Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:08, 10 June 2020

Table of contents
First discussion
End of page
New post

Shortcuts

WP:VPP
WP:VPPOL

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.

If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

RfC: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions

While there is significant support for limiting the categorization of current localities by historical subdivisions in some way, no clear criterion emerges to do so systematically.

The consensus is to stick with the status quo (option C), by using common sense to assess on a case-by-case basis whether the categorization of a page reflects a relevant historical fact rather than a cataloguing attempt.

− Pintoch (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Question: What should the general rule/principle/guideline be for categorizing current localities by historical administrative subdivision in Central and Eastern Europe? There are quite a few articles of cities and towns that have been categorized not only in which administrative subdivision they currently are in, but also by the former subdivisions.

Typical example: Eišiškės, a small town in Lithuania, is in these categories: Category:Cities in Lithuania, Category:Cities in Vilnius County, Category:Šalčininkai District Municipality, Category:Vilnius Voivodeship, Category:Lidsky Uyezd, Category:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939). The first 3 categories reflect the current administrative subdivision. Vilnius Voivodeship was a subdivision in 1413–1795. Lidsky Uyezd was a 2nd-level subdivision sometime between 1795–1915. Nowogródek Voivodeship (1919–1939) was an inter-war subdivision.

General options:

A: categorization should be limited - by what? Whether it is referenced in the article? How long the subdivision lasted? How large the subdivision was? To the 1st-level former subdivision? To how recent subdivision was? Etc?
B: categorization should not be allowed (i.e. current localities should be removed from the former subdivision categories; historical information could be preserved in a different venue like a separate list or an addition to the locality article or something similar to the "historical affiliation" box as in Görlitz#History)
C: status quo; no general rules; specific issues with individual categories should be addressed at WP:CfD

22:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Major concerns with such categories:

WP:OR/WP:V: many of the locality articles do not even mention or reference former subdivisions. In Eišiškės example above, only Nowogródek Voivodeship is mentioned in the article body (added by me 12 years ago without a reference). What is the basis to claim it was in the Lidsky Uyezd? An editor looking at a map? Finding out former subdivisions is not always straightforward, particularly for smaller towns or for older subdivisions – some medieval regions did not have well defined borders, while in more recent years administrative border adjustments are frequent.
WP:NONDEF: if many of the articles don't even mention the historical subdivision, it cannot be the defining characteristic (which is the central goals of the categorization system).
Confusion for readers: in the example of Eišiškės above, could you tell which of the 6 categories is for the current and which is for the former subdivision? (this could be somewhat alleviated by better category names)
Clutter/maintainability: Görlitz lists 23 different countries/states (not to mention subdivisions) that it was a part of. Should all of these be represented in a category? If not all, then which ones?

Examples of categories: just some samples from different countries. Category:Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia (did not have well-defined borders), Category:Republic of Central Lithuania (has other valid historical articles mixed in with current localities), Category:Telshevsky Uyezd and Category:Minsky Uyezd (2nd-level subdivision), Category:Lithuania Governorate (subdivision that lasted 5 years), Category:Ținutul Nistru (existed for 2 years), Category:Belastok Region (short-lived WWII subdivision), Category:Province of Catania (subdivision renamed in 2015), Category:Localities in Western Moldavia (without digging, can't tell whether current or historical subdivision), Category:Province of Westphalia.

Why this RfC? There were some CfD discussions over the years (ones that I am aware Aug 2015 (delete), Sept 2015 (delete), Oct 2015 (no consensus), Apr 2017 (no consensus)) but they did attract much attention (unlike AfD, CfD rarely attracts outsider attention), yielded inconsistent results, and did not hash out what should be done with these categories in general. And these categories keep proliferating. Therefore, looking for a broader principle-based discussion here, rather than individual consideration of specific categories at CfD.

Side note: some locality articles have "historical affiliation" boxes (example: Görlitz#History), though in some others it was removed as "nightmares" or "LISTCRUFT". And a user got blocked for adding them (and refusing to communicate).

Opinion poll: Locality categorization by historical subdivisions

Please place your !vote here.

A: definitely should be limited to may be current immediate subdivision and may be the historical in which a populated place was established. For the "historical affiliation" box mentioned above for Gorlitz, it should be avoided as a spam as it simply fails the Manual of Style for flags WP:MOSFLAG and infringes on original research WP:OR due to political speculations. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Grigoryev: I thought about it, and I don't think it's a workable solution. Many places don't have a specific founding date and they are just mentioned in written sources in year x, or even more broadly in century y. Plus what makes the first subdivision so special? Further, I don't think it's maintainable. If you think about it, it still means that there will have to be categories for all historical subdivisions of that region as localities were founded/mentioned in different times. So, for example, there will have to be a category for Vilnius Voivodeship that contains localities founded/first mentioned in 1413-1795 and for Lidsky Uyezd that contains localities founded/first mentioned in 1795-1915. But then, it's likely that someone will decide that the category on Lidsky Uyezd is not comprehensive and start adding articles purely by geographic location. Renata (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A (Current Subdivision and Historical One at Founding) I'm with Aleksandr above, the current geographical subdivision and the original seems reasonable. So Marseille would be both in the current French subdivision and be noted as a former Greek colony. (I don't want this approach to throw out all historical/former city categories beyond subdivisions though: Category:Former national capitals and Category:Populated places along the Silk Road both seem defining.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. This is far too broad a question and these things badly need to be determined on a case by case basis. Some of the above shouldn't have locality categorisation in this way. Some of them should. The idea that we can answer them on a global basis with reference to a handful of subdivisions in eastern Europe is the sort of discussion that leads to all kinds of ridiculous situations when applied to local situations in places nobody was giving thought to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife: not really looking to write any policy here, but just to get a rough idea/consensus from the wider community on what categories should or should not be present in locality articles. It would be very helpful if you could expand on your comment "Some of the above shouldn't have locality categorisation in this way. Some of them should." -- which should (not) and based on what criteria? Even if just considering the examples listed above. Renata (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am woefully under-educated about the history of this specific region and I'd hate to give pronouncements on things I don't understand well enough to have a sensible opinion. I'm just extremely cautious of a discussion like this creating a rule that then gets applied to completely different circumstances in other places. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B (A if we have to): Limited to current subdivisions only, as has been the long established practice; bio articles relevant to the polity itself are also currently placed in the category named for that polity -- it is Category:People of medieval Wallachia, but not Category:People from Saac County (i. e. a defunct county in said Wallachia). This avoids a massive overcrowding. I don't see when populated places would be placed even in articles pertaining to those polities, let alone their subdivisons; only nostalgia and irredentism can be the driving factors here, and neither is encyclopedic. Current subdivision also establishes a neutral standard: populated places that were once in Romania are categorized by their current subdivision in Ukraine, but the same standards would apply to localities in Romania that were once in Hungary. Dahn (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A or B, one could say "A, because we should allow this if a historical subdivision is a defining characteristic of a locality", but in practice it never is a defining characteristic, so A and B are very similar. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. Current and historical are enough. Historical division/subdivision should at least be mentioned in prose before including it. In addition, as already noted by other editor, the "Historical affiliations", including the mentioned problems, should be removed, because it is unsourced, trivial, and just takes up unnecessary space of the page. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbatino: Can you clarify which "historical" is enough? All of the examples above are "historical" so you are not actually limiting to anything. Renata (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country and first level division (governorate, state, province, etc). – Sabbatino (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C I'm with The Drover's Wife on this. It's unwise to make policy decision on such a broad front. Examples can be listed of multiple short-lived political entities to which a city may have been attached over many centuries; it would probably be excessive to make the city a child of all of them. Cities changed hands multiple times in the Holy Roman Empire. On the other hand some administrative sub-divisions, while practically defunct, nevertheless remain on the statute books. For example Thurles (civil parish) is in the ancient barony of Eliogarty. While Eliogarty no longer has a practical administrative function, it has never been legally abolished. I would not like to see Thurles being removed from Category:Eliogarty. In summary, such thingsare best decided on a case-by-case, CFD basis. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: As per your own comment, the barony in question still exists, in some definition, and the first verb in Eliogarty is "is". This is therefore an irrelevant example to this particular discussion, equivalent at best to including cities and towns in their traditional or cultural region. Dahn (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C Per The Drover's Wife above. I believe handling this on a case-by-case basis and category-specific CFDs is the way to go.--Darwinek (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have narrowed down the geographic focus of the RfC just to Central and Eastern Europe (because that's really where the issues are). Ping to editors who already commented, in case that changes their thoughts: Aleksandr Grigoryev, RevelationDirect, The Drover's Wife, Dahn, Marcocapelle, Sabbatino, Laurel Lodged, Darwinek. Renata (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Change in View Based on the limitation of scope to the discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - CFD Piecemeal Approach A CFD discussion is just as likely to suggest a global approach as this discussion might suggest a case-by-case approach. The area I have concern with is the subcategories of Category:Districts of East Germany, where we categorize literally every populated place that used to be part of the GDR by former region, which doesn't seem remotely defining to me. If I nominated that tree for deletion, it's likely to come up why I'm not nominating the Lithuania examples Renata provided. Does anyone see a difference between those two examples? RevelationDirect (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why it would come up. It doesn't follow that that what might be appropriate in one situation must be appropriate to another in a completely different geographical, political and historical context because they're both abolished institutions. If you think the German and Lithuanian ones you've both mentioned are equivalent and that they suck, nominating them both is a much better outcome than attempting to make global policy affecting thousands of situations you haven't considered. If you're preferring the few-heads global policy attempt because you think you're going to lose a CfD on the two (I don't know, this is emphatically not my area of knowledge in the world), that should tell you something. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure anyone can name a situation when categorizing by past subnational entity would benefit anyone. Mind you, we're not talking about examples such as "Ancient Greek colonies" or "Former capitals of...", none of which actually refer to a subdivision. We are talking about subdivisions for all purposes defunct, and the type of info one would be able to recover from the article and/or a map. Nobody would benefit from having Places in modern-day Turkey grouped under their former Ottoman vilayets, though the article on both the place and the vilayet should include references to one another, at least once theyre both developed. Dahn (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...unless someone was trying to find out what happened to the cities that were once within a particular Ottoman vilayets. I'd expect that to be unusual, but I can imagine it happening (at least for larger cities). (That sounds like a great school assignment: "Pick one of the Ottoman vilayets we've been talking about this week, figure out what it's biggest city was, and find out what's happened to that city since then.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @WhatamIdoing:: Except we are not a teaching aide (leaving aside that "go on wikipedia and click two links" isn't really a proper assignment at all). Dahn (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether it's "proper" is going to depend on the context (e.g., age of the students and whether this is meant to be an important assignment or just a few minutes' homework). I do not say that we have to accommodate that reader. I only say that when billions of people have access to Wikipedia, the odds are high that at least one reader would sincerely appreciate whatever seems unimportant to any given editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @WhatamIdoing:: The main point is that we're not here to offer that kind of assistance. Dahn (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        We should be here to provide every type of encyclopedic information. Some of our tools for doing this are pretty awful at the moment (consider, e.g., the necessity of Category:18th-century British women writers, when it'd be better to have a way to record the simple facts of "18th-century", "British", "women", and "writers" and let the software combine them). The same general type of system could be used for geography: Here is the location, and now give me a list of every relevant Wikipedia article. It'd be clunky to do this with just categories, but I hope that in the future, people will be able to look up any the patch of dirt and see all of its history, from well before being absorbed into the Ottoman empire, through the creation of the province/vilayet system, to the end of the Ottoman empire, and what's happened since then. I think that helping people understand history is consistent with our goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @WhatamIdoing: One can understand the point of having women who lived in the 18th century and practiced a certain trade, and were of a certain nationality, in a standalone category, however: the encyclopedic relevance of having articles placed in defunct administrative divisions is entirely unproven, and unargued -- beyond "it would help hypothetical students perform a hypothetical inane assignment with even more ease". What we do have from the above is your hope that we should all embark on this "patch of dirt" pet project (which, btw, is an immense task you unload on anyone writing articles on such topics, without offering them the option to refuse -- since once this is a standard, everyone will be expected to follow it). Instead of simply dreaming of how interesting it would be to have that goal materialized, you could consider that it has no objective use, while demanding a lot of work from "someone else". Dahn (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think so. We already put {{coord}} in articles about geographical areas, and Special:Nearby already lets you find articles within a certain distance of your location. Wikivoyage (and other projects) is using Wikidata, Commons, and/or OpenStreetMap to mark territories (e.g., Alpine County#Communities – the region, not just a single point within it). It doesn't seem impossible to take that existing data and using something similar to Special:Nearby to find all the articles that are within that arbitrary shape, rather than all the articles that are within a certain radius of a single point. None of this would require any extra work from editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with B, with the usual allowance for exceptions in exceptional cases. This is a classic list role. All the problems that afflict using a category for this information would disappear if using a list. A list is also much easier to maintain and add any necessary qualifiers to (as might be needed for example if administrative boundaries shifted during the relevant historical period). As a bonus, a list is also much more likely to attract the attention of contributors with relevant historical expertise. I can see no reason why the approach would be different from one geographical area to the next; the arguments with respect to Central and Eastern Eurperiodically I ope would seem to apply equally well in any other geographical context. -- Visviva (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C. I'm not sure why this is such a contentious issue. If the town existed in the past as part of a former subdivision, why would it be inappropriate to note that? It actually sounds fairly useful; if I were trying to find out what was the extent of and former municipalities in, such-and-such of a now-defunct province, the categorization of places into such categories seems like a natural way to do that. --Jayron32 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jayron32: Because it adds a million categories that could be simply replaced by lists in/alongside articles, and because it serves no purpose other than to satisfy dreams of lost glory? Dahn (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning C (no particular rules). I'm not sure that every little village that was once part of the Roman empire should be categorized that way, but Vienna was the capital of multiple empires/nations, and it seems odd to limit its categorization to only the most recent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C. Should be treated case-by case basis, and the text must support categorization, with valid refs. In fact it is often important to know who belong where at a particular time, and periodically I am thinking about adding a kind of timeline template to articles about locations. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C (A if we have to): Definitely not B. When talking specifically about Central and Eastern Europe, some places actually have more connection to their former subdivision in terms of historical importance than their current one, so it would be strange not to categorize them by their former subdivision. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ejgreen77: can you give an example of "some places actually have more connection to their former subdivision"? Renata (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A/C Some of these categorisations (and not only for former east European areas, it goes for the whole of the world) are utterly confusing (at least in my opinion). There are objects that are categorised by current areas where the organisation never existed in that current area (organisations (in the most broad sense of the word) that have been discontinued well before the current area where they would have been if the organisation still existed existed (intentionally confusing sentence)). I had to look, but 1962 Northern Rhodesian general election was once categorised in Category:1962 in Zambia where Northern Rhodesia was renamed in 1964 to Zambia (this one has since been fixed: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_18#1935_establishments_in_Zambia; however, there is still Category:Elections in Zambia on the article ...). Within the volatility of the 'countries' in Europe in the past, there are many cases where things happen to an organisation while they are in A, then country changes to B and something else happens, country changes again, to C, and they stop existing, and if they would now still have existed they would now be in D ... Categorisation in these cases should be limited (A) and well thought through (which is basically what should happen now: C). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C I'm with User:Staszek Lem on this one: if referenced text in the article supports the historic categorization (and thus it's presumably appropriate text that does not violate WP:UNDUE), then the cat should stay. But if no referenced article text supports the category, then the categorization is the result of original research and should be removed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Paid editing

The behavioural guideline at WP:PE reads:"you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;" same as the general WP:COIEDITING guideline. Both are without inline citations/notes, so I am not sure how unlikely it is that anything can be done about it, but I think it should be changed to "you must not edit affected articles directly;" The exemptions are already listed at WP:COIU on the same page. A Partial block from the affected article seems an appropriate remedy to address violations.

Occasionally, paid editors do take the option of not being discouraged by the very strong discouragement, which presents an awkward situation. This would remove all confusion and make handling paid contributions a lot more efficient and straightforward. The community should decide once and for all, whether or not it is okay with paid editors making substantial non-urgent direct edits to affected articles.

Obviously, we'd need an RFC to actually discuss it; first, I wanted to make sure I am not missing something obvious that would end this proposal speedily. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification One:

The proposal is not to outright prohibit all mainspace contributions from paid editors, just the ones that are both significant && non-urgent. This means they are still allowed to make the edits exempted by WP:COIU, as that section is not being changed, and the new articles would be forced to go through AFC, as creating a new article would be a non-urgent significant mainspace edit. This proposal also leaves the WP:COIEDIT section as is.

So, let me reformulate: At WP:PE, let's change the bullet-points:

you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;

to:

you must not edit affected articles directly, except as provided by WP:COIU;
you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;

And, optionally, let's add after the last sentence of the last paragraph—You may be technically restricted from editing the affected articles for failing to adhere to these guidelines.

Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies on paid editing are already a joke, and making them stricter would do nothing but make people feel good about "doing something". After blocking 300 socks in one case at SPI some years ago (yes, 300) I came to the conclusion that simply outlawing paid editing isn't going to work. It is so painfully easy to sockpuppet, to create multiple accounts without getting caught, tightening the rules would only overburden the already overburdened SPI system. Creating 100 sock puppets that are difficult to link to each other does not require much skill, just patience, and a little monetary motivation. "Outlawing" paid editing makes as much sense as the War on Drugs, and has the same effect; makes it more profitable, thus alluring to those looking to make a profit. As I'm sure this will fall on the collective community's deaf ears, I will just leave it at this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, I have added a clarification to my original proposal above. I am not proposing outlawing it, but, yes, it seeks to tighten the rules a bit. User-centred policing is less effective, true; and perhaps, UPE is more of a problem than some wikilawyering DPEs, but it's the latter this proposal is concerned with, and I do believe the proposed amendments would clarify the matter a bit without changing the status quo for the good faith DPEs. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally support this. See Special:PermanentLink/946560078#Conflict_of_Interest_Editing for one example of a paid editor arguing that "peer review is not mandatory" because of the current wording. However, it must be clear that removing incorrect information about living persons is always allowed, and that doing so is exempt from both the edit warring policy and the discussed COI guideline bullet point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, yes, non-controversial edits as provided by WP:COIU would not be prohibited. I have added a clarified version of the proposal below my original post. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last big thing related to COI editing I'm aware of was WP:TOUSL in January, in which the community very resoundingly asked the WMF to take legal action against Status Labs. @Doc James: you mentioned that you planned to share that discussion with the WMF board; if you feel like taking a break from COVID-19 stuff, could you catch us up on how that went? There is also some recent stuff happening at AFC (from Sulfurboy) and the Article Wizard (from me) about paid COI disclosure. I'm not well-informed enough on the policy to make a judgement here, but Dennis Brown's comments above seem reasonable; my general sentiment is that we may be close to reaching the limit of what we can do on-wiki, and that the more productive path may now be through WMF legal. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Sdkb Was raised, no formal response at this time in time that I am aware of. Apologies... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sdkb, I have added a hopefully clearer version of my proposal just below my OP. I don't think there is much else to miss other than the very small few sections linked in the proposal. So, I do believe you can form an informed opinion from reading the proposal alone. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, this is not about policy, but would there be any objections to me going and improving the usability of the disclosure instructions, adding a link that preloads the disclosure rather than making editors copy and paste? It'd look kinda like the process for adding a trophy userbox I recently implemented at our tutorial conclusion page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Although a lot of paid editing is problematic, paid editing isn't necessarily problematic. I think the current disclosure requirements adequately mitigate the risks, and that our existing policies are as good as they will ever be for handling problematic paid editing (unfortunately, not very effective, but no better than any alternative). --Bsherr (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. That is the equivalent of saying "Although a lot of dictatorships are problematic, dictatorships aren't necessarily problematic". We must avoid conflicts of interest even if they may do some good faith edits, just like we must avoid dictatorships even if they may do some good faith policies. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bsherr I am not proposing any sweeping changes with any ambition to fix the larger issues. I am seeking to clarify a rather, in my opinion at least, simple point, that nonetheless creates an awkward situation with paid editors who seek to wikilawyer instead of working within general community expectations. I have added a clarification to my original post, hoping it helps. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse a proposal to change wording to unequivocally require paid editors to go through the AfC process when submitting new articles. I'm on the fence as to whether an outright ban on mainspace editing is likely to help much. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I'd support that. Even with NPP, I cannot imagine a situation where I'd be okay with a paid editor creating a page without going through the additional scrutiny of the AfC process. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, that is also my intention. Added a clarification to my original post above. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero issues with paid editing. I have a lot of issues with paid editors that bring serious WP:COATRACK or WP:NPOV issues. And since a lot of my time is dedicated to the AfC project, I've become particularly bitter towards said editors. The aforementioned reference by Sdkb was my suggestion that for AfC articles that are created by PEs that there be an easily visible temporary notice on the draft page that would be removed if and when an article is accepted. As it stands now a PE or COI editor only has to disclose on their userpage, and that can go unseen in the typical AfC process. I also have issue with some language in policies, particularly the word "should". See my convo with DESiegel [1] Sulfurboy (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sulfurboy it does get tedious having to check the draft talk, then the creator's user and talk pages and then other significant contributors too. Yes, exactly, not all, but I am seeking to change a few of those fuzzy imperatives to definitive ones. Added my proposal Mark II at the end of my OP above. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paid editors who are making apparently good-faith efforts to comply with our disclosure and other policies should not be demonized, and marking their contribution in this way will only increase the pressure to omit disclosure and just hope to avoid being detected. I think it is counterproductive, and I oppose any such marking. I agree that COATRACK and NPOV violations need to be addressed and corrected, but this is true whether the editor is an employee or merely a fan of the subject. Indeed fans may well be more intransigent in POV-pushing. I think that Sulfurboy's proposal if I have understood it correctly, would be a mistake. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DESiegel, in case yours was not wholly a response to Sulfurboy's proposal (indenting), I would like to clarify that I do not seek to change the status quo for good faith paid editors who are already complying with the community expectations. Here, by community, I am largely referring to WP:NPP and WP:AFC folks; it is widely understand in that area that paid editors are supposed to put their articles through AFC and propose substantial non-urgent mainspace edits at the talk page, but because the actual guideline is worded weakly, paid editors who don't want to, don't have to adhere by those expectations. My proposal seeks to eliminate that loophole for wiki-lawyering. I have added a clarification to my original proposal to hopefully make that clearer. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usedtobecool, It is my viewm that to make an AfC review mandatory, for any editor or group of editors, under any circumstances at all, would be to damage what reputation AfC has left, and to harm its value for its actual purposes, helping inexperienced editors to create valid pages. At hte very lest, paid ewditors should have the option of seeking an individual non-paid editor in good standing to do a one-on-one review of a draft outside the AfC framework as an alternative to going through AfC. Any proposal, which makes AfC mandatory I oppose as strongly as i can. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only realistic way to remove paid editing and the problems associated therewith is to increase the limit of edits required for new article creation to mainspace. 1500 mainspace edits and 6 months time (above extended) should be used. The number of articles that are being added by ~10 edits and go COI accounts will become zero. There are no VITAL articles that have not been written. So if an article incubates in Draftspace, there is no emergency need to create it at once. It is not like we are lacking the articles on the states of USA that need to be created asap. Most vital work is done and we have prolific article creators. The argument that we need new editors does not work on this scenario as most (99%) of these ~10 edits and go writers just create one article and then leave, so leaving the bar low is not inviting new editors, it is just creating a mess. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to User:MistyGraceWhite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no better way to ensure that we cease to get new editors than to adopt the above proposal by MistyGraceWhite. I would strongly oppose it if it were seriously proposed, and I doubt that the Foundation would allow it to be enacted and take effect. It would certainly mean that Edit-a-those, many of which are focused on creating new articles, (and for which I routinely grant confirmed status on the spot) would have to cease or drastically change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DESiegel I may be wrong. I have not seen any data from editathons. Is there any data which is available for non admin editors to see from editathons. I would like to specifically see the number of new editors with >2000 mainspace edits that have started editing from editathons. I find it odd that an editor MUST get their article onto mainspace at once. What is the rush? Anyhow, can you give out the data from editathons on new editors who have become part of the project? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MistyGraceWhite most edit-at-hons, or at least the ones I have attended, (which are linked on my user page) record the list of attendees, and the articles created or changed. But if there is a central compilation of these results I do not know where it is. It would be possible to use individual event reports to compile such data, but rather tedious. So no, I cannot provide such data off-hand. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DESiegel without this data, how can we actually evaluate the impact of editathons on the project? I mean if editathons in their current form are not bringing in any new editors who help wikipedia, then why fight to keep that form intact? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different question, MistyGraceWhite, and one more properly addressed to those who organize such events. It is my belief, without having attempted to analyze data, that such events are good for our overall reputation and a better understanding of what Wikipedia is, whether they bring in large numbers of new editors or not. I also suspect that the editors they do bring in are valuable, but again i can't prove this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question misses the boat in another way as well, by focusing on new-editor-at-editathon retention. Even if zero of those newbie editors ever return, let alone reach several K mainspace edits (lack of gain for our long-term editor pool), and even if there is no reputational aspect (lack of gain for Wikipedia site and movement), edit-a-thons often create viable new articles (gain for our readers). DMacks (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms about Misty's suggestion. It seems a real case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Given we'd have to create a new userright, I can't imagine the WMF would be particularly obliging. I wouldn't even support EC. If there was some intermediate option I might consider that, but the community has indicated a firm opposition to expansion of protection/permission levels Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with every comment DESiegel has made in this discussion. The problem is not paid editing or paid editors, the problem is breaches of the content policies (NPOV, etc). The two groups "editors who are paid to edit" and "editors who make harmful changes to the encyclopaedia" are overlapping sets, one is not a subset of the other (and the same is true for more specific types of harmful edit). We should never prohibit any editor from reverting obvious vandalism, correcting obvious BLP errors, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I have added a clarification to my original post above. Sorry for the misunderstanding; the proposal doesn't seek to outright prohibit all mainspace paid contributions, just the non-urgent substantial ones. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pinging Thryduulf. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: I still oppose that. While it is right to discourage paid editors from making substantial contributions to mainspace, outright prohibiting it in all circumstances will not benefit the encyclopaedia. Examples include implementing a discussed consensus, clearly non-controversial changes such as accessibility improvements, reference fixing, etc. that might be regarded as "substantial". Paid editing is not synonymous with POV editing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a wording change from "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" to "you must not edit affected articles directly, except when your edits are unambiguously uncontroversial", which would draw a far clearer distinction between acceptable and unacceptable edits (and there is always WP:IAR for edge cases).

I am strongly opposed to Misty's proposal to raise the editing threshold for article creation, which is far too broad and would cause too much collateral damage to good-faith article creation. However, if it were modified to solely focus on a narrow subject area which proves overwhelmingly likely to contain poor article creations by new editors with a COI, I might support it. For example, if it could be shown that 95 of every 100 articles by new editors on, for instance, live businesses that began operating under three years ago were excessively promotional, then a requirement for AfC review before an article on a topic meeting the criteria could appear in mainspace would make sense. – Teratix ₵ 12:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix that is exactly what I intended to convey. I am not seeking any changes to WP:COIU. I have added a clarified version of my proposal to the bottom of my original post. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the modified wording is that it gives the impression WP:COIU is a comprehensive list of scenarios where paid editing in mainspace is acceptable, which, as Thryduulf's above examples of acceptable paid editing in mainspace not technically covered by COIU show, is not actually the case. – Teratix ₵ 01:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support both proposals under "Clarification One". The current phrases, "you are very strongly discouraged" and "you should", are functionally equivalent to "you may" when it comes to enforcement. The proposed phrases, "you must not" and "you must", actually have teeth. — Newslinger talk 11:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The current wording is correct: there are circumstances in which they may make those edits, because doing so improves the encyclopaedia. Completely prohibiting all such editing would be to the strong detriment of the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with respect to the first bullet point ("...editing articles directly") and strongly disagree with respect to the second bullet point ("...Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly"). {{Request edit}} is available for paid editors who wish to make changes to articles, although Teratix's suggestion ("except when your edits are unambiguously uncontroversial") is reasonable and resolves most to all of the circumstances you're referring to. I see no reason that paid editors should create articles directly in mainspace, instead of having them vetted through AfC. The AfC process works very well for maintaining article quality in the presence of a conflict of interest. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again though you seem to be conflating "paid editing" and "POV editing". They are not the same thing - while paid editors have a clear COI regarding the person or organisation who paid them, that doesn't necessarily translate to POV editing or that the conflict extends to every edit (e.g. when a paid editor reverts obvious vandalism their and our interests align perfectly). Additionally, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm opposed to AfC, given that I've never mentioned it? My opposition is to blanket prohibitions that will not only not help the encyclopaedia and actually hinder it by making it more likely that paid editing will be undisclosed. Deal with the problem content, not the method used to create it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The larger point, and one that seemed to be missing, is the fact that the stricter you make the rules, the more you push paid editing into the shadows, where you have NO control. If anything, it makes it more profitable. No rule or rule change will make paid editing go away, there is simply too much financial interest in it. Again, making rules so we can say "so at least we tried" tend to backfire, badly, and in this case will overload SPI even more than it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can accept that unwelcome practices such as vandalism and sockpuppetry will never be totally suppressed while still endorsing and enforcing policies and guidelines which prohibit such practices. Why not for unacceptable paid editing? – Teratix ₵ 01:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We already have policies and guidelines prohibiting unacceptable paid editing, nobody is proposing to remove them. The problems we have currently are from those that do not follow the existing rules so making it harder for those to be followed will just mean fewer people follow them while doing nothing about those that already don't - i.e. it would make things worse. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how the proposed changes will make it any harder to follow the paid editing policies. – Teratix ₵ 03:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflecting on this more, I think it's chasing after the wrong problem. COI-related difficulties generally come from the editors that don't self-disclose, so changing the rules for the ones that do doesn't help (and I'm not sure paid editors are significantly worse than editors who are self-promoting or writing about their friends). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartest thing I've heard in this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and Dennis Brown: We seem to be on similar wavelengths. I'll highlight in case it got buried that Doc James replied to me above that WMF does not seem to have delivered any response to the 100+ editors who asked nearly unanimously for WMF Legal to take action against Status Labs back in January. How about we head over to our new WMF pump page and start talking about that? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've started a discussion at the WMF page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose MaisyGraceWhite's proposal. First, it will immediately drive new editor retention down to near zero. Second, it goes against the basic principles of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which includes creating new pages. Third, coverage on Wikipedia is still frightfully thin or even nonexistent especially in topics affected by systemic bias. CJK09 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, have you seen this thread? Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think MistyGraceWhite is on to something, although the parameters are certainly negotiable. We have a substantial problem of sockpuppets and SPAs, and we have basically unlimited flexibility to tweak the degree to which new editors may be required to demonstrate their willingness and ability to contribute to the project before receiving specific tools like the ability to create pages in mainspace and pagemover rights. BD2412 T 14:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "must" proposal I very strongly support. If we just say "shouldn't", every single paid editor will think they're the exception, since, well, they're being paid to think so. "Must not" doesn't have any such wiggle room, while still leaving space for things like reverting obvious vandalism. No one's going to complain if a paid editor reverts the addition of random strings of profanity anyway. I also see the merit in upping the bar for new article creation. Autoconfirmed is a pretty low bar to clear for someone being paid to do so—make ten minor uncontroversial edits and set up a calendar reminder four days later. (This is not hypothetical; when I delete spam articles, this is often clearly exactly what they did.) Raising the bar to even EC would dramatically raise the amount of effort to create socks and sleepers, and if nothing else that would mean the paid editors will have to charge more, operate slower, and lose more when a sock is caught, which may help to discourage the practice. Creating an appropriate mainspace article is hard; the number of editors who could do so after ten edits is probably quite small. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of it works. Sorry for being such a skeptic, but it's a joke if you think any of these proposals will stop paid editing. See the following: [2] and [3] - and weep. And that's only one site among many. They even predict that volunteers will be a thing of the past and that paid editing will win out. Money talks. How do you silence it? There's only one way and that's registration with validation. Sorry but that's it in a nutshell, and I haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise, especially not more failed bureaucracy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am getting a lot of Nirvana fallacy vibes from the comments. I didn't expect to solve all our conduct and content issues with regard to promotion with this proposal. I did not identify this as the worst problem we have, or the proposed as the best solution we can have. I identified a very particular problem: A guideline that limits contributions from paid editors in good faith and rewards the ones who have no respect for community norms. Despite what the guidelines say, it is the norm that paid editors are expected to use edit requests for every edit that is not urgent enough or trivial enough to forego peer review from an independent editor. With the guidelines we have, editors who want to respect these norms wait for weeks/months waiting for a response to their edit requests while those who don't, can continue to edit the articles directly, and since AFD is not cleanup, there is nothing preventing them from making the article whatever they wish to make it after sufficiently exhausting any good faith neutral editors that may be watching into quitting. Which one do you think would Wikipedia be better off with, and is that the same one that will win out in the market competition? We should stop acting like a bully, showing our muscles to good faith paid editors and resigning to those that won't be tempered by our very strong suggestions. If one believes paid editing is the future, or an essential evil, it is all the more reason to level the playing field in favour of more-collegial, more cooperative ones. My proposal may not be perfect, it may not be the most urgent, it may not be the superlative of anything, but would we be better off, if marginally? Now, I do take the point about whether those kind of editors would be more likely to prefer UPE over compliance, and if they are, is handling them then likely to be harder or easier than with the status quo? Honestly, that was the discussion I thought would be the most relevant on whether we go forward with this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you when you say we cannot stop paid editing and that we should reward those who play by the rules and not those who don't. The problem is that this proposal will not do that - indeed it will make it harder for those who do play by the rules (in some cases, it will make little to no difference in others) and wont make a jot of difference to those who don't. The way we solve the problems with paid editors is to focus on non-neutral editing by all editors (paid and unpaid, disclosed and undisclosed) rather than spend our energy on ineffectual measures directed at editors. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly, but not inclined to back banning paid editors editing in mainspace altogether. Creating articles is an incredibly difficult process, and to be honest, I've never seen any paid editor successfully create anything approaching an encyclopedically-neutral article in mainspace - the AfC process offers not only review, but also a process by which advice can be given to those who are genuinely interested in positively contributing. Those who are disinclined to follow our rules will make articles in mainspace anyway that will be speedy deleted, and those who follow them won't mind having to wait a little while for an AfC reviewer. On the other hand, there are cases where paid editors genuinely contribute to encyclopedia articles that already exist in mainspace, and I don't think we should discourage those - especially given that that might perversely encourage people to hide their paid editing, in contravention of the ToU. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Source classification process

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

To increase transparency and robustness of the process for classification of sources, increase the review requirement for actions that prevent use of a source. This affects the list of perennial sources at the reliable sources noticeboard and also the spam blacklist. Guy (help!) 19:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add the following to the instructions for admins at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

A project-level RfC is required when blacklisting any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated after addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse, with the expectation that it will be removed if the RfC decides against blacklisting. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Opinions (Source classification process)

Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 19:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as needless bureaucracy. If blacklisting will obviously be very controversial then have a big RfC, if the domain is only used by spammers just blacklist it already without any palaver. If it's somewhere between then just have a normal discussion and only move to a formal RfC if it is actually needed in that specific circumstance. As the proposal stands you're just asking for arguments about whether a source is "widely used" and whether any particular uses were technically "spammers" or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needless restrictions on the spam blacklist. I trust User:Beetstra and the other admins at the spam blacklist to know the difference between spammed sites and unreliable sources and to act accordingly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Source classification process)

This RfC follows on from text suggestions made in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293 § RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process, which closed on 10 May 2020. Guy (help!) 19:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh christ, no. RSN gets enough RfCs as it is - at one point late on 15 May, there were no fewer than eighteen open RfCs at that one board alone. People are going to acquire what I might term "RfC blindness" so that they no longer either care or even notice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, that's partly because people are opening RfCs for sources that someone used once, rather than for sources where it's worth having a serious discussion. Guy (help!) 09:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps a more pointful RFC would says something like "Shall we keep wasting editors' time with sources that aren't widely used? For example, future proposals to add a website to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources should show that there have been at least two discussions at RSN about the source in the past (not counting the current discussion), or that it is currently present in more than 10 articles."

This innovative list of unreliable sources is allegedly for the stuff that gets disputed over and over. That's why editors named it WP:RSP with a "P" for perennial and not Wikipedia:Assorted collection of things we found on the internet and have never used much, but we don't like them so we're proactively banning everyone from using them." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying common practice ref inclusion

There's certainly consensus against the implementation of these proposals as a group in this way here, along with what I think is a moderately clear consensus against part 1 of the proposal (i.e. adding a suggestion to users that they might be able to either write themselves or facilitate an external source being written, then subsequently write an article based on that source). The response to the other two parts of the proposal is less clear-cut, but they should be discussed as separate proposals in the relevant venue(s) as discussed below, with clarity on what exactly is being proposed. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 group of editors and I have been discussing the issue of subjects which are already notable in their field, but have yet to be sufficiently noted as per our criteria.

I'm proposing three inter-connected clarifications of what I understand to be common practice here: someone complains that no article exists about a thing, we explain how it works - and that person happens to be in a position where they can legitimately help to make significant coverage happen to the satisfaction of our guidelines.

This clarifying of common practice:

facilitates simplicity of process
requires only small additions
does not seek to redefine any terms

My three-part proposal is that:

the WP:N page, under the "Notability requires verifiable evidence" section, should state:
Users who are in a position to encourage such independent recognition may be able to facilitate an already notable subject meeting the Wikipedia noted criteria where insufficient verifiable evidence currently exists, and could subsequently provide that new evidence by writing or requesting an article.
the main Help page should have a clear invitation to Request an article, either as its own section, or as a new section under Create a new article, pointing users directly at the Request an article page. It could offer additional encouragement:
You can request that one of our editors creates an article on a subject you feel meets our criteria for Notability. If you can provide evidence of this from reliable sources, that can help to faciitate a successful outcome.
the Request an article page could also make a statement as per #1, for those who only see this page, and be tweaked to do more to encourage proposers to provide evidence of notability. The current statement just doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, and propose this change:
Give a brief description, with links if possible, for the proposed topic, to aid others in ~~understanding your request~~ confirming that the subject should have an article of its own. Note that some subjects are more appropriately placed within the article of another subject for which they have significance.

The discussion which led to this proposal is on the Notability talk page. I've brought it here because it pays regard to three separate pages. (NB: I have not suggested editing Verifiability because it seems to me to be addressed to the people who will do the actual article creation, rather than those who are simply proposing an article. Happy to hear if anyone feels something should go in there too.)

For inclusion, I am tagging @GhostInTheMachine: whose observation of the difference between 'notable' and 'noted' instigated the discussion, and administrator @Masem: who made a significant contribution to the shaping of the resulting proposals. I am equally grateful to all who have already engaged and contributed, and will link to this proposal in our original discussion, and on the pertinent pages above. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a non-starter to me, because it is based on a false premise. It is impossible for any subject to be notable if it doesn't meet the lower standard of verifiability. There seems to be a confusion here between the current state of an article, which is not an issue with either notability or verifiability, and the sources that exist, which are relevant to both. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Phil, thanks for this. I'm not sure I understand what you mean ref the current state of an article etc... can you say it another way, please? I see what you mean about the false premise, which I think was just me explaining it badly. I've edited to hopefully clarify the initial premise. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can put in in another way, because it's a very simple concept if you will only listen to what other people are telling you rather than stick to the same ideas, but I will try different words. Neither notability nor verifiabilty depends on what is currently written within an article. They are both concepts that apply to things (such as article subjects) that exist in the outside world rather than just in Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you can avoid making this be personal, Phil. I get that it's about being worthy of note in the outside world. Can I ask what is making you think I don't get that? I'm specifically talking about articles that do not yet exist, so I didn't understand your point about "the current state of an article". BessieMaelstrom (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good idea. A large proportion of people who come here to request an article or attempt to write one on a non-notable subject are trying to promote something; we don't want to encourage the idea that they can manufacture notability by writing their own sources. The minority of people who are in a position to write reliable sources on subjects that aren't currently notable (academics, journalists, etc.) presumably don't need our encouragement to continue doing their jobs. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have enough spammers trying to get us to accept articles about topics that have only been written about by people with a conflict of interest. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging even more of this practice. We should cover topics that have been covered independently of any Wikipedia concerns. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, Phil, you're quite right, there will be people who think they can just write a blogpost about themselves. We should absolutely make clear that the WP:GNG still apply. Plus I didn't write it in a very accessible way. How about this?

Users who are in a position to encourage an independent article or review from a reliable source may be able to help a noteworthy subject meet the Notability Guidelines, and could then write or request a Wikipedia article.

We already have this very simple system whereby people can request an article, but it's pretty hidden to the uninitiated. As with everything, the more complex the path, the greater the impact on underrepresented groups.

As I said in the original discussion, small changes like this could give some a fighting chance against such things as the complexity of the user interface, or not being confident enough in your belief that the article belongs and worrying about experiencing rejection, or simply not having the time to figure it all out. It's no coincidence that these are also the top three in Sue Gardner's list of possible causes for gender disparity on Wikipedia.

I'm not suggesting that journalists and others need any encouragement to do their job, but their choices of subject matter can legitimately be influenced. Reviewers can be invited, journalists approached. The veil we are currently drawing to mask the doorway of article requests is also masking it from those who might just need that extra nudge.

Also, what's the worst that could happen? The requested articles list gets longer, but we already neatly divide it up into subject areas on several levels. Editors are likely to consider their smaller area of expertise, and suddenly those lists are a lot smaller.

Some people who found that simple doorway a far less intimidating way into Wikipedia might see their proposals not moving from the list, and look into it all a bit more, and maybe be inspired to edit. It could also be a doorway for that.

We are encouraged to be bold. We could be bold with this, and see what happens. Joe, Phil... who's with me?! --BessieMaelstrom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BessieMaelstrom, a minuscule proportion of our articles come through the article request system. The way to get more articles about under-represented topics on Wikipedia, such as those about women, non-Western topics, or "untrendy" topics that are not part of Anglophone popular culture, is for people to simply create the millions of such articles that can be done on the basis of reliable sources that already exist. That will be a much more productive approach than encouraging people to suggest topics for articles that will never be created anyway. BE BOLD. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a proposal with the specific intention of solving that problem. It's a proposal to take a thing we already have and make it more visible, because it will help some people, an example of whom is underrepresented people whose work is on the edge of inclusion. A small amount of articles come through that doorway at least partly because we hide it. More people might follow the advice to be bold if we made the simpler path more visible. There are many ways to begin to address this complexity of problems, and this is one very easy one. I'm not suggesting we take out an ad in the Daily News. I'm suggesting we just make a bit more obvious than you can request an article, and that those who could invite someone to review work that isn't in here yet could think about doing that. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add a quick note to all that I don't see this as a yes-or-no subject. We have a simpler doorway, and we also have the risk of flooding. My proposal is an attempt to make the doorway more visible and also help those who could be here to get here more easily. If my proposal doesn't hit those marks, let's talk about how we could hit those marks. BessieMaelstrom (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that we would do better to remove any suggestion that requesting an article will actually lead to anything, because it will hardly ever do so. If someone wants there to be an article about a topic then the only way to get it is to do the work themselves, rather than ask some non-existent other editor to write it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems hopelessly muddled to me. Early on it states "Users who are in a position to encourage such independent recognition..." but later it suggest pointers to writing creating requesting a Wikipedia article. It says it's about "person happens to be in a position where they can legitimately help to make significant coverage happen to the satisfaction of our guidelines."

This makes a mishmash of the timeline of a proper Wikipedia article. Step 1, someone does something, something exists, or something happens. Step 2, reliable sources write about the topic. Step 3, the reliable sources come to the attention of a Wikipedia article. Step 4, the editor writes a Wikipedia article.

This proposal seems to be saying that if a Wikipedia article exists about a person, then the person is notable, so a Wikipedia article can be written about the person.

I feel this thread is so hopelessly confused that it should be closed. If there is any merit to the ideas hidden in the fog, a new proposal should be started. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Josh, thanks, that was helpful. I'm happy to clarify:

Step 1 - someone does something, something exists, or something happens that is actually worthy of note by somebody connected to a reliable source
Step 1a - that thing is in a state of being worthy of note (as considered by the World At Large), but not having been noted yet (in the World At Large)
Step 1b - a person nudges someone who can create a reliable source, possibly because we said "Hey, if you're really sure this is a thing the World At Large would think noteworthy, maybe you could nudge someone to look at it?"
Step 2 - they do nudge, and as it happens, they were right, and said reliable source writes about the topic
Step 3... etc

This is about the liminal space between notable and noted. (The original discussion is likely to be helpful too. Masem was very eloquent in describing this common practice.) -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bessie, please just stop responding immediately to everything and have the courtesy to read and understand what everyone is telling you. We are not a bunch of chauvinists trying to slap down ideas from outsiders, but people trying to help you. On a minor point, what you describe in your last post is far from a common practice. I've been editing Wikipedia for well over a decade and have never seen anything like that happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's no minor point, Phil - it's about what I am actually proposing. I was empowered to make this proposal by the person who had observed that practice, but even if it's not common practice, my proposal still stands. This is about stuff happening pre-Wikipedia, so it's kind of impossible to know how much appropriate stuff might get through a more opened door until we more-open the door. I understand that there is a risk of flooding with inappropriate articles. If my proposal doesn't hit the marks, then I'm inviting collaborative suggestions for ways to encourage more qualifying requests without also exacerbating the COI problem... and maybe for ways to convert a Requestor into an Editor? Very happy to be pointed at the appropriate place for discussion, if this is not it. I'd really appreciate it if this didn't become personal, though. I have nothing but respect for all who attempt to do the impossible work that is caretaking this incredible archive of world knowledge, and even more challenging given that it is so fully collaborative. To my mind, the only thing that is personal here is how admirable it is to take that on, and I'm grateful for all contributions to this miniscule part of it. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to me as though these are separate proposals that could be considered separately. Most of the discussion here seems to be about (1), and I oppose that per Joe Roe's first comment here. Wikipedia's role is to document knowledge that already exists, and guidance on how to establish new knowledge (i.e. get journalists to write about important topics that are not yet notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term) is firmly outside its scope. (okay, I guess I'll link to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS if I must) Proposals (2) and (3) seem fine to me, though. One question related to that that I've been wondering: how many articles listed at WP:Requested articles actually get created, and how long does it tend to take? My mostly uninformed hunch is that it may be largely a bottomless pit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sdkb. I was in there today whilst considering all this, and during that time I removed one blue link for something that had had an article created about it in my specialist subject. Looking through the rest, I can see a couple at a quick glance that I would have a go at converting into an actual article, and quite a few that I'd want to at least research. It's on my list as one of the areas in which I would like to do some maintenance. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the list of requested articles may well include some objectionable / ridiculous / amusing / crazy suggestions, but it should also be seen as a rich source of input from the outside world. The request process needs to be simplified so that it is more available to non-editors. A way forward would be a wizard much like the Article wizard that captures extra detail such as a possible lead sentence and one or more sources. — Ghost in the machine ^{talk to me} 20:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. Fancy sketching something out? I will happily work on it with you. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BessieMaelstrom and GhostInTheMachine: Revamping WP:Requested articles for usability sounds like a great task. Please feel free to ping me or post at WT:WikiProject Usability if you delve into that. The folks at WP:WIR might have some insights. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've really had enough of this discussion. My last words are that the "requested articles" feature will never be the source of more than a handful of articles, and I stand by my comment that any people who are serious about wanting articles should simply write them themselves, and that any generation of sources for the purposes of enabling a Wikipedia article has a vanishingly small chance of producing anything that is truly independent and reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is opposed and done now, with thanks to all who responded. Two of you opposed the idea of making the current Submit an article section more prominent, and two of you supported that idea, with one suggesting it might benefit from a Wizard. So I guess that will be a different proposal. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WMF Board Authorises Universal Code of Conduct and non-local sanctions of those who breach them

The WMF Board has just authorised the creation of a UCOC by the Foundation (presumably T&S) to create a UCOC, purely in consultation with the local communities, along with various other related facets, which are summarised below.

Developing and introducing, in close consultation with volunteer contributor communities, a universal code of conduct that will be a binding minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects;
Taking actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies and the Terms of Use;
Working with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases which pose legal or other severe risks; and
Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes the personal safety of these functionaries.

Whatever our respective views on the issues are, I believe we've now reached the point where a co-ordinated Community viewpoint, rather than that of a few interested editors on meta, needs to be created so we are in a position to engage, or react, rather than attempting to coordinate on the fly.

I've just created a general discussion part below for an initial discussion, but I imagine it'll need spinning off into aspects and so on and so forth. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever our respective views on the issues are, I believe we've now reached the point where a co-ordinated Community viewpoint, rather than that of a few interested editors on meta, needs to be created so we are in a position to engage, or react, rather than attempting to coordinate on the fly
I disagree with this sentence basically in it's entirety. I've been in the minority on this project in regards to global/meta/Foundation issues in the past, and I think the local en.wiki community tends to overreact to things that aren't big deals and post-last year tries to turn everything into FRAM2.0. Because non-en.wiki specific stuff includes people from a lot of different projects it is often very nuanced, and I don't think having a single coordinated response that would inevitably have some broad strokes would do whatever the idea is justice. That includes not being able to identify any valid criticisms and address them in a fair way because of an overarching position.
So no, I do not want there to be an official en.wiki position. To my knowledge, I am still an active member of this community who is generally trusted by others. I also think that the tendencies of some on this project to see every move of the Foundation as the boogeyman coming to get us is over the top and unhelpful. I don't want to be associated with that.
If people want to raise their voices on meta, they can, but we absolutely should not be giving the weight of the entire English Wikipedia community behind a position that:

most active editors will never see or care about (most people don't care about this level of inside baseball)
that will have significant opposition on either side regardless of what the position is.

This project and community is not monolithic. We are a group of individuals and that is what makes us work. If people care deeply about this (as I'm sure many do), comment on meta. If you don't care enough to comment on meta. I don't want to be stuck with a coordinated position of driveby voters who don't actually engage long-term. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a side issue, and not particularly relevant to the primary issue

@TonyBallioni: I won't comment on Meta because of the homophobic behaviour of a WMF account I tried to deal with there. As they were defending homophobic behaviour by the Foundation, I saw little point in complaining. DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very strong accusation, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Could you please diff so those of us who aren't familiar with what you are discussing can evaluate the situation for ourselves? I'm also pretty confident many at the Foundation would want to address abuse from a Foundation account. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It was an email. And if you want another strong accusation, then dismissing editors on this board as "driveby voters who don't actually engage long-term" is pretty poor too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your really interested, you could just look at my contributions on Meta. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I just had an alert from Meta. You've made your position pretty clear. I don't trust you to deal with this matter. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I reverted sensationalism that you posted on a research page because you didn't like a bad piece of software with good intentions. Per the above, I've checked your meta history and found this. What I see is you being rude to WhatamIdoing for explaining to you that m:Research:Detox, which I agree was a horrible project, was intended well and that once it was discovered it was corrected. I haven't seen what they emailed you, but I suspect it was similar and likely was trying to explain that detox was trying to detect homophobic abuse and that the people who were creating the algorithm did it wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She sent me an email full of links to homophobic abuse, and told me to read them. I expect you'll tell me that was "well-intentioned" too. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were offended by that material. In my childhood and young adulthood I faced similar bullying in school where people just assumed things and didn't actually care what my sexuality was or who I was as a person. I was just stereotyped. I care deeply about this issue as well.

At the same time, yes, if you're dealing with a tool that was intended to identify things such as homophobic abuse, then yes, I would expect emails about the tool to include links to homophobic abuse. That's how you build and deal with something like this. I'm not privy to the emails, but I've been a part of many discussions about identifying abuse on Wikimedia projects using automated tools. I've never once had someone think what you're describing is a tool behaving properly, but yes, people are going to try to dive through previous abusive content to see what the tool should be preventing. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't material identified by the tool. She had a very limited knowledge of the tool, and indeed was (or seemed to be) getting more information about it from me than she was from WMF. It was just a random list of homophobia she had found when trying to say that classifying "I am gay" as an aggressive statement was not homophobic. I didn't ask to be sent it, and to be frank nobody with any sense of decency would have sent it. Do you send unsolicited links to anti-Semitic content to Jewish people who have raised a concern with you? I hope not, indeed I'm sure you don't and never would. "I'm sorry you were offended" is a textbook non-apology apology. DuncanHill (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in continuing this conversation here. I won't be going to Meta and I have said why. It's a toxic environment. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't inside baseball. It will affect everyone. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that view, but I also doubt it will have much if any impact on existing processes. I think anti-harassment is important, but after FRAM the foundation is very hesitant to do anything (for good reason.) Likely what you're going to see is a formalization of the norms they already use to global lock people who are already blocked on multiple projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important for the range of views of enwiki editors to be made clear to the Foundation. I know that many weren't happy with the way Framgate happened, and I was one of them, but I'm currently trying to support a victim of bullying on another project, and I can see the value of the principles in that announcement. The likely problems aren't in the goal of a universal code of conduct (UCoC), but in the way that it gets implemented, and the more we can influence that to match our needs and expectations, the more likely it will turn out to be an improvement, not a burden. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're at the point where a co-ordinated Community viewpoint is necessary. As far as I'm aware, the WMF has not even proposed what a universal code of conduct would look like. Trying to discuss this now puts the cart before the horse, and prevents anyone from actually working toward a positive result. I think there is a real need for a baseline code of conduct for all Wikimedia wikis, because very few wikis have the codified conduct policy that enwiki does. This makes it more difficult to deal with even blatant incivility and harassment (see the amwiki situation last year). There are some things that are unacceptable on any wiki, and I think a global policy to handle that is important. I do think that the WMF could greatly improve Foundation-community relations during this discussion by committing to allowing wikis to replace the code of conduct with a sufficient policy and strong community consensus. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with AntiCompositeNumber. What exactly is the purpose of this VP thread? As far as I can tell the "UCOC" hasn't even been drafted yet. -FASTILY 00:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: Tony, this may be one time I might have to disagree with you, if I understand what you're saying (and it's far from impossible that I haven't). I am personally very concerned about the WMF handing down diktats from above, when they're not on the front lines, actually editing on a day-to-day basis and facing the trials and tribulations that almost every Wikipedian has to confront. It's very easy to look down from on high and pontificate in a vacuum about ideal behavior, without experiencing what it's actually like to try to protect and improve a Wikipedia project from the onslaught of vandals, SPAs, CPOVs, not-at-all-civil POVs, children, jerks, assholes, and well-meaning fans. In the trenches, behavior is going to be a lot more brusque and direct than might be considered ideal in a utopian world, as we attempt to deflect these forces, while at the same time not running afoul of our community-based policies on civility and other behaviors. To have yet another layer of behavioral proscriptions imposed on us from a bunch of people even further removed from the realities of editing is a real concern for me, and -- I would think -- for other Wikipedians as well.
Is it your concern that we shouldn't respond to the WMF about their Universal Code of Conduct ("Universal"? Is conduct in Nepal really the same as conduct in Detroit?) or that we shouldn't coalesce around a single "community response" too soon? I, too, would like to avoid another Framgate, but not at the cost of having my views and those of others like me being ignored by the WMF. If I'm mistaken about what you're proposing, please straighten me out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond My Ken, I have a more pro-WMF view than many on en.wiki because I have seen them do positive things both in terms of software (WP:ACPERM) and in their global actions (User:Til Eulenspiegel was globally banned by both the community and the foundation. After his community ban he socked and urged acts of violence against LGBT people. Basically the posterchild for Foundation action.)
  What I'm saying is that people like you and many other in this community do have legitimate concerns. I respect that, even if they are different from my views, and think that you and others should respectfully voice those concerns as individuals in dialogue with the Foundation to try to find a ground everyone can live with, but we've seen that this community can sometimes react rather kneejerk to anything the Foundation proposes (the recent rebranding thing on meta is probably the best recent example.) You'd likely get a consensus that was built of fear rather than an intent to work together, which is not something I want, nor do I think many reasonable community members. Letting people express their views individually can help make it so the largest Wikimedia Project doesn't have a statement like that, which I think would be a good thing.
  On the universal code of conduct and different geographies, as I said to Sarah, my gut tells me this is more about codification of things that have been ad hoc and isn't going to affect any major projects with the possible exception of pt.wiki, where there are other issues. The other thing is that on some small projects, this is 100% needed. See TI above: he basically owned a project and blocked a steward for telling him he couldn't block a user for having "Queer" in their username and then went on a socking spree cross-wiki. Abuse on small-wiki is not uncommon and stewards are very reluctant to do much about it for a variety of reasons. It has to get to the level where someone blocks a minority and then blocks a steward for intervening for something to be done. Giving the WMF more power to act when small wikis go haywire is a very good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony: I can see where the UCOC would be useful for smaller projects without community enforcement capabilities, but I think larger projects with a history of community-based policing of behavioral problems should be exempted, as long as that project's local policies generally follow the UCOC. Just as global sysops don't operate in the larger projects, and the role of stewarts is minimal in larger projects and more fundamental in smaller ones, T&S should concentrate on UCOC-enforcement on smaller projects, and not in larger projects, such as en.wiki. As projects become larger and more self-sufficient, they too can do their own behavioral policing and T&S/WMF can back off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Again, not relevant
As one of the worst pieces of abuse I've ever had was from a WMF account, and led to me abandoning Meta, I cannot "collaborate" with the Foundation. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, just to clarify, I agree with your statement generally. I'm just opposed to there being one en.wiki response. We should absolutely engage, but I think the diversity of our views on this topic are best reflected by individually commenting rather than a "community position" TonyBallioni (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect that view, Tony, but I disagree with it in some ways. If we were to seek consensus for a united response and found one that almost everybody could live with, then I think a single response would be appropriate. If we found a range of views that couldn't reach a single consensus, then maybe we could present a selection of the views that had the most approval. Of course, individuals are always going to be able to respond, but that method of self-selection isn't likely to lead to a representative view, IMHO. As a community, we're surely grown-up enough now to encourage participation from a much broader spectrum of editors and work out what we can agree on. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A real consensus (something everyone can live with) is likely not feasible with so many people. However it may be feasible to compile lists of pros and cons that have significant support. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that there are two paths: A) One where enwiki engages in good faith and with the expectation of compromise and people walk away mostly happy-or-unfulfilled, and then B) One where enwiki refuses to engage or assumes bad faith or assumes that the WMF will bow to their demands and no one on enwiki is happy because the WMF lays down some hammers and fingers get smashed and people wail and gnash their teeth and bans and blocks get handed out and there's lots of drama about it but the grinder continues on, unpurturbed. A is productive; B is not. I think the best thing is for the English Wikipedia to draft a statement of support for the WMF's efforts and thus be part of the team writing the rules rather than reacting to them.--Jorm (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thing is, Jorm, nobody's going to disagree about what the rules should be: be nice to each other; no bullying; respect minority opinions, etc. The conflict will come when we try to figure out how to police those rules, and for enwiki, it's going to take a real effort to balance doing as much as we can in-house with the stress of being a volunteer asked to carry out that role. Giving way a little, and making better use of each other's strengths is how the WMF and the enwiki community are going to be able to achieve that balance. That's going to need a genuine partnership, not a hierarchical approach where each side thinks they know best and wants to run the whole show. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I agree - and I think you and I are actually in furious agreement. I was using "rules" more metaphorically in the context of "we can be part of the people who drive the discussion" as "writing the rules".--Jorm (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation has given itself a very powerful weapon, and I am afraid this is wishful thinking to assume it would only be applied to small projects where nobody can read the language and is unwilling to take action. If stewards are unwilling to take action, the Foundation will not do anything either, because nobody can understand what users on Amcharic Wikipedia tell to each other, unless Google translate of a given sentence would provide something like "I promise to murder you". I was once blocked for half a year on a project I had zero edits, I took it to Meta and nobody was willing to do anything, until Millosh, a steward at the time, went to the project and negotiated an unblock with the admin. And, if I am not mistaken, the guy is still an admin there. On the other hand, WP:FRAM happen at the English Wikipedia, not at thew Amcharic or Acenese one. I am really worried about damage they can inflict, not even necessarily intentianally misusing the tool, but just applying it without sufficient care.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is noteworthy that the BBC is now reporting that harassment would include edit warring. Now, whether this comes about as a simple misunderstanding on the part of the BBC, or whether this is being directly briefed by the WMF, is not clear. That being said, I think it's uncontroversial to state that common-and-garden edit warring is not a matter for which WMF centralised sanctions would be appropriate, and if that's the direction that this is moving in, then that is problematic.
I think it is a fundamentally good idea to have a minimum standard of behaviour across all WMF projects, and I'd argue that that point shouldn't be controversial, even if perhaps it is; "don't be sexist, racist, homophobic; don't personally attack other editors; etc" all seems like a perfectly reasonable minimum baseline. The problem strikes me as coming when that baseline starts turning into other rules being enforced by WMF sanctions rather than by the local wiki procedures, as would be the case with simple edit warring as suggested by the BBC.
I'm uncomfortable with the phrasing of "the Board is directing the Wikimedia Foundation to directly improve the situation", too, I have to say, and I hope that the "in collaboration with the communities" that follows is genuinely taken into account. Where local sanctions can be placed, that's almost always preferable in my view to WMF sanctions as a port of first call.
Overall, though, I think it's too early to form "a position" on this one way or another; we need to see what, concretely, is being proposed. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that even a minimum standard you mention is enforceable. For example, we know that Iran and Pakistan are deeply sexist societies, sexism is part of the culture, and, whereas it might be changing, it will take decades to have a noticeable change. It is deeply rooted in culture. It would be unreasonable to expect that Persian and Urdu Wikipedias are free from sexism, because their users are just part of the society. And whereas it would be great if anti-sexism measures are enforced, I just do not see how it could be done - hiring native speakers to monitor all the discussions? I have some (though a pretty old one) experience on the Russian Wikipedia, and WMF were at the time considered there as aliens from a different galaxy. They just can not enforce anything there in any consultation with the society. They can randomly block a bunch of users, it would be perceived that the user have been removed randomly by aliens. It would not change the project culture.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: I understand the point you're making, and to some extent agree with it - it may come to pass that such a set of standards are not, in fact, proactively enforceable in all cases. However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be helpful in reactive enforcement; if someone brings a complaint, there is then at least a policy to deal with it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with this in theory but I’d need to see a draft of the text first to have a more informed opinion. What I don’t want to see is the WMF using this for more Fram-like bans, as that would be bad for everyone involved. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly toxic aspects to our culture. But the Wikimedia Foundation has, by way of hamfisted and tone-deaf decisions, lost the community's confidence. We have of course already discussed and rejected the idea of a binding code of conduct that applies to en.wiki.—S Marshall T/C 14:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What matters in this is the implementation, not the statement. As is typical for Board statements, almost everything about the implementation is too vague too discus directly--what needs discussion is our views on what the specific standards ought to be-- and once they are announcement, how we are going to deal with them. But there is one part that even as broad policy very much concerns me, the second point,"Take actions to ban, sanction, or otherwise limit the access of Wikimedia movement participants who do not comply with these policies and the Terms of Use;" - ifthe sentence refers to groups, such as individual projects which insist upon maintaining rules that justify harassment, then there's a point to it, and a role for theFoundation, because they are the only ones who have control over such groups. If it refers to individual editors, then it's a disaster, anda violation of all agreed working arrangements between enWP and the foundation. I willl have more to say on this when I know what meaning they intend. DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just become aware of the BBC version. If it is correct, andt he WMF intend to regulate edit warring, they will find, as we have found, that there is no way of doing it without regulating content. .Most truly difficult conduct problems arise from content disputes. (others arise from relatively arcane points of style, such as the infoboxes war, which in no rational organization would warrant either edit warring or harassment, and yet others from plain ordinary interpersonal hostility without rational motivation, which certainly requires regulation). In enWP, and presumably elsewhere, harassment is in fact a common way of settling content disputes, usually with hostility directed to those with particular points of view. This does need regulation -- I think in fact it is our greatest ongoing problem -- but what it absolutely doe not need is regulation from the foundation. To the extent we have biased content , we're to that extent a lower quality encyclopedia, but remain capable of improvement, the continual improvement that most of us came here to engage it; to the extent that others than the participants here regulate content, we 're not a open project, but the sort of directed project most of us came here to avoid. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  DGG, the resistance to any authoritative body to rule on content disputes has always been a source of strife. Once civil POV-pusher can in theory drive off multiple frustrated editors if civility is the only standard - and that's my worry with what WMF appear to be proposing. It looks, in short, like a sealion's charter. Guy (help!) 16:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG We are I think in complete agreement about the extent and nature of the problem, and the need to solve it. It is however very difficult to actually do this within our basic structure. Certainly and almost everyone in enWP would reject an outside authority here; I can imagine ways of setting an internal authority, but not one that would be generally accepted. Nor can I think of a set of rules that would not be capable of manipulation. The only way forward is to decrease the intensity of the disputes by not using the necessarily harsh sanctions for them that would be used for bad-faith disruption. The current procedure for winning a dispute is to try to get one's opponents removed from the topic, and our currrent DS rules provide that this can be done in a way very difficult to reverse. These are things we can improve. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, agreed. The closest we've ever come was probably the pseudoscience arbitration case. And that really was quite transformative. Guy (help!) 20:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG. yes, that case and its followups need to be re-analyzed. The original motivation was good--to prevent the take over of scientific topics by true-believers, (the way Citizendium was taken over by a belief in homeopathy). The fundamental ideas, of distinguishing between various levels of scientific confidence, and providing for proportional coverage , remain valid. The way these standards can be misused, by overconfidence in what individuals here think scientific results, and the manipulation of the Reliable Sources standard to invalidate references showing the reality of coverage of things you rather didn't exist, was not really predicted. At a more fundamental level, it comes from the naïve reliance of WP upon sourcing, without the necessary critical examination of the actual sources. The worst part currently is the attempt to use standards that are applicable to the natural sciences to judge matters in the social science, and more recently to judge matters in the field of politics. Scientists have always known the extent of uncertainty--public reporting of the sciences is much less knowledgable; I instance the realization of the unreproducibility of results in fields such as psychology, or the disagreement between good controlled especially over time, and of evolving standards of practice. Or, most recently, the statistical blunders made by even the best analysts and most authoritative centers respecting Covid. The first step will be to convince WPedians in general of the problems; the much more difficult one will be how to solve it without destroying out principles. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, well, yes, but on the other hand we're not experts so we're supposed to take sources more or less at face value, depending on their quality. Where are you seeing the pseudoscience arbitration misapplied in politics? Guy (help!) 06:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the natural sciences and politics derives from the difference in the way the word "fringe" is used in the fields. In the natural sciences any serious researcher at least pays lip service to the scientific method, in which unfalsifiable claims are rejected as unscientific and so fringe, or falsified claims are rejected as such. In the field of politics, where the term "political science" seemed to take hold many decades ago in the US and has now spread to the UK, very few claims are actually falsifiable, so the word "fringe" simply means "unpopular". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, and specifically? Guy (help!) 00:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Bryan_Caplan. fiveby(zero) 20:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything we learned for m the RS discussions of the past 10 years, it's that sources cannot be taken at face value. We may not be experts, but we're expected to be intelligent. Our editing here should make us more intelligent yet, and particularly skillful about the nature of writing and publishing. Critical reading is a skill, it can be taught, and I've taught librarians how to do it. . We should as a minimum know enough to recognize that headlines are generally written by the editor , not the author, and that selective quotation is deceptive. Rare is the news article even in places like F_x, that does not have some wording that pretends to give a balance. Rare is the book review that says nothing positive to be quoted; equally rare the one which says nothing negative., and in all cases they start out by saying something polite about the author. Technical literature is more sutle about these things, but it does not necessarily require great subject expertise beyond knowing the technical language of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I aqgree here: it has to meet RS *and* it has to pass the sniff test. Guy (help!) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I don't think we can do much beyond wait and see at this point. One obvious plus is that after they translate it into every language we have a project in it will at least provide a widely translated non religious text.©Geni (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is already the Universal Declaration of Human Rights though. It's very widely translated. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know others are taking a 'wait and see' approach, but I find it impossible to be optimistic about this. The WMF has recent history of heavy-handedness in its dealings with our community and I am not aware of any reason to believe they have changed their methods. A code of conduct is a good idea in theory, but making it work in practice will be a nightmare given the current state of WMF-community relations. I'm concerned for the future of this project now that we are likely to fall under further regulation from people who aren't actively involved in the task of building an encyclopedia and, given how they use their donation money, don't really seem to care. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No confidence. —Cryptic 18:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After Framgate, I don't have any confidence in the WMF's capability to levy sanctions for behavioural conduct that isn't over a bright line, and especially not with a one-size-fits-nobody UCoC. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that civility is being added to the code of conduct (now civility is mentioned in the summary of the terms of use, but it's not part of the legally-binding part). When the chat in Counter-Strike is more friendly and civil than Wikipedia, it's not surprising that the WMF has to step in, for legal reasons as well (the "Fuck off" RfC etc). What is especially embarassing about how AN/I handles incivility is that most users don't realize that Wikipedia has 148,477 active editors – being friends with a popular admin shouldn't grant you any special privileges not to follow policies of the site. That absolutely does not belong to a site of this scale. Unblockables, pitchforks and torches, factionalism... The downside is that the private WMF investigations might not be equally fair to all participants, either, if we judge by the Framban. --Pudeo (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pudeo, you're absolutely spot-on about Wikpedia's chronic problem of cronyism. This problem has long been in need of a resolution, and ideally the WMF would be able to 'help' in a manner that would actually be helpful. But Framgate, to which you alluded, clearly demonstrated that the WMF is also susceptible to fairly blatant corruption. Moreover, I think it's fair to say that the community had little confidence in the WMF even before that fiasco. Regardless of how the rules are enforced, the system will always be somewhat corrupt. It's just a question of whether we want our community matters to be (mis)handled by people who are part of our community and thus somewhat accountable to us or by people who have few meaningful connections to our work and absolutely no accountability when they makes mistakes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I join the general group that we are unlikely to disagree much on the base rules (assuming EW isn't in there), but the implementation mechanisms. However, what I'd like to focus more in, is that several above are saying "let's wait for a full copy, then discuss it". At that point, changes are going to be much harder to bring in. Instead, having a better idea for when they initially come to us "what would the communities like to add in", is helpful. I did like @RexxS:'s suggestion of offering a range of community group viewpoints if no single one got consensus. I have a suspicion the WMF may pick the one they like more and completely ignore the other(s), but if we can't get a clear-cut viewpoint, that option has some major positives to it. Nosebagbear (talk)
In terms of what I'd like to see specifically, ideally I'd prefer implementation by communities with ARBCOMs and active conduct boards, and where their current policy covers everything within the minimums within a UCOC, be provided by the Community. There would need to be a corrective mechanism for communities which run out of control, conduct-wise, despite an ARBCOM, but that would need to be a general tool (rather than them just pulling out individual cases). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A minimal (basic) global set of moral rules (i.e. rules of behavior) is necessary. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no confidence whatsoever in the WMF even to consider points raised by those who actually work on creating an informative and neutrally worded encyclopedia. The notion that they can or should even seek to impose a uniform code of conduct defining civility for volunteers worldwide is an affront, and their stated basis for so doing: that some female editors have complained that having their contributions edited by others inhibits their attempts to slant our coverage and is inherently biased—demonstrates their contempt for us and what we do that enables them to draw their salaries. There are conversations to be had about entrenched bias. There's research to be done to replace the WMF's woeful assumptions about percentage of female editors, which at this point I believe are deliberately alarmist (I am not male just because I don't have a pink userbox). Yes, there are double standards on civility and we could do better; WMF employees are among the worst offenders when it comes to sarcasm and dismissiveness, and the canard that not using four-letter words is a universal requirement to be treated with respect is classist and parochial even in the US. But the WMF don't listen to editors' wishes or show respect for the editing community. No, we should not try to meet them partway, and beg for them to understand, or hops they don't mean en.wikipedia as well. We should refuse to accept that they have any right whatsoever to dictate to us, and call them on their own intolerance and intolerable rudeness. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't mince words here. This is bad. Wikipedia is not the first project on the Internet to have a code of conduct imposed on it, and these things are typically social justice takeovers that make everyone guilty but are enforced selectively. The Fram case (accompanied as it was by vague accusations of harassmeent) makes this more obvious. So does the list of social justice groups in the Signpost article that the WMF consulted with in April 2019. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Acting on the principle that a good defense is a good offense, I went ahead & proposed my own draft for a Universal Code of Conduct over at Meta. The important points are simple: except for defined & currently accepted areas, the Foundation will not intervene where the communities have a functioning governance system; if they do intervene, they must provide a justification for their action; & that there be a model Code of Conduct that applies to communities where none exist. I don't know how the PTB will respond to my proposed draft, but I hope it is in the spirit it was offered. -- llywrch (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine correctly pointed out that in situations like this, you should always summarily oppose to start and have your support won. Then, if things make sense, maybe it gets adopted. But without significant buy in, the answer is no, and should be anticipated to be no, unless the WMF convinces us they present us with a set of rules we agree with, and convince us they are capable of enforcing them without overstepping. My answer would have been no before FRAMGATE. It's even more no after FRAMGATE. I'm open to have my mind changed, but the WMF needs to do the legwork here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has a severe case of cranial rectal inversion, demonstrated not only with Framgate, but their tone deaf response to most everything (including private correspondances). Frankly, we need less WMF involvement, not more. Let them stick to what they do best, raise money, and blow money unnecessarily. They have the reverse Midas touch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

En.wikipedia would be much better served by somebody who just keeps the servers and software running. Maybe we should replace WMF.North8000 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Any editor (indeed, any person) can start a new website cloning all of Wikipedia's content and running it under whatever rules they like. However, since WMF owns the trademark registrations, the name "Wikipedia" can not be used outside the structure of the WMF without their permission. BD2412 T 19:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this already rejected by the community on Meta? GMG ^talk 12:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tony. Any RfC or set of RfCs here is unlikely to be helpful. WMF has made mistakes but that doesn't mean they're always wrong, and often the first instinct here on enwiki seems to be "If it came from WMF, I'm agin' it." WMF aren't our enemies. —valereee (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Valereee, I think it's more a question of "I've seen what happened before." In the past, vague statements like this were followed by disastrous, heavy-handed moves from WMF, be that in the form of software or Framgate. Yes, we always try to assume good faith, but when someone's already abused that assumption repeatedly, we don't keep blindly doing it. So in this instance, I certainly understand why the reaction is "Good God, not this again." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of months ago, circa Framgate, I would have regarded anything involving WMF in enforcing civility as a terrible idea. But since then, I've become pretty much disgusted with Wikipedia, and particularly with what does, indeed, seem to me to be an intractable problem with incivility. I've largely given up on editing, on the theory that it makes no sense for me to volunteer time and effort for a project that makes me feel unhappy, when I can use my time and effort elsewhere with much greater satisfaction. I've briefly come back to participate in the soon-to-be-closed ArbCom Medicine case, because it was supposed to deal with some of the things that have made me unhappy here. And as that case looks to be on the verge of closure, it looks to me to have ended up appallingly. Not only does it look unlikely that the Arbs will do what they needed to do about toxic (or whatever other term one wants to use) conduct, but it's becoming pretty clear to me that several of the Arbs are not even reading the evidence. It's a case study in institutional failure. Now, from what I saw during Framgate, I doubt that WMF can do any better, but – and I surprise myself to find me saying this! – I'm actually kind of curious to see whether WMF should take over from ArbCom. They probably won't do any better than ArbCom, and likely will be even worse, but for en-wiki it may be the kind of shock to the system that will either lead to an actual improvement here, or that will, well, hasten the day. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic

Every time they say "toxic" in a document, a little part of me wants to scream inside. I have proposed on Meta that the term be avoided. — Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (02:59 Sat 30, AEST) 16:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Awards and accolades

Please review Wikipedia:Awards and accolades and refine it, with a view to eventual promotion to guideline., The idea is to set expectations about the use of non-notable awards and listicles in articles. Guy (help!) 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been attempted before but it's not a good idea to delete red-linked awards across the board. It would create bias against fields that are not mass media (sports, film, TV). For example, enwiki does not have many French academic awards, but there are many prestigious if boutique/local recognitions for academic authors writing in French. Imagine transwiking an academic bio from frwiki and discovering 3/4's of the awards are red link, it would not be an accurate bio. As always, a reliable secondary source demonstrates it was notable enough for coverage by the wider world, should anyone raise concerns this is sufficient. -- GreenC 21:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And for God's sake get rid of that stupid word accolade. See User:EEng#Dopey_words_that_should_never_appear_in_articles. E Eng 02:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, ok, so have a look at List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé. Example: the Latina Beauty Award for Styling Product for Holding your Style. Really? I already removed the Vh1 Bikini Award for Best Celebrity Bikini Body. Guy (help!) 06:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a situation where what WP:LISTCRITERIA to use can be decided case by case, and I don't see the need for a guideline. For a French academic including French academic awards is reasonable while for someone like Beyonce the criteria can be notable award and or reported in a independent reliable source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture mass media, particularly music/film/acting, is problematic. The world is bigger there are awards for just about every field of study and most of them are acceptable. A general guideline that tried to resolve the mass media problem can create new problems in other fields. -- GreenC 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can the page be renamed to something less ambiguous? I thought it was going to be a page on internal Wikipedia awards like Wikipedia:Awards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it depends upon fields, and also that a good start towards rationality would be a mass removal of "and Accolades" . One guideline I have support is to not use minor or junior awards when major awards are present--but even this could be useful to show the development of a career. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depreciate the use of "and accolades" and simply go with awards, which is more concise. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Awards is already used for another subject. Maybe you'd prefer something more obviously descriptive, like WP:Determining which awards are trivia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the sourcing criteria - awards that haven't been reported on by anyone but the awarding body and the recipient are fairly useless from an encyclopedic point of view. Disagree with most of the rest - if an award has been reported on widely in the media, just because it lacks its own page on the wiki doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile including in the particular instance in which it's being reported IMO. I do think it is a good idea to have a policy specifically on the requirement to have independent sourcing of awards being given, though - it gives something easy and concrete to use for future decisions in the area. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we're seeing this strange backlash to the word "accolade", which is actually useful. The two words are similar but not the same. An "award" is a thing which is formally bestowed as a symbol of praise or recognition, an accolade is simply an expression of praise or recognition. Awards are a form of accolade, but you can have notable accolades other than awards. For example, a movie being included in a notable "top 10" list is an accolade. A notable critic calling an album the "best album of the decade" is an accolade. An artist's design winning a contest to represent the olympics is an accolade. There are endless relevant non-award accolades that can, should be and are included in articles. I'm just as eager to jump on the Eeng bandwagon as anyone else, but can we please cool it a bit? Like no one's even providing an argument, Eeng just thinks it's "dopey", whatever that means. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accolade is like kudos. In the context of an article it's a strained way of saying recognition or something. It sounds like applause; in your mind's eye you can almost see the audience in evening dress with their tiaras and top hats, politely accolading. Call it a linguistic prejudice of mine. E Eng 05:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination is an accolade as well. That's why sections on this subject on film articles are generally called Accolades, which is more concise than Awards and nominations El Millo (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way to get rid of fluff like the Bikini body or hair styling award isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater by entrenching systematic bias. We don't have articles on some or even all of the most notable awards in many fields or locations - e.g. Category:Gabonese awards contains only one article (Miss Gabon). Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, which, in an ideal world, would be deleted along with all other pageants. Guy (help!) 17:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: If you think it isn't notable then send it to AfD. If your objection is to the concept of pageants then WP:NPOV is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, no, I think that we should not have articles on pageants because they objectify women. We should take a stance against the morally repugnant world of beauty contests. But as I said, that's an ideal world. A world where the punishment for driving while black can be summary execution, clearly isn't ideal. Guy (help!) 18:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: I suspect that many people share your view, enough for it to be discussed in reliable sources. That would mean that it should be covered here too. If Wikipedia can help raise awareness of this issue, wouldn’t that help bring us closer to an ideal world? You can’t fix a problem that you don’t know about.

Oh, but of course someone beat me to it: Beauty pagent#Criticism. Brianjd (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made this point at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Clarification_of_"notable"_awards_bodies but I think it bears repeating here to help shape this guideline. Awards are made up all the time, often with the goal of profiting/riding the coattails of the popularity of the nominees. In advertising, there's certainly a perverse symbiotic relationship between awards-givers and awards-receivers. The latter gets to pump their numbers ("over 100 awards and nominations!") while the former earns ad revenue while providing nothing at all other than 'recognition'. So what is recognition? The Oscars are prestigious because people in the industry agree that it is and respect people who win one, not because tiny golden statues are inherently prestigious. Another film award that's voted on by just as many people (let's say by people named Jim) that awards an equally golden statue would not confer the same prestige in the film industry because the people in that industry don't agree that it does, no matter how many cameras you point at it and press releases you throw onto the internet. I think reliable sourcing is key to establish this. It should be verifiable that an industry or academic award confers prestige in a field. It's easy to be dazzled by the shininess of an Award With a Proper Title (who doesn't love a gold star in elementary school, right?), but just because it has a name and a website doesn't make it automatically notable. Otherwise reliable sources regurgitating press releases about nominees and winners doesn't either (that's churnalism). If an award is notable, there should be reliable sourcing about the award itself and its esteem in the community. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had made this comment on the talk page of the draft but I think the first bullet needs a bit more tuning. Obviously where the individual award is notable that's fine, but there are cases where the awards as a whole are notable, their nomination/presentation process each year may or may not be notable on its own, and the individual catagories may not be notable; a prime example is the British Academy Games Awards (And while some of the individual pages have been created, I can tell you they would not survive an AFD in contrast to the individual ceremony articles. We'd still clearly want these awards as a group, but the current way the first bullet is presented would not allow for that. --Masem (t) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as negative on the word "accolades" as some others are, but I do understand the reaction. However, it should not be simply removed. As someone else pointed out, some awards are sufficiently prestigious that a nomination is worth noting, and that is not an award. I tend to use "Awards and honors" as a section heading, and a quick glance suggest that is quite common. You probably don't need additional examples, but in Jill_Hutchison, I include some items that are clearly awards, but some things that are clearly not. Induction into a Hall of Fame belongs (IMO) in such a section but it is not an award. Perhaps changing the title to "Awards and honors" would make everyone (ok, many people) happy.S Philbrick (Talk) 14:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and honors or Honors and awards or Recognition and awards all sound great. Just not accolades. Anyone who writes accolades, I'll unfriend them. E Eng 22:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I suppose it could be worse: we could be talking about felicitations [4]. E Eng 02:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of minor/niche awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Music in Media Awards are lacking in comments and have been relisted. Does anyone here have opinions on them? The temperature on these awards should be indicative of this proposal. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interface admin and view deleted access

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202989

I raised this as a thread on checkuser-l, but WP:INTADMIN currently restricts the ability to view deleted interface pages to IADMINS not as a feature of policy or intent, but as a bug in the system. There’s a patch that’s been proposed since August 2018, but is stalled at the review stage. I’ve debated asking for the permission for view access to deleted pages, since I doubt it’s going to be fixed anytime soon and there are several sockmasters where having the access to their deleted common.js, etc. would be very helpful to me.

The glitch in that is that our local activity policy requires use every six months. I have zero interest in using it for anything other than view deleted access. I think adding a line to the activity policy such as the interface administrator indicating that they still need access to the right to view deleted content would be fine. If people are overly concerned about the security risk here, we could possibly restrict activity for that reason counting to the CU team, but I don’t really think we’re talking about more than a handful of people who would want it for this reason.

Anyway, is there a consensus here for a quick change to the policy to allow for this? If not I can start an RfC, but I’m hoping this will be non-controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, This sounds like a sensible change. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should just push to get this worked on, having to constantly check for people with no logged use that just "say" they want this constantly is going to be a headache. Suppose to keep automation checks working you could just indicate your need by updating something like User:Example/test.css. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A patch has been in the works for two years and has stalled. I don’t really have any faith this is going to be fixed within the next decade even with poking. I don’t really think the automation issue is actually an issue. There’s 11 people with this now. One talk page message to check every six months for 1-2 people isn’t that much work. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, xaosflux a link to the actual gerrit: [5] TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest thing to do is grant interface administrator access as part of the checkuser toolset (whether it's done by bundling the actual permissions, or just by granting the flag concurrently with the checkuser flag) and then ignoring all checkusers who have interface administrator access from the activity monitoring stuff. I don't suppose anybody can explain why WMF is hell bent of making life as difficult as possible for those of us who have volunteered our time to behind the scenes management stuff. Why can't they just fucking fix the IADMINS stuff and stop trying to find new ways to make life impossible for the rest of us (such as the hiding anonymous users IP data) ? Nick (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some CUs here and on other projects have valid reasons not having 2FA, so that wouldn’t work from a WMF security standpoint. If you want a quick way to automate it, you could exempt CUs who have it from the activity requirements of IA. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding editinterface to the CU group is silly and really not the point of the entire thing; I certainly agree the primary viewing problem should be fixed (I'm the one that authored the request afterall!) - a dev did update it a couple of months ago - just poked them on phab:T202989 - where this really is a global problem. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "indicate you have an ongoing need", it would be just as easy to indicate that at a dummy page like the one I put above as anywhere else, and would not require any extra work. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s less complicated just to have a bureaucrat ask the question 1-2 times a year. Gaming the system isn’t something that I think is a good thing. People shouldn’t have to make a dummy edit to keep this if they’re using it. You could also look at it from a security standpoint that people who don’t need it are more likely to give it up if asked if they still need it rather than being told how to keep it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: oh all the dummy edits made by +sysops every year........ This wouldn't be a "twice a year" thing specifically, the policy has these rights continually expire - we don't do a twice a year review of everyone. In practice, we only review the rights holders monthly though. Looks like the activity at the phab task has given some renewed interest in the fixing though (which is really where it belongs). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not just easier to flip user:TonyBallioni’s Iadmin bit with a note that the 6 month term does not apply to him in a fully automated way, but that he just needs to confirm the need every 6 months? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, That also sounds like a workable solution. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If he's the only one with this issue/concern, then I'd support that. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the view and edit permissions be split; ~~until that happens WP:IAR and~~ give Tony IAdmin since he has a clear need. — Wug·a·po·des 21:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: FWIW, there is no IAR needed for Tony to get this, he requested it at BN and I doubt there will be any cause to not issue it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the criteria were more restrictive than that, but I read them again and clearly I misremembered. Good to know there's enough room for this in the existing policy. I trust Tony with IAdmin regardless, but I still think view and edit should be split for the reasons given in the phab task. — Wug·a·po·des 03:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the community still approve of NOTHERE blocks?

Since there's a TfD over this for some reason, I'll raise the question here: does the community still approve of blocks per WP:NOTHERE? I think we should still use them for a few reasons:

We're not a bureaucracy- if we stopped using them they'd just be replaced with indefinite disruptive editing blocks since disruptive editing is another catch-all category that means "we can block or sanction you if you're causing issues regardless of the exact policy reference."
It is actually a part of policy by reference- see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#"Not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia"
It's use as a block reason is an accepted part of our practice that has been around for ages and retraining people to just say disruptive editing, POV pusher, etc. would take substantially more work than it would produce benefit.

Those are my thoughts. I think it's worth seeing if the rest of the community is still on board. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DE and NOTHERE block indeed overlap. I have no particularly strong feelings on the matter as I use the two rather interchangeably, but sometimes it does feel like there is a somewhat nuanced distinction between the two. Removing NOTHERE blocks for purely bureaucratic reasons is not something I agree with, however. And as I mention already several times, starting with a TfD was POINTy and actively disruptive to the project. I recommend that the TfD be speedy closed and that the discussion shifts here. El_C 21:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider them reasonable interpretations of policy, and I philosophically really like NOTHERE blocks compared to "disruptive editing" blocks when it comes to dealing with the "I'm here to push an incendiary point" or "I'm here to do whatever I like" editors. It pushes the concept of them appealing it from "my editing wasn't disruptive" to "I am here to build an encyclopedia because...". It's a far better theoretical point to start people thinking constructively. ~ mazca ^talk 21:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last discussion in 2015. The mention in Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Not here to build an encyclopedia" is descriptive, not prescriptive. It briefly states that this is an often used block reason. That's an odd piece of policy. As mentioned in the TFD, WP:NOTHERE itself is a supplemental page, and as such "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Many of the NOTHERE things are mentioned in policy itself, like WP:MEAT and WP:DISRUPT, but not all, such as WP:SPA which is an essay. Especially who is a SPA can be pretty controversial, and this block reason has been used for such editors. If I was blocked, I'd like a strictly policy-based reason which can potentially be appealed. This is giving too much leeway to blocking admins, even if the individual blocks can be brought to AN. "You are not here to contribute to Wikipedia", while appropriate for outright trolls, is an opinion that should be derived from policy. And those policy violations should be the block reason. --Pudeo (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All of our policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. They document practice agreed upon by the community, which is ultimately what consensus is. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tony: I really wish more Wikipedians would remember that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks should be justified on specific grounds that focus on clearly identified behaviours, such as listed under "Protection" and "Disruption" at WP:WHYBLOCK. WP:NOTHERE works fine as a general philosophy, but I think it falls short as a grounds for blocking. It is very broad and focusses on inferences about the editor rather than specific actions. Shifting NOTHERE blocks to cite more specific DE grounds would increase the procedural fairness of our block and block review process.--Trystan (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P1 says we're an encyclopedia. If your actions don't support advancing that goal, then you're WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A user can be NOTHERE well before having become disruptive. If a user's first few edits include any attempt to politely suggest that InfoWars is "just as good" as the "fake news liberal mainstream media", or that QAnon or the Pizzagate conspiracy theory are "not debunked", a single stern warning (if that) followed by an indef NOTHERE block if their response is anything but "Oh, sorry, I'll find a different topic" is totally fine. If any of their first few edits is to to politely ask where's the proof the Holocaust happened or why we let black people edit, an immediate indef NOTHERE is totally fine. These blocks aren't hypothetical, either, they've happened. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a user is "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia", then irrespective of whether or not a chapter-and-verse policy can be recited that they've broken, it strikes me as sensible that they not be allowed to continue editing in a way that is clearly not helpful to the encyclopedia. So yes, I approve of NOTHERE blocks at the moment. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Around for ages? Yes, and I still approve of it. My impression is that User:Fred Bauder (who is still around, though not very frequently, and no longer an admin) started using it as a block reason, and it caught on. Then, later, it was formalized into being mentioned in the policy. I too like it philosophically and, as Tony says, "practice agreed upon by the community" is what consensus is. Ancient Institutional Memory | talk 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I often patrol WP:UAA and frequently encounter new accounts with clearly profane and confrontational usernames who immediately engage in gross and severe vandalism. I block them rapidly using the NOTHERE template and move on. I use it only in obvious cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen on this rationale and you won't see me using it. What's the problem with blocking that clearly profane and confrontational username engaging in gross and severe vandalism for incivility and vandalism? Why do you need to use "not here" instead? wbm1058 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wbm1058, I mention the profane username and the vandalism in my block notice as well. I see the NOTHERE template as an umbrella tool to speed and summarize the process, especially when I see zero potential for redemption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Some editors are plainly a drain on community time and energy. If they have no significantly positive attributes that build the encyclopedia then they are NOTHERE and should be blocked to reduce the burden on others. Sometimes we need to support established editors rather than hope that helpless cases might reform. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recall having used this on users whose edits do not fall obviously afoul of our more specific policies, but whose edits show quite clearly that their purpose is not to build an encyclopedia. Even if this were not already codified in the blocking policy, common-sense and WP:NOTBURO support this approach. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we have this conversation without first reviewing data: who is being blocked for NOTHERE and why. Anecdotes are no substitute. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, You can run this query to find all (633) of the NOTHERE blocks for April 2020. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, thanks!! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at all the blocks on that query list, but I checked some random examples, and all the ones I checked could have been described as something else, e.g. POV pushing, vandalism, incivility, web host, trolling. I really don't perceive of "not here" as distinct from our other PAGs. It also strikes me as not useful to have "not here" as a block rationale. (Why "not here"?) That said, it also seems to me that having a block rationale of "not here" is not harming anything; it just doesn't strike me as particularly useful. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding DE vs NOTHERE, the latter implies less than good-faith (explicitly commenting on the user's goal) and likely immediately indef, whereas the former is possibly just a temporary drain despite good intentions (overlapping with CIR). I think of NOTHERE as a useful catchall especially when there are multiple problems without any one specific being bad enough alone to merit the length/strength of the block. Common case might be a pattern of low-level vandalism or semi-advertising that then responds to mid-level warnings with some abuse or trolling. That's exactly a bad-faith disruption with a block for more than one reason, rather than a good-faith disruptive effect or for excluvely one policy reason. DMacks (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but NOTHERE also covers good faith but unhelpful activity. Essentially it's for someone who is not compatible with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, per WP:NOTNOTHERE. Differences that arise where both users are in good faith hoping to improve the project should not be mistaken for "not being here to build an encyclopedia". If they are acting in good faith but are misguided it is not a NOTHERE situation and should be dealt with differently. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Clearly not being here section lists a dozen ways a user could be good faith, yet be unhelpful. If an editor engages in almost nothing else, they should be NOTHERE blocked regardless of whether they personally believe their edits improve the encyclopedia (which is the definition of good faith). Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps, but I am just explaining how that is against WP:NOTNOTHERE and not a definition that is written anywhere. PackMecEng (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen NOTHERE threatened against users who have made minimal contributions to the encyclopedia and instead go to discussion pages and treat them like forums for things that aren't directly benefiting the project. It's not disruptive editing, but it is something that needs to be discouraged and I think NOTHERE fills that role nicely. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTHERE blocks are unfortunately suited to certain users who make it plain they have a purpose other than building the encyclopedia. And they can be here with the best of intentions in purely editing to serve that agenda. They may be proselytizers of The Truth, or righting great wrongs, or correcting Wikipedia's (insert adjective here) bias, and more. To a certain degree, there is overlap between this and other block rationales, but it remains a useful tool especially for users whose problems are multi-dimensional. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I believe this is a good tool, and I fully agree with the reasoning given by Mazca, Naypta, and Vanamonde. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 04:17, 01 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTHERE blocks are a great tool when used for relatively new accounts (or sleepers) who clearly aren't operating within the same headspace as the rest of the community (that weird intersection between spammers, vandals, POV-pushers, trolls, bad actors, etc. - the cases where it's hard to tell what their goal is but where it's plainly obvious that they aren't here to improve things). However, sometimes I find they can be misused for newbies who still haven't quite gotten how things work here yet and just need some more rope. I mean the block would technically be appropriate due to the fact these types of users are frequently given advanced warning of their behavoir, but they never sit right with me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Broadwood-park is a good example of what I mean with this latter thing. The user is clearly trying to improve Wikipedia in their own way, so calling them WP:NOTHERE doesn't feel right with me. It's a sound block, yes.. but should it be? Idk maybe. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could not have said it better than Deepfriedokra. NOTHERE blocks are a perfectly reasonable general descriptor for users who are...well, not here to contribute to the project in good faith. I am not sure why the community would have a problem with us blocking users with that rationale. Such users are a common problem. It is not the same as DE. There may or may not be overlap. You can have a nondisruptive NOTHERE user, and you can have a disruptive good faith user. The important aspect of NOTHERE is intent. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra has it spot on, and TonyB is correct as well: the user behaviors which lead to NOTHERE blocks will inevitably lead to a block under whatever rationale seems to the blocking admin to fit. In other words, those folks are going to get blocked, so why would be get rid of a rationale which is so useful and has widespread support, judging from the number of admins who utilize it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the few non-admins chiming in, I agree that NOTHERE is perfectly in line with blocks that I would want admins to enact. Fundamentally every edit to this project should be to build the encyclopedia. If someone is not editing towards that end, they should not be here. Van Isaac_WS^cont 06:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking is all about preventing a user from damaging/disrupting Wikipedia, and encouraging a more productive behavior. By blocking a WP:NOTHERE user, you prevent them from encouraging users to not build an encyclopedia, and if we don't prevent that, that will damage and disrupt our editing, collaboration, and productivity. So WP:NOTHERE as a block reason is perfectly acceptable. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recently we had an editor who was using their userspace to run a Covid lockdown fantasy Eurovision game for their friends with no other contributions to the wiki. It wasn't very disruptive, but clearly NOTHERE. NOTHERE serves a purpose separate & distinct from Disruptive Editing. Cabayi (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So blocked for violating the Wikipedia:User pages § What may I not have in my user pages? project content guideline, then. Why not just say so? Also, under WP:NOTHERE, specify "Editing only in user space". wbm1058 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because most admins couldn’t tell you what that policy says and shouldn’t have to in order to block someone for acting in a way that obviously shouldn’t be allowed. Also, that policy exists because we don’t allow people to do these things, not the other way around. Even if there was nothing in any policy about people running a game in their user space, it’d be a 100% valid block. Wikipedia does not have due process or prohibitions on ex post facto laws. People are judged on how their actions impact the project, not based on rules that don’t exist. Our policies document accepted norms, but they don’t capture everything that could be harmful to an encyclopedia or collaborative project. If someone is incompatible with the project, they will be shown the door even if there’s not a policy line they are violating. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As others have suggested, Deepfriedokra has summed it up pretty well. NOTHERE is perhaps something of an umbrella term, but it does cover a number of policies and can be appropriate where more specific block reasons are not. And if it's too vague in specific circumstances, a blocking admin can (and should) include additional information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from my my response at the TfD discussion that preceded this FfC The NOTHERE rationale is useful when "there are multiple or nuanced reasons for a block not captured by single-reason block templates. If I believe the reason for a "not here" block may not be obvious to the blocked editor or reviewing admins, I will also include the specific points of WP:NOTHERE the block pertains to, either in the block log or as a supplement to the template on the editor's talk page". -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a recent example of a NOTHERE block that probably should have been vandalism-only. But, does any of this really matter? Is the blockee going to use this information for anything? Is anybody else going to use this information for anything? Do we keep statistics on how many of each kind of block is handed out? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTHERE currently has a status of an explanation page which is, if I get it correctly, a kind of an essay. Would it be a good idea to elevate it in status? --Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I support its use, but that's a good point. The recent nomination of the template for deletion and the existence of this thread indicate that a more formal basis might be a good idea. Meters (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've long thought we should elevate it to the status of policy, though such a process would likely be contentious. But it is already treated as de facto policy and is very widely used. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can be disruptive but still intend on building the encyclopedia—such an editor just has a disruptive way of doing so, be that edit warring, bludgeoning discussions, pushing unreliable sources, whatever have you. Fundamentally, the goal of every editor here should primarily be to build and improve the encyclopedia. If that's clearly not what you're here to do, this is the wrong place for you to be, even if you're not being overtly or intentionally disruptive. NOTHERE serves a purpose different than blocks for disruption even though there is often some overlap. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it serves an important purpose as a block reason in situations where a user's violations of policy would normally be borderline or would be approached more slowly and cautiously, but are pushed over the edge to an immediate indef by the fact that there is no indication that the user has any intention of contributing to our purpose, on top of their other violations. While their other violations could theoretically be given as the reason, in many cases WP:NOTHERE is the overriding reason why they are being indeffed, with the individual violations just being examples of that; that makes it useful to put NOTHERE front and center. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it remains a valuable tool, especially in edge cases, or in saving time in trying to categorize exactly what a user did wrong. It cuts down on bureaucracy, and allows us a catchall for new and innovative forms of nonsense. We can't create a blocking policy that forsees every possible malfactor, that's why we give admins NOTHERE discretion. If we removed NOTHERE, those blocks would still happen, but they would be ramrodded into other blocking reasons, such as DE or vandalism, and it would take up additional time and bureaucratic morass. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases I expect that other criteria should be used, eg spamming, disruptive editing. But I don't think we have to get rid of NOTHERE. But then it is used it should be preceded with warnings, and accompanied by a reason for supporting NOTHERE. One issue is trying to interpret the mind set of the user, which is more problematic than just seeing what they are doing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTHERE is the most basic reason to block someone from editing. It may show up in many forms, and where a more specific reason is dominant it is clearer to all if the specific reason is cited. Sometimes it is clear that the person is not here to help build the encyclopedia, but not so easy to nail down the specific behaviour that stands out, due to the variety of low-level problematic behaviour which all adds up to a negative effect on content and community. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blacking out Wikipedia in Support of Black Lives Matter

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Blacking out Wikipedia in Support of Black Lives Matter

– So Why 09:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to WP:Notability is terrible

Note: This discussion was started in response to comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A Policy Issue.

The lede of WP:Notability needs work. It's widely accepted that "notability" is not a measure of a subject's worthiness, but rather a direct consequence of the nature of Wikipedia. It is simply impossible to write a high-quality Wikipedia article on a subject that isn't "notable." Yet the first line of the lede says:

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

The phrasing here is misleading, and may contribute to the myth that Wikipedia determines the suitability of article topics on whether a subject is deserving of attention or respect. I suggest something more along the lines of:

On Wikipedia, notability is the term used by editors for whether it's possible to write an encyclopedia article about a given topic.

I am not proposing this specific phrasing, but rather offering it as a starting point for discussion.

The lede goes on to state that "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." I suggest we trim this back to just "Article and list topics must be notable," as again, notability is not a measure of worthiness. This line, as it stands, only further conflates the different concepts of notability on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Later, it says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if..." Again, the use of the term "merit" is misleading, as we're not judging goodness or worthiness. It might be better to say something like: "It is possible to write an article on a topic if..."

I think we can and should make this much clearer for those who aren't already familiar with the concept of notability on Wikipedia.

Mysterious Whisper (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, there has been long discussions over and over that boil down to the fact that "notability" on Wikipedia is not the same as how it is usually treated in the rest of the world, and ways to fix that have been proposed multiple times but no good solution that gets away from the intent of the guideline has been found.
That reason comes back to the first point and the issue of merit: the guideline is about allowing for standalone articles or not for a topic, and thus showing via quality of sourcing or the types of information in that sourcing that we would presume that we can build out that article more. That creates the presumption of notability that allows for the article to be kept or created, and allows for it to be challenged later should it be found impossible to actually build out beyond a few sentences (that is, after one proves no more sources are possible via WP:BEFORE). Notability doesn't tell us if it is possible that an encyclopedic article can be created but if we presume one can be. --Masem (t) 23:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(And now that I see where this comment came from, in response to issues about how we cover underrepresented topics, that has been also discussed at length multiple multiple times at WP:N and most solutions would require us to weaken the application of WP:V to meet that, which is not going to happen). --Masem (t) 23:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What if, instead of "possible," we said "likely to be possible," to make it clear that notability is a presumption and not a certainty? Also, I scanned the archives of WT:Notability and didn't see anyone making these particular points about the lede, though I didn't make an exhaustive search and might have missed it.

I do not suggest or support changing the notability guidelines to cover underrepresented topics, but rather to clarify the notability guideline with the hope of reducing the number of spurious claims of discrimination. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumption is mention in the thrid para of the lede... --Masem (t) 00:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I acknowledged that in my response, didn't I? I'm responding to the concerns over the use of the word "possible" in my suggested phrasing. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The point of "warrants" is that it's not about whether we can have an article about the subject (we can, and do, have many horribly sourced and unverifiable articles about topics that do not meet our notability tests), but whether we should have an article. Your rewording is bad because it ignores that distinction, and talks about things that are clearly possible (writing bad articles about non-notable subjects) as if they were impossible. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original draft would have said "...possible to write a high-quality encyclopedia article..." I omitted "high-quality" for brevity and because any "article" that isn't based on reliable sources isn't actually an "article" suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shamelessly plugging an essay I still haven't fleshed out, Wikipedia:Noted_not_notable (and see its talk page). E Eng 00:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's like If a tree falls in a forest, except the question is "if there is no reliable sourcing, is a person not notable?" It is well established that some people such as African Americans or female academics were turned down for articles because there was not enough sourcing, but that does not mean that they are non-notable figures. There needs to be an acceptance that WP:GNG can lead to this type of problem, which is a form of systemic bias.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually becoming more convinced WP:GNG is not the problem, but rather how WP:GNG is interpreted. If a topic fails WP:GNG, we cannot have an article on them. (Now, if you're specifically referring to academics, that's a separate problem, since academia apparently doesn't need to pass WP:GNG.) But often users downweight sources they don't understand or from countries they're not familiar with even though those sources perfectly contribute to WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence there is an important concern. I've run into far too many AfD nominations for subjects relating to non-English-speaking countries where it's clear that the nominator didn't even look in non-English sources. For many languages, with the amount that Google Translate has improved, there's no excuse for not doing even a quick search in the relevant language(s) to see what appears. I think it's worth adding a note to the GNG that "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic" encompasses all reliable sources, not just English-language sources for which the full text does not appear online. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 20:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CactusJack: This is already in WP:GNG - Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. I would support it being added to the {{nutshell}} at the top of WP:N, as well as having Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede clarified at WP:BEFORE to include any situation in which there is a credible indication that there may be non-English sources available - not just those in non-Latin alphabets. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge problem, and it's not limited to articles about people. If one looks for sources on say, public schools in the united states, for instance, there are usually a plethora of sources easily found with a google search - so long as the school is one that educates white people. The newspapers of the segregated time often didn't acknowledge the existence of schools for African-American, Latino or Native Americans. Yet even middle-school sports often get regular mentions. The sources that exist are often difficult to access because they are rarely online. Editors have - until recently - been willing to give a free pass to high schools, but in almost every case, when integration occurred, the shitty facilities provided to African-Americans were downgraded to middle schools, which often were very quickly replaced. Their history is not recorded at all in the same way as white schools - it is simple to go online and find who won championships in every sport throughout history in most states....but the records of the black schools are not included, and are not available. Are these schools not as notable because their mention was suppressed by racists? By the current standards, they mostly are, making WP complicit.Jacona (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why routine coverage is something that we do not consider as part of notability. Routine coverage doesn't tells us anything why a topic is important from the rest of the world's standpoint. We want coverage about the topic, not that name-drop the topic or are linked to the topic, so this would not actually happen. When it comes to something like schools, one thing we do have is the fact that we do consider all government recognized towns as worthwhile for an article as part of a function as a gazetteer - this is sorta above and beyond our notability principle - but this means any public schools should have at least one mention within these town articles as part of the education system there. Some schools may have unique standalone notability beyond that. --Masem (t) 13:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree to a large extent, but also recognize that this helps perpetuate bias against minorities.Jacona (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - My feeling is that this idea of "routine" coverage exists purely to promote bias. It allows AfD commenters to dismiss any topic they deem unworthy of an article as non-notable, because the coverage is routine. If the problem is that some forms of coverage that would otherwise be considered reliable independent and in-depth are too easy for insignificant topics to generate, the solution is not to magically pretend that it doesn't count because it's easy, the solution is to consider that maybe depth of coverage is not the right way to measure significance and use SNGs that can be more accurately tuned to the real markers of success in some area. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exclusion of topics that are only covered by routine coverage is essential to the fundamental part of WP:NOT - We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is so much data out there today that we have to have a better standard, in certain fields and areas, that just name dropping and common coverage (such as high school sports) that we can expect. Defining what routine coverage is in some areas to make sure that AFDs do not incorrectly label sources as routine, or vice versa, can be done. This is probably where NCORP is the example to be clear of what are routine sources that are insufficient to demonstrate notability for organizations and businesses as to avoid self-promotion. --Masem (t) 19:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not suggesting that routine coverage should be allowed for notability. I'm suggesting that our determination of what is routine is an obvious place for editors' biases to creep in, and that they do creep in. More, the idea of "routine" coverage is basically a patch for the fact that some unimportant topics get far more press coverage than some important ones. And the fact that we can't use press coverage without patching it in this way suggests that measuring importance by press coverage is fundamentally wrongheaded. In the old days, the philosophy was that anything that *could* be covered, *should* be covered. That has (rightly) stopped being the case, and the way we made it stop being the case was to arbitrarily declare that some coverage that obviously *could* be used as the basis of an article *should* not be used because it was too routine to imply any significance to the topic. But my feeling is that this leads to arbitrariness and bias. If we want to judge significance, beyond the mere existence of sources, we should do so explicitly, by clear standards that fit the topic at hand, not by editors' biases that too often amount to "I don't think that a high school female athlete (or whatever similar subject) could ever be notable so I'm going to declare that all the coverage we actually do have is routine", where "routine" is really a shorthand for WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any meaningful and reproducible classification of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe we shouldn't call it "routine coverage". After all, coverage of subjects such as elections, sporting contests, and cultural events is "routine" to the point that some fans can predict which tropes are likely to be invoked in that coverage before the events happen, but we don't reject that. Maybe we need a different term for this – something that differentiates between the routine-and-expected news story about spring gardening and the routine-and-expected news story about the spring elections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        A minor correction: In fact we do reject coverage of elections, that goes in-depth into the candidate's background and opinions, as "routine" when the candidate loses, but not when they win. I think that's a clear tell that our definition of routine is really an excuse to judge the significance of a topic rather than something inherent in the sources themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea. In terms of wording, I'd suggest that it say …is possible to write a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article…". I could turn almost any CEO/scientist/activist's webpage into something that looks like an encyclopedic biography, but writing an article WP:based upon nothing except what the subject says about itself isn't neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies based solely on personal web pages, LinkedIn profiles etc have been turned down in the past because of WP:PRIMARY and WP:COPYVIO. The trouble is that journalists are not interested in writing about some people unless they die, win the Nobel Prize or commit a mass murder. So there are inevitably gaps in the sourcing as defined by WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should mark WP:N historical, and amend WP:V to require two independent reliable sources for every stand-alone page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-harassment RfC

The Arbitration Committee has opened the anti-harassment RfC, and invites discussion from interested editors. Maxim_(talk) 13:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get help writing your RFC questions

The "regulars" at WT:RFC have been talking about some common problems we see in RFCs, and we are going to try a bit of an experiment this month. This month, you can ask for help with writing your RFC question at WT:RFC.

This is not required, but it may be helpful. We are hoping that by providing a little experienced advice, you will be more likely to end up with a clear result. I particularly recommend this when:

a group of editors is already in conflict or someone is saying that a proposed RFC question isn't 'neutral' enough,
you're starting a "major" RFC (e.g., significant changes to a policy or to a contentious article), and
you want to hold a vote on what the wording of a sentence should be.

If editors want this service, then we may make it permanent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:WhatamIdoing - Good idea for a service. I think it can be a next step for some of the disputes at DRN. (Right now at DRN there is an IP who seems to be arguing against using an RFC because that would be an escalation from DRN, but it isn't clear what the IP wants, other than to write at length.) (Maybe the Dispute Resolution policies need to be revised to clarify that using an RFC is not an escalation. Going to WP:ANI is an escalation.) Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project

Hi all, a bit of shameless plugging here, but I just wrote Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project/WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, which I was hoping would be a summary of something that is sometimes said at ANI/ArbCom/block declines, but hasn't really been summarized in one place. Something like WP:NOTHERE, but for people who are here in good faith but just aren't a fit for Wikipedia and unfortunately end up blocked. Anyway, thoughts on it either on the (as of yet non-existent) talk page, my talk page, or here would be welcome. I normally don't really try to promote essays, but I thought this one might be relevant to more than just my talk page stalkers (and apologies for having the ego to be willing to think that ) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, thanks. Perhaps later it could be added to the list of standard block reasons. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming the essay, because with the namespace and colon, it reads like it is announcing that Wikipedia is not compatible with a collaborative project. :-) Maybe something like "Not everyone is compatible with a collaborative project". isaacl (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the thread title made me interested in what this would be about. :) I agree a rename might help. Killiondude (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality, Wikidata, and verifiability

I am basically the only user currently interested in systematically improving articles on Russian localities and administrative divisions. We used to have a set of infoboxes customized to our needs. A couple of years ago, all these infoboxes were taken to TfD and, against my objections, converted into wrappers. (All other users interested in Russia retired by the time). The group of users who spearheaded this was not really interested in the opinion of people actually using the template, they just outvoted everybody. We are now going into some technical details which I do not understand very well, but Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality now automatically calls some data from Wikidata. Now, today I discovered (at Taldom and Ozyory, Moscow Oblast) that these data is unsourced and likely wrong. For example, it shows the area, but it does not specify the area of what it shows, and Wikidata sources it to the Russian Wikipedia (which is not an acceptable reference). For Taldom, I went to Wikidata and just removed the unsourced data [6]. (I left of for Ozyory to show how the template works). However, I can not do it for every Wikidata item, as this data is added by bot, and I can not compete with bots in several thousand items. It looks like my options are:

Convince Wikidata that unsourced and badly sourced data must be deleted (not even deprecated) and never readded — would be a great solution but unlikely plausible in the current situation;
Keep removing bad data from Wikidata — sorry, I am not a bot, and I just can not do work of this volume, even assuming nobody accuses me in vandalism there;
Revert the template to the previous version - this would amount to ignoring consensus;
Remove infoboxes - they would be probably routinely re-added even if I add a notice in the article;
Leave it as it is - this is probably what I am going to do, but we now have several thousand articles which are not compliant with WP:V and some of them likely contain false info (I only noticed the problem because there was a reform of administrative division, and Taldom and Ozyory were vastly expanded, probably by a factor of hundred, in the area, and I have no idea what the current numbers mean);
Find a wizard who can modify the template to block import of certain fields from Wikidata - this would probably solved the immediate issue but the problem of course is people who voted for deletion of the template had no interest in fixing it, and I do not know how to fix it myself.

Any ideas on how to proceed from this point would be welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some wizards around who can help pretty easily to fix the issue of unverified/badly sourced data coming from Wikidata. Leave a comment at WT:Wikidata that you're looking for help. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try this. Though it would require editing {{Infobox settlement}}, which is a big deal.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to boil down to the problem that Wikidata does not have the same sourcing requirements as the English Wikipedia. We can fix the one particular issue, but the general issue is much less tractable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a long-standing problem, and I once almost lost my admin flag over it. I personally would be happy with the decision that Wikipedia only may import statements with also simultaneously importing their source, and statements sourced to Wikipedia in any language may not be imported (assuming this is technically feasible). However, unfortunately, in every Wikidata discussion users with extreme points of view dominate, and they are not interested in finding any middle ground. In the past, I used to to participate in such discussions and to explain how Wikidata works, but I stopped doing this a long time ago. It is useless and does not lead to any good effect.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to place greater restrictions on AfD?

Deletion discussions remain one of the most hotly controversial parts of the project, but the bar for participation is lower than most other controversial parts of the project.

Bad faith nominations are a common form of harassment or POV-pushing, and while such nominations are rarely successful, there are no protections in place to prevent it from taking a toll on the victim (in cases of harassment) or taking a large amount of volunteer time (for harassment or for POV-pushing). Starting a deletion nominated currently requires autoconfirmed status (4 days + 10 edits).

Once the nomination is started, it's common for people associated with the subject to use social media channels to influence the discussion (whether to support or oppose deletion). New users who sign up just to advocate a position in a deletion discussion rarely take the time to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's deletion-related policies and guidelines, leading to large numbers of low quality !votes that complicate discussions. In very rare cases, after discussions are already severely affected by canvassing, we semi-protect them. Canvassing creates a lot of drama, rarely helps a deletion discussion, and wastes a huge amount of time and energy.

Is it time to place greater restrictions on AfD? Three inter-related questions for the community. Please note that this is not a proposal, but a discussion to see if a proposal makes sense.

1. Should there be stricter requirements to start a deletion discussion?

2. Should deletion discussions be semi-protected by default?

3. If yes to either of the above, what is the best way to allow new users to participate productively (for example, using AfD talk pages)?

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (AfD restrictions)

Some context for why I started this thread: For years I've participated at AfD and have seen the problems caused by canvassing over and over again. So question #2 has long been on my mind.
What has me thinking about question #1 took place over the weekend: a Wikipedian created an illegitimate sock puppet for the sole purpose of nominating for deletion three related articles: Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, Corina Newsome, and Earyn McGee. It's not the first time I've seen people use AfD to nominate groups of related articles in bad faith, nor the first time I've seen it used to to target biographies of women or people of color in particular. It didn't take long to cause a stir on Twitter, etc., perceived as yet another example of systemic bias on Wikipedia.
Of course, those of us insiders know that this was actually an example of process working in the end -- that this was just one illegitimate sock puppet causing trouble, and the articles had little chance of being deleted because it's "not a vote" and whatnot. Here's the thing, though: it's still damaging. Bad faith nominations are not only a huge time sink to the community, requiring people to make sure process does win out; it's also a terrible experience for the article creator/editors, it's a terrible experience for the article subject, and it's a terrible experience for anyone else who looks in and cannot be expected to see what we see. They see Wikipedia working on deleting a topic they care about, and cannot be expected to understand the "don't worry, it's not a vote, and process will win out" part that we might say to ourselves while grumbling.
So I, for one, do think it's time to raise the bar a bit. How much to raise it is the big question as far as I'm concerned. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the last two of those, unless I'm missing something, that was an empty nomination ? I would say that admins should feel empowered to close empty or bad faith nominations, especially if they believe they may draw external involvement (Which should be taken as a given for any BLP for anyone of an underpresented minority on WP). If an experienced editor believes the article does merit deletion, let them open a fresh deletion discussion with proper rational (and there should be no penalty here if that's opened even the same day as the rapid closure of the previous one). We may not catch all the bad faith ones, if they are nominated with a reasonable cause (as the first of your three appears to be on a first quick read), but at least we shouldn't let the clear bad ones linger for the 7 required days and cause long term problems --Masem (t) 22:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Like I said, process usually wins out, but why is this permitted to begin with? How often do you see successful, good faith, policy-based nominations from new users, as compared to the kind of problems caused in this example? How many of those positive examples could be handled through other means (e.g. requesting an AfD at WT:AFD, PROD, etc.)? My central point about question #1 is about new users' nominations being a net negative, and that the negative effects probably reach further than most people would think, because we tend to think of AfDs as being behind-the-scenes projectspace business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deep problem is identifying bad faith nominations. I worry that closing empty nominations is not a robust solution to the problem, because it doesn't take much for disruptive editors to learn how to give the appearance of a rationale. Just quickly looking back over the (all presumably good faith) AfDs I've participated in this year, the modal deletion rationale is typically one sentence along the lines of "This article does not meet the notability guidelines", and (very reasonably) nobody blinks an eye when that's written by an editor with a few hundred edits who stacked a dozen pages in AfD in one afternoon with identical rationales -- most of the time, that sort of deletion is just a user who spent a few hours helping to build the encylopedia by patrolling for non-notable pages, and decided they found several. So I worry that resting everything on an idea like "admins should delete any rapid string of AfDs by a new editor with empty/totally trivial deletion rationales" just moves the problem to a question of how to tell the difference between good faith (but perhaps rather lazy) tagging on the one hand, and disruptive trolling on the other. In this situation, for example, it seems reasonable to guess that with a bit more effort the person who started this AfD might have been able to write a persuasive appearance of a sincere deletion rationale, since they openly admitted to being a sockpuppet during the AfD (as was noted at AN). And that same AfD but with a policy-motivated deletion rationale would still have been subject to all the same canvassing, spam, and trolling. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nominations are easy. And given that most experienced editors know of the BEFORE process and how to nominate, I could see that when we have a sub-par nomination (no sign of prior research, maybe just claimed "person is non-notable", and a quick check of the target AFD page shows 20+ sources with clear reliable sources being used, they can do this rapid close and add something in their close "Any experienced editor, believing this was a valid AFD, may reopen/restart this". Heck, that's even better, just have the rapid close if the admin thinks it is a bad faith AFD, but if an experienced editor thinks it is valid, they can ask to have the nomination opened again on the admin's talk page, mimicking the process one uses to question the standard admin closure process.--Masem (t) 23:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I would be against semi-protection by default because many articles listed for deletion are from new editors, and they should be able to participate in the deletion discussions of their articles. While this doesn't always wind up for the best, I imagine locking them out of the discussion or bunting them to an unseen talk page would have even worse outcomes. However, I would be in favor of raising the bar for filing a deletion to extended confirmed, as virtually all new page patrollers will meet that standard easily, and it will create a significantly higher hurdle for bad-faith actors. This won't stop PROD or CSD tagging - but that's a feature, not a bug. Both are easily removed in cases of abuse, and let people that are not extended confirmed and still want to help address the worst new articles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. I actually intended to be less specific than "semi-protection by default" in order to allow for that one exception (article creators/editors weighing in), but forgot when it came time to hit save. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion Rhododendrites, and I think it's worth reinforcing that this problem of targeted and high-profile bad faith deletion spam is not at all new, and that with the growth of conversations about Wikipedia across other major platforms, I expect this sort of canvassing to only grow more severe. Per the opening paragraph of the discussion and per The Squirrel Conspiracy, I expect that I would agree with a proposal to require a higher bar to begin AfDs. But requiring a higher bar to contribute to AfDs is, to my mind, much more complicated. On the one hand, I am really sympathetic to the argument that it would be dangerously discouraging to new editors. I remember vividly my early experience editing Wikipedia: I believed that about $3/4$ of whatever you do on this website will get rapidly undone for completely opaque reasons, with lots of giant paragraphs full of incomprehensible acronyms and links and all sorts of emphatic italics about how astonishingly bone-headed you must have been to write that content (I'm not saying that's the impression people were trying to give, just that that's how it often feels to very new editors). People absolutely should be encouraged to WP:BB from their very first edit, including writing pages from scratch, and if their page comes up for deletion they should be allowed to participate in the discussion on it. From personal experience I believe that good faith participation in AfDs by brand new editors who don't yet have a clue is a huge net good for the project, especially as a hugely important (if often unpleasant) learning experience for them. Nothing motivates you to wade deep into notability policy like trying to come up with an argument for why your afternoon of work shouldn't be undone. Having said all of that, not raising the bar for AfD participation leaves half of the problem we're talking about unaddressed: it means that canvassing good faith and constructive deletion discussions is still just as easy, whether you're trying to sway the discussion towards keep or delete. It's very easy to imagine a good faith editor questioning the value of a page about someone with tens of thousands of twitter followers and that person reacting by canvassing support, just as happened in this instance, in which case we would be in the same exact position that we're in now. So I would be very interested in discussing further policies that would allow people with a sincere connection to the page to participate, while ruling out the kind of canvassing that is already a very serious problem and that looks like it will only get more serious over the next few months and years. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see it as a problem. Most of the time canvassing is obvious and the topics are notable. I actually got stuck into the project because I wasn't specifically canvassed, but I read something about whether something should be on Wikipedia off of Wikipedia. Not being able to participate may create a "walled garden" effect for the entire community. That being said, there is a bad faith nomination issue, it was obvious in the cases you mentioned, and we need to do a better job of a community of not defaulting to "no consensus" when a deletion discussion goes off the canvassing rails, but I don't really support increasing the standard threshold. For instance, this should be very unlikely, but there may be instances where a low profile BLP realises there's an attack page written about them here and needs to deal with it. I might be willing to support a specific action item, though, such as a flag when a non-extended confirmed user starts an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 01:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose these type of changes. Its hard enough to delete an article as it is. Think about it, it only takes one person to create a bad article, but many to have it deleted. And when we can't agree and the AfD is closed as "no consensus", it gets kept by default. This actually contradicts WP:ONUS where the person adding the material must get consensus, not the person proposing deletion. As for sockpuppets, that is not a issue exclusive to AfDs. They can show up in any discussion anywhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me amend Rhododendrites's account of the three AfDs that triggered this discussion by the fact that questionable tactics were used on both sides of those "arguments." While it is true that the AfDs were started by sock-puppets, it is equally all three subjects of the articles for deletion were using their social media presence to WP:MEATPUPPET the discussions. So it won't surprise that for more than half of the participants—Protonk, Kslays, Wurstendbinder, nejaby, AmyFou, Mglymour, Kellyjeanne9, Mfield, Dziban303, Rtol, Younotmenotyou, LadyFaeyre, Plcoffey, Smreillyatx, Kithrup—their keep !vote just so happened to be their first edit in months (sometimes years!), and another seven—Co2ke, Watchtower2.0, Loveofstreams, Bunsenberner, LadyAedes, Jtshapiro, Sharkirk—were outright single-purpose accounts. Unfortunately this strategy had success, and as I already elaborated elsewhere, I am afraid that without proper adjustments on our part, this will be the "new normal," i.e. the new go-to strategy for medium-scale Twitter personalities who always wanted a Wikipedia shrine for their personal vanity. --bender235 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 588: / Line 588: @@
 *I honestly don't see it as a problem. Most of the time canvassing is obvious and the topics are notable. I actually got stuck into the project because I wasn't specifically canvassed, but I read something about whether something should be on Wikipedia off of Wikipedia. Not being able to participate may create a "walled garden" effect for the entire community. That being said, there is a bad faith nomination issue, it was obvious in the cases you mentioned, and we need to do a better job of a community of not defaulting to "no consensus" when a deletion discussion goes off the canvassing rails, but I don't really support increasing the standard threshold. For instance, this should be very unlikely, but there may be instances where a low profile BLP realises there's an attack page written about them here and needs to deal with it. I might be willing to support a specific action item, though, such as a flag when a non-extended confirmed user starts an AfD. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 01:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 *I would '''oppose''' these type of changes. Its hard enough to delete an article as it is. Think about it, it only takes one person to create a bad article, but many to have it deleted. And when we can't agree and the AfD is closed as "no consensus", it gets kept by default. This actually contradicts [[WP:ONUS]] where the person adding the material must get consensus, not the person proposing deletion. As for sockpuppets, that is not a issue exclusive to AfDs. They can show up in any discussion anywhere.--[[User:Rusf10|Rusf10]] ([[User talk:Rusf10|talk]]) 02:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
+*Let me amend {{u|Rhododendrites}}'s account of the three AfDs that triggered this discussion by the fact that questionable tactics were used on both sides of those "arguments." While it is true that the AfDs were started by sock-puppets, it is equally [https://twitter.com/itsafronomics/status/1269449658109231104 all] [https://twitter.com/alieward/status/1269454660902912000 three] [https://twitter.com/Afro_Herper/status/1269461604040503296 subjects] of the articles for deletion were using their social media presence to [[WP:MEATPUPPET]] the discussions. So it won't surprise that for more than half of the participants—[[Special:Contributions/Protonk|Protonk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kslays|Kslays]], [[Special:Contributions/Wurstendbinder|Wurstendbinder]], [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:6448:7E00:915F:7122:2435:2E7D|nejaby]], [[Special:Contributions/AmyFou|AmyFou]], [[Special:Contributions/Mglymour|Mglymour]], [[Special:Contributions/Kellyjeanne9|Kellyjeanne9]], [[Special:Contributions/Mfield|Mfield]], [[Special:Contributions/Dziban303|Dziban303]], [[Special:Contributions/Rtol|Rtol]], [[Special:Contributions/Younotmenotyou|Younotmenotyou]], [[Special:Contributions/LadyFaeyre|LadyFaeyre]], [[Special:Contributions/Plcoffey|Plcoffey]], [[Special:Contributions/Smreillyatx|Smreillyatx]], [[Special:Contributions/Kithrup|Kithrup]]—their ''keep'' !vote just so happened to be their first edit in months (sometimes years!), and another seven—[[Special:Contributions/Co2ke|Co2ke]], [[Special:Contributions/Watchtower2.0|Watchtower2.0]], [[Special:Contributions/Loveofstreams|Loveofstreams]], [[Special:Contributions/Bunsenberner|Bunsenberner]], [[Special:Contributions/LadyAedes|LadyAedes]], [[Special:Contributions/Jtshapiro|Jtshapiro]], [[Special:Contributions/Sharkirk|Sharkirk]]—were outright [[WP:SPA|single-purpose accounts]]. Unfortunately this strategy had success, and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive321#SNOW_close_of_AfD_with_significant_social-media_driven_new_user_participation|as I already elaborated elsewhere]], I am afraid that without proper adjustments on our part, this will be the "new normal," i.e. the new go-to strategy for medium-scale Twitter personalities who always wanted a Wikipedia shrine for their personal vanity. --[[User:Bender235|bender235]] ([[User talk:Bender235|talk]]) 04:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)