Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 155

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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

Primary and self-published sources

As well-intentioned as the sections on self-published and primary sources are in themselves, they do a disservice to Wikipedia by strengthening the hand of those who would deprecate all primary sources. More of the burden of proof should be placed on those who would remove self-published statements. Most organizations protect their own integrity by not lying about themselves. Much of what organizations do is not newsworthy but is necessary to properly characterize the organization. We should not pretend that books and newspapers are necessarily less biased, since they are written to appeal to those who purchase them. Placing ugly tags above articles may say more about the integrity of Wikipedia than the integrity of the organization's website. I propose that a statement be added to both of the above sections (on self-published and on primary sources) to put more of the burden of proof on the one placing the tag. This would clarify what it means that a source is "unduly" self-serving. Also, the tag "Third-party" can be greatly abused, and simply insult those involved with the organization. Having these gross tags for the top of an article also facilitates drive-by tagging of articles without taking the time to specify what statements are questionable. What think you? I welcome suggestions for specific improvements on these guidelines. Jzsj (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree entirely with what I see as the core of your argument - Much of what organizations do is not newsworthy but is necessary to properly characterize the organization. That's contrary to our concept of notability - if nobody else is writing about it, it's not worth recording in Wikipedia. My general metric (for companies, but can be tweaked for other orgs) is that if it's fundamental enough to go in an infobox (number of employees, what they do, things like that), a primary source is fine, but we don't need or want the company history if there's no external coverage. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We may be on two different tracks. What do you think, in general, of a tagging like this? Jzsj (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jzsj: Can you give us some representative examples of the problems you are seeing?--Jayron32 18:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, one problem I frequently see is that people conflate primary with unreliable or secondary with reliable. They are not the same thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Begin with the one just above: how does it strike you? Jzsj (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It doesn't strike me one way or the other because no one asked the person who placed it why they placed it. When I see one person do one thing, and I don't understand why they did it, my first response is to ask that one person why they did it. My first response is definitely NOT to rewrite policy to address that one singular event. What I would recommend you do is ask the person why they did it. Without knowing that, I have no meaningful opinion one way or the other. --Jayron32 19:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If someone adds what you consider an inappropriate tag, ask them politely on the article talk page to clarify. If they fail to do so within a reasonable period (perhaps a week?), leave a comment to that effect on the talk page and remove the tag. This is BRD in principle, just politely inverted to BDR. If they can give an actionable explanation, fix the article or leave the tag. If the explanation is not actionable, the tag is inappropriate and can be removed, or the article is inappropriate and should be deleted. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with much of anything the OP says, per prior respondents to it, but also more broadly. There simply isn't anything like a conspiracy of editors trying "deprecate all primary sources". PSes are permissible only for very specific things in particular contexts, mostly WP:ABOUTSELF material, which should be scarce, i.e. included only when it's particularly important (to encyclopedia readers, not to the subject of the article). Even then, as soon as we have a secondary source for it we no longer need the primary one. The bulk of the OP's rambling is about "ugliness" of cleanup/dispute tags and them being an "insult" to the subject of the article and its employees. This is a WP:PROMO concern, of someone who is mistaking the WP article about some company as a form of advertising and social networking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Referring to ships as "she"

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"She" vs. "it" for ships. This is a perennial discussion that never seems to reach consensus. Notice of this round of discussion (which doesn't presently have an RfC tag on it, but might later) was first made to various ship- and military-related projects and pages (i.e., places of strong concentration of fans of using "she" for ships, and of male editors in particular), and later to some bias, feminism, gender wikiprojects and such that are apt to have wider views and demographics, for balance. But VPPOL is generally where to find a broad intersection of WP editors when we need more eyes and minds brought to bear on an interminable "style fight" that needs to come to a firm resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Attend the linked discussion, if it pleases you.
Note: our current guidance allows either usage (with the usual caveats about internal consistency within a given article, and not edit warring from one to the other). Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not familiar with maritime industry, but I have always found referring to ship as "she" to be weird and jarring. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Why do we need "firm guidance"? Where is the evidence of an "interminable style fight"? Either usage is permitted, per Blueboar, and I see no reason why this shouldn't continue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
You might like to advise WT:SHIPS and WT:MILHIST about this move of the existing discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think the intention was to shift the discussion to here... The intent was to invite people to join the discussion at MOS. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Ships are referred to as she, as they're considered to be like a female, i.e unpredictable. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Everyone, please avoid discussing the merits here, as the discussion is already underway at WT:MOS, and it's confusing to have it in two places. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Are bloggers WP:RS??

Cassie_Jaye mentions the opinion of a random blogger (David Futrelle, who runs a website called We Hunted the Mammoth). I thought Wikipedia included opinions from primary reliable sources, and not bloggers? Or, am I missing something? (Please ping me when responding) —Srid🍁 00:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about, Her effort was strongly criticized by ... David Futrelle ... who said it looked like propaganda. I don't see a fundamental problem with that. We're not taking Futrelle's statement as a fact, we're just reporting on what he wrote. Actually, the way it's in the article, we're not even doing that; we're reporting on The Guardian's summary of what he wrote, and The Guardian certainly is a WP:RS. No comment on the rest of the article, but I think we're fine with this particular issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I overlooked the fact that the reference was The Guardian. But, if it had been his weblog URL instead, that would not be acceptable, right? —Srid🍁 00:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Before we can assess reliability, we need to examine this in terms of UNDUE WEIGHT. Who is David Futrelle, and why should we care what his opinion is? Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Reliability and WP:UNDUE are unrelated concepts. If David Futrelle writes a blog and says, "the sky is blue", and we say, "David Futrelle has said, 'the sky is blue'", with a citation to his where he said it, I don't see any issues vis-a-vis WP:RS. Whether it's useful for us to say that, or a violation of WP:UNDUE, or whether that contributes to WP:N, is another question. But, WP:RS isn't the issue here. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with RoySmith. We often ask "Is this source reliable?" when we really mean "Should this be mentioned in this article at all?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I feel I should point out that if it's just someone's personal weblog and hasn't been published or talked about elsewhere then it's likely WP:BLPSPS will apply since from what I can tell, this seems to be material about a living person. If it was focused on the movie in an article on the movie it may be acceptable although I agree it seems likely it would be undue and it's probably easiest to remove it for that reason rather than concentrating on other things outside of BLP cases. Note that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources would also come into play i.e. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert". While it's possible that someone is such without an article on either the person or the blog, IMO it's rare and David Futrelle and We Hunted the Mammoth are both red links. Nil Einne (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC raised for appropriate notifications

I raised an RfC for WP:CANVASS at WP:VPR#RfC: Appropriate notifications, I see by the heading it should probably been here but I guess no problem as people here probably watch there anyway. WP:CANVASS should list some notifications as best practice to send, as well as its current 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider audience...' for the appropriate notifications it lists. Currently evenly split. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of direct transclusion in portals and the newer portal transclusion templates

There is a clear consensus for this proposal.

Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (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.

This is a formal request to receive input from the Wikipedia community regarding a relatively specialized aspect of Wikipedia's portals, the transclusion of content in portals using the newer portal transclusion templates, in hopes that a firm consensus can be formed regarding:

  1. The general use of direct transclusion in portals, specifically, if a consensus can be formed to formally approve or disapprove of this technique, and
  2. The use of the portal transclusion templates in relation to said transclusion.

North America1000 03:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A previous short-lived RfC regarding this matter here was opened on 9 November 2019 (UTC) and closed on 11 November 2019 (UTC). At that discussion, its procedural closure was based upon the notion that this 2017 discussion set a precedent and consensus for the use of these transclusion templates. However, that discussion dates back to 2017, and consensus can change. Furthermore, the 2017 discussion occurred before the templates were developed and utilized, and since that time opinions have become more divided in various areas of Wikipedia about the use of transclusions in portals.

This RfC involves the following templates:

  • Content transclusion templates
  • Content slideshow templates

Some examples regarding divided opinions and concerns about the use of these templates in portals can be perused at the following discussions. More examples exist in various areas of Wikipedia. Some users feel that the use of transclusions to present article content is an improvement, because it provides verbatim content to that which is in articles and other areas of Wikipedia, as compared to copied and pasted content on portal subpages that can become outdated. Of note is that some portal subpages are now using the transclusion templates as well. Other users have stated that the use of transclusions to present article and other content is inherently problematic because no firm consensus for their use appears to have ever been formed, or that no consensus exists at this time for their use. To assist in finding content in these discussions in relation to said transclusion and these templates, I recommend utilizing the find feature in your browser and searching for "transc". This is because the general term is referred to using different words in various discussions, such as "transclusions", "transcluded", "transcluding", etc.

It is my hope that this discussion can remain focused upon direct content transclusion in portals in relation to these specific templates, rather than morphing into a larger general discussion about whether or not portals are wanted by the community, the merits or problems of portals, etc. In this manner, the discussion can stay hopefully stay on-topic in a focused, organized manner. North America1000 03:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on use of direct transclusion in portals and the newer portal transclusion templates

  • Support the use of the content templates as a modernized means to keep portals up-to-date with verbatim content to that which appears in articles and other areas of Wikipedia, with a caveat that navbox-clone style portals that involve no curation whatsoever should not be created. I also support the use of the content slideshow templates as a means to provide more options in portal design, updating and maintenance. North America1000 03:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to also maintain a separate subpage containing all the transcluded article portions, just for eyeball reference? I think having such a thing would go a long way towards resolving the objection that this format makes it harder to see what content is being produced for the main portal page. bd2412 T 03:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think they are referring to using the "|showall= " parameter in {{Transclude random excerpt }} as seen at Portal:Canada/Indices#Featured articles in portal (scrolling list).--Moxy 🍁 06:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Both methods appear to provide the sort of transparency that allows any editor to easily verify or audit such a list of what in prior construction methods used to be called "subpages". BusterD (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with it as long as some means are maintained by which editors can see the full set of topics and their presentation on the main portal page without having to click through each one individually. bd2412 T 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • One technique is for the main portal page to transclude a subpage consisting of {{Transclude random excerpt}}, with a |showall=yes flag inside a noinclude tag, plus any surrounding decoration. Using a subpage also reduces the risk of timeout errors, which might occur if a single page parses every article in every section rather than just one per section as in the main portal. Certes (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the side effects of WP:ENDPORTALS was the creation of tools to automate the freshening of portals. If some editors would like to see existing portals improved not deprecated, I agree the transclusion of already created tools to automate time consuming tasks associated with portal maintenance might satisfy some issues often mentioned in mfd "delete" assertions. I do not see any harm in using these tools to improve exisitng portalspace. BusterD (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with the example Portal:Canada of what I believe incorporates all the features of a transclusion portal at its best. That said even an automated portal like this will still need mantainers to assure that FA and GA selections are updated/removed when demoted or more vital articles added when promoted. Will also need to watchover DYK and news to assure they keep functioning. Pls note would still vote for all portals to be eliminated......but think if we have them the Canada portal is what we should be striving for as per the info page Wikipedia:Portal#Purposes of portals.--Moxy 🍁 05:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as a means of improving portals and keeping them up-to-date and accurate. This is a no-brainer really, a simple and straightforward way to easily create snippets of relevant content about a topic. I do think a manual system should be kept in place as well, in case the portal creator/maintainer wants things written or displayed somewhat different than the transclusions give. ɱ (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Allow direct transclusion, but do not mandate it. It is very useful for having portal content update automatically (this avoids embarrassment especially with BLPs). The main downside is that article lead sections are often not made for being transcluded onto portals, and automated image selection is usually inferior to hand-curated images. To see whether problems exist (which can be hard with random transclusion), overview pages like Portal:Germany/Selected cuisine can be used (by using a subpage for this that is also used on the main portal page, the content on the overview and content used on the portal are automatically in sync). —Kusma (t·c) 06:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As per my posts at Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive_6#Portals_are_moribund, I think lede transclusion is a good idea, but it pre-supposes that Portals are a good idea, and the merit of portals in their entirety or all but the top 10-100 is under serious doubt. Lede transclusion does remove the problem of aging content forks in abandoned portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Portals have shifted in purpose over the last decade to be a navigational tool and to highlight featured content, as opposed to their original "magazine-like" role. Transclusion makes it significantly easier to update these pages and allows for more content to be quickly added to portal space. (I think we all agree that automating the creation of portals using these tools is a no-go.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, per Kusma. As I understand it, these templates resulted from an impressive impetus to enliven portals, after a long community discussion to delete all portals failed c. 2 years ago. The side-effect of how well they worked was that one user created a large range of very narrow-topic portals that subsequently had to be deleted. Poor use of a powerful tool should not affect any decision to deploy that tool in the right way. It shouldn't be a requirement, but it should be available to help maintain or enhance the apppearance or functionality of Portals as 'topic-tasters' or 'shop windows' into broad subject areas. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (as a contributor to a Lua module supporting this feature). Transclusions keep text up to date and avoid content forking. However, Kusma makes good points above and we should stress that use of these templates is optional. Wikiprojects and individual editors may provide custom text where this is more appropriate than an article's lede, but should be prepared to maintain it. Certes (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Transclusions keep portals up to date, make maintenance easier and decrease the need for a giant net of convoluted sub-pages. Direct excerpts from articles should all be transclusions (if possible, with some exceptions), to avoid "stale content forks", as some users call it. I have considered this to be consenus and part of best practices already, but I guess there is a need for a formal consensus. If we want to portals to be more appealing and useful to the general public and our editors, then I believe transclusions to be a necessary building block on the way to this new kind of portal design. Of course we should keep developing existing and new transclusion templates/modules. There are flaws and bugs and even the best tools can be misused, but that is just the way of things in software development. Things get improved over time and sometimes a tool turns out to have more than one use case. --Hecato (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I already have used transclusions here as it effectively kills the argument that portals are not updated or maintained enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the option of using these where it makes sense. They may not be the solution for every portal, but that is something editors can decide as they work on specific portals. --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. This RFC is gaming the system.
This RFC has ben carefully framed by NA!K to exclude any mention of the concern which I have raised repeatedly for a month: that the use of transclusion templates to create a portal with no visible lists of articles. This impedes scrutiny, and leads to non-detection of the very poor quality lists which NA1K has made (see e.g. the discussions at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana and WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport, where I demonstrated severe problems with NA1K's list-making).
This issue of visible lists has been the subject of heated disputes between me and NA1K for over a month, so there is simply no way that NA1K could have been unaware of the nature of my concerns. I have repeatedly asked NA1K to work with me to build a neutrally-framed RFC, but instead NA1K has acted unilaterally to create an RFC question which focuses only on the technical issue and omits the the key point in dispute about how such templates have been used to impede analysis of their work. Other approaches are possible, as seen at e.g. Portal:Wind power (which uses transclusions of the articles in a visible list), but NA1K has chosen not to mention those examples.
I have posted a longer note[1] about this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NA1K_is_gaming_the_system_again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I believe the discussion above (below NA1K's vote) is essentially what you're talking about. There are some ways in which transclusion can be used, while also allowing for scrutiny and easy maintenance. For instance, using {{Transclude random excerpt}} on a subpage to create an index page, and then transcluding that page into the portal. From the way I read it, I don't think this RFC is attempting to explicitly endorse the transclusion method that involves using {{Transclude random excerpt}} with article titles hard-coded into the template parameters, which, as I understand it, is the problematic portal design that you have been criticizing. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 02:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Scottywong: I am trying to keep up with multiple discussions in the midst of an ANI pile-on, so I still haven't written the reply I needed to make to you on my talk page to clarify this issue. So we still have some crossed wires.
However, the fact remains that the core issue in dispute in the last month's drama has been the lack of a visible list ... and NA1K chose to frame the RFC without even mentioning that. There is indeed some discussion on that point, but it has been carefully omitted both from the question and from NA1K's post describing their view. That means that the question may be overlooked by many participants and possibly by the closer.
My concern is not directly with which of the forest of templates is used, but with the resulting impediments to scrutiny and usability. The question has been asked the wrong way around: instead of "what output do we want", NA!K has has asked how to do it, without even acknowledging that there is an other goal at stake. NA1K has repeatedly ignored my offers to work together to frame a neutral question, and has instead chosen to focus on the technicalities of how without even acknowledging the why.
This focus on technicalities has been a persistent problem of portals. There has been reams of discussion on the nuances of the Rube Goldberg machine structure, but almost none of the actual substance, which is the list of articles displayed. (Even the discontinued featured portals process had many reviews where there was no assessment at all of the quality and balance of articles in the list). This is all obsessing over the wrapper while the core is ignored ... which is presumably why NA1K is so offended by criticism of their blatantly POV list-making at P:Transport, and of their drive-by list-making at dozens of other portals where they made precisely zero effort to even notify the relevant WikiProjects that changes had happened, let alone to facilitate scrutiny by ensuring that there was a linked list and explaining how the articles were chosen (NA1K never went further than describing a quality threshold, and even that wa usually qualified).
Note that there has never even been an RFC on whether this production of one-at-a-time excerpts (with pure to see next) is a good way to display the list, now that built-in-previews are available to logged-out readers. (If excerpt generation was abandoned, most of the complexity and all of these transclusion templates would go too, as was done in any Germany-related portals). That was one of the questions which I wanted an RFC such as this this to address. But this RFC is carefully structured to omit that question too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns raised above. This project thrives on transparency, and whatever means is used to generate content for portals (or, for that matter in infoboxes and other template setups used in various spaces) should provide complete transparency to easily enable any reasonably competent user to see everything that will be potentially displayed to the reader. If the transclusion method proposed above is adopted, some additional measure will be required to ensure this transparency. BD2412 T 03:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
BD2412, fortunately those measures already exist (the showall parameter), compare the examples mentioned by Moxy and myself. I think their use is good practice, but I don't think we should enforce a particular method of showing all potential content, at least not yet. —Kusma (t·c) 09:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kusma:, Yes, they exist. They need to be uniformly implemented. BD2412 T 23:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support allowing but not mandating transclusion in portal design. However, I'm somewhat confused why this RfC is necessary at all, because I don't believe that transclusion was outlawed before this RfC. I know that BrownHairedGirl has vocally lobbied against certain forms of transclusion (specifically, using the {{Transclude random excerpt}} template with a bunch of article titles hard-coded into the template parameters), because some methods can severely reduce the visibility of the content that is being selected for the portal, and can make maintenance far more tedious, and I would agree that that is a valid concern. I don't think that small RfC's on extremely narrow portal topics is what we need right now. Instead, I think we need to develop a solid guideline for portals that provides best practices for building portals, inclusion criteria for portals, and other important information. I intend to moderate a discussion among portal power users to develop these guidelines, but I fear that there may be too much animosity among rival factions to get anything done. Either way, I'll try. If you'd like to participate, let me know. ‑Scottywong| [chatter] || 02:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written on the grounds that there is no obvious reason for this question, and so it is probably a trick question. As User:Scottywong has noted, there has never been a policy or guideline discouraging the use of transclusion in portals. There may never been any guidelines about portals, but that is a different issue. In multiple MFD discussions of portals, the advocates of portals have repeatedly argued that a decision was made in 2018 not to deprecate portals, and have unsuccessfully argued it to avoid the deletion of specific portals. This question appears to be an attempt to gain approval to use a particular type of transclusion in portals, and therefore to argue that all portals using this transclusion must be kept. For this reason I request that this RFC either be Procedurally Closed or Clarified. In the absence of an explanation of why this RFC is necessary, other than as a ruse to justify all portals that use a particular type of transclusion, I will oppose. I am aware that this RFC will be closed with a decisive consensus to allow transclusion, and that advocates of portals will now argue that all portals that are converted to use transclusion should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon:, I don't see how "transclusion is permissible" can translate into "portals using transclusion must be kept". If someone tomorrow were to create a Portal:Toenails or Portal:Frank Darabont, no matter how perfectly transcluded the content was, there would hardly be a reasonable argument for its existence. BD2412 T 00:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
      • User:BD2412 - Then what is the purpose of this RFC? What is it changing? There is no reason why this RFC is necessary unless it is either to permit something that is not currently permitted, or for use as an argument against the deletion of portals? What is the reason for this RFC, and why isn't the originator, User:Northamerica1000, instead taking part in the workshop being conducted by User:Scottywong to resolve portal issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
        • @Robert McClenon: This has absolutely nothing to do with whether portals should be deleted or kept, and everything to do with ensuring the community has consensus on whether these templates should be used in portal space considering there really aren't any formal rules on portals at the moment. A full read of how we got here can be found at Portal talk:Australia. If that's too large of a wall of text I've written a slightly condensed version for an ANI report here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
        • This should have nothing to do with whether portals should be deleted or kept. However, using transclusions and not using transclusions are both used as deletion rationales, often phrased as "Rube Goldberg machine" or "stale content fork" respectively. Whilst this RfC is aimed at improving the presentation of content, clarification that use of transclusions is not a reason for deletion would be a useful side-effect. Certes (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I think creating very clear portal guidelines is a good thing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the recommendations of North America 1000. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose creating an official guideline on this as someone supporters argued. I personally prefer transclusion and I support writing down somewhere that it's easier and more effective to avoid sub-pages and content forks when creating a portal. I think that the requests for a procedural close have a point, in that it's unclear what this RfC seeks to change (or why it's in the "policy" section of the village pump). It would be good to clarify that it's about updating documentation of the templates. For instance, we could add the proposed guidance to Module:Excerpt documentation (the talk page of those templates redirects to Module talk:Excerpt), and mark all the templates for competing methods as deprecated. I understand this is the actual implication of the support votes above, am I right? I note that I understand there are ideas on how to improve those templates, which should be left open to consideration. Nemo 07:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This should be the only way portals are built to avoid outdated forked copying pasting.--2605:8D80:561:C96C:B4AD:BB6B:1E38:CE5F (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per most of the above (though I don't agree with "the only way" in the anon's comment – building portals that way, in whole or part, should not be required), and for a more policy-based reason: WP:EDITING policy. There's absolutely no basis on which to forbid use of WP's own reader-facing content on additional reader-facing pages. We even invented partial transclusion to make this more fine-grained and flexible – not more restricted or disused. It's ridiculous to suppose we'd make up a bogus rule against using it, on the basis of nothing other than that some people don't like portals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the use of transclusion of content provided it is clear where the content is transcluded from, to make it easier to improve the original if and when that is desirable or necessary. Transclusion helps keep the content up to date as it only needs to be edited once, and therefore avoids inadvertent content forking where such forking is not appropriate. Transclusion of content is not always appropriate, and therefore must remain optional. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

List of articles

There seems to be general consensus that transcluding excerpts is acceptable and can give better results than maintaining content forks which might become stale. The main unresolved issue seems to be how to list the articles. A range of options is available and, whilst we probably should not mandate one of them, we may wish to discuss their merits. In order not of preference but from least to most visible, we have:

  1. Implicit listing by a template automatically and dynamically selecting all non-stub articles from a related list or template
  2. Manually selecting articles and recording the selection in the template parameters
  3. A bot periodically selecting all non-stub articles from a related list or template and recording the selection on a subpage
  4. As 2. but on a transcluded subpage using <noinclude>|showall=yes or similar to display all excerpts on the subpage
  5. As 2. but with an explicit list of selectable articles visible on the main portal page, possibly collapsed
  6. As 2. but with both a full subpage and a listing on the main portal: a hybrid of 4. and 5.
  7. Any other options?

Visiblity of the listing for both readers and editors increases down the list. 1. requires that they view the portal source then examine the related list or template; 2. simply requires viewing the portal source; 3. or 4. requires a look at the subpage; 5. or 6. requires no action except perhaps clicking [show]. Whilst 5. or 6. is certainly the most visible option, especially for readers who are unlikely to click the Edit tab, it does add more clutter to an already busy page. Certes (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I personally like to see the full content of all pages that could be transcluded on one page. This is for maintenance more than for reading: it shows me at a glance whether all article excerpts still have suitable pictures, and it is easy to see whether anything goes wrong (for example, which articles have too long or too short intro sections for the portal or are broken because of template use that the transclusion process does not understand). I would suggest to display the list of articles used only if it has value in itself (it works for Portal:Wind power, but isn't all that helpful for a portal with far more diverse content like Portal:Germany). Some means of accessing a list or a page with the content should be encouraged. We should also make it easy to edit, and not require editors to change things in two different places. —Kusma (t·c) 15:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A full list of each kind of potentially displayable content should be placed on a subpage, and that subpage should be linked from that section of the main portal page. Juts make it as easy as possible to find without putting it directly on the main portal page. BD2412 T 23:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    Personally I think it should be like navigation boxes. The editors interested in the associated topic area decide what boxes are best to have, and the preferred way to implement them. Let the editors who are doing the work decide how to manage it; there doesn't have to be only one way to do it. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    My concern is that it then becomes opaque to editors who might be interested in joining the work, but will be dissuaded because they can't figure out the scheme. If portals are supposed to be entry points to the topic, then both their presentation and their editing processes should be straightforward and welcoming. BD2412 T 01:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with you generally, but there's multiple ways of accomplishing this goal, and as long as we provide options which are straightforward and welcoming I don't see why we shouldn't give the project the option. SportingFlyer T·C 01:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think as long as we make sure the RfC gets enforced in such a way where a list of articles is available to editors, I don't mind if 3-7 get used. The process should not be manual, though, we should be trying to move away from that (not endorsing automated creation of portals, either - there needs to be a balance between user creation and maintenance and bot maintenance.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A navbox would be impractical as they are not seen by 60% of our readers (mobile viewers). ...also think a visual example of all the articles to assure tranclution is working properly in every case would also help maintainers.--Moxy 🍁 04:54, 18 November 2019 (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.

Require registration to edit

NOT PASSED
There is no consensus to implement this proposal.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:21, 29 November 2019 (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 believe that at this time and age, Wikipedia should require that all those who wish to edit or add to our project should be registered users. It is easy for an unregistered user to vandalize an article which many of us have gone through a lot of trouble to write, then immediately make a copy as if that is what was truly written, thereby dis-crediting our project and adding to the reality that ours is an unreliable encyclopedia. The fact is that the majority of the vandalism is caused by un-registered users who have nothing better to do with their lives. If Wikipedia wants to keep it's good and honest contributors who love to share their knowledge with the world in general and wants to gain some sense of being a reliable encyclopedia, then it must do something to protect it's contributors and the articles which they have written from the constant vandalism going on, otherwise what's the use of staying here? Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Um, is this a proposal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. A Wikipedia:Perennial proposal (with which I agree). Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC).
  • I feel that this is where we're eventually heading. I'm personally neutral on it, although the WMF might block it if passed like they did here and some other times. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Things have changed a lot since 2011. Personally, I doubt the WMF would block it if it were passed today. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Given m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation things might have changed substantially enough to allow another discussion. I support. --Rschen7754 18:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It's time to face reality.--WaltCip (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Not requiring registered accounts allows people to more easily make pests of themselves. Having said that, I will note that there are other facets to this discussion. One such facet I will call the problem of "regulars". You know—the good ol' boys club. It's one thing to be collegial, it is another thing to be cliquish. Many people vote together. I'm not entirely immune to that. Unregistered accounts do this less. They are not only free of a personal identity but they are less likely to form alliances. No, I have no proof for this. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Many editors tend to think the same way. That doesn't mean they "vote together", and they would still think the same way if they were unregistered. It would be harder to imagine that they were "voting together", however, since it's harder to remember IP addresses (and IP addresses often change with some frequency anyway). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    It is definitely much harder to remember IP addresses. And IP addresses change. Ultimately I'm opposed to unregistered accounts. I found myself arguing with someone with an IP address, and an IP address that kept changing just in the span of that argument. That's when I decided that I oppose unregistered accounts. But at other times it has occurred to me that unregistered accounts are like fresh air. They tend to have less history and consequently their perspectives have the potential of being new and unencumbered. Bus stop (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll give a moral support with mixed feelings because I see many very useful IP edits and lots of us, including me, started editing as IPs and might not have started if registration had been required. What is tipping me to support is the fact that I monitor some error-tracking categories and I usually see 20 or 30 articles per week where an IP with very few other edits has made arbitrary changes to birth dates, or other dates. I only see articles where the IP has accidentally broken the date (recent example) so there are many more changes. Recent changes that trigger the possible birth date change tag are listed here. Johnuniq (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I won't bother composing the strong case for this. It has already been written numerous times (and probably others could provide one or more links to it). The main question is whether WMF cares about a community consensus on this issue. Userbox. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Yeah, the proposal linked by Rschen7754 is nonsense but it's not clear to me how forcing registration would solve the issue. More importantly though the support case here is just as evidence-free as all other proposals to restrict editing to registered accounts made so far; besides, so as long as we are attached to Wikimedia we are supposed to Founding principles which do not permit a total ban on IP editing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    These principles may evolve or be refined over time... - It appears that whoever wrote that was wise enough to allow that things might change in ways that justified revision to the founding principles. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe, but this wouldn't be the right place to ask. More substantively, given that "leave an open door and deal with problems as they come" philosophy is what allowed Wikipedia to achieve its current status, this does not seem to be a good part to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Maybe, but this wouldn't be the right place to ask. So you're saying that this is wrong venue and no consensus here can stand even a chance of getting that item removed from the founding principles? Then why haven't you moved to close on procedural grounds? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    My concern is not mainly the procedural one and arguing procedural points tends to drive discussions off-course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but would support if this ever came to fruition. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

*Support - This worked back in 2003 when the internet was barely ever used and vandalism wasn't a thing ..... It really is about time the project was made in to a mandatory-registration site. –Davey2010Talk 22:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Even more significant, that was when we had just started building the encyclopedia and needed an enormous work force to do it. Sixteen years and 5 million articles later, we can do fairly well without the editors who decline to create a completely anonymous account simply because they have an aversion to registration of any kind (or, dare I say it, because they want to avoid the accountability that comes with a persistent and stable identity). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    How exactly is a completely anonymous account related to a persistent and stable identity? Looking through my last 100 blocks I see there are more throwaway sockpuppet accounts than IP addresses. Registration is overrated. Just ask the Twitter Bots. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think there is a difference in character between the individual who doesn't want accountability and avoids it in a manner fully legitimized by the site, and the individual who is prepared to sock to avoid it. RegReq won't suddenly transform a large number of the former into the latter, in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    2003 when the internet was barely ever used and vandalism wasn't a thing You and I have very different memories of 2003. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Amorymeltzer - I don't think I started using the internet at home not until something like 2004-2005 so I assumed everyone else was the same lol, Certainly didn't the internet in '03 and certainly didn't know EN existed lol. –Davey2010Talk 14:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
      Perhaps if IPs were served their Wiki connection as if down a 9600 baud modem the vandalism might drop 😉 Cabayi (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per zzuuzz - Admittedly I have mixed feelings on it however it is indeed true socking is an issue here although not all socks are vandals, Mandatory registration wouldn't stop the vandalism and so in that respect maybe something needs to be done about both not just one or the other ..... or maybe I'm over-thinking this!. –Davey2010Talk 14:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Support - Vandalism will go down. BigDwiki (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question about logistics - As said above I'm neutral to this whole thing (but would support if that whole IP-masking shenanigans comes true, though thankfully it doesn't seem to have much traction), but if this does pass and the WMF doesn't block it, would the "Edit" tab for any given article redirect any non-logged in user to Special:CreateAccount with an editnotice about mandatory registration? Would this depend on the level of page protection? Thinking about it some more this would have the positive side effect of reminding users when they are logged out and forget to log (back) in, although that in of itself is not a reason to adopt this proposal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. requiring an account to edit. "You can edit now" is a founding principle and the key mechaism for turning readers into editors. However, some of the problems would be ameliorated by auto-welcoming, whether on the first, fourth or tenth edit. Also, to assist registration, given the difficulty of finding a good username, a pronounceable username should be suggested.
Weak oppose unless a way is found to make “edit right now” remain true. Maybe some kind of auto-registration. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Support requiring an account to create new pages, and requiring an email address to authenticate. Throwaway alternative accounts performing subtle vandalism and promotinal content creation are a far more serious threat to Wikipedia than silly kids making silly test edits. The need for an email address is a small measure to curb mass alt. account creations. A mobile telephone for authentication may be a good idea. Without revealing private information, account creators should be auto prompted to explain multiple accounts linked to the same IP, email address, or telephone number, not for actual scrutny, but to apply discouragement for creating many unlinked account. For people with accessiblity or access problems, there is Wikipedia:Request an account, although that process's 6 month backlog soounds pretty bad. It does however have good suggestions for overcoming most problem.
IPs can still get help to create an article, via Wikipedia:Requested articles, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, users have been required to have an account to creat new articles for years, and since ACREQ they also need to be Autoconfirmed. IPs can create pages easily enough as drafts and submit them through AfC. Authentication per mobile phone is a good idea but may not go down too well in developing countries (although I live with two of the word's poorest countries just over the border and everyone there seems to have a mobile phone) or areas that are not well served by cell masts - and there are still a lot of those areas (deserts, mountains, low population) even in fully developed economies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, require an account to create any page, not just articles. My little bit of knowledge of third world countries is that everyone with access to the internet has access to someone with a mobile telephone. Everyone with access to the internet has access to email. It should not be easier to create a Wikipedia editing account than to create an email address. Allow reader accounts to register without any authentication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe - well I have the advantage that I have a lot to do in various developing economies, but I have noticed that a huge number of the poorest people in them even in the rice fields of Laos and Cambodia somehow have mobile phones if not the $50 smart devices we have (and which everyone over 8 here in Thailand) has. I was just concerned that you might not have been aware that we have restrictions for creating articles in mainspace for some time now. However, I don't hink anyone should need to register an account to read the encyclopedia. I think it should be just as easy, or even easier, to create a Wikipedia account than set up an email. In fact our current registration system is very simple and should not be putting anyone off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I think you have reminded me at least five times of autoconfirmed now being required to create a mainspace page. I thought I was one of the noisy proponents that led to it being implemented.🙂
Yes, the poorest people in the world have mobile phones, or access to a family mobile phone, or a community mobile phone. I am aware of this for some of the poorest in India and Africa. They have easier access to a phone than to a computer to edit Wikipedia. You can’t just call these people, but they can arrange to call you, or receive a call by appointment, or receive a code. For the most isolated people without phones, such as in parts of Indonesia, no phone, but certainly no Wikipedia. In China, mobile phone numbers are de facto human IDs. Note that wechat, whatsapp, Facebook, all uniquify your identity by telephone number (just see what happens when a child tries to register an account using their mothers telephone number).
I think that in some ways registering is difficult, it is difficult to find a username you like, but apart from that it is mostly too easily to make a fresh account for every topic your want to do PAID writing for. It is slightly difficult to make a myriad of different email addresses, but it is much more difficult to use a myriad of different telephone numbers. We wouldn’t require a unique telephone number, but if checkusers had access to accounts all registered with the same telephone number, that might be useful in fighting throwaway accounts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Stirring stuff, but who is monitoring the many IPs who delight in making arbitrary changes to numbers and dates (see my comment at 21:11, 14 October 2019)? Inserted junk can be handled months after the event because it's easily recognized but I suspect that articles are being eroded in a way that will not realistically be cleaned up. You are right that anyone can edit was a founding principle, but its time has passed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't disagree with your "moral support" for requiring registration for editing. If that were to happen, I think registration should be made much easier. If IP vandalism is both serious and takes months to repair, that would mean that the active editor count per article has fallen below a threshold, and it marks the senescence of Wikipedia as we new it. I suspect that this is the case. I think the answer is to decease the ease with which new people can create new pages, but to not decrease the ease with which readers can fix things immediately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If the active editor count per article has fallen and Wikipedia is truly past its peak in terms of membership, then you can't assume that the ease in which IP vandalism occurs wasn't a contributing factor. I spend more time repairing than I do contributing (way more), and it's discouraging. It wasn't always like that, especially early on after I first joined. It just so happens that the editors who used to watch the articles I'm interested in and fight vandalism are no longer around; they've given up and left. So I've found myself assuming that role more and more over time. Allowing IP drive-by disruption to remain uninhibited could actually encourage the downward trend, if in fact we're in the middle of one. Just shedding some light here that the trend may actually be the result of the problem (i.e. increasing IP vandalism) as opposed to being a reason we cite in favor of allowing it to continue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: I had a lot more typed up, but I'll be concise: I don't believe we ought to betray our principles so rashly. I don't like IP spam and all that stuff either, but this is not the way to do it (and neither is the WMF's debacle-in-the-making). I don't have any alternatives, but I do know that this isn't the way. (As an addendum, should the WMF proposal go through, I may reconsider this vote). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong mixed feelings. I can see the thinking here, and have often thought the same. I also know that there are IP addys out there still contributing good material to the project. (also that Jimbo prefers IPs be allowed to edit - or at least he used to, but Larry Sanger preferred registration, .. but see how poorly that worked). I'll think on this, and if I end up feeling more strongly one way than the other, I'll revisit ..... maybe. — Ched (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    there are IP addys out there still contributing good material to the project. Absolutely, but we should not assume that we will lose them if we require registration. It's quite possible that their position is "I don't want to register if I don't have to." And, remember, they are likely just as addicted as we are. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
And here [2] is an edit by an IP that is totally unproductive. Only too common in my experience. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC).
  • Just like we shouldn't assume they'll stay, trying to guess their position is laughable. Addicted? You probably aren't familiar with my editing history. — Ched (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that is supposed to show; that an IP was unproductive? I can find registered users who cause more trouble than that. — Ched (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – (1) Registration doesn't stop anybody from using any other website. (2) Editing an article really isn't something you do in five second on a whim. If you do that, you usually screw it up. It kind of requires a commitment to be a productive editor. You have to at least review the article history and talk page before making any but the most trivial edits. The work that goes into editing is so much harder than registering an account, I just can't imagine how the latter would stop anyone from the former. (3) IP editors have a hard time integrating into the community, in no small part because it's impossible to remember which IP is who. On a collaborative project, that is a real barrier to success and productivity–can't work with someone if you don't remember their name because it's a string of numbers. (4) We sink a lot of time in dealing with IP vandalism. This will reduce that, freeing up editor time. (5) Email registration is probably a good idea, too, to prevent mass account creations. – Levivich 02:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    Some good points, and add the difficulty of communicating with an editor who can't receive pings and whose user talk page is often a short-term affair. By the time I get to their talk page, it's no longer their talk page. This, in an environment where editor communication is crucial. I once spent a good six total hours of my time over a number of days trying to chase one of these guys down, and finally gave up in frustration. It's absolutely crazy that we some of us find ways to justify things like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    And what makes you think a freshly-registered user will want to stay, or even communicate? We get reports of uncommunicative users all the time at AN/I, and it can't be attributed to a language barrier. Not to mention seeing your first edit reverted out of hand shortly after it is made is a good enough reason to never want to log in again. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 23:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose An evergreen proposal, and not one I think that will improve the project. There's lots of good IP editors - the vast majority, in fact. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are countless areas of the encyclopedia where this would have an overwhelmingly negative impact. Sports probably stand out as the biggest (score), but also copy editing, general fixes, and overall maintenance. There's also the huge recruitment aspect: most people who become active editors first edited as an IP. Get rid of that, you get rid of the gateway to editing as a whole, and we actually start losing numbers. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    most people who become active editors first edited as an IP. Please show evidence that they wouldn't have registered immediately if that had been required.
    Ok, I'm weary of debunking obvious reasoning errors, so I'll cease bludgeoning this discussion. Good luck all. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    OTOH there is no evidence that IP vandals wouldn't register immediately if that was what was required. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    Has someone cited vandalism reduction in a Support argument? I haven't. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know what the impact would be on editor recruitment (probably negative) but TBH I could very well see this make it harder to fight vandalism. Vandals can easily create an account, and it would be certainly much harder to do {{schoolblock}}s (and school vandals represent a fairly large portion of all vandalism) when only CU's can track IP edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I share similar concerns with other editors that required registration for all editing activity may not be the best solution for a host of reasons. However, there's a lot of middle ground between outright registration and open IP editing, and I suspect technical limitations have prevented good proposals from ever coming to fruition. Examples of alternative proposals (technical limitations aside):
    • Allow IP editing to continue as it does today, except on articles that have reached GA or FA status. Gives active editors incentive to stick around and promote articles.
    • Don't require registration for the first several articles (say 5) from any given IP. This allows immediate contribution, but discourages disruptive editing in one pass across dozens of articles. The number can reset every 30 days or some other specified timeout period.
    • Require random email verification from IPs. This means for the most part, they still have the ability to edit at will. However, on occasion (every 5-10 edits for example), it will prompt them to verify an email address. This will encourage them to register over time, especially if making good edits. IPs flagged as disruptive will have to constantly register new email addresses to continue their disruption. This happens transparently in the background without admin/human intervention.
    • IPs can create new articles and actively contribute to articles that are fairly new (say less than 2 years in age). This allows the rapid formation of new content, but discourages vandalism years later after an article has undergone significant changes.
    • Some combination of the above
Again, there are undoubtedly some technical limitations (unknown to me) which would prevent proposals like this from ever seeing the light of day, but I suspect the only possible compromise depends on an alternative solution that doesn't beat a tack with a sledgehammer. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I wrote this almost twelve years ago, and about 90% of it's still relevant to this discussion. —Cryptic 05:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is, Cryptic, that was a very long time ago. There were only 192 participants in that discusion, which BTW was never wrapped up. Since then we've gone stages further, such as ACREQ (after a long trial), in which the number of participants was in the many hundreds - both times, 6 years apart - with a very clear consensus, both times. No negative impact was established during the trial or has been since the permanent roll out. We now have a backlog at NPP that has reduced from around 22,000 to 'only' 6,000 (which is still unacceptable). A quick look at the New Pages Feed (NPP & AfC lists) will clearly demonstrate that a significant % of new aricles is still inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or just simply rubbish. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Insufficient data to make a rational statistics based decision. As far as I know, there is no convincing evidence that the current positive effects of IP editing exceed the negative effects or vice versa, and I see no easy way of measuring it. Those who struggle against the damage are likely to focus on the negative effects, those who don't are less likely to do so. I for one do not consider it a worthwhile use of my time and skills to concentrate on policing bad actors, but I also yearn for more collaboration and constructive input from a wider range of contributors with some clue and competence. I do not think that the status quo is tenable over the long term. An interesting experiment would be for WMF to clone Wikipedia, and make one clone for only registered editors, and the other for status quo. See which one thrives and which fails. They could be re-merged later after the effects are known. I know which one I would edit and use, but I don't know if it would be the one to thrive or fail. Editors would tend to migrate to whichever version they found most satisfying to work on. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • PS: In the topics that I edit most, my impression is that very little value is added by IP editors, but not very much harm is done either, and what harm there is is mostly fixed quite quickly, by registered editors. My assessment of net value of IP edits in these topics is negative. This trend may vary enormously, I just don't know. IP requests and comments on talk pages appear to be more often of some value, possibly because the IP editor that engages in dialogue is more clueful and serious than one who does not. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
      • PPS: I would Support a trial of obligatory registration, either for the whole Wikipedia, or for parts thereof, where the parts could be opt-in by WikiProject, opt-out by WikiProject, or randomly selected. Run on a similar basis to WP:ACTRIAL. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I second this - this proposal should've come with at least some decent data to illustrate the problem, but it just says "the vast majority" of IP addresses. Surely our proposals should be as well-sourced as our articles? Until I see some good breakdowns of the actual issue backed up by data, I have to Oppose this proposal. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending IP Masking result - I would probably agree with this if IP masking was bought in with high-level limitations on sight. It definitely looks like it's coming, but NKohli does seem willing to engage, so actual implementation is a bit up in the air. In any case, I don't see a need to jump the gun. IPs are a net positive once you've factored in the ability to create registered accounts so easily. After that discussion, this will need a properly thought out RfC. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I initially wanted to oppose based on the fact that on-the-spot editing is a founding principle (as at least one other editor stated). But with the growing number of visitors, and diminishing number of dedicated patrollers (at least per article), open IP editing poses a quality risk to the project. Considering accounts can also be instantly created, even without email verification, or having an email address altogether, making registration mandatory is still quite open in honest opinion. As Pbsouthwood stated, a trial would be a good first step. Rehman 09:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nag Encourage registration with something like "edits will be restricted as to number/size/scope until registered".Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - absolutely. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If we're really going to be talking about this, then I do indeed oppose it. There's been no evidence proffered to justify such a completely radical proposal, nor any evidence supporting the claims made in the proposal. Vandalism is a fact, and requiring accounts might limit it a bit, doing so won't remove the issue. Especially when a news story breaks, anonymous editors are the lifeblood of content creation; TonyB points out other areas of advantage. As enWiki has grown, we have relatively fewer active editors, and we do not need to encourage but rather than reverse that trend. This would certainly be tossing the baby with the bathwater. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. It does not have to be all or nothing. A partial trial of non-IP editing could be introduced by allowing semi-confirmed (or whatever) users to apply WP:Semiprotection to articles that they judged needed it without having to go through the rigmarole of applying to administrators. The semi-protection could be removed by administrators on application as it is now. It could then be assessed if the trial improved or degraded the editing of affected articles. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC).
  • Right for the wrong reasons I disagree with OP's rationale (assigning the majority of vandalism to IPs, equating vandalism with discrediting an article), but I agree with the proposal. Registration is quick and easy, and if we make it mandatory and someone can't or won't take the five minutes to make an account, I have to wonder how they survive the rest of the Internet where registration is already required. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 12:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • More thoughts on logistics If we are going to have a trial of this on only part of Wikipedia (say, FAs and GAs), we'll need a new form of protection that's not outright semi-protection (which restricts editing to autoconfirmed users). Also, concerns of vandals creating accounts, while valid, can be partially assuaged by (still?) allowing administrators to have a sort of account-creation autoblock; this would not to the best of my knowledge require the knowledge of the specific IP address entailed and thereby CU, although it might significantly increase unblock request backlogs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It's complicated. I would absolutely support this if IP Masking is shoved down our throats. As it is, requiring accounts might make it harder for non-checkusers to identify peristent vandalism, as it's easier in many ways to create sock accounts than to change your IP address (especially if you want to change your IP to avoid a rangeblock). While I might support only allowing IP editors to edit in a "Pending Changes" mode, I wouldn't support an outright stop to IP contributions at this time. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, it's perennial, but I've always supported it. Most vandalism I see is from IP editors, and, to be brutally honest, the majority of edits I see from IP editors are either outright vandalism or so poor as to be worthless. Both require immediate reversion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually I see loads of minor or sometimes valuable corrections or adjustments, & would not want to lose the ability of drive-by people to do this. Only ready to support limiting ips to a set number of edits - say 20, perhaps per year. I might also support maximum numbers of characters added or removed. Of course this would only hamper some ips and not others. I'm happy not to go on tolerating ips who edit very heavily over a long period - most are no doubt returning banned users or sock-puppets. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No thanks. There is less of a case for this than there used to be as the edit filters revert much vandalism without needing human involvement. We still need IP editing as an entry point into editing, and i doubt that anyone disputes that. The real question is whether the registration process would lose us more goodfaith editors than badfaith ones. I'm in the camp that considers that vandals mostly do the minimum necessary to do their vandalism, so allowing IP editing, like allowing blank edit summaries, makes vandals easier to spot, but not more numerous. If that theory is correct, then mandatory registration would lose us more new good editors than bad as well as making vandals a tiny bit harder to spot. It would be interesting to see some academic research on these very different views of the benefits of compulsory registration, but Citizendium and WikiTribune are enough evidence for me. Of course we could go the whole hog and require registration via facebook et al. That likely would deter many vandals, but it isn't exactly compatible with our open source ethos. ϢereSpielChequers 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Largely per WereSpielChequers and Davey2010. I am not sure it would have the intended effect and there is certainly a chance of doing more harm than good. Many good users started life here as IP editors and the fact that many IP edits are not that great only means they need help and guidance. PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • One part of me wants to ban IP editing, but it's really kind of pointless. Making an account is free and easy, and we don't limit how many accounts a user can (as opposed to, may) have. So people just make throw-away accounts and that's really no different than editing as an IP. Yes, we say you can't be a sock, but we do very little to prevent it. So which would you rather have; anonymous vandals using IPs, or anonymous vandals using throw-away accounts? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    The latter. It makes vandalism more difficult. Especially if you require email registration. – Levivich 16:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Based on my observations over the years, I have the feeling this won't help with the problem of vandalism, just change it. But it will force the WMF to consider which should be given priority: keeping Wikipedia open to anyone to edit (over the quality of content), or improving the content of Wikipedia (over allowing everyone to edit it). -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this would not substantively help with vandalism and would only provide another access barrier to editing. Basically in agreement with WereSpielChequers's comment/observations above. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Although I'm not in support of outright registration, I think it's naive to assume making it harder to vandalize wouldn't have a noticeable impact. Would it solve the problem and stop everyone? Of course not. Would it curb the behavior for some over time, given the increased effort and nuisance it would create for them? It's a reasonable possibility. Right now, they just have to change IPs or IP ranges. Imagine the nuisance of having to create a new account and verify email every single time on top of that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There are probably a limited number of times where the weight of anonymous IP editors overwhelmed all admin capabilities and reasonable protection routes. The day to day IP stuff that causes problems is out-balanced by the number of IP that actually make useful contributions. --Masem (t) 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, as IP editing has several practical drawbacks. But the lack of actual and meaningful data about this aspect is a valid concern. A trial (either for a strictly limited time or in a limited area of articles) could help to gather more substantial evidence and analyze possible effects on the community. GermanJoe (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think I can add much to a discussion that has already been had many times over the years. I believe WP:HUMAN and WP:WNCAA already cover a lot of my thoughts on this matter, there's even an association of us that remain unregistered on principle, see here. Many editors are not attracted to the social side of Wikipedia which account creation invariably snares them deeper into they just want to go about their business and be left alone. In addition, this will prevent many useful and constructive editors from participating, remember 80%+ of IP edits are constructive. Far from being a horde of spammers, vandals, and trolls new and anonymous users built most of Wikipedia's content, see here. I've done WP:RCP, the problems caused by WP:VOAs are equivalent to those caused by IPs and when subtle often take longer to get noticed. Finally, compare Wikipedia to Citizendium and tell me if that's really the direction we want to go in. I have my issues WMFs idea as well, but this is not the solution. 71.62.176.24 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I absolutely don't support long-term frequent ip editing. There's no way having an account "snares people deeper into the social side of Wikipedia" if they don't want it to - this is just nonsense. Thousands of registered users just ignore any messages - User talk:DilletantiAnonymous is a shining example for you, with 246K bytes, not one by him. As an ip you are exposing a remarkable amount of personal information to anyone on the internet who cares to check it. Numbers are hard to remember for other editors & registered editors will rightly remain suspicious of those who choose not to register. Some may be harmless, but very many are not. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a passionate claim, 71.62.176.24|71.62.176.24, but there are 35 million registered accounts. Admittedly they might not have all been used very much but it demonstrates the willingness to register You won't probably continue to follow this discussion because you don't have a watchlist and won't receive notifications. Johnbod makes a strong point. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Equating IPs with vandals is insulting, considering that the vandal edits from IPs are a minority of all IP edits made. This is also not a fight we should be having right now in the first place considering Framgate. Also, requiring registration would more like than not discourage actual good-faith editors while doing nothing whatsoever to thwart vandalism, especially since we already get a lot of accounts that register just to vandalise/have a laugh at our expense, and that is before autocon/EC-buster socks. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 21:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A large number of our good edits are from IPs. I have a large watchlist, and... I dunno, easily 10% of the good edits are from IPs. So for a start you're throwing those away right off, most of them.
Then, you have that X% of registered editors first dip their toes in as IPs. What X% is I don't know? 50%? More? Less? Whatever it is, you're throwing some of those future editors away. Registering an account takes a certain amount of emotional commitment to editing, a commitment we would be asking for in advance of a sample of the experience. (It does, and arguments of "no it doesn't" or "it didn't for me" doesn't change that: it does.) I never register at websites for features I don't either plan to use a lot, or have come to use a lot, even tho I have a throwaway email account. I just don't. Lot of people don't, probably.
As to the proximate reason for this proposal, "It is easy for an unregistered user to vandalize an article which many of us have gone through a lot of trouble to write, then immediately make a copy as if that is what was truly written"... is that an actual real problem? I have not heard this. Also, if someone is trying to be be like "See, even this Wikipedia articles says that Trump is a space alien", the fact that she's pointing to a copy on her own web site kind of takes away most of the value there. Plus if you're committed to this level of trollery, I image you'll just register an account.
Project is not broken AFAK. If IP vandalism is spiking, I haven't seen evidence on my watchlist. If something is not broken, trying to fix it might break it. Herostratus (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Vandalism is easily dealt with and might even be a positive because it gives people something to do as reverting vandalism is useful and easy. What is becoming untenable is the large number of arbitrary changes to numbers and dates and other factoids. Unfortunately that's anecdotal with no hard information available. However, see the example I posted above, and see these and these edits (reported at ANI). There is no way to evaluate arbitrary changes by a shifting IP other than to spend a couple of hours investigating the sources for each number. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Edits by a registered user can be evaluated. If someone registers and does nothing but make arbitrary number/date changes, they are automatically suspect. I would politely ask them on their talk page what the reasons for the changes were. If no response and the changes continue, the editor will end up indeffed and their changes rolled back without fuss. It is much harder doing that with an IP as they usually ignore their talk pages due to disinterest, or shifting IP. IPs are also used to templated waffle on their talk and I suspect that many of them ignore it for that reason. An IP cannot be indeffed, and getting even a month-long block on an IP is not easy due to Wikipedia's folklore from the early days about AGF: a new and brilliant editor might want to use that IP tomorrow. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To your point, nothing would. However, requiring new registration coupled with email verification would discourage a lot of them from staying active over time. Being disruptive becomes a product of diminishing returns; the effort required begins to outweigh the satisfaction. The proposal here isn't the right way to do it though. We need an automated system in place or a tool for non-admins that allows more pressure to be applied to offending IPs, while at the same time preserving unhindered access for the vast majority of other IPs. There are better options we're not discussing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "what would stop a registered user from doing exactly the same" There is a psychological element. An identity is something to protect. We care about our reputations. Simply making someone create a user-name causes them to think about what user-name to choose. Right there, in the making up of a user-name, one is becoming responsible for something. Many of us have the experience of regretting our choice of user-name or at least considering preferable alternatives. Bus stop (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yet we get users who register an account just to commit vandalism all the time. "Protecting" an identity is meaningless if the identity is throwaway in the first place. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 20:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Vandalism is easily dealt with and might even be a positive because it gives people something to do as reverting vandalism is useful and easy. Please read the rest of my comment where I replied to you above because it contains substantive points that you have not acknowledged let alone responded to. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • might even be a positive because it gives people something to do as reverting vandalism is useful and easy. - PRICELESS! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Reverting obvious vandalism is easy. Reverting subtle vandalism is not - it is quite possible that a lot of it remains unreverted, particularly if done by registered editors. Reverting vandalism and investigating possible vandalism are not particularly productive uses of time in comparison with actually building an encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism may have the theoretical upside of drawing one's attention to other aspects of an article that could use a bit of improvement, but only if they result in that improvement actually happening. Vandalism is a huge timesink, but it kind of goes with the territory. It is part of the natural environment of an open Wiki, a form of parasitism. We adapt or die. Look at filters, they are an adaptation that has served us well. What would happen if they had not been developed? We need better defenses. Sometimes we get them. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most of us started out making an edit or two before registering, and most of us would find it easy to create a new account if we wanted to foment mischief. It's ultimately none of my business why someone would want to reveal their location and in many cases more by not cloaking themselves in a user name, and banning it would be one more barrier to joining the editing community, one more discouragement, when we want to draw people in and always will (no, the encyclopedia is not "nearly finished", and yes, we need fresh eyes and hands if only to replace those we inevitably lose every year, if not to provide fresh perspectives and new skills) and requiring registration will do nothing to hinder vandalism. If anything it will make some kinds of vandals, such as schoolkids, harder to detect. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite Mandruss's unsupported assertion that there is "a community consensus on this issue.", there is not. For example, in the current discussion my vote will make this a 12-15 in favor of the opposition, not counting split votes or nuanced answers or the like. I don't see how that represents a "consensus" to require registration. Nor am I aware of any of the past discussions on this exact issue which had such a consensus. Normal operation of Wikipedia should have zero barrier to entry, even creating a free account presents an unneeded and burdensome barrier to entry which will ultimately drive away good-faith users more than it would drive away bad-faith vandals. --Jayron32 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Jayron32: Would have appreciated a ping. I've given up on this discussion as hopeless, so haven't been following it, and only happened to notice your comment by freak accident.
    The lack of consensus you correctly refer to did not exist at the time of my early comment, so I think "unsupported assertion" is more than a bit inappropriate. I didn't say there was a consensus, I allowed that there was a potential for one at that time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I would support if this proposal had a chance of passing. Regardless of whether most IP edits are constructive, it's still a fact that the vast majority of vandalism comes from IPs, as seen by this graph if we are to trust it. They also add to the unconstructive pile we already have to deal with regarding registered editors. It's not offensive to acknowledge facts. Been here since 2007, and I've seen, especially when patrolling with WP:STiki or WP:Huggle, that most of the vandalism comes from IPs. Requiring registration would cut down both on vandalism and socking. And Wikipedia requiring registration isn't the same as what happened to Citizendium. Citizendium wanted more than just registration. And other sites that have tried to be like Wikipedia aren't as successful anyway. Wikipedia was first and had already attained a level of popularity that Citizendium had to compete with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • That graph is based on 248 edits that happened 12 years ago. Even if it happened to be a representative sample, back then, I think things might have changed in the meantime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Facts not in evidence. IPs are WP's main problem? We'd be better off without them, because they do so much more harm than good, even considering many contributing editors started as IPs? Exactly what problem is this drastic change supposed to solve, and how is this the only way to solve it? This change is supposed to have no negative consequences whatsoever, and we know this how? Well, I think WP's main problem is editors that joined after 2010; we should get rid of all of them. This new proposal of mine is as rational and justified as the one proposed here. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Please help us with gathering the required evidence. What is the methodology for determining how many IP editors would register if it were required? Once we have that, how do we compensate for IP editors who are less than forthcoming in their responses – those who say they wouldn't because they don't want to, but actually would if it came to that? Do we pretend those editors don't exist in significant numbers? And so on. Explain these things to me and I'll get right on it.
    There is such a thing as unreasonable burden of proof. Akin to moving the goalposts, it's placing them a mile away from the kicker from the outset. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    You've made the assertion that IP edits are a problem that needs fixing, and that Wikipedia is better off if we just got rid of them. It isn't really incumbent upon others to provide evidence that you're wrong. Null hypothesis requires that the burden is always on the person making the positive assertion to provide evidence to support it. Demanding that every assertion one makes must be accepted as true without proof otherwise is strange. Asking for simple evidence that requiring registration is necessary is not an unreasonable standard. You've (in the collective) asserted Wikipedia needs to do this. Why? --Jayron32 12:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Inertia lives in demands that proponents of change prove the unprovable. It makes it virtually impossible to respond to change, in this case that change being 18 years and 5 million articles. If you dispute my assertion that proponents' arguments are unprovable, I've asked for some explanation of how to prove them – an eminently fair request – and I have not seen that. As I said, unreasonable burden of proof. Absent debate judges, you and others making that unreasonable demand will prevail here, being enough to prevent a consensus for change, but I'm not going away without calling you out for unfair argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    You've not even established that we need anything to change. You've said we do, without providing any evidence that we do. And then said that anyone who asks for a reason why is making unreasonable demands. I still don't see why you can just demand a major change to the way Wikipedia operates, and provide no evidence why we need to. --Jayron32 14:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    We have provided reasoning why we need to – reasoning based in knowledge of the world, human nature, logic, etc. That's the best we can be expected to do. I've no beef with countering reasoning – that's what fair discussion is – but I don't like my arguments rejected out of hand because they lack proof of the unprovable. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Why not have software supply would-be unregistered users with accounts, including computer-generated user-names? In other words—you would have no choice. If you want to abandon that assigned account, you are free to do so. But there should be some type of a small penalty to disincentivize abandoning assigned accounts, such as a 24 or 48 hour waiting time to get a new assigned account at that IP address. The advantage to this is that the computer-generated user-names would be much more memorable than the string of numbers of an IP address. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per every other time this has been proposed. Sam Walton (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as requesting my account took a few weeks, and people who just want to fix on typo or similar, aren't going to go through the hassle of requesting. this will only gate-keep the editing of Wikipedia, which goes completely contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. ArkayusMako (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not arguing one way or the other for the "registration", just responding to the above. @ArkayusMako:, I have no idea why it would take a couple weeks, it's usually pretty instantaneous. Glitch on our side, your ISP, some point in between? IDK. But sorry about that.— Ched (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - I have seen many useful edits by IP users. Especially small fixes and updates. I did a few of those myself before creating an account. And if I ever stop using a registered account, then I will continue to make some of those edits as an IP user as well. I also see many good reasons why people would want to avoid being part of the Wikipedia community. It is rather toxic at times. --Hecato (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Fighting vandalism is a huge time sink here, but it won't necessarily be stopped by registration, which may leave us with the inveterate, belligerent vandals, while keeping useful editors out. I'm seeing a lot of helpful edits from IPs on my watchlist, and my sense is that vandalism has gone down since I became active in 2013. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support - IP vandals are a major time sink, they chip away at the credibility of the pedia, and I see no feasible way the good aspects of not registering possibly outweigh the bad. Atsme Talk 📧 20:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I have always thought that allowing unregistered editors to edit in article space was an original mistake, but because it was an original mistake, it might not be corrected. Now that WMF is prepared to go to bizarre lengths to protect unregistered editors from themselves, in a way that will probably interfere with the prevention of vandalism, we should recognize that the easier way to protect unregistered editors from giving away their IP addresses is to require that they register pseudonymously (or with names), and we have always had pseudonymous registration. Perhaps the WMF has considered the risk that unregistered editors are facing with regard to privacy and not the counter-balancing consideration of the integrity of the encyclopedia. If the WMF really really wants to allow unregistered editors with masking, it could restrict their editing to talk pages, but that would sort of be the worst of both worlds. Just tell them to register. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose because IP editing is a core principle of Wikipedia and must continue to be. Also, in my experience, the IP vandals I have dealt with are usually very minor nuances, whereas the vandals who take the time to actually register are the ones who waste a significant amount of our time, and this proposal will do nothing to solve that issue. --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem is that many IPs have a hobby of changing numbers and other factoids because it's fun. What they do cannot be called vandalism because it might be a good-faith edit. If done by a registered user, their activity would be noticed eventually and their changes reverted after blocking the user. That is not possible for shifting IPs. The example I posted above is still there after ten days and exposure on this noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's so easy to track down and block these users when they have been registered as compared to IP. I recently dealt with this registered user, who made many small number changes, all over the course of one day. It was such a small amount of edits that it went under the radar, and they never got blocked. Who's to say they didn't create a new account the next day to vandalize some other articles? --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
        • While we always AGF, every new user is suspect and someone who focuses on changing numbers in their first few edits will get attention. Some shifting IPs edit for years as there is no reason for them to do otherwise. It's impractical to carefully examine every IP as there are too many of them and they can't be indeffed even if hoaxing is discovered. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The myriad disadvantages of IP editing far outweigh the advantages, including more privacy with an account. I have often proposed a short intro period where IP editing of talk pages is allowed, for example up to 50 edits, and then require registration, but that can be gamed with IP hopping. IP editing of articles should not be allowed, even now, but if so, then it should be in a (figuratively) "throttled" manner (using other methods of limitation) which makes it so inconvenient that they will feel impelled to create an account.
The only advantage to IP editing I can think of right now is the common abuse by registered editors who sock to perform actions forbidden at Wikipedia. They won't stand by their edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if IP masking comes in. IP editors may or may not be useful, but if masked will be basically out of visibility and control. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I mean, really, this is likely the only site in the world which allows for IP editing, and seen that WMF is jumping through loopholes to cover up the mistakes that said editors make when editing as an IP this is the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support reluctantly as I know a lot of IPs are in fact productive editors. Unfortunately the OP is correct. The level of vandalism from IPs is a constant weight on the project and a huge time sink for the community including our gradually shrinking admin corps. It is damaging the project's credibility. Requiring registration with a valid email address should not be unreasonably burdensome and I believe it would reduce the volume of deliberate disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support although reluctantly. The point about IP masking is convincing enough, although not my main reason. Like others, I have found a number of useful cooperative IP editors, but sadly these are a small minority. And I don't think it's just vandalism, I think we have a problem with editors who have accounts logging out to make unhelpful, often pov, edits. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support although I would find a small exemption like 1-2 edits per month reasonably. This would allow somone to fix an occassional typo for instance - something some people might not bother to do if they had no other interest in editing and creating an account. MB 14:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Approximately 17% of all edits on this project are from IPs. See this data as collected from the database as part of the discussion that is already happening on Meta on this topic area. Only about 27% of those edits are reverted - which I'd venture to say isn't all that different from newly registered accounts (many of which are vandalism, too). Doing the math, about 12% of all of the edits to this project are unreverted edits made by unregistered (IP) editors. This is a massive amount of editing that we really can't afford to lose. Risker (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 12% isn't all that much, and some of those IP editors would register and still make those edits, so the loss is even less.
Yes, probably most editors started as IP editors. I started in 2003 and created an account in 2005 because of the disadvantages of being an IP editor and far more rights and abilities as a registered editor. The loss of privacy was a big factor.
We could allow IP editing, but make it more difficult than now, enough that they would seek to register, and we need to stop the false equivalence statements that IP editing is just as good or legitimate as registered editing. It's generally not. The few good IP editors, if they are serious, would register. We should market registering more strongly.
We also need to stop the common practice of logging out to make controversial edits. The connection between an IP and a registered editor is available to checkusers, and an automated control process should flag such edits, whereafter a checkusers should check the edits, and if they are multiple, they should privately contact and warn the editor. If the edits are controversial or against policy, they should hand out a block for deceptive and evasive actions.-- BullRangifer (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Doing the math is one thing Risker, but by doing the practical thing by being a regular at NPP, AfC, and having a watchlist of some 33,000 articles and being the the coord of WP:WPSCH over thousands of school articles, and having been in the vanguard of ACTRIAL for years until it was finally rolled out, my empirical results are very different from yours.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Doing the math is the right thing, Kudpung. Everyone has their own different experience. We all tend to forget our very first experience, the one that opened the door to us becoming Wikipedians. Bottom line, we wouldn't allow articles to exist based on our gut instincts or personal beliefs or experience, and we shouldn't change a primary pillar of the editing experience based on those things, either. We have empiric evidence, and we should use it. We do not want to become one of those internet sites where people refuse to accept factual information in favour of personal belief; it's antithetical to our primary mission of providing verifiable information. Risker (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms. The ability to contribute anonymously is one of the most fundamental aspects of what makes a wiki thrive. Registration marks a commitment to the community, which not everyone is ready or willing to make. I want to support the opposition who claim that it gives opportunities for readers to edit and only join the community when they feel comfortable. This is not unique to Wikipedia and is a phenomenon that has been encountered on countless wikis including WikiWikiWeb which used a system of meatball:WikiBreathing where the ability to edit anonymously was expanded and retracted periodically.
    The ability to edit without an account is an important aspect of wiki culture precisely because it allows readers to gradualy learn about the community, form attachments with those who do have names, and eventually feel comfortable making account. This is why even on wikis with much stricter naming criteria than ours, users who were uncomfortable using their real name were encouraged to "either write anonymously or wait until they feel comfortable" (meatball:UseRealNames). The claim that it is how readers get introduced to the community is not fantastical but recognition of the way wikis have worked for over two decades. Restricting that ability and forcing readers to commit to an identity within the community before they are ready is not a good idea. Wikis have life cycles and WikiBreathing like this eventually turns into a meatball:GatedCommunity where we restrict who can contribute and be part of the community further in order to bring back former prosperous times. Counterproductively, this eventually leads to the decline and death of the wiki. I don't find this pattern far-fetched given the growing restrictions we've already been placing on anonymous users in the last few years such as prohibition from mainspace page creation. WikiWikiWeb used WikiBreathing to a good level of success, and we can too, but the pattern is not a perpetual tightening of restrictions.
    Further, the ability to edit without registration is important for people who do have registered accounts (see Wikipedia:SOCKLEGIT). The ability to avoid a meatball:SerialIdentity is an important aspect of protecting the ability for content creators to work in topic areas which may otherwise cause them economic, legal, or physical harm. My account is known in my professional circles, and so if I am making edits to subject areas that are taboo or professionally embarrassing I edit logged out. For those who live under repressive regimes, the ability to distribute their edits across different IP addresses and not centralize their contributions under a single identity makes it harder for those regimes to gather evidence and persecute them for helping build our encyclopedia. Restricting the ability to edit without registering an account is not only a theoretical concern, but one that will affect the ability of our community members to safely contribute to the encyclopedia. I cannot support this. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a very passionate speech Wugapodes, but it's clearly not based on either researched data or solid empirical findings. I'm sorry, I don't buy into any of it. It's the kind of argument that the opposers were making to ACTRIAL. We proved them wrong. We need to be practical rather than emotional. Registration marks a commitment to the community, which not everyone is ready or willing to make - doesn't that kind of contradict what we want and need: users who, like those of us who have been on Wiki regularly for years and care about it, and are committed to it. Does Wikipedia really need hordes of drive-by IP edits of which a significan % do not enhance the articles or the discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I never said it was based on data, it was a rational not empirical argument, and I don't really care if you buy it because I never expected you to. Obviously we have very different philosophical positions on how a wiki should operate and that's okay, but I was never under the impression you'd agree with me. Besides, when Risker gave empirical evidence on how IPs contribute to the encyclopedia, you just ignored it because it wasn't your experience based on being a regular at NPP, AfC, and having a watchlist of some 33,000 articles and being the the coord of WP:WPSCH over thousands of school articles, and having been in the vanguard of ACTRIAL for years until it was finally rolled out. You say it's not a significant percentage, but the data from WMF database dumps that Risker linked you to shows that over 2/3s of IP edits are not reverted despite having one of the most intense automated and non-automated anti-vandal infrastructures in wikihistory. That's over 473000 constructive edits a month which you're calling insignificant. Why are your personal experiences somehow more important than mine or anyone else's, especially when they don't seem to be in line with data that others have given?
You say ACTRIAL "proved" people wrong as if AFC is some miracle corner of the encyclopedia that doesn't have any problems. It's literally only manageable because we summarily delete anything that's been around too long which creates a backdoor to deletion without discussion (Don't like a page? Move it to draft space and wait 6 months). It's led to a bureaucratic nightmare for non-regulars doing outreach events making it harder to recruit expert editors. For example, this past January, if I wasn't bold in requesting EVC rights for an edit-a-thon I wasn't even planning at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, none of our participants would have been able to create articles. We also wouldn't have been able to overcome the IP block on account creation which. Fr shared IP addresses this idea of requiring registration will put up registration restrictions at educational institutions, conferences, libraries, airports, or coffee shops which we have no way of predicting, forcing potential editors to go through a second more baroque process ("Sorry, we know you want to edit, but 6 people before you wanted to edit, so you'll need to go to this second process and wait for someone to get around to it") or just give up entirely.
Having loosely affiliated users is not the opposite of what we want or need, it is in fact exactly what we want and how wikis thrive. We cannot be expected to have a core community watching like hawks over nearly 6 million articles. Having people who are actually interested in those topics able to, with no commitment, fix things as they see necessary is the whole point of why we are a wiki and why it is part of our meta:Founding Principles: that was the intent from the beginning. Why on earth would I want to force everyone to be as addicted to this site as I am? Not everyone wants to volunteer hours of their lives or build emotional connections with strangers on the internet just to fix a typo every so often. If you'd like to address any of my substantive points instead of just attacking my tone, I'm all ears, but you can't substitute your personal experience for empirical data one thread up and then dismiss my arguments for being based on personal experience rather than empirical data mere hours later. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I have never even vaguely inferred that: AFC is some miracle corner of the encyclopedia that doesn't have any problems, in fact it's actually fraught with problems. I also think the assumption that New Page Reviewers deliberately shunt pages off to draft space for tacit deletion is totally inaccurate, and you would need to back that up with proof. I doubt that any experienced New Page Patroler has such an idea in mind at all, and I also doubt that the majority of drafts ensue from the New Pages Feed (but that's something we can check up on).
Stats can often be subjectively used the way one wants to see them; Risker and I have been around a very long time but our long term spheres of committment and specialism hardy even overlap. We agree with each other as often as we don't but I never ignore what she has to say because she is one of the most mature and experienced users we have - and if we do disagree we do it objectively. That said 'Only' about 27% of those edits are reverted out of 17% of edits that are from IPs is still tens of thousands of edits and too much and does not account for the vandalism of the kind that slips through unnoticed; I would not have said 'only', I would have said 'as much as'.
There is however a big difference between impassioned opinion and solid empirical experience. The arguments for ACTRIAL for example, were never a series of subjective pleas - they were objective statements of need, and the empirical finally became data confirmed as soon as we were able to convince the WMF, because we knew it would. Despite the overwhelming consensus, out of courtesy to the naysayers, we still called for a trial first. and ACREQ is a very important milestone demonstrating that Wikipedia's growth being orgamnic, archaic ideologies have to make way for modern requirements.
For what this RfC is all about, per Blueboar: The question is: If we require registration, would those IP editors still make those edits, or would it drive them away? If the answer is that they would have happily registered (if required), but didn’t bother simply because it wasn’t required... then statistic is meaningless (and we would lose nothing by requiring registration). If registration would drive them away, then the statistic is meaningful (and we would lose a lot), so I see no harm in at least running a trial as many have also called for - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
But that's my point, AFC didn't solve all our problems and there's no reason to think that this will solve all our problems. I didn't say NPPs deliberately use draftification as backdoor deletion; the problem I raised is with the loophole AFC's necessary WP:G13 creates where nearly anyone can move something to draft space and if no one notices for 6 months have it speedy deleted. This is beside the point.
Stats can be subjectively used, yes, but it boggles the mind to believe that requiring registration wouldn't have an impact on edits. Even regular editors sometimes cannot be bothered to log in just to make an edit. I gave examples of the problems that would arise in getting people to register for accounts based upon my experiences with edit-a-thons and the technical restrictions built into the software. I described how it will affect the ability of editors, including myself, to effectively use WP:SOCKLEGIT to make constructive edits and why registering an account wouldn't be a sufficient protection for some editors. So yes, I firmly believe that we will lose a significant portion of constructive edits by requiring registration. Requiring registration is putting a barrier in front of people who are mildly motivated to contribute, and one that is easily overcome by people with a strong motivation to disrupt. There's a clear difference in incentive, and unlike AFC, these contributions will still be monitored in the exact same way as we already do, so it's not like there's any new filter to ensure quality edits.
Would having a trial give us evidence about whether this is effective at reducing vandalism? Sure, but do we need it? No. The way to stop vandalism is obvious, become a walled garden. We could just be a normal encyclopedia with an editorial board and known contributors; we would have no vandalism at all! Except that's not what any of us want, and so the mere assertion that doing something will "prevent vandalism" isn't sufficient when it threatens our fundamental values. We have vandalism from registered users already, go look at SPI or AIV, so why would requiring registration stop vandalism? AFC didn't stop BLP violations or hoaxes from being hosted on our servers, it just put them somewhere else. The problem here is that editors with registered accounts would still be monitored in the exact same way as we already do non-registered accounts, so we don't even have the advantage of sequestering that Draft: namespace gave us. Besides, we still wind up with hoaxes and BLP violations in mainspace despite AFC, and many more in Draft space. We cannot simply do stuff "because vandalism" anymore than we should engage in security theatre at airports; vandalism is inherent to an open wiki and we need to find ways to mitigate it that don't undermine our fundamental values. This is as much a philosophical debate over our founding principles as it is a question of how to stop vandalism.
We need to decide what level of disruption is tolerable in exchange for an open wiki, and I reject the premise that we should modify or abandon our founding principles for unclear goals with no logical plan on how to achieve them. Non-registered editing and the numerous advantages I've given is not something I'm willing to sacrifice for vague "anti-vandalism" goals. I'm not willing to risk losing valuable contributions for any period of time in order to trial a plan whose main goal is stopping the vandalism we already stop using the tools we already have. I need a stronger logical argument than "Some vandalism comes from some IPs therefore prohibit IP editing to reduce vandalism". I don't know why arguing for the status quo requires mounds of evidence when that is the thrust of the argument being presented. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It is true that Kudpung and I have focused our attention on different areas of the project. Ironically, it is probably me who spends a greater percentage of her enwiki volunteer time dealing with truly problem edits. As a checkuser, I know the overwhelming majority of socks and similarly disruptive accounts are registered accounts; it's actually pretty uncommon for people to log out and "sock". Keep in mind, these are genuine, problem accounts doing something that is in violation of one or more policies. As an oversighter, I can say that the majority of edits that require suppression are made by registered accounts, with a quick review indicating that less than 20% of suppressed edits involve IPs (and a good chunk of those involve registered editors accidentally editing logged out).
The statistical information I quoted was generated for a different purpose - to give Wikimedians some empiric data to analyse the potential impact of masking IPs of unregistered/logged-out users. Prior to the generation of that data,I had guestimated that we had between 8-10% of edits being done by IPs, and that more than half were reverted for some reason or other (even then knowing that a huge percentage of reverts are for good-faith edits that are not policy-compliant, such as "correcting" a birth date or adding a fact without a reference). I was wrong on both counts. That's exactly why we shouldn't be basing policy on what we experience, but instead on what is verifiable and empiric. Most of the opposes are based on "gut feelings" or personal experiences; they're not based on any realistic analysis of evidence.
We simply cannot afford to lose 12% of our useful edits. We can't afford to close down the major conduit that brings us new editors, particularly given the (generally evidence-based) barriers that have been put in place for account creation. What data we have points squarely at the importance of retaining editing by unregistered users. Risker (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia was founded on certian principles, among them being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Does it make things inconvenient for us? Sure, oftentimes, though our automation tools have mitigated this to a large degree. I don't believe convenience is worth going back on that foundational principle. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I don't see how this will help with vandalism? New users will just be created, only to be blocked and another user created and so on. Also, this would just be a barrier to editing which is not what the "free encyclopedia" is about. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've certainly seen IPs doing bad things (and anyone who hasn't should really get out from under that rock), but I've also seen them do very helpful things. Often this is gnoming stuff that otherwise goes undone for a while; fixing typos, updating a dead link to its new location, stuff like that. It also means stuff it's less likely people will notice, while someone of course will notice when a different IP replaces an entire article with profanity. Besides, an IP is actually less anonymous than an account. (If the latest round of idiocy helpfulness from the WMF goes through, on the other hand, I may well change my mind at that time.) But at least for now, "You can edit this page right now" has always been a part of our project, and we should not change that just because some IP editors are a pain in the ass. So are some registered ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know how IPs can be troublesome, but I've seen many cases in which IPs had helpful, constructive edits; Seraphimblade mentioned some above. Doing this will certainly decrease the level of vandalism, but it will also decrease the level of good-faith edits made to Wikipedia by IPs. Besides, we already have WP:5P3, stating that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute", "anyone can" "edit" Wikipedia. Also, we shouldn't forget that IPs sometimes fix vandalism caused by other IPs (or even other users, we can't track every bit of vandalism on this project). Ahmadtalk 08:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a wiki, intended to be free of barriers to participation. We must not require any extra actions in order to be able to edit. --Yair rand (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many editors, including yours truly, started off by editing with only the IP address, excited by the very low, practically non-existent, barrier to entry. Requiring an account, even if it's free and quick to register, puts up a mental barrier that may discourage newcomers from joining. We who are familiar with Wikipedia know full well that this ought not to be a barrier, but newcomers are unfamiliar with the site's workings, and may worry that free and quick registration is just some sort of bait that commits them to costs or obligations down the line. Allowing people to edit without registering, and with no commitments, removes any skepticism that there are strings attached. IP editors who edit frequently and make good edits are usually encouraged to, and often do, create an account within a few months time when they are more comfortable with that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support An ID is more permanent, gives more access into the platform. SO by all means yes to creating ID's. NO, not all IP's are bad, but with an IP it's hard as heck to communicate as the IP changes and the message intended for them goes to someone else. Sure - do it! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 16:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all efforts to make en.wp even more insular and cliquish. Wikipedia isn't your personal platform or playground. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I have long thought that allowing editing of articles by unregistered editors was a mistake that was not likely to be corrected, and would therefore be left standing for decades. It is still something of a mistake. At this point, the fact that the WMF is planning to protect unregistered editors from themselves by masking IP addresses means that this is instead the time to correct that original mistake. Unregistered editors should be allowed to edit talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Was the mistake of allowing IP addresses to edit made as a correction to the opposite Citizendium mistake of requiring real-world identities? Isn't allowing pseudonymous registration a reasonable compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, that would be a deterrent to someone who would not want to spend a minute to register. I certainly wouldn't want to, especially given their invasiveness - this would make Wikipedia similar to sites like Quora and Pinterest, which would force people to log in. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In theory the OP suggestion is a good idea, as it would be easier to track vandals with registered accounts, vs. vandals who bounce between IP's. However, for those who really do want to make a positive anonymous contribution, this is a simple yet effective barrier that will deter many good-faith edits because of the hassle involved in registration. Not to mention that this would not stop people who are intent on vandalizing. So it would both fail to catch vandalism while driving away potentially good editors. This phenomenon is called a registration wall, and it basically repels users who don't want to create a set of credentials that they may never use again. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – not only because so much of my time is wasted on reverting or repairing IP edits. Only a disappearingly small fraction of IP edits on my watchlist have been useful. The overwhelming majority is either of no use or downright vandalism.
Secondly, it is almost impossible to communicate with IPs, as they very rarely use their own talk pages and in the case of floating IPs these are entirely useless.
Thirdly, and the main issue for me: the mission of Wikipedia has shifted. We are no longer so much building as maintaining an encyclopedia. Building was aided by IPs, we really needed as much input as possible. Maintaining is another line of work entirely, especially when it comes to less visited pages. These often suffer vandalism (or otherwise harmful edits) that goes unnoted for very long periods. Protecting the work that has already gone into Wikipedia will be much aided by requiring registration.
Naturally, registering should be simple and fast. But even that tiny bit of extra work will stop tons of deliberate vandalism.
Exclusion: Not having to waste so much time on IP nonsense will put me in a place where I can be more welcoming and helpful towards new editors. I expect others may react similarly.
Privacy: A username will afford editors much more privacy than an IP.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've wasted too many hours reverting IP vandals but I still think anonymous editors do far more good than harm. I started by making a few IP edits, was satisfied to see the articles improved in a small way, and signed up. I suspect that we gain a lot of good editors that way. We now know that the privilege of editing Wikipedia is well worth jumping through registration hoops, but it may not be obvious to a potential recruit at that stage. Practical considerations aside, we may also feel a moral obligation to remain the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Certes (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while most vandalism is from IPs, we also get many constructive contributions from them. As noted it would make it harder for new users to join Wikipedia. Also it would increase the need for CheckUser since disruption from accounts is more difficult to deal with than unregistered users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The fact that anyone can edit means the bar for new users is low which is what Wikipedia needs. If you read an article and notice a typo, you are much more likely to fix it if all you have to do is click "edit" and fix it. 99.99% of readers won't register an account just to fix small imperfections that need fixing. The idea that IP editors are all or mostly vandals is without foundation as far as I can tell. In fact, since it's so easy to register an account means that those interested in vandalizing will just do so but most good readers who might be enticed to start editing by making small fixes won't. I for one am pretty sure I wouldn't be around if I had to register before editing because my first edits were IP typo fixes and suchlike and I only registered because I found the ability to edit almost anything fascinating. And I'm pretty sure this applies to a lot of people, including some that now support erecting barriers that would have kept themselves away. Regards SoWhy 20:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this obviously doomed proposal. I don't know whether it would actually curb vandalism or improve editing, but I think it is worth considering that it might help retain new editors - yes, it's a barrier to entry, but it also encourages investment in the site, and generally speaking that encourages return visits. There's a reason why so many commercial sites nowadays try to get users to register - it keeps users coming back. Additionally, the reality is that no matter how much we remind established editors about WP:BITE, IP editors are always going to face disproportionate (if inappropriate) presumption of bad faith; they're more likely to be reverted for the same edits, and likely to encounter suspicion in controversial discussions. New editors are completely unaware of this bias against IPs when they arrive (and therefore won't understand why they're having a bad experience, driving them away); getting everyone to register accounts would reduce this disparity. We might also make it so registering automatically creates a blank userpage by default, since a red name has a similar prejudicial impact. Finally, more generally, Wikipedia was founded when the internet was much younger. Nowadays registeration is taken for granted - it is not burdensome to people who have grown up with it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this will free up so much editor time and will thus contribute to content improvement, as well as editor retention because the tiresome treadmill of vandalism will become much smaller. True, a few IP edits are very good. Such good edits take effort, and such effort-exerting people will put forth the tiny effort it takes to register. There are many other reasons in favor of this that I won't repeat as they have been expressed above. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support I personally think that if an IP editor is here to make constructive edits, they will be willing to spend seconds to create an account. Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 19:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've read all the arguments, seen the statistics, thought about assumptions (e.g. how many of the constructive and valuable IP-editors would choose to register, and how many would stop editing WP). In my own anecdotal experience, most of the edits by the unregistered are constructive, improving the article. A decent number of them correct falsehoods that have been smouldering there for years, others regularly update referenced figures. I guess we all don't know what would happen if everyone had to register an account, but I really don't think it's worth testing. I too, made a number of unregistered edits before I decided to register here, and can easily imagine I wouldn't have even tried if registration had been mandatory. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. If one really wants to contribute to this project, (barring technical restrictions, or psychological ones, like those guys who are constantly in porn mode) they will register an account. I have never edited Wikipedia as an IP. Futhermore, regarding vandalism, I believe someone so hopeless as to deface a Wikipedia article with "cxxk and bxxxs" has no patience to register an account. If they do? Well, I applaud them, but let us get rid of the majority that do not. Such is my humble opinion. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 18:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I seem to spend half my Wikipedia life reverting IP vandalism. I have limited time and would much prefer that time to br spent on articles. It is far too easy for vandals to disrupt any pages they care to vandalize. Serious contributors do not see a problem in registering their account. David J Johnson (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

  1. If this is to be something binding then it will need to be turned into an RfC and advertised on WP:CENT. Otherwise, it is simply a local consensus and won't matter.
  2. For those wanting some data about IP edits, I have extracted some specific information from what the WMF reported and placed it here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Noting that there is data from the database at m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/Research. It shows that roughly 17% of all edits on this project are by IPs, of which approximately 27% are reverted. That means that roughly 12% of all edits on this project are unreverted IP edits. Risker (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The question is: If we require registration, would those IP editors still make those edits, or would it drive them away?
If the answer is that they would have happily registered (if required), but didn’t bother simply because it wasn’t required... then statistic is meaningless (and we would lose nothing by requiring registration). If registration would drive them away, then the statistic is meaningful (and we would lose a lot).
Has anyone surveyed our IP editors to ask this question? Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I think this has been asked in a lot of editor surveys, although probably not in the way you'd think. As I recall, editor surveys showed that somewhere between 80 and 90% of editors made their first edit *before* creating an account (i.e., as IPs). I think everyone who is commenting on this page should be required to state whether their first edit to Wikipedia was as an IP. It's the primary way for us to recruit new editors, always has been, and we really can't afford to close that door. Risker (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this entire discussion is a very good precursor to a full blown RfC. Depending on what we get here after 30 days will be a very good indication of how to formulate a decent RfC proposal (poor proposal statements are one of the reasons why many RfC fail or simply become too convoluted).
FWIW, Risker, I made about 3 or 4 IP edits before registering. They were only very minor correction to grammar or obvious typos, but if I had been required to register due to the importance of Wikipedia I would have done so. Note that even after registering, I did not immediately become a regular contributor for a year or two until I had retired from my main career. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
A major problem is the number of entirely meaningless or even harmful IP edits that aren't caught. 27% reversal doesn't mean that 73% of IP edits are useful. Also, I often revert in the form of a new edit (not sure how others operate), which may include reverting any number of IP edits that are missed.
What is the reversion ratio of the edits of registered editors?  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Kudpung

There is, as yet, absolutely no proof whatsoever that requiring registration would be either a net benefit or a net loss to this Wikipedia. At ACTRIAL which took years to get done due to resistance from the WMF, pressure from the community finally proved all naysayers wrong (and there were many of them). As Peter Southwood explains: ...insufficient data to make a rational statistics based decision. As far as I know, there is no convincing evidence that the current positive effects of IP editing exceed the negative effects or vice versa, and I see no easy way of measuring it. and goes on to say: In the topics that I edit most, my impression is that very little value is added by IP editors, but not very much harm is done either, and what harm there is is mostly fixed quite quickly, by registered editors. My assessment of net value of IP edits in these topics is negative. As stated, IMO logically, by Mandruss: ...but we should not assume that we will lose them if we require registration. It's quite possible that their position is "I don't want to register if I don't have to." And, remember, they are likely just as addicted as we are.

As very recently demonstrated by a Wikipedia constitutional crisis, in times where major Wikipedias need to assert far more independence from the WMF except for essential functions such as legal, hosting, and funds collection, the Founding Principles are not necessarily as relevant as they once were and new principles are required that face up to today's reality. Jimbo Wales' Statement of Principles was written in 2001 (many of our editors, esp. the vandals, are too young to remember) and while it says: You can edit right now, there is nothing that says we cannot append: 'all you need to do is register and it only takes a few seconds' . They do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community - note that the key word is community not encyclopedia corpus. Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community - to date = October 2001.

Of all the large Wikipedias, we have roughly double the % of IP edits. This is due to a diversity of reasons, quite importantly because the en.Wiki is the most multicultural of WMF projects. In the German Wikipedia, for example, the high level of registering is due to Germanosphere culture (and my 50 years of experience with it) more than anything else and these are things that computer achieved data cannot evaluate, just as it cannot evaluate the quality/relevance of IP edits or flush out the trash edits that were not manually removed or caught in a filter - and still lurk in their tens of thousands in the corpus. As per Levivich: We sink a lot of time in dealing with IP vandalism. This will reduce that, freeing up editor time.

Here's a suggestion for a compromise:

Without registering you can take part in discussions at any time. You may make a maximum of 4 edits to mainspace (articles) without registering after which you will be required to register and log in. However, without registering you can create a draft article at any time and submit it through AfC, but you will not have the benefits of a registered account.

It won't stop the spontaneous sprees of vandalism though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  • Given how divided the community seems to be on this issue, this compromise, or something like it, seems like a promising way forward. – Levivich 04:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the original proposal. The "compromise" above is obviously unfeasible (who is the "you" who can make a maximum of four edits? per IP address? per day? per person??) We need to make it easier, not harder, for people to click "edit". We're doing pretty well on the "encyclopdedia" part of Wikipedia, we should improve the "free" and "anyone can edit" bits. —Kusma (t·c) 20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Kusma, my 'compromise' suggestion is clear enough, you've been around long enough to know exactly what I meant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, okay, so do you mean Wikipedia should introduce tracking cookies to count how many mainspace edits have been made from a specific computer? Or do you suggest that for ISP IP addresses that are often re-used, it should be a game of chance whether a user can edit mainspace, depending on whether they get assigned an IP address that has made more or fewer than four edits? (Ever? In the last year? In the last month?) I assume you mean one of these things, but I can't understand which one, and I don't think either is a particularly good idea. —Kusma (t·c) 17:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Kusma, I don't really care how it would be technically enforced - at least not at this juncture. That said, Media Wiki software has very granular settings and ACTRIAL did not pose a challenge to the devs despite their remonstrances and claims. Nor did the roll out of ACREQ spell the doom and gloom many prophesied - we're still doing pretty well on the "encyclopdedia" part of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The point of the good IP edits

I see this as the common theme in the 'oppose' !votes above, so I am interested in the logic and evidence behind these arguments. My thoughts:

  • There is no evidence that of the X% of good edits performed by IPs would also not have been performed when those IPs just have to click through a 'registration' and then make the edit. If that is now 12% (somewhere argued above) would that now go back to .. 10%? 1%? It certainly is not what User:Risker defines as a 'massive amount to lose' (but I agree that some will/may be lost).
  • Whether as an IP or with an account: this is still an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is no restriction that IPs cannot create an account, anyone can create an account and edit.
  • Accounts vandalise as well, sure, but I do not believe that the majority of accounts vandalise whereas that is true for IPs.
  • A good IP can not always be communitcated with (same is true for a bad IP) as they move to a different IP and the discussion is 'broken'. It is easier to praise a named account (who then may stay) then an IP who may never see the message if they already moved somewhere else.

--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, your basic premise (that the majority of IPs vandalize) is already empirically shown to be untrue; only 27% of edits of IPs are reverted for any reason (including "suboptimal" edits such as making good faith edits without references), so that is nowhere near the majority. Did you make even one edit as an IP before you registered an account? Risker (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
(inserted)I don't want to get involved in this discussion and I don't have stats to offer or a solution to suggest, but there is a problem and it is getting worse. Take a look at my editing history from just yesterday for example; text search for "Reverted edits by" and look at some of the IP edits I reverted in that short time frame. The first step in finding a solution is recognizing that a a problem exists. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Risker, nope, that is not my premise. Even if 99% of the edits by IPs are good, then that still does not mean that ALL of them, or even a majority of them, would not do these edits when they were asked/forced to login. You have no evidence that we loose all these editors, I don’t have any evidence that they would edit just as well. But that is your premise, that we loose all of that, and I don’t believe it. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The question is, why don't you believe it? The majority of people participating in this thread haven't answered the core question, which is "did you edit as an IP before you registered an account?". There's past evidence that this is the case, although I'm having a hard time finding it. So...did you? I doubt very much I would have ever registered an account, and I certainly wouldn't have in order to fix a typo. In fact, I probably would have stopped reading Wikipedia because there were too many junky articles. Risker (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Risker, I am not sure if I edited as an IP (maybe, but I am somewhat account savvy, realising the benefits early on). I did accidentally edit while logged out, edit I think I suppress after I had access to revdel. That people got hooked after changing a couple of things as an IP is also not a guarantee that they would not have done those things if they were forced to create an account on their first edit. I agree that it seems intuitive, that a lot of people would say ‘**** it’ if they get that question, but neither of us have any numbers to back that up. Especially since it is an easy sell: to keep your identifying info invisible you have to create an account. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I hesitated to answer this question, since as you stated elsewhere, we should be working with data, not anecdotal evidence. (I did not, but since I have no idea if my particular rationale for not doing so is widely held, I don't think anything can be deduced from this info.) Plus, times change. Web surfers are increasingly used to registering accounts (or re-using their login credentials from Facebook, Google, and the like), and Wikipedia's rising ubiquity provides an ever-more tempting lure for readers to create accounts to edit. So trying to extrapolate from the experiences of those who started editing years ago (either as a registered user, or as a long-term unregistered user) will only be partially applicable to today. isaacl (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I registered an account before making my first edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
So...did you? Yes, I did – because I could. Had I been required to spend two minutes creating an account, while divulging absolutely nothing traceable to my real-world identity (not even a throw-away email address), I would have done so. I have willingly given more information to YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, Consumer Reports, Hulu, Yahoo, PayPal, and others because I felt the benefits justified the risks, and I've yet to regret a single case. But your assertion that this is "the core question" is false; if every participant stated whether they did or did not, the results would not be particularly meaningful to this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
There may be no evidence, yes, but I can remember many websites, in some I've been an active participant, which requiring registration affected them heavily (in a bad way). I mean, when an IP is reading an article and notices a typo, grammatical error etc, they can simply edit and fix it. When we require registration for that, they will have to take the process of choosing a username which nobody have chosen before, choosing a password, and registring into the Wikipedia, just to fix a simple typo. To my experience, many people would just leave it be.
Accounts don't vandalise as much, but one reason can be the existance of IP editing in Wikipedia. When all contributors to this project become users, I guess we will have to deal with a larger amount of user vandals.
In terms of communication, we can invite them to register (as we already do if I'm not mistaken). Communicating with IP editors isn't easy, I admit it, but (part of) this can be the result of not paying enough attention to IPs. I mean, can't we develop more tools so we can communicate with them easier than now? Ahmadtalk 09:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
No, we can't develop more tools so we can communicate with them easier than now, because IP addresses change. The "tool" that solves that problem is registration. Just about every website in the world besides Wikipedia requires registration. Yet, they still have millions of registered, active users (think of any social networking site, even the new ones like TikTok). This more or less proves that registration doesn't stop people from participating in a website. I don't understand why (1) anyone thinks registration is an impediment to user growth, and (2) anyone thinks that if we require registration we will no longer be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (if anyone can register, then anyone can still edit). – Levivich 15:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
On the communication point: it is already practically impossible to communicate with an IPv6 editor via their talk page, because their discrete IP rotates rapidly, sometimes from one edit to the next, and you can't ping nor post on the talk page of an IP range. I'm not sure that preventing IP editing is the right way to address that, but our current broadly-accepted method is attention-getting blocks, which is also not ideal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but (in that specific case) we're talking about a social network, not a free encyclopedia. In a social network like, say, twitter, I can't vandalise someone else's tweet, but I can vandalise a lot of things in Wikipedia simply because anyone can edit it. Besides, people can write almost anything they want in a social network; they can give personal comments about anything, what we don't accept at all. As a result, they enjoy joining social networks. There is one thing I need to clarify: I know that millions of people will still edit Wikipedia after this, as Wikipedia (especially enwiki) is big enough for that. And I admit, communicating with IPs is really hard, maybe almost impossible in some cases. However, I'm aware of all the good things they do. I've been an active RC patroller in fawiki for some time now, I've seen many IPs emptying articles, swearing the article's subject etc, and I've blocked many of them. At the same time, I've seen IPs clearing vandalism and doing gnoming stuff. The main point, in my opinion, is that we will most likely lose a part of our contributors (which involves vandals and good-faith editors), so we need to evaluate it carefully and see if it can help us to a (somehow) large extend or not. I think we're (in general, I mean) focusing on IP vandals a little too much, ignoring good aspects of IP editing in Wikipedia. Ahmadtalk 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, on most networks, the IPv6 IPs are *more* static than then IPv4 ones. They should, in fact, be *easier* to communicate with, not more difficult, in most cases. But this is not a particularly relevant point; we have plenty of evidence that (many to most) registered accounts don't respond to messages either; so much so that we even had to make "you're expected to respond to messages" an expectation in our policy for administrator conduct. Risker (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
+1 (And some don't response even after the "you're expected to respond to messages" message.) Ahmadtalk 17:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
In my experience IPv6 /64 subnet assignments are very stable (moreso than IPv4 /32s), but discrete assignments within /64s are highly dynamic, lasting minutes to hours before a new discrete address is assigned within the same /64 subnet. My understanding is that's how IPv6 is meant to work, based on meta:Help:Range blocks/IPv6. So if I see something problematic from an IPv6 editor, by the time I notice and get to their talk page to leave them a note, they're already on a different address within the /64 and they don't get any notification about my message. It can also be that discrete addresses within the /64 are assigned to individual LAN end-users on the same WAN connection (like IPv4 NAT) but I've not seen that as often, and even then the assignments don't seem very stable. Users ignoring messages is a different issue, I'm talking about messages not being delivered to the right user in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ahmad252, Risker, Levivich, and Ivanvector: that current editors do not respond when you know they got the message is not the issue: that is evidence of bad manners or even of bad intentions. It is however the root of my problem with IPs. Yes, a lot of people do not repond when they do get the message, but on a rotating IP a lot of editors do not get the message in the first place. Spam-edit by IP1, message to IP1, spam-edit on IP2, message to IP2 ...thaose warning are unlikely to be read. If they are forced to make an account while on a rotating IP then they will at least not accidentally miss the message. They may intentionally make single-edit accounts (in which case they also would miss the message onthe first account), but then on the 2nd edit (or at least at the 3rd) you have evideence of bad intent. Now with IPs I would wait until we get to IP 4 or 5 just to try and communicate before giving up (and I do give up, I blacklist with 4 different IPs using a shady url, even if there are no warnings, I have no choice). Still, there will be cases where an IP may have been editing in good faith. So, we may lose editors because they may not want to make an account .. we lose editors because they do not make an account. Again, we have no numbers to back up any of these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
A few years ago, Beetstra, I probably would have agreed that it would be hard to miss a message when using a registered account. Now, in the absence of the big yellow banner, I can be actively editing for hours after a message is received if I don't look at my emails; that little yellow tag on the top of the page is almost invisible, and I almost never notice it. On the rare time when I do notice it, I always mumble under my breath because clicking it just takes me to my talk page, instead of the new message(s). I do believe it is exactly why we have seen an increase in lack of response from all kinds of editors. Now, I realize it was designed this way with feedback from a lot of editors, many of whom hated being interrupted with a "new message" while in the midst of editing, but as a communication flag, it's pretty awful. Having said that, we're really getting far off topic. Risker (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Risker, the not seeing that you have a message as a logged in/out editor is indeed far of topic (note: your remark above "... so that we even had to make "you're expected to respond to messages" an expectation in our policy for administrator conduct" and now finding an excuse that you don't often see the message (and I have the same) makes me wonder how we can even enforce that).
The fact that logged out editors who hop around on IPs do not get a message is not off topic. The excuse for static IPs (and administrators alike) 'I did not see that I had a message until now' is not really an excuse, I tried to communicate with you, now don't back out that you missed the message. It is however an excuse for logged out editors who hop around on IPs.
All in all, there are many problems with IP editing, even if they do a lot of good work. We talk about vandalism a lot, but it also does not really make sense to praise an IP, the editor may by then already be on another IP (which does not mean we shouldn't praise .. but I expect that IPs are much less praised than logged in users because editors know that that IP may on the next edit be occupied by a vandal who sees the praise, and the actual editor may never see the praise). Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra, we should probably create another subsection for communication concerns. I know, we somehow can't praise IP editors as much, so yes, I admit that we may lose some potential editors. But, though I've never been an IP-editor before creating my account, IP editing is sometimes the first step for people to enter Wikipedia. That's the first impression, I believe; that gives them a general feeling about Wikipedia. An IP-editor may never see the praise (though I believe it isn't that unlikely for them to see it), but the feeling of fixing a problem in Wikipedia? They are likely to come back, no matter they see the praise or not, because they will probably see more minor issues in the articles they read everyday. And one day, hopefully, they are likely to create an accout in my opinion. Also, to my experience, IPs don't change that much. When fighting an IP vandal, I sometimes revert their edits three (or even four) times before blocking them, but the IP address doesn't change. Also, when I block them for some time, they rarely come back with a different IP to evade their block. It's the same case about constructive IP editors. I mean, I agree that communicating with IPs has its own challenges, but after all, is it always (or in most cases) that serious?
Also, I believe that this needs to be emphasized that we are losing a part of our potential editors anyways. As I said, I think a part of it is about "the first impression", while it has other reasons like what you mentioned above. We need to, generally, try to attract people to actually write this encyclopedia, not just to read it. Now, I think we need some numbers, maybe some comments from experienced, long-term RC patrollers as well, to actually evaluate this. I think it would be better if we first discuss this, and then come back to this discussion on registration requirement. We need to know more about IP editing on Wikipedia; more than some IP vandals, and more than some helpful IP editors we've seen around. This change (registration requirement) will have both short-term and long-term effects, so some numbers can be truely helpful in this case. Ahmadtalk 16:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahmad252, my experience is different .. see e.g. [[3]]. 5 link additions, 5 IPs, 2 wikis. And I have a lot of those. You see vandals who do 4 edits from one account, because you do not know that one vandal is using 4 different IPs, or if it are 4 vandals. And that situation is awful, you may think that you give 10 vandals a level 1 good faith remark ... while actually you give 1 physical person 10 level 1 remarks. Or 10 of us may waste time giving 1 physical vandal 10 level 1 remarks.
Again the ‘most editors start of as an IP’ .. you have NO data if that would be different if we would enforce creating accounts. 9 out of 10 may just as well start an account immediately if they see an error if they can’t fix it without account. And yes, it may be 1 out of 10. We have no clue. But with account creation a vandal will get those 4 warnings, unless they are so persistent that they actually create 4 accounts to vandalise. We know what we likely are going to lose: hit and run vandalism, we have no clue if we would lose (or even gain!) many new editors. The latter is in any form a complete guess. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that example, Beetstra. I just remembered a similar case, thanks to you. Yes, I agree that a vandal can use different IPs to continue vandalising Wikipedia, but they can create another account as well, right? I mean, to my knowledge, the limit is 6 accounts per day; a physical person who has an interest in vandalising Wikipedia can (ab)use multiple accounts in order to do it. And yes, I think a vandal who uses multiple IPs to vandalise Wikipedia can be that persistent to create multiple accounts. Some do it just because they find it funny, others may do so to insert a promotional link, we all know a lot about it. Also, I think we will probably experience an increase in the number of sockpuppet investigations. Good to see we have an active checkuser team here. Nonetheless, I think we'll still have to deal with such cases we currently have with some IPs (and some sockpuppeters), and I don't think this decreases the number of such cases dramatically (again, a simple guess).
Regarding that "no data" issue... Yes, that is really annoying; we can't really know. It may be one of the main reasons of the disagreement between users. Personally speaking, I have no clue of what this can cause, it's just a guess based on my personal experience. But I mean, more basically, we can compare IP edits with user edits in large scales. I know it isn't directly related to our current discussion, but is related to the subject of the thread in my opinion. Ahmadtalk 18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahmad252, sure, the more persistent vandal will make 6 accounts (spammers for sure, it pays their bills ...), but most vandals will not make that effort. As an IP ... It’s too easy. However, will the OCD IP editor make an account to repair that ‘stupid mistake’ ... yes, most will, just as that they now will do as an IP.
I would be in favour of an experiment .... we need this data to make an informed decision. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra, yes, UPE editors working on an article are even more likely to create tens of those socks, I've seen (and requested CU for) many.
The point about the "experiment" is that enwiki is different from most WMF projects. English Wikipedia is somehow an international project with so many editors, we can barely simulate this situation on any other wiki willing to run an experiment at the same time. That's why I'm worried about this: We really have no idea of what that can happen.
I would also recommend contacting WMF to see if they can give us any useful data on this (not necessarily now, we can do it later. I have a feeling that we're going to discuss this again in the future). After all, they have authorized access to a lot of personal data collected from visitors (which we don't, not only us but also the functionary team). Ahmadtalk 20:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahmad252, WMF is considering to 'spoof' IP names, they are not even considering to see whether enforcing account creation is an option, or at least to measure it. I agree about the worry, it may very well greatly improve our situation, or it may cost us a lot of new editors ... Dirk Beetstra T C 05:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The real problem with IP editing is not vandalism but the fact that a growing number of IPs have a hobby of changing numbers and other simple facts. I gave this example a couple of times above, and that error is still there after 16 days. I notice that kind of problem because the number was changed so much that the template generated an error. I see over a dozen like that every week, but I only see changes that generate errors. There must be many more where, for example, "Born 12 May 1962" is changed to "Born 4 July 1966" with no explanation and no hope of follow up—asking a shifting IP why they make changes like that is a waste of time. An IP cannot be indeffed whereas an account who makes unexplained changes without responding will end up indeffed. An account has reputation—if someone with hundreds of edits and a clean talk page and block log makes a few changes like that, we can hope they are good. Too many IPs make changes for the results to be checked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I come across these several times a day. Not because of any alerts, but because of the sheer number of articles in my 33,000 watchlist. When I see an edit by an IP in my watchlist, I check it out and it's almost always vandalism of the kind of sly changes that goes unnoticed. Probably the next most frequent type are genre changes. IMO there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of such subtle vandalism lurking in the corpus. Very few of the non vandalism IP edits in my watchlist are useful and still have to be reverted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This - and 27% only represents the number of bad IP edits that are actually caught and acted upon.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with these comments. Maybe my view is skewed because I mostly look for spam in high-traffic articles. But 27% is nowhere near a realistic value in my experience. The value of "bad" edits including all kinds of bad edits (vandalism, spam, advertising, personal commentary, soapboxing, deliberate or unintentional spreading of false information) is probably closer to 70 or 80 percent. Anyway, this uncertainty about the actual situation in question could be helped with further unbiased research and tests. GermanJoe (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

How would this affect countries where Wikipedia is blocked?

As you probably know to edit from here in Turkey (and I think also from China) we need to use a VPN and apply for ip block exemption. I think most potential editors in Turkey would want to edit Turkish Wikipedia and most people who would like to edit Turkish Wikipedia are in Turkey. If this proposal was accepted could all edits to Turkish Wikipedia be automatically ip block exempt? If so is there any downside for Turkish Wikipedia?Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This might be outside the jurisdiction of the English Wikipedia, which has little to no authority over the Turkish Wikipedia. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
So is this page just about English Wikipedia? If so perhaps it should be made clearer at the top of the page. I suppose from what you are saying that each language Wikipedia can make its own policy about whether to require registration? So I will ask on Turkish Wikipedia.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I seem to remember an article in the Signpost about this, though I can't find it now - Chinese editors attempting to use and edit English Wikipedia have to apply for IP exemptions, and something like it, every time they edit. Or, if not that, there are definite hurdles and barriers towards editing put in place for them that most people do not face. In considering IP bans, we need to consider everyone who uses our Wikipedia, otherwise we fall short of Wikipedia's aims. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It is easy for an unregistered user to vandalize an article

"It is easy for an unregistered user to vandalize an article which many of us have gone through a lot of trouble to write", but it is still much more easier for a registered user to vandalize an article which many of unregistered user have gone through a lot of trouble to write. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)&diff=925265596&oldid=925261577

In fact what lacks here is a definition of vandalism and appropriate talk:

  • Vandalism is not a fact. The French says "Quand on veut noyer un chien, on dit qu'il a la rage" (If you want to hang your dog you give him a bad name first).
  • Talk is a key, anytime someone has a different view, you cannot avoid it. Wikipedia provides a talk page.
  • Wikipedia has freely worked during nearly twenty years, near one quarter century, without banning IP. Why should it change?

I have a dream that unregistered users will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their avatar, but by the content of their contribution. I have a dream today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.208.32 (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Rate limit as prod to register

Is there yet a general realization that Wikipedia is a proud shining obelisk inscribed with much knowledge in all the scripts of the world, but made of chalk and drenched in a corrosive continual acid rain?

The above concern is what prompts me to check my watchlist and/or scan recent changes near every day. It freaks me out when I see vandalism and/or plain bad edits from *years* ago that were not caught because there is not enough effort put into checking edits.

I see Kudpung's proposal above (4 IP edits then must register). Aside from the inability to handle IP's that are shared/reassigned rapidly enough that IP doesn't reliably equal personage, it misses engaging the motivation of the good editor that we want to register. The good editor wants to fix things, correct problems, add to the content. They want to edit and we want them to. We don't want members of the ha-ha brigade to edit a few pages and scramble off. We want to stop or limit them. Let's combine these desires into one limit.

Limit IP's to one article space edit per day. Vandals can't do what they want to do - and we get relief. Good editors can't do what they want to do - and are motivated to register. Bad guys go away, good guys eventually register because they want to do good.

This proposal is the extension of the other restrictions on article space edits based on number of edits, SEMI and ECP. Why were those useful? There were 'target' pages which needed to be 'specially' protected. Given my concern above, I feel all pages here need protection from vandalism.

If you don't agree now, scan Recent Changes every day until you do. I have 2900+ pages on my watchlist. Some days I never get off my watchlist for fixing vandalism. I'd really like to get off the status quo of "It'll be alright, my leg is only a little on fire..." Shenme (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good idea! One edit per day without registering seems like a great incentive to register. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Suppoer. deisenbe (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Shenme: These "imbedded alternatives" rarely get much attention and you'd do better to present this separately after the close of the main proposal (assuming it fails). Whether to give it a hearing at WP:VPI first is your call, but that should be considered as it can help identify hidden flaws in the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 17 November 2019 (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.

Are "Part of a series on..." sidebar links one-to-one with article transclusions?

You know those "Part of a series on..." sidebar templates, like, say, {{Feminism sidebar}}? There's currently a discussion going on about how, and whether, the sidebar links and article transclusions should match up.

Seeking feedback at Category talk:"Part of a series on" sidebar templates#Are sidebar links one-to-one with article transclusions?. (If it makes sense to move that discussion here instead, please do so, and leave a breadcrumb.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Data confidentiality policies?

I'm working on some machine learning code to help with sock puppet recognition. At present, the only data I'm accessing are what's available via anonymous queries through the API. My plan is to eventually access data, such as a user's deleted contributions, which are restricted to admins, running as an adminbot. Are there specific data confidentiality policies around handling those data that I need to comply with? Or is this something that's handled on a case-by-case basis by the WP:BAG? -- RoySmith (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well I suppose that you should not reveal the deleted content to non-admin users. Some of this deleted content may be sensitive, eg outing and harmful to reveal; but more likely it will be a copyright infringement or an ad. Especially with a bot, it may not be smart enough to tell what the deleted content was. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Some of this depends on what data you're accessing. Username, timestamp, page name, page length, and (fwiw) whether it was marked as a minor edit are all publicly available without admin access already, though inconvenient to get to; edit summary and the actual content of the edit are not. —Cryptic 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Cryptic: that's interesting. How does one access (username, timestamp, pagename) for a deleted edit without admin rights? That's exactly what I need to know. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail. —Cryptic 16:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • From the responses above, I'm assuming there is no specific policy beyond, "be careful what you disclose publicly". I'm assuming keeping the data in my directory on a toolforge host with 0400 (-r--------) access permission will be sufficient to meet that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    There may be local policy. If so, I'm not aware of it. If there's foundation-level policy, and that's where privacy-related stuff mostly belongs, then something's gone very very wrong somewhere - they had to take deliberate action to make what's visible visible, and also to specifically redact edit summaries. —Cryptic 16:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The only thought about what is usually public but sometimes not would be hidden usernames and such - if it can't pick them up, then I don't spot anything not already considered above. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith, Please email me. On another note, Flyer22 Reborn may have something to say about this, or might help you construct a gold set. Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Public domain images hosted here but not on Commons

I spend a lot of time on Commons dealing with copyright issues, and rarely upload public domain images to Wikipedia. I'm aware of Wikipedia:Image use policy and WP:NOTGALLERY, but I'm curious if there are additional guidelines, policies, or previous discussions concerning the upload of images that are public domain only in the U.S. but not their country of origin, as required by the stricter policies of Commons. While WP:NOTGALLERY states Wikipedia is not an image repository, there are high quality images that may be used on English Wikipedia right now (or in the future) that may not be allowed on Commons for decades. Category:Images in the public domain in the United States and Category:Images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States contain over 20,000 files, relatively modest compared to the 57 million on Commons. In theory, one could (intentionally or unintentionally) create a "shadow Commons" of large amounts of images that are educational but unused, appearing only in file maintenance categories or the occasional regular categories. Hypothetically, would it be appropriate to upload the entire pre-1924 catalog of works by a non-American artist that are still under copyright in their home country, even if only a fraction are displayed in articles or galleries? I'd imagine this is generally frowned upon, but am interested in previous thoughts. Thanks --Animalparty! (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that images here on Wikipedia should be useful or used, but not necessarily educational. So that would limit upload big collections that will not be in use. Other issues may be freedom of panorama or the lack of it. As for a shadow commons, that would be a new WMF project if it came about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Websites of the Congress of Deputies and Senate (Spain)

Hi everyone! I come from Spanish Café at the suggestion of a user and to ask for help.

I am uploading photos of deputies, senators and politicians in general to complete gaps that arise with the creation of pages. I ask this question here because I wanted to verify the possibility or not of using images from the official website of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate of Spain.

  • On the website of the Congress of Deputies it seems clearer, since in the Legal Notice it states: "The information available on the website www.congreso.es is subject to reuse and is made available to the public without subject to conditions. The reuse of the contents must meet the following criteria: a) That the content of the information is not altered b) That the meaning of the information is not distorted c) That the source be cited d) That the date be mentioned of the last update. e) To follow a principle of public access and non-exclusivity." With that it seems that audiovisual material could be used in Commons, right?
  • However, on the Senate website I have more doubts. By accessing its Conditions of Use, sections 4 and 6, where, on the one hand, they authorize the use if it is for lawful purposes and without incurring vandalism but in section 6 it states: "The intellectual property rights of the website [ ...] are the property of the Senate, notwithstanding that, in general, the information contained in the website is subject to reuse under the terms set forth in these conditions of use, all the contents of the website (including, without limiting nature, symbols, trademarks, images, texts, audio, video, database and software contents) are the property of the Senate or of the service or content providers that, where appropriate, have granted the corresponding license or ceded exploitation of these contents to the Senate. The aforementioned contents are protected by the rules of intellectual and industrial property." From what I understand from there, the fact that the audiovisual material belongs to the Senate does not prohibit its reuse if it is for lawful purposes. Even so, I have doubts and I prefer to ask you before.

Regards and thank you very much for your help! Phalbertt (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Phalbertt, we can't speak for Commons on Wikipedia, but my gut reaction is that neither is acceptable on Commons, though they may be acceptable on Wikipedia with a suitable non-free content justification. The Congress of Deputies license prohibits alterations, which I'm pretty sure makes it incompatible with any of the Wikimedia projects' free licenses, and the Senate doesn't grant any license. It is possible that they could be used under fair use (on Wikipedia only, fair use isn't allowed on Commons), but I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia's fair use rules work when dealing with non-US copyrighted works, so I can't give a definite answer. Additionally, I don't have the exact policy in front of me right now, but I recall that pictures of living people are generally not acceptable for non-free use, because it's expected that someone could go out and take a freely licensed picture instead. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Addition of WP:AVALANCHE to WP:Snowball clause

Some here may be interested in weighing in at Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause#Avalanche about this addition. A permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Automatically blocking IPs from editing articles they've vandalized

Is there a technical reason why IP editors cannot be automatically blocked from editing a particular article once an edit has been marked as vandalism? In my ten years editing Wikipedia, I've seen this time and time again: An IP editor makes a jokey edit, it gets reverted, with a nice, welcoming message added to the (invariably empty) talk page. They do the edit again, and get a mild warning. They do it again, and get a stronger warning. And so on until an admin finally has to step in and block the IP for a limited period. Here is an example from today:[4] An anonymous editor spent an hour adding funny names to a science article, with deceptive edit summaries, performing the edit eight times — six from the same IP address — and taking time away from five editors who repeatedly reverted the vandalism and posted four warnings to a talk page that was surely never read by the vandal, before the IP was finally blocked for 31 hours. We have technology to stop this the moment a human editor spots it. This is WP:AGF taken to an absurd degree, and it's a total waste of human resources. Admins should not have to be bothered with such nonsense.

I mark edits as vandalism when they are clearly done in bad faith, often a WP:BLP issue or a deceptive edit summary, and I believe that after just a single such case, the IP should be blocked (for 31 hours, 1 week, etc.) from further editing that article. I realize people can IP-hop and whatnot, but it should be more onerous for a demonstrably vandalizing editor to continue repeating their vandalism than it is for multiple good-faith editors to stop them. I would put this on the Proposal page if I knew that it was technically feasible; if it is, I'd like to know why it isn't policy. -Jordgette [talk] 18:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I would take it a step further. any new user that makes their very first edit as vandalism should just get an instant temporary ban.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie, I'd err on the side of caution and not do this. It is plenty possible for a good faith editor to accidentally make an edit that seems like vandalism. AGF still applies even to the newest of editors. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
What i consider vandalism is replacing everything with words with "butt" or something outlandish.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, letting users block each other without any verification - there's no way that could go wrong is there? Cabayi (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
We're talking about IP editors only. Above, there was a proposal to permanently prevent all IP users from editing Wikipedia entirely, including first-time editors, and it received significant support. And, disagree, I think it would reduce disruption and bad faith much more than it would enable it. Can anyone tell me if it's technically feasible? -Jordgette [talk] 22:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I dont think regular editors should do the blocking. But admins should drop the warning and just give them temporary bans for obvious trolling.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Would admins support regular (perhaps autoconfirmed) editors having an easy way to alert them that an IP editor has vandalized an article? I don't want to make more work for admins, but I do want to make it less rewarding for anonymous cowards to vandalize the encyclopedia (particularly repeatedly — "ooh, I got their attention now!") and I do want to make it less onerous for regular editors to stop them from doing so. The drag and discouragement that vandalism places on longtime editors, and the resulting attrition of talent from Wikipedia, is greatly underestimated here, IMO. -Jordgette [talk] 22:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
You know about WP:AIV, right? One can usually find admins there and there's a simple and fair process - open even to IP editors. There's no reason for any obvious vandal to receive four warnings. A typical workflow would be: 1st edit, add a level 2 warning to tell them we have policies and that the edits are visible; 2nd edit, warn them they can be blocked (level 3 warning); 3rd edit - blocked. If you get the warning right, admins might block after only a single warning (2 edits), and in some egregious cases no warning at all and a single edit. It can all be over from start to finish within minutes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; I really appreciate your help. But this it what frustrates me: blocking is a last resort. This is a social convention on Wikipedia that really needs to be put to bed IMO. And, the casual editor shouldn't have to think, "How do you report a vandal again?" or search Help, and go to a special page, and type a personalized message, and hope to bring attention when there's a backlog of reports. That's how the terrorists win, when it's more onerous and the wall is higher (to mix metaphors) for good-faith editors than it is for vandals or other malicious anonymous editors. The longer I see the details and difficulties of this issue, the more I favor required registration. -Jordgette [talk] 00:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We'd also have to authorise partial blocks, and automated article blocks for an act would be rather like authorising General Sanctions on a massive scale Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes, that it is possible to automate article blocks for IP vandals. Now I am interested to know who thinks that an IP editor repeating the same vandalism 8 times, requiring reverts from 5 separate editors, is a good thing to allow on Wikipedia, and why. -Jordgette [talk] 22:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
In our current setup, it's not possible to issue article blocks (partial blocks), nor auto-block. I'm not saying it can't be done, but we're a long way from there. On your other point, I've seen several hundred examples of multiple experienced users reverting something which is blatantly not vandalism. And I've lost count of the number of distressingly poor warnings I've seen issued for both vandalism and non-vandalism. If you think the community agrees that you're capable of reliably identifying blockable vandalism, then put yourself up for some admin tools. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand. I've revised my question to ask if it should be easier for regular or autoconfirmed users to alert admins to an active vandal (starts with "Okay," above). -Jordgette [talk] 22:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While this discussion has been going on, the same user has re-vandalized the same article, this time from the same IPv6 address as was used previously.[5] That address has not been blocked — but hey, there are now two more polite messages, this time posted to the IPv6 "user" talk page. That'll show 'em! -Jordgette [talk] 23:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. There's no reason they should have received a second warning, when their first IP saw all the warnings and got blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Some IPv6 editors hop around within a /64 – perhaps deliberately; perhaps accidentally – and may not see a warning on the talk page which is specific to the complete IPv6 address. Certes (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on partial blocks

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Consolidating place-naming guidelines

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Consolidating place-naming details at MOS:PLACE. We have two concurrent threads open at WT:CITE and WT:MOSINFOBOX about coming up with some new or at least clarified place-naming guidelines, and there's a danger of WP:POLICYFORKing conflicting rules if the discussion and what comes out of it isn't centralized. Given that we already have various bits of geographical naming style advice in at least two other guideline pages (MOS:LINKS and MOS:ABBR), plus some mostly titles-specific advice at WP:NCPLACE (some of which might actually be more generalizable), it's probably well past time to consolidate this material in one location anyway. I would think that if we can come up with consolidated, general material at MOS:PLACE, then cross-reference this from elsewhere, that material about geographical names at other guidelines like MOS:INFOBOX and WP:CITE can be kept streamlined and consistent, and focused primarily on contextually very specific things (e.g. don't redundantly provide the same country in birth, citizenship, and nationality infobox parameters when giving it in birth is sufficient; don't add and over-link redundant or too-specific publisher location details as in "New York City, New York, US: Penguin Books"), and leave the all the rest at MOS:PLACE (which right now is rather skeletal, due to scattering of the relevant advice at other pages).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Prevent logged-in users over open proxies?

When blocking an IP as an open proxy, should I be checking, "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address?" -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: generally yes, this is supported by the blocking policy. You may want to use Template:Blocked proxy on the IP page as well. Such blocks are routinely applied by ProcseeBot. — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've updated my block on User:14.207.128.47 -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Did you mean to post on the IP's talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Fixed. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia lower the resolution of fair use images?

Wikipedia lowers the resolution of fairuse images, which doesn't make any sence! This damages the images in a bad way, since users often want high quality images. Please Wikipedia, stop lowering the resolution of fair use images. --A fatal error has occurred (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has required all their sites to minimize the use of non-free beyond what fair use would normally allow. This is in part set by the mediawiki software where the largest possible thumbnail that can be set by the user is 300px, and for the bulk of images that fall under non-free, this is sufficient. --Masem (t) 18:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
well, if we allowed images to be of super high quality, it wouldn't be fair use! The users wanting high quality images is irrelevant, as they are available with the copyright owner. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
That is not correct. WMF drafted sensible procedures for commercial images, and it makes some sense for them to be reduced to low-resolution so as not to impact the commercial opportunity to sell to people publishing books, who require a higher resolution. As Masem pointed out, this is sufficient for most, but not all, "non-free" images. In the case of non-commercial images, though, the reduction is pointless at best, as there are no commercial interests involved, and no valid reason to reduce the image in size, and following our "non-free" procedure makes no sense whatsoever. The worst case is for Creative Commons No-Derivative (CC-ND) images. These could be freely used, even commercially, but we deliberately create a derivative by reducing it, generating an actual and deliberate copyright violation, that is not fair use either, since we could conveniently use the image at full resolution without creating the reduced image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The act of reducing an image is not considered a new copyright (well established in copyright law, its a mechanical, non-creative conversion), and thus is not considered a new adaption for CC-ND, and thus does not violate that. See [6]. --Masem (t) 20:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC
Plus, there's no hard test for copyright. The WMF has (correctly) erred on the side of caution here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Is it a global WMF rule, though, or just a local enwiki policy? There are many projects that have their own policies about non-free content, and they are not all similar to enwiki's rules. For example, we host a lot of non-free images in the Finnish Wikipedia and we don't reduce the file sizes/image resolutions. -kyykaarme (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia call it non-free content if you can save the image to your computer for free?--A fatal error has occurred (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
We are not using "free" as in "no cost" but "free of intellectual property issues". The specific definition of "free" used by WMF is defined here but shortly, that means that any reuser of the image, including commercial ones, are unrestricted from reusing, modifying, and redistributing the "free" work with no strings attacted, outside the potential need to provide attribution. --Masem (t) 18:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Nonetheless, both WMF and the community do use "free" as in "no cost", hence wmf:Wikipedia Zero and the reliance on donations instead of advertising or fees for use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The base rule set by the WMF that all wikis on the Foundation's servers follow is this Resolution. Each wiki must have some type of policy that shows how non-free images and other media satisfy that. It should be noted that historically, en.wiki already had a stricter non-free policy in place before this Resolution that needed to only be fine-tuned when it was passed. --Masem (t) 18:37, 8 December 2019
(edit conflict) It is a global WMF policy[7] that allows each project to have its own "Exemption Doctrine Policy". In our case that policy is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which is supplemented by a guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content. Some projects do not allow non-free use at all and others have a less strict policy than here. Despite the status of Wikipedia:Non-free content as a guideline, it is enforced with a rod of iron. Rarely would anything here be a breach of US Fair use and what dominates is WMF and ENWP policy. Thincat (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)(UTC)
@Masem and Hawkeye7: The situation has changed somewhat since most of WP:IMAGERES was written, since many screens (particularly phones') now have pixel-doubled displays; MediaWiki now allows browsers to automatically choose between e.g. 300px, 450px and 600px thumbnails for a 600px image. I think it could be appropriate to increase the maximum pixel count to 400,000 or 500,000 pixels from the current 100,000 (or even further if there is consensus to do so), since it is most likely well within what Wikipedia would be allowed to do within the fair use doctrine; in fact, the pixel count may be completely irrelevant since the concept is not mentioned in the relevant legal texts. (Furthermore, the numerical image size limit is only part of the WP:NFC guideline, not the WP:NFCC policy.) Jc86035 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Nope, that doesn't work. Again, the Foundation resolution is purposely more strict than fair-use allowances to encourage the use of free media over non-free. 100,000 px (roughly 300x300px) is a practical good size for 90% of the non-free we do host: screenshots from TV shows, films, and video games, film posters, and album/single artwork. Particularly for screenshots, 100k pixels is good for pre-HD screenshots, which would originally be at 640x480, half size of 320x240 is just under the 100k pixels. Increasing the pixel limit would let ppl use full size resolutions of these older works which is not acceptable at all.
And the minimize size is based directly from NFCC#3.
Keep in mind we do allow select non-free images over 100k if there is a good rationale to explain why the image must be shown at a resolution larger than that, such as for some art to show brush stroke or the like. But we want to keep images small to meet the Foundations goal for minimum nonfree use. --Masem (t) 04:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Masem: My understanding is the WP:IMAGERES is our guideline, which is purposely more strict than the Foundation policy. Is that correct? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The Resolution asks for minimizing non-free use to favor free images, but does not specify how. The size guideline is specific ours, and while it formed in part being tied to the 300px thumbnail limit, it was also based on considering the 640x480 resolution for many older media files, which is still 100% applicable. --Masem (t) 05:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The pixel-doubled displays mentioned earlier, and triple pixel displays such as Apple's Retina display, are designed to produce higher resolution images on smaller screens. Increasing the allowable size of free images to accommodate this seems contrary to the basic principle that these images should be low resolution. --John B123 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it outing if a person tells a journalist their wiki account?

The original (semi-hypothetical/intentionally vague) question has been answered. There are ways of handling these situations without directly linking to things. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2019 (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.

Let's say Alice speaks to a journalist, Bob, and tells Bob that her Wikipedia account is alice1234. Then Bob prints that fact in his newspaper. Can we then comment on this situation on-wiki without fear of WP:OUTING? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We have historically interpreted this as OUTING and will suppress. We have suppressed mentions of New York Times articles connecting specific accounts to usernames, and also have removed reference where people disclose their account to a journalist but don't mention it on-wiki. Oddly enough, people are for some reason more comfortable talking to journalists about their real name than they are putting it on their userpage. Anyway, @Risker and Thryduulf: might have more to add. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Something else to consider... DUE WEIGHT... if only one single newspaper thinks the link between a person and a WP username is worth mentioning, we really have to question whether it is appropriate to mention that link in WP. I would say we would need multiple sources discussing it. Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unless the connection is made on-wiki then we treat it as outing because we cannot verify whether it was Alice1234 who spoke to the journalist or someone else claiming to be Alice1234. Obviously if Alice1234 links to Bob's article saying "I was interviewed by Bob here" then that's fine and that does count as making the connection between Alice and Alice1234 on wiki. Without the on-wiki connection, someone else linking to the article would, in many circumstances, also be outing and dealt with the same way we would deal with someone linking to a random post at Wikipediocracy or other disreputable site that claims Alice1234 is operated by Alice. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much concur with Thryduulf and TonyBallioni here. Interviewees can decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to disclose their full name to a journalist when they're being interviewed. However, in several cases that have led to suppression (and one that led to a major Arbcom case), there's no indication that the link between an account and a RL name has been confirmed by the editor behind the account(s). I'll note in passing that I have been interviewed by journalists working for MSM on a few occasions recently, and if a journalist links my username to my RL name, it won't be outing. While I don't have my RL name linked here, it is pretty publicly linked on Meta in multiple places, and has been since I was first nominated for membership in the Funds Dissemination Committee in 2014. (Real-name disclosure is required for fiduciary reasons for FDC membership.) On the other hand, I don't always provide my full name to journalists. Risker (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, we have a problem then. This is not hypothetical. It appears that a U.S. presidential campaign is potentially abetting Wikipedia editing and we can't talk about it because of these restrictions. And by the way, the article is written with inside information provided by an enwp admin. I'm handing this off to Smallbones for followup due to a possible COI. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We discussed this on the oversight list and have suppressed the article. If there's clean-up that needs to be done, it should be done, but we can do that without connecting accounts to real names :)TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2019 (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.

Sorry to reopen a closed discussion. This diff gives on possible way out of the situation. It's a bit too coy for me, but it doesn't out anybody or even link to any article, Since I'm on vacation I've "handed over" my Signpost Editor-in-chief duties to Bri. He can decide. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Bri and Smallbones, I assume you both are aware that the relevant edits were made in 2010 to 2012, right? This isn't current editing, it's historical. Risker (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Your diff has been oversighted, I think ☆ Bri (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It has. Linking to the article is outing, full stop end of story. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Risker and Bri: is there a statute of limitations on our "outing rules"? I do think that If a person gives their RL name to a reputable journalist to publish (and this a always checked by a reputable journalist) they don't have an expectation of privacy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The current interpretation of policy is that they do enjoy protection by our outing rules. You’d be surprised the number of prominent Wikipedians who give interviews with journalists and then are aghast when it’s mentioned on-wiki. Doesn’t happen every day, but it happens. As Thyrduulf mentioned, unless the account mentions their RL identity on-wiki, we will suppress. We have this discussion a few times a year on the list and that’s always the outcome we arrive at. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Note, the Harassment policy outlines the current consensus for what is acceptable and what is not in this manner. Like most things, policies can change as well. If anyone is interested in amending the policy, an RfC can be opened - but in the meantime expect our oversight team to enforce it. — xaosflux Talk 00:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    I've started a discussion at WT:Harassment#Mainspace outing. – Levivich 18:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually don't agree with Primefac's closure, anyway. Once a reliable source has made a fact known to the world, it is known to the world, and it cannot qualify as actual outing if someone on this site reads that source and sees those facts and judges the source reliable. That's pretty much all we do here, and is also where we get things like celebrities' real names, the real names of criminals who use aliases, and so on. If admins want to suppress such stuff, I suppose they can do so, but it's not outing, just something vaguely similar superficially but very different in the details. E.g., if you ID editor A as real person B von C on the basis of what someone claimed on a webboard, that's outing, because it's not a reliable source.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:V vs WP:NOR

Hi,

Consider the 2019 Hong Kong protests. There are many well written, extensively sourced, detailed paragraphs; for example the "Moderate Group" section. The thing is, while each statement may be sourced, they're all different sources which leaves me thinking that the overall narrative is "original research". Someone could construct whatever picture they want from bits and pieces of secondary sources. Am I off base here? Is this what what WP:NPOV is for instead? I'm not asking for judgement on that article just that as a regular at ITN I see it a lot and am looking for guidance on how it should be evaluated especially when we can have articles in the box for months.

Thanks

--LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem with that article is that nearly all of the sources are primary rather than secondary, as any historian or social scientist would tell you that news reports are. If people would just wait until secondary, academic, sources appear on which to base an article then we could get something worthy of an encyclopedia. But, then again, pigs might fly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
When would a WP:NEWSORG be primary or secondary? The policy mentions op-eds as primary. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Hijacked

Azhar Abbas had been hijacked. I don't really know where the best place to report this is. Article was about a 'notable' cricketer and is now about an alleged buisnessman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. The cricketeer is not exactly a paragon of notability, but the businessman seems not to qualify at all. You are well within your rights to just undo this kind of thing when you encounter it. If there is a need for another article for a person of the same name, then using qualifiers & hatnotes (as already demonstrated in the article) is the way to go. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Association football logos

Hi! Some users are uploading logos of football teams to commons saying that they are to simple. Logos should not be uploaded to commons. Some examples: FC Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Inter Milan and FC Viktoria Köln. See this Wikipedia:Non-free content. I think the images uploaded local should stay and those at commons should be deleted. --MSClaudiu (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This should really be raised at Commons rather than here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a concept of threshold of originality in that logos of simple design are ineligible for copyright. However, where the threshold is varied country to country. The U.S. Has a very lax one that most of the linked examples would fail to meet and thus be public domain. While in a common law country like the UK the threshold is very low, only needing "sweat of the brow" to be eligible. I suspect most of these fall into this case and being uploaded to commons is not correct. --Masem (t) 13:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
How can you determine which logo can be uploaded to commons and which logo remains local then?--MSClaudiu (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Once again, that question should really be asked at Commons. We have no authority here to decide what they will or will not accept. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The policy page at Commons is here. As far as enwiki is concerned, it isn't really a problem for us as articles about football clubs include the logo under fair use on the main article even if it isn't free (though it would be an issue if they were also used on sub-articles, such as seasons). Looking at the examples given, Borussia Dortmund is clearly well below the bar of originality, as is FC Viktoria Köln. FC Bayern Munich - borderline; Inter Milan I would say should be non-free. But they're just my opinions. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that they are replacing the logos here with fair use with the ones from Commons, and then the logos are deleted, and the article remains without a logo. And in a way is about en.wiki because the main thing they do is to replace the logos on the wikipdia article of the company.--MSClaudiu (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Newly added content that has been challenged by multiple editors

Policy question has been addressed. Content disputes can be resolved on the article talk page or the dispute resolution noticeboard listing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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

There is a dispute on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page (I'm told this is the appropriate venue for this[8]). The dispute is very simple and revolves around Wikipedia policy: If newly added content has been challenged by multiple editors should it removed from the page until there is a consensus for the inclusion of the content? Some editors claim that the newly added content must be kept in the article until there is consensus for removal. Other editors claim that newly added challenged content should be removed from the article until there is consensus for inclusion. Which is it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss. It takes only the challenge of one editor to warrant the removal of new content and the start of discussion about its inclusion. Edit to add: I see that an editor has played the "no removal of content without consensus" gambit. That's not how it works. That's a card played by editors who want to insert something and put the onus on others to get consensus for its removal. If this is an ongoing issue with one or two editors, consider reading this page and taking steps as appropriate. -Jordgette [talk] 19:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:BRD is very clear on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
GoodDay, Jordgette am I misunderstanding policy? I think that's what we're currently doing.
There was originally a lack of consensus, but we're going over them one by one at this point in time. We'll probably need to start a new discussion though since the original one is so long.
To show you where we're at, 4 of the complaints have been resolved, see here : [9] and I've answered another complaint. I'm currently waiting for the answer regarding that one. And, we will hopefully move on from there. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This is one of the editors who is edit-warring newly added content that has been challenged by multiple editors back into the article with the rationale "there must be consensus for removal". When the editor says that "4 of the complaints have been resolved", he's referring to uncontroversial minor changes regarding formatting (i.e. stuff unrelated to content). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been edit-warring. This is the 2nd time you've claimed I've done so. I simply reverted to another's editor's edit, while we discuss the changes to the page, which we are currently doing. If I made a mistake I would ask you to assume good faith, I've been answering complaints and trying to better the page. I've made some changes regarding the complaints (added other sources for one claim where an editor said it was WP:UNDUE) and added multiple reliable sources. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this, but the account above by Snooganssnoogans doesn't wholly represent the keep claimants' concerns. I wish to raise these two in particular:
  • The question of time, i.e. what constitutes newly in his post. How long until an edit sticks per WP:EDITCONSENSUS? At least in our discussions, Snooganssnoogans has asserted that in a month-old article, all content is new and subject to removal, with consensus required to add it back.
  • There was an AfD soon after the article's posting. During the AfD, the article was largely of the current tone, with the same criticisms as Snooganssnoogans has voiced now being levied against it to argue for 'delete'. The AfD resulted in 'no consensus', which meant that it was not deleted. The context is that motivated editors who argued for 'delete' might then achieve a consolation prize by removing all parts they disagree with. As a clear consensus to keep was not reached in the AfD, one would likely not be reached to restore this individually deleted content, either.
Please ask me to elaborate on these points if needed. I have felt that it's been misunderstood repeatedly in our discussions. Selvydra (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll just add that this was the user I was talking about when I mentioned that I restored this another user's edit while the other changes are being discussed. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The article and its edit history are a nightmare. If it were up to me, I'd wipe it clean and start over, working together to decide what should go in, bit by bit. As it stands, since the article is less than a month old, I heavily favor keeping any objected-to material out unless there is clear consensus for its inclusion. -Jordgette [talk] 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Jordgette, yeah, I can see that, it's very persuasive at this point, but IIRC WP:TNT was objected to the last time it was brought up. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
We were in a situation where much of the challenged content had been removed from the article[10], which would have allowed us to re-build the article piece by piece, but it was promptly restored in its entirety by the editors MikkelJSmith2 and Selvydra (who claimed "there must be consensus for removal"), which means that there's no way to properly resolve any of the content disputes and that no one is going to bother making substantive edits to the article (because the gatekeepers are going to prevent any and all substantive changes). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you have beef with me, but I don't have any beef with you. I've literally thanked your edits. I went even further than that and I even left messages on your talk page to thank you even. I restored the page since I thought it was the correct thing to do, while we resolve stuff on the talk page. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans [...] which means that there's no way to properly resolve any of the content disputes and that no one is going to bother making substantive edits to the article (because the gatekeepers are going to prevent any and all substantive changes). I and others had a similar but opposite concern to your last sentence: that there is no way of keeping any content on the page that gets disputed, if the whole page is young enough not to merit edit-consensus. A 'keep' consensus couldn't be reached in the AfD, so how would one realistically be reached in any content dispute, if the disputing editors are proponents of 'delete'? As such, I do understand this concern. Selvydra (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I just hope the core of this article's dispute, isn't a centrist vs progressive thing. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The core of the dispute seems to be between editors who have nearly no experience editing controversial US politics pages and those who do have experience. The former incidentally claim that "there must be consensus for removal" is Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
"there must be consensus for removal" is Wikipedia policy. ...after a reasonable amount of time has passed, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I ask that you do not oversimplify others' statements, since it winds up being a misrepresentation. Nobody is disputing WP:BRD. Even a less experienced editor tends to be familiar with it. Selvydra (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) Much of the challenged content in the article was immediately challenged after it was added on 30 Nov or early Dec (either in the AfD itself or on the article talk page). (2) Even if the content was not immediately challenged (which it was), 3 week-old content is not a long-standing stable version. (3) If you sincerely accept WP:BRD for new content (day-old, days-old content?), then why have you not chided MikkelJSmith2 for restoring challenged content that is less than a few days old (content from 20-24 Dec), and/or reverted him? You do not appear to apply these principles in a consistent manner. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) You're right. (2) I'd argue that depends on variables like how frequently a page is edited, but this is a moot point because I agree with point 1. (3) For a combination of reasons: i) I didn't have the time to go through each of your many edits individually re: what point in time the affected parts were added, beyond adding undisputed citations, MOS etc. to that edit of mine which he reverted it to. The 1RR in place would have complicated partial reverting further. ii) After his reversion, he looked to be making improvements and addressing those concerns, and I didn't want to add to the chaos as he too is more experienced an editor than I am. iii)' Much of the content you removed/trimmed was of the same nature as the article was from the beginning – which prior to these WP:VPP and WP:DRN discussions I thought had stuck. Hence, I thought it was better not to explicitly take your side in the dispute, leading to me not making further edits on that. Selvydra (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Of course any challenged content should be removed from a month-old article unless and until discussion on the talk page reaches a consensus. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service, so a month is the very short term. I say this without having looked at the disputed edits, because that is a principle that applies to any content in any article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, I thought that the page had to stay the same until the problem was resolved, which is why I wrote this above: I restored the page since I thought it was the correct thing to do, while we resolve stuff on the talk page. That may have been a very big misunderstanding on my part then. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You restored the page how? To me, restoring the page would be stripping out all objected-to content and then tackling each item on the talk page, looking for clear consensus (for both the inclusion and its wording) on each. -Jordgette [talk] 20:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Jordgette, I restored Selvydra's edit, which fixed some stuff but still had some objected content in it as well as some fixes that other users had made to the objected content : adding more source to meet WP:DUE, trimming,the use of different words per MOS and replacing said with opined in some cases. The problem I guess is that we never really came to a consensus on the objected content. However, I need to add that some objections went against the larger consensus at Wikipedia (i.e. the consensus from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). Some editors disputed the use of Fox News (the RS, i.e reliable part of that network), Business Insider (an RS), and op-eds that fell within RSes. Another complaint was the use of Paste, which is currently undergoing a RfC on the noticeboard (I was waiting for an answer there before doing anything) and a Tweet from ABC News (I've added the original ABC News source to answer that complaint, but I haven't had a response from anyone regarding my fix). There are other complaints regarding sources that are WP:BIASED and aren't listed on Perennial sources, such as Current Affairs, but we never really came to a solution. I was of the opinion that we should attribute some of them. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger and Jordgette – I appreciate your input on this – but what about the second question/concern (2nd bullet point) I brought up? Again, please ask me to elaborate if it's unclear. Selvydra (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel like the AfD has any bearing on the present discussion, but others might disagree. -Jordgette [talk] 21:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Disussions at AfD are only about whether we should have an article or not, not about what the content of the article should be. That is a matter for talk page discussion, and that is where this should be discussed, without anyone putting disputed content into the article if it doesn't have consensus there. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
That's a shame, because people were using the content of the article to argue for 'delete' as much as they were the title (which was changed since, per consensus.)
One more concern: What avenues are there to stop someone from (slowly, over time,) deleting all parts of the article they don't like – under the expectation that a consensus will not be achieved to add them back, as one wasn't even reached for the existence of the article in the AfD? Selvydra (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Write good, well-sourced copy that can't be deleted. Avoid adjectives and adverbs, in particular. Chances are, some people will still try, but the better you write it, and the "better" your sources, the harder it is for raving loony centrists to cobblestone your daily drive to make your deposits into the letterbox. But beware, this place is chock full of "mistakes" that people leave spun for months on end, sometimes years... 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Selvydra I explained this to you a few hours ago on the article talk page. AfD has nothing to do with article content. Content can be included only of it is verifiable and only if there is consensus for its inclusion. There is no first mover advantage. - MrX 🖋 22:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As an uninvolved editor who lives in the UK and because of this has little prior knowledge of Bernie Sanders' media coverage in the US, the lead of the article comes across balanced. There are allegations of bias against Saunders in the media and also counter-arguments against it. The rest of the article seems to be weighted in favour of showing these allegations are unfounded. Although well referenced, in political controversies such as this, it's easy to find references either for or against a certain viewpoint. In my view, the POV and undue weight tags on the article are justified. Getting back to the original point, the onus of justifying additions/changes to the article is with the person making the changes, not those objecting or reverting the change. --John B123 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    John B123, so, I'm confused, is there or isn't there an error in policy regarding what I did (i.e. the page was reverted to before some of the changes were made and the changes in question are currently being talked about on the talk page)? MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the changes and edit summaries closely enough to comment. In general terms, the "status quo" should be maintained until controversial issues have been resolved/reached a consensus on the talk page. If the controversial content already existed on the page then it should remain during the discussion process. If it were an addition it should be removed. In the case of removal, if there have been subsequent unrelated changes, then the removal should be made manually to preserve the intermediate unchallenged changes not by restoring a previous version. As you have brought up the talk page, I would note there are many closed discussions, unusual for a talk page, often closed the next day or soon after, which would seem to be "too soon" as per WP:CLOSE. --John B123 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
John B123, so, in essence, from what I understand, I didn't do anything bad by reverting until the issue is settled? As for WP:CLOSE, yeah sorry, I'll revert those. I wasn't that well informed on closing rules at the time. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@MikkelJSmith2: Looking back through the edit history there have been many, more minor reversions and counter-reversions that probably shouldn't have been made. To me, a significant point was reached at this reversion you made [11] at 12:23, 24 December 2019, reverting numerous edits by Snooganssnoogans made during the previous couple of hours. At this point, the challenged content should have been discussed on the talk page and consensus reached before further changes were made. The subsequent changes removing content, adding back in, reverting to previous editions, counter-reverts etc do no credit to any of the editors involved, including yourself. --John B123 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
That edit was reverted though and I thanked the user for the revert and Snoo for his edit. That was really bad on my part and too hasty. I apologized too. See the thanks I gave here [12] and here [13]. I also thanked most of Snoo's edits one by one.
The other edit I made on the page was due to the fact that things were still being discussed on the talk page, so I restored Selvydra's edit, which solved some problems, while we were discussing edits that were made. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Does that make sense or not? I'm sorry if I messed up the whole process it was not my intention. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Jordgette This isn't new material like stated. This is material that has been in the article for weeks with discussions that have clearer went on the agreed for inclusion but to what degree area in previous discussions. This article has always been in contest. When the afd went no consensus that didn't place that any material could be removed at will. It simple held the issue in limbo. It left it to further discussion to decide the fate of the material in the article at that time. Alot of this is that very content that was at question at the afd.--WillC 22:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

John B123 I've been trying to put forth a similar stance. Under EDITCONSENSUS any content that is not immediately disputed has an established consensus. If the material is later disputed and removed, if that edit is immediately disputed then no new consensus is formed. Which means the material remains in the article with the superior consensus. Only if the edit that removed the material is not immediately contested does that removal become the standard.--WillC 22:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:EDITCONSENSUS doesn't say "any content that is not immediately disputed has an established consensus". It says "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The edits in question were in the article for 23 days and then they were disputed. - MrX 🖋 22:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, just to add: the article was created on 30 Nov. Many editors disputed the content in question during the AFD discussion which took place from 1-8 Dec[14], as well as on the talk page just days after the edits in question were made. It's disingenuous to insist that a consensus ever existed over the challenged content: it has been disputed since practically the day the content was added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
And the result of no consensus does not allow the immediately deletion of the material until a consensus is established as such. If it did, then the article would have been deleted per a no consensus vote. 3 weeks for the material to exist without being removed with discussions on the talk page focused on altering the information and not deletion shows an agreed edit consensus for the material to remain. 3 weeks passed, the material was removed, that removal was disputed and no new consensus was formed. WP:BRD says "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD"; "If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted."; etc.--WillC 23:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
What relevance does the AFD outcome have? The point is that it's false to say that the challenged content ever had some kind of implicit consensus for it or that it can be considered stable status quo content. Multiple editors brought up problems with the content in question during the AFD and on the article's talk page just days after it was added. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
And that went to no consensus which means a further discussion is needed to establish if the article should exist or not and the material inside the article. You instead chose to ignore dispute resolution and went ahead and did 75 edits, more than any other user by dozens, and decried everything as punditry when questioned while failing to even know the definition of the word. You helped cause the contentious subject to increase to this extent by doing so.--WillC 23:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Lets also point out a wide range of those concerns were addressed but continue to be repeated including Biased and opinionated sources regarding reliability. The entire defense has been the article should exist, not in what manner the content should be in. So much so, I had to bring issues regarding TE to the talk page.--WillC 23:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that the AfD has any relevance at all. As already pointed out, an AfD is to determine if the subject is notable enough to have an article, not how good or bad the article is. Objections to content should be brought up on the article's talk page not elsewhere. --John B123 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The article is only a month old. All of it is new, and all of it is subject to challenge. -Jordgette [talk] 23:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this interpretation means that a newly created article needs to maintain an unbroken consensus of content-inclusion for the entirety of its infancy (= 1 month or more) in order to get its content 'out of the gate' and into the protection of WP:EDITCONSENSUS – and until such a time, a simple impasse no-consensus situation at any point is necessary to begin and maintain content deletion. Is this correct? Selvydra (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Selvydra, there is no point of "safety" at which content can no longer be challenged or questioned. An article can be unchanged for years (reflecting an implicit consensus) and then an editor notices something or a new source pops up, and the process starts all over. Schazjmd (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd Indeed there is not, but the distinction here is that before WP:EDITCONSENSUS 'protection' is attained, 'no consensus' is enough to delete content (and to maintain it as deleted), while after it is reached, a consensus (silent or otherwise) is required to do so. (Have I understood this correctly?)
It might seem like a trivial distinction, but in this case, this page has a history of contentiousness and lack of consensuses, so it seems like a likely common outcome. Selvydra (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
We both know it doesn't actually work that way. If an article remains a way for 6 years, editors will edit war to maintain the status of that content and a discussion will have to occur to change it. Not the other way around. That has been routine practice on this site for years. I have seen it done on every content I've ever watched. Film, politics, wrestling, music, MMA, etc. If something remains a way for an extended period, a discussion is needed for the article has remained in a general period of accepted flux. Basically what I am hearing, is we need to have a discussion over every single sentence of material in this article now because it is at dispute and it can all be removed for there is no formal discussion to accept this material.--WillC 00:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Protection? There is no protection of content on Wikipedia. -Jordgette [talk] 00:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I would have used more precise wording, like in a state where the onus to reach consensus is on the deleter, not the includer, were this discussion not getting so long. Selvydra (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a featured article on Abraham Lincoln where one rogue editor is removing passages properly sourced to Doris Kearns Goodwin. This is a new article with a god-awful mishmash of content. WP:BRD should be followed. There's a reason why there's no such thing as Bold, Discuss, Revert. -Jordgette [talk] 00:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
BRD is clearly about discussion and not reverting. There should be no second revert done by a user. It should go straight to discussion per what it says which I pointed out previously on one of these discussions. There are like 4 going on regarding this topic.--WillC 01:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thats the point I'm trying to make John B123. The article had no consensus on whether it should exist or not. Meanwhile, changers have bypassed discussion and went straight to removal without a consensus to alter the contentious material since the afd. Only success was changing the title of the article. Which is the position we are at that connects to your comment: "If the controversial content already existed on the page then it should remain during the discussion process. If it were an addition it should be removed."--WillC 00:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Stop talking about the AfD. It's completely irrelevant. The article is less than a month old. None of the content "already existed" one month ago. And, I think already enough has been discussed about this one article here at the Village Pump. The article has a talk page for a reason. -Jordgette [talk] 00:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a loss of sight of the basic principle that if content is changed and then the change reverted, the original content is retained until consensus is reached to change it. The age of the article or result at AfD does not change that. Those who want to make changes need to justify why and gain consensus if the change is opposed. --John B123 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
And that is where we are at, arguing over whether the material should stay in the article and whose job it is to argue changes should be made to the article. The few edits I have done was to undo material removal under discussion. The rest has been to discuss what to do.--WillC 01:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a good candidate for an admin to drop by and temp-lock the article (at the WP:Wrong version of course)... just to force everyone to stop wikilawyering about who is breaking which rule, and to focus on actually reaching a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Amen. - Ryk72 talk 01:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • To reiterate the crux of the comments I made at the article Talk page: Editors should stop wikilawyering about EDITCONSENSUS and start discussing the merits of article content. - Ryk72 talk 01:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, and am willing to engage. There was an ongoing consensus process regarding many of these changes/removals; I'm hoping to resume that. Selvydra (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Ryk72, it's ridiculous to claim this is about Wiki-lawyering. As someone who has edited pretty much every contested US politics page on this encyclopedia, it is not feasible in the slightest to edit a page when any removal of newly added content (note that the editors above are even edit-warring content that was added days ago back into the article - despite their insistence that they're only restoring three-weeks old stuff) gets restored over multiple challenges, and when there is a crowd of 3-4 mostly inexperienced editors (incl. single-purpose Sanders accounts) who insist that tweets, tv show transcripts, and anything that gets published anywhere automatically fulfills WP:RS and WP:DUE and must be included despite objections by many more editors. The onus cannot fall on the majority of editors to start dozens of RfCs and take each snippet of content to multiple external boards to make sure that there is a consensus for removal. If that is how it's going to work, then I'll abandon the page and let the 3-4 editors run wild with the page, because there will be no point in spending time editing the page and explaining on the talk page why random tweets and off-the-cuff comments plucked out of TV transcripts do not belong (this is seriously the kind of content that these editors are edit-warring into the article - content that was added just days ago). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's ridiculous to claim this is about Wiki-lawyering. No, I don't think it is. Edited pretty much every contested US politics page on this encyclopedia Sometimes less is more. It is not feasible in the slightest to edit a page when any removal of newly added content ... gets restored over multiple challenges Agreed. They should stop editwarring content back in. If they do not, opposing editors should stop edit warring it out. Everyone should discuss the merits of the proposed content. - Ryk72 talk 02:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "If they do not, opposing editors should stop edit warring it out." Just to be clear, I've not edit-warred any of it out and no one has removed the challenged content since 26 Dec. In short, the editors who are in brazen violation of Wikipedia policy have been allowed to keep their edit-warred version as the status quo, and at the same time, these editors have not accepted any changes on the talk page except the most minor cosmetic changes. And why would they when they believe they have the right to put new content in the article and repeatedly restore it over multiple objections? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If there is a demonstrable pattern of one or more editors edit warring to include content despite <source or policy based> objections of other editors, then that should be taken to the appropriate noticeboard. - Ryk72 talk 03:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • incl. single-purpose Sanders accounts Multiple accounts? As it stands, you've only called me out for this. I have replied to this at the WP:DRN discussion by explaining my history as an editor on this site. [...] insist that tweets, tv show transcripts, and anything that gets published anywhere automatically fulfills WP:RS and WP:DUE and must be included despite objections by many more editors. This is hyperbole, and you know it. Reality, as usual, is more nuanced. Myself and others have disagreed with your interpretation of what is and isn't WP:RS and WP:DUE – not asserted that all content meets it. (Well, at least I haven't.)
You had deleted several blocks of text, giving as a reason that the sources weren't RS (when their RSN discussion ended in 'no consensus' or they don't exist at WP:RSPSOURCES) – regardless of whether the reliability even matters for the citation. To give examples, you:
– Did away with a part about Ed Schultz talking in an interview about the reasons he was let go from MSNBC, because the sources quoting that interview are right-biased sites (no consensus on reliability). Does the bias of these sources enable them to travel to the past and change what he said in the interview? But what it can do is introduce selection bias (incl. out-of-context quotes) and spin, which can easily be avoided by covering it neutrally and/or attributing the source properly.
– Removed a part that reported about a social media repository of misleading news graphics that presented Sanders' candidacy in a negative light, because the left-wing site (again, no consensus on reliability) that picked it up was "not a RS". Does the bias of this site enable them to change what was written on a directly linked and verifiable social-media-site discussion, and make it false information? Though later in our conversation, you did indicate a willingness to change arguments from 'not a RS' to 'not notable' (because the cited site and/or the discussion weren't notable enough. In response to this, I added another citation to a notable site deemed as RS.)
In these cases, there is a reasonable argument to be made that these sources are reliable for what they were used for, because what they're being cited for isn't falsiable by them.
majority of editors – I mean, I guess 4 against 3 is a majority... If that is how it's going to work, then I'll abandon the page and let the 3-4 editors run wild with the page – There's no need for the martyrism. For my part, I've been trying to continue the consensus process. I think we have to address this RS / not-RS question, as well as questions of content notability and WP:UNDUE to avoid future disputes and impasses. Selvydra (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I ask that someone kindly, mercifully close this discussion. This entire section has been about one article only. That article's discussion should be on that article's discussion page. -Jordgette [talk] 14:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Jordgette, I would do it, but I'm involved so I can't (unless we want to WP:IAR). MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
It should be closed. Seeing as the case has been taken to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard page. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this a foretaste of what we can expect for most of 2020 until the US presidential election? Of course this should be closed. The policy issue was addressed almost as soon as this lengthy discussion started, with the obvious response that disputed material should not be in the article unless and until consensus is reached for its inclusion. Everything else is a matter for talk page discussion with dispute resolution if needed. I guess that I am involved, as I made a comment above, and I don't know how to close discussions anyway, but someone please close this pointless discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I am uninvolved enough not to be able to see who is pro-Sanders here and who is anti-Sanders, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that there are such "sides".
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.

Prostitute vs. sex worker

There have been many edits and discussion on the talk pages of various article over usage of "prostitute" or "sex worker". Much of the discussion on the talk pages has been repetitive between articles. To prevent continuation of this debate, a global policy on this issue would useful.

Sex work is a broader term, and also includes porn stars, pro dommes, sex therapists, strippers, phone-sex operators, camgirls etc. but is also at times when referring to prostitutes. There are those that have argued that sex worker should be used as prostitute is derogatory and stigmatised. Others have argued that prostitute can be confused with "prostituted women" and therefore implies forced prostitution. Taking an opposite stance, others have argued, in regard to child prostitution, that prostitution implies consent. Yet other editors, who are opposed to prostitution, view the use of sex worker as an attempt to legitimise prostitution so oppose it.

Context also plays a part. In the article sex worker, which deals with the broader sense of the the term, to change prostitute to sex worker would just cause confusion. In other articles, such as Prostitution in Australia, the terms are generally interchangeable. I have written several Prostitution in <country> articles and tend to use both terms dependant on that used by the source. For example UNAIDS is probably the most accurate source of prostitute numbers and uses the term sex worker so I tend to use sex worker for prostitute population side, but in regard to legislation, which almost always refers to prostitution/prostitutes, I use those terms.

The term sex worker was first coined by activist Carol Leigh in 1978, and has increased in use since then.

I would suggest that where sex work/sex worker could lead to ambiguity or potential confusion then prostitution/prostitute should be used. In articles about events or people prior to 1978, prostitution/prostitute should be used as the event/person predates the use of sex work/sex worker. In all other cases either is acceptable, but to prevent edit-wars, protracted debates over terminology etc, then similar rules to variants of the English language and date formats should apply, ie if prostitute is used in the article then it shouldn't be changed to sex worker and vice versa. --John B123 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, and apologies for using this shortcut in particular but I'm making a point, the guideline which governs the use of terms which may imply value judgements is WP:TERRORIST, and in fact that style guideline mentions sexual perversions already. Not that prostitution or sex work are perversions necessarily but that's a good place to start. Probably you've already found that there's a spectrum of sources which refer to either prostitution or sex work that is evolving over time but that doesn't have a hard cut-off between one term or the other, and so the advice will probably turn out to be the same as for dealing with terrorist vs. freedom fighter: follow contemporaneous reliable sources as much as possible, or modern reliable sources if they're all that's available. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This seems like something that should be worked out by consensus between editors. Or, perhaps, no such consensus will appear and individual editors will be free to make their own choices. Either way, it seems outside the scope of policy. Policy is how we run the project. Policy should not include editorial decisions. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with John B123 and the 1978 "cutoff" for not using sex worker. Aside from that I think could go by editors choices based on article context and sources used. A problem is when the terms are mixed in a single article and an editor comes along and makes all of the terms either one or the other then it causes problems especially where the sources term does not agree. I'm still not sure how or why sex-worker would be considered "advocacy" editing, but if it is, I do not agree with that either. Also I do not know exactly how we can determine between prostitute or sex worker specifically for the reasons that John B123 mentioned as far as human trafficking issues but I would tend to use "prostitute" as a verb there, and "sex worker" does seem to me to be more voluntary but I do not think that would be a reason to create a policy about use. TeeVeeed (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • We should pay attention to the sources and not create a hard-and-fast rule. We should especially be careful about using "prostitute" in BLPs of people who don't identify with that term, because it's often seen as extremely derogatory. I don't agree with a rule that they shouldn't be changed: Wikipedia's disproportionately edited by Americans who have some unusual moralities around sex work compared to the rest of the world, and there's a bunch of articles that use "prostitute" that really probably shouldn't (again, especially BLPs). This even applies to the definition of "sex work": the notion of it as something substantially broader and unspecific when talking about what they would call prostitution (as JohnB123 suggested above) is a largely American concept that doesn't really apply internationally when the vast majority of organisations representing what they would call prostitutes internationally use the term sex work. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is going to be an area where just going off the general nature of sources is going to cause problems. If the subject is, say, European, and the majority of European sources say "Sex worker" but all the American sources say "Prostitute", thereby shifting the majority, do we go with them or the "local" media? Or a good case could be made for opting for what the subjects would/do call themselves. The problem with yielding it to page by page consensus is the usual one - it gives flexibility for individual article variation, but also gives completely different decisions being made for otherwise similar subjects depending on who the interested viewers are. I'm inclined to at least some lose guidelines being made, both on the points in my and in Drover's Wife's comments. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
re: “...but also gives completely different decisions being made for otherwise similar subjects”... Yes, that’s the intent. A decision reached at one article would have no bearing on the decision reached at another. Different articles are allowed to use different terminology. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see any great need for a general guideline on this. As the proposer says, "sex worker" is a broader term than "prostitute", this is, they are terms with different meanings. All prostitutes are sex workers but not all sex workers are prostitutes. I would disagree that either term says anything about whether they do the work voluntarily or are forced to do so: just as people in other professions, such as cockle-pickers or domestic servants, can do so either freely or as a slave, so can prostitutes and other sex workers. Can anyone point to any specific instances where there has been a problem that would have been avoided if we had had a specific guideline on this issue? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, see my comment below. No need to ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources, favoring those from the time frame (per WP:PRESENTISM) and region that the topic involves. If there's no clear preference in sources over the two in consensus discussions, "sex worker" should probably be preferred as the more neutral term. --Masem (t) 17:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it's not that clear cut as many see "sex worker" as a whitewashed term. ....see here for an explanation. That seen best we follow the sources per topic.--Moxy 🍁 20:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: John B123 brought the matter here after this discussion at Talk:Eastbound Strangler, where I pinged him, Kieronoldham, Neil S. Walker, and SMcCandlish, and suggested the matter be brought here. I was thinking of an RfC on the matter. Basically, what we have are editors, usually newbies (IPs and registered editors), going around changing every instance of "prostitute" to "sex worker." That can be seen with this and this account, for example. In the first instance, Kieronoldham, Neil S Walker, and I reverted. In that second instance, I did most of the reverting. I've stated the following times before: We do not use Wikipedia for advocacy. This is per WP:Advocacy. Prostitute and sex worker are not automatically synonyms. Sex worker is the broader term. And just like Wikipedia has not banned use of the wording "committed suicide" in favor of "died by suicide," and is unlikely to any time soon, Wikipedia has not banned the term prostitute. There is no need for editors to go around to Wikipedia articles replacing prostitute with sex worker, especially in historical cases. Here is an updated version of the "unlikely to any time soon" discussion. The "prostitute vs. sex worker" matter was also recently discussed at Talk:Prostitution.
One article where the "prostitute vs. sex worker" matter keeps coming up is Aileen Wuornos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where editors keep being reverted on the change. See, for example, this revert of an IP by EvergreenFir. EvergreenFir stated, "While I agree with the language change in general, the sources and the subject herself referred to it as prostitution and 'hooking.'" As for my comment about "no need," I understand that the matter is different when it comes to BLPs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with the word prostitute (including after 1978; that's just a date under which it's an anachronism). We'd have a PoV problem if it said whore, but not prostitute. Sex worker is a modern neologism and euphemism, and is also too broad (porn stars, pro dommes, sex therapists, strippers [no, don't call them "exotic dancers"; they're not exotic in any sense of the word], phone-sex operators, camgirls and -guys, and various other occupations all also qualify under various definitions of sex worker). If this is coming up frequently, it should probably be discussed at WT:MOSWTW, though I suppose hashing it out at VPPOL will be good enough. This robotic changing of prostitute (and other terms, like callgirl, streetwalker) to sex worker is WP:NPOV and WP:MEATBOT failure, and needs to be stopped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    • If you call someone that you personally would call a "prostitute" that label in much of the world and they're feeling uncharitable, you're likely to get smacked in the face. Some of the other alternatives you defend ("streetwalker") are worse (perhaps skip the "uncharitable" in that case). Sex worker is the word that the vast amount of organisations across the entire world that represent people-you-would-call-prostitutes use for themselves, and the idea of it as this broad and unclear "neologism" is a substantially American thing that doesn't apply elsewhere. For the reasons I articulated above, there shouldn't be any hard-and-fast-rule, but these comments by Americans with a fetish for using and defending derogatory language towards women in the sex industry (and specifically opposing the language they generally use for themselves outside of the US) argue for rampant violation of WP:NPOV and need to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      Just a quick note: We don’t actually care what those who work in the field call themselves, what we care about is what reliable sources call them. This may or may not be the same terminology. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      Those are not two different things. American users are sometimes surprised to find that reliable sources internationally have a different understanding than the one they've personally gained from watching Law & Order or reading tabloid newspapers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
      Surely you're not suggesting that the term "prostitute" is only commonly used in America? As a Briton, that's news to me. Yes, "sex worker" and "sex work" are commonly used in the media and understood, but so are "prostitute" and "prostitution". Reliable sources use all these terms. None are POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
      The one organisation that I know of run by such people themselves for their own benefit is called the English Collective of Prostitutes, so at least some call themselves prostitutes. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      This is exactly why I've advocated against hard-and-fast rules here: there are contexts in which different language will be acceptable, but knowing which to use generally requires some actual understanding of the specific subject being discussed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
      This sounds very much like a euphemism treadmill. Anomie⚔ 14:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
      It's very convenient that the only things that aren't a "euphemism" in your book seem to be things that are generally considered slurs by the target population. Does this logic of yours also apply to other stigmatised groups? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
      You seem to be resorting to ad hominem, and making unwarranted assumptions as to what "my book" might contain. Anomie⚔ 21:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As the original poster above notes, in its original sense prostitution is a subset of "sex worker". It is the act of trading explicit sexual services for cash or other valuables. Being paid to have sex with another person while being recorded is not generally considered by most people as prostitution. Stripping (or dancing naked) in front of people is generally not considered prostitution. Being a cam girl id generally not considered prostitution. Being a professional dominatrix/dominator comes close to the line, but as long as there is no physical contact, let alone sexual contact, it feels like a stretch to call even that prostitution. (And I have read an article on Medium where a person hired a professional dominatrix to serve as a therapist: the person did not need psychological/psychiatric help, just someone who could enforce a reward/punishment structure in their life in order to get stuff done. IIRC, the dominatrix was dressed in street clothes with no sexual subtext.) While one could come up with cases that fall into a grey area -- e.g. if A pays B $50 to mop the floor in front of A because watching B do this sexually excites A, is this an act of prostitution even if A & B never touch? -- for the most part the rule should be to limit use of the word "prostitute" to paid acts of physical sex. At least IMHO. (It is worth noting that one reason "sex worker" is the preferred term is that "prostitution" tends to be applied to anyone who is wiling trade their ethics or morals in return for money -- most commonly, politicians. In other words, people who sell their bodies are offended at being compared to politicians. A remarkable situation.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Should disruptive IPs be sanctioned more harshly?

I notice there was a recent discussion calling for registration to be required to edit Wikipedia. While I'm against that, in my ten years as an editor I've seen many cases where an IP editor was highly disruptive and the IP was blocked for a limited time. The most recent (and disturbing) example is this: [15]. The IP was blocked for one week.

What, realistically, is the downside of a highly disruptive IP such as the above getting blocked permanently? How serious is the risk of collateral damage? I've had some conversations on Twitter where people believe the reticence to permanently block IPs is a serious weakness of Wikipedia and discouraging to editors who put in the hard work. Based on my experience, I tend to agree.

It seems to me that a policy of permanently blocking disruptive IPs would be a fine compromise between the current system and one that requires all editors to register. (This is not a proposal, just a call for discussion.)

-Jordgette [talk] 17:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Broadly support. I would agree that the current system is too lenient. We perma ban accounts far more readily, it appears, than we do IP editor. A vandalism only account is generally banned straight away – a vandalism only IP seems to be able to run amok for a fair while before they're banned for 24 hours. That said, I'd favour a 12 month exclusion over a permaban in most cases – just because the current resident of a property is a wiki vandal, it doesn't mean the next one will be. Domeditrix (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, IPs tend to have their edits rejected more often than accounts and a long-term block is more than sufficient to prevent issues. An indef could easily affect innocent users (who might become productive contributors and register) while the person who the block is aimed at can just move to a different IP. Reverting a dozen edits and blocking for a year or 2 isn't that difficult and most IP edits that are blatantly disruptive get noticed and reverted quickly. All the edits by 185.107.47.119 were reverted by Black Kite in the space of 3 minutes with rollback anyway, not that difficult. Its also pretty clear that the IP isn't a newbie since otherwise they probably wouldn't know about the notability tag. If blocked indefinitely they would likely just go to another IP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If it's an address assigned to a domestic connection, we can't really be sure how soon it will be re-assigned to an innocent party, and sometimes the culprit is a rogue user on a shared commercial or educational connection. Also, IP-hopping is a thing. Incidentally, if the proposed meta:IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation is implemented, you may not actually be able to see IP addresses at all. William Avery (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know how often someone tries to make a good-faith edit, and finds that their IP is blocked. If it's currently many times per hour, then obviously adding more lockouts would be unwarranted collateral damage. But if it's only a few times per year, or per month — keeping in mind that good-faith edits do not necessarily improve an article — then it would be worth discussing whether such collateral damage should be absorbed, in the interests of not discouraging editors who regularly do good work to improve the encyclopedia. If this data isn't available, ballpark figures could be arrived at (derived, for example, from the total number of IP addresses available to users of English Wikipedia, how many are available to someone who wants to IP-hop, etc.). Such a quantitative analysis would be more useful than the general ideal of preventing innocent IP editors from getting locked out, at all costs. Keep in mind that I'm looking at this as a compromise to requiring registration for all edits, which in the discussion above garnered significant support — the IP problem is that bad.-Jordgette [talk] 23:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandatory registration - This here Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bidhan Singh is a great example, for why account registration should be mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I read them. The first is a guideline that dates back at least to 2008, and I'm asking if it's time to discuss updating that guideline. The second is irrelevant because this discussion is about preventing disruption, not punishing users. -Jordgette [talk]
  • If you could give me assurance that this IP will always be used by this one person for the next 10 years, then I would be more than happy to block the IP address for the next 10 years. Unfortunately, the reason why IP blocks are frequently shorter than one week is because IP addresses get reassigned all the time such that the person using the IP address next week is not usually the same person as this week. This is why standard practice is to use gradually increasing blocks: if the same disruptive behavior continues on an IP after a block expires, we know with greater confidence that this is a static IP address that we can block for a longer period of time. For Special:Contributions/185.107.47.119, a red flag for me is how the IP was essentially dormant for years until suddenly it appears doing something as precocious as adding notability tags; it's not likely that this is the user's first IP, so they are probably hopping around on a lot of different IPs, hence blocking this one address for years is probably going to harm the next innocent user that gets reassigned to the address more than the user that the block is intended for. Mz7 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    Note that 185.107.44.0/22 is now colocationwebhost blocked for 3 years but as you can see the edit made last year was constructive anyway. In addition I'd say that the week long block was generous given all the edits were made in around 46 minutes (and nothing before). I'd personally have only blocked for 24 hours. Even if you knew the IP was going to be used by the same person for the next 10 years I still wouldn't block as long as that since what's to say there not going to do something productive one day. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Broadly agreed with the above. When it becomes clear that an IP is long-term disruptive, such as engaging in similar disruptive behaviors after several shorter blocks, a long (though not indefinite) block is fine. But your average vandal or other jackass is probably on a dynamic IP, and by the time the block expires, they'll have a new address anyway. And if it's a sockmaster, well, we more or less know they're hopping IPs, because checkusers will be taking care of them as they come up. There's no utility (in fact, negative utility, given collateral damage) to blocking an IP indefinitely or for years when it will be assigned to someone else tomorrow or next week. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not believe it would be breaking the rules to say that collateral damage from rangeblocks and, much rarer, but still present, collateral damage from a changed blocked static IP, make up a substantial proportion of all OTRS tickets. The first set won't be changing much, but I'd rather not see a massive increase in the latter- especially since lots of individuals must be affected without writing to us. However, I'd be okay with a short but significant increase - e.g. minimum starter blocks of IPs for a week (if a registered account would be blocked for at least that long/indeffed). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The main problem is with shared IPs and how to exactly implement range blocks which leads us into the WP:PERENNIAL proposal to have mandatory registrationship which is quite a dead-end. Though I would broadly support harsher actions against offending IPs. Gotitbro (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Longer IP blocks don't help us unless we can find a way to persuade vandals to stick to the same IP address. Mandatory registration has the problem of losing us some good new editors and making vandalism slightly harder to spot as they have to create an account; As long as vandals do the minimum necessary to commit their vandalism while good new editors can be lost if we make things difficult for them, mandatory registration would do more harm than good. Where I think we could make a useful change would be to be a bit quicker with those 31 hour blocks on IP addresses that are only being used for vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 01:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, explain the 31 hour thing to me. That's been one of the mysteries of this place that I've never been able to figure out. I get blocking somebody for a day. Or two days. Or a week. Or any round number like that. But 31 hours? What's up with 31 hours? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Galobtter#31_hour_blocks Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
31 hours is chosen to be several hours over one day. The theory is that a vandal is often a bored person (say a kid at school) who is by a computer for a short period at about the same time each day. If you block them for 24 hours they might not even know because they are not affected when they next go to play. But 31 hours would catch them on the next day. Some people respond positively if they realize their disruption is noticed by real people and has consequences. And 48 hours might be unnecessary. Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just as the WMF was finally heavily defeated over their 7 year block of WP:ACPERM, there is no proof whatsoever that introducing longer blocks for IPs and/or registration for everyone will prevent people making serious edits. Most vandalism is 'one off'. By that I mean also the sprees that have to be stopped dead in their tracks. Otherwise, except for proven long term abuse from school and university networks , most longer blocks are ineffective. Most domestic IPs are dynamic, or vandals are using mobile devices and are located wherever heir boredom suddenly gets hold of them, and many of the IPs are VPNs. Filters are now able to revert a lot of vandalism but some of the more subtle kind, such as random date changes etc., fail to get the attention of patrollers. From the type of vandalism, it's fair to assume that most vandals are children, but some disruption/borderline vandalism requiring blocking comes from teenagers, young adults, and immature adults.
Whatever the 'founding principles' might have said once upon a time, as Wikipedia grows organically, so does the need for better control of it. The time will come sooner or later when mandatory registration will become inevitable - of the tens of millions of of editable or commentable websites out there, Wikipedia is the last one not to require registration. A growing number of other websites require not only registration but also a moderator's authorisation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace, nationality, and citizenship bio infobox parameters with matching values

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values, an RfC opened after initial discussion fizzled out with too few participants. Pointer listed here since the answer could affect a large number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Should WP:AUTO allow BLP subjects immediate and final say on their religious beliefs?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Autobiography#WP:CAT/R disagrees that "details of your religious beliefs...may not be verifiable". I'm proposing that BLP subjects should be able to insert, update, or correct their religious beliefs, because of their wholly personal nature, just as we allow them to "correct unambiguous errors of fact." EllenCT (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject content advice titled "guideline" but marked as "essay" for over a decade

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines clearly has the word "guideline" in the title and is referred to as a guideline by the Wikiproject. However, it has also had the essay template at the top of the article for over a decade. These two things appear to be contradictory and in need of resolution. The easy thing to do would be to propose it as a formally accepted guideline; it appears to have been stable for quite some time so it may fly through that process quite easily. But I have no experience in that area so I'd appreciate suggestions from editors experienced in area of Wikipedia policy and guidelines! ElKevbo (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The above request is premature. WP:WPSCH is a large and important project. The OP has not extended the courtesy to the project coordinators and members for a full discussion there before staring something here for input from the broader community. That said, VP 'Policy' would not be the right venue either. Please see WT:WPSCH/AGKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I opened a discussion in the Talk page in question nearly a month ago. ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, ElKevbo, it would have been more appropriate to mention it on the main project talk page at WT:WPSCH if in your opinion the issue is so nefarious that it now requires a drastic intervention by the entire Wikipedia community. As you have pointed out several times, the Schools Project advice page has been around a long time (12 years if I remember correctly) and no one else has seen fit to cause a kerfuffle over it. IMO, there are more important issues to be addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
You're really blowing this out of proportion. Moving the page or retitling is not a big deal. Neither is asking the larger Wikipedia community if they accept this as a guideline. ElKevbo (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
ElKevbo, it's also not a big deal not to. You may want to look into other project created content guidelines. The vast majority are the exact same status as SCH/AG. John from Idegon (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Joy pointed out this problem for the Wikiproject Universities article advice about five years ago (not so much "pointed out" as "marked the article as an essay without discussing with anyone because it was the correct thing to do") and neither that project nor our college and university articles have fallen into chaos. If we have other pages with titles and templates that conflict then those should be fixed, too. ElKevbo (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
We should be very careful not to display essays as if they were guidelines. It's very clear it's currently an essay, so it either needs consensus for being policy, or to be more to a less ambiguous title. Personally, I think the title should be changed regardless, as if it became policy, it should come under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Schools or similar, would it not? The current title doesn't seem right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
ElKevbo, it's one of many Wikipedia:WikiProject advice pages. There are about 180 such pages with misleading names. The thing is, most of them were created back in the day, before the WP:PROPOSAL process had been invented (for WP:MEDMOS), much less written down (which was in 2008, about a year after WikiProject Schools created its advice page). Back in the early days, all you needed to do to make a page be a "guideline" or a policy was to slap a template on it. We probably should discuss a mass page move at WP:MFD (no point in singling out just one WikiProject), and they should all have the {{WikiProject advice}} templates on them regardless of their titles, but I wouldn't want anyone to think there was anything more nefarious than inertia going on here.
I also wouldn't want anyone to think that WPSCHOOLS is a large WikiProject with a lot of resources and extra energy to expend on what at least one of its participants considers a fairly minor detail. Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Schools lists 13 regular contributors (including you) to its discussion page during the last three months. That's a middling-to-small WP:WikiProject with a fairly large subject area to cover, and they might easily miss something. The larger groups, like WPMED (92 regular participants on its talk page) or MILHIST (116 regular participants) or WPVG (84 regular participants), would have had far less excuse for not responding to the talk (sub-)page message that you posted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
It's very foolish for us to allow Wikiprojects to have pages that are "essays" but allow them to have titles that explicitly claim they are "guidelines," "policies," or whatever else the project wants to call them. And that statement - and the relevant linked policies and guidelines - doesn't address how these pages are titled. But if many other editors are opposed to making the extremely simple change that would easily resolve this then I obviously won't edit war to make the change. ElKevbo (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it seems as if Iridescent's statement pretty much wraps it up. It is the status quo at WP:WPSCH and does not need changing. If you feel strongly about it, then you would have to try and get all Wikiprojects to toe your line, not simply single one out, but IMO, there are far more important things to do on Wikipedia than what I would basically consider to be little more than a cosmetic change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"You can't fix one thing unless you're willing to fix all of the things" is an unworkable and unfair principle to try to impose on editors particularly in a volunteer project. ElKevbo (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#General_signature_timestamp_guideline_change

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#General_signature_timestamp_guideline_change. DBigXrayᗙ 20:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

the thread is closed now. Mark as resolved. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Resolved

Television episode official name superseding common name

Members of WP:TV have recently reasserted to me that articles about individual television episodes should always be titled by their official name, even if that isn't the name by which the episode is most commonly known. By my read, MOS:TV#Naming conventions and WP:NCTV do not appear to support this otherwise unwritten precedent, which also appears incompatible with the Article Titles policy (WP:COMMONNAME). What kind of discussion and venue would be the best route for resolving this impasse, ideally with input from outside WP:TV? czar 04:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that best having this discussion at WP:TV initially, and copying in the members that you have communicated with. It seems that you may have done so, and if so do you have a link to the discussion. I personally do not want to get involved deeply in such a topic as it's always (a) are these episodes notable (there's a section on WP:TV about this), (b) how do you measure how an episode is "commonly known". If there are disputes it's probably best to stick to the official name and have re-directs as needed. Good luck with sorting this out. Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Notify a user when you've started a discussion about them

Is there a policy around notifying users when they become the subject of a discussion on a talk page outside of a notice board? Like ANI-notice? I swear there was, maybe no one uses it. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The only places you should be discussing a user's behavior (and not contributions) is at AN, ANI, AE, or ArbCom, all which designate that you must notify the user in question about the action. I have seen editors talk informally about other editors on a third-party's talk page, in an informal "what do you think I should do?" manner , which I don't think would require notification of the editor in question at that stage. But if you are otherwise talking about editor's behavior and its not one of the four pages above, that's approaching no personal attacks and should be stopped and moved to the appropriate venue. --Masem (t) 23:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know. @Masem: do you mean that if someone comes to your user page for advice about another user you don't give it but refer them elsewhere? Or ping the other user and suggest they join the discussion? Doug Weller talk 08:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There are other noticeboards, such as WP:AIV and WP:SPI, where behaviour is discussed but it is not customary to inform the editor involved. I think this is something that needs to be thought about on a case-by-case basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
SPI in particular states that notifying subjects might be a negative, which is probably the only place you see such a thing on Wikipedia (Not counting WP:EOTW), so I'm afraid case by case is definitely the way to go. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Technically, with AIV, you should have already been in discussion with the user about their behavior, and AIV generally is where you go if the user is unresponsive or simply ignoring the warning; a notification is not likely to fix that. (Counter: AN3, which is more about edit warring with participating users, requires notification). SPI is a bit of an odd case where notification isn't required but that's because there are times notifying a suspected sock may be determinental. --Masem (t) 14:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Need an additional opinion

The article Anne Bogart had a tag about a section in reverse chronological order so I reversed it. Another editor reversed it on the grounds that the subject of the article liked it in reverse chrono order. (When the editor reversed it it also restored the tag.) I put a note on the Talk:Anne Bogart to discuss which order to put it in. No one has commented yet so we are at one opinion for chrono and one for reverse chrono order. Can someone please add an opinion. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've commented; editors may be more interested in gutting the article's promotional and poorly sourced content. – Teratix ₵ 23:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Good point. RJFJR (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Impact of IP blocking

Hey.

So, I’m just popping by to leave this as a thought to bear in mind when people discuss IP blocking. I used to edit Wikipedia a lot, and occasionally logged in when I wanted to discuss things more with people. I first started, back in the very early days, with the typical ‘vandalism’ edits (or at least, we used to consider it typical) that is someone seeing it works, and then settled in to creating content and tweaking and editing. As I wanted to discuss things more easily, I created an account which I sometimes logged in to: more often I edited anonymously, as I wanted my edits to stand on their own merits and be judged accordingly. As life got busier, and the encyclopedia got a bit less fun (you oldies know what I’m talking about), I drifted away.

Today, I got a little taste of what the current equivalent of early 2000s me would have experienced if I wanted to get started now.

I was looking up Conscription, and came across a nonsensical sentence in the section about the United Kingdom.

Britain and its colonies did not develop such pervasive administrative states, and therefore did not opt out for regulatory solutions, such as conscription, as a reliability.[1]

References

  1. ^ Mulligan, C. B. (1 March 2005). "Conscription as Regulation". American Law and Economics Review. 7 (1): 85–111. doi:10.1093/aler/ahi009.

Among other things, in context it is clearly referring to some earlier “pervasive administrative states” that haven’t been mentioned: perhaps some sentences have been deleted, or perhaps sections added. So I went to tidy up: to remove the sentence, but also take it to the talk page to document it, raise it with the regular editors as something to look at, and go about my day. In earlier days, I’d of course have searched the history to work out what had happened and try to salvage it. But I can’t. I can’t do any of those things. Because I wasn’t logged in.

When I went to edit, because I am accessing the internet through a mobile phone network, I got this message:

Editing from your IP address range (185.69.144.0/23) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 20:32, 25 April 2020 by [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ruslik0 Ruslik0] (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason:
Long-term abuse
This block began on 20:32, 25 April 2019
You can contact [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ruslik0 Ruslik0] to discuss the block and you may make unblock requests or file appeals at meta:Steward requests/Global or by emailing stewards(at)wikimedia.org. Your current IP address is 185.69.145.129. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

Imagine you are new to Wikipedia, and are faced with that. Undeterred, I checked the options:

  • This IP cannot edit the article, or the talk page, nor is there a ‘request an edit’ option. There is no way to engage or notify anyone of an error, which is surely how most people drift into editing.
  • You cannot edit the page or talk page at the Steward request page that the message sent me to, and there is no obvious way to request an unblock.
  • This IP address is blocked from editing even its own talk page, to alert anyone or attempt to engage.
  • This IP address is blocked from creating an account, so a new user cannot even use that as a way to start engaging.
  • The link to Ruslik0 displays as I showed it here: broken. Not only can the new user not click on their name to contact them, it adds to the feeling that by attempting to edit you are doing something you shouldn’t, seeing broken code.
  • When I go to see what the ‘long term abuse’ was that caused a year-long block 9 months ago, I can’t even see any contribs or log entries, so there is a lack of transparency, too. I can easily believe that a mobile phone IP shared by however many people will see some abuse, but why can’t I see any? Someone newer would be faced with the idea that they’ve just been randomly blocked from the entire Wikimedia project.

A modern-day version of me-when-I-got-started would be faced with absolutely no way to engage with Wikipedia at all, not even to ask why I couldn’t. How are new users, of the sort who just want to create and edit content without financial motives, supposed to get started? How are all the little drive-by copyedits going to happen, that suck people in?

I’m not saying the answer is to go back to un-logged-in users being able to edit everything from any IP at all times, but the current situation really does lock people out completely with no way to get in. I’m someone who’s motivated enough to email news websites when they have errors in their articles, to get them corrected, and I can’t see a way for me to have engaged with this error without logging in to my old account. Possibly by emailing the stewards, but that’s a huge step.

Where do new editors come from? You need the young and enthusiastic, with more free time.

Anyway, happy editing. Skittle (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you, Skittle! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It's an irritating but otherwise small price to pay to stop long-term vandalism. Anyone who wants to edit from a restricted IP address can easily get around this by creating an account.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@WaltCip: No they can't, if their only internet access is via a mobile device and the mobile IP is blocked from creating an account. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I recently got impacted by a hard block on an Amtrak train while trying to fix an edit to sociolinguistics, and the only reason I was able to get it resolved before the end of the train ride is because I already knew about ipblockexempt and the UTRS. It was a very frustrating time, and I could only imagine how demoralizing it would be for a new user. Perhaps we should make MediaWiki:Blockedtext a little more user-friendly by making the link to Help:I have been blocked a little more obvious. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Skittle's global block would need to be addressed by a steward, either by unblocking the range or by granting global IPBE. Either way, m:SRG provides some options. The local Amtrak block, if we knew what that range was, it would be nice to allow us to whitelist it. It's in the middle of a larger webhosting range, which is why it is hardblocked. phab:T241652 (which was deemed a duplicate of phab:T5340) would allow us to do that. ST47 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair to say the encyclopedia is a bit more complete and tightened up than it was in the early 2000s. We needed volume then. We can be more selective now, for the benefit of stability. For the small number of well-intentioned people affected by IP blocks and range blocks, if they want to edit but can't be bothered to take 30 seconds and set up an account, I don't have a ton of sympathy. -Jordgette [talk] 16:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you see "blocked from creating an account" above? Incidentally, I've had periods when even as a logged in user I'm blocked from editing over mobile network (with a message similar to that the OP got). DexDor (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I did not. I’d have put that in bold for emphasis. That's terrible. But, there you have it. This is the kind of dysfunction, confusion, and clusterf**kness that will continue forever until the decision is made that edits can only be done by logged-in users — what I call the "Medicare for All, but Free" of Wikipedia. -Jordgette [talk] 18:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, let’s put it this way: all you have to do to create an account is edit from your home computer one time to create the account in a majority of cases. The issue with the large ACBs that people complain about is that they’re usually mobile, which is why they’re needed. Mobile ranges tend to be highly dynamic and LTAs tend to use them, so they tend to be disproportionately range blocked. The nice thing is that in most English speaking countries (and no, that’s not being discriminatory, this is the English Wikipedia) people have access to non-mobile internet so they can easily make an account. Global blocks are a bit different, but they largely have no impact here for the reason I just explained, and stewards are extremely liberal (way too liberal, in my view) on handing out WP:GIPBE. They basically give it to you if you have a pulse and have made 1 edit or more on multiple projects. They’re also extremely responsive to account creation requests sent to them. This particular incident is being overblown. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, DexDor there is one network I can think of that admins might accidentally hard range block. Otherwise hard blocks generally shouldn’t be made on mobile ranges. If this occurs again, please send me an email or ping me so I can try to figure out what’s going on. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding in most English speaking countries ... people have access to non-mobile internet so they can easily make an account, I don't think that's true. Or, at least, it's a US/Euro-centric point of view. Consider, for example, India. It has the 2nd largest English-speaking population in the world, and the 2nd highest number of internet users in the world. 644 million wireless subscribers. 22 million wired. So, any argument that revolves around, Wireless is secondary is a non-starter. Even in the US, wireless is big and growing. I no longer have a landline phone, although I still get my internet service over a wire. I would not be surprised if in another few years, as 5G rolls out, I could cut that cord as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I said in most English-speaking countries, which is true. India is a large English-speaking country, but it is also one country. Maybe I should have clarified that India is the obvious exception, but we also almost never block Indian mobile ranges without an exceptionally good reason because it would cause absolute chaos and many of them are too busy for CU to work. I promise you I and most CUs are aware of how India’s internet works. My statement above is an accurate description of how range blocks work on en.wiki. My argument was not “wireless is secondary” but “anyone with a home internet connection can solve this problem and it works for the overwhelming majority of mobile range blocks on the English Wikipedia.” That is true. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
We may not often block Indian mobile ranges, but I remember a number of years ago that I complained about an editor who was reverting every single edit, good and bad, from an IP range belonging to the largest wireless provider in India, and was basically told by two administrators that that was exactly how our policies were supposed to work. Most CUs may be aware of how India's internet works, but there seems to be a strong anti-mobile bias among many administrators, or at least a lack of understanding that a single mobile IP often represents thousands of users simultaniously. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me the complaint is not so much about the block, but about the signposting. If it was a local block there'd probably be a nice big helpful anonblock template, which generally work quite well. I read the complaint as being about the link to the stewards page not working, there is a link to m:SRG which is indefinitely semi-protected for "no reason to keep this open for anons", and there's an inability to see the range contribs. I'm not currently in a position to investigate what global blocks look like, but I do think global blocks are rarely informative or easily appealed. Presumably it's MediaWiki:Globalblocking-ipblocked-range instead of MediaWiki:Blockedtext. I think most people can accept we might need to block ranges, if it's explained properly and there are practical workarounds indicated. And as a reminder to admins, I'd recommend never leaving individual messages for widely used ranges. The end user is rarely interested in the block reasons, only the block message. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
My internet access is all via my mobile - I can tether my desktop through it. I've been caught in IP blocks that left me struggling to find a way out - and once I did manage to make contact with Admins most of them didn't have a clew how to help me. The messages I got were downright unhelpful, telling me to do the impossible such as edit a talk page with talk page editing blocked, email an admin with no way of logging in to use the email function, etc. It did get raised at phabricator but I don't think anything was done. I was left feeling that because I can't afford a permanent internet connexion I'm not regarded as mattering. DuncanHill (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
And I'll add, some of the comments above make me feel that way again. "No home internet? Tough" DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
And even for people who do have access to an internet connection at home or work which isn't blocked, if you can't immediately resolve the block and you are not already committed to editing wikipedia, you are very unlikely to a) remember what the edit was that you wanted to make, b) remember to make it when you are next on your home internet, and c) bother to try, given your disenheartening first experience. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Moral of the story:

  1. Have an account so that you aren't affected by anon blocks.
  2. Ask for an IP block exemption for your account if hardblocks are affecting you.
  3. This thread has nothing to do with policies as far as I can see and it is a board that discusses policies.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Had an account and still got shafted by IP block, as I wasn't able to log in or reset password. DuncanHill (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Also got hard-blocked while logged in using a reputable, paid VPN. There was literally no solution except to ditch the VPN. Plenty of people use VPNs, presumably a ton are being excluded. Also difficult to understand why logged-in users with decently history do not get automatically exempted from all blocks. Perhaps a technical issue, but it has never been explained. Rollo (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You'd think it could come with something like ExtendedConfirmed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. The Foundation tells us that supporting editing by cell phone is a priority, yet users encounter access problems like this, & with no way to alert someone who can fix it. I see the Foundation continues to deserve its well-earned reputation. -- llywrch (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm no great fan of The Foundation, but in this case it can't really be held responsible. Blocks are placed by administrators or stewards elected by the community. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Improving precision of definition of WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF

WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF both list conditions for when a self published source is allowed to be used. One of these conditions is the cause for a dispute about the meaning of these policies, therefore I propose increasing the precision of the wording by replacing "authenticity" with "identity". Both policies state that such sources may be used "only if ... there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity ...." I understand that this means such a source is allowed "only if ... there is no reasonable doubt as to its identity." I explained my understanding in detail there. "Authenticity" of a source (as used in WP:ABOUTSELF and the equivalent WP:BLPSELFPUB) means that the identity of the source is verified. "Authenticity without reasonable doubt" means e.g. identity-verified (authenticated) social media accounts (and similar e.g. blogs): those with a blue check mark on Twitter/YouTube, as well as video/audio sources exhibiting well known people whose faces/voices are well recognized so that their identity is "verified without reasonable doubt" even in video/audio that has no authentication check mark on Twitter/Youtube. WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are equivalent. This gives insight into why these policies were created: WP:ABOUTSELF is a synonym for WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:TWITTER, which means the policy for usage of self-published sources is tightly connected to the widespread use of social media. Social media accounts have an authentication mechanism which users can use to verify their identity. If person X writes on Twitter about themselves, this can only be used in the BLP of person X if the Twitter account of person X has verified identity (blue check mark). Lacking this rule, anybody on Twitter could claim to be person X, and if we included the Tweets of an unverified Twitter account in the BLP of person X, we would expose Wikipedia to legal litigation by the real person X.

User Samp4ngeles disagrees with this understanding of these policies as he explained there. Therefore I propose changing the text of WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF by replacing "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" with "there is no reasonable doubt about its identity." Pieces of my explanation above could be condensed into a short sentence and added to the policy. Xenagoras (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Modification of proposal [16] per January 15 after discussion below: replace "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" with "there is no reasonable doubt about the identity of its author and its unaltered presentation of its author's views." Xenagoras (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Authenticity" and "identity" are synonymous here, so this change would make no difference.
If person X writes on Twitter about themselves, this can only be used in the BLP of person X if the Twitter account of person X has verified identity (blue check mark). While the blue check is one method for determining authenticity, it does not follow that accounts without the check cannot be verified as belonging to a subject by editors beyond reasonable doubt. – Teratix ₵ 00:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Teratix How would the identity be verified in your scenario? I meant a similar scenario when writing as well as video/audio sources exhibiting well known people whose faces/voices are well recognized so that their identity is "verified without reasonable doubt" even in video/audio that has no authentication check mark on Twitter/Youtube. E.g. a video message of a well known person is posted on a Twitter account without blue check mark. In this case the identity of the well know person is also verified without a reasonable doubt by her face and voice, and what she says in the video can be used for her own BLP. Xenagoras (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
"Authenticity" has several meanings, including: 1) worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact, and 2) not false or imitation. As written, WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are ambiguous. WP:BLPSELFPUB is also lacking an exceptional claim] or WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as WP:ABOUTSELF has. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this proposed change, because the new wording doesn't mean to me what it appears to be intended to mean. To me, the identity of a source is something that identifies the source itself: for instance, its url. Almost every source has an identity that is not in any reasonable doubt. If I point to a particular tweet on twitter, I have no reasonable doubt that what I am pointing to is that tweet on twitter. What the policy should be requiring, what it does require with the existing wording, and what it would not require with the new wording, is that I have no reasonable doubt that the tweet comes from the person it purports to come from. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a third word we could use instead of either “authenticity” or “identity”? David’s take (that we need to be reasonably sure that a SPS comes from the person it purports to come from) is correct... but wordy. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I see the problem you explained and therefore update my proposal to: replace "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" with "there is no reasonable doubt about the identity of its author." Xenagoras (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Better. But we also need to have no reasonable doubt that the source says what its author intended it to say (rather than, say, being edited by some third party in a way that changes the meaning). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
David Eppstein, your additional condition is actually a very concise description of a requirement, let's use that and replace "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" with "there is no reasonable doubt about the identity of its author and its unaltered presentation of its author's views." Instead of unaltered presentation we could also use genuine rendition. Xenagoras (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xenagoras: while I'm not completely opposed to the change, it seems unnecessary to me. We don't change policies to be more wordy just because one editor makes some wikilawyering argument. We only do so when enough people feel the existing wording may be ambiguous or cause genuine confusion. So far, I haven't seen anyone other than that one editor feel there is any real ambiguity, even having read what they said. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I should clarify that I'm not saying that we are always required to publish what someone says about themselves. In fact ABOUTSELF and BLPSELFPUB set other limits on when we should do so, notably number 1. The question of when we should cover what someone has said about themselves is therefore generally a reasonable area of discussion. However there is no doubt that the only purpose of number 4 is to ensure we don't publish material when the person may not have really said it about themselves. The fact one editor is trying to argue otherwise is IMO not a good reason to make a policy change. Something we should look at is syncronising number 1, with the addition of 'exceptional claim' to BLPSELFPUB. (I'm not sure the history here but suspect it was added to ABOUTSELF and people forgot BLPSELFPUB says more or less the same thing.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion at WT:BLP about the lack of 'exceptional claim' in BLPSELFPUB. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Understood. Several months ago I had the same problem with a different editor over different policies. It resulted in a very long, tiresome discussion about the meaning of policy text. What is the best way to handle editors who are stubborn in sticking to their own "creative" interpretation of policy? Xenagoras (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Please take note that I have tagged Xenagoras as a WP:SPA around crafting Tulsi Gabbard. So, please note that Xenagoras' efforts here are focused around that. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a false statement of fact because only 28% of my article edits have been about Tulsi Gabbard. Since I began editing on Wikipedia, 63% of Samp4ngeles' article edits have been about Tulsi Gabbard, her religion and her father. Xenagoras (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Xenagoras in regard to how to handle "stubborn" editors, ultimately an RFC can put an end to virtually anything... up to an including most stubborn Wikimedia Foundation management. (Although I needed to escalate across three wikis to stop the WP:Flow team.) However it's preferable if you can avoid resorting to an RFC. RFCs involve diverting a fair number of community members in formal process. Usually you can demonstrate a manifest consensus using editors who are already involved or "nearby". Bringing the issue to a relevant noticeboard is very a good approach. Opening an informal question/discussion on the relevant policy page is often an effective and lightweight solution. Sometimes there's a relevant and active Wikiproject where you can get people to weigh in. Sometimes just getting one person is enough... the most lightweight approach is to go to WP:3O, the Third Opinion page. 3O carries zero formal weight, but sometimes it is enough to break a small but firm logjam. If you have good cause to call in an admin to issue a caution or comment, that is extremely effective. And of course when there's serious disruption or behavior problems there's always WP:ANI to request formal action by an admin. But I virtually never have to escalate on that route. If you're right on the policy, it's about demonstrating a formal or informal consensus. Almost no one will continue to fight against an RFC result. Violating an RFC result, or even continuing to argue, is prima facie disruption. That results in rapid and firm admin action. Alsee (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Alsee, thank you for your good advice. Xenagoras (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Support the change. I think it's eminently sensible to make wording more precise ("there is no reasonable doubt about the identity of its author and its unaltered presentation of its author's views") when ambiguity is pointed out. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I found the proposal here extremely unclear. I had to dig to understand it. For the benefit of others and to clarify my position I will explain my understanding of the issue:
    Criteria 1 of WP:BLPSELFPUB is that a statement must not be unduly selfserving. Criteria 4 is that we must be sure who made the statement. It appears there is no dispute as to who made the statement. It appears one person challenges or questions the truthfulness of the statement. It appears they interpreted "authenticity" in criteria 4 as evaluating or requiring truthfulness. The truthfulness of the statement must be evaluated and addressed under criteria 1. (I haven't closely examined the issue, but it looks like such a challenge would be an overreach.)
    We don't want to mangle the text every time someone makes a unique misinterpretation, but modification is acceptable if it is a clean clear improvement. Simply replacing "authenticity" with "identity" is not a clean clear improvement. Perhaps text such as "there is no reasonable doubt of authentic identity" would work. I also considered language involving "the identity of the speaker or author". That would make the text a bit longer, which is disappointing but potentially usable. Alsee (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Alsee, I changed [17] the wording of my proposal to incorporate the input from this discussion. My updated proposal is now also placed at the end of my initial proposal: replace "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" with "there is no reasonable doubt about the identity of its author and its unaltered presentation of its author's views." Xenagoras (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused: Which of these scenarios are you asking about 1) That a person may be lying about themselves (that is, saying inauthentic things about their own information) or 2) That a source may be lying about who the author is (that is, that a source that says it is written by the purported author about him/her self is actually not written by that person). Which is it? --Jayron32 15:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jayron32 one person misinterpreted the authorship criteria as also being a truthfulness criteria. (Truthfulness is addressed under a different clause about "unduly self-serving" statements.) The proposal here is to re-write the authorship clause to be more explicitly about authorship-and-only-authorship. The wording change is intended only for clarification. It is not intended to alter the meaning or effect of the policy.
Xenagoras I like brevity in policy language and I would hope the "unaltered presentation" part is unnecessary, but you can count me as !voting the new text acceptable. Alsee (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jayron32, I am referring to scenario 2. The policy should make clear that the source must not lie about who the author is: "there is no reasonable doubt about the identity of its author" (e.g. check mark accounts on Twitter and YouTube) and the source must not misrepresent the views of the author: "unaltered presentation of its author's views". This second part is inspired by David Eppstein [18] and serves to address that the source could be a video or audio or text that was edited to misrepresent the views of the author or it could be an misrepresentation via erroneous translation or subtitles.
Alsee thank you for the very good explanation of the situation. Xenagoras (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

More input needed at RfC on infobox birthplace/nationality/citizenship

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values.

This RfC has been running for a while but input has dropped off, and right now it's about an even split between the guidelines a) saying nothing at all about the matter, or b) saying to avoid putting the same country in two or three infobox parameters (the other options in the RfC have attracted nearly no support). It's not going to be a useful outcome (just another RfC again some time later) if this closes with "no consensus", so this tie needs to be broken – with good reasoning, not with WP:JUSTAVOTE of course.

Seems worth a VPPOL pointer, since it could affect umpteen zillion bios.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on proper venue for XfDs of rcat templates & categories

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#What should be the venue for discussing Rcat templates?.

At issue is whether WP:Redirect categorization category/template pairs (which are applied to redirects – things like Category:Redirects from misspellings populated by {{R from misspelling}}) should be discussed for deletion, merging, splitting, etc., at WP:Categories for discussion, or WP:Templates for discussion, or even WP:Redirects for discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A valid criticism ...

Per Wired... actor Chris Evans started his own blog/site on politics, in part due to our articles being far too detailed. But watching TV that day, Evans was totally lost. He Googled the acronym and tripped over all the warring headlines. Then he tried Wikipedia, but, well, the entry was thousands of words long. “It’s this never-ending thing, and you’re just like, who is going to read 12 pages on something?” Evans says. “I just wanted a basic understanding, a basic history, and a basic grasp on what the two parties think.” He decided to build the resource he wanted for himself.

I will fully agree with him that our articles on politics are far too details and writing to summarize too much in the short term as opposed to reflecting on RECENTISM and keeping to the more basic facts than all the detailed reactions.

Mostly food for thought, not so much we can do on this without a more broader change. --Masem (t) 14:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Honestly, I just personally wouldn't recommend Wikipedia as a source for contemporary politics. You wanna read about the impeachment of Johnson? We got you. You want to read about the impeachment of Trump? Go somewhere else. Come back in 15 years. GMGtalk 14:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Well, what "else"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I dunno. When I go to read news I usually just read news. I recommend NPR or the BBC. Wikipedia articles on contemporary politics are often unstable, egregiously detailed, comparatively arbitrary with the criteria for inclusion weighted more toward the opinions of editors than the totality and lasting significance of sources, and they're often comparatively poorly sourced, entirely based on news articles whose purpose is to report news and not write an encyclopedia. I don't personally have any solution other than to wait until others come along with the historical perspective to summarize the news in books, so we can summarize the books in an encyclopedia. GMGtalk 14:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    And that's exactly the problem that's been pointed out countless times and yet, at least in the AP2 area, there's generally a large group of common editors in that space that tend to be the ones constantly bickering (completely unactionable in general) over these articles that lead to them being this way. It's how these editors seem to think and edit in a way that's not "wrong" but at the end of the day tend to not help with the type of info Mr. Evans here wants to find. We shouldn't be that much of a specalist work but it is really easy to be so with 24/7 news coverage giving an endless supply of short term sourcing. --Masem (t) 14:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Conversely, for editors that would rather work on lasting educational content rather than haunt AE and constantly bicker over the details of the pet goldfish Bernie Sanders had as a teenager...well, we tend to just go do something else instead, leaving little other than people whose purpose on Wikipedia tends to revolve around arguing over politics. Count me out. I'd rather go write an article on a park, categorize images, or make sure the Wikidata items on dead Polish mathematicians are sorted correctly. GMGtalk 15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    It is fair to recognize that arguing over politics is human nature, but I think when editors don't realize that that is effectively what they are engaged in when they create these massive articles on ongoing political events. We definitely need all editors doing any work in current events to respect the RECENTISM factor and should be writing as little as possible on short term factors and sticking to the facts. Definitely why other areas outside politics are much easier to edit and collaborate within. --Masem (t) 15:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the primary problem is a lack of follow up. As much as I wish we could give WP:RECENTISM some teeth, too many of our fellow editors get a kick out of adding breaking news and opinion to articles on political topics. But what we CAN do is periodically review and REWRITE these articles in proper summary style. It is an ongoing process, but one that needs to be done. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Have you ever tried doing that? Take out just one quote from some news source and you'll instantly be reverted and accused of bias, POV-pushing, etc. Have you ever tried condensing a political article–i.e., shortening it? It's next to impossible. The articles are the way they are (overly long, overly detailed, overly focused on recentism and partisan minutiae) because the editors editing them want them to be that way. They genuinely believe it's really important to tell our readers what so-and-so said to the press today and that it isn't true. – Levivich 22:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    I have one solution I’d like to suggest. Come over to 2020 in politics and government, and add some current data there. Or else 2020 in the United States, etc etc. that way the facts are documented somewhere. Then you can always revise other articles to add that information. —Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Your proposed solution of adding more information is the opposite of the problem described, where there is opposition to removing extraneous information. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    I appreciate your reply. My reply is as follows. There is no basis for objecting to updates of entries on recent events as being too recent. That is one of Wikipedia’s biggest strengths and strongest qualities. It is one way the general public finds us helpful. The whole point of timeline articles, however, is to compile data on events that are not notable enough yet to have their own articles. Thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    The issue is not with how recent the information has been published. Many of our breaking event articles (like the Norte Dame fire) were updated with relevant information in minutes of it being reported by an RS. That's fine, and actually great.
    What is the issue is when people are adding opinions and analysis on very recent events, not the "just the facts" information. This is where we are hurting. All that analysis and opinion clogs the article, and typically favoring a few taken by the mass media at the moment. That's the RECENTISM problem; such opinion and analysis should only be included long after the event to know if that reflects the long-term understanding of the event, or in the rare case when such opinions directly influence an event. --Masem (t) 20:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    Again, the problem raised by Levivich is with overly detailed information. There is lots of information that is true about an event, but not all of it is at an appropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia article, as opposed to daily coverage in a periodical. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    This is also true: compare our Watergate coverage to the current Trump impeachment. --Masem (t) 22:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • So is there any change to policy we could make to resolve this problem? Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • From a policy standpoint, a point of focus can be around NPOV and specificly UNDUE - in that application of WEIGHT and UNDUE factors should be done after some time has passed and not in the midst of an active event. This applies more to opinions and analysis from RSes, but the same can be applied to factual information. That is: a separate timeline article may be good for an event that generates a lot of news like Trump's impeachment, but this should all be distilled upwards to major points in a summary article which is the article that should stand the test of time with out getting into the weeds of all the details. And of course, WP:NOT#NEWS remains there as caution. The exact changes that would be needed, I can't say for sure, but I think we would want to say where we want to be and then decide what the policy changes that get us there should be made. --Masem (t) 23:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      What about a content guideline for articles about recent/ongoing current events, that addresses how content policies apply to such articles? – Levivich 04:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      Wikipedia is the first draft of history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      That is absolutely not correct. We should not be an original source in any way. We document history based on what other sources report; it is the level of detail to which we should document that is at issue here. --Masem (t) 19:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      I think an online encyclopedia should strive to be a regularly updated overview of history. As it by design lacks original reporting, Wikipedia shouldn't be the first one to document historical events. It should instead provide perspective and context for events. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      By definition, a tertiary source should at least be the third draft of history. – Levivich 02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      We can't ignore major ongoing events, though. We are WP:NOTNEWS, but we are supposed to cover things that are currently happening - to get into Evans' problem, obviously neither he nor anyone else would be served by an article on DACA or NAFTA that completely omitted the entire Trump administration. The problem IMHO is more that we need to go back and revise such articles with better secondary sources once things settle down and that we should try to avoid "timeline" layouts, except in articles about events. Also, I personally would lean towards total exclusion of any opinion piece whose broad strand of opinion isn't also referenced in a secondary non-opinion piece - that is, I don't think we should allow people to cite an opinion piece with "talking head X said Y was dumb" unless we also have a secondary, WP:RS non-opinion piece saying "some people think Y is dumb." The aggressive willingness to cite opinion pieces turns articles into a terrible mess, because it encourages people to argue by proxy by posting opinion pieces from dueling sides. WP:RSOPINION made sense sixteen years ago when opinion was harder to come by; now it's incredibly easy to find an opinion for almost anything, even ones written by people you can squint and call an expert, which is causing problems... and, conversely, it's so easy to find non-opinion sources that IMHO we no longer have a compelling reason to rely on opinion pieces unless backed by a non-opinion source to establish their relevance. --Aquillion (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      I agree with that and that's what I was thinking would go into a content guideline. E.g., avoid opinion (especially in leads), replace primary with secondary when available, avoid timeline layouts (except in timeline articles or events articles)... I would add: avoid quote farms, avoid "he said/she said" false balance dichotomies... I'm sure there is plenty we could think of to say. – Levivich 05:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should just pay more attention to the ledes of articles. They must be reasonably concise and express what is in the articles. No policy change is needed for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue for those sorts of articles in particular is that they tend to be written rapidly as news breaks, which leads to a timeline format that isn't generally very informative. Political bickering also contributes in that it tends to encourage blow-by-blow back and forth, especially with opinions and reactions - one editor adds something saying X, so someone else adds something saying Y, and they go back and forth without ever using a more distant secondary source to summarize broad opinions. This is clearly an issue with our DACA article. On the other hand, if the issue Evans had was with NAFTA... that really is an incredibly complex topic, made more complex by the fact that many of the political debates over it (which are crucial to understanding how it's discussed now and would have been the actual thing he went there to learn about) have gotten incredibly far afield from what it actually does, and more into symbolic issues. --Aquillion (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • All the WP:RECENTISM problems discussed here are happening on Kobe Bryant/Death of Kobe Bryant/2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash – check talk pages and article histories for the full picture. There are many editors who want to have very detailed coverage of this event, and others arguing NOTNEWS, CRYSTALBALL, etc. And it's not an AP2 or other political topic; it's a non-political high-profile recent event. Levivich 02:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not WP:RECENTISM if the article topic is only a recent development. The Kobe Bryant article should not overly focus on the untimely passing. But Death of Kobe Bryant focusses on a topic that occurred only a week ago therefore it can't be said to be WP:RECENTISM. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • One of the problems is our somewhat unusual definition of primary and secondary sources. My understanding is that in general usage in the social sciences, a news report from around the time of the event would be considered a primary source account, but we call those secondary sources and routinely base entire articles on coverage from the days or weeks following the events they discuss. If we reclassified these as primary sources, it would help clean up a lot of political articles. We could continue allowing a place for these types of sources in most articles (maybe distinguishing them as "independent primary sources"), but WP:BLPPRIMARY would greatly restrict their usage in the most problematic articles. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • No, we consider news reports at the time of the event primary. We base the primary/secondary distinction on the nature of transformation of information. A news report is not transforming the information, so it is primary. But I don't think that's really that is much of the issue. --Masem (t) 03:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
      • If that is the case, then I think it should be made more clear, because contemporaneous news reports are being used extensively to support controversial claims in BLPs throughout the encyclopedia as if they were secondary sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Its a bit more nuanced than just that. Part of this is recognizing that a source can be primary for some context and secondary for another. That's a discussion beyond this discussion, and again, I don't think is core to the issue in question about RECENTISM and NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 04:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m thinking that we may need to create a new guideline (or amend a current guideline) to more fully discuss APPROPRIATENESS... Something focused on HOW and WHEN to use various types of sources (especially news sources), beyond the issue of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    A WP:NEWS guideline could address:
    • Use of news media in any article
    • Best practices (including use of news media) in:
      • Any breaking news article
      • Crime news
      • Natural disaster, terrorist attacks, and other mass casualty news
      • Political news, including coverage of ongoing elections
    • Use of historical news sources (e.g., using a WW2-era newspaper report in an article about World War II) Levivich 17:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    A guideline, perhaps Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about current events (to mimic MOS:WAF for fiction) would be a good first place - doesn't require changes at policy level and can't be enforced harshly, but as stated, a good "best practices" to use on current events and transitioning those to be more appropriate "historical event" after the event has passed. --Masem (t) 17:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    MOS is still a guideline, and you would need a level of consensus commensurate with a guideline. GMGtalk 17:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The lede should serve to present a digested version of the article. If they are correct that the body of the article is a "never-ending thing" then I think the first place to look to correct a problem like that is the lede of that article. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
If the lead of the article is not correctly summarizing the body, then yes, it should be fixed and can be done using existing guidance. If the lead is correctly summarizing the body but the body it summarizes is a mess, then you can't very well fix that problem by making a manageable but non-policy-compliant lead. You've just replaced one problem with another. Besides, contemporary political articles are already rife with people who care entirely more about the lead then the body, and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to find a protracted dispute complete with an RfC, where no one thought to check that the disputed content in the lead was never in the body to begin with. GMGtalk 18:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The level of scrutiny is greater in issues pertaining to the lede because it is more prominent real estate. You are right that "contemporary political articles are already rife with people who care entirely more about the lead then the body". I would add that applies to other articles besides "contemporary political articles". The lede is like a billboard, "advertising" our pet beliefs—political and otherwise. An expanded lede might address the criticism that the person (Chris Evans) notes. There would be argumentation over the exact wording and content of the lede but the level of participation in any ensuing arguments would, I think, result in a good lede. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal:Biographies of Deceased Persons (BDP)

Clearly not going anywhere and thread starter has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE. No need to drag this out. Regards SoWhy 13:49, 14 February 2020 (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.


Proposal: All Biographies of Deceased Persons (BDP) MUST be respectful and non-biased. All content on BDPs must be from reliable sources. BDPs with no sources are eligible for deletion via BDPPROD. Any non-verifiable or biased content MUST be removed immediately, and the user warned.

Reasoning: As of right now, there are currently no active policies for BDPs, except for the regular norms. I find this entirely disrespectful, and I want to change it. The policy might seem too short, but I will expand on it later. I want you to think about the respect that these people deserve when voicing your opinion. I feel very strong about this, and I hope this passes. Thank you. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this just BLP but for dead subjects? The entire point of the increased standards for BLPs (which also includes those who have recently died) is that inaccuracies and smears have a higher risk of impacting the subject in real life, which, in the case of dead subjects, is moot. – Teratix ₵ 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All content on WP must be "non-biased" and "from reliable sources". As for respect, consider a biography of Hitler or Stalin – how "respectful" would you be? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
If you think you're going to expand the policy later, than Village Pump - Ideas is the best place to go, to avoid a changing policy alongside implementation discussion (you can't change it once it's agreed, and if it changes half way through, it would render the discussion void). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
FWIW the WP:BLP policy covers reently-deceased. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The only reason I can see to do this would be to protect the living descendants from negative-biased editing of their ancestor. There are downsides: It could put a chilling effect on editing articles of famous or infamous people, particularly if sources were lacking. Remember, people in power can purge sources, so there may be only a few sketchy sources for some dictator from 2 centuries ago. If this were formally proposed, I would object unless there were blanket exceptions for famous people, people notable for actions that cast them in a bad light even if they weren't infamous per se, people who have no known descendants who were alive when they died, and probably politicians and other people notable for being in positions of authority where the negative information is related to their position. For those groups, our existing rules of venerability and reliable sources would of course continue to apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Opposed. We summarize the sources... if the sources are predominantly negative, our coverage will be predominantly negative. If the sources are predominately positive, our coverage will be positive as well. If sources are mixed, so is our coverage. We must maintain a NEUTRAL point of view... sources can have an opinion, WE can not. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and if there's anything specific related to recently deceased, it can be added to a small section on BLP, since we've already established that BLP apply to them for 6mo-2yr. --Masem (t) 15:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All of this is already covered by existing guidelines. Respect isn't something we quantify on Wikipedia (or in encyclopedias as a whole.) The reasons for for our BLP existing guidelines are well documented, and other than having BLPPROD added to all bios, there is nothing new here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cultural mores don't trump WP:NPOV.--WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Although, to be fair, cultural norms sometimes shape the meaning of "neutral" in NPOV, particularly with the application of WP:FRINGE and WP:Undue weight, and particularly in some social-science, religious, and related topics. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I applaud the spirit of the proposal, but oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikipedia exists to record and deliver information, not to make readers feel good about the subjects they're reading; other media exists for that purpose. We don't go out of our way to be disrespectful, but we also don't avoid it at the expense of verifiable information. A biography of a non-living person already requires sourcing under broad policies like WP:V; unsourced information can be removed already, and a biography completely devoid of verifiable information can be deleted through regular deletion processes. We do also have WP:BDP in the interest of protecting information about recently-deceased persons. But, in general, limiting the kinds of information required to be sourced inline where it appears is good for the growth of the project and for editor retention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't see that this actually proposes much other than "make our articles better". I expect most everyone agrees on that point already, and we're kindof doing the best we can. GMGtalk 19:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone above. If there is an issue regarding sourcing or questionable notability editors can remedy those issues through maintenance tags, AfD, and draftifying. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the KISS principle because recent deaths are already covered by WP:BLP, as shown in the section WP:BDP. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLP already covering recently deceased persons, and other Wikipedia policies cover long-deceased persons.--Jayron32 13:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All completely unnecessary. Some parts covered by existing policies. Deceased people are not covered by data protection or libel legislation in the real world, so I don't see why we should introduce additional bureaucracy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2020 (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.

Referencing lists of publications

If I give a bulleted list of publications in a biography of an author or academic do I need to put a reference after each one to show where I learned that they wrote that work? Or are the publication details in themselves the source for the publication of a work by that title? (Assume that I can't link the title to Worldcat or Jstor etc.) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I had thought that MOS:WORKS covered this, but it doesn't seem to. My view is that for bibliographies which list works by a particular person, the the work itself is sufficient to verify the claim being made, for the same reason that a work of fiction is considered to verify claims about its own plot. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, at least in terms of what is beneficial to Wikipedia. The only reason I might object is if it was identified that an article was having non-existent publications added Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Note that most list of works for academics will go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCV. The best practice, unless this person is of exceptional important in their field, is to simply give an external link to a list of their publications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_155&oldid=1142561313"