Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 122

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

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

RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia?

Note: The original discussion raises some unrelated issues, about translation of slang and colloquialisms, while the discussion below is focusing on poetry and literature.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)#RfC: How much "poetic license" does a translator of primary sources have in wikipedia? .-M.Altenmann >t 05:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what you're asking is whether an editor can do a translation of a literary piece theirself, or whether they need to find a reliably published source to provide the translation? valereee (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I would say that a translation is necessary, otherwise the phrase is not useful for English Wikipedia. It is important that the original phrase can be found. Even then a professional translation (with source) would be preferable; but lacking that and with the original untranslated version easily findable an editor translation is the next best thing in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the question is not whether a translation can be provided, but how dictionary-literal it must be. DES (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Dictionary literal translation is not always possible, especially not for literature or proverbs. E.g. the Dutch proverb "Het regent pijpenstelen" should not be translated "It is raining pipestems" but "It is raining cats and dogs" (which in turn should not be translated to "Het regent kitten en honden"). Arnoutf (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hopfen und Malz is verloren (literal: Hops and malt are lost; meaning: all is lost). A literal translation of the idiom does not make sense, you have to translate the actual meaning. GregJackP Boomer! 02:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Make an inline note containing a literal translation and the closest meaning, preferably sourced. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Happened by this page for something completely different, but this caught my eye. As it happens, I recently translated a poem fragment from a French article into English here, attempting to retain the Spanish Sestet (sextilla) aabccb style to the extent possible. The poem is sourced to a book[n 1] in French, which apparently exists in an English version according to worldcat but which is not readily available. In a case like this, maintaining literal meaning is even less possible, or if you do, you destroy the rhyme scheme which provides much of the beauty of the poem. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
WP isn't a literature publisher, so "destroy[ing] the rhyme scheme which provides much of the beauty of the poem" generally is not a concern; quoting the original material gives that, and providing a translation makes its meaning clear. It's definitely not our job to very loosely translate a poem and alter it to produce something that mirrors the original's rhyme (or alliteration, or syllabification, or whatever) scheme at the cost of accuracy. Where a corresponding colloquialism ("raining cats and dogs") is obvious, there's no problem with using it, just be careful not to alter the intended actual meaning. Don't do it through through excessively liberal translation, nor through excessively literal (mi casa es su casa does not mean 'I am giving you legal joint tenancy to my property'). It's often best to leave a fairly literal translation in place (other than word order that sounds like Yoda), especially if it's traditional. E.g. in the Tao Teh Ching (or however you like to spell that these days), it's best to leave alone a traditionally translated reference to "the Ten-thousand Things", and explain in dicta that this is a metaphor for "the material world", which any of a number of reliable sources tell us. As with most things on WP, this sort of thing is going to be a case-by-case determination.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @SMcCandlish:; in that case I should revert my change, and perhaps just tweak the literal translation. By the way, I haven't seen anything about this in any of the guideline/policy pages, and a sentence or two summarizing what you just said, would be helpful to others wondering about this in the future. Do you think WP:Translation is the right place for this? I don't mind making the change there myself, but wanted to give you first refusal. Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Yeah, we should probably cover this. I've run into essentially the same question/dispute types from three different angles, just in the last couple of days! At one of them, I included WP:NOR and WP:NPOV points, here (my comments were in response to the OP, not the entire rambling thread). Might be worth factoring in. The other one is here, addressing colloquialism translation, while here we seemed to be on about poetry more than anything else. One of those is an on-going RfC, so waiting for it to conclude might be best before synthesizing something to advise.

I guess WP:Translation is the best location for now. It's probably the easiest place to put it without it being reverted, anyway. The problem is, it's unclear what that page is. In intent, it's basically a wikiproject that isn't labeled as one, for some reason, and it mostly focuses on whole-article translation between different-language Wikipedias. The material we're discussing seems to me like it's a combination content and style guideline matter. We really don't have a page on this yet, somehow. We do have some kinda-guideline material at WP:Translation (look for the word "should"), so I guess that's where to put it until there's a discussion about splitting the translation process/project page, and translation advice/rules, into separate page. For cross-referencing, there's WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms and the corresponding WP:Manual of Style#Foreign terms summary, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#Archaic spelling (covers Old English / Anglo-Saxon to Early Modern English), but very little else that I'm aware of. Various MOS and NC pages that are culture specific address language-particular issues that are relevant, so could also be see-also'd.

A longer term strategy for consolidating such material would probably be to take it all (what we come up with here, what's advice material at WP:Translation, and summaries of key points from those other places, and put them in, say, WP:Translating content, and label it as a {{WikiProject content advice}} page of the WP:Translation project. Then ensure it's written in guideline form, representing best practices that reduce reader confusion and editorial strife (i.e., not written as questionable "what if" essay opinion stuff), and then propose at WP:VPPRO its elevation to a content {{Guideline}} after a while. I wouldn't be concerned about aspects of it also being a style guideline; the WP:Stand-alone lists page is a three-way combination of content, style, and naming guideline, and has been for years without heads asplode.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've self-reverted the poem changes. Much to chew on here, need to re-read this when I'm fresh; thanks for your continuing input. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
No prob.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References for "RfC: How much 'poetic license'..."

  1. ^ Chagny, André (1950). Notre-Dame de Garde (in French). Lyon: Editions Héliogravure M. Lescuyer & Fils. OCLC 14251718.

Initials of schools in disambiguation pages (e.g. BHS)

I'm not sure if this is the right place, it's about respecting an existing policy and possibly creating new articles for non-conformant cases. WP:DABABBREV says basically that entries should be made in disambiguation pages if and only if (1) there is an article, and (2) it asserts that the initials are used. This guideline is breached a great deal. In particular there are vast numbers of schools which happen to have initials ending in "HS", "MS", etc.; BHS is a good example (I have just added a comment to that page, saying that these initials are not necessarily used). Many of the corresponding disambiguation pages have huge sections for these schools; but the articles for most do not state that they use the initials. (I should think the initials are used locally, for the school newsletter, in the local newspaper, etc., but this is not like IBM or JFK; if use is significant, it is so stated in the article.) I would suggest that, rather than deleting these entries from disambiguation pages out of hand (which would conform with WP:DABABBREV, it might be worth creating pages like "Schools with initials BHS" for the particular sets of initials shared by many schools. Schools whose articles assert that they are known by the initials could be included in both the dab and the "initials" pages. This doesn't involve changing or creating any policy, though maybe a comment could be added to DABABBREV. Pol098 (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC) P.S. There has long been an article MHS (high schools), but this hasn't been extended to all sets of schools with the same initials. I've just moved all schools not meeting DABABBREV out of NHS, and included all the schools formerly in NHS (including some that remain) in the new NHS (schools). Pol098 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea - create a series of articles List of high schools - A, and then AHS (disambiguation) could link to that list. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem with List of high schools - A is that a great many (most?) high schools beginning with A won't have initials AHS. Pol098 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that there's a case for articles "<l>HS (schools)" and <l>MS (schools)" (<l>=any letter), given the prevalence of "<name> High School" and "<name> Middle School", and given the huge number of schools in disambiguation pages, but we don't want "<lll> (school)" pages for any random set of letters. Pol098 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to make redirects from the abbreviated forms to the full names. For example, Generic HS would redirect to Generic High School. (Some might need multiple redirects, such as Jimmy Wales High School could have redirects from both Jimmy Wales HS and Wales HS.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The central issue is that people who attend or work at (to continue with the funny example) Jimmy Wales High School, and maybe even people in the town where this hypothetically exists, refer to it as JWHS, but no one else in the world does. It's not encyclopedic information to litter acronym disambiguation pages with entries for schools below the university level, even if they have articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. However, people searching for information on Jimmy Wales High School might type  Wales HS  in the search box. To me that indicates a redirect would be applicable.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
To every single high school in Wales??? Please no ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Death of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe" vs "John Doe"

Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#"Death of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe" vs "John Doe" - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC at WP:NCLANG: Should the NCLANG guideline include references to PRIMARYTOPIC?

There's an RfC at WP:NCLANG: Should the WP:NCLANG guideline include references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#RfC: Should the NCLANG guideline include references to PRIMARYTOPIC? Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:NOTHOWTO apply to redirects?

There is currently a discussion about whether the "What Wikipedia is not" policy applies to the titles of redirect pages. If you are interested, please see the discussion. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR -vs- WP:RS

If we will not allow a fact to be IN-cluded without a WP:RS, then we also should not allow a sourced fact to be EX-cluded (removed) based on an unsourced allegation which is by definition WP:OR.

WP clearly bans all original research on topics. In particular I note the following policy text:

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist."

On the NOR/N board it says:

""Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia."

If WP does not allow "allegations [...] for which no reliable, published sources exist" then why is it that synthesized, unsourced allegations about the reliability of sources is allowed? Doesn't banning of a particular source "serve to advance a position" that affects the content of one or more articles?

EXAMPLE: I was told today that Edgar Thurston (among others) is considered to be a totally unacceptable source for history of India articles yet there is nothing in the WP article on him that even suggests that his published works are in any way dubious.

Frankly I don't care if this Thurston guy is the most horrible historian in the world. I have never touched an India article before and it is looking very likely that I will not bother trying to improve any of them in the future ... BUT ... if we as Wikipedians are going to say someone's texts are of so poor quality or integrity that we refuse to use them, then shouldn't we do so based on the same standard that affects every other iota of data in the encyclopedia: a reliable source that says just that? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Perike, you have been referred to numerous discussions etc concerning the likes of Thurston, examples being at WP:RSN, WP:HISTRS and User:Sitush/CasteSources. The policy you need to consider is WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:OR. I've tried to explain this but you seem intent on rehashing very long-standing consensus in great detail. It isn't worth it. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Satish, this isn't about You or Perike or Thurston, I only mentioned Thurston as an example. But FYI I did read those sources and found no WP:RS stating that Thurston is a bad historian, only user comments, user analysis, and user synthesis. Not one reliable source supporting the claim that his work is unreliable.
(BTW, are you STALKING my edits? I did not mention your name yet you were the first to reply here. I did notice that you *Patrolled* my user page earlier today.)
THE BOTTOM LINE IS my question here is bigger than anyone's small petty wiki-kingdom. It is about the rightness or wrongness of declaring a source --- ANY SOURCE FOR ANY ARTICLE --- "unfit" without having a reliable, citable allegation or declaration to that effect.
This page is on my watchlist. I patrolled your page because I was curious: you had come into an article from nowhere but are obviously an experienced contributor. Caste articles are notoriously prone to sockpuppetry and it is no bad thing to keep an eye out. For example, there is a user who used quite frequently to call me "Satish", as you have just done, and that sort of thing inevitably piques interest ;)
Sorry about the typo. I used to work with a guy in another department named Satish and finger memory takes over when typing. But if you want, feel free to ask an Admin/Bcrat run a checkuser on me as per normal process, they will see my IP and thus my previous edits before I created this account and they will know I have no sock-type connections. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
As for Thurston, you won't find much written about him. That is indeed one of the tests of a reliable source: if modern sources are not citing them, they may not be rated very highly. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Koala Tea Of Mercy, I think the bottom line is that you don't understand WP: OR. WP: OR applies to article space, and is an inclusionary requirement. It doesn't affect other decisions to exclude content. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
RS is an essential yet insufficient criterion for inclusion. And let's be honest - I guess you would agree that if we label the phonebook of London a reliable source, you would not argue that a comprehensive listing of its contents (millions of names) should be accepted on the London page. Nevertheless removal of such contents would violate your suggestion above. Arnoutf (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOT excludes the phonebook and is plainly written as such. --Izno (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said, WP:RS is essential but not in itself sufficient for inclusion of material. In this case WP:NOT would be a reason for not adding the names even though the source may be reliable. In short we cannot accept anything hinting at ... "should not allow a sourced fact to be EX-cluded". (BTW WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYN etc are among many other reasons for this) Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue is already also addressed at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. The answer is NO. Merely being sourced is not a talisman to guarantee inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Arnoutf and Red Pen have it correct. There are multiple content policies and guidelines that have an impact on whether we can say something in an article or not (and, if so, how we can say it). For inclusion all of them must be complied with at the same time... while for exclusion any one of them may be cause to exclude. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

[moving left] I am not talking about "guaranteed inclusion" of anything. I am talking about is: Is the criteria we use for dis-qualifying a SOURCE (and thus excluding data) of the same caliper as the criteria we use for including data?

It seems to me that we have this one rule (WP:NOR) that says 

"It never appears first on Wikipedia."

but then sometimes we have this practice whereby 

Wikipedians are the first to tell the world; "That source is unreliable."

Isn't that a double standard?

I have no desire to see inclusion of everything, there is way too much cruft trying to get into WP all the time. BUT... when we make a decision that is binding on the editors that a given author/publication is unworthy of being considered a reliable source, then I believe we need to be looking very hard as to if that decision was arrived at by verifiable sources outside Wikipeda or by Original Research, Original Analysis, and/or Original Synthesis inside Wikipedia. 

"EVERYTHING FROM SOURCE X == UNRELIABLE" is a damning statement.
To make a damning statement should require the same high standard 
as saying "THE TEA PARTY WAS STARTED BY THE KOCH BROTHERS" 
or "OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA". Damn a statement, damn an author, what's the difference?

As for the article space scope issue: just because something is discussed on the Talk pages does not mean the discussion and the decision from it does not affect the article page. What is missing matters just as much as what is present, and both shape the actual article.

Frankly I am surprised that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers haven't said something on this matter yet, considering that declaring a source unreliable could be considered a form of libel. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of sources is proved, not disproved. A source is not considered reliable until judged as such, we don't assume sources are reliable until shown otherwise...you're asking to prove a negative. For eg, why don't you try demonstrating I'm not a reliable source? You'll go straight to the absence of RS qualifiers, rather than trying to find positive evidence of my compulsive lying. 78.144.214.250 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:78.144.214.250: So if I (and some other editors to make a consensus) said; "We think 78.144.214.250 is a compulsive liar and so his account and everything he has contributed to WP should be deleted." you would not want us to provide some sort of objective, verifiable proof before that statement was accepted as true by the WP community? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't care, but I get what you're getting at, but you're wrong. Those positive accusations are different from an absence of demonstrated whatever, ITC reliability. Point is in RS disputes it has to be demonstrated that the source IS reliable, not that it ISN'T. Your challenge to demonstrate unreliability is completely the wrong way around, if you think this author is reliable argue your case. The lack of declaration of whatsisrajs' work as meeting our RS standards is not in any way libel, nor is it article content, so your whole argument is irrelevant. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a conflict between NOR and wikis consensus system. I am surprised this 'debate' has been so large, there's nothing to it. 78.144.214.250 (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Those types of claims are considered personal attacks if no evidence is even provided. And in cases where there is evidence, we have places (like ANI) where such claims can be evaluated and judged. We have and do block users if they purposely introduce false information, for example, but again, that is after the communicate judges the evidence of such behavior, and never without that. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In our role as a tertiary source - summarizing information from primary, secondary, and other tertiary sources - there is a necessary but minimal amount of "original research" that we have to do to present a topic in an encyclopedic light. We have to come up with a structure of an article that makes sense , we have to figure out what are the best sources to use, we have to figure out what in those sources are the most salient points to use, in controversial topics we have to figure out what the weight of arguments are to present points in appropriateness to the weight in sources, and so on. This is not original research on the topic itself but in encyclopedic presentation of the topic, and in generally we reallyrarely call that out as "original research" because it is part and parcel of building an encyclopedia. Reliability of sources is one of those that we work with original research of consensus to determine a source reliable or not. And that comes from a combination of experience, evidence, and the like that are unrelated to any specific topic at hand but the source itself. We're making that determination behind the scenes, and not for something that goes into the topic of that source (if we have one). --MASEM (t) 00:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@MASEM: Continuing with Edgar Thurston just for the sake of having an example to work with. Currently it reads (in part) as follows:
Among other published works, he wrote the seven volumes of Castes and Tribes of Southern India, which was a part of the Ethnographic Survey of India project to which he was appointed in 1901 [...]
There are other statements about his studies and writing that praise him and his work. There are zero statements that throw any doubt on him or his work (other than an indirect comment about him working under a man who was "an adherent to the theories of scientific racism.").
Now if I were to add some text such as:
Modern scholars of the castes and tribes of India consider Thurston's seven volume work to be unreliable because he was a member of the British Raj (ruling class) when he wrote it.
You know damn well that you would stand up on a chair shouting for sources to back up that statement. Yet, when we do this (as you say) "behind the scenes" we are somehow exempt from providing non-WP sources?
And ... if we do not include such a statement in the article aren't we betraying our mandate to be "the sum of all human knowledge"? If we fail to tell the public of Thurston's alleged unreliability are we not misleading anyone who reads his article page into seeing his books as a scholarly work they could "safely" use as a basis for their own research into Indian ethnography? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The "sum of human knowledge" statement has been cleared up many many times - we can't pretend that that is our true goal, but instead we are trying to summarize human knowledge and that means we don't try to include everything, we have to make cutoffs, and make sure our references are numerous to let readers learn more if they need.
And actually, if we were discussing this person's work as for its use as a reliable source, we would ask for evidence that would counter that claim. It might be actual sources that debate the neutrality of the writer, it might be an example of a work that has clear problems of factuality, or it might be things like questioning someone's background. That's where consensus comes in to determine that. It's not being done in a vacuum. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, you completely missed my point. I was using 78.144.214.250's tongue-in-cheek "pathological liar" comment above to demonstrate the double standard via a parallel argument structure:
  • EX: A = "User XXX is a BAD EDITOR so remove XXX's work from WP and permanently ban XXX." <--- citations and objective proof in a public and centralized discussion for consensus is formally required.
  • EX: B = "Author ZZZ is a BAD SOURCE so remove ZZZ's work from WP and permanently ban ZZZ." <--- discussion required but it can be scattered and informal and no consistent standard of objective proof is required.
All I am saying is that when a specific body of work, be it a single author (Thurston) or an entire class of sources ("Anything from the British Raj era is not reliable.") is "banned" there should be a similar standard of proof and a very similar community process as well.
When someone asks "Why is USER XXX banned?" the response is "Go look at this specific ANI link",
but when someone asks "Why is SOURCE ZZZ banned?" the response is "Go look in WP:RSN, WP:HISTRS, WT:INB plus literally hundreds of articles."
That is a double standard. Disparaging an author or work in the Article space requires a WP:RS but disparaging the exact same author or work in the Talk space does not. That is a double standard. Requiring one level of proof & process for A and a different level of proof & process for B when the impact is essentially the same (banning of participation) is a double standard and I think we need to address this as a community. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The standard of proof is, effectively, WP:CONSENSUS based on all the various points already raised above by others. I may be getting confused regarding what it is you are complaining of but it seems now that you also object to broad-brush remarks about where to find prior discussions. If so, and in your hypothetical case, all you need to do is, for example, go to WP:RSN as stated and type "edgar thurston" in the search box for the archives. That produces a result listing four discussions. Admittedly, I could have done that for you but, as I said on the article talk page, you are attempting to re-hash arguments that have been repeatedly discussed and rejected over many years. Such arguments have upset numerous sockpuppets as well as caste POV-pushers, resulting in a lot of blocks and topic bans, but the consensus is pretty much set in stone now. Yes, consensus can change but your chances of changing this particular one are so remote that you would probably find yourself in trouble for editing tendentiously or forum shopping beforehand. That may not be right but it is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Koala Tea Of Mercy: What you say about "double standard" is a natural consequence of WP:ONUS, as mentioned by TRPoD above. The burden to find consensus is always on the person who wishes to add the material. Just because something is verifiable does not guarantee inclusion in an article. You need to simply find consensus for the edit, either by using WP:RfC or some such method. If you are frustrated by India articles, I suggest you look for a few days at the related changes list for caste articles here (link on my userpage) and see the daily trash that goes on there. I don't edit this much but have great respect for those who do while trying to maintain some semblance of WP policy. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • A) Individual's opinions expressed on the talk page are not encyclopedia content. B) Source reliability on WP is an internal determination of what WP will accept, for our purposes, and has no applicability externally. If the New York Times or whatever want to treat my book as reliable, they're free to do that, while WP is free to not do so. There's really not much else to it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly right... to tie this in with WP:OR (and the idea that "It never appears first on Wikipedia.")... the key distinction is whether the statement that "source XYZ is not reliable" is made in the text of the article itself, or is made on the associated talk page. Our content policies (such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) apply to the article content, and do not apply to talk page discussions. We are actually allowed to share our opinions (even if those opinions venture into OR) on talk pages. What we could not do (without a source to support it) would be to add the statement "Source XYZ is considered unreliable" to the actual text of the article. Hope that clarifies the distinction. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Koala Tea Of Mercy - I think you have some valid points about gaps in RS determination and non-RS accusation. While WP:RS is good and the WP:RSN helps and thanks for mention of search there, that still does not lead towards any criteria for determination being captured and shown for guidance, which would make WP:RSN easier and less ad-hoc, and RS-accusation less likely to just being a cover for content-exclusion at the article. The mentioned question of basis ('all Raj era' or 'this author') seems to illustrate another issue, a tendency to generic deification or demonization rather than consideration of source in the context of what the cite is for or of exactly what the cited item says. I think the WP:RS itself should get an update or expansion so at least we do not have What criteria are used to judge newspapers as being RS as a discussion starting from zero and then only findable by if-one-searches-right. Just my recommendation Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Mark, the guideline does spell out "criteria for determination" of RS... several. The primary one is whether there is editorial oversight (a form of fact checking) ... but another big one is whether the author has a good reputation in the relevant field. Assessing reputation is somewhat subjective, and it comes down to informed CONSENSUS: Do we (as a community) think the author has a good reputation or not? We don't always agree (consensus is often a messy process)... but when a source is "iffy" we tend to "err on the side of caution" and call the source unreliable. After all, if an "iffy" source is presenting accurate information, there will almost always be another source (one that is considered solidly reliable) that can be used to support that information. If there isn't another, we have to question whether the information really belongs in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This does not seem to be a broad policy discussion; it seems to be a small-scale content dispute which the OP is attempting to circumvent having to face the details of by claiming a larger issue which does not seem to be a problem, except where the OP wants it to be to give them the upper hand in the specific dispute they are involved in. --Jayron32 01:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron et al: While you may see it that way this really is a genuine concern of mine on the broad policy level. However... it also appears clear that trying to address this issue with only one example is a problem in itself so here is what I am going to do:

  • (1) I will not edit any Raj related articles. Ever again. Period. Dif tor heh smusma, Sitush.

It seems clear to me that any effort I might make towards improving such articles would only be seen as justifying the accusation that this is some sort of "small-scale content dispute" so I am taking myself out of that arena to keep the discussion clear.

There are several places above where I made it clear that I am using this one article as an example and that I really do not care if this Edgar guy is a good or bad source, but I do care about the right and wrong manner of how that was determined and, more importantly, how it then became a broad-spectrum de-facto guideline all editors must follow.

Since my explicit words are not enough to allow some of you to AGF that I am speaking straightforward on this issue, perhaps my actions will speak loud enough for you to be able to truly hear what I am actually saying.

  • (2) I will drop this matter at WP:VPP for now. Obviously I was very ill prepared to present a well documented and well thought out proposal. I jumped the gun because it seemed so obvious but I was premature in opening this discussion. Mea culpa.
  • (3) I will gather examples of this issue across a broad spectrum of articles and categories. This is not a priority for me but I also will not forget this issue because I think it is a very important one in the grand scheme of things.
  • (4) I will, over time, draft an essay and add the examples I find to support it. I will do this here in my user space and I will welcome all civil comments (pro and con) on the Talk page for that essay. When I think it is ready for the fire I will open a new RFC.

To all, thank you for the various lessons in WP policies and politics, it has been educational. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC for binding administrator recall

Hello. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, where a discussion regarding a process for de-sysopping is taking place. ~ RobTalk 05:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on interactions between editors

I commend this RfC to you It affects those who converse with new editors especially. Your opinion is welcome there, please. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad heading

Active discussion moved to WT:VPP#Bad heading per reasons given below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Topic not about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but about the layout of this page moved to WT:VPP#Bad heading --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please could someone trim the very (the disruptively-) long heading, above, which is bloating both the ToC and edit summaries? My attempts to do so have been reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Pigsonthewing is referring to: WP:VPP#How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?... While that heading is long, I don't find it disruptively long. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar, see also above, short discussion directly under section title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Having restored the above by revert I now restore FS's comment Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

He's now moved it to the top of this section, rendering the above nonsensical; and I have undone his hatting of my comment here (I'd told him earlier today to stop editing my comments). Now can someone fix the over-long heading above, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Increasing the activity requirement for retaining administrator rights

UNSUCCESSFUL
Having read this proposal through, while the supporters make some good points it ultimately boils down to the fact that this proposal has loop-holes, such as existing admins can easily game this and forcing inactive admins to meet a quota to retain the bit can have adverse affects on the quality of those actions performed. Another issue brought up is why the inactivity policy exists to begin with, and how this proposal steers away from that. Overall there is more concern here in this proposal as expressed by the community, and as such, it is obvious consensus favors keeping the activity requirements as is.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I'd like to finally start an RfC that is a follow on from this Idea Lab discussion, regarding increasing the requirements for activity for a user to retain their administrator rights. In 2011 a discussion came to the conclusion that admins who had not performed any edits or admin actions over a period of one year should be desysopped. These editors can request their tools back without a new RfA during a period up to 3 years of inactivity, after which a fresh RfA is required. The current wording of WP:INACTIVITY states that "Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped."

There has recently been concern regarding those administrators who make very few administrator actions per year - some editors feel that a higher level of activity is expected of administrators to ensure that they are up to date on Wikipedia policies and practices. Others are concerned about the lack of accountability of those administrators who only make one or two actions per year and are otherwise inactive. Another issue is the tracking of the number of administrators on Wikipedia; varying activity means that the number of admins does not accurately represent the number of admins actively carrying out administrative tasks.

Some statistics will be useful in addressing this issue, which I primarily got from this tool query (that link can take a minute or two to open/run, be patient!). There are, as of the time of this posting, 1347 users with administrator rights on the English Wikipedia. Of those, 918 (68%) have made at least one loggable admin action over the past year. 609 have made more than 10 admin actions, with the other 738 (55%) contributing a total of 1092 actions over the past year (about 0.1% of all 1,101,983 actions). Put another way, out of interest, 45% of administrators carry out 99.9% of all administrator actions.

My proposal is this: Changing the text of WP:INACTIVITY from "Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped." to "Admin accounts which have made no more than 10 administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped." Sam Walton (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Support (higher activity requirement)

  1. Support. 10 admin actions in 12 months seems about right. We need an up to date criterion that more accurately reflects and quantifies today's admin work. This would not only enable more rigorous pruning, but it might encourage some admins to be more active. At a time when en.Wiki editors and new content may well be converging on the moment when new 'promotions' may not be sufficient to meet desysoping for cause and natural attrition, to be aware of the true strength will help to plan for such a contingecy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - an admin that only comes along once or twice a year to keep their status isn't really doing the job they volunteered for. I know real life happens, but even then an effort should be made. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support If a user who made less than 10 edit per year ran in an RfA, they would be laughed at. Why would someone who has recived these tools be held to a lower standard, where only one administrative action is required to stay as an admin. Makes no sence to me. Admistators who has been granted these tools should be held at a higher standards. I'm all for this. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely support – I would have gone with 12 admin actions in 12 months (i.e. averaging to 1 per month). But regardless of whether an Admin is still editing, if they aren't using their tools more than about once per month, it's clear they don't need their tools anymore and should drop back down to "regular editor" status (plus Reviewer and Rollback and whatever) – and they'd still have one three years from that to ask to have the bit restored. This is a perfectly sensible proposal – Admin status shouldn't be a lifetime appointment: editors should have that bit for only as long as they intend to actively use them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - You are given the tools to help the project - not to edit the project, editors do that. Spend a few minutes to work on a backlog, and done, and thanks. From the wider view, it will also help the community know when we need to make more admins to do those backlog tasks, that the current holder will, apparently, never do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Less than 1 action a month for a year doesn't seem too taxing. Why have the tools if you're going to sit around on your elbows doing sod all? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support ArbCom has already struck down WP:NOTCOMPULSORY for admins. The amount of activity required is not great, and if it, what do you want the tools for? Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support This seems reasonable given that it is fairly easy to get the bit restored following removal due to inactivity. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support. We have too many hat collectors and not enough active admins. I agree with the statements made Sam Walton, and the statements made above. Adminship should be a "use it or lose it" proposition. If you're not actively using it, then you don't need it. There are many reasons to do this: security (elevated permissions on long-term inactive accounts is a bad idea), staying up-to-date with policy, accountability (making a minimal amount of admin actions per year can easily hide incompetence or bad faith), etc. It's good that people have volunteered to serve the project, but if they're incapable of serving the project, then they should step down. To retain your elevated privileges when you are not using them seems like hat collection to me. Wikipedia will welcome you back and restore your privileges once you are able to contribute again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    To become an admin without any intention of using the extra privileges would be hat collecting; to stop using them after several months or years, but still have them available to you isn't hat collecting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support, logical and sound idea. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support: I decided to dip back into Admin closure of AfDs spurred by this discussion. I think that this Deletion Review says everything that needs saying --> Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_July_10#Rhodes Bantam. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC) @Esquivalience:
  12. Support. Good grief we should at least be as careful as Wikidata [1], which requires at least five admin actions per any given six months. If people haven't been noticing clueless admins doing clueless or irresponsible Rip-Van-Winkle–like things after semi-retirement, lengthy (spells of) inactivity, or extremely haphazard WP participation, then I guess they haven't been paying attention, and also haven't noticed how quickly policies, guidelines, and best practices change on current-day Wikipedia (as opposed to Wikipedia in 2005). I would also greatly increase the edit-count requirement per year.Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support I don't see that this is going to gain traction, but I think it's a sensible thing to require of admins. I have a theory that it would rejuvenate the RFA process... but that's another story. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support Adminship has become for too many a retirement award. We have a few very active admins working with a mop and too many others that forgot they were given a T-shirt for a reason. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support Adminship is a status that entails responsible work. It's a position of trust. If an admin is not doing the work he/she signed up for, then they shouldn't have any reason to be an admin. Administrators help keep the operation of the site running smoothly, as well as granting permissions and blocking and unblocking users. Sam.gov (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  16. Weak support I'm wary of some of the concerns expressed by the opposers—chiefly, that we don't have enough admins as is for all the work that needs doing. But the current activity requirements are quite basic, and the proposed ones still are. I don't know if there's a big problem of admins who don't do admin work, but anyone like that could use a gentle poke reminder to wield their powers for the good of the encyclopedia. Use 'em or lose 'em. Regardless of our requirements, I think we should make explicit that leeway can be appropriate. If someone experiences chronic or acute illness, or if they go do Peace Corps for a year, we should still be understanding and compassionate about real-life requirements. Admins are people too. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  17. Strong support. WP:INACTIVITY for admins should be endorsed by WMF itself as they are intrinsically different than contributors. I have been here for 14 years and I'm in the top 800 article creators but someone that once in every blue moon does an admin task can come by and completely ruin Wikipedia simply because they got their adminship when we were in our formative years. I would even shorten the amount of inactivity to at least 3 admin actions per month. Why be given adminship if you are not going to do admin tasks? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (higher activity requirement)

  1. Oppose I have a couple of concerns here. First, it's not clear to me (without several examples) why it is a problem for a sysop not to use their tools often - the question of measuring administrator activity to me speaks more of a misuse of metrics than of an issue with sysop behaviour. Second, how is "administrative actions" counted here? Surely not only logged actions would count. Third, it does not readily appear to me that low tool usage by whichever metric is a reliable predictor of one's understanding of policy, or that accountability is lacking for low frequency activity. Also, as a neutral question, how would this proposal shift the workload distribution? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    Based on the stats shown above, it appears it wouldn't shift the workload – it is still true that, currently, 50% of Admins do all the (logged) work. Now, it would be interesting to see if the other 50% is doing unlogged actions (and how many), but I'm not sure such stats will be readily available... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as being unenforceable, and per my reasoning below. The goal here, it seems, is to keep admin from gaming the system, but under current policy, once desysopped, the admin can just go to WP:BN and get the bit back, the same is true under this proposal. And how does this figure into the 3 years of inactivity? They have been active editing, lets say, so the 3 year period would never begin. It would mean that 10 years later, they could get the bit back as long as they edited some because they never went completely inactive to start the 3 year period. There are other holes I can poke, but this should be sufficient. Simply won't work, even if the proposal has good intentions. You can't piecemeal the policy, you have to rewrite the entire resysop policy to make any of this work, and that isn't trivial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. First, one of the most useful skills an admin can possess is knowing when to not take any action. This proposal devalues this skill and instead encourages action even when it would be better to either talk or do nothing. Second, this proposal assumes most, if not all, meaningful admin action show up in the logs. This is just not the case. An obvious example is editing of protected pages, an action routinely performed by admins working on the various sections of the Main page or monitoring Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Are these actions of no value to the project just because they are not explicitly logged as an admin action? --Allen3 talk 13:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    While this is true, there are always a ton of admin actions that do need to be taken. There are always, for example, speedy deletion noms to be closed (mostly in the direction of deleting) and AfDs, XfDs, and RMs to be closed administratively. bd2412 T 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I'd be in favor of increasing requirements, but not of dropping general edits from the definition of activity. We don't want people taking admin actions just to meet a quota. Rhoark (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Allen3. In addition, continuing activity requirements placed upon volunteers should be based on an ongoing expense for the organization just for keeping them on the rolls (like having to pay a medical doctor to conduct an annual physical exam of the volunteer), or the potential to do serious harm due to outdated skills (like a volunteer emergency medical technician who never bothered to pick up her Naloxone kit). Neither consideration applies to Wikipedia administrators. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose We should not be desysoping people for inactivity at all in my opinion. We are volunteers after all and should not have some quota. Chillum 14:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I am on the fence as to whether we should be desysopping more admins for inactivity, as they are not harming the project by having the admin flag. I am opposed to the solution above because it will do absolutely nothing as Dennis points out below with his scenarios. This would require a complete rewrite to make it workable, not just a change to the one sentence. -- GB fan 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose As in all responsible volunteer positions, admin work takes a toll and can lead to burnout. We want admins to be able to step back and take a tool break when they need without feeling this is the end. The last thing we need is burnt out admins making problematic usage of tools because when they are not at their best just because otherwise they lose their tools. On a side note, I always thought inactivity desysoping was because when an account comes back after that long it is hard to tell if it is the same person, or if they have changed, or if Wikipedia has changed. If the admin has not been using tools, but has been editing actively, they have not exactly lost touch of the community. They are probably aware of changes in policy and recent ArbCom cases. We also probably know if their judgement or behaviour has taken a turn for the worse. In this situation, what is the problem with a probably trustworthy admin having tools they don't use, or use rarely? Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, one of the main reasons we desysop is security. To reduce the chance of a unused account being hacked while the admin isn't monitoring that email address. Many admin use dedicated email addresses for Wikipedia. I could think of a few PR companies that would pay a chunk of change to buy that hacked account, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    In that case, an admin who has not used the tools, but has been editing should not be desysoped since they are not a security threat. They should be immediately aware if their account has been compromised. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose In a perfect world, no one would have to perform any administrative actions. This feels like requiring police officers to make traffic ticket quotas.--Jorm (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. The inactivity desysop was created to reduce the security risk associated with unattended admin accounts, which is reasonable. This proposal seems motivated by an entirely different animating principle, namely that admins who have low activity can't be trusted to do the right thing in the future. I don't buy into that principle at all. The core attribute of adminship is trust, and while trust can rise and fall for many reasons (some of which are not even directly connected to admin behavior), I don't believe that trust should turn on how many logged admin actions one creates. Dragons flight (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - on the face of it, I'm generally against proposals which will add to administrator attrition even a little without substantially improving the encyclopedia, and this proposal fails in that aspect. I'm also with other opposers who have pointed out that this isn't in the spirit of WP:INACTIVITY which is meant to protect the encyclopedia from genuinely abandoned accounts. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose FWIW 10 actions a year is hardly "high activity". Next (as others have mentioned) this is much to much like a policeman having a ticket quota. It leads to taking an action just to take it and not considering whether the action is the right one. MarnetteD|Talk 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Per Dennis Brown, I can't see it being any use. Per Rhoark, we shouldn't be requiring quotas - even if all that's needed is to visit CSD once a year and delete the first 10, 12, or however many, things on the list without reading the articles. As to the RfA comment, quite right, we wouldn't hand out a mop to someone with 10 edits a year. But the person concerned here isn't at RfA. It only takes five mins to perform 10 deletions. Does it prove anything other than that someone has the password for the account? One action also proves that. One edit also proves it. But who has it? Peridon (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I think the current position where admins have the tool removed after going completely inactive for 12 months is about right. We should be be quite ready to remove the tools where an issue arises with that admin, but except for that an admin for makes any useful contributions should be welcomed. Also there are actions that only administrators can take that are not logged as such and as Dennis Brown says there is no way of tracking those. I do support however changing the statistic of measuring how many admins we have that are defined as "active" to make how that is measured stricter (or have a new stricter measure added), so we can measure how many significantly active admins we really have, but we should not desysop those who don't meet it. (I should declare an interest here in that I think I would have been desysopped under this proposal back in 2013, before getting sucked back in May 2014 and making thousands of logged actions this year) Davewild (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, I see no evidence that what this RFC aims to fix is a problem and this problem is serious enough to warrant further policy creep. Max Semenik (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Per Dennis and Happy Squirrel. Furthermore, in my opinion, all this will do is increase the potential burn-out for the "remaining" admins and cause us to have a net decrease in available admins in the not-too-distant future. -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. An inactive admin has the potential to become an active admin again. Desysop them and they lose that potential for little good reason. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, for several reasons. 1) I posted some similar statistics a couple of months ago, with the observation that the percentage of admins making no logged actions has changed very little over time (~33%) while a smaller number of admins have been accounting for a larger proportion of total admin actions. I would oppose any change with the potential to further decrease diversity in overall admin decision-making. 2) Per Allen3, who has correctly identified the importance of knowing how and when to do nothing. We should encourage people to do more nothing around here. 3) There's no evidence presented that there is currently a problem with the activity criteria, or that this proposal would solve any specific problem. Doing nothing about non-problems is just as important collectively as it is individually. You know what to do with things that ain't broke, right? COI: I was desysopped under the existing activity criteria, but it wouldn't have made any difference if this proposal had been in effect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - I'm for a higher requirement than one anything every 12 months, but I don't think that someone who is an active or semi-active editor should be desysopped. --B (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose in its current format because IMO it is unfeasible and may deter any existing admins or put too much of a "quota" on them. However, lower the threshold and I'll see if I can support it. I agree with Dennis Brown's comment that the rule can be easily be gamed, so it's not feasible in any format, unless you change or eliminate the 3-year re-RfA requirement as well. Epic Genius (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - While I appreciate the need for administrators to be more active and up-to-date with the community, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and the spirit of that policy is that we shouldn't focus on demanding more from other editors—administrators and their toolset included. I agree with others who have said this might feel like putting a "quota" on them. In other words, the focus should be on improving the encyclopedia, not worrying about whether you've logged 10 admin things this year. That being said, the current policy of desysopping if an admin is completely separated from the project—no edits, no logged actions whatsoever—for 12 months makes sense. In the current case, we're not demanding more, we just want to make sure you're up to speed after a year-long break. Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose as per the above. We're not creating an incentive to remain active, we're just making it slightly harder to avoid going inactive. Also, the concerns about actions that would not fit into this metric (declined unblocks, for example) are worth looking at as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose the current status quo of removing totally inactive admin accounts makes sense, but having an arbitrary quota does not. Not only does this not address any problem in particular, it unfairly discriminates against non-stereotypical admins who have the nerve to do activities which may leave them unable to access Wikipedia regularly, such as having kids, taking trips, doing missionary work, military service, etc. This would impair the diversity of the Wikipedia admin group even worse than it currently is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  24. oppose none of the concerns listed as rationale for the change are of any actual concern. no "less active" admin has to my knowledge ever made a bad administrative action based on "old" interpretations. this is an attempt to fix a problem that doesnt exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Since there is no cloud, desysopping of someone that is editing can be reversed by request. What is the new activity requirement accomplishing? Dormant accounts with no activity get desysopped and in three years it requires RFA. This will do nothing to prevent an admin from simply requesting the tools back when they are desysopped. I'd rather have them game the system with one edit a year then to bog down bureaucrats with re-sysop requests when that becomes easier than the one edit per year game. In essence, this is replacing "one edit" with "one crat request" and is more burdensome. --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. It isn't that hard to do 10 admin actions in one year. If the purpose of this is to desysop the ones who make a few edits per year to retain adminship, how hard is it to do a deletion, block at AIV, AfD closure, [etc.] every month; or do a batch of them in a hour or so? The quota can be made higher so that there needs to be considerable activity to retain adminship; but admins may go semi-active for reasons out of their control. This change is also prone to ten times more wikilawyering and differing interpretations. Esquivalience t 00:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  27. Strong Oppose. We have processes that can address the issues of an Administrator who is gaming the system to retain his or her hat. I see no reason to increase the minimum load; we already have too few mop wielders due to the fact that RfA is a brutal process that needs to be tamed a bit, and the fact that editors who have been around enough to DESERVE that mop are 'not a dime a dozen'. Administrators are people who willingly subject themselves to the magnifying glass of scrutiny in order to attain a few more buttons. They are volunteers; not employees we can just lay quotas on. I'll agree with other Oppose votes and say that there's no problem being fixed by raising the quota. Some Admins are dispute resolution masters, who may not wield their mop much. By adding a quota, we restrict those users and incentivize them to use their powers more than reason dictates they should by adding a quota. I don't care how easy it is to go out and find a vandal to bop or an article to speedily delete, they shouldn't need to do something for the sake of doing it. Melody Concertotalk 01:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  28. Oppose - Desysopping admins who actively edit but perform less than 10 admin actions per year would not address any of the concerns. As an active editor, such admins would be aware of evolving policy and would be accountable. Rlendog (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - I think the proposal outlines the problem well but the proposed remedy is really a form of editcountitis. Besides, we have an admin shortage; if someone only carries out 9 useful admin actions in a year, well, every little helps. WaggersTALK 12:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  30. Strong oppose - editcountitis indeed. And besides, this is a volunteer project. Every edit should count. Period. - jc37 06:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  31. Oppose, solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  32. Oppose, per TheRedPenOfDoom and Stifle. This is most definitely a solution looking for a problem. Desysoping long-term, completely inactive accounts is one thing, but Administrator policy specifically states that an administrator is never required to use their tools. This proposal seems to go against the sentiment completely, for no reason. Things change around here, but they don't change that quickly or that dramatically. Any users who are capable of orienting themselves with adminship to begin with are definitely capable of reorienting themselves with it after a break, any time they need or want to do so. A user at this level does not simply 'forget' how to edit Wikipedia, and likewise they don't forget how to perform administrative tasks. While not a draconian proposal or anything, forcing us to meeti an arbitrary quota of administrative actions will not separate a good admin from a bad one, nor will it improve the project in any way I can forsee. Swarm we ♥ our hive 08:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  33. Oppose - Nothing wrong with the policy we already have, If you're editing you're still active regardless of tool-use, Personally see no point to this. –Davey2010Talk 05:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  34. Oppose We don't impose a minimum number of edits to retain a registered account, so why should we impose a minimum number of admin actions to keep the admin tools? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  35. Oppose I worry that it will lower the quality of admin work if it provides a slight incentive to rack up admin action count. Not sure I want to see an admin that is a couple shy feeling like they have to quickly block someone or something at the end of the 12 month cycle, even if they try to be careful in what they choose I can see such pressure causing mistakes to be made. PaleAqua (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. I don't use the tools often because I focus on content and seldom see a need to use them. I don't search out admin tasks to do, but if I see something requiring attention, it is useful to be able to deal with it. Everyking (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  37. Oppose Pretty much per PaleAqua, quotas that could pressure admins into using their tools when uncertain seems a bad idea.Bosstopher (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Dennis Brown's objections are persuasive. Neljack (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  39. Oppose - Not convinced on the need for this and the current policy, which I supported from the start, is sufficient for dealing with abandoned admin accounts. CT Cooper · talk 07:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  40. Oppose - This is a very bad idea: we do not need to impose a ticket quota on administrators as if they are patrol officers working traffic. Imposing minimum requirements on marginally active admins is not going to lead to more good admin decisions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  41. Oppose - This is just looking for something else to police. And it breeds distrust. We're mostly competent people here, and there are already procedures in place to deal with the incompetent ones. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  42. Oppose We elect admins to use the tools given to them when their judgment tells them to do so, not to fulfill a quota—even a small one. I simply don't see a benefit in this kind of thing. This simply gives administrators who are inactive the motivation to turn up, do ten admin actions in one blast—burn through a few CSDs or RFPPs and then disappear again. This is extra workload for crats/stewards for no real benefit. The only purported benefit I'm seeing is that if we have some idea of the actual number of active administrators, we can make efforts to recruit more administrators to make up the shortfall. But we can't. The bottleneck is RfA: there are good qualified candidates who could become fine and productive administrators, if we didn't subject them to the strange and barbaric week-long hazing ritual. The account security benefits are already provided by the existing desysop-on-extended-inactivity policy. If one wishes to rally together support for getting more administrators, simply look at metrics of admin activity and point out why the current number of active admins doesn't match the admin workload. And if getting more people to do admin work is needed, why not simply drop an email to one of those existing admins saying "hey, we miss you at Wikipedia, we really need active, smart admins working in this area and would love to see you back!" Carrots and niceness seems better than hitting people with sticks. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  43. Oppose - I agree with the majority of the sentiments above. De-sysoping is really only necessary if the tools granted by this right are being abused, or if ones conduct is egregious.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  44. Oppose: We need more admins, not fewer. I agree with people wanting to see a high activity level for approving a new admin (I recent voted against a candidate partially on the basis of a paltry activity level), but everyone needs wikibreaks, and some of us bail for a year or longer doing other things in our lives, only to return to high activity levels later. This is true of admins as well as non-admins.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  45. Oppose — Protip: admins (myself included) aren't going to magically make more time they already don't have just to meet some stupid, arbitrary requirement, and creeping up baseline activity requirements is just going to result in more people feeling disinclined to return after periods of absence just to avoid the annoyance of the bureaucracy involved with resuming. I've gone many months without activity at times (because real life gets in the freaking way of volunteering), only to finally find myself with some free time to tackle some CSDs or something. Proposals like this, while well-intentioned, are fundamentally ignorant in premise and assumptions; for, they assume people like me need prodding to stay active or some other crap like that. We don't. In fact, I basically go through withdrawals and start feeling edgy if I've been deprived of free time to put in to volunteering. The only thing you're going to accomplish by trying to force us to do more (by the cracking of a whip, it seems) is to make us leave or just not care enough to jump through the hoops any more if we fall behind. Any admin worth their weight in salt will, after any period of inactivity, check guidelines or policies to make sure whatever they're doing is "up to code" before taking action, and if they forget or something slips by, they'll happily admit "my bad" and undo something if they screwed up. It really isn't a big deal if, for example, something gets speedily deleted accidentally because of some minor CSD wording change or something, because everything has an undo button and/or a process like DRV exists to deal with out-of-process actions. What matters more is keeping people who have a history of trustworthiness around, and, failing that, keeping the porch light on so that they always feel welcome to return and pick up where they left off. Good admins—no, good volunteers—are basically like good friends: you can be apart for years and still pick right back up where you left off. --slakr\ talk / 01:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  46. Oppose - for the reasons stated above. Neutralitytalk 19:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  47. Oppose at first glance this seems a medium price to pay for something that a few people think is sensible even if they can't come up with a good rationale for it. 1092 logged admin actions a year looks at first glance like the equivalent of losing a one pretty active admin, but longer term we have lots of admins who have the odd inactive year, so the admin actions we would lose in subsequent years are likely to be far greater. And of course not all admin actions are equal, an evening on huggle blocking vandals or a couple of hours clearing the expired prod queue would easily pass this test, occasionally closing RFCs or appointing autopatrollers would take far longer to generate ten admin actions. ϢereSpielChequers 21:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  48. Oppose, just popping in, since I only very ocassionally browse these forums. Speaking as perhaps one of the questionably-elected and only moderately active administrators of ye' old, I find that my random bursts of activity, both as an editor and "administrator" (i.e., my interface just happens to have more complicated and often unused buttons), tend to be helpful and attract little to no ire. If the argument concerns statistical accuracy, it seems like a rather poor argument that, because our tracking tools aren't specific enough or collecting the desired blocks of data, we should simply change the state of affairs to match them. I often wonder if these sort of conversations turn more generally on and are the result of the imagined (and, granted, very often actualized) divide between those who "have the tools" and those who do not. After all, the cross-section of those who participate in these sort of discussions are those who choose to visit the forum in the first place and then perhaps those who have a stake in its result. I found Kingturtle's remark (oppose #41) rather convincing. In any case, this proposal may have the reverse effect on the latter end, since we'd just end up loading the bureaucrats with further (well, bureaucratic) responsibilities. Blurpeace 11:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  49. Can't really see much of a point. Speaking as a sometimes-active currently-mostly-inactive admin who was promoted more than nine years ago, I know from experience that coming back after a year or so means that things will have changed, so I know I need to look around a bit and see what current policy is before I reach for my block button. Whether I perform ten or twenty low-level easy logged admin actions every year changes nothing about my knowledge of policies, and being forced to perform ten CSDs per year will only serve to annoy me. Instead of desysopping people like me because we make the number of admins (or of "semi-active" or "active" admins) look higher than they are, perhaps we should just add another "admins who actively perform logged admin actions" category to the list at WP:LA. —Kusma (t·c) 11:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  50. Oppose There are legitimate reasons for why an Admin could go dark for an extended period of time (12+ months). Honestly I would support some kind of rule that de-sysopped inactive admins after 2 years as that is long enough to be considered informally retired or having effectively abandoned any interest in their office. This seems unnecessarily short term. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  51. Oppose While I don't see that this would cause major harm, I see no meaningful benefit. The major worry is that in inactive account might be compromised. But an account that has been making edits even if not using the tools is not inactive, and is no easier to compromise than an account that has been using the tools. The other argument is that someone who has been inactive will have failed to understand that standards and procedures have changed, and do something horrid. Given that no one has cited even a single actual example of this (or if they did I missed it) this can't be happening very often. For a rare problem, a site-wide process is usually not the answer (and this from the initial drafter of WP:Process is Important). If a recently returned admin makes egregious errors, they can be explained to him (or, less likely, her) on a user talk page, or failing that, at WP:ANI. If there is continued problem, a block or an emergency desysop can be done quickly. This is a solution in search of a problem. DES (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  52. Oppose Ideally inactive admins should never lose the tools too. We only do so to avoid compromise accounts and maintain security. This proposal is not relevant to security at all (non-admin edits show that the account is not compromised). This will just make adminship more exclusive than it is now when it should be becoming more inclusive as it was in the past. Gizza (t)(c) 08:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    I would have amended the proposal to include non-admin edits as activity, since knowledge of changing policies, emerging issues, the personalities of active editors, etc., is necessary; and that can come from non-admin involvement. I think that inflating the number of admins with those who are inactive would be making adminship seem more exclusive. Numbering only active admins would probably manifest the need for more. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    The number of active admins is already provided at Wikipedia:List of administrators. It's not like we're trying to hide this number. This won't make it easier for future candidates to pass RfA and will just increase the editor to admin ratio and hence make the tools more exclusive and more of a "big deal" than they should be. Gizza (t)(c) 01:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. Do we currently have such a glut of admins that we need to thin the ranks? What problem is this trying to fix? How many individual admins come back after long periods of inactivity and (out of ignorance of policy changes or whatever other cause) abuse the admin tools? Is that number too large to handle on an individual basis? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  54. Oppose Admins who are active editors are fine. Not all admins need to be actively using admin tools. People go in bursts of activities. A page may need protecting here, copyright infringing images deleted there, page moves carried out etc. Do not see the need for this change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  55. Oppose, per David Eppstein and others above. The pool of admins should be as large as possible. The inactivity policy is profoundly unwiki and should really be scrapped entirely -- but in any event, it should not be expanded.-- Visviva (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  56. Oppose - I see no good reason to make this rule; and there are likely to be too many false positives - e.g closing XfD discussions as KEEP, editing temporarily full-protected pages, declining unblock requests, etc. It would be impossible to detect al admin activity (defined as anything that we wuld expect an administrator to handle). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  57. Oppose. As a bit of bias disclosure, I might be affected by this proposal. But I just don't see this as solving any problem. I've seen no evidence presented that less active admins are turning abusive (at least at no higher a rate than other admins). Yes, sometimes less active admins may fall behind on some policies. If they do, it's their responsibility to catch up again before they take actions in those areas. Removing their adminship seems pointless to me, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. An editor's suitability for adminship has far more to do with temperament and clue, than it does with familiarity with the minutia of policy. If an admin does return from a long hiatus, any mistakes he makes from not being familiar with policy updates aren't going to destroy the project (certainly, if it was standard practice less than four years ago, it can't be too bad). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  59. Oppose Never been a fan of this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  60. Oppose per Chillum and Happy Squirrel. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (higher activity requirement)

  • That is a sticky situation, as we are learning at AE. Consensus seems to be that doing certain actions that only admin are allowed to do, ie: close an AE discussion, are indeed "admin actions" yet no log is shown of it. I would also argue that the quality of an admin isn't measured by the times you block someone, but arguably by the number of blocks you can avoid by careful mediation. The fact that you have the tools and the editors know you CAN block if needed, is sometimes helpful in an edit war, for instance. The same for ANI/AN3, an admin can lend his expertise in an official capacity without actually using the tools, in what is arguably an admin role. Much of the power of the admin bit is when you don't use it. On the opposite side, you might have admin that only use the tools on articles they themselves are interested in and editing. Moving over redirects and the like. Even though they are only serving their own interests (and ours, of course), they wouldn't be under scrutiny because they fall on the "ok" side of this measuring stick. Their contributions to the community, however, may actually be less than the admin that mentors, mediates and monitors. I'm not arguing against the logic in the proposal, but I think it would be hard to be completely fair and mistakes could happen too often, as proposed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Couldn't most of this concern be satisfied by a "better accounting" of Admin actions? I remember this point was made in the previous discussion, and it does seem like there are "holes" in this system – "Admin-type actions" that AdminStats isn't "catching" in its count, and probably should be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not think this is a problem. First, most (if not all) of the admins who are inactive are really inactive - not that they are active in non-logged actions and not active in logged actions. Making 10 logged actions takes 5 minutes - for example, we have about 2000 broken redirects which are amenable to speedy deletion. And, if this is a real issue, i.e. an admin is active in a non-logged part but for whatever reason does not want to make logged actions - they will be perfectly capable explaining this to crats, pointing out their activity, and avoid desysopping.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Per your reasoning, "most (if not all) of the admins who are inactive are really inactive", this makes the proposal an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy then. It means it is answering a question that no one is asking. I think the current policy makes sense, and it could be tweaked, but adding something like this would require rewriting the whole policy due to all the loopholes, and I'm not convinced there is any real benefit from the effort. I'm not arguing against the principle, but this proposal is unworkable, and I lack the imagination to propose a better one at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me offer some scenarios...
Scenario 1: I quit using the tools but still do a little editing each month. One year from now, you desysop me. I go to WP:BN and ask for my tools back. Policy says I can do this as they weren't taken under a cloud and there isn't a 3 year period without edits. Proposal doesn't work.
Scenario 2: I quit using the tools but still do a little editing each month. I get the notice that I'm about to be desysoped (required), so I quickly go and make 10 admin actions so I won't be. You know, sloppy RFPP protections or close a few early deletes at AFD, no need to be good actions, just actions. Proposal doesn't work.
Scenario 3: I quit using the tools but still do a little editing each month. I get notice I'm about to be desysopped (required). I let it happen. I continue to edit some every month for years. 5 years later, I go reclaim my admin tools because there was never a 3 year period of inactivity, and policy says there MUST be 3 years with NO editor activity to force me back to RFA. Proposal doesn't work.
It isn't about being against the principle, it is that this is a completely unworkable proposal as written. The entire policy would have to be rewritten, "admin action" has to be defined, there has to be a way to search for admin actions that aren't logged, etc. Good intentions, but bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem you are talking about at is that of people who are not here to create content, and this proposal is not really intended to address that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If something like this were to move forward, I would prefer something similar to what I've workshopped at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Activity requirement; allowing a longer period of time, and commenting or acting as an administrator counting as administrator activity (to recognize that many administrative acts aren't necessarily reflected in Special:Log). This could be rather difficult to determine in any automated fashion, mind (much moreso than bureaucrats, anyway). –xenotalk 20:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The only real way to do this sort of thing would be to add a flag to edits, similar to the minor edit flag, that would label them as edits made in an administrative capacity. Actually, if used properly, that might solve quite a few problems, wouldn't it? (I should send this to VPT!) Take the current proposal. Did you close an AFD? Tag it as an Admin edit, and there's one administrative action. Decline an unblock? There's two. And so on. But until we have something like that, this proposal doesn't work. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea! It would solve a lot of problems. –xenotalk 16:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is an interesting proposal – I don't recall anyone suggesting this before. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is similar with what the Commons requires where they define "active" as 6 admin actions over the previous 6 months (without a discussion). However, if there is some reason why an admin is inactive (work, illness, travel, real life), they just have to post a notice within that 6 months and they are considered active. If the definition of "inactive" is broadened, I think there should be a similar proviso where communication with an inactive admin would restart the 6 month period. People have legitimate reasons for becoming inactive.Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • II think we might want to at least ask admins who have not used the admin rights at all in the last year or so if they want to m keep it, or be removed from the active list. This really doesn't even require a policy change--anyone could do it. `DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 00:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am still not quite sure why this is being discussed... why does it matter if an admin goes inactive? As far as I know, there is no limit to the number of people who become be admins... so it's not as if keeping an inactive admin on the roles is preventing someone else from becoming an admin. So what is the problem with keeping inactive admins? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Blueboar: The general view among IT security professionals is that idle accounts pose a security threat, and obviously idle accounts with additional permissions pose more of a threat. TBH there's not much reasoning behind that view other than the fact that if someone hasn't accessed their account for a while, you can be fairly sure they haven't changed their password recently, making them more vulnerable to a brute-force attack. Also if a user isn't regularly monitoring their account they're unlikely to notice if someone else hacks into it. WaggersTALK 11:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
    Right: making edits but not performing any administrative actions is explicitly not a problem from an account-security perspective. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see a clear need to remove the admin right for totally inactive accounts to prevent someone other than the original editor gaining access. In several instances I have cleaned out the home of someone who passed away, and in other cases I have found a box of some deceased or incapacitated relative's personal papers. It would seem likely that such effects would sometimes include a list of online accounts and passwords. For my own such listing, the passwords are encrypted, but I doubt that is common. Others may keep such info in some computer "password vault," but that seems hackable. As others have stated above, a stolen admin account might be of value to various parties such as PR firms. A turnoff of admin rights after perhaps a year of total inactivity would be of value, just to keep the password and account name from falling into the hands of someone else when the admin is no longer with us in one way or another. If the editor returns from an overseas military deployment, or finishes his novel or dissertation, or her new baby is old enough not to need constant care, or he recovers from the illness, then he can ask for the bit back, if he did not leave under a cloud. Imposing a work quota on unpaid volunteers is silly when there is little or no expense associated with allowing the volunteer some status. Does Wikipedia pay for insurance/bonding for the volunteer? Pay anything monetarily? Provide office space or computer equipment? Pay so much for annual credit checks or security checks? Provide health care or pension contributions? What is the annual cost of maintaining a computer file that says the volunteer editor has the admin bit? Some small fraction of a cent, perhaps? But the volunteer has contributed thousands of hours of work in most cases to achieve a record which motivates the community to grant him the bit. Eagerness to remove the bit unless the volunteer meets some arbitrary work quota seems puzzling. Edison (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I am puzzled by your puzzlement? Sure they're volunteers - they volunteered to do something - and we accepted them because we needed it done. If adminship is a position of trust then they have breached trust because we trusted them with the tools to improve the project but they're not doing that -- they have wasted our time in granting, or in continuing to grant, them that trust. Volunteering to do something, and then not doing it, is frowned on everywhere in life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are that angry at some volunteer who does not do a quantity of work you require, then stop paying her. How on earth does it cost you time, effort or money for some to keep the bit when they do not run around all the time blocking and deleting? Some of us are content adders and use the tools when we encounter something which needs them. How many hours a year do you devote to "continuing to grant" the admin their bit?Edison (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That didn't make any sense at all [to me; evidently it did to someone else]. You can't "stop paying" someone that isn't paid. That's what volunteer labor is: unpaid.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That's the point, SMcCandlish. Alan is claiming that a volunteer who is less than ideally active (at this particular point in time) is imposing some sort of cost on Alan. It sounds like he has to spend a non-trivial amount of time "continuing to grant" trust to them, or their admin bits will somehow expire. AFAICT, everyone else thinks that it's faster to "continue to grant trust" to all existing admins (elapsed time on task: 0.0 seconds) than to actually determine which admin bits should be revoked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
If you say so. I agree with the premise that re-extending trust takes no time investment, and I opposed this proposal, too. But "stop paying the volunteer" didn't parse. Maybe I'm being too literal and missing some joke.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It does not parse because Edison and WhatamIdoing are not responding to my comment(or they are stating claims that I did not make--is it possible they don't know what volunteer means?): 1) there is no pay - admins know that going in (as do editors); 2) no one has said you have to fulfill the 10 actions in 12 months by blocking or deleting; 3) it has nothing to do with anger; 4) cost to me is not even discussed in my comment; 5) there is no 'determining which admin bits to revoke' for non-admining, they're revoked until such time you decide you want to volunteer to do those admin things again and demonstrate how you'll benefit the project with them - and then you can request it back); 6) we have editors to edit, admins are not given the tools to edit (and, at any rate, the non-active are not using them to edit apparently or they would use them, at least, less than once a month). 7) trust is earned in the doing, it's earned day-by-day - that's how trust is generally understood. Finally, redundant admins are just that, redundant -- we either don't need new admins or, hey, you volunteered to use those tools to do things that are needed, so, you know, do it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC) But perhaps I am missing something, serious questions: is it that important to admins that they are admins, even if they don't show a use of the tools? Is it just a status thing ("big deal") to them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You wrote that admins who are relatively inactive "have wasted our time in...continuing to grant, them that trust". Wasting time = imposing a cost. (Not all costs involve money.) I disagree that "continuing to grant trust" to an unknown, relatively inactive admin costs me any time at all. Therefore that action cannot waste any of my time at all.
Would you apply the same logic to other volunteers? "Hey, you volunteered to edit the encyclopedia, so, you know, do it, or we'll take away your ability to do so!" Maybe that sounds like a bad idea. Maybe accepting occasional periods of complete inactivity, and long periods of low activity, is actually desirable.
I doubt that an inactive admin even thinks about the "status thing". S/he is probably thinking something more like "I wish I had more time for my Wikipedia hobby". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned this in my !vote, but the whole sentiment of this being a volunteer effort is grounded in policy at WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time. I don't see administrators as being any different in terms of being volunteer contributors to this encyclopedia. Administrators are fellow editors, just with an added toolset. I can understand the view that the admin toolset is given out of trust that the administrator will use the tools to improve the encyclopedia, and that by not using the tools, they are not following through with that trust. However, I disagree; how I see it is that an administrator is just another volunteer editor—when we trust them with the tools, we don't trust that they will use the tools, but we trust that when they volunteer to use the tools, they will use them correctly. Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of admin stuff is not counted like "looking at and sending someone an article that has been previously deleted" or "editing a protected page". Additionally their is no evidence that having "admin activity" limits will make it any easier to become an admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What would be the benefit of removing admin rights to inactive editors? --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HTTP vs HTTPS...

Need some clarification...does the fact that WMF went HTTPS thereby mean that we should be changing all external links (like article refs) to non-WMF sites to HTTPS as well? The discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 120#Should Wikipedia use HTTPS by default for all readers? having closed as no consensus for technical reasons would seem to say no, but I'd like a clarification. MSJapan (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We aren't required to. Should we? Probably. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously not all external sites support HTTPS. Changing links to such sites would result in broken references. As to the others, I see no reason why not, so long as the certificate is accepted in browsers. For example, https://gpg4win.org/ is broken from the point of view of most users because it uses a self-signed certificate. BethNaught (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
One easy way to deal with this is to install HTTPS Everywhere in your browser and then continue cutting and pasting the URL in the address bar as you always have. If the site supports HTTPS the URL you copy will automatically be an HTTPS URL. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, but what I'm trying to get at is a rationale for some mass editing of citations that's been going on for several weeks, without needing to go to ANI for the third time in two weeks about yet another problematic user. MSJapan (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be referencing bender235's conversion of a limited number of links from the http to https protocols. Is that correct? I would support his changes. Not sure what you mean by "get at is a rationale" since it's been explained to you multiple times. HTTPS is simply BetterTM. --Izno (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Reading bender235's talk page, what they're doing seems perfectly reasonable to me since it's limited to sites that support HTTPS. I fail to see why such activity is at all "problematic". BethNaught (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, there was a definite lack of clarity initially, as several editors questioned bender without satisfactory response. As you can see, when I asked, it was initially explained as "WMF decided to do something internally with wiki sites", which has no bearing on citations to external sources not affiliated with WMF. Round about the third go-round, the info was provided, which was after I came here. I would also note that there's also more editing than just HTTP/S changes going on, and template changes and some major citation cleanups are being reported as minor edits. To me, therefore, there are several things going on at once that are not being disclosed. I'm also not sure why we're following an external site's policy here at Wikipedia, as I believed we were independent of Google or Web Archive, for example. That's why I'm trying to figure out what the basis for the change is. I see "WMF supports HTTPS for WMF"; I don't see "WMF supports updating all the articles to support HTTPs to external sites", and since it's going to affect every article at least once, this is some major stuff basically being done unilaterally AFAICT. MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Unilaterally doing things that improve Wikipedia is a good thing. You have yet to explain any downside to changing the link from HTTP to HTTPS on sites that support it. I can tell you the upside, though; HTTPS protects you from some kinds of Internet surveillance. Encrypting your connection with HTTPS stops eavesdroppers from monitoring your communication with a website. Many users access the Internet through open wireless networks in libraries or coffee shops where it a trivial matter for strangers to eavesdrop on what users are reading and writing online. To safeguard our privacy on the Internet, we need to encrypt the web. And that means using HTTPS wherever possible. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
+1. Took the words out of my conflicted edit. BethNaught (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Re "template changes and some major citation cleanups are being reported as minor edits", you might want to start a separate conversation for those, at least so far as they fall outside the scope of the http/https discussion, if you want attention for them. Just a friendly suggestion. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @MSJapan: for telling me about this discussion. Anyhow, just to clear things: we're are not talking about all external links as MSJapan stated, but only Google Books/News and Internet Archive, both of which are not only offering HTTPS but encouraging people to use it for sake of their own privacy. Read, for instance, the New York Times report on IA's announcement back in 2013. Once again, we are only talking about sites that unambigiously support HTTPS. --bender235 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
And what does "unambigiously support HTTPS" mean? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That means we're talking about sites that offer exactly the same service via HTTPS as they do via HTTP (like YouTube, Google Books, Internet Archive, ...). Or pages that redirect to HTTPS anyways, but some external links on Wikipedia are still to HTTP (like Facebook, Twitter, ...). Only those. --bender235 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as a case of "good intentions, poor execution"... Switching to HTTPS may be a great idea, but making mass edits is almost always seen as being disruptive - especially when other editors don't understand why you are making them. My advice to those who want the switch... slow down and take the time to properly explain what you are doing and why. Go one article at a time. Even the best of ideas do not have to be enacted right this second... so there is no need to rush. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So, slow down the effort to to something that has a positive benefit and absolutely zero downside... why? I just fixed another couple of hundred pages that contained "a the" errors. I am making mass edits. And I don't really explain why unless someone asks. (my edit summaries just say "Corrected 'a the' error"). Does this made-up "making mass edits is almost always seen as being disruptive" rule apply to my edits as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is a https version of a link then we should use it. It is 2015 after all. Chillum 16:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, Chillum, and BethNaught: please leave a comment here if you have time. --bender235 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

New essay on use of historical paintings and portraits

I just moved a new essay, Wikipedia:Historical portraits and pictures, into main project space from an earlier userspace version of mine. While it's so far just my personal views, I believe it might develop into a guideline on image use some day, if there's interest. Comments welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of rephrasing the lead and the "Do's" section -- hopefully in accord with your intent. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe for the image captions to explain how these images relate to your classification. I know its sorta that the image start within is meant as the example but because the text is short and images packed a bit tight, it is hard to see what you mean by each. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for putting this together, I'll read it with more time later. The "Do Bees" and "Don't Bees" is where I stopped a quick read, when I got to: "Infoboxes do not need images. If the image does not help the infobox, leave it out." Many readers and editors probably like or appreciate the images in an infobox, and an infobox seems almost incomplete, to me, without one. An image takes you into the article just a very-split-second sooner, and creates a context in some form. I have no idea if a policy exists or not about infobox images but I wouldn't think it'd be leaning towards the side of less inclusion and not more. Maybe someone is gabbing about one now and 99 percent of us would never know it (the dozens of talk page - does it come close to 100? that focus on making rules and regs here are scattered hither and yon and often double-back on themselves). But if I were writing that sentence it would go something like, to paraphrase yours, "Infboxes usually look better with images, so please add them. If the image does not assist the reader to appreciate and/or context the subject, please leave it out." Is this okay as a rewording, or is there a middle-ground? Thanks again. Randy Kryn 16:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should shift this discussion to the essay's talkpage, do you mind if I copy your posting over there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving old userspace drafts into the AFC format

On policy grounds, would there be any objections if I were to move old userspace drafts (about 48k in total at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard) if the editor hasn't been active for, say six months, to draftspace and then tagging with an AFC header? Those articles pre-date the AFC process and wouldn't be eligible under G13 but would they then be eligible in six months if there's no further editing there. (It's sort of bypassing the G13 requirement that the article was created under the AFC process). Otherwise, the only options seem to be for those articles are (1) take them to MFD; (2) make them "live" if they are good enough or (3) adopt them in my ownspace and work on them there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think I would object to such a mass move without wider discussion. However I am not sure that it is accurate that such drafts do in fact predate AfC. I thought that the Article Wizard was part of AfC from the start of its existence. I could be wrong about that. Three is a 4th option, leave them alone until someone wants to work on them. Are they causing any problems where they are? Note also that not all userspace drafts were created via the wizard. DES (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The article wizard page dates from 2009. The AFC project page dates from 2007. I'm not sure whether all uses of the Wizard can reasonable be considered "under" the AfC project, however. DES (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as inconsequential and possibly disruptive. People may have very good reasons for doing userspace drafts, and unless we know their intentions with them, we should leave them alone. Also, has no bearing on mainspace articles, so it's mostly just rearranging the plates in the cupboards; an inconsequential organizational issue which has nothing to do with presentation to the readership, and thus time better spent doing something else, ESPECIALLY since a blanket move could upset a significant number of editors who like their drafts exactly where they are TYVM. --Jayron32 16:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Expert-subject

I think being totally stuck unable to find sources for an article should be a valid reason to add {{Expert-subject}} to the top of that article. I think an expert in the article's subject is more likely to be able to find reliable sources for the article. That's why I added {{Expert-subject}} to Double circulatory system. It seems to be working. Dr. Nikhil P. Patil has convinced me at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Double circulatory system that maybe reliable sources can be found. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Republication of photos

Subject shortened from "Republication of photos published without authorization of copyright holder, i.e., fair use v. invasion of privacy issues" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Does Wiki have a policy for fair use of photos republished which were published without consent of the copyright holder? I haven't found any discussion of this on WP. There appears to be some dispute in the U.S. whether this is covered by fair use of a copyright, or whether the issue of invasion of privacy is a separate issue. For example, we might find that photos hacked from a celebrities private phone or email are news worthy, but either not a fair use for republishing, and/or an invasion of privacy. They could be separate legal issues. In any event, I submit that WP should exceed legal requirements, and not haggle about them.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2015 Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The first issue of course being to what extent unauthorized publication changes the copyright holder's rights. I guess it probably does not, which would imply we should treat it as any copyrighted material. Whether the mere unauthorized publication already makes the photos sufficiently newsworthy to make fair use warranted would be tricky (and probably differs on case by case situation - e.g. a presidential candidate snorting cocaine may be different from a child actor making homework; where the news relevance of the latter is unlikely to warrant republication -- NB both fictitious cases). Since that brings up interpretation of whether it is fair use it would already make it tricky, and that does not even start talking about privacy issues. Altogether I would say that we should not touch such material, not even with a 10 foot pole. But I think this would already be covered under copyright guidelines anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Some good analysis of case law is here [2]. But that said, for WP's purpose, we have WP:NFCC#4 - material that is first published by the person that is not considered the copyright holder is not allowed on WP. As a separate point, we'd also not allow copyright images of living persons this way per WP:NFCC#1 atop that, as well as WP:BLP would come into play (photos that were clearly meant to be candid would be eliminated per this.). --MASEM (t) 19:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
One right of a copyright holder is the right of first publication. Considering that photography, writing, or music is an art form, the holder of the copyright has the right to publish, or not publish. The question then comes what happens when something is leaked and published? By republishing we could well be violating copyright. I don't see that the issue of invasion of privacy vs. fair use has been resolved in a U.S. court. It could be found that the publication is a fair use, but an invasion of privacy. Assuming that the republication could be considered a fair use, I don't see a policy on republishing photos that may be an invasion of privacy. If so, a policy may need to be created. Understand that there may be a dispute on who holds the copyright. How does one prove to hold the copyright on a selfie? The fact that there could be a legal dispute on who the actual copyright holder is should be considered. If the first publication was not by a RS, that should factor in the decision as well.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


I'd have thought that WP:BLP policy would prohibit the use of "photos hacked from a celebrities private phone or email", regardless of copyright issues. Using hacked personal images hardly seems compatible with the requirement that biographical material must take into consideration "regard for the subject's privacy". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)For us on WP it does - NFCC#4 requires that the publication has to be with the approval of the copyright holder. So if the only way something was published was without this approval, it is not usable on WP. This exceeds copyright law as it stands presently. And I would say BLP even supercedes that, making images that were clearly not taken in public places of living persons and first published without authorization as completely inallowable, period. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
And what if the issue of the legal copyright holder is disputed? If A gives his camera to B, and B takes a picture of A, who owns the copyright? How does A prove he/she holds the copyright to a selfie? WP can publish something that has a disputed copyright holder and wind up in court. Many editors on WP have an agenda which can cloud their judgment about such issues. I think a clearer policy is needed to avoid problems related to copyright and/or invasion of privacy. If the issue of the copyright holder is ambiguous, caution should dictate that the photo not be published on WP. That policy should be more clearly stated to avoid problems.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
B taking a picture with A's camera keeps the copyright with B. (This was determined by the case of that monkey taking a photo of themselves with a cameraman's camera, see [3]); the person doing the shot is the one that is making the artist expression copyright covers. And you'll notice WP was at the center of that one. I will agree that if there is clear dispute of copyright we should avoid it; we just had a case about a photo of the group N.W.A. that we have removed the photo given the dispute over the copyright. However, in terms of policy, its probably best to handle case by case, allowing disputes to be resolved at WP:NFCR or elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue of who the legal copyright holder is goes beyond merely authorship. From the article you cited:
"However, the law in the UK is not quite as straightforward, as the author doesn’t necessarily own the copyright.
For instance, in the film industry the cameraman filming the actors on screen, despite being the “author” of the recording, does not own the copyright of the film. It comes down to who provided the creative effort or significant arrangements. In the case of movies it would be the director or the producer, although often it is ultimately the people who put the money into the project.
It is the amount of effort, arrangement or creative input that is made, which determines copyright."[4]
I believe this is the same in the U.S. Also, there are issues of works for hire or employment, where the photographer/author releases the copyright by contract. That release could also be considered a gift, like if B takes a candid/casual picture with A's camera. The point is that the issue isn't black and white. It is subject to interpretation by common law judges, and could easily lead to legal problems for WP. You are proving the point why a policy is needed to err on the side of privacy.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
In the case of a commercial film, under US law, there would pretty much always be a written contract with each creative employee making the production company the owners of all copyrights involved, either on a work-made-for-hire basis or as an assignment as a condition of employment. This would mean that it would in effect be a purchase of the copyright, not a gift. If some small film had no such contracts I am not sure who would be considered the "author" for copyright purposes. I suspect that it would be considered a joint work of quite a few people, the camera operator, the director, and probably the actors, and a derivative work of the separately copyrighted script, which would belong to the script writer(s). But in practice no professional or even semi-pro film would allow this kind of tangle when a contract spelling out the copyright is easy to craft -- I even own a book giving sample contrasts for such cases for use by people who don't want to hire a lawyer. Remember that a copyright can always be transferred by written contract or deed (under US law all transfers must be written). DES (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I am thinking specifically of personal photos or recordings. The work could simply be a hacked photo with the authorship or copyright disputed, or be more complicated: A buys the camera, film, and pays for development. A asks B to take a photo. After A has the film processed, A shares the photo with B but keeps the negatives. B then claims copyright, or someone acquires the photo through B claiming copyright, and publishes the photo. (In the digital age, there frequently is no longer film and negatives, but digital enhancement and editing might occur) Then there is fight over who had the copyright originally. Copyright becomes a legal conclusion, and not a fact. The problem with WP is that we have editors who will claim the disputed copyright is a "fact", and not a legal conclusion made by a court. There is a danger here. The policy should be when a work is subject to disputed claims of copyright, especially if not first published by a RS, the work should not be published or removed.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I forget where I read it, but I am pretty sure that in the case where A is actual copyright owner, B publishes and claims they are the copyright owner, and we as WP use B's work in an otherwise fair use manner without knowing about the situation with A, that we/WP are not at fault for any wrongdoing that A may have towards B, as long as once this situation is made aware to us, we take the proper steps to re-attribute to A instead of B, or anything else that may be an option. Excellent case in point that just came up: there was a photo of the group NWA we had been using that had been redistributed previously by certain agencies acting as if they had permission but for all purposes they did not as proven out in court when the photographer later sued them and won/settled (but with legally asserting he was the copyright owner). When that photographer told us on WP about this, we reviewed the situation to verify this, and then removed the photo since all claims about the bad copyright were proven out. We didn't have any legal obligation to remove under the normal fair use defense, though at the point the photographer said that was his photo that he sells, that hit NFCC#2 (respecting commercial opportunity) and we removed it because of that. This is why we do ask for as much source information as possible and presume non-free for images unless clearly proven otherwise so that we are keeping our nose clean. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, legal conclusions about copyright will change based upon slightly different facts. We might have a problem with WP editors being at fault or in collaboration with other parties looking to profit from some scandal somehow. If the issue is invasion of privacy, the damage is more than just changing the attribution of the copyright holder on the photo. (Think of the phone hacks of Jennifer Lawrence and others). Invasion of privacy is tort, which means potential legal liability in many jurisdictions and countries. Edit warring over the issue might result in repeated republications each carrying liability. The policy should be clearer. Essentially, the copyright needs to be verifiable, which is a core WP pillar.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's put one thing that is absolutely clear: if someone uploaded an image that clearly was meant as a private/candid image and there's no evidence that, for example, it may be self-uploaded image of the uploader themselves or that the uploader had any ability to take that photo, we'd deleted it straight away under BLP concerns, not copyright (even though that itself is another reason to delete). But again, we do require good-faith assumption of copyright claims and prior publication otherwise; we do find cases where there's obvious falsehoods and deal with those as necessary. This is not spelled out word for word in policy, but is captured by NFCC for all purposes. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem relates back to RS. If something is first published in a non-RS, a sleazy tabloid or website, why is WP republishing at all? Why assume good-faith copyright claims to a disreputable source? WP standards need to be higher than base legal requirements to avoid errors. The policy should reflect that as well and not simply be an unwritten rule which some editors will ignore.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, granted we have nothing explicitly related to "images taken from non/weak-RS or tabloid sites", though I would say in practice we do not allow these and when they are found they are challenged and removed as appropriate. I would be open though to adding language to WP:IUP and/or WP:NFC that alludes to images taken from websites that do not have a reputation of respect for privacy or copyright should not be used on WP. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for these. WP:IUP is a bit mushy, " A snatched shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place may well be acceptable to the community". What does "snached" mean? That it is acceptable to steal photos from celebrities and post them on WP? WP:NFC is clear that leaked content should not be republished on WP, but needs stronger language on the issue of disputed copyright, "In rare cases however, non-free content may have been originally "leaked" and never subsequently published with the copyright holder's permission—such content must not be included in Wikipedia." This results in circular arguments about who holds the copyright, which until a court decides the issue is a legal conclusion and not a fact. This needs to be broadened to exclude content from dubious sources. If the publisher is not considered respectable, the presumption should be against republication.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, "snatched" is a slang-ish term but it doesn't mean stolen in the context, just taken without knowledge (but as the phrase notes, when you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy). I did change that to a less-slangy phrase. As for NFC, it's a case-by-case because we do have to remember that sometimes legal challenges are not always legit. If a person attempts to sue another claiming they own copyright on a work when in reality the sued person truly owns the copyright and the suer is simply bitter, and we on WP are reasonably assured that the copyright owner is not lying, then we'd unlikely remove the image just because its copyright is challenged. Remember that we can only do as good as what is readily visible to us, using tools like Google Image Search and the like to try to verify such claims. We know we likely have accepted NFC that are erronously copyrighted, but the way our processes and our disclaimers are arranged, we are is little legal trouble as long as there's a route to remove those with legit challenges. (This goes back to the NFCC#4 - we only accept material that has been previously published as this makes us one-step removed from a copyright violation if that publication was in fact illegal as long as we react appropriate once known. We don't allow NFCC of unpublished material in any way so that we do not become the copyright violators) --MASEM (t) 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So if a Pulitzer prize winning journalist wrote in a peer acclaimed work that a particular photo was a private photo never intended for publication which was "borrowed" and then sold to a tabloid, WP should accept that evidence of a false claim of copyright and delete the photo? Not everyone chooses to sue over such issues, but it doesn't change who the actual copyright holder is.Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the one place that while I think the idea is between-the-lines at IUP it is not spelled out: the claim of a tabloid on a copyrighted image is going to be one of huge question because tabloids are very very rarely RSes to begin with and many employ questionable practices when it comes to attribution, etc. If we can only verify that the image came from the tabloid, there must be very very strong reason to have to use that image, otherwise we'd likely delete it, with or without knowing if this was a stolen photo. On the other hand, if a respectable news source like Time or NYTimes did the same, we'd probably need to become aware of the copyright issue before we'd remove it. But there are things that we simply can't know unless we are told about it. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The case I am referring to the copyright was claimed by a tabloid, but then other possibly more respected publication REPUBLISHED the content based upon fair use, NOT based upon their claim of copyright. My direct question remains, does WP accept the reporting of a Pulitzer prize winning journalist that a tabloid first published the content without holding the copyright? Is that sufficient?Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, it is going to be case by case. Based on this [5] (in which the rightful copyright owners won a suit against a 3rd party publication that used a fair use defense to publish the photos that they got from a paparazzi), the legal case will still be evaluated as a fair use test. In the case of the publication, they failed all 4 tests of the fair use system (which the above link nicely describes). WP would never allow use of these images under the conditions that that publication got them (from a wedding that was known to be private, of identifyable people, from a questionable source, and only to show that there was a wedding, so BLP and NFCC violations all over the place). But I cannot say that if WP found itself using images that someone else illegally published before the copyright owner could that we'd automatically remove it, assuming that NFCC and BLP are met. An illegally published image may end up being the subject of commentary, and so while the original publication was wrong, it may be within NFCC to use that image here snce we can meet the tests for educational use, portion of work used (we require reduced image sizes), and impact on market ; the commercial use aspect depends on exactly the nature of the work so that will be case-by-case. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So regarding this photo, copyright claimed by the National Inquirer June 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart#/media/File:Donna_Rice_and_Gary_Hart.jpg Pulitzer prize winning journalist, Richard Ben Cramer wrote “It was Donna's camera, and Donna's picture-never intended for public...well public anything! She never did let the negative out of her possession. It was always her picture, her property-which is partly what would gall her so when it made its very public debut on the front page of the National Enquirer. (The Enquirer had the nerve to claim copyright on the photo.)” (“What It Takes” (1992), pg. 437) Does that photo belong on WP because it is interesting to the public, or do copyright and privacy issues prevail? Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
In considering the discussion here, the fact that the photo itself is critically notable (that it ended Hart's campaign), means that our use of it would likely fall under fair use (educationally talking about it ending the campaign, the commercial impact of the photo was long ago completed due to ending Hart's campaign, we aren't using the full size image), even if the photo was illegally published in the first place. That said, I do think the photo violates NFCC#8 in that while the existence of the photo is important to Hart's campaign article, it adds nothing that we can't say in text ("A photo of Hart with Rice led to the end of Hart's campaign.") But its removal would not be predicated on the copyright issue because of the fact that the photo costed a political career. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Factually, it didn't end his campaign. He was forced to suspend the campaign in May 1987 by the Washington Post. It was not because of the Donna Rice photo which was published the following month. Rather than being educational, it is more properly categorized as misinformation: it is being used on WP to promote something which is factually incorrect. Matt Bai wrote about this in his recent book, "All The Truth Is Out".Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if the story has changed about the photo, it still remains an artifact tied to the end of his campaign, so the potential for the education use remains there. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Only the story hasn't changed about the photo. It does represent a collective false memory encouraged by some involved in the news coverage at the time: "Years later, most Americans who lived through the scandal would recall, erroneously, that the iconic photo had ended Hart's candidacy. The truth was that it didn't appear until weeks after the fact and had nothing to do with Hart's aborted campaign" Mat Bai, "All The Truth Is Out" pg. 164. If the purpose is to educate, it might be far better for WP to report that Hart left the 1988 campaign because all of the women in his life were being harassed by media reporters, that he reportedly was followed to the house of a woman in D.C. after giving the Democratic Party's response to Ronald Reagan's weekly radio address Dec. 20, 1986 and had his picture taken there (months before he announced his second run for president), and that Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post intended to publish that story if Hart remained in the campaign. (See Cramer, "What It Takes" pg. 473-4.) If the purpose is to educate readers, we should expect to see that on Hart's WP page. It isn't there. Nor did that photo cause Hart to cease leading Jesse Jackson in national polls 2-1 and everyone else in the field by 4-1 immediately after suspending his campaign in May 1987 (See Cramer, "What It Takes" pg. 721), or after he returned to the race in December 1987. (See Cramer, "What It Takes" pg. 810) The photo may be considered an artifact tied to media coverage of his campaign, but it certainly didn't end his campaign. Using the photo to promote that myth is simply disinformation or propaganda, not education.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And what of privacy and BLP?Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The BLP/privacy aspect appears moot because this looks like a photo take in a public space (a marina or dock of some type, and google searching doesn't establish where); we'd need stronger evidence this was a private location since it is out of doors. It also is the fact they are posed for picture as opposed to something candid or taken with a mega-zoom lens that also implies they knew this photo was being taken. So again, we would not immediately delete on the sole basis of violating BLP. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
BLP has a presumption in favor of privacy and avoiding prolonging victimization. Why then presume that a stolen photograph was taken in a public place? Are all docks and marinas public places? What difference does it make if the image is published as the result of a telephoto lens or a stolen photograph? How did that change Donna Rice's expectation of privacy when she spontaneously jumped in Hart's lap? Should Rice have fairly known that this photo would get stolen and her reputation tarnished as a result? A presumption of privacy and avoiding prolonging victimization should weigh heavily in the policy and its application.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If the Hart photo publication ended at the National Inquirer, even if the impact of that photo affected his presidential run, I would agree we'd use more caution because likely the photo would not be so iconic. But it was published over and over and over again in mainstream sources, and through that it entered the national view as an iconic photo, even if the photo's origins were illegal (w/ NI claiming copyright). For us, as educational work, we're looking at the photo as its value as representing that iconic status (even if in actuality it wasn't the photo that did Hart in), and put weight on using that within fair use relative to the damage that was done by the NI. (Remember, it is NI that certainly committed the certain copyright theft by claiming copyright; every other reuse is a question of whether fair use applies or not in the reuse of the photo now published).
As for privacy, we have to judge as best we can from the circumstances around this picture as outside ID'ing Hart and Rice, I can't find when this was reportedly taken and where. Most docks and wharfs are public, and the fact there's a boat in the bg of the shot doesn't suggest it is it offlimits. They are both posing as opposed to a shot taken candidly. But let's also consider that BLP is meant to be used to prevent damage by WP to living persons. At this point in time, there is no way that our republishing of the photo is going to change the damage and situation regarding Hart from about 20 years ago. If a currently running candidate had the same situation today,, where such a photo came out and with all factors being equal (apparently public space, posed shot, photo stolen, etc.) but the situation had not been fully explored by the press, we definitely would take caution on that. Here, there's no need - what's done is done. Our use of this photo is not impacting either Hart's or Rice's present privacy beyond what has already happened. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
To add one more thing, even if the photo is now known to not have ended his campaign, the fact that there was a point in time that that photo was tied to that aspect makes it a historically relevant image. Obviously, in the article on Hart's campaign (the other place where the photo is being used), it should be be documented as such.
That said, reviewing both images uses, I am nominating that for deletion under NFCC#8/NFCC#1. But I don't think we can argue at this time, so far away from the event and personal affects already done, that BLP or the like applies. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
WP privacy policy is beyond if "republishing of the photo is going to change the damage and situation". The policy is to not continue victimization. By continuing to publish a dubious photo is WP continuing victimization? Does that somehow help either Hart or Rice in their present pursuits? As regard to the photo itself, could anyone in the background have taken this photo through the pier pilings? If not, the photo should be considered private.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever damage to their reputation was done long long ago, and its still historically important that while we can remove the picture, you cannot remove the fact that this picture existed and the situation between the two existed. It has been the subject of many many many sources, and the situation has been proven out. In addition: considering that we absolutely cannot deny that Hart and Rice had been together based on how many times this has been established in sources, this photo does no further compromising beyond that: it's not a lewd shot, they are in perfectly acceptable poses, etc. The only thing that the photo had been taken for was this proved (at that time) the two were together, which later was corroborated. This is not continued victimization when it has been long documented, and its information easily found from other sites than WP. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's do two steps back. There is a single case where a stolen photo was republished many times, including in main stream news, and that photo has entered the public consciousness. This seems like a fairly extreme case. Perhaps this photo may be admissible, perhaps not under fair use criteria. But I hope everyone agrees that this case is extremely rare, if not unique
This case is unique in that allegations of CIA involvement were made and published. It is now rare (today) in that it involved old style film and negatives which proved Donna Rice's copyright claim. Modern cases will be harder to prove due to digital photography not leaving such proof.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal in the discussion was much broader; i.e. that any stolen photo even published in a single (borderline) reliable source would be admissible under fair use (put in extreme words). So it appears that we are now arguing that an extreme case that may 'just' justify fair use is an argument for a blanket guideline allowing much more dodgy cases in without further discussion. Does not sound like a food idea to me. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree the broad situation is something that has to be treated case by case, and, except for considering the reliability of a source (like the National Inquirer) went evaluating questionable claims of copyright, this is all reflected in policy already with the appropriate amount of consensus-based input and IAR as needed. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is that we need better policy related to accepting photos for republication from dubious sources. The alleged copyright from the Enquirer was never disclosed when the photo was accepted. Someone appears to have just ass/u/me-d that the photo was first published in a RS. Then once it is established a photo was first published improperly then what? Does WP just follow rely on a questionable fair use defense, or does WP follow a higher standard for the encylopedia?Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have just added language to IUP in legal considerations that when dealing with sources of unreliable or dubious nature that copyright claims are not always up to snuff. But it still ends that we can't force a rule and can only deal case-by-case. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The photo was published in 1987 by the Enquirer along with the story that Hart had asked Rice to marry him. The photo was published in support of that story as a kind of innuendo by photo that some hanky-panky had occurred between the two that both have always denied, i.e., that Hart was a womanizer, and Rice a bimbo. Because of that photo how many people now know that Rice first met Hart at rocker Don Henley's house with his wife present? How many people know that Rice was talking to Hart about fundraising, and that "Rock musicians represent a rich vein of financial support since, under the law, they could perform at benefit concerts for the candidates, and each ticket was treated as an individual contribution. Thus the candidate could report 20,000 contributions of $10 apiece rather than an illegal one of $200,000. And each ticket could qualify for Federal matching funds." http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/us/courting-danger-the-fall-of-gary-hart.html?pagewanted=all That photo created a very different public image of their official relationship. It was never intended for publication. Its publication created victims. Its continued republication therefore must be presumed to continue victimization. If you are not the victim, you cannot speak for her.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This is becoming a very different question on specifically BLP, and this is the wrong venue for that. But I will stress - that financial and privacy damage was well and done by the point that WP was around, much less the inclusion of that photo (uploaded in 2011). It is very very difficult to argue there's a BLP violation from that photo. I'd recommend you ask specifically on this photo at WP:BLP/N if you feel that it is a BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
From the start, I have noted that there is also a privacy issue to republishing a photo which was published without the copyright holder's consent. That privacy aspect may affect fair use, but it would also remain as an additional legal and moral issue. I have posted the issue on WP:BLP/N as advised.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Cramer does not state that Rice owns any copyright - only that she possesses negatives, and that she regretted letting her friend have the photos. Getty Images, as the stock photo agent, administers copyright, which appears to be with AP at this point, as no legal actions contesting copyright appear in sources. Thus - no legal claim of stolen copyright exists. Collect (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright is Intellectual property. What Cramer wrote is clear. Cramer wrote that "picture" was Rice's property, and the "photo" had been lent to her friend. He notes that the National Inquirer had claimed copyright from the photo. We are therefore on notice of competing claims to copyright. It is possible that Rice eventually sold or assigned her interest to another party. Collect's source for his claim that the copyright is now held by the AP is the Miami Herald, which has quite a contentious history in this matter. Quite possibly the Herald is simply obfuscating its well documented role in the photo being sold to the Enquirer from contested reporting in 1987 following publication of Matt Bai's recent work on the topic. It was the Herald that refused to pay for the photo in the first place, which resulted in Rice's friend selling it to the National Enquirer. As predicted, Collect is proving my point why a policy is needed regarding private photos being sold to disreputable publications. We do have editors who, for whatever reasons, will want to make unwarranted assumptions regarding privacy and copyright to avoid addressing WP policies regarding fair use and the privacy presumption of BLP. More clarity is needed in the policy for this.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was Snow closed as rejected. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Images on phobia articles

Over-long title reduced from "Censorship policy and usage of phobia causing images on phobia articles". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy discussion: The Wikipedia is not censored policy was never meant to cover the usage of phobia triggering images in phobia articles.

Or at least that is what i'm trying to get consensus for here. I'm starting this discussion after having to deal with a prolonged effort over the span of months (years at this point really) of certain users trying to insert an image into the trypophobia article that would trigger said phobia for any readers with it. The image is currently in the article for viewing. There was an RfC in the past in 2013 about the image, found here, but it was inconclusive. And the main argument that keeps being thrown around and used again and again in order to reinsert said image is that "Wikipedia is not censored".

I'm bringing this up as someone with trypophobia (where such images make me nauseous and I have thrown up before from them), to be blatant and open about the topic, and as someone who is aware of how image usage is done on other phobia articles in general. The article arachnophobia found an image to use that would not trigger any readers suffering from it, but is still informative and explanatory for the article subject. Similarly, we don't put any sort of flashing light image in the article on epilepsy or any similar neurological article so as not to trigger the results that a sufferer seeing such an image would cause.

So, I am trying to obtain a consensus here that the Wikipedia is not censored policy is not meant to cover images in articles that will have negative physiological effects on our readers. This issue has nothing to do with concerns of offense or moral propriety, but the actual health and safety of our readers. SilverserenC 00:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A more immediate solution: the caption in the photo that's currently there is not supported by a source, and without it the image's relevance is WP:OR.
My thoughts: WP:NOTCENSORED does cover photos that trigger phobias, but adding photos which trigger phobias in the articles about the phobias goes against WP:POINT. This is also one of those instances where WP:IAR can be applied to WP:NOTCENSORED. Phobias are not chosen beliefs (as is the case with images of Muhammad), and while we cannot reasonably accommodate all phobias or other involuntary reader handicaps, we can avoid going out of our way to make articles harder to read for them. Also, the subject is the phobia, not the trigger thereof.
Precedent: The Arachnophobia article does not contain any realistic images of spiders, but a stylized and symbolic representation of the phobia.
My suggestion: Articles on phobias do not need images which could trigger said phobias. Articles on the triggers themselves are still free to have (so cover Spiders with pictures of the lil bastards), but images in the phobia articles should represent the phobia in itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to propose a guideline or essay regarding providing least harm and least shock to readers in general. We do have WP:SHIT which is along these lines, but is limited to offensive material. That said, I am concerned some people will see this as being "over sensitive" in general. Might I suggest the focus be move away from triggers and phobias specifically and toward minimizing harm and undue shock or distress to readers? In addition to the Arachnophobia article, another example of this would be the image used in coulrophobia or, as you mentioned, avoiding flashing/strobing images. It might also be good to draft an WP:ESSAY first before jumping to guidelines, though I can see this as a piggyback off of WP:SHIT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that covers my point rather well. The article on spiders would obviously show spiders and readers would expect that. And, while there may be some expectation in readers that phobia articles would have images of the triggers, there is no need to do so, especially when the likelihood of readers of those articles being people suffering from those phobias is decently high. And said phobia articles, in any properly formatted one that there is a trigger subject article existent, would have a link to the trigger article in the first sentence or the lede. So if readers wish to see an image, they can knowingly click over to that trigger article. So, in the case of trypophobia, a link in the lede to the article on lotus seed (or Nelumbo) would be appropriate. As long as a proper reference for the info can be found, of course. SilverserenC 00:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I could have sworn we had a policy or guideline that was "the principle of least surprise", that at least at arrival on a page that we should not be showcasing an unexpected image near the top of the page; later in the body, once it is established what the topic is, that's different, but not as a lead or infobox image. Phobia articles would fall under this, I would agree. It's not censorship, just recognizing that showing am image of what someone might have uncontrolled fear of when they visit a page is a disservice to the reader. If they have that fear and they are reading the article in detail, the image later would be less a problem. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the issue with the trypophobia article, for one, is that it's too short for there to be a "later in the body". So there's that to consider too. But, putting it under say a "Show" tab would work and the image in the article WAS under such a tab for some time, but then users kept removing it because apparently even a show tab is censorship. *shrugs* SilverserenC 00:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I would expect that the drive to include an image of, say, a spider on the arachnophobia page is to help break up walls of text when it gets long enough, so if there's a short article on a phobia (not readily exceeding one screen) there's really no need for an image and thus the situation is not there. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: are you thinking of WP:SURPRISE perhaps? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeaaah, but I think we had something in regards to images to, but it could be closely related to the !censored policy too. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: WP:LEADIMAGE has advice points #2 and #3 which is similar. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's probably where I recall it from. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"negative physiological effects" is too broad (going by talk page posts, you would think some readers have heart attacks when confronted by naked breasts or penises). Avoiding involuntary negative physiological effects on articles specifically about the involuntary negative physiological effects might be acceptable. I went through List of phobias and none of the phobias that could be triggered through a computer screen (color, nudity, pornography) had pictures. --NeilN talk to me 00:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Another thought: WP:DICK probably applies to intentionally putting trigger images in the articles on phobias. Not just WP:Don't be a jerk, but WP:DICK. Putting it in there as a moment of stupidity is excusable, but it takes a rather trollish sumnabitch to say "let's put images that trigger phobias in the articles on said phobias" -- and I say this as someone who's been cracking euthanasia jokes throughout my uncle's cancer surgery. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
What I would worry abut here is that barring images with a "negative physiological effect" could be exploited by some to reopen the Muhammad depictions debate. Tarc (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, like NeilN said above, it applying to "involuntary negative physiological effects on articles specifically about the involuntary negative physiological effects" would avoid that. SilverserenC 01:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I support this with NeilN 's suggested limits. DES (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Per User:Vkil "There are plenty of images on WP that can cause physical and emotional responses, sometimes harmful ones. This is true throughout the internet. A survivor of Pol Pot's Killing Fields might suffer real harm upon seeing his photo, but we do not remove his photo to prevent this harm."
Yes there are lots of attempts to remove or hide images that someone finds disturbing. We need to be very careful about doing so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That not what I suggested. Any article containing that picture would not be specifically about the involuntary negative physiological effects caused by the photo. --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Next step?

There seems to be a consensus on the subject, though not one on what exactly needs to be done. What's the next step or method to making this more official? SilverserenC 18:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a next step but looking at that fear of holes article - I think I had greater understanding of the condition when I viewed the picture. So, perhaps collapse it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I have moved it under a Show template for now, along with a proper infobox for phobia articles. SilverserenC 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Before we start hidding classes of images we should have a RfC and get wider input. There needs to be clear consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, only you and CFCF are the only ones for inserting phobic stimuli into articles on phobias. Everyone else has is of a mind that not causing trouble for obvious target readers is not the same as censoring the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
All I asked is for you to start a RfC and get clear consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There was an RfC on the article which reached a consensus to collapse - there is nothing that prevents that consensus from being carried out for that article - The article is small and the picture is large - so collapse it, and move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not see this as much different than the situation of people being offended by seeing an image of Muhammad. User:Ian.thomson has stated that religion is a choice. Once one has developed a religion it is not something one can simply turn off. So I do not see it as that different from a phobia in that way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So, your contention is NOTCENCENSORED prevents article editors from collapsing it - they are forced to either not collapse it or remove it - they can't compromise? Your argument is much too fundamentalist - there is nothing wrong with collapsing tangential-but-maybe-helpful-information-to-some. The article is not about lotus blossoms - unlike say, an article about Muhammad is about Muhammad. Alanscottwalker (talk)
Just a layman, but I do not think "offense" is an involuntary biological reaction. --NeilN talk to me 00:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Taking offense is a involuntary biological reaction to a lot of stuff. A bad smell triggers offense. Disturbing images trigger offense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope you're not playing word games. A putrid smell will cause many people to gag. That's an involuntary biological reaction, there's no intellectual processing required. --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The neurons in the alfactory gland process the smell molecules and transmit the signal to the brain for processing. The brain processes the signal and creates the reaction. The same process can occur with images. Per [6] "emotional pictures produced a powerful physiological reaction" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Doc James: I am religious, and have friends of a variety of religions (and lack thereof). There is a degree of choice, because if someone doesn't want to belong to a religion they generally at least quit believing in it or have some sort of conflict of faith. If one ceases to believe in a religion, they no longer belong to it. I've had friends and family who have different mental conditions. Many of them want to be without those conditions, but wanting does nothing. Believing they don't have those conditions only makes things worse. The comparison between religion and mental disorders grossly insults both groups, and is a possible sign that you should stay away from all religion and mental health topics, since you clearly don't understand the basics of either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
This was closed as no consensus. That was a year ago. You are free to start another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There was a consensus. The consensus state for that article when that RfC closed was collapsed image. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect, it was inconclusive but the discussion had halted. Regardless there is a new RfC now.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As I thought

@Ian.thomson:, @EvergreenFir:, @Masem:, @Alanscottwalker:, as I thought, one of the people I was referring to in my first post has reverted my Show image template, citing a violation of Wikipedia policy and they then stated on the talk page that it doesn't matter what the consensus is here because consensus can't violate policy. I assume they're referring to Wikipedia is not censored. This is the sort of editing i've been having to deal with. SilverserenC 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is rather clear here... I'll revert and invite them to this conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is not clear, discussion on an unrelated forum is irrelevant to the article, and there is far longer standing consensus for its inclusion. Note the talk page tags that have been present for many months now. To change this you will need to change policy! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • EvergreenFir your reversion was re-reverted. I have restored the show template. Perhaps we should write this up as a new guideline? DES (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but current policy (not guidelines) dictates images are not to be censored. Much effort was put into finding the least astonishing image that would accurately depict the purported conditions triggers. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you quote and link to policy that says, never, ever collapse anything? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The policy WP:IAR is there to say "you don't need to apply WP:NOTCENSORED when doing so involves trolling the readers." There is a difference between censoring articles to accommodate chosen beliefs and not taking an action that obviously is going to cause a significant portion of the target audience medical issues (even if those issues are psychosomatic, they're still medical issues). Going out of one's way to include triggers in articles on phobias is WP:DICKish and WP:POINTy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about trolling readers and the conditions isn't even recognized. Next should we get rid of images of navels because omphalophobia redirects there?(Thinking of another article, but the point is valid). See both WP:Censor and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:NOTCENSOR has been seen, see WP:REHASH and explain how inserting phobic stimuli into the article on the phobia itself does not go against WP:DBAJ. We are not here to decide which phobias are real, only note which ones are notable, and note what scientists have to say about it. You have yet to explain how not causing medical problems for obvious target audiences is the same as removing images of Muhammad or information on evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Then it would seem such a redirect would be covered under the same resolution that we determine for these images, whatever that resolution might be. That is, the images in the destination article are not the issue, the redirect is the issue. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with CFCF here. We have policies that we do not hide content. Some people find sexual images disturbing and yet we do not hide them on article about sex. Some people find images of Mohammad distrubing and we do not hid images about Mohommad. This image gives a clear explanation of what people who have the claimed condition of "trypophobia" are supposedly afraid of. Most people with this fear (if they exist) would have pictures turned off on the Internet as there would be an innumerable number of triggering images. I also have concerns that someone is playing a joke on us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The comparison to censoring the Muhammad article is insulting to anyone who suffers from mental health problems: Muslims choose to be offended, people with phobias do not choose their phobias. People who are offended by sexual images would not to looking up articles on sexual topics -- people who have involuntary conditions of any sort are very likely to come to articles on those conditions.
If the phobia doesn't exist, get the article deleted, or expand it with information on how it's a notable hoax. If you can't, it's a violation of WP:AGF and WP:DBAJ to say "we don't know if they even exist." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post states "Thousands of people claim to suffer trypophobia" and illustrate their article with pictures of the object in question [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
And that is not reason enough to act as though people with that condition might exist, and might choose to read the article to learn more about their condition? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: Are you advocating adding images to the phobia articles (nudity, pornography, colors) I listed above? Or a seizure-triggering animation to epilepsy? --NeilN talk to me 23:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This article on it also shows the picture of the object and states Trypophobia is not an official phobia recognized in scientific literature. The picture provides a great deal of information as nearly no one has heard about this "disease". What I am suggesting is here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Next_step.3F Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You're avoiding my question I think. --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You have just not waited long enough. Appears this is a very controversial topic. As with people who have chromophobia they will have switched their monitors to black and white. We do provide a very colorful image in the navbox at the bottom of the page though which I see no problem with. A "seizure triggering animation" is not really notable enough for the epilepsy article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
A seizure triggering animation is significantly more notable than a photo of an object with thirteen holes. --NeilN talk to me 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Frankly don't care if it's not listed in the DSM. Err on the side of caution here. Including the image can cause harm and that does not outweigh any benefit the image gives in terms of information (which honestly in this case is minimal). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If someone doesn't understand what "holes" means, I don't think adding a picture is going to help them understand what's going on ("Oh, is this article about a lotus?"). The picture in the Arachnophobia article at least depicts the phobia itself, and in a way that does not serve as a trigger for a panic attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There has already been discussion about the choice of image and it was done with a great deal of discretion – the lotus pod still contains its fruits. This is far less than be said when a reader googles the condition. We risk losing credibility by giving a non-existant condition so much consideration. It makes Wikipedia seem like a place for fringe and original theories. We have a hard enough time patrolling for this already without good-faith editors arguing against including valid information. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
NeilN There is a clear difference between a real phobia and a purported one. And for the readers that have phobias for those various things they should have their browsers configured to block them anyway. We can't change the entire interface of Wikipedia because one editor might not like blue or black. (Neither are these recognized phobias). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF: Doc James made no such qualifier. "We have policies that we do not hide content." Period. --NeilN talk to me 23:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes we either show it or do not include it typically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"We risk losing credibility by giving a non-existant condition so much consideration" -- in other words, this is a waste of time, so we should give you your way. Haters gonna hate us anyway, and we're inherently not credible.
"We have a hard enough time patrolling for this already without good-faith editors arguing against including valid information" -- I think we both agree is a waste of time: spend it doing something productive instead of possibly causing people to have panic attacks.
"There is a clear difference between a real phobia and a purported one" -- Wikipedia's editors are not neurologists, psychologists, or otherwise qualified to make any distinction (and we don't care if an individual editor claims to be one of those things anymore). All we can do is repeat the sources, which say that there are thousands who claim to have it (and certainly seem to demonstrate it) -- enough for us to act as if it is as real as any other phobia. That the APA hasn't classified it yet is different from them saying "while phobias exist and have a variety of triggers, it is simply impossible for someone to have a phobia of assorted holes." Yes, WP:FRINGE theories should be kept out, but WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR would dictate that we don't apply WP:FRINGE to entirely plausible expressions of known facts (so long as they're sourced). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not how a phobia is classified as real. Neither is the way those sources classify this phobia normal procedure. Anyone who apparently has any reaction at all to the images is classified a "phobic", where is how the paragraph on visceral reactions comes into play. It is highly possible that the images provoke disgust on a visceral level, but this is not a phobia and neither is it classified as such within the scientific community. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In the specific article Trypophobia there is absolutely no need to show a image on the article that short that also may potentially set off a reader's fear, even if there's scientific debate if it is a real fear or not. Principle of least astonishment/surprise. And explaining that a series of irregular holes is what sets off the fear is something that doesn't illustration. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
by not showing the image we would be depriving readers of visual knowledge of what they are reading in the article,,,IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"People that suffer from trypophobia have their fears triggered by seeing irregular patterns of holes." What image is needed to understand that? --MASEM (t) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
And it's not like the image is being removed. The reader still has the option to see it by clicking the Show tab. But we won't be causing negative involuntary physical effects on our readers when they don't expect it. SilverserenC 01:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I removed it for now. Clearly contentious enough to remove until consensus. CFCF - discussion on VP is wider than local consensus on articles. Discussion here applies to articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Support adding trigger warnings to images like the ones in the phobia articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trigger warnings. No encyclopedia should add trigger warnings. This is not Tumblr or a college campus "safe space" where millennials can cry to their parents about the patriarchy demanding they turn in their assignments on time. Besides, what do they actually trigger? I suffer from severe coulrophobia because of how evil clowns are, but seeing images of clowns only solidifies my anti-clown stance and fortifies my mission to rid the world of clowns. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New RfC

Yes I hope we can get wider input on this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on nutshell at WP:Notability

There is a proposal a to re-write the nutshell for WP:Notability, and the discussion would benefit from more participants. The stated intent is to better explain the existing guideline, not to change the guidance or notability standards. See: WT:Notability#Nutshell wording. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad heading

Topic not about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but about the layout of this page moved to WT:VPP#Bad heading --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion continues here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Please could someone trim the very (the disruptively-) long heading, above, which is bloating both the ToC and edit summaries? My attempts to do so have been reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Pigsonthewing is referring to: WP:VPP#How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?... While that heading is long, I don't find it disruptively long. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Blueboar, see also above, short discussion directly under section title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Having restored the above by revert I now restore FS's comment Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

He's now moved it to the top of this section, rendering the above nonsensical; and I have undone his hatting of my comment here (I'd told him earlier today to stop editing my comments). Now can someone fix the over-long heading above, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's annoying in the page history, less so in the TOC. Poor judgment, yes. The heading is not meant to be an opening sentence. Disruptive? I don't know, depends on your definition I suppose, but annoying and poor judgment should be enough to change a heading. Location of this thread is a separate question, but more significant misplacement of VP threads is widespread and generally ignored. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Then please fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus for change here, so in my opinion a change would be disruptive. Unless such a consensus emerges before then, we should let that thread archive and hope that this thread will have some beneficial effect on future headings. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Threshold for Autopatrolled rights

Title shortened from "Reduce the threshold to qualify for Autopatrolled rights to 25 articles created" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

After a discussion at WT:Autopatrolled I propose that the requirement for gaining Autopatrolled rights following requests at WP:PERM be lowered from 50 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created to 25 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created (or, at the least, somewhere in the range of 20–30 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created). The revised text at WP:Autopatrolled would thus read:

A suggested standard is the prior creation of 50 25 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages [at the discretion of the granting administrator]†.
† Note: The bracketed text in italics is a suggested addition of mine, but can be considered separate from the proposal of lowering the article creation threshold for Autopatrolled rights.

The purpose of this proposal is two-fold:

  1. To help reduce the workload on our WP:NPP and our WP:Page Curation crews, who shouldn't be wasting time on having to "review" new articles created by experienced (and presumably "trusted") mid-level editors.
  2. To allow our experienced mid-level editors the opportunity to be granted Autopatrolled user rights, rights which should not be reserved for our "super content creators" (i.e. who have created 50+ articles – a difficult number for most volunteer editors, even mid-level ones, to achieve).

Background

Currently, there are three ways editors obtain Autopatrolled user rights (and I'm essentially requoting Admin WereSpielChequers below, from this discussion):

  1. Some admins, probably at New pages patrol will come across newish editors who have clearly grasped notability and referencing and just appoint them as Autopatrolled.
  2. Some editors get nominated or are nominated for this user right (at WP:PERM/A).
  3. Editors request Autopatrolled rights themselves at WP:PERM/A.

Originally, the required threshold for route #3 was 75 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created(!), a seemingly high threshold, indeed.

In early 2011, a discussion was launched here – Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Autopatrolled - reduce number of qualifying articles – to lower the original 75 article created threshold. While there was no firm consensus at that time what the article creation threshold level should be reduced to, there appears to have been no opposition to lowering the article creation threshold level at that time, and a figure 20–25 articles created was often mentioned as a desirable level. With no firm consensus for an exact number of articles created for the threshold, WhatamIdoing reduced the level to 50 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created in the text at WP:Autopatrolled as a reasonable compromise.

Based on more recent discussions – at WT:Autopatrolled (with a somewhat related discussion, here) – I am again proposing a reduction in the threshold to be granted Autopatrolled rights, this time making the threshold 25 (non-redirect, non-disambiguation) valid articles created (or, somewhere in the 20–30 article creation range).

I have collected some data ahead of this proposal, mostly from the Top 5,000 article creators as listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count (other data is hard to come by, as a result of the halting of data collection (e.g. this) by Bots over time...), focusing on the article counts in the 'Non-redirects' column, and found at total of 218 editors in that list that have created 20–49 (non-redirect) articles – of that total, approximately 12% already have Autopatrolled user rights(!). (More details on this data I collected can be found here, and can be pasted over to this topic, upon request...).

Bottom line: I am seeing no major problems with lowering the article creation threshold at WP:Autopatrolled to 25 articles (and, indeed, a significant percentage of these editors already have Autopatrolled rights), and the editors who have already weighed in on this proposal have been supportive.

Please indicate your support, opposition, or other thoughts on this proposal, below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support - I've thought, ever since I became familiar with what the autopatrolled user right grants, that 50 was a bit high. I think 25-30 valid articles would suffice. The proposed number is enough for a good intentioned editor to learn what is and is not appropriate. Those with bad intentions or the want to sneak an article with an inappropriate topic or content into the encyclopedia are not likely to take the time to create 25-ish valid articles and request the permission, this would take a tremendous amount of effort. We have other means in place (e.g. copyright bots, users glancing at pages that have already been patrolled on the list, reaching it through a tag applied through another method, or just a user stumbling across it, etc.) to prevent "bad" articles/content from existing for very long. The only thing this user right really does is very slightly lighten the load at New-page patrolling; I don't think inappropriate content is likely to last that much longer even if the user creating it has the right.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reducing to 25 new articles. By the time an editor has created around 25 new articles, I feel that they would be experienced enough to have their articles autopatrolled. Admins can always remove the user right if necessary. Nakon 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree 25 new articles instead of 50 is reasonable. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I was unaware of this requirement. 50 is very high if we are to set a one-size-fits-all threshold. That means a user who has created 5 FAs and 44 GAs does not qualify. I also think the language should be changed significantly. 50 "valid" articles? What is a "valid" article? I would say without any guidance that a "valid" article implies little more than one that either was looked at and not marked for deletion under any process, or would not have reasonably qualified for deletion if it had been looked at. In other words, the "valid" standard means to me that a user who created [whatever X number we set] poor and even problematic articles, but on notable topics – that require for example, refimprove tags or similar – would qualify for the autopatroller flag. I propose instead:
  • "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 25 valid articles (not including redirects or disambiguation pages), with at least the 10 most recently created not reasonably needing maintenance tags or other new pages patroller attention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think having "none of the 10 most recently created articles having 'maintenance tags' (e.g. {{Refimprove}})" may be too high a standard. As I said recently in a discussion at WT:RfA (I think), I will sometime "self-tag" articles with {{Refimprove}} or {{Primary source}} because it's not always easy finding sources for every article topic (e.g. train station articles is one example that I can think of where sourcing is often hard to come by), and I'm not sure an editor should not be granted Autopatrolled status just for that kind of thing... I think I'd be more comfortable with wording that doesn't mention a "specific number of articles" without "tags".
    However, it's for this kind of thing as to why I suggested adding the "...at the discretion of the granting administrator" wording, as it would give Admins the discretion to not grant Autopatrolled even to editors with 25 "valid" articles if the granting Admin was worried about an editor "gaming the system" or creating a series of "sloppy" (but perhaps still technically "valid") articles just to "hat collect" for Autopatrolled rights. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@IJBall: You're addressing an extreme rarity and one that would not even be within the spirit of the language. The point is that if a person who seeks the autopatroller flag has been creating articles that need patrolling (by third-parties), why should we give them a right that allows them to bypass that very patrolling? It's almost a syllogism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with "none of the 10 most recently created articles having maintenance tags" is that we have some aggressive new-page patrollers who believe that it's their duty to make sure that every single article begins its life with their special way of "encouraging" the editor to improve the article. This is particularly true if you start a page and save it before you're finished creating a perfect article. Did you save the page for the sole purpose of looking up the category that you wanted to place it in? Boom: you win a maintenance tag. Did you "only" add one stellar source in the first version of the article? I'm sure someone will be along any second now to add {{one source}}. Are you writing about a technical or mathematical subject? You can expect a maintenance tag to complain about that. The bottom line is that "getting a maintenance tag" and "needing patrolling" are unrelated. "Needing patrolling" means "needed a CSD tag", not "'needed' a tag telling you to do what you were about to do anyway". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support since it doesn't take 50 articles to demonstrate decent writing skills and a grasp of the policies. That said, perhaps the number should be left at 50 for self-nomination. This would give administrators a clear green light for adding the user-right to those who demonstrate competence in this area, while ensuring that those who want it for purposes other than reducing the "new page patrol" workload will have to work for it a bit longer. If someone else doesn't notice good quality work by the time the count gets that high, maybe there is a reason. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal as written is to drop the level to 25 valid articles for "self-nominators" specifically. Those otherwise nominated for (or granted) Autopatrolled rights are already effectively held to a standard lower than 50 valid articles. Leaving it at 50 for self-nominators defeats the purpose of this proposal and guts it. The fact is, 25 created articles is enough evidence for Admins to quickly look through them and determine if self-nominators have demonstrated the skill necessary to be granted Autoreviewer rights or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The suggestion was intended to mean that we could also consider amending the written guideline to formally allow admins to grant the right at 25 new articles, but still leave the self-nomination criteria at 50. The reason for this is that some new users might expect to be approved as soon as they have written 25 articles and self-nominate, but some of their early work might not have been up to the standards that are expected. This could leave the reviewing admin with an insufficient number of examples to review, and lead to hurt feelings when the admin refuses the request. If the self-nomination requires 50 new articles, there would likely be enough good work for the admin to review, even if the earliest examples were sub-par. In fact, admins aren't likely to look at the earliest examples if the editor's later work show that the editor now understands and applies the applicable guidelines. By requiring 50 new articles for self-nomination, the chance of driving away editors who apply too soon is reduced. Regardless of whether this version is considered or not, my vote was still a support vote for this proposal. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the support. But I just want to reiterate that what you are suggesting would defeat the entire purpose of the proposal – the current "50 new (valid) article" requirement is specifically for those who self-nominate at WP:PERM. But to your concerns, I would encourage you to look through the data analysis I posted up at WereSpielChequers' Talk page – the gist was that the vast majority of editors I looked at with 20 or more created articles were long-time trusted editors, at least half of whom already had other user rights such as Reviewer and Rollback, and who IMO should not be forced to create 50 articles (which is a seriously high hurdle for most volunteer editors to clear) to ask for Autopatrolled rights. I think one way to satisfy your concerns would be to add the "...at the discretion of the granting administrator" part to the sentence above... But I think the type of concern you are worried about would be a very, very small percentage of PERM requests, and I think the Admins there could quickly catch on to anyone trying to "game the system". Thus, I'm not totally sure "...at the discretion of the granting administrator" language is even necessary (i.e. adding might be redundant)... But further refinements to the exact wording above can certainly be considered, if not here then at WT:Autopatrolled. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In reality, we "formally allow" admins to "grant this right at their discretion to trusted users who regularly create articles and have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". That's the actual rule; the "50 valid articles" is merely a suggestion. (The "at the discretion of the granting administrator" language is unnecessary, because it's already present in the actual rule, which is the sentence immediately before the optional suggestion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Yeah, you're right – I noticed that when I made the change to "25" valid articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: It'll be coming up on one month since I originally suggested this change at WT:Autopatrolled next week. In that time, there has so far been no objections to this proposal. Thus, it is very likely I am going to take the initiative and change the number from 50 to 25 valid articles at WP:Autopatrolled, probably late next week. Nonetheless, any other comments here (or at WT:Autopatrolled) are welcome in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This shaves a good portion of the load on new page patrollers while only introducing slight risk. I would support bring the bar even lower, maybe to 15 articles, although hat collecting may be a bigger problem at that point. This also prevents obviously trusted users' articles from being immediately tagged for speedy deletion by trigger-happy patrollers. Esquivalience t 03:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Speaking from experience, I've been a member of the site for just over seven months, and in that time I've created 15 articles. 3 of which (hopefully soon to be 4) I have single-handedly got up to FL, 1 of which (hopefully soon to be 2) I have single-handedly got up to GA, and only 1 article I've made has been deleted, for reasons I now clearly understand. Yet, despite all stated above, I have to create 35 more articles to even apply for autopatrolled rights to take some of the load of the new page patrollers. I more than agree with you, and the above user, that the bar should be lowered, perhaps to 20-25 or even less articles. Azealia911 talk 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's unlikely that an editor who has created 25 valid (i.e., undeleted/unlikely to be deleted) articles is going to start creating CSD-able material. The main (some would say "sole") purpose of patrolling is to find pages that require speedy deletion. We have had very little trouble with autopatrolled editors. This is a low risk and a potentially significant benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Implemented With no opposition to this proposal either here, or at WT:Autopatrolled, in over a month, I have gone ahead and changed the suggested standard for Autopatrolled to "...the prior creation of 25 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages." I have made no other changes, except to the number of articles itself, as any further changes would likely require more discussion. Thanks again to all who participated in this discussion! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike V • Talk 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove In the news from the top of the Main Page?

A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. However, in order to see the formatting, you must enable the "Show the new version of the Main Page currently under development" gadget under the Testing and development section in your preferences.

In the current redesign draft, In the news has been removed from the top of the page. Currently under discussion is whether or not to put it back.   The Transhumanist 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?

Title shortened from "How to write on moral/ethical acts/behaviors that are treated negatively today but not during the time of the original topic?" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Brought back original section title, for precision. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't shorten section titles in talk pages by just chopping off some words. Undesirable refactoring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Shortened again, as breaking TOC & overloading edit summaries Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that is a circumstantial approach: the treatment of the topic warrants it being defined properly in the section title. Find consensus on a short version of the section title before implementing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion continued at WT:VPP#Bad heading --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There's been a very very slow edit war issue at Revenge of the Nerds (a movie produced in 1984), involving a scene where a male character tricks a female character into having sex with him by disguising himself as her current boyfriend, and she doesn't learn this until after that fact. Now, in today's society, where we place strong emphasis on consent and woman's rights, this clearly would be considered sexual assault or similar, but at the time this film was produced - in a period where the idea of "free love" was still popular - no one would have batted an eye, and laughed at the comedy. In the article, the issue has been whether to treat the scene within the plot summary in modern terms, calling it as sexual assault or similar, or to handle the situation as at the time the work was produced and simply say that she was tricked.

I can see this being an issue on other topic areas as moral and ethics of the mainstream culture change, so the broader question is that when writing on a topic that is "historical" (done and completed in the past), do we apply modern moral and ethics aspects in describing acts and attitudes that would be taken negatively today, or stay to the morals/ethics that were in place at that time? My gut says the latter , based on our handling of censorship, in that we don't ignore or attempt to wave away how society worked at earlier times if those attitudes are very contrary to society's attitudes today. However, this seems like a point for more discussion that can affect WP at large. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In the specific case of this film, I think it clear that when describing the plot we should relate "just the facts" without shoehorning the words "sexually assaults her by tricking..." into the synopsis. If RS have commented on that part of the storyline, discussing it as a rape scene, that can go in the article but in the Reception section. Is that the general consensus at that article?
With regard to the more general question, is this not the approach we already take? Consider the article on pederasty: in many cases this would count as paedophilia in modern mores. However the article describes it factually. Though it should not condone, there is no need to condemn. BethNaught (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes on the first point: I was about to add that my question in no way precludes adding more recent sources that describe the scene as assault in the article's section on the film's reception; just whether that should be carried into the plain plot description or not. Past discussions on the article agree to avoid shoehorning in the sexual assault aspect but we keep getting random IP and editors that put it back in, and I'm wondering if in the broader scope can codify something like this to establish why we keep it that way. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to ask whether our article needs to mention that particular scene in the first place. It's a fairly minor plot element that could easily be omitted. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Just reflect the sources. It isn't usually that difficult and I do not understand why this is a potential policy issue. If it was once described as A but is now described as B, and assuming both sources are otherwise reliable, then show both and perhaps include an explicit date attribution rather than just relying on the citation. It is not our role to pick/choose between them - some things, such as value judgements, have to be left to the reader. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that as with most films that aren't thought provoking, they don't get a detailed plot summary in any reliable source, but this scene stands out today and has been commented in secondary sources published in recent years that calls the scene out as a sexual assault. So we have no sources (beyond the primary work itself) against the weight of the secondary sources that are more recent. And it seems wrong to give these sources that weight when it wasn't an issue before. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Don't those modern secondaries even, say, (paraphrase) "this was used to be considered A but now is B"? If not, then they may not even be reliable because they're not approaching the subject "in the round". Tbh, and with no knowledge of the subject, this looks like a possible candidate for the US-centric feminist studies agenda and that is often dodgy territory, filled more with op-eds and confirmation bias than true academia. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You can see some of the sources that have been used to try to justify this addition from this diff [8]. I have yet had a chance to look at the ones available to see if they comment on what the situation was at the time of the film, but I would certainly agree that if they do say "Then it was X, now it is Y", that's more justification for keeping the plot summary as "then", and making sure to address the "now" as post-release reception/analysis within the article. It is not a point to ignore if RSes today are calling it something far more extreme than it was originally, but we should be placing that in a proper perspective within the article. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It was removed for a more general statement at one point [9], but it was added back in to shoehorn the assault angle [10]. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not very happy at the way the original question is worded ("...in today's society, where we place strong emphasis on consent and woman's rights, this clearly would be considered sexual assault or similar ...). I'm pretty sure that in real life this would have been considered rape (by that or another name), then as now. I see the difference more in attitudes to fictional representations of such actions, just as extreme violence, homicide, illegal acts by law enforcers, etc. are regularly portrayed in a positive light, where such actions would not be tolerated in real life. I agree, though, that it is not generally Wikipedia's job to make moral or legal classifications of such fictional acts (as opposed to reporting on critics' judgements). We don't, and shouldn't make such classifications in the synopsis of The Miller's Tale, either. I think this distinction is also relevant to the more general question. --Boson (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not meant to phrase it to sound that way, and you're right in that assessment. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
How about a "Controversies" section?
For a well-known extreme example of this issue, compare with how changing mores are handled in Lewis Carroll. His hobbies included photographing nude prepubescent girls (normally posed outside, with parental permission and often presence). Today he and the parents would be locked up and the girls would be seized by child-protective services. Back then, it was considered entirely normal by everybody involved. Choor monster (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
(tangent) We need fewer "controversies" sections, not more. A controversy is an "action of disputing or contending one with another" (per OED) or an "argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about something" (per Merriam-Webster). Far too many "blog X or commentator Y said this about Z" are classified as controversies on Wikipedia. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
And this really isn't a "controversy" in that there's an active thing going on, just that it is a point of contention that is used to show how that film and others like it from that period had several issues (as judged by today's standards). Definitely a paragraph for an existing "reception" section but no need for a controversy section. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a controversy when individuals still believe today that the phrase, "tricked into having sex", wouldn't be considered rape in 1984. And that part of the movie was cringe-worthy to audiences at the time. But most important here is the fact that when one googles "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Rape" there are multiple hits about the topic. Not including it within the Wikipedia article just makes Wikipedia appear dated and behind on the issue.MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Google hit #1's site terms start out with "Birth.Movies.Death. makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy of the Content."[11] That's not what we call a "reliable source". It only gets worse from there with the "sources" that make a fuss about this "technically" being a rape in 2015, when it was merely a plot device in a 1984 comedy. This is simply ridiculous. Doc talk 08:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Rape was used as a plot point. This is a huge problem that John Hughes choice to do over and over and over again in teen movies no less. You may consider rape ridiculous, but I guarantee it isn't. Rape is a pervasive problem in the world and should not be ignored as you seem so intent on doing. Movies with rape scenes like these have only caused more individuals getting raped. This laissez–faire attitude needs to go and the least Wikipedia can do is acknowledge these facts. See add'l Google search: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No one is questioning that since that film (and others like it), the behavior they demonstrate does not resonate well with modern moral standards and the new seriousness to which we take issues like rape; this should be discussed in the reception of the film in the article. But in terms of describing the word, in no way are the attitudes of the characters on screen react as if this is a serious crime, but instead as a prank and a plot point. (To that end, that's why the issue now is highlighted). In this case, recognizing that the film did not make a major issue on this being a crime is a remnant of very loose sexual attitudes at the time. As such, to avoid POV-ness, we should not be trying to push the point that what happened was was a crime in the plot summary of the film when the film did not treat it as such, those easily should be discussing that in the reception. (Consider, for example, in many many many action films that the hero kills henchmen left and right - what would be real life murder and manslaughter changes - but ignored for the fiction of the work) --MASEM (t) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
1984 was not a time of "very loose sexual attitudes." This was a time when everyone was becoming very aware of HIV/AIDS. The fact is that plot point in "Revenge of the Nerds" is rape. This "prank" involves the raping of a woman. What happened here is a crime. The bigger crime would be to not acknowledge that it was rape. Is Wikipedia now promoting rape culture by misleading our readers about the truth. I'll even go one further, if internet blogs were around in 1984, this plot point would have been a much bigger known issue at the time of the release of this movie. FYI - I would also have no problem calling the hero a murderer because that's exactly what it is. MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 22:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind this is a work of fiction, so the "truth" is only what is on the big screen, which is why it is important to frame it as it is presented and taking into account the lack of opinions on this at the time of the film's release. Applying moral judgement to a work when that moral judgement is not present in the work is a violation of NPOV. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
For me the question is not what the attitudes were at the time of society in general, but that of Hollywood and of the target audience of the movie, and how those compare to Hollywood and of the comparable target audience of the movie today. I actually wonder whether those attitudes have changed, but that is my speculation and not suitable for a Wikipedia article unless a RS has written about it. For NPOV in specifically in the plot discussion, I would suggest not using sexual assault (violation of NPOV toward seriousness) or trick (violation of NPOV away from seriousness) but rather as stark down the middle as possible (NPOV) such as "X posed as Y to have sex with Z. Z discovered this after the sex and was angry at X." or some such without labeling what happened. Then any RS commentary belongs in a Reception section. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem of this strange plot device is compounded with the "was angry at X" part because in the film, Betty's anger at being deceived lasts only a few seconds before she "forgives" Louis... for being so good in bed. This cannot be considered a "rape", especially when viewing it in the lens of the culture of the time. Films such as Losin' It, Porky's, Fraternity Vacation, e.g. ad nauseum, attest to the decidedly different attitudes towards sex in the early 1980's in mainstream film comedies. It was a different time, and is in the genre of a "sex comedy". It is a terrible plot device that the viewer must suspend disbelief for. It makes no sense that she wouldn't know that it wasn't Stan (a man she'd been dating for some time) until Louis pulled the mask off, only then to discover that he was actually better than Stan. It's not supposed to make sense: it's an '80's comedy. We can't rightfully call that scene a "rape" in the context in which it is presented. Doc talk 07:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
In reply to an earlier comment: One of the problems with talking about rape is that there is a distinction between rape and Legal Rape™. Some editors adhere to the plain-English definition; others are more concerned about the narrower legal definitions. "Tricked into having sex" still isn't legally rape in some places or under some circumstances. If editors want to include a reference to this, then it might make sense to link directly to Rape by impersonation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Even linking it creates absolutely necessary confusion. Again, in the film it is not treated as rape. Within a matter of mere seconds, Betty decides it was consensual sex. No. Rape. Occurred. She and Louis immediately become an item. If Betty had considered it rape in the film, we could link it to rape by deception. No revisionism must occur here. Doc talk 05:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Any notion that all people of good will would not have considered this behavior a form of sexual assault in 1984 is arrant foolishness. I began sexual activity at the height of the so called "sexual revolution" in 1970, and this kind of trickery was considered criminally disgusting even then. And I was an active San Francisco bachelor in those years. Deriving notions of sexual morality common to a place and point in time from exploitative teenage sexy "shock" films is an exercise in futility. Describe the plot points accurately. If sexual assault by deception is a plot point, say so accurately, and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I personally know of a case where an identical twin raped his brother's girlfriend: true rape by deception. That ended in a criminal judgement in real life. I don't know what costume parties you attended in the past, and that's TMI original research anyway, but stretching this insane little shortcut plot device into a crime? Whatever. Political correctness is all the rage these days, so I figure I know where this is going. Doc talk 06:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we not just dig up at least one reliable source to say, "This would be considered rape today"? I think that would be more than sufficient. Just one source, but more than one ideally. Keeping in mind that the source must specifically discuss the term "rape" or "rape by deception" and this film in the same article. Not like the previous sources that merely defined rape without mentioning this film at all. Then we can properly cite them without editorializing. Doc talk 06:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The general question

Title shortened from "The general question of historical behavior and changing standards" - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific case mentioned above is quite interesting, but I would like to discuss the general question. At one time, large numbers of people had no problem with owning slaves. Today it is generally considered to be a bad thing. At one time, blasphemy was considered on of the worst behaviors possible. Now we call it "The Internet". :) I fully expect that in the future society will look upon the currently acceptable practice of commenting on someone being sent to prison with a joke about prison rape as being unacceptable behavior, just as the attitudes of society have recently changed about jokes involving rape by deception. Without getting into the specifics of the examples above, my general question is this:

How should we handle pages about behavior that happened under different societal standards than we hold today?

There will almost always be modern sources condemning practices that used to be acceptable, but sources that condemn practices that used to be acceptable while mentioning that they used to be acceptable are far rarer, and sources that specifically mention that what was once unacceptable is now acceptable are rarer still. This means that simply following the weight of the sources could give a false impression as to whether the people mentioned in articles about the past (some of whom are still alive, thus raising BLP concerns) violated societal norms at the time the behavior occurred. How should we handle this? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a more succinct way to phrase what I was getting at --MASEM (t) 02:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
From an editor's POV, I have often found that in historical articles, even BIO articles. Things like the name of Lovecraft's cat, for example, wasn't a problem. Tesla was at the very least, a "social" anti-Semite. Catholics taught Jews killed Jesus until 1962.At their respective times, those were "acceptable" things. Conversely, single mothers, children out of wedlock and homosexuality were things that were "unacceptable" and not a big a deal now. So first of all, it goes both ways.
Historical transposition (which is judging history by modern standards) is a major scholarly no-no, by the way, which is what we risk falling into by not framing these things properly. Therefore, shouldn't it be necessary from an info perspective to give the historical context? We don't seem to have a problem with that on articles that chart the development of a country, an idea, or an institution, so why should it be any different for a person? Yes, it comes across as "apologetic", but again, we see it that way because of historical transposition (which we should not be doing). MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@MSJapan: Can you provide any published guidelines (from academic sources) on the best practices for addressing "historical transposition"? It seems to me we could build on these to create a WP Guideline for dealing with this issue here. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Or, I could just see what's out there myself. :-P ... Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
WOOF! there are a lot of uses for that term that do not help here. It is going to take quite a bit of research to find appropriate best practices on this topic. If someone else starts the essay I will help where I can but I am in over my head on the initial research. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Koala Tea Of Mercy: I see that search term's a mess (maybe it is indeed specialized?), so I went backwards from a definition and found we have an article on this! See Presentism (literary and historical analysis). It's also related to Historian's fallacy. I'll try those as search bases. I also think we need a subsection for this, or a sandbox - this is going to be a sub-sub-thread otherwise, and a pain to navigate. MSJapan (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly the situation that my above example is around. I agree we should figure out how to draft something like this into a guideline (not sure if we need policy necessarily). It does sound like there is the general agreement that we avoid presentism/historical transposition in presenting the "primary" aspect of the topic, but certainly not to avoid that in the "secondary" aspect (reception/criticism/etc.) --MASEM (t) 22:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@MSJapan - re: historical transposition. Spot on. This is way below degree level stuff in UK schools and I am astonished that it is a theoretical issue here. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Having given this further thought, this really should be a component of NPOV, because doing this is exactly contrary to neutral presentation. MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

re. "this really should be a component of NPOV": Added a section to WP:NPOV to that effect --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that solved that! It looks good, although the opening sentence is perhaps a bit passive. Now, does it need a policy shortcut, and if so, what should it be and how is that done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etamni (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oops, forgot to sign that. Thanks Sinebot! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  11:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Created WP:PRESENTISM shortcut (with DAB hatnotes for WP:RECENTISM, a concept with a longer tradition in Wikipedia guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Which page?

And just like that, it was moved to another location by another editor. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FYI I've moved it to one of the sub-pages regarding it. The main page explains the high-level concepts, while the others go into specifics such as this case. Stickee (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Options
  1. At WP:NPOV policy
  2. At NPOV/FAQ page
  3. Other? (e.g. WP:NPOV tutorial?)
  • Prefer option #1: adding a question to make it fit the format of the FAQ page seems artificial; Also, policy should be clear about it (and it can't be really "derived" from guidance already present in the policy). The new section is short, not really questioned for its applicability, and explains the concept sufficiently to make it work. I don't oppose additional explanations (e.g. at the tutorial page), but think it belongs in the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • #3. I would say the preferred option is to spin it off into it's own essay page, similar to these ones. Stickee (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Following on from what Masem said ("should be treated descriptively not prescriptively") I've created a spinoff article (Wikipedia:Presentism) regarding it and placed the content there which can provide guidance and advice to editors. This is similar to many of the other NPOV-related articles, including WP:COATRACK and WP:CRIT. Stickee (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, this first assumes the text in its current form is acceptable at all, which hasn't been answered. Stickee (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the addition acceptable in the first place?

The text, as proposed by Francis Schonken, is as follows:

Presentism, judging historical events by current standards, should be avoided. Instead, explain –without undue weight– what reliable sources have said regarding changed standards with respect to the topic. Example: don't hush up the fact that Dvořák's 12th String Quartet was once nicknamed Negro, because of its perceived political incorrectness by today's standards, but find sources that explain when and why the former nickname was abandoned

Thoughts relating to it?

  • I'm not too happy with it. Doesn't explain how to talk about it if the sources don't say anything regard "changing standards". Also, as Masem said, we should "certainly not avoid [presentism] in the "secondary" aspect (reception/criticism/etc.)". Stickee (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Re. "Doesn't explain how to talk about it if the sources don't say anything regard "changing standards"." – then talk about it according to WP:IMPARTIAL (i.e. don't mention changing standards if sources don't). That part was already covered by policy, didn't need a repeat in the new section
    • Re. "we should "certainly not avoid [presentism] in the "secondary" aspect (reception/criticism/etc.)"" – that is of course addressed by the new proposed text "... explain ... what reliable sources have said regarding changed standards with respect to the topic." --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Sometimes the sources don't talk about the changing standards with specific aspect to the work in question, though we as editors can clearly see that a more recent viewpoint has been taken because of standards that have changed. (eg I don't believe any of the sources in question on Revenge of the Nerds above necessarily talk about how the 1980s were a different time from today) I think we need some editorial allowance that rests on obvious perceptions of changed standards. Obviously when sourced it is much better for us per NOR, but this is not always possible and I can see some editors going "you can't show sources there were changed standards so we must obviously go with these sources" in the face of the obviousness of the situation. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • That's however not for policy level: policy should create awareness of the presentism issue, and cannot allow to add personal thoughts for which there is no WP:V, and/or draw in sources that are not directly related to the subject of the article (the WP:NOR aspect). The proposed "change" in the policy is that it allows greater weight for sources that say something about it, while in general such sources are rare, as explained above; and adding an encouragement to go look for such sources even if they're hard to find. For me a tutorial is the right place to give more guidance on how to tackle such issues in various practical settings, but introducing the topic at policy level, without contradicting other core content policy, is imho a first important step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
        • FYI this 2009 source gives some background on changing perceptions regarding Revenge of the Nerds and similar films. Yes, I think "I don't believe any of the sources ... on Revenge of the Nerds ... talk about how the 1980s were a different time from today" is too easy: when it's a notable shift in perception/standards/... (in a way that Wikipedia should talk about it) then there's usually a source to be found. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)My concern is based on extrapolation to an extreme that I believe can happen with an entrenched viewpoint. Taking Revenge of the Nerds again, if in the hypothetical case, the only way that the scene is question is discussed is from recent sources presented it in the light of modern morals without any comment on that the 1980s were a different time: I can see entrenched editors going "Look, this is the only way that scene is described in sources, we must present as such", while common sense of just being aware of the film's presentation and general understanding of views at that time are counter that, but not documented. (For Revenge, however, there are sources that place the time period in context, which you pointed out while I was writing this reply; I'm just giving the hypothetical extreme). I think this current text captures most of the issues, and as policy and/or guideline it should be treated descriptively not prescriptively, but I can still see the potential edit war come from this, and just wonder can try to make sure the extreme case ID'd above is not evoked by the language. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
            • I stand by "create awareness" at policy level, & elaborate practical issues in tutorials, essays, guidelines, etc. I don't really work with hypothetical examples when proposing policy text (either there is an issue that can be demonstrated, or we should not elaborate on it in policy), but I can see your point: however for that point no policy addition is necessary. If old sources say a film is good and new sources say a film is bad (without any source noticing the difference in appreciation can be linked to a change in moral standards), then say "source X from 19xx says the firm is good, source Y from 20xx says the film is bad" (and let the reader connect the dots per WP:NPOV). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
There is also a NOR issue here. We can't say that societal views have changed without sources that note the fact. There could well be disagreement between editors as to whether standards have changed over time. As an example... I don't think people back in the 80s viewed what was depicted in the scene in RotN any differently than people do today. Our views on the scene haven't changed, what has changed is the amount of advocacy from the womens rights movement about scenes like that... I am reminded of an quip I read in the early 80s, about the rise of gay advocacy... it went something along the lines of "the love that once dared not speak its name - now won't shut up!" This quip tells us nothing about societal changes in attitude (whether gays were more or less accepted in the 80s compared to an earlier time) ... what it does tell us is that there was a shift in the amount of advocacy. While once gays hid away in the closet, they were now (in the 80s) coming out and taking pride... and advocating about gay issues. I think a similar rise in advocacy has occurred on many social issues. I don't think societies views on things have changed all that much since the 80s... it's more that we are more outspoken about those things today than we were back then.
Now, others may disagree with my take on all that... which is fine... I only raise it to make a broader point. I don't have a source to support anything I just said. I think my view is correct, but I have no support for my view. so... I could not add any of what I just said to an article... doing so would be an NOR violation. the same applies to contrary opinions that are not supported by sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't find this to be a very helpful concept. While we shouldn't judge historical events by current standards, we also shouldn't judge current events by current standards, or historical events by historical standards. We shouldn't judge at all. I think it's easier and more effective to simply view the examples that have been raised through the broader lens of WP:NPOV. If we are writing in a neutrally descriptive manner, the issue of whether cultural norms have changed is not relevant, because our writing shouldn't rely on implicit cultural norms.--Trystan (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this proposal is unhelpful. Ultimately we follow the sources. If the reliable sources judge the events by today's standards then the article will have to reflect that. The proposal also refers to "political incorrectness", a vague and contested concept. Neljack (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Presentism essay

Just expanded WP:Presentism, with "step1/2/3" sections. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Question: add either the {{essay}} or the {{proposed}} template to the WP:Presentism page? I'd be inclined to choose the second. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I love the page, and took the liberty of adding {{essay}}. I would support a guideline to this effect, but the page is much too long to be a guideline in its current form. I also worry that it doesn't add much to the policy already present at WP:NPOV. A2soup (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The murderer Gesualdo

Currently the first paragraph of the lede of the article on Carlo Gesualdo reads:

Carlo Gesualdo (Venosa, 30 March 1566 – Gesualdo, 8 September 1613), also known as Gesualdo da Venosa (Gesualdo from Venosa), Prince of Venosa and Count of Conza, was an Italian nobleman, lutenist, murderer and composer of the late Renaissance era.

I'd like to review that in the context of the presentism topic, specifically the third of the four wikilinked qualifiers ("... murderer ...") which imho seems too much of a presentist slant. Ideas?

Note that the topic had been treated at Talk:Carlo Gesualdo#Hmm, but the current version of the article (no longer?) follows the apparent outcome of that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As a general point, murder has always been seen as a violation of the Ten Commandments in the Judeo-Christian world. So how is it presentist? Doug Weller (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, at least based on that article, at the time it was clear what happened was considered murder. There's a style issue listing "murderer" among other accomplishments but that's not a presentism issue. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, it was actually not considered murder at the time afaik (from the sources I read on it before Wikipedia existed), that's why I was so surprised by the presentist slant of the Wikipedia article. And the presentism seems to be able to convince a casual reader... Well indeed there's a problem here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
How do other sources put it? This 1926 book by Philip Heseltine is titled Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa, Musician and Murderer. Then there's "American Architect and Architecture - Volume 26 - Page 224 " In 1590 it was the scene of a tragic murder. On the 18th of May of that year, Carlo Gesualdo, the third Prince of Venosa and eighth Count of Consa, murdered hie wife in one of its rooms. The many inhabitants of the various floors were saved American Architect and Architecture - Volume 26 - Page 224 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yqUwAQAAIAAJ 1889 - In 1590 it was the scene of a tragic murder. On the 18th of May of that year, Carlo Gesualdo, the third Prince of Venosa and eighth Count of Consa, murdered hie wife in one of its rooms. The many inhabitants of the various floors were saved ... Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
In what time scale is 1889 closer to 1590 than to 2015? "Contemporary" is for instance the official report produced on 17 October 1590, the next day, which leaves no doubt the gruesome killing was done by Gesualdo. But "murderer" I don't think so (at the time). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realise you meant contemporary sources. Just the one? Why would we assume that was the general opinion of murder at that time? Because that's what we should be talking about, not about what an official report says. At that time and in that area, are you saying that such a killing - by anyone- wouldn't be considered murder? Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"by anyone"? There being no separation of powers, a prince like Gesualdo had something to say about life and death of adulterers in the area where he reigned, also moral judgements about summary execution, torture and/or post mortem mutilation of criminals, personal involvement of the judge and executioner, etc. were somewhat different at the time I believe. That's at least how I heard the story "pre-Wikipedia" – seems about time to go looking for that version in reliable sources. Give me some time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It is actually a fair question if what we have documented at that time period considered what happened as the crime of murder (the current article suggestions everything that points to that, but that's not necessarily evidence of that fact), or if such activity was "overlooked" in the manner given his position within the ruling class. (It would not be today, obviously). That said, this is also far enough back in time that we may not have any absolute assurance of how the events transpired to the general public, and in such cases, when we can only rely on modern sources, we might be forced to accept those. (Contrast that to the Revenge of the Nerds case as we can easily review the original work to know the intent there). --MASEM (t) 18:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Reiterating from where I thought it useful to discuss this example here: is the new proposed guidance of WP:Presentism useful?

  1. Re. Doug Weller's general point ("murder has always been seen as a violation of the Ten Commandments in the Judeo-Christian world") – a no-no for WP:Presentism#Step 1 – avoid presentism from a Wikipedia editor's perspective: Ten commandments? I've never seen these mentioned in a discussion of Gesualdo's biography. Here's a Wikipedia editor deciding how the relative importance of "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was appreciated in Gesualdo's time. You can discuss "Ten commandements" all you want, for Gesualdo's biography it is pure 100% loss of time: no reliable sources seem to frame it in this way, instead one gets "A Renaissance historian, though, might advise that the business of the murders has been blown out of proportion. On the moral spectrum of the time, it was nothing too extreme."[1] in a reliable source.
    So for the new essay score +1 I'd think.
  2. The "smoking gun", i.e. a reliable source that "analyses how the perception of a particular historical fact may have changed over time or may have been influenced by current moral standards" (as the newly proposed WP:Presentism#Step 3 – look for reliable sources that analyse changes in perception regarding the topic has it) I have not found (yet). Alex Ross' piece gives some onsets, like the one quoted above, "(The law could not touch him, ...",[1] and a somewhat diffuse warning against the speculation in the 1926 Gesualdo biography that had "murderer" in its title ("the book Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa, Musician and Murderer, a mixture of biography, analysis, and speculation"),[1] however the general idea remains something like "got away with murder", which for me is rather something reminiscent of O. J. Simpson than of Carlo Gesualdo. There's no coherent "analysis" of a changing perception regarding Gesualdo's acts in Ross' piece. I'll continue looking for more sources, but in the mean while there's no indication that "step 3" of the newly proposed guidance will lead to anything for Gesualdo's biographical article.
  3. WP:Presentism#Step 2 – be aware that descriptions in reliable sources may be influenced by presentism is hardly groundbreaking new guidance, it's more like "what one can do" if there's no reliable source with a separate analysis of changing perceptions regarding the topic, as contained in current guidance on the matter. By and large Gesualdo's Wikipedia biography complies: some finetunings are possible (e.g. a clearer distinction between established fact and possible speculation), so it's up to the previous point whether the new proposed guidance may make a distinctive mark in the Gesualdo example.

References

  1. ^ a b c Alex Ross. "Gesualdo: 'The Prince of Darkness'" in The New Yorker. December 19 and 26, 2011.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think "murderer" is at all unreasonable. It was a huge and notorious scandal, known over all Europe. I see the entry on Venosa in the "Grove Dictionary of Art" says "Overlords included the celebrated composer and murderer Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa (1566–1613)....". The article certainly needs a better account and sourcing - can no one access Grove Music? I have removed some gossip and replaced the nonsense about "being a nobleman he was exempt from prosecution" - he had to make a rapid getaway to Venosa, where he was the ruler. If it had ever got to court, no doubt the issue of the crime of passion would have been relevant, but this is essentially a defence against a charge of murder, still valid in France, Texas etc, which does not stop the action being a murder. I can't see presentism is an issue here at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, a Wikipedian dispensing his own interpretation of the facts (21st century France and Texas???). Nobody seems worried whether crime passionel would have entered a defense in 16th century Naples, and I've seen no reliable source contending it would have. If you could stop making such extrapolations you'll probably see where the problem with the presentism issue lies.
    For clarity: "murderer" is the qualification used in a vast array of reliable sources, so it would be unreasonable not to use it in Wikipedia. That's not the point. The point is whether or not Wikipedia should enlighten 21st century readers about what it was about in the 16th century, and about finding reliable sources that cover that part of the story. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"En France, par exemple, il est une des formes d'homicide les moins sévèrement punis." says our French article, which is pretty poor. All this seems to be about your own OR views, and so not very interesting. Certainly the Gesualdo article should be improved, but I doubt it would change fundamentally. The works of John Webster and other English dramatists give vivid, if indirect, evidence of how such Italian behaviour was regarded. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, what does 21st century France have to do with 16th century Naples? Now I read "...the vicaria exonerated [Gesualdo] of any criminal act..."[1] (the vicaria being the council that wrote the official report the day after the killing, as mentioned above). In the 16th century: no crime, no murder, no "crime of passion" defense. Leaves to be mentioned that "he had to make a rapid getaway to Venosa" is, apparently, OR. I hope we're getting a bit closer to an appreciation of the presentism issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ William B. Ober, M.D. "Carlo Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa: Murder, Madrigals, and Masochism" in Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 49, No. 7, July 1973, pp. 634–645

WP:ASTROART: Proposed guideline on astronomical artist's impressions

There is a proposed guideline to regulate which artist's impressions of astronomical objects are acceptable for inclusion on enwiki. Weigh in at the RfC. A2soup (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited drugs articles

Over-long title reduced from "Policy request regarding the detailing of the manufacturing methods in Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

More useful and specific section title ,restored. DES (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy discussion: This editor requests guidance regarding policy relating to the detailing of the manufacture of illegal drugs and further, any proscribed pharmaceutical drugs. Please see my rfc on Charas here , regards. Twobellst@lk 18:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction woould you like to apply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed a problem as things illegal in some jurisdictions (such as gun possession) may be legal in others.
If we look at Wikipedia itself I would say that we should guard the fact that Wikipedia is not, and should not, be censored WP:censor. It may be that reporting on the manufacturing is undue but that is more a consensus than a policy issue. In any case if someone creates an article on "Specific of drugs manufacturing" that is sufficiently notable that it is not deleted, the information would not be undue there. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that some guidance could be obtained from WP:BEANS. It would be appropriate for an article to discuss a particular drug -- particularly an illegal drug -- as long as it follows NPOV guidelines. Such an article might identify the drug's name, chemical classification, origins, effects, history, etc. I think that it would be a disservice to the larger community to essentially provide a recipe for making the drug, however, and doing so may actually violate legal prohibitions in some jurisdictions, including some US jurisdictions. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Questions about the legality of content should always be left to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. Otherwise, we should treat it the same as anything else: We provide significant information as provided by reliable sources, and keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Details of manufacture should be discussed if they are relevant to an understanding of the subject. If the lawyers don't like it, they'll perform an office action. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

SourceForge

Given SourceForge's history of adding advertising "malware" to downloads, should we blacklist it and send {{SourceForge}} for deletion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Some notable projects may still be using SF for their project's hosting, though could be providing clean downloads elsewhere. I would say that if this is not the case, then yes, the SF link should be removed and use the more official one, but I don't think we can readily blacklist SF. I wouldn't be against it, just that we should use caution in doing so. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would oppose blacklisting, but nominating {{SourceForge}} for deletion seems like an excellent idea. Especially if we replace it with some sort of notice cautioning editors about why we think SF links should be avoided. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beetstra: and other editors familiar with WT:SPAM should know about this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know in how far this has been spammed. I would say that these links basically fail our inclusion standards per WP:NOT and WP:EL - We would link to the official site of a piece of software, an article may mention that it is available on SourceForge, but we do not need to provide the direct download link or a link to their 'site' on SourceForge. Sure, there may be some 'spamming' of this (someone with a COI adding a link to their own download on SourceForge), but no wide scale efforts to have it linked everywhere. I think we should first have it for some time on XLinkBot, and if that turns out to be still a too large a burden on editors to remove the stuff, we might consider further actions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
SourceForge's behaviour has been rather reprehensible and I personally would view it as a dubious place to host FLOSS software. But Wikipedia is not here to "right great wrongs". If a project continues to use Sourceforge as the host for their project site, we should link to it. This article (and plenty more on Google) note that SourceForge have responded to criticism and have said they won't do any more adware binary bundling. We should link to the official site, but sometimes that official site is on SourceForge, in which case we should link to that. It is really up to the project maintainers to move their hosting away from SourceForge if they are concerned about it. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy on opening hours and addresses

Is there a policy on whether or not opening hours should be listed?

Also, is there a policy on listing the physical addresses of each branch of a business or organization?

I thought it would have been discussed before, but have not been able to find any official policy nor essay.

For instance, Lifehouse International Church lists the addresses and service hours for each one of their local churches, is it desirable or should it be removed? Thanks! Jlicy (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This would fall under the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTDIR: "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are not encyclopedic." I would tend to toss service hours and addresses in there as well unless there is some compelling reason to believe those are relevant to understanding the subject (an article about a specific building will include the address, for instance). The Wikipedia article is meant as a resource for people looking to learn about the church, not a resource for people trying to contact them. For that, they can click on the link to the church's own website. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope for Wikipedia, I think, but do feel free to add them to OpenStreetMap! Relevant OSM wiki pages: opening hours (and for churches and other places of worship, you might want service times), addresses, phone. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hours are normally out of scope, but there are always exceptions. Imagine something that's closely tied to the organisation's identity; the following quote (from an actual article) is appropriate in my mind: Many Steak 'n Shake restaurants are open 24 (hours)/7 (days per week. If you know anything about the chain, you expect that they'll be open around the clock; that's perhaps the biggest part of their identity (aside from their menu and restaurant architecture, of course), and it's not at all a routine schedulling decision. Or imagine that one church's congregations all have worship services at the same time because it's a requirement (again, a part of their identity), while another church's congregations all worship at the same time except for one oddball (a part of the identity, and the oddball is rejecting it). We need to note that these situations are exceptions, because of course the large majority of opening times aren't appropriate. Same with branch locations, because unless they're branches with particularly significant addresses, they should be excluded; we don't need to mention locations for most places, but the addresses of transportation stops (e.g. a list of stations on a subway line) might be appropriate. And finally, when an article deals with one specific place, the address is pretty much always appropriate, at least in the infobox. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Come see the New WikiProject Wikipedia!

{{WPW Referral}}

A Modest Proposal

Taking this ride with a block-evading malcontent ends. Doc talk 08:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! I come to bury Wikipedia, not to praise it. Wikipedia has a serious problem, my friends, or to speak frankly, is threatened by an existential crisis which imperils its status as a collection of true knowledge, rather than mere trivia.

As anyone with eyes can plainly see, the quality of articles on this once-fine website is rapidly declining; nearly all of the articles that do not wholly consist of episode-by-episode recaps of the author's favorite television programmes or comparisons detailing the precise differences between models of 1950's automobiles have fallen into gross disrepair. When knowledgeable persons and professionals invest hard work into improving the decrepit articles on topics where expertise and a serious amount of background reading are necessary to have anything at all of value to say on a topic, they are invariably chased away by a mob of surly, resentful editors who never quite managed to finish their education, and who substitute for this painful lack by flaunting their admin status and deep knowledge of the arcana of Wikipedia rules, rather than their deep knowledge of the topic at hand. Although the good Jimbo Wales in his infinite wisdom has declared that "Ignore all rules has always been policy here", this statement has obviously been sadly forgotten, as editors' improvements are routinely discarded out of a fetishistic adherence to rules by editors on topics they by no means understand, and have never even successfully finished a single college course in, let alone having possesion of the long years of experience that alone can tell someone what is and is not relevant and representative of current academic consensus. Given that Wikipedia threatens to devolve into a hyperbolically detailed list of Pokemon characters, variant rules of favorite board games, mind-numbing recounting of the minutiae of long-cancelled television programmes, and worthlessly detailed comparisons between automobiles that are no longer produced, I would like to propose a *bold* solution to the impending doom of Wikipedia, a fate which is already reflected in the laughingstock status which Wikipedia already enjoys in scholarly, academic, and policy circles, or other places where serious persons who care about the fate of knowledge congregate.

The solution, friends, is this: to continue editing on Wikipedia, all editors must display evidence that they have completed a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent in some area of academic study, or, failing this, demonstrate some other serious evidence of academic achievement and contribution and commitment to the world of knowledge. No one who has not yet finished the meagre requirements of a bachelor’s degree deserves to be editing the world’s compendium of knowledge, and chasing away persons with years more topic experience in the subject at hand in order to sate their petty feelings of ressentiment. This is an extremely minimal requirement that would vastly raise the level of discourse in this place, and make the articles on actually notable topics that are traditionally judged as the reason to have encyclopedias in the first place far more useful to users (hint: traditionally, encyclopedias were not invented in order to spell out all the differences between models of defunct cars, or Pokemon characters, or to recap episodes of the Bachelor). It will also make this place far more hospitable to those who actually have knowledge to share, and will vastly increase its reputational standing in the wider world of knowledge, in which, Wikipedia is currently considered an unmitigated disaster and bad joke. It is hard to get a precise accounting of such things, but judging by the quality of the prose on here, and the level of information which is imparted on the serious, traditionally encyclopedic topics, I would estimate that no more than 10 percent of Wikipedia articles are written by someone who has successfully completed their undergraduate education. This is a tragedy, my friends, given the opportunity to create a truly rigorous and free compendium of knowledge which we have here. Persons who have not yet managed to complete college should demonstrate their commitment to the world of knowledge by fulfilling the requirements of a bachelor’s degree and mastering some subject to at least the undergraduate level in depth, before they are able to edit what purports to be the world’s foremost source and compendium of knowledge. This is by no means too much to ask, and such a policy will serve these editors themselves, who ought to be studying for their college exams, rather than brushing up on their Pokemon, who ought to be penning undergraduate essays rather than Bachelor or Walking Dead recaps, who ought to be learning the inside-out of real fields of knowledge, rather than masturbatorily mastering the intricacies of different models of 1950’s automobiles. It would be quite simple to ask editors to upload a scanned copy of their college diploma before making edits. B.A, B.S. B.F.A, B.B.S, etc, all will be sufficient— I am merely proposing that some evidence of actual interest and serious commitment to knowledge at at least the elementary level be demonstrated before contributions shall be accepted to what claims to be the world’s collection of knowledge. . It is not too late to save Wikipedia, I implore you. The choice rests in your hands: do you wish to demonstrate your allegiance to abstract principles of “inclusivity” to those who do not have the slightest clue about what they are speaking about, or do you wish to make this place the world’s foremost collection of free knowledge, a safe haven for the wise and those who know thereof of which they speak? Thank you for your time friends. I trust you will do the right thing. The fate of Wikipedia-- as a pathetic collection of trivia for intellectual children, or a true and free collection of the world's knowledge --is in your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B419:5D56:8905:B339:1A5A:D8E2 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is an idea which has been tried and, despite the best efforts of its founders, failed; see Citizendium. Our standards, such as verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view exist to insure that articles are accurate over the long run without the need for personal qualifications. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The thesis is demonstrably false, so the rest of it is not even worth reading. The number of featured articles and good articles has increased over time, and continues to increase on a weekly basis. Rather than degrading over time, article quality has increased over time, and continues to do so, inexorably. The standard process of making Wikipedia works as follows: 1) Someone creates a crappy article because they don't know how to make a good one. 2) It sits around a while until 3) Someone who knows better, and cares, makes it good. That is how it worked in 2005, and that's how it still works today. The "oh, woe is us, the sky is falling" bullshit isn't helpful in improving the encyclopedia. If you don't like the quality of any particular article, make it better. Those that are busy doing work should not be bothered by those who merely want to complain about the work that others are doing. --Jayron32 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
↑ That. There is a genuine issue regarding the number of Wikipedia's articles growing faster than the number of Wikipedia's editors and thus making patrolling and cleanup increasingly difficult, but the "there's nothing valid on Wikipedia" meme has never been valid and becomes steadily less valid. ‑ iridescent 20:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My thesis on the weak grasp of the ancient arts of logical reasoning, reading comprehension, and verbal argument by Wikipedians has just been borne out in dramatic form. Need I say anything more when such obvious examples of logical fallacies and failure to comprehend written text have just been graphically provided? For all of your sakes, I will attempt to do so all the same.

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. The articles which Wikipedia contains providing minute episode recaps on the latest zany antics of the Kardashians, or Walking Dead, or explaining the characteristics of particular Pokemon, or the detailed features of and options available for certain models of Cars, are indeed exquisite examples of what they are, stuffed full of accurate information, and are the creme de la creme of the Internet on such topics. Unfortunately, it is a significant stretch to say that such articles constitute encyclopedic content at all, and such bears virtually no relation to the traditional mission of encyclopedias, which quite obviously is to collect significant knowledge on topics of perennial interest to mankind, rather than to serve as a highly accurate garbage dump of all the world's trivia. The fact that you draw a line at including information on "my friend's band" or "my high school debate team" or the "comic book I wrote" does not in any way solve the problem, since highly detailed entries on individual Pokemon characters and out-of-production automobiles and Bachelor-recaps were certainly not what Diderot had in mind in creating the Encyclopedia. Since such pointless articles, no matter how accurate, never constitute meaningful knowledge, but rather are the epistemic equivalents of pseudo-foods like cotton candy and jelly beans, such articles, no matter how accurate, never actually contribute one whit to the value of an encyclopedia. QED.

The vast majority of Wikipedia is constituted by such non-encylopedic, frankly sophomoric drivel, ergo the cited statistics have no relevance or meaning, unless you were attempting to build the world's largest collection of meaningless, valueless trivia. Improving the accuracy of such articles is a pointless task that has nothing to do with knowledge, if language is not being abused. Again such epistemically valueless articles constitute, numerically, the majority of Wikipedia's content. It would be surprising if there were not more reality show episode recaps than all of the philosophy articles on here put together. No matter the percentage of "accuracy" such articles obtain, their contribution to knowledge and the original and proper aims of a collection of all knowledge, or an encyclopedia, remains zero, for, as some of you may be aware, any number multiplied by zero remains zero. So much for your bloated, laughable claims of accuracy.

Now, as for the articles which have any right to exist, and which do not amount to the sheer pissing away of time by both writer and reader, which treat subjects that are indeed properly called knowledge and which actually ought to be in an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's accuracy is obviously in terminal decline. Why is this? The answer is obvious: the number of editors who primarily confine themselves to "contributing" to the worthless detritus on models of cars, or particular comic books, or TV episodes, or Pokemon characters vastly outnumbers the number of contributors to reasonable articles in the Natural Sciences, the Arts, the Humanities, Geography, Economics, Philosophy, the Human Sciences, Law, Politics, Technology, Mathematics-- you know, all of the articles which one might have thought it was the role of an encyclopedia to represent the current state of knowledge on. And yet, such articles are in a laughable state of disrepair because sadly ignorant editors, flush from their latest "triumph" in getting their board game variant or Pokemon character article to "good article" status, ignorantly chase away the only people with any hope of contributing to the articles that represent the only reason for spending one's time in constructing or reading an encyclopedia in the first place; i.e. they chase away those people who have an education and what such provides, namely, knowledge, rather than those poor souls who instead content themselves with their possesion of disconnected facts which amount to mere, worthless trivia on which they have wasted their brain and one life. Please have a look for yourselves at what a real encyclopedic article looks like on any of Wikipedia's competitors, such as Scholarpedia, or SEP, or IEP, and then compare it to the corresponding Wikipedia article and you will concur with me that the entirety of Wikipedia ought to be nominated for speedy deletion; given that, of any article on here, it is either a gross distortion of scholarly consensus on the topic at hand, written largely by persons with a high school education and no first hand knowledge of the topic on which they write, or it is a mere compendia of valueless trivia that has no rights to inclusion in any encyclopedia worthy of the name. Perhaps if you reject this proposal, you will accept my second one, that Wikipedia be renamed "Triviapedia" for its dogged focus on what is worthless to know and its astonishing over-valuation of the opinions and contributions of the ignorant, and its open hatred of real, costly expertise or knowledge of any kind. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.71.146 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum, Jayron gives voice to the common canard that the "quality" and "number of good articles" has increased "inexorably" over time. Unfortunately, such statistics are meaningless without further interpretation; namely, without some measure of how relevant the articles in question are to the mission of encyclopedias, namely collecting all notable and significant knowledge. One can "inexorably" increase the number of good articles about Pokemon and 1950's automobiles and reality show episode recaps to one's heart content; this hardly an encyclopedia makes. Is there, for example, even one good article on a philosopher in this entire encyclopedia? Even by your own intellectually worthless standards, which bear no correlation to scholarly standards for knowledge in the world at large, surely not.

If I am wrong, please direct me to any "good articles" on an important philosopher. Without even checking, I am absolutely sure there are none. The presence of 1000 "superb" Pokemon articles is not going to make up for the absolute and utter failure to produce any good articles on any matter of substance that the knowledge-producing world outside Wikipedia would count as real knowledge, friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.71.146 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, I beg-- can anyone direct me to even one single "top-importance" philosophy article that has current "good article" status? As a reminder, I am not looking for, nor am I concerned with, how many Pokemon have good articles associated with them, as Jayron with the best of intentions but unhelpfully pointed me towards. Rather, I am looking for a single Top-importance philosophy article that you yourselves have rated as good. This should be easy, given that you have had 10 years to achieve this goal, and I am told, the quality of articles on here, improves "inexorably" and that my thesis is "demonstrably false." You will never have a real encyclopedia if you cannot produce good articles on matters of substance, rather than worthless trivia. Please direct me to any important good article within Philosophy, if I am mistaken, and there are as many good important philosophy articles as there are good articles on the author's most beloved TV episodes, or board game variants, for which I am laughably told that "good articles inexorably improve over time" with no attention to whether the topic in question has any business in an encyclopedia or being called knowledge to begin with. Be well, my friends.

Finally, since Iridiscent seems to have no comprehension of what I wrote at all, let me spell it out in the clearest possible terms: I am not repeating a "meme" (as a note, the use of this word is almost always an indication that the author has no idea what he is talking about on the topic in question-- Dawkins uses the word, but whatever his merits as a biologist which I have no desire to dispute, he has almost no knowledge of human culture, and I cannot think of a single Historian, Anthropologist, or Sociologist who regards the "meme" concept as useful in describing human ideas or thought) that "nothing on Wikipedia is valid" but am instead saying that almost everything that is "valid" on Wikipedia has no business at all being in an encyclopedia, as it constitutes mere trivia rather than knowledge; and everything on Wikipedia that traditionally belongs in an encyclopedia (and which is covered by its competitors) has almost no validity, and reads as though it is the spirited attempt of a middle school class project. Clear enough for you?

I expect I shall be waiting a rather long time for one of you to point me towards that mythical beast, namely, a good Wikipedia article on any high-importance Philosophy topic, given that the rapidly formed pitchfork mobs of angry plebeians almost immediately chase away and banish anyone who has actually studied the subject from this place. Adieu.

You want high quality articles on philosophy? Ask and you shall receive. Wikipedia has 12 featured articles classified under "Philosophy and psychology" including such figures Hilary Putnam and Bernard Williams. Wikipedia also has 394 good articles classified under "Philosophy and religion" including articles such as Agnosticism, Cynicism (philosophy), and Max Weber. You can find the list here. Of course these numbers exclude people who are primarily classified under other topics. For comparison, there are only three good articles on Pokemon. All featured and good articles have passed peer review processes and you can find more information about that here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's a list from the Philosophy project:
Philosophy of mind, Anekantavada, Archimedes, Atheism, Bernard Williams, Emma Goldman, Hilary Putnam, History of evolutionary thought, Problem of religious language, Agnosticism, Albert Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Anarchism, Chrysippus, Conscience, Consciousness, Eliminative materialism, Galileo Galilei, I Ching, Isaac Newton, Jerry Fodor , Kantian ethics, Karl Marx , Laozi, Mahatma Gandhi, Max Weber, Menocchio, Stoicism, Sun Tzu, Swami Vivekananda, Taoism, Teleological argument, The Renaissance, Upanishads, Zhuangzi (book)
We should probably include B-Class articles, as well, which would give us a lot more. --Boson (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
At first, I was tempted to follow WP:Do not feed the trolls and not even comment here, but something needs to be said about this elitist view: This proposal would prohibit articles by numerous successful people. Here are just a few that came immediately to mind (some of the folks on this list are deceased, but I'm using them to be a bit pointy): Abraham Lincoln (self taught, former US President); Andrew Jackson (another self-taught former US President); Benjamin Franklin (home schooled and self-taught); Amadeo Peter Giannini (high school dropout, founded Bank of America); JR Simplot (8th grade dropout, multi-billionaire Idaho potato farmer); Ansel Adams (high school dropout, world famous painter); David Karp (high school dropout, founded Tumblr); Harlan Sanders (elementary school dropout, earned law degree via correspondence courses, founded KFC); Frank Lloyd Wright (never attended high school, architect). I think that given a few days to research, I could probably come up with hundreds of notable people who do not have formal degrees. This idea would prohibit the next Benjamin Franklin or Frank Lloyd Write from contributing to Wikipedia. If the anonymous editor who made this "modest proposal" really wants to see articles improved, then I respectfully suggest writing said improved articles him- or herself, and quit wasting time reading about fictional characters and esoteric features of long-since discontinued automobiles. Oh, and for the record, this counts as Oppose for the reasons stated. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Additional comment: Anyone can buy a diploma from a diploma mill, and often, so-called "replacement" diplomas are available from the same sources. Such services don't verify the person's credentials, they just print a diploma with any information requested by the customer. This proposal would be a minor boon to such businesses, but would be unlikely to improve the articles on Wikipedia, and would give the boot to many productive editors. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 
In summation: Good content is good content; it doesn't matter who produces it. It doesn't stop being good because the person who wrote it didn't have a particular degree, and crap content doesn't magically become good because the person who created has any particular degree. Content is judged of its own accords, according to measurable standards of quality. It doesn't really matter who made it. - -Jayron32 02:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent replies, my esteemed colleagues. I am pleased that at least one of you caught my modest proposal reference. And while I had expected to have names like Jobs, Zuckerburg, and Gates thrown my way, surely Franklin, Lincoln, and Wright are good company for anyone and would have made fine encyclopedists as well.

Perhaps then I ought to put the central point somewhat differently, as I fear it has been obscured by my attempt at Juvenalian satire. Because I am so kind, and love serving Truth so greatly, I have undertaken a small bit of research in service of our mutually shared end, of improving the world's store of real knowledge.

The little experiment I conducted was this: does Wikipedia have more pages on philosophers or more pages on reality show participants? I used List of American philosophers and Category: Participants in American reality television series as proxies for the larger group, which I hope no one will object to. Sadly for us all, there are 1202 unclassified American Reality Show Participant articles, a|nd another 1136 in subcategories, making a total of 2338 Wikipedia pages on that crucial encyclopedic entity, American reality show participants. (Mind you, I haven't counted the shows themselves, nor the "season recaps" or "episode recaps" or any of the other related bullshit on here, masquerading as knowledge. Merely the individuals notable enough to be deserving of their own pages themselves, authored by some of our hard-working colleagues on here.)

By comparison there are a total of 614 American Philosophers, and the list includes some persons whose inclusion as either philosophers, or Americans, is shall we say, rather generous. Q.E.D.

Thanks for playing, friends.

Wholly irrelevant. We have articles generally in proportion to the subjects that our writers find interesting. If we have more writers who like reality TV than philosophy, that's not ipso facto the fault of the system. If your goal is to eliminate articles on subjects you personally deem unencyclopedic, then eliminating editors without proper credentials may accomplish that. If it is your goal to increase the number of articles on topics you deem encyclopedic, well, I am utterly unconvinced this will accomplish it. You seem to believe that there are just hoards of expert editors who would have written for Wikipedia but were chased away by uneducated jerks. I think you'll find that some of our finest and most cooperative writers have no formal education in the areas they write about, and many of the biggest assholes to grace the site edit entirely within their field of expertise, and have done a very good job chasing people away. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of relevance, because it is quite relevant. As the Jonathan Swift reference was supposed to indicate, the proposed solution was not meant (entirely) seriously, although the diagnosis is deadly serious. To make it absolutely clear: having 2300 pages on American reality show participants shows clearly to anyone with any intellectual seriousness, whether they are self-taught or not, that Wikipedia is not a place for serious people and is not a real encyclopedia, but has become a sad farce. I could name hundreds of renowned American scholars with numerous books to their credit who aren't covered here, but you somehow seek to think that every god-forsaken attention-seeking narcissist who has ever prostituted themselves publicly on reality TV is deserving of their own page (and that despite this, Wikipedia is still deserving of being called an encylopedia, rather than, say, a garbage dump.) And the example is only of many I could have used. The truly tragic amount of loving careful attention lavished upon the "list of Pokemon chars" page ought to alone demonstrate to anyone with eyes that Wikipedia has clearly failed at being a real encylopedia. Don't believe me? Look at literally any other encylopedia, online or print or whatever. An encyclopedia is supposed to collect significant knowledge. Knowledge is not made by reality television show participants, nor does a collection of facts about these persons constitute notable or significant knowledge in any meaningful sense. Bachelor recaps are not contributions to the world's store of knowledge, no matter how high a percentage of Wikipedia editors just love the bachelor. Wikipedia's apparent criteria for notability or significance make it an absolute laughingstock in the circles it has pretensions to run in, I.e, the world of knowledge, rather than the world of trivia. You actually actively support the presence of 2300 pages on American reality show participants alone , and call that encyclopedic? You, friend, are a lost cause then. It is too late for you and I speak to those others whose minds have not been sadly ruined so into thinking reality show participants mark a "notable" or "significant" category in nature, or category in anything. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B423:943:704A:1DCA:6C37:DC9A (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You make the mistake of implicitly thinking there are only 614 American philosopher articles because there are 2300 American reality show participant articles. In fact, there's no linkage - that displays thinking that's applicable to a "paper" encyclopedia which has to be finite. A page on something worthless means that's a page less for something worthwhile. For Wikipedia, one does not limit or impact on the other. If there were no American reality show participant articles there would still be only 614 American philosopher articles. DeCausa (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting reply, but it suffers from several problems. One, the time of Wikipedia editors is finite. Editors posting excruciatingly detailed recaps of The Apprentice and board game variants played by their friends cannot use that time to post anything on articles that have even some legitimate claim on being in an encylopedia--politics, technology, math, history, arts, science, philosophy, social sciences, religion, psychology, and so on.

Two, and more seriously, if reality television/Pokemon editors come to numerically dominate Wikipedia, as undoubtedly and demonstrably they have, then Wikiepdia's entire reliance on consensus is broken, because this swarm of plebs drowns out the real voices looking to contribute to articles of substance that have some claim to be in an encylopedia, some claim on being KNOWLEDGE in the first place, who find their contributions quickly deleted by know-nothing editors and admins who have been falsely elevated because they authored many pointless articles that do not educate anyone on anything worth being educated about and that cannot be called knowledge without abuse of language. Thanks for the counterpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B423:943:704A:1DCA:6C37:DC9A (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're thinking in "book" terms. The articles on Pokemon can't "drown out" articles related to the French Wars of Religion (say) as they might in paper form. If I'm interested in the French Wars of Religion and look it and related articles up I won't even be aware that Pokemon-related articles exist. It's not apparent what the "balance" is - you have to look hard to discover it. The same applies if I want to edit French Wars of Religion articles. There is a fallacy in your post if only thee editors weren't wasting their time on Pokemon, then articles x, y, z would be better. It's fanciful that there is such a crossover of interests. There's a hygiene factor in deleting non-notable articles, but essentially there is no connection between "what there is" and "what there isn't" in Wikipedia. DeCausa talk) 07:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia should aim to be accessible to a wide range of the general public. According to readability-score.com, our article Charles Darwin is written at a grade level of about 11.6, or roughly high-school graduate in the U.S. Your writing in this thread gets a 16.0, and it's unlikely you are able to adjust your writing level downward when you write for article content. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that site says, "Text to be read by the general public should aim for a grade level of around 8." That seems low to me — I try to write at what I believe to be a grade 10 level — but I think it's fair to say that 11.6 is a lot better for Wikipedia's mission than 16.0. For the Flesch-Kincaid Raading Ease score given on that site, in which a higher number means better readability, Charles Darwin gets 46.9 and your writing gets 31.4. Good Wikipedia editing, then, is about far more than education, and, in fact, too much education can be bad for Wikipedia content. The less educated among us are necessary to keep the reading level well below 16.0. By the way, I have only a smattering of formal education above high school level. As for the abundance of pap content, it's one of many sad commentaries on the intelligence of the general public (or their use of their intelligence), but it does not get in the way of better content at Wikipedia. WMF's servers are not lacking for space or bandwidth as far as I know. If that stuff passes WP:N, that's good enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
(My comments above get grade level 6.6, so much for aiming for grade 10. They also get a FKRE score of 70.9.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion: AUSC Extension

The Arbitration Committee is currently examining several reforms of the Audit Subcommittee and asks for community input on how they would like to see the Subcommittee function in the future. Because of this, the current Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members' terms are hereby extended to 23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

Supporting: AGK, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Thryduulf, Yunshui
Opposing: Courcelles

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this and the future of the AUSC at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: AUSC Extension

RfC on MEDRS

RfC regarding an amendment to MEDRS, specifically asking if we should or shouldn't allow high-quality sources to be rejected because of the country in which the research is published. Any interested editors are welcome to comment. LesVegas (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - simple listings

Considering common promotional activity in business-related articles, I propose to clarify WP:NOTDIRECTORY with an additional point for specific listings, that are considered unsuitable for articles. I am aware, that some of those cases may be already covered in other guidelines or in project-specific instructions (and have recently asked for clarification at WP:Companies). But these relatively common cases need a more focussed coverage in a central policy.

Suggested new point (feel free to provide tweaks for my English):

7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted.

GermanJoe (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair. I'm wondering if we can stated that lists that have been selected or curated by editors to reflect relevant points is fair (what I think the last sentence somewhat captures). --MASEM (t) 14:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That should be covered by "without context information" (but I'd appreciate improvement suggestions). Lists embedded within the article's greater context to illustrate an already existing aspect should be OK (if they are sourced). The proposal aims primarily at unreflected repetition of trivial company information, which should be on the company's homepage, and serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. GermanJoe (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking if there's non-business related lists that would fall into a similar situation that could be included to flesh out the idea here better. For example, with a city, a listing of tourist spots without context would be a problem. We do have to be careful that we would allow things like discographies and filmographies where not necessarily all elements on the list are notable but still encyclopedic too (eg I would not call these "simple listings"). --MASEM (t) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to note that WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not override the legitimate use of WP:LIST articles to organize information or collect information which may not stand alone as an article by itself. There's a danger that people use something like this as a means to excise useful information at Wikipedia. The main point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is that Wikipedia does not contain everything merely because you can prove it exists. It should not be expanded to indicate that it would be OK to use it as a rationale to override other well-established uses of indexes, lists, portals, etc. --Jayron32 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Noted and agree. But a risk of misuse is inherent in all parts of WP:What Wikipedia is not to a degree (editors' opinions can vary widely about the exact definitions between "vital encyclopedic info" and "trivial clutter"). In unclear cases, common sense and case by case discussions for consensus need to be applied. GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If anyone has a good suggestion for a wording to exclude common "....graphies" and pure list articles, feel free to share it ;). Note: I added tourist attractions as common case for now, but we need to be careful not to overload the list with too many examples. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I think a fair argument can be said that a person or group that is notable as a creative person (whether writing, music, acting, etc.) that the list of works is part of that notable even if none of the works themselves are notable (this is very much unlikely to be the case if the person is notable; if anything, that begs if the person themselves is notable). Or another way, nearly every -ology list is going to have at least one or two (if not more) blue-linked entries. It's also that such works are generally finite simply due to being creative output, compared to the examples of the lists above where there's no equivalent limit. I don't know how to easily word this or if it even needs to be worded, beyond noting that such lists are exempt from this part of NOT. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd add "services" to the list, since some organizations' "products" are services. This applies to many non-profits, as well as to hospitals and clinics. I appreciate the inclusion of "tourist attractions" since I'm battling one of those at AfC. LaMona (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Note 2: Added services to products, and tried to address Masem's discography concern with a small additional clarification. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Königsberg/Królewiec

During the last weeks someone has persistently been changing "Königsberg" into "Königsberg (Królewiec)" and "Prussia" into "Ducal Prussia, a Polish fief" in articles about people who lived in Königsberg during the 17th century, like Simon Dach and Robert Roberthin. To justify his doings he refers to the "Danzig vote", which is unknown to me. Did the community indeed prescribe these changes for articles that are not about Prussia or Königsberg, but about people who happened to live there? Can someone give me a link to this community decision? Personally I think these changes are superfluous and even confusing, but if the community wants them, so be it. Sijtze Reurich (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No one interested? No one even willing to give me the link to the text of the Danzig vote? Sijtze Reurich (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked around a bit. There is a Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice (Gdansk is the Polish version of Danzig). The rules outlined there and on the Gdansk (Danzig) (and the reference to the Vote meta page [17]), suggest the use of Danzig (Gdansk) for people with predominant German identity. That might transfer to the Konigsberg situation to some extent. This makes sense to some extent, as the current formal name is Gdansk. However, one to one application to Konigsberg goes wrong. The current name of Konigsberg is NOT Krolewiec but Kaliningrad. For that reason alone these ideas should not be appliedwithout prior consensus in my view.
In none of the Danzig vote pages I looked at was ever any mention about Polish fiefs etcetera. Nor do either extend the Danzig/Gdansk situation to any other territories renamed. So that also seems to be problematic.
Finally, while the intention of the Danzig vote seems to be an honest effort to solve endless edit wars, this was organized in 2005 when Wikipedia was still young and many procedures of dealing with such issues were being tested out. I seriously doubt whether a vote would today still be held that way and given that weight.
Altogether, I would say the reference to Danzig vote could be an argument and a suggestion for solution to solve ongoing edit wars, but I would not consider it sufficiently relevant to Konigsberg, nor sufficiently following current day Wikipedia customs to do so without prior discussion / consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I have also seen the Gdansk/Danzig vote mentioned in a number of places, and even a general rule that the preferred name of the current national government always be used, but that was ten years ago, and I strongly doubt that the decision would be the same today. WP:Consensus can change, and often does in the course of a decade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I did not write about Danzig for the English Wikipedia, but I did write two articles about Danzig/Gdańsk for its Dutch counterpart. I do not see any problem in telling that Danzig's present-day name is Gdańsk, but adding Królewiec to Königsberg is another matter. Few people living in Königsberg ever called their city Królewiec. Few people outside Poland even know the city's Polish name. So in an article about someone who just happened to live in Königsberg the Polish name is only confusing.
I am glad to find out that the Danzig vote was not a decision about Königsberg. Adding the name Królewiec to articles, where Königsberg is not the main theme, appears to be no more than a very dubious interpretation of the Danzig vote, not a community decision. So I can safely undo these unwelcome changes. Sijtze Reurich (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting closing statements for archived discussions

UNARCHIVE AND CLOSE
This discussion was unarchived via a request at the requests for closure page. As there's no formal question, or formal RFC there's a broad scope for interpretation in the discussion. There is no consensus in the discussion to change current practice, which seems to be interpreted as unarchive and close those discussions editors feel merit such closure. It is also clear that people disagree over which discussions and what proportion of discussions merit this treatment. SPACKlick (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I just cleaned out a bit of WP:ANRFC. If you haven't been over there in a while, it had about 75 "requests for closure", and about 65 of them were posted by the same editor. I removed eight "requests" from him that were made for already-archived discussions. (More of them have probably been archived since he requested closure, but these eight were already archived at the time he posted his request.) I guess he wants someone to go back into the archives and add a closing statement, which is pointless:

  • Almost nobody watches the archives, so nobody will read the closing statement even if one is added.
  • Generally speaking, editing an archive is a Bad Idea, and editing it to make it look like some closing statement was relevant and accepted at the time is a doubly bad idea. Nobody reading the archives later is likely to check the history to see when that closing statement was added. If the close is wrong or materially deficient, then nobody has had a fair opportunity to object to it.
  • If the participants in the discussion stopped talking about it long enough for it to get archived uncontested, then it's a safe bet that they don't need some WP:NAC to come round and write down what the NAC believes the consensus is.

Here is my proposal: Let's amend both WP:RFC and WP:TPG to say that closing statements should neither be requested for, nor added to, discussions that have been archived.

(I'll post notes at RFC and TPG about this in a bit.) What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

? Some RfC's are (automatically) archived, some even before an RfC (template) has run its normal time. What I've seen closers do, is bring the RfC section back to the talk page, and close it. What's the problem with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Some NACs are directly editing the archive pages instead of bringing it back to the talk page, where editors might see the closing statement.
  2. What's the point of adding a closing statement on 20 July, to a discussion that ended on 24 June (because even proponents figured out by then that there was no consensus for their proposal) and was archived without complaint or apparent regret on 2 July? If none of the 20+ people involved in that discussion felt the need to continue that discussion during those 18 days that it was in the archives, or to keep talking about it at all after 24 June, and none of the 20+ participants felt the need to request a closing statement, then why should we encourage (or even permit) someone to edit the archives to add a pointless and potentially misleading closing statement? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. #1 I totally agree, that's not the way to do this (although for "no consensus" formal closures there's maybe not too much reason to bring it back to the active page either). But I totally disagree with your solution: the recommendation should be to do it like it should be done, not to avoid closers doing their closing properly. Also, I'd rather have a non-admin closer helping out with the backlog (and making some errors in the process), than the backlog growing and in the end a clever guy saying, well let's cut the backlog by impeding the inflow...
Re. #2 Here also, the encouragement would be to keep the backlog at WP:ANRFC down, not to avoid people asking for closure. I've recently added a WP:ANRFC request for an RfC that was archived months ago, and I got the thoughtful attention of a closer. So where's the problem? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the original comment that closing statements should neither be requested nor added to discussions that have been archived. Sometimes the discussion has been archived because the archival bot parameters are too quick to archive, and there was consensus in the first two weeks of the 30-day discussion period, and then contributions stopped, or sometimes the discussion has been archived because the RFC bot pulled the tag after 30 days, so that contributions stopped, and then the RFC waited for a closer for a long time. Formal closure is still a good idea in those cases, because there might have been a consensus to do something. I agree that, if there is a consensus to do something, the RFC should be moved back from the archive talk page to the active talk page. A rule that archived RFCs should not be closed, however, is the wrong answer. Closing the RFC, even if it was archived, is a better answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Francis Schonken and Robert McClenon that close requests for archived discussions should be permitted per my comments here. I also agree with their comments that "no consensus" closes of archived discussions probably don't need to be moved back to the main talk page. Specifically, these are good rules of thumb:
  1. Robert McClenon's comment "I agree that, if there is a consensus to do something, the RFC should be moved back from the archive talk page to the active talk page."
  2. Francisc Schonken's comment "although for 'no consensus' formal closures there's maybe not too much reason to bring it back to the active page either".
Cunard (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
For those who didn't click the links, Robert McClenon, of course, is the editor who just added closing statements to the archives, and Cunard is the editor who lists about 90% of all expired RFCs at ANRFC, including all eight of the archived ones. It is not exactly surprising that they believe they are being useful by requesting and closing long-dead discussions; if they thought that it was inappropriate or a waste of time, then they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:WhatamIdoing that such discussions shouldn't be "closed" by merely editing a talkpage archive subpage. If such a discussion still needs closure, restore it to the talk page, and close it there - thus giving it a new timestamp for the bots, as well as an edit for watchlists. - jc37 11:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Default: Just unarchive and close; the archiver bot will re-archive it later. It's perfectly legitimate to unarchive a discussion that hasn't concluded; we are not servants of bots, they serve us. If someone manually archived it without comment, do the same. If someone manually archived it with an edit summary that the discussion is closed, moot, stale, etc., edit the archive and close the archive with their summary and attribution and a note that you refactored, since it was just a sloppy attempt to close it originally (if their close was questionable, that's not your problem; anyone who cares to challenge it has a process for doing so). It is not true that no one reads archives; we refer to them all the time, so properly closing an archived discussion that shouldn't be unarchived but which wasn't closed with the right tagging and summary serves the interests of the community.

It also isn't true that there's no point to adding a closing statement to a month old (or whatever) discussion. Many participants in discussions are not semi-pro arguers, but say their piece and move on, and are not going to be aware that a discussion did not close and got archived while still open. It's very frustrating to come back to an issue you participated in trying to resolve, only to find that no one bothered to close it simply out of backlog or apathy or oversight (in the "missed it" sense). There are no legitimate grounds on which to argue that it "can't" be unarchived or closed or both, per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR and WP:BOLD and WP:LAWYER and the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. I've been unarchiving non-ancient archived discussions that needed resolution for over 8 years, and only one person has ever reverted me; they even accepted my explanation when I clarified. I'm OK with the idea that if the close is going to be "no consensus" (or equivalent, e.g. "not moved" at WP:RM) then unarchival is not necessary to close; but I prefer it be unarchived because it hits people's watchlists. And I also disagree with the idea that closing statements should not be requested for discussions that have been archived. They should probably be requested more often, because a) it will result in less rehash, strife, and editor burn-out by obviating repeat discussions, and 2) the very fact that it got archived means commentary had stopped, means it was ripe for closure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's perfectly legitimate to unarchive a recent discussion if you have an interest in continuing it. (For old discussions, WP:TPG recommends starting a new one instead of reviving months- or years-old ones. TPG's recommendation is consistent with the policy that WP:Consensus can change.)
But the question here is not whether you want to continue an occasional discussion; a quick trip through your contributions shows that you've done this once in the last three years, when a bot archived the discussion while you were typing. That's perfectly reasonable and desirable, but not what I'm talking about.
The question is more like this:
Given that the person making the request for closure has no interest whatsoever in continuing the discussion or what the outcome is, and is merely making the request out of habit;
given that the person writing the closing statement has no interest whatsoever in continuing the discussion, and probably also has neither any interest in or knowledge about the subject;
given that the discussion is already archived, and that nobody interested in the discussion has tried to prevent or reverse this archiving;
given that, as a general rule of thumb, most of our editors with any experience can figure out the result of most discussions (i.e., more than 50% of discussions) without outside assistance, especially from a non-admin who probably has neither knowledge or interest in the subject matter;
given that nobody interested in the specific discussion has expressed any confusion about the result of the discussion or requested any assistance with understanding the outcome;
given that there is no clear reason to un-archive the discussion merely to add a closing statement (neither any IAR-style reason nor any justification that would pass muster under the TPG guideline); and
given that nobody is likely to notice someone adding a closing statement to the archives –
given all this, is there any actual, practical, non-bureaucratic value in either requesting or adding that closing statement? Mightn't it be just a little less bureaucratic to wait until there is evidence that someone actually wants or needs the help of a closing statement for the discussion in question?
Or maybe this will be a more useful question: if the closing statement is so unimportant, or the result so obvious, that it's not worth un-archiving the discussion so that other people will read what you're adding, should you add the closing statement at all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to just hit the highlights (not point-by-point matching your list):
  • Unarchiving to close the discussion formally is continuing the discussion, if only briefly, to its proper conclusion. Someone who pitched a fit about it on semantic grounds would be WP:WIKILAWYERing.
  • The "nobody is interested" assumptions running through this are generally not true; not everyone wants to go on and on about something, but just give their input and wait for the result. Most of us don't vigilantly watchlist everything we comment on here, and pages have radically different archival speeds (and some are only manually archived). This means that many things get archived without closure.
  • WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:COMMONSENSE implicitly tell us not to fall for the idea that discussions can't be unarchived within sane limits, even aside from what WP:TPG says (and I do so more often than you found in your looking around).
  • Other than requests for speedy closure of stupid stuff, any time someone comments on an RfC or similar discussion, they do so because they want to see a consensus resolution emerge one way or the other, or they would not bother. I.e., there probably is no class of users at all who in good faith, want to ever see such discussions fail to close after having participated in them.
  • Maybe (I'm skeptical) that most long-term editors can, with effort, determine what the consensus of a contentious discussion is; nevertheless, a largely number of people WP:GAME any unclosed discussion if they feel they'll get their way by doing so. We all know this.
  • I already gave a reason why to add a closure sometimes without unarchiving, since people use archives as "reference" material; the are not only of value when they are "live". But it is clearly better in most cases to unarchive and close, so people can see it was closed and what the result was. This is good for transparency, too: If the close is boneheaded, people should be able to notice this and seek to have it reviewed, not have it sit that way for a long time until it's too old to be reviewed.
  • Your closing question is basically invalid, assuming but not demonstrating the proposition that something shouldn't be unarchived for closure, then criticizing the idea of archived closure, when most of what's been said here is arguing the opposite direction. Closure while still archived would have limited applicability, and some aren't in favor of it at all, for the "watchlist ping" reason. Personally, I think that's very compelling for any non-"no consensus" close but not for a "no consensus" close, since just sitting in the archive unclosed indicates no consensus by default.
  • The core problem is that many of those discussions did reach a clear consensus but then some bot got in the way. We are not at the mercy of bots (nor of people manually archive unclosed discussion to thwart closure!).
  • I don't know where the "nobody ... has expressed any confusion about the result ..." line is coming from; in many cases an ANRFC request is made specifically because there is interpretational conflict, and it will continue until there's a formal close.
  • If you really really need something here, maybe there could be a rule at ANRFC that if the discussion has been closed, the requester of closure must unarchive it (i.e. express a desire that it continue and a position that it was archived too soon) first; doing so should be enough: If a bot re-archives it because of ANRFC backlog, or another editor tries to WP:GAME the process by re-archiving it, e.g. because they think they close will go against them, the requester's unarchival still stands, and the ANRFC-responding closer would re-unarchive it to close. But having such an unarchive-first rule seems silly and WP:CREEPing to me.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard: of course not every RfC "needs" formal closure. Is there a selection on which RfC's you think most in need of formal closure? Alternatively, did you ever think suggesting it as a bot job to get RfC's listed at ANRFC once the RfC tag is removed (usually by bot)? E.g. the time spent listing them manually might be used also to close a few you're not involved in (or do you only list the ones you can't close)? Indiscriminate listing of expired RfC's may of course have a negative effect that those most in need of attention (often also the ones most difficult to close with walls of text and uncountable ramifications) get snowed in by those where participants came to live with the "apparent" outcome and moved on? Sorry for the many questions, but backlog is a problem (as correctly indicated by WhatamIdoing), and I see this discussion here as an opportunity to develop a strategy on how to deal with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFC says that most (i.e., >50%) of discussions don't require closing statements; WP:ANRFC says that "many" shouldn't be listed there (and, if memory serves, used to say "most"). I and other editors have suggested that closing statements for most RFCs (e.g., these) are unnecessary. They did not need to be listed, they did not need to be closed, and the closing statements provide no value to anyone who might read them. They are wastes of time – which would be fine, if some volunteer really wanted to waste his time (or open himself to derogatory speculation about planning for an unsuccessful RFA run by doing a bunch of pointless makework). But they are also damaging to the WP:Be bold and WP:Consensus can change ethos: when we provide closing statements for discussions with perfectly obvious results, we are telling new people that WP:NOTBURO is unimportant words on paper, and we are telling experienced editors that we are concerned that they are either too stupid or too tendentious to figure out what the consensus is. And, as you say, filling up ANRFC with unimportant requests for closure prevents people from finding the ones that would actually benefit from it. Indiscriminate (by bot) or nearly indiscriminate (what we have now) listing kills the signal:noise ratio for that page. I suspect that it also has the effect of making some admins feel discouraged, because it's yet another "backlog", albeit an artificial one, that makes their efforts seem futile.
I believe that these proposals have been considered in the past:
  • not listing requests that you personally don't care about;
  • asking participants whether they to list it;
  • asking participants whether they would object to listing it; and now
  • not requesting a close for already archived discussions or adding closing statements to the archives.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
OP (Francis): ANRFC already has way too much backlog, so having a bot dectuple the requests would be worse than unproductive. I'm confused about why you'd suggest that while also noting the backlog problem.

Unnecessary listings (WhatamIdoing): Whether an RfC needs listing or not is subjective. There's (usually!) no bad faith in making a request for closure, or in rejecting the request as unnecessary. It's just part of the normal churn of WP:ANRFC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Cunard's rationale why they picked the ones they picked for listing at ANRFC, and whether we can come to some agreement here.
I'm a directly interested party here, because I've got one listed that won't go away (even when archived...) unless closed formally. When I see all the others listed (I had a glance this morning whether there were some others I could help close but can't find one that would accept NAC closure and for which I'm not completely unfamiliar with the topic area) seems like kinda desperate. I think an understanding is best so that this doesn't go WP:COSMETICBOT or whatever way we don't want this to go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree that Cunard is fishing too many of these RfC's out of the waste bin and spamming WP:ANRFC with them. I will also make a mental note about unarchiving any RfC's that still need closures and closure statements but have been archived. That said, I disagree with the idea that all RfC's that have been archived shouldn't be closed at that point, or that all of the RfC's that Cunard has been spamming to WP:ANRFC don't belong there. I think, in conclusion, I'd like to ask Cunard to be more careful in choosing which RfC's to post up to WP:ANRFC, and not to dump 80 RfC's (many of which aren't even "formal" RfC's and/or which don't need "formal closes") there all at once. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a good idea to write some guidance describing cases when a request for closure is or isn't appropriate? I'm only aware of WP:CLOSE#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed, which is quite vague. I'd also like to put in an argument for not de-archiving discussions, especially if the issue is contentious - a few days between the closure and post-closure discussion can make the procedure seem more measured and reduce the feeling of immediacy from editors who feel strongly about the issue. My feeling is to say that there's WP:NODEADLINE, and if nobody ever checks, then the RfC question is probably no longer an important issue. Sunrise (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see the potential "fishing" problem. In my above support for unarchival-to-close, I'm not suggesting it should be allowed for bad-faith reasons, nor am I non-amenable to some kind of guideline or just a "don't do the following lame things" note on the top of the ANRFC page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing has raised this issue repeatedly. Two previous discussions are Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Cunard is still adding dozens of requests (July 2014) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Severe backlog at WP:ANRFC (January 2015). In both discussions, I explained my closure requests in detail.

    I think Scott summarized it very well at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Too many discussions being added:

    Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

    Robert McClenon, one of RfC's dedicated and hard-working closers, explained why formal closure of even seemingly "consensus is clear discussions" is helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Benefits of Formal Closure:

    I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.

    The recent backlog is because I did not update the closure requests list for around four weeks. (In the past, I updated it every two or three weeks.) In the past when a large number of requests has been added, the backlog has returned to a reasonable number within two weeks. Cunard (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • But the point still stands: you have been including "non-formal" RfC's in your additions to the list at WP:ANRFC, as well as RfC's that almost certainly don't need "formal" closes. What would be far more helpful if you'd leave these out of your inclusions to WP:ANRFC, and instead focus just on RfC's past the 30-days mark that clearly do need "formal" closures (for whatever reason). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion-stalker interjection: It's perfectly fine to seek closure of a "non-formal RfC", like a merge discussion or whatever, for legitimate reasons. I.e., the "almost certainly don't need 'formal' closes" cutoff (vague as it is) applies to any consensus discussion, not just those with an RfC tag. I list RfC-like things and they do get closed, so there's clearly an operating consensus that they can be listed there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My point is that I've seen more than a couple of requests on WP:ANRFC that either absolutely don't need a "formal" close at all, or which are not really amenable to "closing". I'm just saying those RfC's (etc.) don't belong at ANFRC in the first place. That's all... But I definitely agree with you on the "unarchiving-to-properly-close" RfC's point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure. I think my comment above (but after yours here) gets at this issue: "Whether an RfC needs listing or not is subjective. There's (usually!) no bad faith in making a request for closure, or in rejecting the request as unnecessary. It's just part of the normal churn of WP:ANRFC". If some disruptive doofus is listing reams of stuff that doesn't need closure, any admin can tell them it's disruptive (really, any non-involved editor can), and if they don't stop, then we'll see them at WP:ANI. (Or someone will; I virtually never bother with ANI, AE, etc., any more; massive pits of WP:DRAMA-mongering are "what happens when you call the Feds". One should always quote from Firefly when possible.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Request / suggestion: Shouldn't we fork the distinct discussions of "how WP should generally deal with requests for closure archived discussions" and "concerns about a particular user's closure requests"? All this "I explained my closure requests ..." and "I'd like to hear X's rationale why they picked the ones they picked ..." specific-editor-level stuff is clouding the more important issue, the general one. WP:VPPOL isn't WP:ANI, and user behavior concerns about specific requests or patterns of requests doesn't belong here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Evidence that unarchival to reach resolution is not controversial: See the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Can we get a bot to check the Internet Archive for dead link solutions?; it's been unarchived twice, over a considerable span of time, from multiple archive pages, and no one's head asplode about it. It did in fact reach a positive conclusion to take action, so the repeated unarchival for closure was genuinely productive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, but you're missing the point. Unarchiving a recent discussion to continue talking about it is fine. The examples I gave had already reached resolution. They did not have a piece of petty bureaucratic paperwork attached to them, but every single person interested in those discussions already knew the outcome. This isn't about discussions whose lack of resolution is still causing actual, demonstrable, provable-with-diffs problems, or even discussions that people just want to keep talking about. This is about discussions that are dead and done and whose outcomes are so obvious that anyone with half a brain can figure out the result. Go look at the example again. Would you personally have un-archived that month-old discussion just to slap a "Hey, there was no consensus to change the rules – I guess that's why none of you did it!" tag on it? Do you honestly believe that any editor at all would try to use that discussion (80% opposed!) as proof of a consensus in favor of the proposed rule change? Or do you think that was probably an example of an unnecessary action? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rationale

The reason why the rationale is important to decide on the policy issue is to check whether Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point applies.

  • The point being made: "all RfCs merit formal closure"
  • The "illustration" of that point is made by clogging up WP:ANRFC, without any distinction between those RfC's that are most in need of formal closure, and those for which it is primarily "a nice thing to have" without there being an indication (yet) that the unclosed RfC (or discussion) has led to abuse.

So my proposal to address this is not to write a new rule about when RfC's can or cannot be listed at WP:ANRFC. That ship has sailed I think (seen the "prior" which I was unaware about). However, this is what should be added to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#Examples imho:

  • If you think around 90% of all RfC's merit formal closure...
    • do close a few you think most in need of closure, and ask at the active talk page of those which you can't close whether there is a consensus that formal closure is the way to go.
    • do not clog up WP:ANRFC by randomly adding RfC's and discussions for which need of formal closure has not been established.

Really, such things should not be spelled out so explicitly at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, that's why I proposed an "agreement" as a first step. But as "agreement" also seems to have been a ship that has sailed, adding this to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point seems to be the best way forward. In the mean while, I think a few RfC's for which desirability of formal closure has not been established can either be removed or marked as "done" at WP:ANRFC with the rationale that need of formal closure is tenuous. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in an addition somewhat along these lines, but the lead-in rationale for it, 'The point being made: "all RfCs merit formal closure"' is a straw man. Nothing about the overall thread here, about unarchiving for closure, proposes that all RfC's merit formal closure, only that RfCs (or similar discussions) that do merit closure can be unarchived for closure, since bots do not determine consensus. If someone wants such an addition, just propose it at WT:POINT, with a clearer rationale. I'd support something similar to it, but not this exact wording, which POINTily itself suggests that "all RfC's merit formal closure" is a valid approach and one that we need special advice for. It isn't; we already have WP-wide consensus against that idea, and it's spelled out clearly at WP:RFC. A better characterization would be "if you think more RfCs merit formal closure ...". The rationale for that would be that enough editors do feel this way that ANRFC is being overrun; that seems to be factual.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
'The point being made: "all RfCs merit formal closure"' is an overstatement; Cunard has said in the past that he only lists about 90% of them. Whether the RFC needs a closing statement does not appear to be one of his considerations. As it is implausible for any editor to be interested in 90% of the RFCs on wiki, we can safely assume that he has no interest in the outcomes of these discussions, and we have no evidence that systematically listing nearly all RFCs for non-admin closing statements provides any benefit to the project. I have already outlined the harms above, e.g., that providing a formal closing statement implies that even in the most patently obvious cases, you cannot be trusted to figure out that whether or not there was a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If this is really just about one editor's behavior, that's an ANI matter, not a need for site-wide changes to pages like WP:RFC or WP:POINT. This is why I suggested above that the discussion's commingling of user-behavior and policy matters be forked into separate discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Added "around 90% of" for clarity. Note that I do think 100% of RfC's and many other discussions merit formal closure, so there's no overstatement in "all RfCs merit formal closure". However whether it is added as an example to WP:POINT or not (and if so with what percentage) is not what this is about. This is implied by WP:POINT whether it is written out as an example or not. I'm against new rules to regulate influx at WP:ANRFC (WP:POINT is not a new rule, and that it applies should have been recognised a long time ago). Further:
  • WT:POINT has been notified, so the guideline can be updated with consensus here. No need to split up the discussion.
  • Whether this should go to WP:ANI: a clarification of the applicable guidance has been given, if this has clarified the matter sufficiently to interested parties, I don't see a need to take wherever else. If indiscriminate listings at WP:ANRFC would continue: warn editor(s) who follow that course of action of WP:POINT's applicability (possibly with a link to this VPP section). When such warnings are ignored, escalate to appropriate admin actions, e.g. via ANI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The closing statement was modified from "Archiving" to "Closure" because I used the wrong word. SPACKlick (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Renaming bots

When a user having a bot is renamed, the bot should also be renamed. Bot talk pages often redirect to the talk page of the operator, and in this case, the old bot talk page will become a triple redirect and the new bot talk page will become a double redirect, so their targets will have to be changed to the talk page of the operator with a new name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This would work if all bots were named after the user that controls them, such as "Godsybot". However bots don't follow that naming convention. Better to just fix the redirect if there is one. As you pointed out, bot pages don't always redirect in this manner, so it wouldn't be universally needed in all cases. Furthermore, bot operators may not want the bot to be renamed, and what is proposed shouldn't be a standard practice forced upon them.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:db-author and screenshots

In the words of DESiegel (DES), "The[re] is now [a] discussion in progress at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:db-author and non-free content that I think will be of interest to editors who follow this page, and I would welcome additional views. [...] The question, or at least the part of it relevant to this page, is the degree to which it is proper to use {{db-author}} to delete a screenshot image uploaded to be used under fair use. Please comment at the WT:NFC page." A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)

Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update.

The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.

Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 04:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Divert humanpower

From new article creation to expansion of existing articles. As a person who advocates excessive writeup, verbosity, technicality and expansionism, I want every article to be bloated with excessive details and citation overload. therefore, proposing a change in policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:2110:AFF3:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe WP:POINT covers every possible response to this proposal. --Jayron32 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Either that, or WP:HUH?. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The page at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is a policy, has been massively expanded over the last couple of weeks, changing its requirements considerably. It seems to me that such a wide-ranging change of policy should not be made without wider consultation, and probably a centrally-advertised RfC. I'm not aware of any such discussion taking place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification close

Drmies (talk · contribs) has closed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. Here is Drmies' conclusion:

In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation.

Best, Cunard (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability of veterans of WWII

Hi from Russian Wikipedia. I know very well that policies might be different by projects. So I just would love to have a side look to one problem: as it would be here, not there. So there is a Soviet veteran, still alive, 100 years old this year. He is not an acclaimed Soviet hero but he fought fairly and bravely, has some decorations but not of the highest rank, demobilized as captain lieutenant. There is one article about him in a regional newspaper and one name mention in a book. But the ru-wiki rules his notability is not sufficient for a big disgrace of his grand-grand-son. I am not a part of the conflict, just wondering. Is there some special notability rules/exceptions for now living U.S. Navy veterans of WWII? Would be the article destiny (given it is about a U.S. Navy veteran) any different here? The discussion itself here, but it is all in Russian and a lot of it :-) --Neolexx (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia notablility policy, for people says that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There aren't exceptions for military personnel, that I know of, and this isn't someone of high rank (= US Navy lieutenant). The Russian discussion is complex and seems a follow-on to a discussion started somewhere else. Someone signing himself as "ArseniyKim" has found a namesake ("реплики" = "namesakes"?) whose story he wants to tell on Russian Wikipedia, where there's slight documentation anyway, but it isn't allowed because of something a distant descendant ("grand-grand-son" = "great grandson" = son of grandson?) has done (which would probably just add to his notability on English Wikipedia, although not enough to justify a separate article)? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't read Russian so I can't comment on the specific case. We do have a supplementary notability guideline for soldiers which suggests some examples of military officers who can be presumed notable. Generally, only ranks as high as flag officers, generals and the like, soldiers who have been awarded the highest honours, or who commanded a very large unit such as a division meet the guideline, though there are other criteria. However, centagenarians (people 100 years of age or older) can sometimes be notable through coverage in reliable sources, possibly even more for being a centagenarian WWII veteran. You would have to find that coverage though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Edit filter guideline

Editors are invited to join a Request for Comment regarding the introduction of a proposed guideline for edit filter use. Please join the voting and discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Sam Walton (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Deprecation of date= in references

I can't find this new policy: See this diff. Checkingfax (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that must be a bug in the bot. month=, day=, and coauthor= are all deprecated, but neither date nor author that i know of. DES (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Pinging the bot's operator to here seems to be in order. @Trappist the monk:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The answer seems to be here. Sam Walton (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Sam. My ping is now deprecated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC concerning the dispute resolution noticeboard.

See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RfC: Should volunteers moderating a dispute be bound by the instruction to "Comment only on the content not the contributor". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The word cisgender at the Caitlyn Jenner article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Caitlyn Jenner#Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This page (9/11_conspiracy_theories) violates the Wikipedia Five Pillars

WRONG VENUE
I'm closing this down, as it doesn't meet the standards of this venue. Discussions of this nature should happen on article talk pages, and this is sort of page-specific discussion is absolutely not going to result in a change of policy at Wikipedia, and instead serves as a fringe-theory-lightning-rod and drama magnet. If you wish to discuss this specific article, use the article's talk page, and bring some sources along when you do so. --Jayron32 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

TLDR

Massive violation of Wikipedia Five Pillars on this page The second pillar is this:

Second pillar Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

This article is very biased, false and misleading, in blatant and obvious violation of this second pillar. The article is not the slightest bit impartial and does a very poor job presenting the explosive controlled demolition conspiracy theory. The so called "conspiracy theory" of explosive controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and Building 7 is very well documented.

This 9/11 conspiracy theories highlights one major weakness of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia philosophy: the assumption that if somebody publishes a statement it must be true. The problem in this article is that critical thinking was not applied to the official conspiracy theory, the one proffered by the government and mass media starting on 9/11 itself, the one that blames 19 Arabs armed with box cutters. There are dozens if not hundreds of flaws in the government's conspiracy theory in virtually every area. Just because NIST has published their own theory of what happened does not mean it is true. What this page ought to contain is a detailed critique of the NIST investigations and report along with a defense of that critique. I am willing and able to provide part of the former: the government's apologists will have to provide the latter.

Another way in which the article is misleading is its treatment of the term or phrase "conspiracy theory". By definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. The proposed FAQ flatly denies this but it is true. The article poisons the waters and effectively prevents a reader new to the subject from objectively reading it and evaluating the explosive controlled demolition theory with an open mind. The use of the term "conspiracy theory" in connection with 9/11, coupled with the false statement that the government's account is somehow now a conspiracy theory, seems intended to prevent Wikipedia readers from actually looking at the evidence objectively and with an open mind. You are doing the work of the government and mass media and it is a total violation of this pillar of Wikipedia. (You meaning those who have written this article and rejected edits to make it more accurate.)

Does an Administrator have anything to add on this? When was the last time an Administrator closely reviewed this article to determine how well it complies with this pillar of Wikipedia? Was that ever done?

Peace Beasley Reece (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE WEIGHT. Just because a view exists does not make it reliable or notable. The neutral view in this case is that the fringe theories, while existing, are not scientific and not accurate. This is confirmed by a slew of reliable sources. We don't give equal weight to Holocaust deniers, Christ myth theorists, flat Earth theorists or Moon landing hoax proponents, and to do so would be against the due weight policy. The same applies with this page, which certainly promotes a fringe theory. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy or fringe theories and to demand equal weight clearly goes against due weight on this issue. Toa Nidhiki05 18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Toa,

Your examples have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or specifically the explosive controlled demolition theory. You have made a logical fallacy; grouping all conspiracy theories together as one, as equally valid and supported by science, and dismissed them all. You are either unaware of the substantial scientific evidence that supports the explosive controlled demolition theory and the many fatal flaws in the government's story or you are incapable of looking at the evidence objectively. Or you are just an apologist for the official conspiracy theory and you are using and abusing Wikipedia rules to censor my work. In any case, bad behavior.

Claiming that the U.S. government and mainstream media account of the 9/11 attacks is correct is extremely biased. It is the direct opposite of neutral. Same with claiming that the explosive controlled demolition theory is incorrect. You have no idea what neutrality means, nor did you pay any attention to the second pillar of Wikipedia.

Explosive controlled demolition is not a fringe theory. There is no factual basis for you to say that. It is well documented and supported by science. Due weight requires presenting a subject fairly so that others may evaluate it. Claims by the government should always be treated with suspicion, nowhere more than on this subject. The last thing any thinking person should do is accept the government's claims on matters of war and peace without checking them.

Furthermore you never responded to my claim; that the second pillar of Wikipedia requires this issue be presented accurately and in context. The 9/11 Conspiracy theories page does a very poor job of that. Your denials notwithstanding. By the way you cannot make something so by saying it, even if you say it 100 times. The laws of physics apply every day to every building. The official story requires you (me, everybody) to believe that the laws of physics such as those concerning free fall gravitational acceleration and vectors (direction of motion related to the direction of an applied force) did not apply on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. The official story has been proven false and the explosive controlled demolition theory has been proven true. See for example Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth [1] and Scientists for 9/11 Truth [2]

The fall of WTC 7 was achieved by explosive controlled demolition. These facts are unknown to the vast majority of the U.S. population and the world. Most do not even know that Building 7 existed; let alone that it came down in 7 seconds let alone the specifics of the collapse: sudden, symmetrical, rapid and complete.

Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.

Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.

NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48) [3] Beasley Reece(talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You are operating under a misconception and have misunderstand key wikipedia policy. Our goal is not impartiality. Impartiality is defined as: "an inclination to weigh both views or opinions equally." This is not what we do in wikipedia, instead we use WP:DUE weight. We don't pretend all opinions are equally WP:VALID. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) To respond to your claims, Beasley Reece, I never dismissed anything. I gave examples of fringe theories that are not covered equally and relevant policies that explain why this is and should be the case for this particular fringe theory. It isn't biased to make a direct claim supported by sources, as the account of the event is. I would suggest you stop making bad faith accusations about me and instead show why the direct policy I showed is not applicable. As for the Truther propaganda you are posting I have neither the time nor will to debate a Truther about why he is wrong and why the fringe science you are supporting is wrong. Everything you are posting is typical Truther stuff that has been debated and disproved numerous times. It is against WP policy to promote Truther ideas as equals with the mainstream, scientifically accepted account, as it would be for any of the examples I listed above. Toa Nidhiki05 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) As no evidence for controlled demolition as ever been reported in any reliable source we don't report on it. This is perfectly in keeping with WP:NPOV. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This conversation has a few good merits here, so I figured it was worth reviving. I'm not sure if this point got lost in the conversation above, but it seems that it was never addressed. "Claiming that the U.S. government and mainstream media account of the 9/11 attacks is correct is extremely biased. It is the direct opposite of neutral." This is actually a valid point, considering the fact that all of the mainstream academia sources that Wikipedia uses concerning 9/11 upholds the 'official story'. Since all the main academia sources concur on the 'official' explanation, it leaves no room for any other possible determination as to what could have caused the World Trade Centers to collapse that day. That would make this entire page in violation of the Wikipedia Five Pillars, since all the sources pander to the same side, not allowing any other data, or information to be shared on Wikipedia, like it should. Here's an example. In the section of this page concerning the Thermite found in Ground Zero, it says, "The article contained no scientific rebuttal and the editor in chief of the publication subsequently resigned.", links and all. Yet, here is that same exact page, with all of the links to accepted Mainstream Academia sources included [1]. Why is it so difficult for Wikipedia to be able to maintain a neutral point of view in articles concerning controversial events? This page does NOT follow any sort of neutrality, as well as the main Wikipedia page for 9/11. Enough said. Not only that, but when I try to revive this archived conversation, a Wikipedia user that sheriffs the page keeps deleting my post, stating it's too long, and too old. I could've sworn that on archived pages, it says "If you want to discuss an archived discussion, revive it to the current talk page", which is what I tried to do. How is it fair that I have a valid point to make, and to hopefully to contribute to Wikipedia to make it more accurate, yet I can't seem to make my voice heard because certain Wikipedia users feel entitled to make certain pages appeal to their opinion, or the opinion of "consensus". That being said, I found this beauty of a line in the above conversation that furthers my point. "We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say." That would mean that this page is NOT neutral, and does not support a neutral point of view. This page is very lacking on sources that can contribute a scientific input to the "other side of the coin" as far as 9/11, and conspiracies. Yes, there are a lot of new users, and anonymous IPs that try to add information that has no valid source, and other nonsense. That much for the people who patrol these pages can be applauded. However, whenever a well-meaning Wikipedia user tries to add actual scientific data, the users who patrol these pages automatically reject this information as invalid, because it doesn't agree with the views of those patrolling the page. Such as when I tried to add this link[2] to the 9/11 conspiracies talk page, and it was subsequently removed without being reviewed. Please do not tell me that I am ranting endlessly because Wikipedia isn't fair, or I don't agree with it. The reason I am taking the time out of my day to write this post is so that we, as Wikipedia users, can figure out to make pages like this follow the law of neutrality. The best example I can give of Wikipedia is would be Sweden claiming it's neutral, yet following, believing, and adopting all the ideals of another country. I know that we all have the brains to be able to work this problem out resolutely. Thanks. New User Person (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In short, this user is arguing that 9/11 conspiracies deserve "equal time". Equal time is not the same as neutral point of view. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I took the time to write out my comments because Wikipedia pretends to be neutral on such controversial matters, yet takes only one side, unfairly. Here's a quote from another Wikipedia user that basically sums it up, "We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say.". This is a basic flaw in the so called neutrality of this page, and again the reason I took the time out of my day to share my consensus. I thought that is what Wikipedia was founded on. Consensus. How is 'consensus' the argued point of a few, even if it is in agreement of the mainstream academia sources. You have to remember that the it was a consensus that reached the agreement that the world is flat. How is it right that Wikipedia reflect the views of those, whether they are correct or not? Wikipedia was made for the benefit of all who access it's data, to the best, most accurate knowledge. That doesn't mean regurgitating incorrect information, and rejecting information that dares threaten the current 'consensus'. Just like the 2008 9/11 conspiracy arbitration committee. A committee that was in complete agreement not to change a thing about the Wikipedia page, because they are all in agreement that the information is 'accurate'. New User Person (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
To begin with, consensus never argued the world was flat. The Earth has been known to be spherical since ancient times. There are better analogies to make. And to end with, your problem seems to be with the policies themselves and not the application. The neutral point of view requires that we follow what mainstream sources say. The mainstream presents a single, monolithic viewpoint on this subject. The conspiracy theorists are not, and will not, be given an equal voice on that page, or any page, as it should be. You're beating a horse that's been dead for years. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere." I'm sorry, you were saying? That is beside the point of the argument. Wikipedia claims to try and be as scientifically accurate and neutral as possible. Yet, the information that is shared on Wikipedia is only dictated by a few? It's a classic paradox. New User Person (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has never claimed the kind of neutrality you are talking about, and never will. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Under the policies pages on Wikipedia, here is the description for 'Neutral Point of View', "Everything that our readers can see, including articles, templates, categories and portals, must be written neutrally and without bias". That would, in effect, be the exact opposite of what you just told me. It would also make it the exact opposite of what WP:FALSEBALANCE states. New User Person (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that is your misinterpretation of one sentence, a misinterpretation that is counter to WP:FALSEBALANCE as well as WP:WEIGHT. You can argue all you want, but I promise you your views are not supported in Wikipedia policies. I can only suggest more reading and less writing for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, well I don't understand how that is my 'misinterpretation'. It says exactly what it does on the tin. Meaning the sentence only has one clear interpretation. No if, ands, or buts about it. The definition of the word 'neutral' is as follows, "not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial." That means not one side, nor the other. Since all of Wikipedia uses all of the mainstream academia sources that argue the same side on every issue, that would in effect make it biased. Please notice how the word 'bias' is defined as a complete antonym of the word 'neutral'. New User Person (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I hear you, and the misinterpretation is the result of the necessity to use one word to describe a Wikipedia principle. Sometimes the language just doesn't provide a word that's entirely adequate, and we have to choose an ambiguous word and try to clear up the ambiguity in the text of policy. The same problem exists with the word "notability", and to my knowledge we're still trying to find a better word. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means evaluationg the reliable sources neutrally and without bias. An example of Wikipedia bias would be giving more weight to the 9/11 conspiracy theories than is justified by reliable sources. That would be a bias favoring those theories. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". (emphasis mine). The lunatic fringe is neither significant nor reliable. If we accepted your interpretation of "neutrality" half of evolution would be about creationism, the article on hydrogen would discuss alleged new energy levels, and Barack Obama would include sections on his being Kenyan, Muslim, and/or an alien lizard. You would like us to accept you interpretation of a brief summary of a policy, and have us ignore the actual policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I differ with that approach. It is neither necessary nor useful to make our own subjective judgments about lunatic fringes, we need only to look at what reliable sources think. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It was never asked that more weight be given to conspiracies, and the like, than other views. You are right, it would be unfair if too much weight be given to conspiracy theories. It would make Wikipedia bias towards that one side. A It is only asked that they be reviewed as fairly as the mainstream academia sources are. Information about Barack Obama being a possible alien lizard would be a prime example of information that should be weeded out of Wikipedia regardless. It is obvious nonsense, and not every person, or 'conspiracy theorist' if you will, agrees with that view. I certainly don't. It is when information, like the information I tried to add about thermite found at Ground Zero, that is overlooked with the same notion. That it is nonsense. If you were to actually take the time to read the link to the source I provided, then you would see that this source contains links to mainstream accepted academia sources. Like I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to add any type of scientific data to any Wikipedia page, let alone a page such as 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is because any edits to such pages are closely monitored by someone, and if the edit does not agree with the views of the patroller, it is reverted. I was always in the understanding that Wikipedia was made via consensus. That is the one of the basis for this conversation. The understanding that one can help Wikipedia by asking such questions such as this, and adding valid data without being met with such hostility. New User Person (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The thermite theory as represented on Wikipedia is sourced to a "scientific" article in a journal that did not exercise peer review, despite advertising otherwise, and no longer exists. That and three news articles about the study. And the authors are acting far outside their field. Given the weight this seems to hold in the academic community, the articles give the theory the attention it deserves - mentioning it, discussing rebuttals of the theory, and not mentioning it at all in the main 9/11 attacks page. If you think this theory deserves more weight on Wikipedia, you'll have to present sources to show it holds more weight amongst actual experts. I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views. You know why they were deleted, you quoted the reason yourself in one of your reposts. You might find yourself taken more seriously at that talk page if you simply got to the point about something specific you think is wrong, and then presented sources you feel support your proposed changes, rather than using 12 kilobytes of text to complain about the state of the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Using ad hominem attacks such as this, "I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views", is unnecessary. I never said there was a conspiracy amongst administrators to suppress my, or anyone else's views. I simply stated that another Wikipedia user was 'monitor' the page, deleting any views that don't agree with their own. Don't give any, 'It wasn't an ad hominem attack, I was simply stating there is no conspiracy to suppress your views.". We both know exactly what you were implying. I, also, never used 12 kilobytes of text to make my point, not even close. Most of the 12 kilobytes was previous conversation that was there so it could be referred too, considering it was the basis of the conversation. A post being too long is an really asinine reason not to hear somebody else's views. Citable sources, you say? You mean like this[3] source used in the main 9/11 Wikipedia page, that fails to have any reliable sources to back it's information. I've already tried to suggest the addition of the thermite source three times, but it was subsequently ignored every time. New User Person (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You're not going to accomplish anything with this. Wikipedia's official stance is that the mainstream assessment is reality, and that conspiracy theories about the attacks are (to be short and blunt) bullshit that is only worth discussing as the stupid paranoia that it is. Get over it. Tendentious editing will accomplish nothing except getting you blocked. And before you even try to pretend that you haven't been tendentiously editing, asking for Popular Mechanics's sources is tendentious. They are reliable source, period.
As far as I'm concerned, the only further responses to your posts on this matter should be "you're just wasting everyone's time, stop."
In short: you're just wasting everyone's time, stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I never asked for the sources for popular mechanics. I only pointed out that this link has no sources, and therefore should not be a citable link. Like I said, and I don't understand why I have to keep reiterating this, I only used the 9/11 attacks as a basis for my point. The point of this discussion is how Wikipedia cannot claim to be neutral if it is sourcing

from sources that all reiterate the same point, and refuse the admittance of new data or information. These sources shoot down any other possible explanation for 9/11, and immediately label it a 'conspiracy theory'. That is, in by it's self, biased. New User Person (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone informed the people on the talk page of 9/11_conspiracy_theories that this discussion is taking place? Jakesyl (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I thought this discussion had long been buried in the archives of fringe theories. @User:New User Person, for new users it is usually a good idea to do some non-controversial work on Wikipedia and engage in some less controversial discussion before engaging in such highly polarized and debated issues like this. Also, it is generally considered bad manners to repeat a closed discussion verbatim. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. Ok, I'll leave this discussion, not sure if it'll be closed or not. I hope it doesn't close, so that way other people can discuss it. Thanks. New User Person (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf [bare URL PDF]
  2. ^ http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf [bare URL PDF]
  3. ^ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

How do I communicate directly...

Heading shortened from "How do I communicate directly with the new user person who wrote to me tonight?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To any friendly editor, monitor, patrol, wiki-cop, etc.,

Tonight I received via email the following message.

I decided to use your old archived discussion on the 9/11 conspiracies talk page to start a discussion of my own recently. I could really use the support of someone who shares the same point of view as my own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Thanks, New User Person (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I simply want to contact this person. How do I do that? Please advise. Thank you. MG

Beasley Reece (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done this myself, but Wikipedia:Emailing users says to go to the user's page (user's talk page, contributions, etc., has the link, too) and click on the "Email this user" link in the left-hand-side navigation menu, under "Tools". Dhtwiki (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_122&oldid=1142561471"