiki-way (or they may leave instead).
Perhaps this is reflective of volunteer leadership because competence really is required to be paid, and no employer would pay for this kind of leadership; forgoing a lexicon of effective, stigma free, verbiage for its inflammatory counterpart. What's even more silly, is that I am preparing to post this comment, knowing it will alienate me, a little bit more (all for a lil ole essay with a cutesy wootsy name).
"Collaboration" doesn't cut it either. It is only one area of competence that is required.—J. M. (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's entirely possible to diligently make the encyclopedia worse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Competence and diligence are two very different things. Diligence without competence is useless for improving Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah. So that's why some people find the word competence to be insulting. Some folks are thinking they are being told they are lacking in mental capacity or intelligence. Perhaps it might be worth making clear that we mean something closer to Four stages of competence, and that users who remain at stage one unwittingly cause damage to the encyclopedia. SilkTork (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Well worth clarification indeed. I havn't seen the four stages link until today. Pardon my learning curve, and my misplaced zeal.--John Cline (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
"In 2006, Swartz wrote an analysis of how Wikipedia articles are written, and concluded that the bulk of the actual content comes from tens of thousands of occasional contributors, or 'outsiders', each of whom may not make many other contributions to the site, while a core group of 500 to 1,000 regular editors tend to correct spelling and other formatting errors." Are these "tens of thousands of occasional contributors" competent? Well, yes and no. They are highly competent in their particular area of interest. But they would likely be somewhat incompetent in the areas that involve putting polish on an article and in general maintaining the highest standards of quality. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, I'm not sure from the various comments that you have made on this page, and - indeed - the amount of comments, that you have quite got what CIR is about. I replied to you earlier, but I'm not sure if you've read that yet. CIR is not about people who are not experienced Wikipedians, or are only skilled in one areas. CIR is about those people who are at stage one of Four stages of competence, and no amount of advice has brought them out of stage one, so in their well meaning ignorance they are damaging the encyclopedia. CIR was written to show to admins that it is acceptable to block these well meaning people who through their inability to see that they are a problem, and their unwillingness or inability to learn, are causing a problem. By our ethos, our guidelines, and significantly by the nature of the sort of people who work on Wikipedia, we give people a chance, help them, and assume good faith. CIR was written to say that we should not extend "assume good faith" so far that we end up assisting someone to damage Wikipedia on a daily basis. Once it is established that someone is locked on stage one of Four stages of competence, and we have tried to bring them out of that but failed, then the best thing we can do in order to prevent further damage is to block them. The aim is not to remove people who are doing good in minor ways (such as those contributors you mention above) in order to make room for the big contributors who write Featured Articles. The aim is to remove disruptive people who are damaging Wikipedia by making repeated mistakes, and are not responding appropriately to offers of assistance. All of us here make mistakes, and we all have a different learning curve. The incompetent people we are talking about make mistakes, but don't have a learning curve, so they keep making mistakes. After offering them advice our only options left are to allow them to keep on making mistakes, and to go round after them mending their mistakes, or to block them. CIR allows us to block them as the most effective remedy. SilkTork (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
SilkTork—I have read both of your responses to me. In my opinion the only question is whether an admin can articulate a reason for blocking an editor. This essay is only serving the dubious purpose of sparing the admin the required analysis of a problem and the required crafting of a response that makes clear to the problematic editor and to all onlookers what our standards are and where the would-be editor is falling short of our standards. This need not be a lengthy response but it should be appropriate to the problem at hand. In my opinion part of the job of an admin is an educational one. I consider this essay possibly detrimental because of its potential for bypassing the necessary verbal articulation of a specific problem. It is a cookie-cutter solution. It is a shotgun approach. It covers all bases—and that is precisely the problem. Bus stop (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, I don't think your complaint is about CIR, because of all pages articulating dealing with disruption, it is the one - and has been since it was first written in 2008 - that lays out the most that we should help other users before blocking them. It has always emphasised that. It might be worth your while to read it through carefully. Spend some time with it. Look at its history. Get to understand it. Learn about it. Your concern, that an admin should be able to articulate a reason for blocking someone, applies to all blocking actions. CIR is one of the articulated reasons for blocking someone, and blocking someone for CIR generally comes at the end of a period of having offered assistance and guidance. It doesn't need to be the blocking admin who has offered that assistance, but there should be evidence of at least one person having spoken to the user without positive response before they are blocked. Other forms of disruption do not require as much evidence before an admin can block, though only in the most egregious cases of damaging vandalism does an admin block without someone having reached out to that person first, and at least given them a warning. CIR is generally one of the most time-consuming rationales for blocking someone, as it is expected that there will be a pattern of the user having not responded to assistance or advice. Your complaint therefore does not apply to CIR. Before responding again to me or anyone else on this page, I would advise you to spend some more time learning about CIR, you might then see what its intention is, and how it works. SilkTork (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Support marking CIR as explana tory supplement to WP:DE. Broadly supported, extensively vetted, useful, and already de facto treated as such. Alsee (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment I made a new link (WP:CIRNOT) that lists what this essay is NOT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support- sadly it's sometimes necessary to block or ban people for CIR grounds. Some people perform weird mainspace edits that make articles worse, or waste people's time in discussions with bizarre argumentation that bears no resemblance to reality, and it's often unclear whether they're being annoying on purpose or just genuinely inept. Whatever the reason, there's a limit to how much disruption we should have to endure. And CIR bans reflect the fact that ongoing disruption doesn't become OK even if we assume it's being done in good faith. ReykYO! 06:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You say "it's often unclear whether they're being annoying on purpose or just genuinely inept". The fact of the matter is that you never know if this sort of thing is being done inadvertently or deliberately. We need only be concerned with the problem. We do not need to find out whether it is inadvertent or deliberate. It is the problem that must be addressed. The problem is a specific thing. It may fall under the umbrella term of "incompetence" but it has its own name, specific to that problem, whether it be vandalism or spamming, or failure to get consensus for a disputed change to an article combined with a refusal to use the Talk page in conformance with our Talk page guidelines to try to resolve the editorial dispute. There is always a specific reason that can be cited for warning and then blocking an editor. This essay, Competence is required, merely puts all those specific reasons under one umbrella term. That is all that it accomplishes. Why would we choose a chainsaw as tool to do delicate surgery? This is counterproductive and yet the vast majority of editors favor this approach. Is there some reason so many are so enamored of this essay? I mean, seriously, no one is saying why an umbrella term is preferable to the specific name of the problem at hand. And by the way, we already have fairly general terms such as "tendentious" and "disruptive" that can serve to cover problems that are difficult to define. "Incompetent" is far more broad in meaning than either of those terms. My argument is that we should prefer terms of appropriate specificity. I contend that "competence" is an overly broad term for any use that can be contemplated at our project. This essay should not be given the status of "explanatory supplement to WP:DE" as that would be a step in the wrong direction. Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
That’s a self-defeating argument. Policies, guidelines, etc are supposed to reflect what we already do as opposed to dictate what we should do, and you acknowledge that we do already treat this essay as a supplement to DE, so whether you happen to like that or not just is not relevant. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I understanding what you are thinking, but you seem to be looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. Disruption is the broad term; incompetence is one example of how people can disrupt the project. We can certainly break the incompetence down into finer areas, which is what the page does, but incompetence will always remain a specific and discrete subset of disruption which needs to be tackled in a specific way. People may be disruptive because they get angry with a particular user. People may be disruptive because they have strong views on a certain topic. People may be wilfully disruptive. People may be disruptive because they are making mistakes and are not learning from their mistakes even when people help them. We have essays and guidelines to deal with all these different sorts of disruption. CIR is the essay that tells an admin that it is acceptable to block a user who does not learn from their mistakes. Without CIR, because the user is making the mistakes in good faith, we might continue to assume good faith and the encyclopedia continues to be damaged. CIR gives admins the confidence that the community says it's OK to block those users who are disruptive because they are unable to learn from their mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support, common (and good) practice to sometimes stop editors on CIR grounds. I am not opposed to improving the name if that is possible. —Kusma (t·c) 12:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support the concept as it's generally been used rather than any specific one of the 20 versions it's been through since this RfC started. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. It's a supplement that should be developed into policy. Let's work toward that end. Good faith is not a suicide pact, and well-meaning editors can still cause so much disruption, even on talk pages, without making any article edits, that they should be blocked, topic banned, or even fully banned. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. Competence is required for doing almost everything and certainly for contributing to online encyclopedia. This place is unique because everyone can start editing without any credentials or even experience. It often happens that some people can not operate in this editing environment. This environment is "difficult" because it has no efficient mechanism for resolving content disputes, such as editorial boards in "real life". If anything, we need to establish a better mechanism for excluding contributors who are not competent. My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support per Swarm. Competence is required for everything and certainly for contributing to a live online encyclopedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support the concept and the existing essay, oppose changing its status from an essay, at least in present form. Those opposers who complain about its use as a label have a point but I wonder if that ambiguity might not be cleared up by explaining in the essay that no one can be sanctioned because they are, per se, incompetent. They can only be sanctioned if it is demonstrated that they are editing disruptively. That is, if there could be a clarification that a lack of competence may be a voluntary or involuntary cause of disruptive editing but it is the disruptive editing which will, after appropriate warnings, cause an editor to be sanctioned (with the speed with which that happens dependent upon the degree of disruption and the nature, if any, of response by the editor — greater incompetence may result in a faster block or ban but it's only because the disruption is greater and obviously less likely to be corrected). If that clarification were made, then I could support it as an explanatory supplement as well because it would then explain that while competence is required that it is disruptive editing, not incompetence per se, which can cause an editor to be sanctioned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I've tended to see the page as giving advice to admins rather than giving advice to those who are being disruptive. It's undergoing some serious editing changes currently, but it was originally written to support the notion that there is only so much "assume good faith" we can give to those who are damaging the project "in good faith". I'm not sure how much help it would be to show the essay to someone who would typically have already been shown several guidelines specific to the problems they are causing, none of which they have understood. The point at which they would be shown CIR by an admin would be the point at which they are being given the final warning, or are being blocked. Of course, other users may flash CIR around (perhaps in an insulting manner, much as people used to flash Dick around), but the essential message was intended for admins. Rewriting it as a guide for both admins and the disruptive users it is talking about is a reasonable thing to do. But for those stuck at stage one of Four stages of competence, their main problem is that they don't understand or accept they are incompetent. If they knew, they would start learning, and so they wouldn't be a problem. SilkTork (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support "explanatory supplement" status. Strongly oppose guideline/policy status. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 22:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. I'd have to think about making it a guideline or policy, but as an explanatory supplement, it's entirely appropriate. Let's face it, competence is required in real life. And the project has grown to where our greatest need is increasing content quality. Wikipedia may be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but it is not "the encyclopedia that anyone can keep editing no matter what". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - I'd rather it was a policy than a guideline, but we takes what we can gets... I was surprised to learn this was just an essay... Carrite (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Support as a guideline. It's something commonly used by many administrators, which usually are on a sound basis. Of course, it'll need to be expanded to be more guideline-like and encompass all possible situations that WP:CIR could be used before it's removed from essay-status, but I think something along the lines of WP:CIR should be available as more than an essay. Vermont (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose There are significant concerns raised in above by other contributors regarding the uncivil nature of using the pejorative "incompetent" to label editors that have not adequately been addressed, and it is concerning that some admins have used this essay as a reason to block editors. Some people might be disruptively editing, but I see no suggested procedure to ensure that they have enough time and guidance to learn before this is applied as a block. I'd like to see at least an indication of some aspect of community reviewing, like a consensus achieved on ANI or a similar process, before a user is blocked due to being incompetent, so that it would remain a last resort measure. Acebulf (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose- I frequently see this essay used by editors to insult and attack other editors, making it a guideline will not help. Obviously people who are incompetent should be blocked, but their repeated bad behavior will get them blocked anyway, there is no need to cite WP:CIR. Calling someone incompetent is very subjective. People should be blocked for objective reasons. For example if someone violates the 3RR rule after being warned repeatedly, does it really matter if they are incompetent and don't understand the rule? The fact of the matter is they broke the rule and got banned, it doesn't matter why they broke the rule.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Acebulf and Rusf10:, Ironically, non-admins who indiscriminately evoke CIR, may themselves not be wholly competent. That said, may I be permitted to believe that you may not in fact have encountered many instances where the CIR theory has been evoked. Admins who handle many cases of incompetency on a daily basis do not necessarily need to bring the cases to ANI. One dictionary defines 'incompetent' as not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully and most competent English users will agree that the adjective is used almost universally as a pejorative term. There comes a point where competency (also 'competence'), the ability to do something successfully or efficiently, is certainly lacking in some users and if they are not able to improve, then they must stop editing. It is interesting to note that while many editors, especially long-term prolific ones, go through their Wiki careers without complaints, the talk pages of some users become studded with expressions of disapproval and warnings almost from the very beginning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Excellent point, Kudpung. Editors who maintain this encyclopedia spend enormous amounts of time debating fifth or seventh chances for tendentious, disruptive and incompetent editors. And all around us are productive and collaborative content creators, and we need to take the time to thank them, and give them barnstars and other awards. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose It is what the editors do that is important. If they are incompetent at templates and stay away from them, that is fine. If they don't know English but can upload and use fair use images that is fine by us too. So it is important that users stick to their competence, but as an essay commonly used, that is enough. It can be linked from the disruptive editing page, but is not a policy or guideline in itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to make this into a policy or guideline though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed not, but Template:Supplement as proposed is a good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - CIR is a necessary safety valve that is a fixture in blocking/banning debate. We need some way to remove good-faith but hopelessly unconstructive/unhelpful editors from the project. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Support I understand that some may feel it's abrasive (though I don't, reading the first two easily understood sections) and perhaps it can be reworded to be more "professional" (I like the Four stages of competence link), but I'm not sure if those opposing this request have spent hours of their life trying to work a disruptive editor—acting in good faith—into a competent editor. Competence is a combination of many things, but someone who can't get past the "two stages" of incompetence in the "skill" that is Wikipedia isn't going to be a net positive to the project, so it seems more important than an essay. Rhinopias (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Force Radical: It's worth bearing in mind that although CIR was mentioned several times during that "drama", it was not used as the blocking reason, nor was it particularly applicable. The issue was not a lack of competence, but actually some WP:IDHT and non-compliance with core guidelines - a specific disruptive editing issue. He didn't listen about his flawed deletion noms, and he didn't listen about the ARBCOM election, and that is a clear WP:IDHT issue. (Obviously the later ban for massive sockpuppetry didn't help), but his later sockpuppets had almost perfect competence, precision deletion and tagging work, a completely different and correct view on policy, etc, making the fact the whole drama was deliberate trolling pretty clear. 86.170.230.14 (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been looking into the blocking of Dysklyver and reaching similar types of conclusions. I think 86.170.230.14 is analyzing the problem that is the account of Dysklyver and formulating a verbal response that is tailored to fit that one account. My argument in my multiple posts in this thread, and I apologize to all for posting too many times, is that WP:CIR is problematically nonspecific. Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop(IP user)-I will quote from the WP:IDHT guideline to prove my point: Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. - I agree that this may not be the case with ADJEAD's sockpuppetry which was clearly trolling, but it was certainly the major reason to get him blocked in the first place. The reason for his blocking was the fact that he absolutely refused to listen too any advice given to him and his tendency to create long-drawn arguments in favour of his interpretation of what was right. This is a textbook example of CIR (Competence in working collaboratively and taking advice aboard was clearly lacking). Additionally I believe that elevating CIR to the status of an explanatory supplement is justified because as shown by my quote above, parts of CIR are already covered in other guidelines, CIR is only an assimilation of all of them in one place — FR+ 09:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Support per above. Obviously beneficial. -FASTILY 03:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Support: competence is obviously a requirement and far more than just being beneficial. I personally take much time weeding typographical errors from my own work, due to some cognitive decline of a minor state. I do not wish to have even a hint of inability to work well and utilise my experience of writing skills and IQ acuity. I would voluntarily close out my pages and leave, if I began being taken to various complaint boards here. Incompetence comes in many shades on Wikipedia and all are a detrement to the good established editors and even the MOS watchkeepers, whom I sometimes wish weren't so rabid in their insistence on adherence to those established rules. Personally I believe there should be some guarding of the gate to editing by testing. Where else may one apply for a job, be admitted to an institution of education, get a driver's license (there is a written test before one may take an examiner on the road). Fylbecatuloustalk 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Support: no need to add to the explanations above. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes it has community backing but oppose attempts to make it a guideline or policy. I think Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule. On the one hand, it isn't a mob at all. It's highly organized and structured and there's a lot of rules, so it seems like the very opposite of that, right? But on the other hand, the way that the community is organized isn't codified or decided upon in any type of constitutional way. So there might be some people who selectively apply rules according to positions that other people take on their pet issues. And that's inherently unfair, right? Because the wording of CIR is extremely vague and sloppy, such as "[editors that] are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner", it is used interchangeably with "I don't like it". WP:DE already addresses all the cases where CIR might be used, and it's phrased much more accurately. Because the Wikipedia community has extreme issues with mob-mentality and playing fast and loose with policy, CIR is supported by many Wikipedians, but mostly because they use it to justify their bad behavior and article ownership. Bright☀ 15:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree fully that it doesn't need to be made a guideline or policy because WP:DE addresses its concern, but I think it would be appropriate as an explanatory supplement to elaborate on #Examples of disruptive editing. Especially because it's referred to in that section under WP:LISTEN, and it could clarify the meaning and *its proper use* without being redundant. Rhinopias (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Support - I agree with BrightR that it could use more careful editing, but wholeheartedly agree that this should be an explanatory supplement. Daask (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Support both in concept and as an explanatory supplement. If you're volunteering your time at the local food bank, it's expected that you know the difference between perishables and non-perishables, if you're volunteering at a animal shelter, it's expected that you won't kick the dogs because they bark at you. Simply put, there are some people who simply are not in any way beneficial to Wikipedia and we have no reason to waste our time keeping them on the project. --Joshualouie711talk 05:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Joshualouie711—when you prevent someone from volunteering at a food bank for failure to distinguish between perishables and non-perishables, or you prevent someone from volunteering any longer at an animal shelter for kicking the dogs, isn't it preferable to cite the infraction specifically rather than say something of a general nature such as "competence is required"? Let us bear in mind that discussion leading to blocking takes place publicly on our notice-boards. Such a moment is an opportunity to articulate what is allowable and what is not allowable at Wiki. The problem I have with CIR is that it covers so many things. I fail to see the wisdom in saying something of a general nature when we are perfectly capable of articulating a reason for blocking that is tailored to the infraction of a particular account. It seems like a lost opportunity to state with exactitude why this action is being taken, necessitated by an impermissible editing pattern. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It is impossible to cover every possible action that might lead a user to being blocked. We can try and mention the most common ones, like vandalism, spam, POV-pushing, legal threats, etc., but there are always gaps. If we have a user who doesn't fall under any of the categories in WP:WHYBLOCK, yet who is obviously disruptive to the project through their own lack of competence, that's when CIR comes in and the user gets blocked (as has happened several times before, for example with UNSC Luke 1021). We can't make a new policy every single time someone gets blocked for something not previously mentioned. --Joshualouie711talk 04:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Look at it this way: blocking for CIR is blocking for what an editor is, something that cannot be measured unless you somehow inspect the person off of Wikipedia. Blocking for DE, or disruption, does indeed cover everything that occurs on Wikipedia, so it's blocking an editor for their actions instead of your perceptions of their actions. Blocking someone "because they're incompetent but not disruptive" is simply blocking someone because you don't like them. If they're disruptive, you can block them for that. If they're not, don't. Bright☀ 07:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Support as a move in right direction. Wikipedia should give up its antielitism. Also, Arbcom should be replaced with something like an Editorial board, the idea that the Arbs do not intervene in content issues and only consider behavioural issues makes no sense.Miacek(talk) 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose right now While in general I support the nature of this essay, I feel that it will be too easily used as a ban hammer. I'd like to see this essay improved to emphasise even more inclusivity-before-CIR-quoting and to make sure we avoid 'I don't want to deal with this newb now'-sentiments of our editors/admins. Basically, per Bright☀ —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Support CIR is already treated as policy in many scenarios. Let's make it official, since policy pages are to reflect community norms. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss 12:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Support - competence can separate an editor from a vandal. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it cannot, because a vandal is a user who is deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia, while an incompetent editor is one who is trying to help in good faith, but lacks the correct abilities to do so. Thanks for your support, but your rationale makes no sense. --Jayron32 17:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Just common sense. However, we may want to add a sentence to WP:CIR advising admins to carefully think about if a CIR block is warranted. ThePlatypusofDoom(talk) 00:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Competence is required, yes, but making WP:CIR a policy could have a potentially very destructive outcome as admins could just plainly justify their block by CIR. Removing user rights if not used well could be OK but blocking and citing CIR would be very WP:BITEy, even with established contributors. So, I agree that competence is required, but making it a policy could have the same effect as making WP:IAR grounds for blocking. CIR is very evasive and can be interpreted in many ways, so using it as a rationale for blocking is, in my opinion, not a good idea. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Just as a point of order, it has been used in community discussions for years (probably up to a decade or so) as a justification for blocking or banning a user. It is hardly novel, and we're only asking to update the page to correlate with existing practice, which is not very novel at all. --Jayron32 02:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
By way of example, it took be 30 seconds of searching to find it invoked here in 2011, here in 2012 in a topic ban, here in 2012 for an indefinite block, and really, I'm getting tired of searching, because you can find dozens, nay, hundreds of such discussions. If we're already using it this way, it only makes sense to codify it so people know what to expect. We're also not asking to change any existing practice, merely indicate that yes, we do really sometimes ask people to be able to not destroy Wikipedia because they aren't capable of not doing it. --Jayron32 02:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Blocking a user should be done for disruption, not lack of competence, as there is almost certainly a domain where the editor will have some competence. If it has been done in the past, then so be it. Removing user rights could be justified by CIR, but blocking have the same effect than blocking with IAR as a reason. Morever, almost every 2 days-old user will be incompetent to improve actively the encyclopedia, so would that mean we could block them for CIR? No, but we can for disruption. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a debate to have CIR made policy. Please re-read the proposal.--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is not, but as standard in these things, people support and oppose something else entirely from the question that was RfCed. You can see that the first three replies, and by extension all the per them below them, support CIR blocks and completely disregard the disastrous effects of blocking editors based on nebulous accusations of competency, as opposed to blocking editors for something concrete like disruption. Such is the decision-making process on Wikipedia... Bright☀ 07:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about what is supported outside of the original proposed question. I'm more interested in the consensus to have this essay designated as an explanatory supplement. Whether or not you like WP:CIR, and you may certainly have your own valid reasons for opposing it, you cannot deny its existence and the fact that many administrators reflect upon it as a linchpin for dealing with editors who are not constructive to the community. Indeed, "nebulous accusations" shows me that you really haven't read the page as it explains quite clearly what "competence" is in relation to Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
many administrators reflect upon it as a linchpin for dealing with editors who are not constructive to the community Has this been shown in this discussion? I can only find three links (above) to years-old discussions and I don't think these examples constitute a "linchpin". How many CIR blocks have been handed in the last month, and what percentage are they of overall blocks? it explains quite clearly what "competence" is in relation to Wikipedia On the surface that appears to be the case, but WP:CIR isn't quoted when one of the four specified cases occurs—introducing incomprehensible text, introducing unreliable sources, inability to form consensus, introducing significant errors to articles. These four cases are already covered by their respective policies, WP:CIR is used as a catch-all for "I don't like this editor so I'll vaguely claim they're incompetent" with no relation to the four listed reasons. For an immediate example see Cullen328 above saying, paraphrased, "not supporting WP:CIR makes you incompetent"... Bright☀ 05:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: Competence is required, but it is unnecessary to argue over the changing of one template, and it is not policy nor guideline so using the page to further arguments is just inviting more flame. Esquivalience (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. I'll even support in changing it into policy. KingAndGod 15:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose changing status of the essay As became apparent in this discussion, this would just be used as a stick to bite, er, beat the newbies. Also, this RfC is flawed, because it asks one question, while apparently seeking to make a change which is not in that question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, this is not a proposed status change, but a status clarification. CIR’s inclusion on an official guideline page ‘’already’’ gives the implication that it represents the community’s consensus (as an aspect of said guideline). The updating of the template was meant to ‘’reflect’’ this, but it was contested based on the allegation that community consensus does not in fact support CIR. With no on-record consensus either way, a community discussion was needed to settle the disagreement. I don’t know how more up front and clear about the context and intent of the question I could have been, whilst confirming to the RfC guidelines. Swarm♠ 08:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Support—for the same reason I support the removal of driving licences from drunken drivers. Incompetent though well-meaning editors cause much disruption on WP. Baffle gab1978 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
We should block drunk editors from Wikipedia. Bright☀ 05:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Support - per "D'oah"! I honestly do not get any of the opposition here. Is competence required? Of course it is; it's required in any and every endeavor one undertakes. Do you seriously think otherwise? Perhaps this Kumbaya, sit around the campfire and pass joints, everyone loves everyone and Wikipedia is our perfect little world crap worked out at one time; it sure doesn't now. We've become the world's go-to choice for facts. We are putting the paper encyclopedias out of business. At some point, we've got to move past the notion that we the editors are what matter and focus on the fact that we are creating a product. It's the product that matters. If competency isn't required, how about you pay me $19,000 to build you a garage? I promise it will fall down ten minutes after I leave. Oh, what's that real world example got to do with this discussion? WAKE UP. Wikipedia is a vital part of the real world. And in the real world, COMPETENCY IS REQUIRED. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
We should definitely block people who make Wikipedia crash ten minutes after they leave. Bright☀ 09:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Esperanza and its tortuous history basically is a perfect example of the point you're making, John.--WaltCip (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Esperanza was deleted because it was a social platform ("cabal") on top of Wikipedia that disregarded consensus, which is perfectly unrelated to point John is making, and in any case such behavior is already covered by existing policies. All these arguments really reinforce the notion that people see WP:CIR as a catch-all for opposing anything they don't like. Bright☀ 12:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Not at all unrelated. Point he's making is that focusing indiscriminately on editor care and retention ends up being a net negative to the project, which Esperanza was.--WaltCip (talk)
Esperanza wasn't deleted because it focused on editor care and retention, it was deleted because it created a social platform and disregarded consensus. You are confusing its stated purpose (which it did not fulfill) with the reason it was deleted. The support not-votes use WP:CIR in the way WP:CIRNOT tells them not to use it. There is nothing wrong with civility and editor retention, and editors use CIR to excuse their incivility and to bash other editors for anything they dislike. If you act in a way I don't like, you're incompetent. Bright☀ 12:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is focusing indiscriminately on editor care and retention. The central concern here, in my opinion, is that the concrete is preferable to the general. Editor care and retention is irrelevant to stating concretely why the editor should be blocked. Of course competence is required. But incompetence is evidenced by what? That, I think, is our central question. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Support with major qualification: "competence" is not the right word to use. If you must refer to an editor as incompetent, doing so by pointing to a publicly viewable page such as WP:CIR is exactly the wrong way to do it. Just do it behind their back (e.g. via email) or think it in your head. Calling new editors incompetent in this way will just drive them away whether their intentions are malicious or not, and so calling this "competence is required" seems to violate WP:AGF. However I'm not sure what else it should be called...maybe just that they don't understand WP yet? Every morning(there's a halo...) 21:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you actually read WP:CIR?—J. M. (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, not in a while, but I know it stands for "competence is required", and I have seen it cited enough in discussions here that I think I understand what it means (namely, that an editor who has demonstrated that they are not sufficiently competent to edit Wikipedia in a way that does not reduce the quality of our articles). Perhaps I am wrong and there is some aspect of it my comment above that displays my ignorance. But I would like to clarify that competence is definitely required to edit Wikipedia, and if it is impossible to teach someone to edit competently, then blocking is the only option. Every morning(there's a halo...) 01:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The page says not to call editors incompetent, so it agrees with you. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, it does not violate AGF, because CIR is all about AGF ("incompetent" editors disrupt Wikipedia in good faith).—J. M. (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
support Per TonyBallioni. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Support per TonyBallioni and Yunshui. I trust the admins that block on CIR grounds to continue using their good judgment when blocking on CIR grounds within reason, and to do it in a way that doesn't WP:BITE constructive new users. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
These essays elucidate nothing and pile on more verbiage. There is nothing in those essays that's not already included in WP:DE and can't be sharpened with a bullet point, instead of blurred with sloppy wording. Bright☀ 16:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Support the community already treats CIR as if it has official weight behind it, and I see no reason why we shouldn't reflect that reality on the page itself. Lepricavark (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Strong support - It's no longer 2005, not everyone has the skills needed to contribute to what has become the premiere initial source of information on the Internet. If we're going to continue to safeguard that position, we need to be able to weed out editors who just don't have those skills, at least as of yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
It's no longer 2005. The year is irrelevant. The onus always is on the blocking admin to tailor a response to the case at hand. The individual is understood to bring good qualities as well as unacceptable qualities. We are not rejecting everything they bring to their editing methodology. There is a burden on us to state the reason(s) in their particular case that they are being blocked. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, there are some good thoughts and concepts in WP:CIR, but there is a whole lot of stuff in there that should not be elevated into pseudo policy as this would do, and a lot of other flaws in there......for example, saying that someone needs to have all of those capabilities to do any editing in English Wikipedia.....they certainly don't need the ability to evaluate sources to to do gnome editing on grammar and spelling. So, even though there are good thoughts and concepts in there, it would be a massive case of wp:creep to create about 10 new flawed rules as this would do. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Time for a snow close. This has been running for over two weeks and is currently one of the clearest "white as snow" RfCs I've seen in a long time. How about closing this now? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, it's passing, but no need to dis (disregard) the 15 editors who spoke up against it with good points. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
?? I have said nothing about other commenters. Feel free to delete your slur and this response. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
slur? Oh please. Even "disrespect" would not be a slur, and parenthetically they wrote "disregard". How is that a slur? Also, you are calling for a "snow close" immediately after "North8000" weighed in with an "oppose" !vote. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Dicklyon wrote: "... to dis (disregard) the 15 editors who spoke up against it with good points. "
To "dis" means to "put down". I had not commented on or thought of anything but the fact that this was an overwhelming snow situation. There wasn't even any "disregard" for those editors.
The immediately preceding !vote had ZERO to do with my comment. The timing was simply a fluke. Try to AGF. There is no justification for any aggression. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
They said there is no need to dis (disregard) the 15 editors who spoke up against it. We have whiteout conditions, also known as WP:SNOW conditions, when almost all !voters take one side on an issue. They were saying, if I can paraphrase, that it is premature to declare whiteout conditions when 15 oppose !votes can be seen in the blizzard wearing non-snow-colored outerwear. Bus stop (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Close as no consensus - Any time we are changing the status of an essay, the consensus needs to be more or less unanimous. Such is not the case here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
As someone who hasn't voted here.....I say perhaps all read over {{Supplement}} and WP:INFOPAGES. As for consensus. ...it's pretty clear the vast majority think change the essay tag is a positive things. In fact it seems like most of the opposing votes seem not to understand that the proposal is about changing the type of essay tag/banner.....not promoting the page to a policy or guidline.--Moxy (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Which opposing votes seem not to understand that the proposal is about changing the type of essay tag/banner...? Bus stop (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
As seen above this was pointed out by others on more the a few occasions. I think the proposal is the problem....and the length of this talk...we really are not going to expect all to read the wall of text to see the clarification are we.--Moxy (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That is a messed up attempt to dismiss a strong consensus. First, opposers need to quit misrepresenting the question as an attempt to upgrade this to a policy, when it was a straightforward attempt to clarify the allegation that the community doesn’t agree with the essay (in spite of the inclusion on an official guideline page). That allegation has been overwhelmingly proven to be false, rendering the matter resolved (pending the formality of a close). Second, even if it ‘’was’’ what you’re misrepresenting it as, your claim that it needs to be near-unanimous is nothing short of fabricated and not grounded in any sort of policy or precedent. I’m seriously offended at this attempt to willfully misrepresent consensus. Swarm♠ 07:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I think that the essay focuses on each person's current competences, as if they are fixed. I think that it should be rewrittn, so it encourages people to learn new competences. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment regardless of whether an editor is competent or incompetent, calling them incompetent is a personal attack, and moreover, as User:NaBUru38 points out, is very counter to the best practice of encouraging growth mindset. I think that we should move away from relying on this essay as it is unnecessarily inflammatory, and the issues it addresses can be dealth with more sensatively. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Support as "explanatory supplement to WP:DE". Makes sense and quite useful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Neutral. On the one hand, practice is policy, but on the other, the title is a bit on the BITEy side, so I can't support. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:49, 10 May 2018 (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.
Noting that I've converted the mainspace notes to comments and made the editnotice stronger in this case. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Closing another thread on GDPR because literally nothing about this topic has changed in the last five days. JLJ001 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
According to this answer, GDPR is a huge problem for Wikipedia: [3]. Wikimedia Foundation risks a fine up to €20 million. Is Wikipedia GDPR-compliant? 109.231.234.249 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a problem for the Wikimedia Foundation, not for wikipedia editors. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The compliance would require change of the current policy. So we are just waiting for the disaster to happen, because it doesn't strike us directly, only the foundation that maintains our servers? It sounds like a very short-sighted approach. 109.231.234.249 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately, none of us are lawyers. If the legal team at the WMF tells the community that we need to do something, we'll happily make sure it happens. Until then, we'll proceed under the assumption that the WMF lawyers are competent, and will adequately ensure the WMF and Wikipedia are protected. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:SYNCing the section "AR-15 style rifle" of the article "Colt AR-15" to the lead of its parent article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a lot of controversy over whether articles on specific firearms or classes of firearms should include information on crimes and mass shootings. Briefly, those in favor of inclusion argue that these events are extremely notable so that it would violate NPOV to leave then out, and further, that a large fraction of users coming to these articles are either looking for information on the shooting itself or seeking further information on the gun that was used, and would benefit from confirmation that they reading the right article. Those opposed feel the articles should focus on the characteristics of the firearm itself, and therefore, that information on crimes committed with them is out of place. (This brief summary obviously does not do justice to this debate!) Recent discussions of this include Talk:Colt AR-15#RfC: Port Arthur Massacre and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 142#RfC: Coverage of mass shootings in firearms articles, both of which turned out in favor of inclusion of mass shootings, and a long and exhausting discussion on the current talk page Talk:Colt AR-15.
This RfC is not intended to settle this debate. In fact, it is entirely neutral with regard to that question. Instead, it is just a policy question asking whether WP:SYNC should apply to Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle. The virtue of this would be that as a copy of the lead of another article, there would no longer be any need to debate the content of that section. Instead, debate on this could focus exclusively on the lead of AR-15 style rifle. If a consensus is reached and the lead of AR-15 style rifle changes (for instance, to remove information on mass shootings), the section Colt AR-15#AR-15 style rifle could be changed too without any additional debate. So this is simply a technical mechanism to save time for everyone. (I included the language "verbatim or nearly so" to allow for a little flexibility in case some wording needs to be adjusted to make sense for a section rather than a lead, but not to allow so much freedom that there are arguments over what counts as close enough.)
Note that the recent discussion Talk:Colt AR-15#AR-15_style_rifle_subsection, which ended with editors split 10-10, was on a related but different proposal (to add some content taken from the current lead of AR-15 style rifle, but only some of the content and not to sync the articles "permanently").
NO There was already a lengthy discussion about this on the Talk:Colt AR-15 page, over the past few days (and still technically active), there was no consensus to support this edit, so now this user is resorting to forum shopping. We need an uninvolved admin to close this now, review and close the discussion there and perhaps have a policy and guideline review with the OP here. - theWOLFchild 22:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not the same proposal, as noted above. This poll is over whether the content should be synced with the content of the lead of AR-15 style rifle, not what that content should be. 22:53, 16 May 2018 (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.
Don't use this venue to forum shop, or cast unwarranted aspersions against editors you disagree with. ReykYO! 11:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The notability guideline is supposed to be for the benefit of all of Wikipedia. However, we have a small group who want to "get the guideline to match what we do over at AfD" for the sole benefit of only the folks over at AfD. The most troubling part about this is that one of the group is an admin. who is supposed to represent the interests of everyone, yet they insist that they ignore all the rules over at AfD and what they practice over there (their specific agenda) should be pushed over to the guideline. The relevant discussions are here and here. Huggums537 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Requesting more eyes at the ongoing discussion here concerning the above referenced matter. Thanks very much. Huggums537 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Huggums537: if you have an issue with any of my actions, take it to WP:ANI, not VPP. We’re talking about the removal of one sentence that is covered in the guideline better elsewhere, has support for removal on the talk page, and where removal matches current practice. While I find your assumptions around my diabolical nature intriguing, this really is how Wikipedia works, and I’m pretty experienced in this regard. Also, I think someone should close this RfC as you aren’t actually asking a question and are just ranting. Like I said, take me to ANI if you have concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2018 (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 saw this edit today, which removed an external link (probably not an overly useful one anyway) with the summary, "http://exampleproblems.com is currently employing coinhive miner without disclosure. The miner is able consume visitor's computer resources without consent. This is considered bad practice hence the link is removed." I hadn't actually heard of this before, so I looked at the source for the site and it does seem to be using Coinhive. I'm more than happy to leave this link removed, but is this something people could be made more aware of? If any sites are found like this, should they be blacklisted? Would it be worth adding to WP:ELNO? Are there any technical measures that could check for this? Sorry for the vague, open-ended questions here, but it was nothing I had run across before today. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Greetings to all. I do not usually contribute here, since I do not speak English. I am a Spanish user 12 years ago. I write here since the works of creation of the articles in Spanish do not respect the Spanish spelling and write everything "to the English". For example, they write "Échame la Culpa" instead of "Échame la culpa" because it is written in English. In Spanish, we only write the first letter in capital letters (with the exception of proper names). I leave the reference here, since previously I left it to a user, and it did not produce much fruit.[4] I ask to review section 4.17 that indicates what I am indicating. Therefore, yes, I must mention that ALL articles that refer to a work of creation are poorly written in Wikipedia in Spanish and must be translated. The latter I say with the best of intentions and hoping to be a contribution to this great encyclopedia. Penquista (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a valid point (the user obviously meant small letters, not capital). Do we have anything in MOS about it?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble working out exactly what Penquista is saying here. If it's about the titles of notable works in Spanish, we generally use the English translation of the title, and capitalize it the English way. Then the original Spanish title is given parenthetically, with the Spanish capitalizaiton. For example:
Penquista, are you arguing that we should be doing something different from this? --Trovatore (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought Penquista was talking about the Spanish wikipedia, which is beyond our scope. --Golbez (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
They were specifically addressing Échame la Culpa, arguing that since this is a Spanish name anyway, Culpa should not be capitalized.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct. From MOS:FOREIGNTITLE: "Retain the style [of sentence/title caps] of the original for modern works. For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, it is very exhausting to be editing for a good time and undo my edits that I have struggled to do. See , here or here, for example. Penquista (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I was just asked on my talk page about film notability by User:Barkeep49. This is something of a blast from the past because it has to do primarily with NPP practice, and I haven't worked NPP nearly as often as I did before ACTRIAL. However, the question has to do with films that are in principal photography. I sometimes nominated film articles for deletion if the film was in principal photography and the article said nothing about actual news about the filming, and a Google search didn't turn up news about the filming. The notability guideline says that films that are in principal photography are only notable if principal photography itself has been notable, as in reported on. However, a typical result at AFD was that !voters would !vote Keep because the film was in principal photography. In other words, what is said in the notability guideline is not the same as what is done at AFD. I happen to think that the guideline is right, and that the problem is that the AFD voters are being easy or subjective. One option would be to change the guideline to match the practice, but I don't agree. I see no neutral reason why unreleased films should be included in Wikipedia unless the photography has been reported on. I personally think that the system is working the way COI editors want it to work, which is that they want to be able to use Wikipedia to pre-publicize films, but is only the cynical opinion of a reviewer. Another possibility would be to change how the !voters !vote at AFD, but how do we do that? An OUTCOMES essay was suggested, but I don't like the idea of an Outcomes essay that states that we usually ignore the guideline.
There has to be WP:V-meeting sources to justify a subject-specific notability guideline. Eg: while NSPORT grants any player that played a professional game is presumed notable, we still require a source to show that that player played in that game. Same with films (or any other subject). I think we need to add to WP:ATA for this situation; you don't claim a topic can't be deleted because you say it meets a notability guide, you have to prove it with sources per the non-negotiable terms of WP:V. --Masem (t) 01:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The best way to change how people !vote at AFD, on this or just about any other subject, is to be more active at AFD yourself, and to argue convincingly enough that you change the other participants' minds. Trying to get your way by changing the guidelines, and using that to convince closing admins to discount opposing opinions, is a far-distant second. —Cryptic 01:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Sage advice that. Personally I read the notability policy like Robert does and thus would suggest most films shouldn't have pages until around release. The exception would be those with truly notable coverage, e.g. Untitled Avengers film. I also have a hard time seeing our current practice as a reasonable interpretation of the guideline. However, if there is a consensus, such as that demonstrated by AfD participants, that our guideline is wrong then it feels like maybe the guideline needs to change and that would be fine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
To weigh in, it definitely is not enough to say that a film being in principal photography is sufficient for there to be a Wikipedia article. It may be that a film's IMDb page with its status of "Filming" or "Post-production" is being referenced by editors. It's not enough; there needs to be significant coverage from reliable and independent sources about the film, even if it is from before filming. If sources write about a film's development, they pretty much always write about its release and reception (unless the development never goes anywhere). The point of having the threshold of the start of principal photography is to prevent creating unnecessary articles since not all films that begin development actually start production. An example is Shantaram (film) (a redirect) because there is coverage about it but no actual film resulting per se. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Coming to a computer near you tomorrow
Definitely not the place to contact Wikimedia lawyers.
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.
(non-admin closure) Closing thread on GDPR per WP:NLT and because none of the people commenting are lawyers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The European Commission, in a list of "Examples of personal data" included in its explanation of the General Data Protection Regulation, has the following bullet:
an Internet Protocol (IP) address;
Some editors compile lists of IP addresses which they think belong to the same person. On a reading of the GDPR, absent specific consent from the users of these IP addresses the publication of these lists will be illegal. Although up to now specific consent to the publication of the IP address for a particular edit has been given by the act of clicking the "Publish your changes" button the website has not said that by clicking "publish" or in the Terms of Use that by using the site the editors agree to the publication of these lists - they are as illegal on Thursday as they will be on Friday. On Friday, however, huge penalties for non-compliance will come in. What is likely to happen to
Surely the person would have to be identifiable from the IP address, no? Wikipedia already has a policy against outing people. If editors were prohibited from compiling lists of IP addresses shared by a single user then that would severely limit the effectiveness of SPI. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The Foundation has lawyers whose job it is handle these issues. This is decidedly not the sort of thing that a bunch of rubes like us are supposed to make decisions about one way or the other. If the Foundation's lawyers come to some way to deal with this, they will probably not keep it a secret. Until then, we don't need to change anything. --Jayron32 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Reading this Wikipedia may have a problem: "Personal data that has been de-identified, encrypted or pseudonymised but can be used to re-identify a person remains personal data and falls within the scope of the law." I think for dynamic IP addresses you could reasonable argue that the "window" of re-identification is pretty small, but this is definitely a problem for static IP addresses if editors leave a public electronic trail across the internet. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that this information will anonymous elsewhere. This legislation comes into force tomorrow; are we sure that Wikipedia's lawyers have considered this angle? Betty Logan (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
an email address such as name.surname.acompany.com;
an identification card number;
location data (for example the location data function on a mobile phone)*;
an Internet Protocol (IP) address;
a cookie ID*;
the advertising identifier of your phone;
data held by a hospital or doctor, which could be a symbol that uniquely identifies a person.
IP addresses don't identify people, they make them identifiable, same as the other pieces of information on the list. As the Commissioners put it:
Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual. Different pieces of information, which collected together can lead to the identification of a particular person, also constitute personal data.
IP addresses are the most potent sources of all, because they link to edits going back many years, and each address linked to multiplies the probability of this happening. It doesn’t matter how dynamic the IP addresses are because they are all being linked up. 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:84C2:83DA:8FCC:5838 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't legally have to do a thing at the moment because it is outside the EU. However I agree there is a problem with displaying IPs which needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. The easiest way round I can see is to make them more anonymous by securely encrypting them. This would still mean an IP remained the same but it would be far harder to argue that it identified a particular person except as yet another contributor to Wikipedia. Trusted officers of Wikipedia with special rights should still be able to check actual IPs to aid in identifying trolls and suchlike. Specific edits that give away personal information can be redacted as at present. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If they haven't, they aren't doing the job they are paid for. Regardless, you and I and everyone else here are not lawyers employed by the foundation to advise the Foundation on their legal responsibilities to comply with such laws. There are lawyers whose job it is to do so, they can be found here. Unless and until they tell us to do something, it's not our responsibility or our problem. Let lawyers lawyer. Our job is to write encyclopedia articles. --Jayron32 12:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
You and I are users though, and from tomorrow EU users will have a completely new set of rights. If a user asks you to delete their contribution record from a particular article on the basis it includes their personal data (an IP address), how would you respond to such a request? Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
(Not legal advice, IANAL) I would decline the request, as (1) there is no way to verify that an IP's contributions were all made by the same person, or by any person in particular, and (2) per the edit window notice which reads: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." If you edit without logging in there is an additional notice that "Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits." If the requester invoked GPDR or any other law, I would still decline the request but refer them to the instructions to email WMF Legal. It can technically be done, painfully, but would violate the license and thus I suspect you'll never see it done unless as an office action. I think we broke threading here, I don't know where the list below this comment originated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be silly to depend on some lawyers for ideas on how best to deal with this. And I do think we should proactively deal with IPs tending to locate people. I don't think there is any practical problem even with a server in the EU. There are bigger fishb to fry than trying to prove something about Wikipedia's use of IPs and if somehow the worst came to the worst the EU could be told to go jump and it would have big difficulties if it did try to do anything about it. It is a moral problem for us and we should deal with it. Dmcq (talk)
I will take the opportunity to point out that the Wikimedia foundation recently sent me an email linking to their blog, where they explain how the privacy policy has been updated. Judging by the date, it's to comply with whatever it is the GDPR means for Wikipedia. The forum for complaining about whether the Wikimedia lawyers have or haven't done it right is at meta:Talk:Privacy policy. Not here. JLJ001 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link and I have expressed my deep concern about IPs there. I believe closing was wrong as the lawyers are there to serve Wikipedia not the other way round. Dmcq (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2018 (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.
Question about sourcing
I know that the Wikipedia policies declare social media as an unreliable source and I understand why, but what if an original post from the official account of the subject was used as a source, what then? Is it still not reliable?--◂ épineⓋ 17:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
If this is an officially attributed account of a notable person X, it can reliably source what the opinion of X on the subject is.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@CapitalSasha: it doesn't necessarily have to be an opinion. Let's say for example it's an album release date disclosed on Facebook, it is acceptable to use it, right?--◂ épineⓋ 02:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Épine. Self-published sources (including social media) are generally considered reliable sources about themselves, provided that they are not being used to source controversial or exceptional claims. You can read more about this at WP:ABOUTSELF. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding upcoming release dates... make sure to read WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:NOTPROMO... Reliability is not the only question here. While we may be able to use an official Facebook page to reliably source a statement like: "According to the band's official facebook page, they plan to release a new album in June of 2018 <cite facebook page>"... that does not answer the more fundamental question of whether we should mention the new album in the first place. If the only source to mention that a band is planning to release an album is the the band's own self-published facebook page, we should at least question whether it is appropriate to mention that album. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." That policy surely applies to social media. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
What is a title blacklist and why do we have it?
Please see discussion at Talk:La'aloa Bay. My question is not just in regards to this one article, but to blacklisting in general. I don't understand it. Why would something be blacklisted just because of ʻOkina? I saw a thread like this before, in regards to moving a Hawaiian article. But I don't understand the situation. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why the Hawaiian names are on it (several are), but it is usually for abusive page names or spam pages where salting doesn't work. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
See WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. I can't find it now, but a (long) while back there was a discussion around the fact that the okina character didn't appear correctly for many readers, which is the usual reason that some special characters appear in the blacklist. Having said that, there are certainly some articles where it is used in the title (i.e. Sol Hoʻopiʻi). Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that it doesn't always appear as it should, and my computer is an example. It's because of the font I use. Not all fonts support the okina. But that's a small issue, and I think in Hawaiian articles that the okina should be used. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
One reason which us long-term editors remember only to well concerns the dreaded phrase "...on wheels". doktorbwordsdeeds 23:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the blacklist just lumps the okina with other problematic characters and punctuations which prevents non-admin users from moving the articles. It is perfectly fine to create an article with an okina in it but not to move one to it. See MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 3; there are three sections with the Okina topic. Any user used to be able to make the move a few years ago (I was a regular at this) but now the blacklist includes the okina so non-admins can't make these kind of moves. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Non-consensus icon change on widely-used template
Template:Blocked user has had its icon removed, making it look like just another template at first glance. The templateeditor who performed this cites a talk page thread, but it doesn't contain any consensus; just "I want the icon removed, I agree, I'm gonna remove the icon because I have the necessary user rights". I have restored the classic version here, for comparison. Lojbanistremove cattle from stage 02:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lojbanist: this page is to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. It looks like you have a simple complaint and have already started a discussion at the right place, Template talk:Blocked user. I suggest you specifically invite the person that made the change to the discussion there. — xaosfluxTalk 02:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policy about Article Neutrality on Other Languages
Hello. I've problems with the Catalonian Wikipedia board, having been blocked for stating that a person born in France territory is French (and therefore a French Painter) and not North Catalonian (a term a Catalonian nationalist invented in the 1930 to reclaim that territory as their own) and Catalonian Painter.
This' the issue:
Northern Catalonia was part of Spain up until 1659, due to the Treaty of the Pyrenees. So, people born there up to 1659 are Spaniards (specifically Catalonian) and after that date, they are French.
Étienne Terrus was born in 1857 (that is 198 years after being France territory), so he's French and a French Painter.
In the Catalonian website, [Esteve Terrús] is a North-Catalonian and a Catalonian Painter.
I was blocked for trying to return this article to neutrality, meaning, removing wrong information used only as nationalist indoctrination for Catalonian (North Catalonia), and placing the proper one (born in France, being a French Painter).
In the reasons they wrote in my catalonian personal page, they indicated that the administrators voted to allow nationalist indoctrination and banned me for a week.
[Here] you can see other French painters that have been stolen by the Catalonian indoctrinators, like Pere Garcia-Fons, Mercè Diogène Guilera, Lluís Delfau, Jean Capdeville, Sergi Bonacase and Francesc Boher and Auguste Baillayre. And I'm sure if you look for sculptors, or other people you will find more examples of a clear indoctrination use of Wikipedia.
So, as I couldn't find where should be asking if the Wikipedia Project should be paying the hosting for such blatant violation of article neutrality or how to denounce them (as they are the "law" in the Catalonian Wikipedia, I'm helpless there), I'm asking here on how or where should I keep going with this denounce so it can be taken into examination by the Wikipedia Project.
Hi Franzrogar, this does not to be an issue you are having on the English Wikipedia, but on other language editions of Wikipedia. If you are having an issue with admins on smaller projects that you believe are behaving inappropriately, you can raise the issue on Meta. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Franzrogar, I'm generally not in favor of Wikidata infoboxes on Wikipedia. However more than that, I hate reality-denying nationalistic bullshit. And more than that, I hate administrators using the block button to push nationalistic bullshit. I see that Catalan Wiki has converted their infoboxes to Wikidata. I also notice that the nationality field doesn't seem to be working in infobox person. That makes me sad, chuckle. I suggest you head over to the infobox talk page, and ask about getting the nationality field working. I also note that the place of birth shows as "Elna". I think the infobox would be awesomely-mega-better if it were upgraded to display the birthplace as "Elna, France".
I'll ping Mike Peel and RexxS. They both have excellent Wikidata tech skills, and they both like upgrading Wikipedia with Wikidata-infobox enhancements. Maybe one of them would be interested in helping enhance Catalan's infobox. And as an added bonus they might get some amusement that I'm suggesting a new benefit of Wikidata: rogue communities need to come to terms with living in the same reality as the rest of the planet. Alsee (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Ironically, Alsee, I firmly believe that most of the benefit of using Wikidata as a central repository accrues to the smaller Wikis, far less so for English Wikipedia. In truth, were it not for the benefit to other projects, I'd be tempted to agree with you that the problems raised in trying to import Wikidata to the English Wikipedia would outweigh its benefits. I've met the guy who does most of the work on the Catalan infoboxes and he's not in need of my humble skills, I assure you.
@Franzrogar: I've had the pleasure of working with several Catalan editors, and found them approachable and understanding. Perhaps you got off "on the wrong foot" - I would certainly suggest continuing to talk to the folks on the Catalan site, although the Catalans I know think of Catalonia as a cultural entity as much as a geographic one, so it is possible (I think) for a person to be both French and a North Catalan. In which case it's likely that the Catalan Wikipedia may legitimately choose to emphasise the Catalan identity, while other Wikipedias prefer to make the French citizenship the key point. You may find that in the end you can reach a compromise, or you may find that your arguments are rejected, but it's best to explore all those avenues before escalating. As TonyBallioni advises you, the best place to look for trans-wiki assistance is on Meta, but you will need to demonstrate that you have exhausted all possible courses on the local Wiki first. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this has already been discussed to death elsewhere, if so someone please point me in the right direction to catch up...
I've just published an article in EN.wikipedia.org/wiki concerning events in the Dutch Revolt. Happily it has just been reviewed, so as an infrequent contributor I'm feeling pretty good. (Maybe I'll get hooked and do more, who knows).
My sources were from several languages: Dutch, English, French, Spanish, even Latin ! and I've had no end of fun searching for proper names in different languages with old and often varying spellings. I say this because I view different languages as offering different windows through which to view our fascinating world, so maybe we can accept that different language wiki pages will have different content.
Question 1: Should different language wiki pages have different content? Or should the facts be presented independent of language?
Searching for a French spelling, subsequent to publishing my contribution, caused me to find a page on my topic in FR.wikipedia.org/wiki
It had less info than mine, being a stub rather like the previous english page on my topic.
That led me to search for the same topic in other language pages ... NL ES
Now, one might expect an event in the Dutch Revolt to have more material in NL, but no that was a stub too.
Question 2: How will the nl pages get updated with my efforts?
However, the NL page did contain facts that I had not previously found, which I will now have to manually add to my page.
I could argue, fact are facts, and they should be so useful in any language.
Question 3: Should there be a tool to gather (and maybe translate) all other wiki pages on a topic to aid authors like myself, so each new article is as complete as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielTrevorShaw (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Um, not sure this is the right page for this discussion, seems like a help desk topic, but here goes:
Every Wikipedia is functionally a separate project. They have different editors, different administrators, and different policies. There is a degree of overlap in all three of these areas, but it is not complete. You could just wing it, translating as you wish, and hoping that local editors will fix anything that breaks with local policies, or you could go searching an individual project's policies and style guides to see if anything is different.
They will get updated when an editor volunteers to update it. That editor could be you!
All pages on the same topic in different languages are supposed to be connected through interlanguage links, accessible from the language side bar. You can read about those at Help:Interlanguage links. If this is done properly, then while reading the article in any language, you will see links to every available version on the left side of the screen. If that's not the case right now, those links should be added. The help page also describes how to do that. Sometimes this is not done simply because the editors on each project are unaware that another version exists, or they don't know how to update the links.
Hope that helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's position on disputed grammar of Standard English
I am wondering what exactly is Wikipedia's position on disputed grammar of Standard English, the language in which Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are written, and is the position justified? The MOS page does not address this issue.
The disputed grammar of Standard English includes:
If they aren't addressed in the MOS, these constructions are in general probably not discouraged. Split infinitives and stranded prepositions are quite common in modern academic English so I see no reason to ban Wikipedia from using them. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Just a side note, but I see the subjunctive come up in articles reasonably often. I mostly edit math stuff, but I'd guess there are other places where it has its uses too. I've seen people change something in the subjunctive back to the indicative, and I generally revert changes like that. When it's appropriate, I'd argue that the subjunctive sounds more formal, so it's generally good to use for encyclopedia articles. But there's probably some flexibility in a lot of cases. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Split infinitives are fine. Nearly every widely used modern style guide does not object to them. There is no dispute among reliable sources on that issue. Similarly, preposition stranding is a non-issue. Style guides and grammars widely agree that there is no issue with such a matter in English. None of these matters are real disputes among academic grammarians or style guides or anything like that. --Jayron32 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
My personal policy: If poor grammar in an article bothers you, feel free to edit the article to fix it. However, if someone else reverts your edit... let it be. The aggravation involved in arguing isn’t worth the effort. Certainly don’t edit war over grammar. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
At least not over optional and subjective and linguistically dismissed points of obsolete prescriptive grammar like those under discussion here. If some dolt continues to want to write "Microsoft sayed Windows 11 not be release until the years 2020", do press the point. >;-) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Generally concur with the above. I would add that from a linguistics point of view, there really is no such thing as "standard English". (Please send me a copy of the standard, and identify what standards body issued it, under what authority. This isn't as flippant a comment as it sounds, as some languages do in fact have standards bodies, e.g. the Académie française.) That Standard English article probably needs a close review for original research and PoV-pushing, and should be rewritten as an article about the concept of "standard English" and what various pundits have put forth about it, rather than suggesting in Wikipedia's voice that it's a real thing.
What WP is written is in a semi-formal register of English, based primarily on academic style. That's not "standard English" (or, from a Victorianeque prescriptivism perspective, it's one variant of what some might call standard English, though ever prescriptivist would find something to object to in the ways that WP is written, because prescriptivists could never agree on what to prescribe).
Another point: it's not just that split infinitives and stranded prepositions are accepted by most modern writers (including writers about writing); they've been demonstrably proven to be a natural feature of the language going back to before it was anything like modern English, and have been present the entire time, through Shakespeare and Dickens and so on to the present day. The idea that they were wrong was pulled out of thin air by prescriptive twits in the 1800s, who decided that Latin was a "more perfect" language than English, so anything you can't do in Latin (e.g. infinites are a single word) you mustn't do in English. Few people took this seriously, and despite making it into various low-grade schoolbooks for a few generations and coloring perception of linguistic register a little, it's had little lasting effect. Few people who claim to live by these "rules" actually do so in practice when their writing is analyzed, including various old English writing manual authors who insisted they were rules. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Company Pages "Against Policy"
Article userfied. Anything else can be discussed at WP:NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have a very difficult problem to address: the idea that pages about companies can be "not encyclopedic." I recently wrote an article on the Elk Antennas company, which was nominated for speedy deletion. The Admin who shut it down, @Randykitty:, claimed that it violated Wikipedia's guidelines and that it was more promotional than encyclopedic. The article was only a stub; it stated what the company manufactured and designed, who owned it, and when it was started. I understand that I did not have enough reliable sources. Despite this, other articles have managed to get published and not deleted such as Elecraft. In fact (I'm going to use this article to prove a point, not to be malicious or try to get it deleted too), in the article of Elecraft, there are completely un-encyclopedia phrases such as "The company is most notable for the Elecraft K3 high-performance HF transceiver, a 32-bit DSP based radio covering HF plus the 6-meter VHF band and the 160-meter MF band, introduced in 2008. The reception of the K3 was overwhelmingly positive, with a comprehensive review in QST stating that "The K3, in any of the available configurations, provides a high performance, modular and expandable transceiver that can fill the needs of almost anyone looking for an HF and 6 meter transceiver for home station or portable use"." First of all, "high-performance" is not a fact, that is an opinion. Second of all, a QST review is not a factual source, it's an opinionated article. Third, "overwhelmingly positive" is also an opinion. If this little snipped doesn't say enough, I don't know what will. My article contained nothing promotional, it was only a stub station that the company existed. If an article is going to be deleted, Elecraft should be the one. I am advocating for a change in policy to help promote the inclusion of non-promotional company pages on Wikipedia. Please consider my plead for Justice. BluePankow✉ 01:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see the notability criteria for companies and organizations, in particular the sourcing requirements. If Elcraft does not meet Wikipedia's content policies that is a reason to fix it not a reason to allow another article fail those criteria as well. This is brought up so often there is a page, WP:OTHERSTUFF, which goes into detail. Jbh Talk 02:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I get the jist. How about "there is an article of Elecraft, so there should be an article on Elk Antennas?" BluePankow✉ 02:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn’t have deleted it as G11, but Elk Antennas was definitely A7 material. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you think it would be possible to recreate it and keep it? Maybe people just need to give it some help instead of immediately deleting it. BluePankow✉ 02:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll get this back up. Thanks for the help. I think this thread could go on for longer though; the company topic needs more discussion in my opinion. BluePankow✉ 02:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It was deleted because it made no claim at all as to why I should care it exists. I’m closing this because the community has discussed corporate notability ad nasium recently, and this is basically you just appealing a deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2018 (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.
Cutting down the excessive length and inconsistency of Wikipedia policy supplementary essays
Closing before this turns into drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A crack team of WMF secret against are working on it right now. I believe the plan is to parachute into the servers at night and begin asassinating rogue explanatory supplyuments, which, as your question has conclusively proven, are a huge problem in need of immediate drastic measures. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Bad tactics Beeblebrox, typical of WMF. They're sure to get tripped up by the flow of bits and bytes created by people trying to build an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a good start on typing "agents", but the rest needs some work. Supplyuments is beyond help. ―Mandruss☎ 10:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
This dismissive attitude is toxic to the improvement of Wikipedia. Bright☀ 14:16, 16 May 2018 (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.
Question
Why was the above section locked? Bright's question seemed sincere, but was followed by some flippant remarks, so then the whole thing was closed by TonyBallioni? Am I missing something here?Egaoblai (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Because the only thing keeping it open would have led to was more hurt feelings and drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the fundamental issue with the question as phrased was its vagueness. There may indeed be a problem about too much rules and instruction on Wikipedia, but it would be more helpful if a specific rule or instruction was identified so that we could discuss it more substantively, as opposed to remaining in generalities. Mz7 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright. How about removing all the supplements to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or merging them into the guideline itself? There is not a single supplement that covers anything not already covered by the guideline itself. Wikipedia doesn't need many-thousand-word supplements when a few dozens say the same thing more accurately and less vaguely. Bright☀ 09:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Proposition (a bit rambling, and a feeler, not a formal proposal to !vote on): If they're not actual guideline/policy material, redundant supplements can simply be retagged and recategorized with {{Essay}}. Supplements really are just essays, but ones that at one time (no longer) allegedly had some kind of formalized consensus buy-in as focused/detailed elaborations on more general guideline or policy material. It's been my experience that very few have actually been through any sort of proposal process to receive that label, and we don't bother with it any longer at all. The wording that used to be at {{Supplement}} indicating that the template was only for pages given this banner via affirmative consensus was removed in September 2017, yet no one has reverted or challenged this change (and the original name of the template was {{Supplemental essay}} anyway). All in all, it appears to me that someone decided a while back that "Supplements" were magically special in comparison to essays, no one paid any attention to that baseless nonsense, so it's been put back the way it was, and we're now here with a clear cleanup path of merging back to {{Essay}}.
The most practical approach is probably have to have an RfC (here) to deprecate the {{Supplement}} tag and the pretty much imaginary classification it represents, then go TfM the template and CfM any associated category, for merger into the essay versions if the RfC concludes in favor of deprecation.
The only consequence of this would be that a handful of supplements that the community genuinely might consider more than essays could maybe end up getting "promoted" to guidelines or merged substantively into the guideline/policy pages they supplement. But even this is unlikely: various essays that the community treats like guidelines and which are sometimes treated as rules still remain essays, e.g. WP:BRD and WP:AADD, and proposals to promote them (or "elevate" them or whatever loaded term you like) have failed.
The {{Essay}} template already supports parameters of various sorts, and one could be added for categorizing essays by nature/role, including whether they're supplementary, if we decide that's a useful categorization at all. (But what's the difference, today, between {{Supplement|interprets=}} and {{Essay|interprets=}}? Both tell the reader that they're additional essay material about some other page). I'm definitely in favor of merging {{Supplement}} out of existence, regardless. If we did add some parameters, we could also merge away all of these: {{Information page}}, {{Wikipedia how-to}}, {{WikiProject style advice}}, {{Wikiproject notability essay}}, and {{WikiProject content advice}}. They're all essays, when it comes to "authority" level; the only difference is the intent of the content (to provide an opinion, a wikiproject's collective opinion, an FYI, an elaboration, or some technical instructions).
This won't do anything about the original poster's "there are too many pages" complaint, but would address the central "there are too many rules and pages of rules" concern, since these pages really are not rules (even in the guideline sense), and some editors are just confused by the "Supplement" label into thinking they have the force of WP:P&G pages when they're just essays about rather particular best practices (and sometimes alleged best practices that haven't been vetted at all or in a decade+). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Channel lineups and pricing tiers in articles about Media providers
Question here raised by myself and a COI editoranother editor who both were curious to know policy regarding media company providers listing channel lineups and package tier offerings (along with prices) in these articles. I had removed these instances from Sling TV owing to WP:NOTACATALOG and WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but the COI editorthe other editor rightly asked why these would be allowed on other media providers' articles and not Sling TV. It's a good question, and I wanted to know what editors thought about this practice. Checking the Pump archives, I found a discussion from 5 years ago at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_99#Channel_lineups_in_Wikipedia which touched on the topic, but there did not seem to be a resolution. The talk page discussions around the site regarding pricing in general are numerous, and while I look through many of them, I see a lot of back and forth on what is allowed, although many seem wary of the practice and tread lightly in that area. Would like to get an idea of what current policy/practice is. Currently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Media appears to be a ghost town — which is why I brought my question here. Any input would be appreciated spintendo 01:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Channel lineups, pricing tiers and anything which would go on an advert are, well, advertising and not acceptable in an article. See WP:NOTPROMO#5. Much of the Sling TV article should be stripped out. Sections 1-3 are mostly promotionalism and Native advertising. I suggest stubbing. Jbh Talk 02:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I also think it is also an issue with the other streaming providers (Philo (company), PlayStation Vue, YouTube TV and DirecTV Now as well, where packages and prices are listed. So it is not limited to the Sling TV article. Don't think any of the satellite or cable company articles have this issue. Msw1002 (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
(Note to Msw1002: I mistakenly referred to you as a COI editor in my post. That has been corrected.) Sorry about that! spintendo 12:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem. :) Msw1002 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC))
I have removed the worst sections and tagged the articles with {{advert}} but I do not have the stomach to go through and clean them up. Jbh Talk 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
If independent sources have commentary about pricing this could be there, but it should not be advertising in nature, and not just quoted from the vendor. There is substantial writing on the price of Apple or Samsung products, so that a whole article could exist on that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you JBH. And Graeme I agree with you, especially if the price were also a part of the narrative of an item, either because of a price war or some other unique circumstance which made the item's price something that became notable in reporting done upon it. In contrast, the inclusion of the prices in these media services articles seem set on whatever the price is at the moment, and seems to go against the spirit of WP:NOTACATALOG, which focuses on pricing done for the act of comparing prices. spintendo 23:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
There are definitely independent sources out there such as www.suppose.tv . So those should be used instead of direct from providers if pricing is mentioned (if at all). Msw1002 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Specific question about COI
Hi, I have no idea whether this is the right place to ask this, but I have a specific question about application of WP:OWN and WP:COI. A WP:BLP that I watch is edited by the subject to remove the date of birth (which is sourced). I restored the info and added a link on their talk page about editing your own article etc. This morning they removed the information again saying they have a right to control what data is publicly available. Who is right? The Conflict of Interest policies that I've read suggest that no-one can control what information is posted on an article, but does that apply in this case? Jdcooper (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
UPDATE sorry, false alarm, I found the relevant guidelines. Jdcooper (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
(ec) My understanding is that, in general, a BLP's DOB should be retained in the article unless there is a question of accuracy. They certainly have no "right" to control that information on Wikipedia, although we can take their request into consideration. However, because DOB is something that's very relevant to developing an understanding of the subject,there would have to be pretty unusual circumstances for me to favor removing it. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Not only does the COI subject of a BLP not have a right to control the information, they are under greater risk of being blocked for OWN behavior than other editors. They must keep their hands off the article if they can't edit collaboratively. They are always welcome to use the talk page and suggest changes. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no comment about this issue directly, but I will note that an alternative method that article subjects can pursue is to contact the Volunteer Response Team and submit an OTRS ticket requesting the suppression of certain information for privacy reasons. I doubt this would work if the information is already widely available in public sources, but I have seen it work before, such as with the suppression of Vermin Supreme's birth name. See the latter article's talk page (permanent link) for more information on that incident. If it can work with birth names, perhaps it would also work with birth dates, too. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
RfC about user page guideline WP:POLEMIC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There is clearly no consensus to change the wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
rfcid=C24187C
WP:POLEMIC currently states: ‘’Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.’’
Please select one of the following choices to keep, remove or modify the phrase “timely manner”:
Keep as is
Replace with: ‘’...is not permitted as it could be misused or misconstrued as a threat or WP:HOUND
2 - history indicates that such compilations have been used (perceived or otherwise) to threaten and/or hound editors who represent “the opposition” in controversial articles. Atsme📞📧 14:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
3- although the use of user space to compile a dispute resolution case is legit, leaving it as "in a timely manner" is basically an invitation to let it languish forever. A strict time limit needs to apply. ReykYO! 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
3 - Pretty much agree with Reyk, though I would consider more of a 15 days since last substantial edit to the page, 30 days from initial creation. My reasoning is that I think 30 days is a little too long unless you are actively preparing some sort of dispute resolution case. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1 - It is better for that drama to just "sit" and die off somewhere in userspace. Do we really want an automatically started incident thread, 30 days after every such thing? wumbolo^^^ 15:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1 or 60-90 days. These things can take time. Because the target is (in this case) attempting to sabotage the collection of evidence (just as Trump is attempting to dictate the terms of the Mueller investigation), the clock should be restarted and the diff collector given even more time. That should teach the target to not obstruct justice. See my comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1 "Timely" should not be a hard-and-fast rule. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1. What is an appropriate time will vary based on the situation. Natureium (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
3 Seems like the best fit, I like the spirit of timely but it is to open to gaming. Perhaps a provision for an extension after 30 days if a good explanation is provided, otherside it festers and creates problems. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1.5 - I don't like arbitrary time limits, but I also don't see any reason for such material to stay visible outside of when the user is actively working on it. I would add a provision to the current version like A page containing such material should be blanked upon request when not actively in use.. While the user is working on it (in their current session), they can restore it from the edit history of the page, and while they are not working on it, its hidden from view to avoid the polemic nature. -- Netoholic@ 17:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
0.5 - remove the "provided..." clause or keep as is. DexDor(talk) 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1 or 5+ these things take time. If a case is to go to ArbCom one needs to demonstrate both prior resolution attempts and a long term pattern. There can be months from the time a problem becomes apparent until it can be sufficiently documented for ArbCom to do something about it. Such pages should not be kept on prominent display, e.g. do not collect/post evidence on your user page, but having such a sub-page where others must go looking for it should be OK. Beyond that, if there is a long term issue one wishes to document it can take quite a bit of time to dig through various editor and page histories to find diffs and figure out how to properly present the information. Most editors will not want to drop everything simply to research and write up a case but instead will work on it as time permits. Thirty or even sixty days is not very long considering this is a volunteer project and that documenting misbehavior is not why people want to spend their time editing here. Jbh Talk 19:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
0.5 per DexDor. Such a list can be a useful thing to have in your back pocket as a way to document and recognize problematic editing patterns, which may or may not lead to dispute resolution etc. It should be kept discreetly on a user subpage without prominent links or polemic commentary.
If such lists are being used problematically, then the problematic behavior should be addressed. In particular they should not be trotted out during talk page discussions unless a formal complaint or accusation is being made. –dlthewave☎ 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
1 I think such lists can be an element of hounding, but in of themselves they aren't hounding. For example, if you made a list like this and then went around posting links to it on article talk pages or other discussions with the target editor, then that'd be hounding. Not quite the same thing, but some editor took part of a discussion I had with him and featured it prominently on his user page (presumably to make some kind of point) but I only happened to see that by coincidence and we haven't otherwise interacted, so why should I care? Same with a list of diffs like this. If they're just keeping the list on their page, then what harm is it? Just don't go to their user page if you don't like it. Also, there's a very easy solution: if you don't want someone to make a list of diffs of you violating policy, then don't violate policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
1 per WP:AINTBROKE and the note at the top of this page about not using this page to settle disputes about implementation of policy. POLEMIC is working just fine. As the discussion bellow is showing, the line between good-faith collection of evidence for dispute resolution versus malicious persecution is not a bright one, and is best decided on a case-by-case basis. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
1 It's fine. Dispute resolution can be protracted and subject to changing deadlines/late closures/etc. No need to put a hard deadline on something. As Ivan said, if it ain't broke... ~ Amory(u • t • c) 12:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
2 there's no reason for this kind of stuff to be publicly accessible, keep it on your own computer until you're ready to stand behind it. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
1 defining hard limits is rarely useful. If it wasn't good on day 31, it also wasn't fine on day 29. 2 would be my second choice. --Jayron32 14:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
1 (or 0.5) - There's no need for a strictly-defined time limit. Much wasted time could be avoided if some users would simply refrain from snooping though other user's subpages for whatever drama that they can stir up. We should also stop misusing the word "polemic", which has nothing to do with the compilation of factual evidence (diffs). - MrX 🖋 12:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
0.5, remove time constraint completely. Why on earth is this not given as an option? Such apparent bias compromises the credibility of the RFC. The intro says: "Please select one of the following choices to keep, remove or modify the phrase “timely manner”", but there is in fact no remove option. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
0.5, remove time constraint completely per Johnbod. I get regularly hounded by people harbouring grudges. Sometimes they turn up on my talk page to complain about something and I tolerate this indefinitely. Maybe they have a point or maybe they don't but it does little good to sweep it under the carpet because it's so easy to repeat or save the details elsewhere. Better to get it all out in the open to understand the grievances and clear the air. Andrew D. (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
0.5 per the people above. It's rare I agree with Andrew but he's absolutely right here, sometimes there is a necessity to keep a long string of diffs in your own user area because otherwise it's difficult to prove a persistent problematic issue if it doesn't happen every day. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
1 per Ivanvector's WP:AINTBROKE argument. I don't understand the problem that this is intended to fix! Compilation of such info could possibly be construed as Hounding - but I know of no instances where it has been so by the community - in isolation - without other more 'harassing' behaviour. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
1 As long as this is in the person's own userspace (preferably with a neutral sub-page name, not the name of the target), and they are not calling attention to it elsewhere, this is a valid and sometimes unfortunately necessary thing to do. We have all seen reports at AN or ANI which were dismissed for lack of diffs, or lack of demonstrating a pattern of disruptive behavior, or whatever. To avoid that kind of result, it may be necessary to collect evidence over a period of time for an eventual complaint - or perhaps no complaint, if the behavior improves or the evidence gathered proves to be insufficient. When I do this kind of thing (and yes, I sometimes do), I do it off-wiki on my own computer, but that is my choice. (BTW I rarely have to use this data, because usually the target gets himself/herself blocked without any help from me.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Observation: Option 2 doesn't make sense, and would result in a text string of "... is permitted provided it will be used in a is not permitted as it could be misused or misconstrued as a threat or WP:HOUND". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
"5+" (e.g. 90 days). I'm vehemently opposed to option 1 and to the "0.5" proposal, having been the victim of someone keeping a "dirt list" on me for something like two years as blatant intimidation tactic, and WP:MFD actually failing to delete it because no one there was sure what "timely manner" meant. I actually stopped editing Wikipedia for several months (other than a few brief visits back in response to direct e-mails) as a result of that person's harassment. The idea of no time limit at all is nuckin' futs; if you want to keep running dirt lists on people for years on end, do it on your own hard drive. But no. 2 (after you parse what it's supposed to mean) is also irrational, since it would make it wiki-illegal to compile and draft any evidence submission on WP at all, even if you intended to use at a noticeboard only 5 minutes from now. Options 3 and 4 are too short, especially for drawn-out processes like WP:RFARB and WP:ARCA, which can take months sometimes. 5 is closer, but even 60 days can be too short. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
"Hounding" obviously can't apply. That applies to not only aggressively and pointedly following another editor around, but actually disruptively taunting them and/or disturbing edits they have made which were uncontroversial and proper. (Watching disruptive editors, socks, and vandals and fixing their errors is not hounding, even though it involves following them around. That is actually our duty as editors. We must protect the encyclopedia.) An editor's subpage which is not advertised and only known to a few is not a threat or hounding. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree - I've known instances where one editor starts the diff page, then follows the target editor to collect "add-as-you-go" diffs each time they "believe" the target editor does something they don't like, especially if the diff collector is a seasoned editor who knows how to game the system. I've even seen diffs collected that were not representative of incivility at all - just content disputes, and even legitimate actions were added to the collection, knowing few admins have/take the time to read them all but it looks bad nonetheless - and that is HOUND. Atsme📞📧 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Quietly collecting diffs is not hounding. Hounding involves public action negative to their target, which the target immediately knows about, as described above. And it doesn't include what the target "perceives" as simply negative, but what normal others would perceive as "unjustly" negative. The perceptions of paranoid people, or those with a guilty conscience, don't count. You're misusing the term.
It especially doesn't apply to the situation upon which this whole thread is about, a target going to the diff collector's private userpage and loudly and publicly complaining (Streisand effect!!), and then starting an MfD. That's like Trump complaining about the Mueller investigation, and then getting all his staff to complain as well. (He's supposed to ignore it and never talk about it.) That's what's happening. Trump (and the target here) should not talk to the diff collector about it or mention the investigation (or the diff page). Obstruction of justice is a crime (which can be committed by completely innocent people), and interfering with the collection of diffs for a possible noticeboard or AE case is a form of obstruction. It's wrong to do that. The target needs to stay away from the very topic, and the private userpage, since this was done very discreetly. It was the target who publicized it. They exercised bad faith by making it public.
Having some reasonable time limit is another matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference between privately collecting diffs for a complaint and keeping a bunch of diffs or quotes around to shame, harass or poison the well for others dealing with an editor. The later, which includes keeping unattributed quotes and/or quotes stripped of context on one's user page is much, much worse than collecting diffs on a page which no one who is not looking for it will see it. Jbh Talk 20:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I tend to use this template for nearly everything in my userspace:
{{NOINDEX|visible = yes}}
I suggest it should be used for the type of page under discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
User pages and subpages already have <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow"/> in their HTML heads.- MrX 🖋 13:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme and Bullrangifer: I take it this is related to an ongoing dispute involving some sort of "target"? –dlthewave☎ 22:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a proposed change for a guideline based on a history of disputes for the same/similar issues and it has become clear that the guideline needs clarity. Read the options and cast your iVote - try to imagine yourself in the shoes of the page owner and the targeted editor, and make your decision. Atsme📞📧 22:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That is nonsense. The issue concerns this MfD. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you considering it nonsense based on your personal experiences as a targeted editor, Johuniq? If the latter is the case, please substantiate your "nonsense" position by providing the diffs so others can weigh-in. It would be quite helpful. Atsme📞📧 03:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That's just a CIVIL auto-response that evades the issue. Someone asked if the proposal here was related to a dispute, and I provided the link to show where the dispute can be seen. The close of the MfD specified a date beyond which the diff-collection will be regarded as polemic and deleted so, once again, Wikipedia's model of not trying to specify rules that precisely cover every situation is shown to be working. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Your preconceived notions are not helpful. My position is still NO, and your naming that MfD for WP:POINT was not only wrong, it was disruptive. Stop reflecting your POV onto me. This RfC is the product of other incidents I recalled with a measure of trepidation, dating back at least 3 years - an accumulation of incidents that have caused disruption. I’m of the mind that waiting and watching one’s opposition for the purpose of collecting diffs-on-the-fly is the same as HOUNDING, and an impediment to an editor’s ability to express free thought for fear it will be misconstrued or taken out of context and wrongfully used against them. It’s one thing to collect diffs that already exist in preparation of filing at AE or ANI which should not take more than 30 days...not to mention the fact that a simple text program off-WP will serve the same pupose without creating a hostile environment in an effort to rid oneself of the opposition. Atsme📞📧 13:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion about what is and isn't hounding is far from being a reasonable interpretation of the policy. And frankly, someone who has a history of problematic behaviour refraining from said behaviour because they know it will be recorded is a good thing. There should be a hostile environment for them. Oh and lastly: you have no right to express free thought on Wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
RfCs don't usually come out of the blue, and anyone proposing a change to a guideline should present a compelling reason to do so. @Atsme: If you're aware of a history of issues related to this, or a particular discussion that your concerns arose from, it would be helpful to post links here. This is usually done as part of opening the RfC. –dlthewave☎ 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No one said this RfC came out of the blue, but I’m not going to mislead anyone by saying it was the result of one specific MfD. I already explained my reason...and quite frankly, I see some of these polemic pages as nothing more than “opposition research” but I’m just 1 iVote. The community will decide, and it doesn’t require me providing links to deleted pages or past MfDs that once caused some editors grief. I’m trying to avoid disruption and retain editors, which happens to be my main motivation for this RfC - eliminating the ambiguity by setting a time limit or disallowing the practice all together. Based on my years editing here, it is quite obvious that when an editor is truly disruptive, it won’t be difficult to provide 4 or 5 diffs as evidence without any need for explanation, and that’s something that can be kept in a text file off-WP. If it takes months to collect diffs, and you’re doing it on the fly in an effort to provide evidence that isn’t plainly evident, that’s the first 🚩. It’s a poop or get off the pot process. Atsme📞📧 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems that I am in the minority but I feel pretty strongly that these sorts of pages should not exist. It cannot be a nice feeling to have a page in existence that is accumulating evidence of your supposed misdeeds, when you have no way of challenging this evidence or otherwise defending yourself. Even if the page is not being publicly waved around, if the editor in question knows of its existence then the effect is nearly the same. Editors who want to complain about other editors' behavior should assemble a case in private, take it expediently through the proper channels, and obtain a swift resolution. They shouldn't be allowed to make public lists of others' behavior that they don't like with the threat of someday using it to lodge a complaint. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyone concerned about the existence of polemic pages (aka diff collections or shit lists) can relax because they are prohibited and will be deleted. The only point of contention concerns the period of time allowed before such a compilation is used on a noticeboard, whereupon the original compilation should be deleted (and will be deleted if taken to MfD). Clearly six months is too long, and one week is too short. The closing statement for the MfD that led to this discussion has it exactly correct. Another potential problem concerns someone who makes it known that they have a diff collection, for example, by posting a link to it. That would be a sign of battleground behavior that would encourage deletion of the page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand the difference between what is being discussed here and a diff collection. Even if someone doesn't advertise that they have a collection, it still shows up in recent changes and so may be noticed by others. These lists should be private, i.e. off-wiki. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Lots of sub-optimal things happen at Wikipedia and collecting evidence in public is one of them. However, such activity is accepted as sometimes necessary because it is important to get the wikitext correct and tested before inflicting it on a noticeboard. If anyone knows of a page like that which is more than a couple of months old, please provide a link for assessment in order to have the page deleted per WP:POLEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't find this argument at all convincing. Checking that the wiki text is correct is what page preview is for. Fixing the formatting definitely doesn't take weeks or months as is being discussed. It seems to me that the benefit of creating these sorts of public diff lists is the psychological feeling that other people are reading the evidence that one is compiling, even if outwardly one says they aren't advertising it. This strikes me as behavior that should be banned. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Getting the wikitext for complex evidence correct is a lot harder than it appears, however my purpose in posting in this section was merely to report current procedure and I wouldn't mind a speedy-delete category for a page with a diff collection older than 7 days. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Johnbod - see #2. It removes the time frame. Also, MfD is used to delete dubious collections and there appears to be some concern for anything longer than 2 wks to a month is obliquely used to HOUND. Atsme📞📧 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
No!!! "Replace with: ‘’...is not permitted as it could be misused or misconstrued as a threat or WP:HOUND" - it removes the possibility entirely, changing "is permitted" to "is not permitted"! Unbelievable. The !votes so far suggest that "some concern" is restricted to you and one other editor who have between you taken up most of this section. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah...right up until they find their edits being collected on their opposition's user page. Atsme📞📧 15:02, 31 May 2018 (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.
ESRB ratings should be on video game pages
I have sometimes wanted to look up ESRB ratings for video games just because I was curious, but I find it annoying that the ESRB's official site is the only place to go to do that, and it is tough to navigate sometimes. So can we add the ESRB ratings of video games to their articles' info table in the top right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylefreed13 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
We have previously decided against this. This is part to be consistent with the film project which also doesn't include ratings, and also reflects the fact that there are many many ratings systems so if we'd include the ESRB, we'd have to include other ratings systems which would be too much weight. We discuss ESRB ratings (or any others) if they are a subject of note but that's within the body, not in the infobox. --Masem (t) 20:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Why would including ESRB mean that other ratings need to be included too? ESRB is clearly the most common one by far. Benjamin (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
In North America maybe. Europe uses PEGI. Other countries have their own rating systems as well. Why pick the NA standard over any other ones? I agree with current practices, ratings are uninteresting unless external sources comment on the ratings themselves, like changing M to AO and stores pulling out the game because of it, or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Why pick the NA cover image over the others? Anyway, whatever, why not just put both, if it's that big of a deal? Benjamin (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You are going into a "what about...." argument that detracts from the focus of this discussion. To answer your question though, it really depends on copyright issues and image quality for cover images. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems like something for wikidata.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitely a job for Wikidata. There should be no problem putting in PEGI, ESRB ratings, whatever. Then we can let templates/modules sort out what to display, in every language edition of Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, but do remember that English is spoken in many places other that North America so language edition alone is insufficient. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
What I envisaged was to display all or any of the relevant ratings, not just the one for a single country based on language: the per-language work is implementing the relevant infobox code, not choosing the ratings to display. Which ratings should be displayed is, of course, up to each Wikipedia's local community to decide. It looks like others have done the work of building the necessary framework already. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17150 for an example of a Wikidata item for a game that is already marked up with the PEGI. ESRB, etc. metadata. Once the relevant infoboxes on enwiki have the necessary code to display these ratings, then all that is needed is to fill in metadata for all the other games. -- The Anome (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
There's likely no problem to put these to Wikidata, but as I noted above, the VG approach on en.wiki is aligned with the film project here too, in that as soon as we add one like ESRB we have to add the rest because en.wiki is global. And at the end of the day, unless the rating is the subject of discussion, it generally is not talked about within the article to any degree. --Masem (t) 15:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Abstract: A recurrent interpretational confusion suggests we need a clarification note at MOS:TM. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Consistent titles for esports athletes
It seems that there may need to be a policy governing the titles of articles about esports (competitive video gaming) competitors. Some of them use the player's legal name, and some their gaming name.
My personal take is that it should probably be their gamer handles. Actual names are rarely if ever used in a lot of those communities.TylerRDavis (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I would think this would be settled by applying our existing WP:Article titles policy, especially provisions such as WP:COMMONNAME. No? Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Same approach (whichever is taken) should be applied to socalled "Youtube celebrities" like Markiplier and PewDiePie. Right now I think COMMONNAME is the prevailing approach, using their handle over their real name, which in some cases isn't always known. --Masem (t) 21:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
No, their handle is not always the common name. --Izno (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
So, if someone were to go through all of these articles and change the titles to the name these players are commonly known as, meaning their "gamertag," that would be acceptable?TylerRDavis (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily... this needs to be determined on a case by case basis. We have to examine the reliable sources that discuss each individual player, and determine which name is favored by those sources. I suspect that the “gamertag” will be favored in most cases... but there may well be exceptions... cases where the sources indicate that a specific player is best known by his/her real name. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, COMMONNAME already handles this, there’s no need for topic-specific guidelines. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What's probably most sensible to is to update MOS:VG and WP:NCVG with a note about this, i.e. with the professional-videogaming-specific application of WP:COMMONNAME. This is a typical approach for subject-specific MOS and naming conventions pages; their very purpose is to explain how extant system-wide rules apply to the topic in question, not to make up variant rules that conflict with them (or to let recurrent disputes fester and multiply by refusing to provide such clarification). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Changing Nazism and related ideologies from "far-right" to "far-left" is a blockable offense as a violation of WP:Disruptive editing
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.
Should any editor who changes "far-right" to "far-left" in describing Nazism, Fascism, neo-Nazism, and other close-related ideologies be subject to immediate blocking as a disruptive editor, tantamount to a vandal?
Survey (no threaded discussion, please)
Yes - This is a constant problem in protecting articles on these subjects from damage, and a tool is needed to nip the damage these editors do in the bud.In the real world of academics, historians and other experts, there is absolutely no doubt that Nazism, Fascism, neo-Nazism and other closely-related ideologies exist on the far-right of the right/left political spectrum, despite the fact that some instantiations of these ideologies espouse or put into effect some views which are usually associated with socialism, a leftist ideology. Given that the placement of the political systems described is firmly fixed by expert consensus as being on the far-right, and that this is unlikely to change any time in the near future, any editor who makes changes of "far-right" to "far-left" is clearly someone editing in accord with their WP:FRINGE personal point of view, and are therefore violating WP:NPOV, as well as engaging in original research. Since no reputable expert agrees with their edits, they are also making edits which are unverifiable on their face, violating WP:V. The majority of editors who engage in this activity do so without providing any sources, and those that do are violating WP:RS.Such editors should be considered as being disruptive, and as de facto vandals, and when their edits are presented to an administrator, the editor in question should be immediately blocked unless there is overwhelming credible evidence to provide a basis on which the admin can invoke administrative discretion and not make the block. The presumption, however, should be that editors making such changes are to be blocked, and an admin who does not do so should be prepared to explain their decision to the community on demand, per WP:ADMINACCT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: The administrator policy clearly stipulates that admins are are are never required to use their tools. An admin not blocking someone would not be expected to explain anything. — xaosfluxTalk 15:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No if only because we don't block people simply for being stupid. There is no point in creating a list of stupid edits that people could be immediately blocked for. Creating a rule that we are going to immediately block editors for making this or that kind of stupid edit looks desperate because it makes it appear that Wikipedia cannot keep order any other way. So long as the project is properly managed, there are always other and better ways. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. This is very much needed, as WP:NONSENSE doesn't really cover grammatically coherent statments that blatantly contradict established fact, and WP:FRINGE doesn't really cover such obvious trips into alternate planes of reality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanuil (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No. We already have rules that cover the need for discussion, consensus, disruptive editing and the blocking of individuals who persistently break the rules. And there is a danger in creating automatic blocks for editors that express a WP:POV especially as terminology and perspectives change over time and what was deemed unacceptable becomes acceptable and reflected in the sources. This could be the start of a slippery slope with a list of hundreds of POVs that qualify for a ban. We don't need them; we're robust enough already. Bermicourt (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No - as summarized by FreeKnowledgeCreator above. We don't need rules about every specific possible action. Killiondude (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No. The supporting arguments are correct. However most of these people probably believe their edit is correct, and we don't 1-edit-block people for grossly-wrong Good Faith edits. We at least attempt to point people towards ReliableSources and Policies before we block. That said, it is likely a very short road to a Disruptive Editing block if they are Tendentious, Edit War, disregard Reliable Sources, disregard Consensus, etc etc etc. Alsee (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No per FreeKnowledgeCreator and per WP:BEANS.--WaltCip (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No agree with Alsee. from what I have seen the people truly believe these fringe views are not trying to vandalize or disrupt. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No We don't need to list out every stupid thing that can happen in Wikipedia. Trolls will prove themselves soon enough. Just follow the usual thing of notifying them about needing reliable sources and block them if they ignore that. Otherwise we'll be blocking every birther, climate change denier, creationist, and other religious nut or conspiracy theorist that ever comes here sometimes in good faith. It will just send them away confirmed in their stupidity and hate for Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No It's a content dispute, we can't have rules that settle content disputes. Political left and Political right are hard enough to define in the abstract - most sources have probably accepted "far right", but how many of them use it without explaining what it means? It's a content dispute. If someone wants to discuss this on the talk page, they should be allowed to until their behavior crosses the threshold for a behavioral block (as with any other content dispute).Seraphim System(talk) 13:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No. We revert, warn, explain why they're wrong, and if they persist in doing it - then we block (or topic-ban) them. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No: it's annoying, but we have existing procedures in place that remain adequate. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No we don't need a special policy for this, assume good faith first. — xaosfluxTalk 14:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No per WP:CREEP and WP:AGF. If someone's actually being disruptive about it, then there are already processes in places for dealing with them. If any particular articles have an ongoing problem, they can always be protected. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No this creeps into censorship of opinion and would, over time, contribute to bias in other areas. The people who hold/express this view all tend to the (extreme) right of the political spectrum and might be able to contribute in other, even political, areas. It would be nice if ignorant extremists did not exist but they do and, if nothing else, they help prevent groupthink from setting in. Also, as said above; we have procedures in place which deal with the general behaviors which are associated with this viewpoint and neither need to nor should call out specific views for sanction. Jbh Talk 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No. This issue should be dealt with through the normal editorial channels. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on Talk:Nazism, Talk:Fascism, Talk:Neo-Nazism, and the talk pages of these WikiProjects: Politics/Fascism, Germany, and Italy. If other pointers are appropriate, please note here where pointers were posted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Editors taking part in discussion here should remember to sign their posts. Also, posts in the section above should be kept in chronological order. In my opinion, despite one of the comments above, it is perfectly clear that the idea that Nazism, Neo-Nazism and fascism are far-left is a fringe view. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2018 (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.
ISSNs they serve little to no purpose in citations. Absolutely zero style guides recommended their inclusion, and for good reason: It's the least useful of all identifiers, they are redundant with the title of the publication in nearly all cases, and are made completely obsolete when a DOI (or any similar document identifier) is present. Some people will say "but this tells what the libraries holds the publication" and to that I say this is not how people use libraries. I live in Truro, NS. Knowing that Daedalus (ISSN 0011-5266) is held in 4 libraries in Denmark is completely unhelpful to me. This brings us to another point: the WorldCat catalog is more-often-than-not crap. Many more libraries than those in Denmark hold that journal, some in Cambridge since that's where the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is located. This could mislead someone from Cambridge into thinking it's pointless to go to their own library to get the journal, or someone from Truro from going to the library because they don't know interlibrary loans are a thing. What I do, regardless of where the item is held, I go to my local libary, and get them to order the item if they don't hold it. ISSNs serves a minor purpose when distinguishing between two similarly named journals that are defunct/out of print, when no article identifiers exist, and that's about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I have never seen the utility in having ISSNs. I'm open to be convinced, but I've yet to find them useful. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I would follow Hawkeye's view in the original argument. They may not have a lot of utility but they are allowed as an option. I would not go to any great length to add them but I am always very reluctant to delete information. Stepho talk 21:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not correct that zero style guides recommend their inclusion. Our Australian Style Manual recommends them, and conformance with the style manual is a requirement of the university style guide. Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
With respect to the WorldCat catalog, there is an official partnership between WMF and OCLC, both being organisations committed to the goal of free public knowledge. I would caution against assuming your own experience is normative. I live in Canberra, which is an order of magnitude larger than your town. It has aspects of a university town, with two major universities and external campuses of three more. While a Canberran could walk down to the local library and ask for an inter-library loan, for the books and journals we use in Wikipedia articles, they are more likely to look it up online, and cycle (the place isn't that big) down to one of our major government or academic libraries. The same search you ran [5] tells them that paper copies are held by two nearby libraries. It also tells them that their library card gives them electronic access. Like your search, it is flawed in that it isn't comprehensive; a search on a different (non-public) library search engine for which I needed the ISSN as a key revealed more nearby holdings. Hawkeye7(discuss) 23:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't see ISSN as any more or less useful than other types of identifiers: most people will read past them, but to a few they're going to be helpful. If a DOI is already present, then I don't think the ISSN is useful (maybe propose a change to the templates that will hide it in such cases if its presence is really that much of a problem?). But then, there are tons of journals that haven't subscribed for doi's, and are unlikely to ever do, and for those, ISSNs can be really helpful. For example, a journal might have undergone several changes in its title over time, and a given library catalogue might not reflect them all: an ISSN on the other hand is persistent, so knowing it could save you the trouble of tracking down and looking up all the title variants. – Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This smacks a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If ISSNs may be useful to some people, that is sufficient to justify their retention. Even Headbomb admits they are sometimes useful ("ISSNs serves a minor purpose..."). They are doing no harm and do not "require removal from citations". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I've never found them useful. They do no harm but they do not need to be included either. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I have always removed them for news sources. I once asked (in an edit summary at a high-activity article) for somebody to make a reader value case for that, and there was no response. If there is no reader value for a citation parameter, it should be omitted, and it should be removed when not omitted. We don't include things just because we can, there needs to be some coherent rationale for what we include, and there is no reason that should not apply to citation parameters. No opinion as to non-news sources. ―Mandruss☎ 16:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
ISSNs can be useful when there are multiple periodicals with the same title. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. They also provide a lookup mechanism, and can be used in various databases like library search systems. They're useful enough, and not any different from all the various other IDs we support (PMC, PMID, ISBN, OCLC, DOI, yadda yadda). If we were to consider expunging one, it would ASIN, which is just one vendor's catalog number, and serves no purpose but to drive customers to Amazon.com in particular. Last I looked, WMF isn't an Amazon subsidiary, so we really shouldn't be doing that. In the rare even of a work released only on Amazon, and actually reliable enough to cite [most such works are self-published e-books], simply linking to the URL of the item page is sufficient; adding the ASIN does nothing useful, since it's just a way to ID the same page. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Nationality of television series
The current consensus of the TV wikiproject is that the nationality of a tv series is identified from the production companies listed in its credits, next establishing the nationality of each from reliable sources, and then determining sole or multi-nationality for the series accordingly. There is a proposal to replace this with referencing of sole or multi-nationality directly from reliable sources. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Proposed MoS change: NationalityMapReader (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Banned users, sock puppets etc
Is there a policy which says that editing proposals by banned users, sock puppets etc should be abandoned? I have heard this asserted many times, but I don't know if it is official. If so, is it retrospective? For example, if an RfC was found to be influenced by sock puppets, would it be overturned???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The cleanest thing is to delete content created and edited entirely by the banned user(s). Where that's not possible, there is no one-size-fits-all guidance from policy. The closest would be this essay: Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets. Basically you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. It's totally appropriate in an AFD or talk page discussion to strike from discussion everything that came from the banned editor. If this leaves the entire discussion so fragmented or tiny as to be incomprehensible, it may be worth just closing it out and then starting over, or just pretending it never happened. But if a banned editor started something that has taken on a life of its own, there is not generally a reason to shut down discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If you catch an RFC/AFD/talkpage-section/other before it gets any meaningful support, then revert/collapse/close or otherwise nuke it immediately. If legitimate editors have begun supporting or discussing the issue in a potentially constructive manner, then do your best to strike or otherwise neutralize the problem-individual without disrespecting the legitimate users. If only one legitimate user would be affected, you might still be able to shut it down with an explicit note that they may start a fresh discussion if they wish.
A closed RFC could be challenged and potentially overturned if the closer was unaware of socks which may have affected the outcome. Note that the first step should always be to try to discuss any concerns with the closer. Try to assume there's a better than 50% chance that you and the closer can reach an agreeable resolution. Alsee (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I guess the other question I have is what if the user is banned subsequently. Is this at all relevant?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Jack Upland it's getting difficult to answer without a specific case to look at. I'll try to make some general points. If you look at old RFCs, it's not unusual to find one or more participants eventually got banned for some reason or another. We don't go back and redo all of those discussions. It's also usually not significant if the original proposal-author was the one who got banned. That does not delegitimize the other participants in the discussion. If someone was banned during an RFC, or immediately after for behavior directly related to the RFC, there's a more credible case for concern. But it's generally an overreach to suggest that they single-handedly reversed the outcome, unless there are some pretty extraordinary circumstances. And regardless of anyone getting banned or not, it's always possible that Consensus Can Change over time. A future discussion might reach a different outcome because new facts or arguments arise, or because views shift. However repeating discussions can be costly in other people's time, and even disruptive. At least a few months should go by before trying to re-start a closed topic, unless critical new facts arise or there's some similar strong justification. (Merely disagreeing with the original result isn't a good reason, chuckle.) Alsee (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't referring to any particular live discussion, but just wanted to clarify the situation because of a number of comments that other editors have made at various times. Thanks again.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Administrator note The account in question below was autoconfirmed, having been registered for 4 days with at least 10 edits, just noting that "new editors" below the confirmation threshold are already prevented from moves. — xaosfluxTalk 14:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
L_O_M_G_B_O_Y_E registered 3 days ago and was able to do this. While I appreciate that we don't want to make editing too restrictive for new users I can't think of any good reason why we would want a brand new account to start moving around articles. Is it worth considering suspending page move rights for a month or two until the editor beds in? Betty Logan (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It's still the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I doubt this is necessary just because of occasional vandalism from Milly on Mheels. They'll find other things to do if we block this. (those things not listed per WP:BEANS) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It happens far too often with India-related stuff. No idea about other topic areas. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It's just another form of the low level of vandalism that's inherent in being an open encyclopedia. I don't see any reason to block this particular form of it. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It isn't always low level, eg: articles with few watchers being moved to POV titles. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
To add to that it is a specific type of vandalism that sometimes causes massive inconvenience. For example, if they had simply vandalised those pages in the conventional sense then any run of the mill editor could have reverted the edits, but sometimes page moves can be a real hassle to get fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Betty's is a key point. If page moves were always easy to revert, there would be little problem, but too often these moves create a significant mess, one which an average, even experienced user cannot fix with ease. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Some functions should be reserved for experienced editors, and that doesn't impinge on the ability of unregistered and new editors to make actual edits. This is one function which should be off-limits to them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree. L_O_M_G_B_O_Y_E was able to move 20 pages to nonsense names within 5 minutes, and I guess would have continued if he hadn't been caught and blocked at the end of that time. As Betty says, 'ordinary' vandalism is a nuisance, but page-move vandalism can be a real pain; and as BullRangifer says, there's no particular reason for new users to be instantly able to move pages. L_O_M_G_B_O_Y_E was presumably autoconfirmed. Perhaps page move rights should be delayed until a user reaches extended-confirmed status? — Stanning (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
One user moved a couple dozen pages. Not the end of the world. As has been alluded to above, we've faced far worse and managed to stay afloat. AC is a fine limit, and while EC would certainly be harder to get to, it would stop a lot of good, new editors from contributing. Besides, vandals gonna vandal. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Amory, let's not use the exact same "logic" the NRA uses to keep AR-15s in the hands of those who can use them to cause much damage. Newbies will not suffer from a lack of the ability to move pages. It will not impinge on their ability to edit and improve the encyclopedia at all. If they really feel the need to move an article, they can ask on the talk page and it will be done, if it's a good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Nice sarcasm. NRA does exactly what Amory opposes. Guns only for the experienced, mature, clean and documented civilians. wumbolo^^^ 14:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you kindly rephrase? You seem to be comparing a silly vandal to mass murderers, with me abetting such crimes. That's inflammatory at best, and insulting at worst, and I do not believe it helps your argument. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 14:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm only referring to the logic being used. That's all. Change the names and it becomes a combination of NRA talking points, especially the last do-nothingism because vandals/criminals will always do what they're going to do, so let's not do a thing to prevent it. That type of logic isn't useful when we can easily prevent this type of problem without impinging on their ability to do actual editing. BTW, from what's written below about a filter, this may all be a moot point now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Except guns kill people, and page moves don't kill people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Except guns don't kill people, people kill people. wumbolo^^^ 22:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Way to parrot an NRA talking point. People kill people, but guns broadly and greatly expand the number of people who can kill other people. Seriously, a bit of critical thinking wouldn't hurt.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@WaltCip: and therefore minimize the number of people killed, by preventing violence. wumbolo^^^ 12:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Page moves for the last ten years have been well managed by Filter 68. I suspect the feature is currently experiencing a bug, else it would have been picked up, prevented, AND auto-reported to AIV. In any case the filter is the ideal tool for this as opposed to various blunt restrictions; requested adjustments to the filter can be made at WP:EFR, but like I say, I think it's just experiencing a bug. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, having looked a bit deeper there may or may not be a bug, but all that's required is a subtle adjustment to the filter. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason why page moves can't be pushed to EC, as long as article creation is still at AC. Creating a new page doesn't damage anything, while page moves can screw up a lot if the editor is intent to disrupt. If an AC editor needs a non-controversial page move, that should be handled by a edit request. --Masem (t) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I will also totally support upping the ability to move pages to Extended Confirmed. There's no urgent need that can make it necessary to allow a 4-day old account and 10 edits to just start moving pages, some of which cannot be reversed by established editor of 10 years who is not an admin and not a pagemover. "It is encyclopedia, everyone can edit" is a banal cliche which is being far and far from the truth evey day, the reality is "you can only edit what you're allowed". And restricting page-move to EC will not leave us with " hundreds of misnamed pages". –Ammarpad (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that mainspace-to-mainspace moving should require EC (moving isn't "editing", so Wikipedia would still the encyclopedia anyone can edit), but limiting draftspace-to-mainspace and userspace-to-mainspace moves would essentially be turning ACREQ into ECREQ, as it would force non-EC users to either create ther articles directly in mainspace (and get them speedied), going through AfC, or doing a copy-and-paste move (which is discouraged for copyright reasons). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose no real reason for this. Page move vandalism is a pain, but the ability to move pages is key to editing: typos, realizing a page you created could be at a better title, actually knowing more about the MOS and title change policy than established editors and doing uncontroversial moves (this is a thing). Restricting a core function of the MediaWiki software to extended confirmed on all pages is too much for me to swallow. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose yeah, EC is too much for just the ability to move a page. Also, all this appears to be over an issue that is fixed, at-least according to Zzuuzz, per his comment about "it would have been picked up, prevented, AND auto-reported to AIV" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Question: Would those editors opposed to the proposal support a confirmed account being allowed to perform an A->B->C move then? If a new account performs a vandalistic page move isn't the ability to revert the move also "key to editing"? It seems to me that if we are going to permit new editors to make such moves then it is equally reasonable to expect the software not to bar reverting these moves. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
So long as the auto-created redirects haven't been edited, anyone can just move it back C->B->A. At least half of the page-move requests I see in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion and never, ever touch (due to bad experiences with people complaining at me about the move afterward, instead of the person who requested it) could have been moved by any autoconfirmed user if they hadn't been tagged with {{db-move}} instead. —Cryptic 15:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This. I think perhaps folks don't know about overwriting a redirect? At any rate, it's maddening to see. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me that the solution we're looking for is to throttle page moves - say, to one per minute (+talk page) for autoconfirmed and five or ten per minute for extended-confirmed - rather than bumping the permission up to EC outright. I had vague recollections of this being made configurable back in the bad old days of WoW, but I can't find any evidence of it now in mediawiki source, alas. —Cryptic 15:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Making it part of the EC rights package seems sane. There is very little utility in a user moving a page on their first day. After a month and 500 edits, that would filter out 99% of the vandalism while the overwhelming majority of new users wouldn't even know their right was restricted. Moving pages just isn't something new users do a lot of legitimately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Seems like an ad hoc solution to a nonexistent problem to me. I am also not convinced that there is a benefit, and the attitude that new editors' rights have to be restricted more and more ad nauseam with never any good justification is bothering me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - is seems like a properly configured edit filter resolves this. Endorse Jo-Jo Eumerus's bothersome observation. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Support have seen 3 hijacking moves in last couple of days, all reverted, user blocked but it is an ongoing problem and no bot recognised it, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)
Here's another case of an account doing disruptive moves with just autoconfirm. KyrosFan (talk·contribs). --Masem (t) 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose A common use case for an autoconfirmed user needing to move a page is the cross-namespace move to article space of something they started in draft or user space. If they've worked on it with anyone else, we want the page history preserved, we don't want to drive them to making cut-and-paste moves. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I think that allowing editors with 4 days and 10 edits to rename articles is an excessively low bar. It could be increased to 7 days and 50 edits at the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaBUru38 (talk • contribs)
Oppose I have always gone for higher restrictions on recent discussions, but am strongly against this - it is a vastly higher limit that would remove many good edits. It would also seem out of line to have page creation at a lower level. I suppose articles that would fall into the big delete group (50k edits) could have higher restrictions on their move.
NaBUru38 - while that would make perfect sense as an edit/time requirement, Wiki has been rather staunchly against a proliferation of rights boundaries in the past Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. As pointed out above, AC users moving a lot of pages in short time can and should be caught by an edit filter. That's no reason to ban all AC users from moving. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Support because page move vandalism (and clueless non-vandalism) can be more problematic than the usual kinds of non-constructive editing, and because WP itself is taking page moves more and more seriously all the time; people have been blocked, topic banned, "move banned", even indeffed for disruptive page moves, and WP:AT which probably would have been fine as a guideline was elevated to policy level years ago. Either the community has decided page moving is a big deal, or it has not. We have get our story straight. PS: WP is not "the encyclopedia anyone can move stuff around it just for the hell of it". This proposal has no practical implications at all for WP being an open-editing encyclopedia, and our naming policy, naming conventions guidelines, style guidelines, RM precedents, category naming conventions, etc., take a while to absorb. Put it this way, if you're a big-corporation CEO and you just hired someone (with not pilot training), you don't say "Hey, why don't you to the roof and try flying the company helicopter around on your lunch break." — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Support moving to EC or otherwise throttling the ability to move stuff. In my experience, good-faith new editors don't even know that moves exist - hence all the requests on the help desk to "rename" articles. Only someone with substantial experience and (for whatever reason) a new account is really looking for this right. There are plenty of good-faith editors in that intersection of user experiences, but my guess is that most of them are not. Matt Deres (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion What if we simply allowed AC users to revert moves, which would move the page back to its original title without leaving behind a redirect? To me, this seems like a good compromise between requiring EC to move pages and requiring a page mover to fix this type of vandalism goose121 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The problem of faux neutrality and bias in Wikipedia
This discussion is not really going anywhere, if you want to discuss separate articles and their neutrality then this isn't the place to do so. It would help more if the OP makes a proposal on what to do rather than rant about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's pretty much undeniable that when it comes to politically charged subjects, there's a great amount of bias in Wikipedia, and this bias tends to be pretty much exclusively heavily left-leaning.
If you want to know how biased an article is, it's usually enough to read the lede of the article. The more biased, especially when it comes to controversial political subjects and people, the article is, the longer the lede will tend to be, and the more stock full of detail and minutia it will be, even though such minutia doesn't belong to a short summary. All this minutia will invariably exist there to paint a certain picture of the subject or the person in question. Most of these details are something that non-controversial articles usually don't have. In the case of the most controversial people and subjects, the lede will essentially be a full-on no-holds-barred attack against that person or subject. And this is pretty much always from an extremist leftist perspective.
As an example, the lede for the article on Milo Yiannopoulos (as of writing this comment) is very long. Its very short first paragraph would be more than enough for the purpose of a short summary. However, it's followed by not one, not two, but three massively long paragraphs, all of which are pretty much in essence a character assassination of this person. For example, the last, excessively long paragraph, is dedicated in its entirety to some paedophilia accusations, as if this were at all something that belongs to the lede of an article. It's quite clear that this entire paragraph, as well as the previous two, exists solely as a character assassination, and shows a clear agenda. This article, starting from its very lede, is heavily biased and lacks neutrality. Anybody who denies this is either delusional or deliberately lying.
Or take, for example, the article on "incel". Again, the lede is excessively long, and a full-on no-holds-barred assault on these people. The lede feels the need to mention, among other minutia, that these people are "mostly white, male and heterosexual". Why does the editor of this article feel the need to bring up, for example, race? What does race have anything to do with anything? Why is it so important to mention in the lede of the article? (It's quite telling that for long this claim had a whopping nine citations shoved into it. Quite clearly the writer really felt the need to justify it by shoving as many citations as he or she could find.) Specifically mentioning "white, male and heterosexual" in the lede is quite clearly pushing a certain socio-political agenda. Anybody who denies this is either delusional or deliberately lying. Anybody who is even slightly intellectually honest will admit that there is a political message being shoved in there. Such minutia doesn't belong in the lede of the article (if anywhere at all), and serves only the purpose of giving a certain picture to the reader, to push an agenda.
And oh boy, do I even need to mention the gamergate controversy article? It's arguably the most biased article in the entirety of wikipedia. It's so biased that it's just ridiculous. It's so bad that it reaches conservapedia levels. I could write an entire book about it, but let me just give one illustrative example: The word "harass" or "harassment" appears in the article a whopping 130 times. There is one paragraph where that word appears a whopping 11 times. In one single paragraph! It appears 8 times in the lede alone. This word alone appears in the article more times than some articles have words in total! This is not an article. It's essentially a conservapedia-style list of bullet points that has been collected as a resource to attack the movement, just formatted a bit more nicely to give the false illusion of it being an actual encyclopedic article. If that word appears that many times in the article, it's not an article. It's a propaganda piece, plain and simple. A normal encyclopedic article wouldn't need to repeat that word that many times. Anybody who denies this is either delusional or deliberately lying.
Which brings me to the subject of faux neutrality: All of these articles are masqueraded as being "neutral", and "sourced", some more cleverly than others. The problem is that in most cases this is just faux neutrality. It's giving the outwards appearance of "neutrality", of giving tons of "sources", but in reality it's just hiding the inherent bias. In most cases, with these articles, there's a selection bias of external sources: Only those sources are cited that affirm the message being conveyed. Almost invariably these citations refer to external sources that are themselves extremely biased (sometimes famously so). Giving the outwards impression of being "well-sourced", "unbiased" and "neutral" is deceptive when those external sources have been carefully selected, and are themselves extremely biased. Even when in a few cases a source is cited that gives an alternative perspective or opinion, it will be cited in a context that reduces its credibility (such as saying something like "source A objects to this notion arguing it to be false, but sources B, C, D, E, F and G refute this." The dissenting source is seldom let speak for itself, and will almost always be immediately countered instead, often with a flood of (biased, of course) other sources, giving the impression that the dissenting opinion is in an overwhelming minority.)
Is there a solution to this bias problem in Wikipedia? Probably not. Wikipedia is mob-controlled. As Wikipedia itself puts it, it has no central authority that would oversee the articles and remove any bias or agenda. Basically, whichever political mob is more numerous and holds more keys to the locks, rules Wikipedia, and is pretty much free to push its agenda, masquerading it as "neutral". This is quite a problem because way too many people, including very influential people (eg. those making decisions on laws), take Wikipedia way too seriously. Wikipedia has way too much influence on society, and thus political agendas being pushed by Wikipedia have a big potential to influence people. And there's pretty much nothing that can be done about it. As said, the largest mob controls the narrative.
Expecting this post to be locked. Perhaps even removed. Because that's how the mob works. It doesn't like being criticized.
"this bias tends to be pretty much exclusively heavily left-leaning." Wikipedia reflects reality, and reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Golbez (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
So that means, per WP:BIAS, if we recognize that systematic bias exists, we should try to reduce that bias, right? --Masem (t) 19:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Reality having a bias is not a systemic bias to fight. It is a fact to accept. --Golbez (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "liberal bias". Liberalism has nothing to do with it. It's a "progressive intersectional feminist" bias. The kind that abuses Wikipedia to make it a platform to attack and character-assassinate people and movements with the "wrong" opinions from their perspective, while people and movements that the intersectional feminists approve of do not get such a treatment. With some articles this bias is so glaring and so obvious that it's outright ridiculous. Even conservapedia doesn't have that much bias. Wopr (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Uh huh. You realize your abrasive tactics are not going to be effective, right? So you obviously have no interest in changing things here, just bitching at us for a little while and then maybe disappearing for another decade, to again fight against the evils of... checks notes... intersectionality. hm. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course nothing is going to change. I said as much in my original post. I quote: "Is there a solution to this bias problem in Wikipedia? Probably not." The fact is that articles on politically charged topics on Wikipedia are highly biased, Wikipedia has no neutral central authority and is instead mob-ruled, and the most numerous mob controls the narrative. And this mob is regressive leftist. Why would anything change? The fact nothing is going to change has been quite clear for years and years: People have tried to bring more neutrality and less bias to many of those politically charged pages, to no avail. Their edits have always been reverted, and the biased narrative has been restored, and only made worse. Unfortunately these people are the minority, and the political zealots happen to be the majority, so they have essentially no chance. Wikipedia, by the nature of being mob-ruled, is a political mouthpiece and propaganda platform, no more, no less. The people who have hogged the megaphones are controlling the narrative. And when people point that out, they are just met with ridicule. Wopr (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A systematic bias is specifically a bias of the nature of the reality. We know there's tons more Western media sources available compared to nearly any other region, which obviously leads to more Western topics being covered. So per BIAS, we have to make sure that we don't dismiss non-Western topics because they aren't in Western sources (rather than restrict the other way from Western sources). The problem in the current question is where these biases are coming from, because I will argue there are at least four different biases at work that unfortunately all create a feedback loop that worsens the bias: The normal left-bias of the press, the current bias due to Trump as president (who is, unquestionably, a divisive figure), the bias that the right media has that causes many of their sources to be discounted under our RS policy, and the bias of the editor composition here on WP (which I would personally argue in that the more vocal and established editors on controversial topics like Milo are left-leaning/liberal, whereas the newer editors to these are right-leaning/conservative). Untangling those and figuring out how to remedy those systematic biases is not an easy task but it is one we need to be thinking about and answering. What I've found though is too many "sweep it under the rug" comments, including in this discussion, without any attempt to analyze the problem in the long-term. --Masem (t) 16:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A lot of this relates to WP:Recentism. As long as a person or topic is “in the news” it is difficult to write balanced articles. Editors have a difficulty summarizing information (and presenting the information with a historical tone). Since they can’t summarize, they tend to write overly-detailed articles.
I have found that the solution to this is to have patience, and to take a long term approach. If you find an article on someone/something that is currently “in the news”... and thus overly-detailed... WAIT. Go back to the article after a few years have passed, and rewrite it. At that point we have a better understanding of what is really relevant and what isn’t... and the passions of our own POVs have faded. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Recognizing that some of the above articles have been extreme hotbeds of problematic behavior, the recentism issue is absolutely right, but that also leads into the fact that citogenesis happens. I know that our GG article has been used as a source in other supposed reliable sources to describe the situation, for example. That's the start of circular reporting and creating an echo chamber when we don't consider the larger picture of issues. We need a much better solution particularly on topics that are routine the subject of "character assassination" by the media at large, whether or not those topics actually merit that. The less we include when these cases happen, the better. --Masem (t) 13:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
There is indeed a bias on Wikipedia. To my personal opinion, there is a strong USA-centric bias whereby the notability guidelines work favourably of USA-subjects. Another form of bias is the fact that projects can in fact overrule the community-set notability guidelines. The Bannertalk 13:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if the OP can provide instances of articles "biased" for conservative elements to support his point, or whether this is just the tired "Wikipedia is liberally biased" argument with a different skin. --Izno (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The OP's point about "character assassination" is a rather novel issue which I have found to be far too true. Editors want to include anything RS present as a negative against a person (an accusation, a label, etc.); its just going to happen on conservative topics given that the bulk of RSes that would be acceptable for this are on the left. We shouldn't be actively seeking out recent "character assassination" material to stuff in articles, as an encyclopedia, unless it actually becomes key to that topic's notability. Someone might spout racist statements, and the media will jump on that, but until that actually turns into something that creates action in the real world (such as being kick off their job, or being convicted), we should be very caution about including that, even though it can be sourced to RSes. This is very easy to do towards conservative targets from left-leaning media, and given that as an academic work, editors on WP average as liberals, it compounds the problem. --Masem (t) 13:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if there are any Wikipedia articles that are biased for "conservative elements". I'm not exactly sure why you are even asking this. The most important point is that an encyclopedia shouldn't have any bias at all! The fact that most (if not all) of the bias is towards extremist leftism makes it only worse. There are way too many articles which are clearly biased to favor one political position and/or to paint another political position in a bad light, and it looks to me that the bias is pretty much invariably towards favoring extreme leftism (not even liberalism, but leftism, which isn't the same thing) and against concepts, ideas, phenomena or people who are more "right-wing" or "conservative" (or even "centrists" who are critical of the extreme left.) An encyclopedia shouldn't take stances, and shouldn't have biases. Wopr (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, actually this encyclopedia is supposed to be biased in favour of mainstream viewpoints, see WP:NPOV. Mainstreamness as measured by the amount of reliable sources that discuss a topic, that is, not a popularity count. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I said something similar to the OP at Talk:Incel: "Is your argument, saying what sources say is bias? Perhaps, but it's not bias as how it is usually defined, which is saying what sources don't say, or ignoring what sources do say because you don't like it. As for your claim that using those words is bias -- they are words, which you seem to have a bias against but that does not mean we would not use them, as the sources do, and not according to your anti-word bias." What we have it appears here is a person who want's to say, 'don't talk about that', regardless of sources - so, their 'don't talk about it', suggests they have bias and an agenda. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Except that as Blueboar notes, we need to avoid recentism. We should be write to a viewpoint that is likely going to stand the test of time. Political goalposts shift, broad moral change. What's the view of mainstream today will not reflect what it will be years down the road. The insistance of many editors to force things like character assassinations repeated ad nasuem by sources now is not going necessarily going to be appropriate in 5 years. Hence why we should be much more middle-ground conservative and avoid giving so much weight to these things now. I know the Lewinsky stuff with Clinton is being used as an example, and actually what we have there for that makes sense - it was a major issue with the Clinton adminstration, but it ended up doing little much, so we don't go excessively overboard with it now, in hindsight. But too many editors want to avoid waiting for hindsight to give the right answer for how to approach current topics. --Masem (t) 17:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The last paragraph of Yiannopoulos's article lead is about the very public affair which led to his departure from Breitbart, and the cancellation of his book deal, over which there was a lawsuit (since dropped). As WP:LEAD says, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. To leave it out would be as if the Monica Lewinsky affair was left out of Bill Clinton's lead.
One can argue about the phrasing and emphasis, sure. But to say that it doesn't belong in the lead at all is a bit of a stretch. Kingsindian♝♚ 14:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree. The OP does not get the introduction - if anything our intro's in general need much attention, actually completing them by writing more -- they are simply, WP:UNFINISHED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Notice how Clinton's impeachment mention is only a couple of sentences in the paragraph, and Lewinsky is only mentioned very briefly and in passing as the reason for the impeachment. The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with any of this. This is very much unlike the mentioned paragraph in the Yiannopoulos page, which goes to completely unnecessary amount of detail, and delves on it way more than would be necessary. The difference is quite clear: The Clinton lede is not a character assassination, while the Yiannopoulous one is. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's clearly agenda-driven, and completely faux neutrality. You can deny there being a political agenda in the article all you like, but that doesn't change the fact. And, as some here have commented, they want more character assassination in article leads, rather than less. Wikipedia as a "neutral" encyclopedia is a complete joke. Wopr (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy that articles need to be objectively neutral. They only need to written from neutral POV while giving due WEIGHT to the reliable sources (with lots of special rules like PRIMARY, BLP, NOTE etc). It is the job of editors to pick sources, to have editorial oversight (or "bias"). As such I think complaining that Wikipedia is not objectively neutral is like calling a horse a pig - it never was so. -- GreenC 17:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem is with "reliable". There is no agreed definition. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a continuum of reliability with academic on one side and Daily Mail on the other. It's often context-sensitive as to what fact is being cited. WP:RS discusses. In the end if there is dispute Wikipedia is consensus-based. -- GreenC 21:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Positing academia as the be-all end-all of reliability is also problematic and can lead to the reproduction of biases within academia. That having been said, such biases are usually along the lines of America- and euro-centric chauvinism toward other societies, which would make the bias right-leaning (although the left/right dichotomy doesn't really adequately describe this dynamic: a more accurate portrayal would be to say that there is a bias toward Liberal viewpoints as enshrined in Western academic tradition, over those of other intellectual traditions both to the right and to the left). OP's impression that Wikipedia's bias is "leftist" is a rather ironic byproduct of their own bias that conforms to the Overton window of right-wing American popular discourse.Rosguill (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I always wonder what discussions like this one hope to accomplish, aside from providing some stimulating intellectual conversation. There is not going to be a consensus that Wikipedia has a serious bias problem one way or the other, since consensus is determined by the very same editors who you claim are responsible for bias in the encyclopedia. Even if there were such a consensus, what could we do about it, exactly? There is no higher Neutrality Court at Wikipedia, nor would one be an improvement because it would have its own bias (never mind that its backlog would be measured in years). Bias is human nature, editors who recognize their own biases and make concerted efforts to compensate for them comprise a small minority, and that will forever be true. Policy is unavoidably vague and subject to interpretation, and Wikipedia is edited by ordinary people, not philosophers and ethicists. Write an essay about Wikipedia left-bias and it will be generally supported by right-leaning editors and generally rejected by left-leaning editors. ―Mandruss☎ 00:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Wopr: To be clear... you're unhappy that the statement about race in the lead of Incel was... too well cited? (For transparency, I created that article and wrote a fairly large chunk of it.) GorillaWarfare(talk) 01:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
No. The amount of citations was not the problem, just a symptom. Clearly you felt the need to overly justify your completely unnecessary "white heterosexual male" statement, which exists there solely to push a certain political view and agenda. It's quite clear that you knew perfectly well how controversial, politically charged, biased and "baiting" such a statement in such an article is, and thus you overcompensated that controversiality with a citation flood, trying to give it as much credibility as you could. You know perfectly well how politically charged and biased listing those particular characteristics is on this day and age, and you clearly tried to justify it with a citation flood. In other words, you have a political bias and agenda. Don't even try to deny it. This is the fundamental problem I am seeing in Wikipedia with politically charged and controversial subjects. Bias and agenda-pushing. Wopr (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The claim was repeatedly challenged on the incel talk page by folks such as yourself, who tended to fall into one of three categories: those who said it was incorrect, those who said it was given undue weight in proportion to how often it was mentioned in reliable sourcing, and those who didn't like that it was mentioned. I don't believe the folks in the first group were ever able to provide any reliable sources that discussed the demographics of incel communities as anything other than primarily white/heterosexual/male. Some sources were produced that discuss the existence of non-white/non-heterosexual/non-male incels, but the folks offering up those sources seemed to misunderstand the statement as implying that all incels are straight white men, not that people meeting some or all of those descriptors make up the majority of the communities. As for those in the second group who argued it was not widely mentioned in reliable sourcing, the impetus was less on them to produce evidence, since one can't really prove that negative. Hence why myself and other editors added additional sourcing to show that it is mentioned quite often. As for the third group, well, Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
I understand that you disagree with its inclusion in the lead, but it seems you might be unfamiliar with how these subjects are handled on Wikipedia. The fact that more citations were used for that claim was an artifact of resolving conversations about whether it should be included in the lead—though I do agree with those on the talk page who felt the list of inline notes had grown too long and decided to pare it down.
This particular tangent is perhaps getting a bit long for discussion on the village pump and might be better held over at Talk:Incel, although I will suggest reading WP:TALKNO if you do decide to move it over. I believe your comments have been removed from that page at least once because they were descending into soapboxing about "mob rule" and bias on Wikipedia in general. Your input on how to improve the article is welcome there, but please try to provide sourcing and policy-based reasoning for your suggestions. You might also do well to avoid accusatory statements like "clearly you felt the need...", "you knew perfectly well...", and "don't even try to deny it", but that's your prerogative within the bounds of WP:CIVIL. GorillaWarfare(talk) 16:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
As for that last part, are you seriously claiming that you do not consider inserting "white heterosexual male" in such a controversial subject to be politically charged and pushing a certain narrative, and that you did it in complete honesty without any sort of ulterior motives? Well, I suppose you could claim that, but you'll pardon me if I don't believe you. This might possibly be the only article in the entirety of Wikipedia where the race of the majority of the people being discussed is mentioned in the lede. As if race had any sort of significance or importance to the matter in question. Couple it with "heterosexual male", and the message is quite clear. Notice how much of your response you spent once again trying to justify the inclusion of those words. Also notice how much you object making that lede shorter and less politically charged and less agenda-driven. Possibly because of principle? You have a bias, whether you admit it or not. And that's the whole point of this post of mine: The inherent bias in Wikipedia on politically charged subjects. That article is one perfect example. Wopr (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Wah wah. The consensus went against you, and you didn't get your way in an argument on Wikipedia. You're not even pointing to any diffs of so-called "bias" occurring, just blurting out deliberately inflammatory and argumentative prose with vague hints at a left-leaning bias. The fact you chose the "incel" and "Gamergate" articles to make your point speaks volumes. Let's all move on.--WaltCip (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Politically charged or not, anyone writing a neutral and dispassionate article about incels would have to use the phase "white heterosexual male" at one point, because incels are mostly white, heterosexual, and male. That's an WP:NPOV description of incels, even if it triggers rage amongst those who are "anti-social justice/anti-progressive/anti-whatever you want to call it". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
And the mob has spoken. While you are at it, why don't you just censor my post, or even remove it completely? Because that's how it works. And while you are still at it, why don't you add a few more instances of the word "harassment" to the gamergate article? I don't think it has enough of them. A couple dozen more should do for now. Wopr (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The only thing more pathetic than nailing yourself to a cross is whining that someone else hasn't nailed you to a cross yet. No, that's not "how it works," obviously, since you are still here. (also, congrats WaltCip on becoming a mob!) --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably not a barnstar-worthy achievement to be sure, but nonetheless, I'll take delight in it, as I'm sure this person takes delight in being the alt-right martyr of the day.--WaltCip (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I have to wonder exactly who you are trying to convince with the mockery and ridicule. The echo chamber, maybe? But please, by all means continue. You two keep patting yourselves in the back. Wopr (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2018 (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.
Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC: closed
Because I know this is of interest to so many people, I'm providing notice here that I have closed Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC. (And hoping I got the formatting right.) I apologize that it took me so long to finish this. -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks the closers for the good work. This was almost a suicidal task to accomplish, and though I am sure some users would disagree I think this is the best possible closure given the circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitely a difficult close, and I won't personally fault the closers for the conclusions reached, but there are two clear errors in it, one of omission of facts, and one of policy interpretation:
"There is clearly a group who are opposed in any way to the use of Wikidata, and who all voted the same identical way: "1A 2A 3A 4A" These 31 Wikipedians (out of the 94 people who participated in the poll part of this RfC) in effect opposed to any use of Wikidata data in infoboxes." This is a factually incorrect assessment; many of those in this diffuse group of commenters (myself included) are not "opposed to any use of Wikidata in infoboxes", only opposed to its use until WikiData has a means of filtering content on a per-project basis so that, e.g., only WD content that has been vetted for compliance with en.WP sourcing policy is imported from WD into en.WP. While the close addressed this policy-related concern later in its wording, the characterization of "the 94 people" is incorrect and sets up a false dichotomy, an "us versus them" that is illusory, but which could cloud later discussions if not addressed.
"This reading of the poll is supported by a recurring theme in the discussion portion of the RfC, that individual Wikiprojects should be offered the opportunity to experiment with material from Wikidata. This suggestion may warrant further exploration." That's not even a possible result under en.WP policy. Per WP:CONLEVEL, WP:EDITING, WP:OWN, and WP:NOTWEBHOST policies, no wikiproject has any more claim to control over any piece of WP content than any other editors (and there is virtually no article that could not be within the scope of multiple wikiprojects anyway). Constraining OWN-ish antics by wikiproject is why we have CONLEVEL policy in the first place, and why ArbCom has repeatedly heard cases the central matter of which was wikiprojects' attempt to control topics, and concluding with rulings that they cannot. If there is no consensus for automatically importing WD content into en.WP infoboxes, there is no magical local-consensus power to overturn that on the part of, say, WikiProject Botswana to use wikidata in Botswana-related articles.
Not the closer nor an admin, but regarding the latter point, I respectfully disagree, SMcCandlish. CONLEVEL determines that lower-level consensus cannot overrule higher-level consensus, certainly; and that WikiProject consensus is in fact a lower- not higher-level consensus. So indeed, if the wider community says "No.", a WikiProject cannot say "yes, for us".
But if the wider community were to say either "no consensus of any kind exists" or "leave it to lower-level consensus to determine what is right for them", a Wikiproject can say "Well, this is what we consider right for us" and can implement it—at least on those articles or pages where said consensus is not challenged.
On those pages where the consensus is challenged, there thus is no actual consensus and matters should be solved the same way as when for whatever other non-policy-bound, non-higher-consensus-bound reason editors disagree with the way an article should be treated: use the talkpage to discuss and attempt to form a consensus or acceptable compromise for that specific page or group of pages, so long as it does not run against global consensus, policy, etc.; if that does not work, follow the relevant steps in solving a content dispute. That this does not always happen as should is sadly a fact, both in cases without and with WikiProject involvement; and that sometimes editors or WikiProjects assign the consensus they've reached a higher status than that of the local consensus it is, if not in word then in action is equally true. However, this does not change the fact that the relevant case specifically states:
"Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account." (emphasis mine)
"No consensus" is the absence of consensus in either direction, not consensus against. Thus, as there exists no global level consensus other than "whatever WikiData is imported/used must be reliable" (presuming the close is correct in judging consensus), then so long as, say, WikiProject:Botswana does not go against that, said WikiProject choosing to import WD content isn't overturning anything nor runs against CONLEVEL; and so long as said WikiProject keeps in mind that their consensus is not of higher status than the consensus of editors to any particular article even if said article is within their scope, it does not go against WP:OWN either. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not a case of no consensus, it's a case of consensus that "if Wikipedia wants to use data from Wikidata, there needs to be clear assurances on the reliability of this data", to quote the close. That reliability assurance is presently not technically possible and will not be for the foreseeable future, so this is a clear-cut case of "lower-level consensus cannot overrule higher-level consensus". More to the point, it's just "un-wiki", in an important sense, to even suggest that wikiprojects should go around making up their own rules. We've been down this road before, and it's been a trainwreck every single time. Some of our longest-running and most disruptive disputes have been the direct result of it (e.g. over a decade of feuding about [over-]capitalization of the vernacular names of species, as just one example). When multiple policies, ArbCom cases, and RfCs all point in exactly the same direction that is unmistakably a site-wide community consensus against the "wikiprojects are their own little sovereign fiefdoms" nonsense — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I recognized the consensus on that point ('other than "whatever WikiData is imported/used must be reliable"', although I do recognize that I oversimplified my representation of that. My original drafted sentence was more specific and inclusive but I regretfully cut it down a bit too much in an attempt to shorten my response before posting, which already is long but was significantly longer at one point). I will take you on your word that the technical impossibility of this means that de facto there is no way of ensuring this at this moment and thus no way of using the data without running against the existing global consensus; I do not consider myself well-informed enough to judge this either way though it certainly sounds logical.
My main reason for replying was that such a ruling is not impossible under en.WP policy in general, which your wording suggested to me you meant, in particular the phrasing "That's not even a possible result under en.WP policy". It is certainly well-possible I misunderstood you and you meant it as impossible in this specific case. If that is indeed the case, by all means feel free to collapse the above section (or ask me to if for any reason you'd rather I do so) if you feel it best. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: Looks like I edit-conflicted with your addition; my response above was to your original, shorter, reply. Considering I specifically stated WikiProject consensus to be of no higher level than any other local consensus and outright said I feel that when a WikiProject consensus is challenged on a page it should be handled the same way as when any other non-global consensus is challenged, I hardly hold to the "wikiprojects as sovereign fiefdoms" school of thought myself. I do however believe consensus formed through them is a valid form of local consensus in the absence of either conflicting local consensus or global consensus. As I suspect we could both continue about this subject for a fair while—even though I believe our actual stances are not all that far apart—I suspect that it's better if we wrap up our conversation here and either respectfully agree to (slightly) disagree or move it to either your or my talkpage, whichever you prefer. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems we were just talking past each other. I'm not making a general point, but one specific to the case. We use local consensus all the time for things we don't have any broad consensus about. This just isn't one of those cases (even if consensus was not achieved on every single point at issue in the RfC, it was reached on the central matter). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup, seems like we were indeed talking past each other. You've now answered the point I've raised above prior to my edit, though: you were indeed speaking of this specific case not generally and my original reply was based on a misunderstanding of what you were saying. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Llywrch, Swarm, and Fsh and Karate: I have no idea where the 31 1A etc. voters count comes from, if I have counted correctly there are 42 votes of "1A, 2A". Whether these voted for 3A, 3B, or no 3 at all doesn't really matter, as there was no "3" option which really corresponded with 1A and 2A. I'm not claiming that 42 people would constitute a consensus, but to se them reduced to 31, thereby diminishing the percentage of 1A, 2A voters drastically, is not correct. Having 1/3 opposed to any use of Wikidata, or having 45% opposed, is quite different. Fram (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I want to thank the closers for tackling this beast of an RFC. But if I may nitpick one line, I too find it poor to cite a figure of 31 out of 94 people. It seems to suggest less than 1/3 really opposed using wikidata. I (softly) object that *I* was excluded from that 31 count. I think a count of 1A-or-equivalent !votes would have been more correct.
Tallying counts can be a bit variable in regard to some debatable edge cases, but my personal tally is 44 wanting wikidata removed, 3 wanting wikidata rolled back to experimental use only, and 46 wanting some level of real wikidata use. That's 47% wanting wikidata removed (44/93), and a majority if you include those who want wikidata rolled back to experimental (47/93). If any of the closers are willing, I'd be extremely interested to compare my tally-calculation to yours. I bet there are differences in opposite directions partially cancelling out. Alsee (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia - might be acceptable, might not be. if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability- big if. For the other issues raised within this RfC, there was no clear consensus - complete waste of time in other words, didn't decide a thing, what a surprise.Smeat75 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I am responsible for the tally. One challenge I faced with tallying up the votes is that many people voted for two or more options on a line, say 3A & 3F; one participant split his vote amongst three possible categories! I felt the best way to allocate the intent of people who split their preference amongst multiple options was to split their vote accordingly. (I should note this was what Mike Peel decided to do too in his tally, independently of me.) If someone else tallying the vote did not split up the votes as we had, they might end up with a different number. (For the record, I also counted 5 people who either voted for 1A alone, or for 1A & 2A. I did not include them in my total.)
To repeat Wikipedia policy, RfC are not closed & a consensus reached based by a vote (or !vote, as some refer to them) total but on strength of arguments. Counting these votes can sometimes provide a shortcut to determining a consensus -- especially in a snowball case -- but should never be relied on alone. So it's not important if the number of people voting "1A 2A 3A 4A" were 31 or 36 or 42. What is important is that a significant portion of the total voted this way. And if it is a good thing for Wikidata content to be used in Wikipedia infoboxes, these are the people who must be convinced it is a good idea. That was my point in mentioning this group in my closing; perhaps I needed to be more explicit.
Further, conclusions based on counting votes need to be supported by what is said in the larger discussion. This is what I tried to do. To say a majority of participants were concerned about the reliability of Wikidata content is admittedly a controversial conclusion, so I supported it by drawing on my reading of the discussion section. Time & again I read complaints about the reliability of the material in Wikidata, not about Wikidata itself -- although a few did complain about its unintuitive interface. Any reasonable person who read that section would conclude that the primary complaint about Wikidata was about the reliability of its content. It would not be improper to then deduce were these concerns addressed, opposition to importing data from it might be lessened.
One point that I wanted to emphasize in the closing is that despite being another Wikimedia project, that project has different goals & policies from Wikipedia. Both want to have accurate & reliable information: Wikipedia is presenting it in the format of an encyclopedia; Wikidata in the format of a database. In many cases, both projects would benefit from working with each other. (Which means each community not only needs to talk to the other, but also listen.) And when working together, there will be friction between the two communities. Consider the chronic friction between Wikipedia & Commons. However, both projects can achieve success without interacting in the way infoboxes would require them to. Both Wikisource & Wiktionary do quite well apart from Wikipedia. (Wikiversity might also, but I've had no real experience with that project.)
What my last point means applies to the consensus I found in the discussion: everyone can agree that if the information on Wikidata is not what the community & policy defines as reliable, then we shouldn't use it. If we ignore the issue that Wikidata is another Wikimedia project, & consider this as an issue whether it is a reliable source, then there would be far less contention over this issue. The barrier to adoption is lower in this case because data can be easily transcluded over -- although while I was working on closing this RfC, people reported issues with this transclusion -- but this concern is paramount. If we can't use Wikidata to our advantage, then we shouldn't use it. Plain & simple. However, we won't know if we can unless someone tries.
One person concluded that this RfC was a waste of time. I obviously disagree. Remember that this RfC was not a contest or a battle, but was supposed to be a discussion. I think all parties would benefit from reading what was written once again, & thinking about what other people wrote. This RfC defined one group who wants to experiment with importing & manipulating content from Wikidata, in hope they can do something useful with it; I didn't see anyone explain how that would be harmful to Wikipedia. (And when one uses the word "experiment", that implies also establishing metrics to determine success or failure.) This RfC also defined another group who are skeptical about Wikidata; they need to be convinced this would be an improvement. Both groups need to figure out how to live with each other while this is happening. Otherwise, this whole matter will drag out like countless other tempests in tea cups that have rumbled endlessly on Wikipedia over the last 15+ years. -- llywrch (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
"(For the record, I also counted 5 people who either voted for 1A alone, or for 1A & 2A. I did not include them in my total.)" Why? There were four different questions, with four possible consensuses. But when people voted either 1A or 1A and 2A, there was no need to vote for 3 and 4 any longer (and looking at the close, it would have been wiser if I hadn't voted for 3 and 4 either). You claim "These 31 Wikipedians (out of the 94 people who participated in the poll part of this RfC) in effect opposed to any use of Wikidata data in infoboxes", but at the very least the 5 people who voted for 1A or 1A and 2A clearly also opposed any use of Wikidata. Basically, your close starts with a wrong count or a wrong interpretation of what people voted for, which gives very little confidence for the remainder of your close.
" So it's not important if the number of people voting "1A 2A 3A 4A" were 31 or 36 or 42. " but still it was important enough to include the lowest possible number into your close. Even worse, you dump all others into the "more numerous" group "willing to consider using Wikidata".
"Time & again I read complaints about the reliability of the material in Wikidata, not about Wikidata itself -- although a few did complain about its unintuitive interface. Any reasonable person who read that section would conclude that the primary complaint about Wikidata was about the reliability of its content. It would not be improper to then deduce were these concerns addressed, opposition to importing data from it might be lessened." The RfC was not about Wikidata, its unintuitive (or horrible) interface, its problematic userbase, its poor policies and application of them (BLP, notability, ...). These complaints were not raised because they are not relevant for the questions asked. To deduce anything from the lack of such complaints about how people feel in general about Wikidata shows a misunderstanding of the purpose and working of the RfC. Furthermore, addressing the reliability issues is hardly possible, since Wikidata is a separate project with separate policies and goals, and they are not bound by our reliability rules (or vice versa).
"However, we won't know if we can unless someone tries." Which we have been doing for 5 years now, since the first RfC.
" This RfC defined one group who wants to experiment with importing & manipulating content from Wikidata, in hope they can do something useful with it; I didn't see anyone explain how that would be harmful to Wikipedia. " No, one group wants to go all out and implement Wikidata-based infoboxes wherever possible. And if you didn't see anyone explain how these things can be and have been harmful to Wikipedia, then you haven't read the same RfC, nor any of the discussions around it. We already have had one Wikidata-based infobox (world heritage sites) which made enwiki so much worse that it was decided to go back to a non-Wikidata infobox, which is now (months later) nearly finished. Such experiments have been going on all over the place, and countless hours have been spent in undoing the damage they have caused (immediately, and afterwards when someone vandalizes Wikidata and the vandalism remains here for days). If you want an example of the kind of damage Wikidata-based infoboxes can do, see e.g. Omar bin Laden. Wikidata description "one of the sons of Almirante General Aladeen" (luckily we have removed the Wikidata description from most enwiki uses and are in the process of eliminating it completely). Wikidata doesn't have the item "Omar Bin Laden", they have, since 10 June, the item Mauricio McCree. And sure enough, 6 Wikipedia languages[6][7][8][9][10][11] now claim since 10 days that one living son of Osama bin Laden is called Mauricio McCree...
"Both groups need to figure out how to live with each other while this is happening. " Indefinitely? The "experiment" has been going on for 5 years, and the results are not remarkably better now than they were then. A have a few days ago checked a dozen pages which had the Wikidata version of the infobox person, and removed it from 4 of them because that infobox gave clearly worse results than the local one. This "experiment" is actively harming enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I really need to learn how to ping: @Llywrch:. Fram (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the close at all but, fair enough, much of the RfC became too complex for me to follow also. I'll just remove it on sight, every time, until WikiData gets its house in order. Sue me. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Rollback and article sanctions
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but if it hasn't, I'm hoping this is the correct place. As a vandal-fighter and rollbacker, it is not typical to manually edit or check the talk page of every page before making a revert (even more rare when using tools like Huggle or similar). If an article is under arbitration remedies, it's easy to be totally unaware, and make a revert that may breach the remedies with no knowledge of them. I'm therefore wondering if rollback should even be technically possible on a page that is under remedies that may limit or prohibit such use. Is it possible that rollback could be disabled, or at least prompt an "Are you sure?" type message on pages under remedies? Home Lander (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The 5 standard reasons for using rollback are exempt from these Arbitration remedies. When you're unsure whether the rollbacking of a particular edit is justifiable with these reasons or not "...use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.".
If you want rollback to prompt Are you sure? dialog (for You), there's a script that can do that. Am I missing something? Everything seems clear to me from the Rollback guideline page.–Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You've got the idea, but for example, say a user removes a large batch of content from a page with no explanation. The standard procedure is to revert the removal and warn the user (Huggle can do this with one click). Then someone else does the same thing, so you repeat the process. But if the article is under sanctions (say 1RR and the typical), you've already blown it right there. Home Lander (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The relevant policy here is WP:3RRNO, which lists types of behavior that are exempt from 3RR, 1RR, 0RR, etc. If the edits are obvious vandalism, of the kind that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language, then you may revert the edits freely as many times as necessary – these are generally the only kinds of edits you should be using Huggle to revert.
On a tangentially related point, if a user removes unsourced or poorly sourced content without an explanation in the edit summary, I typically like to just assume per WP:AGF that the removal was done on the basis that the content was unsourced/poorly sourced, and per WP:BURDEN, it's good practice to just leave it removed in that case. Mz7 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Another consideration here is that per WP:AC/DS#Awareness, you are required to be aware of the page restriction before you can be sanctioned for violating that restriction. Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mz7: Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. Home Lander (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The US Wikipedia
Hi all, I've been recently explained that, when it comes to non-free content is only defined with regard to the copyright status in the US. I've been told that the "US Wikipedia" (sic) works in that way and, although I don't have a fundamental objection to that, I wonder where such a definition has been agreed on by the community and especially why it is not clearly stated in Wikipedia:Non-free content (with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions in the US on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially). In the case we're discussing, a 1912 painting by Picasso, it's clearly copyrighted in it source jurisdiction although possibly free in the US. If the statements provided in Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions are true, why aren't they clearly stated in Wikipedia:Non-free content. Thanks --Discasto (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
We have to obey US law because the Wikimedia Foundation and servers are based there. The community can choose to be more restrictive than required by US law, but not less. I'll let someone else answer the other aspects of your question. Dragons flight (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
meta:Legal/Legal Policies is a list of official legal policies of the Wikimedia Foundation. The section on compliance with state and national laws is, in a nutshell, exactly what Dragons flight just said. As an official foundation policy the community has no power to change it, but as mentioned by DF and the policy itself, a community is permitted to be more restrictive than required. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A notable example is the Japanese Wikipedia, which requires content be legal under the laws of Japan, which means no fair use material. --Golbez (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not really an exception... Again, the minimum for copyright restriction is based on US laws (since that is where WMF is based)... but the various Language sub-projects can be MORE restrictive if they wish. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Cool, because I said example, not exception. :) --Golbez (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
de-wiki, the second largest Wikipedia (I'm not counting sv-wiki and ceb-wiki because their numbers were artificially increased by bots), also conforms to German law despite the fact that it's not hosted there. Regards SoWhy 11:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Note however that Commons does try to conform to the country where an image comes from as well even though it doesn't really have to. The images in Wikipedia therefore that may be problematic have to also follow fair use, it is a bit more strict than just following US law. God knows what will happen if the EU passes its law about checking uploaded content and paying for links - I guess that will be followed by the US at some stage as it is the sort of media company politicking that caused copyright terms to be so long. We really need another Mr Smith Goes to Washington to deal with the stupidity Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
At least the US Supreme Court has ruled that "public domain in the United States" is irrevocable, even by Congress.Someguy1221 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
In Golan v. Holder (2012) the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to extend copyright protections to works previously in the public domain. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
With regards to English Wikipedia's policy as to non-US copyright, this is covered, in detail, at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights (this is the policy page just underneath "Non-free content" in the Wikipedia copyright sidebar). The second paragraph of the lead at that policy page says "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries." While most of the time whether or not a work is protected by copyright in the US is not dependent on whether or not it protected in its country of origin, due to the URAA the U.S. copyright status of a large number of non-U.S. works actually depends upon the laws of the country of origin for these works. See the aforementioned Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights page for details. —RP88(talk) 00:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"Notability is not transferable"
This is often cited, and I believe it to be true, but I can't find the actual policy that says this. Could someone please point me to it, and ping me as I don't have this page watchlisted. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: It's not actually policy. WP:NOTE is a guideline, and WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay commenting on it. That said, a common sense interpretation of WP:NOR would imply that just because something is true about, oh, my left lung, that doesn't mean that we can assume anything about my right lung and probably can't assume anything about me. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, folks, that's extremely helpful. Glad to be put on the right track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Also though: While notability is not inherited, in most cases of related subjects WP:ATD, especially merging and redirecting, applies. Regards SoWhy 18:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Two closed RFCs re Wikidata
As many know, there has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the use of Wikidata in WP.en. In particular, two RFCs on the issue have now been closed. Please read the closing statements at:
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:TemplateStyles#RFC: Adopt as a guideline. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#RfC: Enabling TemplateStyles for background. - Evad37 [talk] 08:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
spintendo 01:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Administrator note The account in question below was autoconfirmed, having been registered for 4 days with at least 10 edits, just noting that "new editors" below the confirmation threshold are already prevented from moves. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
