Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 116

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198

Whistleblower complaints

I want to petition Wikipedia to make special consideration for whistleblowing sections with slightly less restrictive guidelines. Whistleblowing is an important part of our democracy, but increasingly challenging to accomplish in an organized and effective way with an increasingly populous and information stuffed society. Having regular Wikipedia whistleblower complaint sections with different, not absent, standards should mean that Wikipedia can preserve the integrity of it's entries and still provide this valuable social service. Though Wikipedia does not have the goal to be controversial, silencing this controversy seems to be inconsistent with it's goals of informing the people. I think Wikipedia is in a rare position to give very special and valuable information to the community.

For my whistleblower issues I have gone through the normally designated employer and government grievance processes and found that investigators, instead of investigating, consistently advocate for the employer and/or fail to complete investigations. My allegations appeared very serious to your volunteer editor, but are treated dismissively by many of the investigative and enforcement agents; this investigative corruption enables indefinite other corruption. While you might understandably be skeptical of my allegations I am sure you have seen stories in the news about investigative and enforcement agencies not doing their job and you must have realized that it is at least plausibly true. Wikipedia becomes a very valuable resource because other clicktivism avenues do not give the opportunity for the community to add confirming information and fall flat if there is no initial popular interest. Wikipedia is well established and would allow for slow builds of allegations and evidence. I know that other people witnessed the same misbehaviors with my employer, , but right now those complaints are all staying inside individuals' heads or floating around on message boards and in living rooms, never building into an organized piece of information that could be used as a tool. Imagine the tool that could be formed by people having direct personal experience and insider access to employment practices normally only viewed through disorganized gossip?

Still maintain standards for these whistleblower sections: whistleblowers present their complaints only as plausible allegations, keep those allegations in properly identified sections, post only allegations stemming from direct personal experience accompanied by whatever confirming evidence is available. May we please have this avenue to give and receive information about the employers of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchtower25 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue of verifiability is pretty well covered on your talk page. Content without a reliable published source is not acceptable. --  Gadget850 talk 01:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Watchtower25, as has already been explained to you,[1] everything on Wikipedia must be supported by verifiable and reliable sources. See Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You are certainly free to suggest that we change these policies (and this is the right place for doing that) but you need a far better reason than you have provided above.
Might I suggest the National Whistleblowers Center at http://www.whistleblowers.org/ as a better place to air your story? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope you don't actually have to go through something like what I am going through to realize what an important and unique resource Wikipedia can provide. I do not want to damage the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia because I very much value it in that capacity, but I maintain that these sections or maybe special pages could be kept without damaging that integrity. And if you were going through what I am going through, I think you would easily see how important that compromise is.
Going to whistleblowers.org does not help because I have never heard of whistleblowers.org and popular awareness is very important for this to work. Even if whistleblowers.org were well known they have no way for the people to pool information for a common goal. One of the several investigations I filed for was with the EEOC, the federal government's complaint processing agency. The EEOC was ridiculously receptive to my employer's pretense and would not allow me to disprove the validity of that pretense because to them one person is not worth the cost of prosecuting the matter. In other words I lost that battle because I was alone. It seems many people have similar problems with the employer, but they quit the job and keep their complaints to themselves, or vent on a message board that never gets outside exposure. Employees do not believe the fiscal cost and stress of pursuing this corruption is worth it and so far they are turning out to be right. But because of Wikipedia's broad usage, people can discover things they didn't know they were looking for, like whistleblower complaints. If someone sees that I have filed a case for something they are having trouble with then they may feel empowered or inspired to file also. The EEOC and all such agencies take thousands of complaints annually. They won't notice when two people have matching complaints, but if I saw that other person's case # on Wikipedia I could call my investigator and inform them of the matching complaint and I wouldn't be the only one anymore.
I don't need advice on where and how to whistleblow. I have filed with every proper agency: the employers grievance office, the state's grievance office, the federal grievance office, and finally in court. All have been corrupt and dismissive. It's easy for them to be. The employer's office refused to investigate. Later they were compelled to investigate and when they couldn't reach a person I made accusations against they denied any wrongdoing on her behalf. The state agency accepted this ridiculous internal investigation. The feds started an investigation, but stopped as soon as they received a pretense and would not allow me to counter the pretense, seriously would not even hear the arguments and said the decision was final no matter what I said. The court ruled that I don't get a trial because according to the court the employer did a better job of proving their side, even though this is an illegal decision for a court to make without a trial.
It is easy for an agency to dismiss complaints without investigation or to conduct an empty investigation and insure that one side wins. It's was easy for the judge to illegally dismiss my case without trial. (But I am filing appeals now). It is imperative that people be able to pool information and have a more informed basis for challenging things like this. Whistleblower webpages cannot achieve this. The message boards already involved in this kind of thing are not achieving this. Wikipedia probably can.
How about separate whistleblower pages linked to the main pages, where contributors must at least post case #'s, but don't need full factual verification? This would prevent lots of random complaining though it would also cut out some people who never got a case number for their legitimate complaint because it was refused for investigation.Watchtower25 (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No. Find another soapbox. Wikipedia is never going to change from being an encyclopedia to being a whistleblower website, and no Wikipedia page will ever be allowed that "doesn't need full factual verification." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not the only wiki on the Internet, just the most well known. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is very much not an appropriate place for publishing whistleblower materials. Not only would such material be unverifiable, and thus violate one of our core content rules, but we also have no mechanisms to protect the identity of a whistleblower. There are other sites and other wikis that may provide what you are looking for. WikiLeaks (which has no connection to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation) may have what you need. Or you might also consider going to the press, as some large news organizations have secure online dropboxes for whistleblowing purposes. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news organization. We only provide information that has been written by others in existing sources. Novusuna talk 22:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is saying a fact is trivial as basis for exclusion a POV edit?

Say for example a dispute between editors occurs where one says a fact is trivial and should be excluded, and the other says it is not and should be included. And say, for the sake of example, it's a close call and it is not blatantly obvious whether it is trivia or not.

Are not those judgments of triviality or non-triviality points of view? And are those editors, by advocating or opposing inclusion based on their subjective opinion of whether it is trivial or not, thus pushing their POV and making POV edits? Marteau (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What arguments are they making? For example, if they are arguing from sourced evidence (or lack of, or unsuitability of the source) then they are deducing their conclusion (and most importantly others can evaluate their arguments), but if they present statements that others cannot evaluate (the prototypical "I like") it's of little use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
From sourced evidence. In the process of determining if a fact has enough weight to not be considered trivia, a dividing line must be drawn. The process of determining where to draw that line and whether a specific example falls over or under that line has to be considered an individual editor's opinion (aka "point of view"). Does Wikipedia policy really posit that the triviality of a thing can be determined objectively, and does not require subjective opinions (aka points of view)? Marteau (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Generally Wikipedia posits that triviality, like other content decisions should be evaluated by the strength of the sources and the treatment in them, not by bare editor opinion. So, for example, if there are several high quality sources that discuss the matter in depth in relation to the subject, one has a better case to actually show others (and the world) it is due (a caveat is that the context and material matters, see eg WP:BLP). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Pushing a nontroversy is POV editing. --NE2 10:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
"Pushing"... of course. But documenting that a "nontroversy" (aka a "manufactured controversy") did in fact occur and did then have effects which then did become notable down the line and reported by reliable sources is a different matter. Just because the genesis of a thing was corrupt does not mean that mention of the products of and results of that corruption and the events that followed should be squelched. Marteau (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Anytime there is a discussion about whether something belongs in an a article the editors on either side are pushing their POV. The whole blowup about Chelsea vs Bradley Manning, each side was pushing their POV. Everything would be so simple if it was cut and dried as to what belongs in an article, but it is not. Everyone has their POV, sometimes it is simple to determine if something belongs other times, hard. As long as the article remains neutral, that is what matters. GB fan 10:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That was my understanding, and it seemed obvious to me, although not documented. All I could find was "POV baaaaad". It would be nice if I could find a guideline, essay or policy that says that. Marteau (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Offhand no. But it really depends on what content is in dispute. —Farix (t | c) 11:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a pure content dispute, not a policy issue. In my opinion, Marteau should go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests and select an appropriate venue for resolving the dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Speaking in general terms, it is no more a "POV edit" than the original edit that added such material. If you want opinions on a specific example, please present it here, or as Guy Macon suggests, at a dispute resolution noticeboard. Resolute 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input. I sought only advice on policy itself for a reason, because it was that which I was wanting to know, and was not seeking input on a specific case here. But for anyone who is interested, the case that caused me to wonder about these policies is Neil deGrasse Tyson's misquoting George W. Bush . Fair warning: the dispute is heated, and the talk page is immense, and the "triviality" issue is just one of many, many issues being discussed there. Marteau (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Terminal Event Management

I think something like this (Wikipedia:Terminal Event Management Policy) should be implemented as a serious policy. There are several practical problems with what's at the link, but the concept is actually good. Wikipedia is a valuable repository of technical, scientific, and cultural knowledge that would be invaluable to the preservation of humanity and the rebuilding of civilization. The chief problem with the link contents is that in such a situation, most editors would be trying to reach safety, care for their families, or be otherwise engaged, and would be unable to print and preserve articles. One solution would be to assign specific volunteers to the duty of rapidly caching and printing as much material as possible in the event of imminent disaster. Wikipedia is too valuable to do any less. Robert (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this guideline or essay exist?

I have what could be a rather basic question for someone who is familiar with established guidelines and/or essays on Wikipedia: I'm trying to find out if a guideline idea that I have already exists. The basic premise is this:

"For sections on an article that have several incoming redirects, take care prior to renaming the section. In most cases, to avoid breaking the section links, it is best to not rename the section. If the section must be renamed, please check the "What links here" tool for incoming section redirects and update every redirect that directs to the section you renamed in order to prevent broken section links."

Does any policy or essay exists that states something of this nature? Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the manual of style guideline, see Wp:Section headings, near the bottom. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC at WT:BP

There is a discussion, Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to "When blocking may not be used", at WT:BP for Wikipedians interested in the WP blocking policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As a high school teacher I have been lenient with students using Wikipedia. The Neil Tyson edits have me concerned.

To be honest I'm not a big fan of my students using Wikipedia for research. But after reading about the scrubbing of facts as to what things Neil Tyson as actually said, I'm considering banning Wikipedia sources entirely.

The whole point of research it to create a solid, defensible, position. Now, my students cannot honestly say that data is apparently "whole", and thus cannot be defended at all.

So for now, in my class anyway, no more Wikipedia in the bibliography until this policy is cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:AB00:E3D:3DD4:AD30:7D76:9029 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. You'll be hard pressed to find someone here who thinks your students should be citing Wikipedia! Even Wikipedia doesn't think Wikipedia is a reliable source. Instead, encourage your students to use the references cited in a Wikipedia article as the source of their information. Sam Walton (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that's just an essay. That's not Wikipedia speaking... StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Well they should not be relying on Wikipedia, in the opinion of many, including me. Using it for background research is often quite helpful, however. It would be good for students to learn to question Wikipedia as with anything, then further research, question, question, dig further, etc.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Come on. Help us all. Who the hell is Neil Tyson. What did he do? And so what? (That link is to a massive slab of text. Educate those of us from a different part of the world.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
He apparently said something about Dubya, but c'mon, who hasn't? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so he is alleged to have misrepresented Dubya. Yeah, well, people misrepresent me on Wikipedia Talk pages all the time, especially when they are losing a debate to me, and there's never any consequence for them. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We also have Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@IP. What you should be doing is teaching students that Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for research but is not in and of itself a source that should be cited in their final presentations. Carrite (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an excellent source for sources. HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia, a tertiary source, should never be cited directly. The sources used on the articles should be cited instead. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 07:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that, with the vastly increased amount of attention people seem to pay to various types of "credit" nowadays, at some point we're going to see teachers demand that students not merely list their sources, but also somehow acknowledge what sources they got the sources from - i.e. to cite all the searches performed, on which engines, etc. There is a peripheral encroachment of the political concept (which I vehemently oppose) of database copyright; copying Wikipedia's list of sources verbatim in order might be a regular copyright issue but copying even a chunk might eventually end up under that rigamorale if we don't fight it. But the right reason to consider such a move is one of ascertainment bias -- in other words, if Wikipedia POV-pushers have slanted the article and taken out most of what one side has to say (which nowadays, some highly placed administrators have begun to treat as their civic duty!), then the student's paper is going to reek of this inherited slant.
Wikipedia may validly be cited either for that purpose, or if an outside body has reviewed and passed a specific revision (this is under discussion at WP:MED currently, I think). But in every case the student who references Wikipedia should cite a specific revision (with "oldid=" in the URL) rather than the ever-changing topmost version. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith that you are a teacher and not someone trolling us, you are absolutely correct in barring Wikipedia as a source. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In fact, we even have a policy against using sources which cite Wikipedia (see WP:CIRCULAR). So, I absolutely agree with your decision, regardless of how the content dispute at Neil deGrasse Tyson plays out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The OP should be referred to Wikipedia:Education program. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If your concerned about a source covering the whole story, then Wikipedia is certainly inadequate. For various reasons material on Wikipedia may not be covered, and in general if you want students to get a big picture then looking up many sources should be required. Also user generated content from wikis are in general not reliable sources, but the reason we outright ban information from Wikipedia to be cited is to avoid circular citing; reliability always depends on context and in some cases even user-generated content from wikis is allowed on Wikipedia to be cited. Information on Wikipedia can(and should) always have superior sources which can be used as references, and if a student cites Wikipedia then they should be prepared to defend why they did so. An example I can think of where it would be appropriate to cite Wikipedia is in the case of an obscure topic where the only sources covering the topic are behind paywalls and inaccessible to students. It is inappropriate and dishonest to cite a source for information if you can't read the source yourself, and in such circumstances you should cite Wikipedia as citing the source for that information with the understanding that Wikipedia's representation of the information from that source may be dubious.AioftheStorm (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Like AQFK above, I'm a little suspicious that a real teacher posted the above. Years ago when I was in school (admittedly roughly contemporaneous with the end of the Middle Ages & after they stopped teaching Latin in high school) we were repeatedly told Do not cite encyclopedias in your research papers -- with that kind of emphasis. Part of the reason was that the teachers wanted us to learn how to do research & maybe evaluate sources on our own. The rest of the reason was that all encyclopedias are notoriously inaccurate -- even the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes, an encyclopedia is good for looking up facts like the capital of Paraguay & how many bushels of corn were harvested in 1965, & if it features signed articles then those articles might provide a useful, if dated & opinionated, introduction to the subject. (Although you run the risk that the article has been abridged or radically pruned to make room for more trendy articles.) But if you want to truly know a subject, you don't limit your research to an article in an encyclopedia -- although it would be nice if we could accept that no encyclopedia will ever contain all of human knowledge, but it can serve as a good introduction & starting place for further research into various topics. -- llywrch (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. OP is a nontroversy pusher. --NE2 09:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Idea: Apply WP:BLP level rules to all articles.

As everyone is well aware, articles about or referring to living persons must be written in adherence to strict policies, especially in regards to compliance with U.S. law, Wikipedia's core policies and the exclusion of any defamatory material. However, such strict interpretations of policies only apply to articles about living or recently deceased persons. Given their extraordinary nature, I feel that these rules should apply to all articles. By that, I specifically refer to things around the lines of this:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

And the like. Our article on libel says that not only statements about persons can be libellous, but statements about a "business, product, group, government, religion, or nation." Stricter use and enforcement of our core policies on a global basis would help improve the overall quality of Wikipedia, and discourage the incorporation of content that is controversial and disruptive. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the reasoning behind WP:BLP policy - it isn't there to prevent libel, it is there to protect individuals from questionable content that falls short of libel. Nothing in Wikipedia policy permits libellous content, regardless of who or what it refers to - any contributor is obliged to comply with applicable law (both U.S. law concerning the server, and the laws of their local jurisdiction), and would be obliged to do so regardless of what Wikipedia policy says. And as for your proposal to extend BLP-like policies beyond their existing scope, this has been discussed previously on multiple occasions, with little evidence for any significant support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
ViperSnake, that is going way too far and would pretty much eliminate much of our content, which is from RS. Our RS policy is good enough. AndyTheGrump is right.
An interesting point (and I'm not suggesting we change any policies, least of all BLP) is that republication of libel is legal in the USA. The original publisher can be sued, but those who republish (IOW RS and Wikipedia editors) cannot be sued, at least not successfully. You can read about the decision, which is covered in this article: Barrett v. Rosenthal. I'm not advocating republishing libel as if it was true (ethical and moral people shouldn't do that), but we can use RS to document the content of the libel when RS cover the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No links in talk page subheadings

Hi all,

this change is being discussed at Template talk:Talk header. It is suggested that links in talk page headings should no longer be allowed. Since this would mean a policy change any input in this discussion is welcome.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Is close paraphrasing acceptable?

DISCUSSION MOVED
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism#RfC NE Ent 01:46, 9 October 2014 (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 recently attempted to add some material to WP:PLAGARISM, to reflect the prevailing position of academia that close paraphrasing is in fact a form of plagiarism. However, Flyer22 reverted my changes. I also attempted to improve the essay, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, but that too was reverted, first by Flyer22 and then by Dr.K. While there are many other points I want to add, the most important is this:

☒N Close paraphrasing with a well-placed citation and in-text attribution, but without quotation marks enclosing the author's distinctive words or phrases

  • Closely paraphrasing a cited source with in-line attribution, but appropriating verbatim words or phrases that are creative or distinct without enclosing them in quotation marks is a form of plagiarism.
  • Paraphrasing is defined as an expression of source material that uses different words than the author. When appropriating verbatim text fragments, all distinctive words or phrases must be enclosed in quotation marks.

I feel that my contributions are absolutely in keeping with the advice offered by major colleges and universities, but I'm not sure that the guideline, as currently written, represents the position of the academic world regarding close paraphrasing and plagiarism:

  • Per Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing, Question: "Is close paraphrasing of a copyrighted work a copyright infringement?" Answer: "Yes. Among other rights, copyright law grants a copyright owner exclusive control over any unauthorized copying of the copyrighted work.[1] Paraphrasing may be construed as copying if it is 'substantially similar' to the copyrighted material. Such paraphrasing infringes on one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner."
3rd party examples

I respect Flyer22's decision to revert, and I accept that changing a core content policy requires a broader community involvement. However, I would like our guideline to accurately reflect that close paraphrasing is plagiarism, not an acceptable form of lesser paraphrasing that passes in featured articles as brilliant prose. I look forward to everyone's input. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Add the WP:RfC tag to the above post so that you can actually get comments from the wider Wikipedia community, or I will. And for others, here is a fuller discussion that Rationalobserver and I had at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I just now realized that you brought this to Wikipedia:Village pump, as I suggested (I didn't immediately notice because I clicked on the ping via WP:Echo and assumed you were commenting at the WP:Plagiarism talk page), so a WP:RfC might not be needed. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And take note that I also reverted Rationalobserver at the WP:Intext-attribution section of the WP:Citing sources guideline; I told him clearly at my talk page, among other things, "We don't automatically base Wikipedia policies and guidelines on what academia states, and certainly not on what a lone Wikipedia editor believes is the consensus among academics (no matter if that Wikipedia editor is an expert or not an expert). ... I don't believe that use of a single 'distinctive' word, for example, should automatically be called plagiarism simply because the copyrighted source has used that same 'distinctive' word. Not generally anyway. And neither has the Wikipedia community generally felt that way, which is why it has stated for some time now that close paraphrasing is sometimes unavoidable and that WP:Intext-attribution without quotes can be fine when using minor phrasing from a source. I'm not stating that I'm disagreeing with all of your views on plagiarism or WP:Plagiarism; I'm simply stating that I'm not in complete agreement with you, and that this should be discussed among the wider Wikipedia community. I don't think that it's a matter that should only involve you and me or a few editors." Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll note at the WP:Plagiarism talk page, the WP:Close paraphrasing talk page, the WP:Copyright violation talk page and the WP:Citing sources talk page that this discussion is taking place. As can be seen above, Rationalobserver has started a WP:RfC on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I alerted the aforementioned pages, as seen here, here, here and here. And Rationalobserver followed suit, alerting more pages, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. He might alert more, but, if he does, those will go without being noted by me here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Rationalobserver, you have the wrong Dr.K. linked above, so that needs fixing; he will obviously be pinged via WP:Echo with this post by me, however. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
Thank you Flyer for the ping. I have to note that it would be helpful if Rationalobserver further clarified that I reverted him/her due to the fact that s/he was changing the page at the same time as they were quoting it at an FA review. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Dr.K, you have that wrong. I never quoted the close paraphrasing essay at FAC. The only thing I quoted was WP:PLAGIARISM, and I only quoted that which was already there before I made any changes, which was: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: You opened a section titled Dan56 and close paraphrasing on the 29th of September and then went to change the WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING page. These are the facts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, and I never denied either of those points, but above you said: "I reverted him/her due to the fact that s/he was changing the page at the same time as they were quoting it at an FA review", but I never quoted that essay anywhere, so you have your "facts" confused. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Rationalobserver: Opening a section titled Dan56 and close paraphrasing is quoting "close paraphrasing" by name. No confusion on my part. If you actually "quoted" or not part of the essay, I did not check, but I didn't have to. The fact remains you cannot change essays at the same time as you are using their concepts in arguments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have already agreed in principle that doing so was a bad idea. What do you want, an apology? You reverted several hours of my work, and there is no need to compound that insult by dragging this up here, as it's decidedly off-topic. Do you have an opinion on this issue, or do you just want to bother me? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
So when I reply to your comments which suggested I was confused attempting in good faith to clarify the issues involved you reply with personal attacks that "I want to bother you" or that "I want an apology". I think it is high time you consulted the no-personal comments policy and WP:AGF. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Look, I agreed with Flyer22 that it was a bad idea to edit that page during a dispute, and there is no need to digress here. Sorry for the snarky comments, but IMO, you are beating a dead horse. I get it, you reverted my edits not because you think the content was inaccurate, but out of principle that because I used the phrase close paraphrasing during an FA review that I ought not edit that essay during the review. I understand, can we move on now? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Your replies have some snarky comment or other. Please don't do that. I am not beating anything, you are trying to "beat" my arguments. My arguments were not "off-topic" because you quoted my reversion without mentioning its reason, which was not the same as Flyer22's. I think the context of my reversion is important. You can move on, obviously, I never held you up. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Arb break

It's my belief that the bit that says, "close paraphrasing is sometimes unavoidable", pertains only to generic, uncreative expressions of common knowledge; e.g., George Washington was the first US president. This is not meant to apply to creative writing, such as: George Washington was a powerful leader who made astute observations regarding the administration of a nation. To say that close paraphrasing is "acceptable and even unavoidable" means that sometimes the content cannot be accurately paraphrased because it lacks creativity. This should never have been applied to creative expressions that certainly can be paraphrased. Further, "acceptable and even unavoidable" has been Wikilawyered into a get out of jail free card for any editors incapable or unwilling to make the effort to present a proper paraphrase. I would also like to point out that, as far as I can tell, there is no definition of what proper paraphrasing is, only a half-hearted essay that at once recommends avoiding close paraphrases while also apparently excusing them. I.e., why is there an essay on close paraphrasing but not fair paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Avoiding plagiarism currently contains these suggestions:

checkY No quotation marks, in-text attribution

  • Indirect speech—copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation. For example:
  • John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was the most boring book he had ever read.
  • Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks.

checkY Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution

  • Close paraphrasing: Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought.
  • John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read.

It's odd to me that the note applies to No quotation marks, in-text attribution, but not Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution, as their working definitions seem to be essentially the same. I also assert that there is no such thing as appropriate "copying" outside quotation marks, except when dealing with free material or material that lacks creative expression. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Even if the work is in the public domain, attribution is necessary. However, we are completely free to copy lengthy public domain materials and use them as we wish. The attribution requirement is internal, not mandated by copyright law. bd2412 T 20:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but this RfC pertains specifically to closely paraphrased non-free sources. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(WP:THREAD) From my WWW search for plagiarism paraphrasing, I found many results, including the following.
I do not wish to delve into the details of this discussion, but I recommend that participants examine this search result and other search results.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree 100% with the source that you have provided above. In fact, it states my position rather eloquently. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
copyright requires distinctive words and these are rather uncommon in factual writing (as opposed to poetry or fiction or clever first hand accounts). To show a violation you have to prove that the originating source in fact used clearly distinctive language for the very first time and did not take anything from published sources. That can be hard to do. Rjensen (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that in order to qualify for copyright protection one must prove that their work didn't take anything from someone else? As in, "prove the source material isn't also plagiarized, or you can't call a close paraphrase of it plagiarism"? If I copied from Steven Ambrose, it would not matter if he had in fact stolen that material. You can absolutely plagiarize a plagiarism. Also, distinctive does not imply uncommon; e.g., George Washington was a magnificent leader. The word magnificent is distinctive here, and it does not matter if it's a common or uncommon word. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Rjensen, per this comment: "copyright requires distinctive words and these are rather uncommon in factual writing", I have to call foul, because distinctive words are encountered regularly by editors who contribute to articles about art, movies, music, film, etcetera. I.e., summarizing any topic that justifies critical reception will involve dealing with distinctive words and phrases. In fact, many historians are pretty creative as well. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Rjensen, I think Feist v. Rural is relevant here: "To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author.... Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.///. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.... Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying." (See [2], citations omitted.) There is no requirement to show that you are using distinctive language for the very first time to establish copyright. Most non-fiction easily qualifies for copyright protection due to the extremely low requirement for creativity, even if they closely resemble other works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is becoming confused.

  1. Lets keep the issue to "close paraphrasing" to the paraphrasing copyright works.
  2. Both close paraphrasing and quotations can be a breach of copyright it depends on the amount of text copied. So neither is a cure-all.

-- PBS (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally am against close paraphrasing on Wikipedia because it is not the bright-line that enclosing something as a quotation is. I hold this position for two reasons.

  1. With a quote another editor can judge if the amount of text is likely to breach copyright even if that other editor does not have access to the original source. With close paraphrasing, unless one has access to the source it is much more difficult to tell. In the past editors have left the project because it turns out that what they thought was acceptable [paraphrasing/summary of a single source] turned out to be a breach of copyright.
  2. The use of close paraphrasing is misleading for the reader of the text being paraphrased. Using an example I have used before (here): "Sir Robert Armstrong said he told the truth" is a summary of "Sir Robert Armstrong said he was 'economical with the truth'", close paraphrasing can easily misrepresent what was in the original source. For experienced word-smiths this is not a problem but Wikipedia has may editors who are not experienced word-smiths and so I think that as editorial advise close paraphrasing ought to be discouraged and summaries and quotes used in its place.

-- PBS (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are some fine points, PBS, and I agree with you. The weird thing is, the essay already sort of discourages close paraphrasing: "This page in a nutshell: Summarize in your own words, instead of closely paraphrasing. Closely paraphrased material that infringes on the copyright of its source material should be rewritten or deleted to avoid infringement, and to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia policy." Also, WP:PLAGIARISM already includes this note: "even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks", but I cannot understand why this would not apply to close paraphrasing, or why the guideline implies that one can quote without using quotation marks ("copying a source's words without quotation marks"), which is something that I have never seen described as acceptable, except when dealing with free material or material that lacks creative expression. I do not see any justification for implying that editors can copy/quote creative non-free material without using quotation marks. Plagiarism of copyrighted works is illegal, so I am rather aghast that any Wikipedians think that a local consensus can trump what Wikilegal decrees. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
First, I think that apt phrases should be in quotation marks. But there's a difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is a social construct; copyright is a legal one. One may plagiarize without infringing copyright (if the taking is not substantial, for instance), and one may infringe copyright without plagiarism (attribution does not substitute for permission). I think it's really important to keep the concepts straight and separated. :) When it comes to copyright, our rules are far more rigid and defined by WP:C, WP:NFC and wmf:Terms of Use. When it comes to plagiarism that does not also infringe copyright, we are free to adopt and set our own standards, though if we throw away the ones used in the wider world, it's not likely to reflect well on us. I learned in helping to get the plagiarism guideline in place to begin with that there is legitimate room for disagreement on what plagiarism standards should apply to us. Some feel that as an encyclopedia, there is no expectation of originality on Wikipedia and that the plagiarism standards of academia are not the best fit. I've chosen to focus mostly on copyright. All that said, the guideline is not supposed to suggest that you can copy verbatim text from copyrighted sources without quotation marks; if it does, it is at deviance with policy: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." Currently, Wikipedia does allow you to copy from free and copy-left sources without quotation marks, although to avoid plagiarism we are supposed to acknowledge this taking. It is well within the current guideline, though, to have an article that freely mingles copying from public domain sources (including distinctive phrases) with material crafted on Wikipedia and with only a note on the bottom to indicate that some of the content is taken verbatim. Not sure if that helps at all. Oh, just one final point: Wikilegal doesn't decree for us, it only offers information. :) The disclaimer on those pages is critical. And I'm proud of Wikipedia in saying that we prohibited close paraphrasing of copyrighted content long before it was written! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That's an impressive response, thanks. Can we count on you to help guide this process? I'm sure we could correct any inconsistencies with policy, and the final result would be agreeable to most. RE: "we prohibited close paraphrasing of copyrighted content long before [Wikilegal] was written!", I'm not sure the guidelines are in agreement, as this is given as an acceptable way to avoid plagiarism:

checkY Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution

  • Close paraphrasing: Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable. Add in-text attribution so that the reader knows you are relying on someone else's words or flow of thought.
  • John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was a really boring read.
It's not a theoretical concern, as this has recently been used to justify multiple close paraphrases. I am especially surprised by, "copying a source's words without quotation marks", which is only true of free or uncreative material, but this simple clarification has not yet been made. Am I wrong to say that this guideline currently suggests that "close paraphrasing" and "copying a source's words without quotation marks" are the same thing? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
But Wikipedia:Plagiarism doesn't solely apply to copyrighted text. With regards to copyrighted source material, Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Respecting copyright says (links omitted):

Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Wikipedia articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.

WP:C and WP:NFC are both clear that verbatim content taken from non-free sources must be in the form of quotation. Limited close paraphrasing may be permissible with in-text attribution (I'm okay with the example above), but it has never been permitted extensively. The copyright policy says, "it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean. Those other policies trump anything stated here, explicitly or implicitly. I think the disagreement I have with Flyer22 is that they seem to suggest that this concept only applies to phrases of multiple words and never to isolated words, but I contend that sometimes the isolated words are in fact the essence of the author's creative expression, which is what is being protected in the first place. Though freely I admit that I know nothing of the relevant laws. Rationalobserver (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the discussion of plagiarism is all mixed up. Plagiarism always involves a real person falsely obtaining real benefits for originality when it is not original. In the real world benefits are given students and speakers who sign their real name to material they write. Is any editor awarded real benefits for Wikipedia entries? I think not--in schools for example Wikipedia use is strongly frowned upon. If there is any "benefit" then I can't see how anonymous editors can pass it along to the benefit of any real person. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Rationalobserver, I'm no longer interested in participating in this discussion. That's why I'm going about my business, not participating in it. But I do have it on my WP:Watchlist, so there is no need to ping me to it. I did not state that "this concept only applies to phrases of multiple words and never to isolated words." I stated, "I mentioned distinctive at the WP:Plagiarism talk page and asked just how are we supposed to define that (consistently define it, at that). So I'm clear on the 'it's not every word' aspect." and "I asked you a legitimate question about applying the 'distinctive' rationale to a word, as opposed to a phrase, on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia guidelines have supported the 'distinctive phrase' aspect. And whether you want to admit it or not, or believe it or not, having Wikipedia come down on this matter regarding a lone word needs thorough discussion and input from a significant number of Wikipedia editors. I doubt that the reason that your 'distinctive word' aspect was not already there at the aforementioned pages is because Wikipedia has never had a Wikipedia editor who understands plagiarism as well as you do work on those pages."
In short, I stated that what you are trying to enforce -- consistently defining what is a distinctive word and stating that we have to put that perceived distinctive word in quotation marks because it's from a copyrighted source -- is difficult to enforce. And others above, especially Rjensen, are in agreement with that. In some cases, will putting that perceived distinctive word in quotation marks be justified? Perhaps. But because what is a distinctive word can be prone to debate, far more so than phrases that are clearly distinct from whatever sources, and because Wikipedia allows limited WP:Close paraphrasing (whether with WP:Intext-attribution or otherwise), I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of cases involving a "distinctive word" will not require quotation marks unless it's a matter where substantial WP:Close paraphrasing has ensued. But in a case where substantial WP:Close paraphrasing has ensued, the article needs cleanup in that regard anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Rationalobserver, policy trumps. The essay carries a tag that acknowledges this. The guideline doesn't, but it's set out at WP:RULES, specifically at WP:POLCON. :) As a general principle, US law (which governs Wikipedia) doesn't much care if you use quotation marks. Some countries have strong emphasis on moral rights; the US does not. Because findings of copyright infringement are always going to be subjective, though, I'm sure some cases have hinged on acknowledgement. Anyway, to the basics - policy requires that verbatim copying from non-free sources be marked in quotation marks. Whether that goes down to the word level is, I think, going to be a very sensitive matter, and I agree with Flyer22 that this would require some pretty heavy community support. :) While IANAL, I have done stuff with text-based copyright for a very long time, and I am aware of nothing that makes this a legal matter. It's simply a question of interpreting plagiarism, and Rjensen above illustrates exactly the kind of good faith disagreement about the standards of plagiarism that should apply that I was talking about. (A read through the archives at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism is instructive!) The definition of what is sufficiently distinctive to merit quotation marks would probably be difficult to reach. Is misapplied, we could wind up with articles full of scare quotes, which is quite another issue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two issues here: plagiarism and copyright. I am not a lawyer, nor am I sufficiently versed in policy here. But copyright would apply for wholesale lifting of content. I am not an unskilled wordsmith by WP standards, but I find it hard to not include some distinctive phrases from the source. I try to apply in-text attribution for that, but do not always manage to do so. As far as I understand, this does not fall under copyright. I looked at this, and the "patchwork paraphrase" standard is really tough, which even allows for in-text attribution. I am not sure I would always pass that standard, and I doubt many WP articles would do either. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
As an example of what I'm talking about, see my recent addition in the section here. It is based mostly on one source, and paraphrased mostly. I added an in-text attribution to the source earlier in the article, but I didn't do it here, though there are some distinctive phrases used. I find many such passages throughout WP. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian, that is a common misunderstanding, but it is not correct that copyright applies only to wholesale lifting of content. Under the U.S. law that governs us, copyright infringement can happen even if you do not use any of the language of your source, if you appropriate other creative elements. Close paraphrasing of your sources, unfortunately, creates a derivative work that can easily rise to the level of copyright infringement. Please see m:Wikilegal/Close Paraphrasing, which is a document that was prepared on request of the English language Wikipedia by the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation. While their attorneys cannot advise community on legal matters, it reflects their research on the issue at the time. On English language Wikipedia, our copyright policy forbids following your sources too closely. Good-faith content additions that unfortunately follow their sources are routinely reported and cleaned at the copyright problems board and, where necessary, through contributor copyright investigations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl: I agree and accept that copyright does not just apply to wholesale lifting of content. That sentence was unfortunately a stray sentence I meant to delete but forgot. The issue is to what extent close paraphrasing acceptable? And when does close paraphrasing become copyright infringement? By the standards of the link I gave before, even if I had given in-text attribution to the source in the article, it would probably still qualify as close paraphrasing or "patchwork paraphrase". I am confident that most of my edits would pass the standard listed in the link, but I doubt that all would, like the example I gave. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Since this is slightly off topic for the question of whether we should put words in quotation marks, let me join you in this at your talk page. :) I'll be right there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Arb break 2

Because much of this discussion hinges on whether distinct words ought to be enclosed in quotation marks, I've written the following example to demonstrate what I mean.

Source material:

John Smith was coal miner, and by all accounts he was a prodigious worker, but his peers also described him as obtuse and unwilling to commit to even the smallest compromise.

Fair paraphrase: Scholars have praised John Smith's work ethic, while noting his reputation for driving a hard bargain.

Close paraphrase: Scholars have described John Smith's work history as prodigious and his personality as obtuse.

Fair paraphrase with quotation marks enclosing distinctive words or phrases: Scholars have described John Smith's work history as "prodigious" and his personality as "obtuse".

In this example one is required to place the distinctive words in quotation marks, otherwise it's plagiarism, and there is no such exemption because the isolated words are not part of a longer text string. The author's original creative expression relies heavily on these two words, hence the requirement to place them in quotation marks when appropriating them. Further, if an editor merely replaced these two words with synonyms they would still be guilty of plagiarism:

Scholars have described John Smith's work history as colossal and his personality as uncomprehending.

The emphasis on the difficulty in determining what is distinctive, and using that issue as an excuse to allow close paraphrasing is misguided. If one cannot identify the distinctive words from a piece of source material then one does not have the necessary paraphrasing skills. It's really that simple, and I think anyone who wants to set the bar lower so as to allow for close paraphrasing is hedging their bets in the wrong direction. Also, editors are already attempting to identify distinctive words and phrases when they paraphrase, or they are all plagiarizing, so I fail to see how this increases the difficulty of fair paraphrasing. I.e., if an editor cannot identify the distinctive words from source material then they have no business paraphrasing, and they should find another way to contribute to Wikipedia, because their contributions are unethical. A piece of source material is only legitimately exempt from paraphrasing when it's generic, not when it's so creative that it defies summary, which in that case would require quotation marks. This is not complicated: fair paraphrasing is expressing a source with your own words, so whenever you use the same words as the author, they either need to be generic or enclosed in quotes, regardless of the number of consecutive words appropriated from the source material. This is undoubtedly the position of academia, the only thing we should be concerned with here is whether or not we want an academic standard, or a standard that essentially excuses unethical editing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, I personally do not believe those two words are distinctive enough to mandate quotation marks. They're perfectly ordinary English words and while they may reflect the vocabulary of the author they reflect the opinions of apparently a broad swathe of people (not necessarily scholars, fwiw). I would use quotation marks if we had something like the first example here and possibly would with the second:
Fake source Paraphrase
John Smith could perhaps best be described as obtigious - that is, while he was a prodigious worker by all accounts, his peers described him as obtuse and unwilling to commit to even the smallest compromise. Described as "obtigious" by biographer Fred Jones for his combination of prodigious labor and obtuse personality, Smith....
I knew John Smith all his life. We worked together in the mine. It's true what they say - the man could work coal. But for all that, he was stupid. Interviewed in local papers, one of Smith's fellow miner's agreed with the assessment that Smith was skilled, but added that he was "stupid".
In the first instance, "obtigious" is a truly distinctive word. In the second instance, the word is not distinctive in itself, but putting it in quotation marks conforms to WP:NFC, as it is attributing a point of view. In the description above, we don't actually know whose words "obtuse" and "prodigious" are - fictitious biographer Jones? Or the "all accounts" and "peers" he is quoting?
Figuring out which words would merit quotation is going to be very, very subjective and individualized, and if we add guidance on this that is unclear, we're going to wind up with words in quotation marks that do not need to be. For instance, looking at one of the examples you give of Academia above ([3]) (many of them do not offer examples of paraphrase done right - this is the first I found that did), I see the reuse of individual words from the source in the proper paraphrase example:
Putative source Proper paraphrase
So in Romeo and Juliet, understandably in view of its early date, we cannot find that tragedy has fully emerged from the moral drama and the romantic comedy that dominated in the public theaters of Shakespeare's earliest time. Here he attempted an amalgam of romantic comedy and the tragic idea, along with the assertion of a moral lesson which is given the final emphasis—although the force of that lesson is switched from the lovers to their parents. But tragedy is necessarily at odds with the moral: it is concerned with a permanent anguishing situation, not with one that can either be put right or be instrumental in teaching the survivors to do better. In his essay, "The Moral Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet," Clifford Leech suggests that there is more to Romeo and Juliet than simply a gloom-and-doom tragedy of two people destined to die for their illicit love. According to Leech, Romeo and Juliet is part romantic comedy, part tragedy, part morality tale in which the moral lesson is learned at the end. But this moral lesson comes with a twist: Since the lovers are dead, their parents experience the consequences of their actions (20). (bolding added to demonstrate precisely copied terms, but only on first use of this term)
I think "prodigious" and "obtuse" are both undistinctive terms; you disagree. Others might agree with you or with me. Harvard thinks "tragedy", "romantic comedy" and "moral lesson" are undistinctive terms. I think they're right, but there may be some who disagree with that as well...and we could wind up with a lot of good faith contributors approaching such commonplace language with an overabundance of timidity. If any example were added to the guideline, I think it would need to be a clear and generally agreed upon use, because the risk of articles littered with quotation marks around single words that are not distinctive seems to me quite high. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, Moonriddengirl, IMO, this entire response is misinformed, and you can't seem to get past the misconception that the sources are referring only to odd or extremely obscure words, they absolutely aren't. This is primarily about important words in context, not a word that might seem strange even in isolation. In my above example, the original author's creative expression relied heavily upon those two words, and that's what makes them distinctive to that particular sentence. This is not about words that are distinctive to the entire linguistic world. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
the risk of articles littered with quotation marks around single words that are not distinctive seems to me quite high. Isn't the risk of leaving plagiarisms greater? Regardless, the right solution here is to encourage fair paraphrasing and strongly discourage close paraphrasing, not complete inaction out of fear that a bunch of isolated words in quotes could be bad for Wikipedia. Anyone who identifies a problem with too many isolated words in quotes could paraphrase them and eliminate the need for single words in quotes. Isn't that what an encyclopedia ought to do? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The Universtiy of Idaho says, "Cite, Reference or Document your sources: Whenever you quote verbatim two or more words in a row, or even a single word or label that's distinctive ... Words you take verbatim from another person need to be put in quotation marks, even if you take only two or three words; it's not enough simply to cite." This might support your position that it generally needs to be two or more words before quotation marks are required, but they leave a contingency for single words as well. IMO, "tragedy" and "romantic comedy" are technical terms or jargon, so they would never require quotes. One could argue that "moral lesson" is a bit cliché', but my point above is not that "prodigious" and "obtuse" are always distinctive, but that their use in that example represents the author's creative expression, so they should be enclosed because they are distinctive to that material, not necessarily that that would appear distinctive in all examples, such as the ones you gave above. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What's really got me confused is the fact that the policy already contains this: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." Can you explain how "copying a source's words without quotation marks" justifies this note but "Sometimes close paraphrasing is appropriate or even unavoidable" does not? I.e., the policy already says that distinctive words or phrases ought to be enclosed in quotation marks, so why would this not apply to close paraphrasing? Why is close paraphrasing, which many sources describe as plagiarism, exempt from this note? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding single word plagiarism:

There are many more examples, but I won't bother listing them just yet, as I think this demonstrates that the concept of single words as distinctive is not my own. I also want to reiterate that distinctive does not mean unusual or uncommon. In terms of plagiarism, distinctive refers to words which stand out in the source material, or as Dedman says, "significant single words, such as those that express opinion or judgment". I.e., they need not be distinctive in their own right if they stand out as distinctive within the source material. "Prodigious" was distinctive in that example, and that's what we use to gauge the necessity of using quotation marks. Few if any words would be deemed distinctive if the entire known world of writing is invoked. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the following sources support my position that the way in which a word is used as an element of the author's creative expression helps determine whether it's distinctive, versus assuming that distinction is solely a function of the word itself.

I.e., this isn't only about strange or unusual words, but rather ordinary words that carry a bulk of the sentence's creativity; e.g., "any single words or phrases that are distinctive to your source", "even to significant single words, such as those that express opinion or judgment", "especially colorful or represents the original writer's judgment", "if it is distinctive to your author's argument", or "if the original author used it in a special or central way". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you lost me at "this entire response is misinformed". At that point, Rationalobserver, my interest in taking part in this conversation pretty much disappeared. :/ Especially when the next bit - "you can't seem to get past the misconception that the sources are referring only to odd or extremely obscure words" - suggests perhaps you didn't even read my note (unless you think I believe "stupid" is an odd or extremely obscure word, given that I offer it as a potential example for quotation marks). Anyway, I've got a lot of other things calling for my attention, so I'm going to get to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, I'm truly sorry if I offended you, but I guess you lost me, as your position that "prodigious" and "obtuse" are not distinctive enough in that context is just plain wrong, and I assumed you were implying that those words are never distinctive in any context. If the example was John Smith was born in Detroit in 1915, where he prodigiously worked for the auto industry. Prodigiously certainly does need to be in quotes if appropriated directly from source material into a "paraphrase", which I put in scare quotes because there really is no such thing as a proper paraphrase that appropriates creative expression using the same words. I'm sorry if that was rude, but I honestly felt like you were missing the point here, and it's a little frustrating to hear that the way I've checked for plagiarism for 25 years is incorrect when I know that it isn't. To me, this: Figuring out which words would merit quotation is going to be very, very subjective and individualized and this: I personally do not believe those two words are distinctive enough to mandate quotation marks. They're perfectly ordinary English words made me think that you do not understand what I'm saying at all. It's not subjective, it's quite basic, IMO. Every creative sentence contains a word or two that carry a bulk of the creative expression, and those words need to be in quotations marks if directly appropriated. This isn't nearly as complicated as your above response implies. Will you at least answer the question I've asked several times pertaining to: "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks." Why does this not apply to close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Rationalobserver, do stop altering the Wikipedia:Plagiarism guideline to this or anything like it when three editors above so far (myself, Rjensen and Moonriddengirl) have clearly spoken out against it. I'm not sure how Dr.K. feels on the matter. You have yet to convince us that words that are "distinctive to the source material require quotation marks in addition to in-text attribution." And we have given good reasons why this bit should not be a guideline or a policy. You not finding those reasons good does not mean that "nobody has offered any explanation why [your] note is inappropriate advice regarding close paraphrasing." I told you that others would not agree with your view on this matter and that what you are trying to enforce would be difficult to enforce, and I explained why; so have others. We (you and I) have taken this matter to the wider Wikipedia community, and the few who have participated in this discussion have not endorsed your proposals. It's time that you accept that WP:Consensus is against you on this, and that the guideline should not be changed to the "distinctive word" view you want included unless there is WP:Consensus for it. Furthermore, Moonriddengirl is what many (myself included) consider the foremost expert on copyright and plagiarism matters on Wikipedia; when she speaks of these matters, it is better that people listen to her than ignore or disregard what she is stating. And it is certainly better that people don't insult her. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all of Flyer22's points. I think that if Rationalobserver wishes to pursue this further, s/he should open an RfC at the appropriate talkpage or go to DRN. In the absence of positive consensus, edit-warring is simply not a solution. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22. I would also point out that the made-up quote is VERY badly paraphrased. John Smith was coal miner, and by all accounts he was a prodigious worker, but his peers also described him as obtuse and unwilling to commit to even the smallest compromise. Fair paraphrase: "Scholars have praised John Smith's work ethic, while noting his reputation for driving a hard bargain." In the paraphrase the word "scholars" is totally wrong; "praised" is totally wrong. and "hard bargain" is wrong, while "obtuse" gets lost. It turns out to be hard to paraphrase and keep the original meaning! Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I admit that my examples are poor: I wrote them without much thought, but the substance of my argument is on point, even if three or four Wikipedian's disagree at least three others agreed with me. I don't doubt Moonriddengirl's expertise regarding copyright, but she recently admitted that "I honestly do not involve myself a whole lot in plagiarism". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Rationalobserver is wrong IMO too, and should stop editing against consensus. IMO, close paraphrasing with a well-placed citation and in-text attribution, is usually acceptable even without quotation marks enclosing the author's distinctive words or phrases. I think Moonriddengirl) has carefully provided clear reasons for this. We do not and should not have a policy (or guideline) that makes close paraphrasing (alone, where there's no copyvio) a blockable offense.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure; this is known as close paraphrasing (which can also raise problems of plagiarism)." Rationalobserver (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Your reply was brilliant - well except that it was made as if there was no "(alone, where there's no copyvio)" in my comment that it replied to. Please note, there comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You lost the debate. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 23:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 23:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I reject the idea that Wikipedia can use academic models re plagiarism. All the academic websites deal with formal written papers that students are required to submit in registered university courses for academic credit. The students are required to produce ORIGINIALITY. The plagiarism rules are meant to deal with a student who cheats by taking academic credit for someone else's originality. We have an OPPOSITE system at Wikipedia--we strongly discourage originality, and we do not give academic credit for which a student can cheat. Notice that in actual universities plagiarism is Accepted in many cases. On exams or quizes for example, students are asked to define term XYZ. By giving the textbook word-for-word definition they pass and are never penalized for that. Plagiarism is NOT an offense in itself, it is ONLY wrong when a person is required to show originality and fakes it. Wikipedia never requires originality. Rjensen (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you are actually implying that there is no such thing as plagiarism if the plagiarizer does not benefit, that's fresh, but wrong, and policy states this explicitly: "public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source, even though there is no copyright issue." Rationalobserver (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (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.

What to do when "reliable sources" publish crappy information?

It happens. Sometimes "reliable sources" (i.e. established newspapers or tv channels) publish information clearly sourced from blogs or social media about controversial issues. Not a new phenomenon either. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The first line of defense is that nothing goes into an article unless someone wants to put it there, and anything can come out if no one objects. So this should only be a problem if it isn't clear-to-everyone that it's crap, or if you're dealing with bad faith editors. If you do have a problem situation then more details would probably be needed. Alsee (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The theory, as I understand, is we accept a source as a reliable source if they have a process for fact checking. It is not our responsibility to ensure that the process is used correctly in every instance. However if a reliable source find submission information in a blog or other source which would not normally be considered reliable, we presume that they go through their fact checking before republishing it and therefore can accept the information once published by the reliable source.
This is obvious nonsense, as Orwell and many others can attest, but what's the alternative? If the reliable source publishes bogus information, presumably another reliable source will publish a different version and we will then follow our guidelines for such situations. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
And, of course, there's a hierarchy of reliabbility. If newspapers disagree with peer-reviewed studies, then that's pretty much it for the newspaper information. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
If you know some sources are crap, then give the true statement, and reference it with a reliable and true source. It will be even better if you can find another reliable source that says that the newspapers are wrong, and then you can include a denial of the misconception in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a constant issue in writing the American lighthouse articles, and we're often forced to pick and choose between authorities. For my part the key thing is to leave an explanation on the talk page justifying the decision. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Being published in a reliable source (ie Verifiability) does not guarantee inclusion. For one thing, even the best sources can contain errors. That's why we should check to see what multiple sources say. Furthermore, the fact that a reliable source mentions some bit of information does not mean we are required mention it. We always have the option to omit information from our articles. If something is asserted in only one single source, there is a good chance that it does not rise to the level of being mentioned in Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, multiple sources mention it, that is an equally good indication that it should be mentioned in Wikipedia (and increases the likelihood that the information is accurate). Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
There is an essay on the subject Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Also WP:Editorial discretion. You're not required to include material that you believe is likely to be wrong. (However, it's harder to force someone else to omit it, if he believes that it's correct.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
We should consider the fact that our readers may have come across the same errant sources, and if possible explain why they are wrong with reference to correct sources. bd2412 T 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Input needed on banned users category

I would appreciate if folks could hop over to Category talk:Banned Wikipedia users to discuss what exactly this category should include. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Astronomical objects naming convention

There is some ambiguity in naming astronomical objects, e.g. M82X-1, M82 X-1, M82-X1. I've started a discussion about this in the Astonomy Portal, but it seems to have been very quiet there for the last two years, so I want to draw some attention to it here. — SkyLined (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A better place for conversations on this could be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

When a company's subsidiary is perhaps more notable than the company

In discussions with another editor over whether Nelson Madison Films makes the case for the company's notability, it occurs to me that its later-created subsidiary, Indie Rights, Inc., is actually the more notable. NMF has shot and/or distributed three films to date while IR has distributed a catalog of more than 200 independent films. Should this article instead be titled Indie Rights (or Indie Rights, Inc.)? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The works generated by the companies are mostly irrelevant for their notability as "Notability is not inherited". The question of notability is answered by "What sources are actually writing about the company" (As opposed to about the companies works). On reviewing the sources it seems that notability for either entity is minimal, but Indie Rights does appear to have the edge. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
As you might imagine, the article has been a far greater pain in the ass than I expected. (Full disclosure: it thanks Linda Nelson for these two images and perhaps many more to come.) Presuming yours is indeed the last word, can you perform the article/talk page move to preserve edit histories? TIA. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS

After a lengthy discussion here: [4] concerning the role of OTRS agents, and in particular how potentially WP:COI edits are approached, DGG offered the following summary:

"MrBill3 asked me to comment--so, to expand a little on what I said yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team:
I don't think we are finished until the policy statements at WP:Volunteer Response Team and elsewhere have been revised. Even if they were intended properly, they make much greater g=claims of privileged editing than supported by the fundamental policy of the nature of WP as a user-contributed encyclopedia. Several issues have been confused:
(1) The actual quality of the edits that gave rise to this discussion. In general , I support the edits. They did mostly serve to remove a rather blatant bias. Whether they went to far in the opposite direction is for the article talk page.
(2) The attempt to use OTRS authority in making the edits. This was totally unnecessary and inappropriate. They used no confidential information. There was nothing there that could not and should not have been openly addressed. If agreement could not be reached on the article talk page, then the further ordinary on-wiki steps were available.
(3) As an OTRS agent, I've seen the communication there that gave rise to the edit. It is a COI communication from a paid public relations agent, and, as is often the case even with justified complaints, claims altogether too much, and should not have been taken at face value. To do so implies a non-critical approach and an unawareness of the actual situation. The job of OTRS is to filter and mediate complaints, not necessarily to resolve them. Sometimes a necessary edit is so obvious it can be made without prior negotiation. This was not one such an instance.
(4) In a situation like this, I consider it to have been poor practice within the existing parameters of OTRS to proceed immediately from such a complaint to make an edit--the better course would first to have discussed the problem with the complainant, to clarify what would and would not be possible within WP editing policy. After that, in a case such as this , the ORTS agent would have had the choice between making what they consider the appropriate edit, while saying they were doing it on the basis of an outside request (we must indicate when we edit on behalf of another) but not claiming any special authority other than that of trying to assist a situation, or of referring the complainant to the article talk page for discussion, or of posting appropriate portions or paraphrases of the hopefully revised complaint there themselves, explaining what they were doing. The OTRS agent was illegitimately attempting to bypass normal editing is correct--even if the edits were desirable.
(5) This situation was not unique: other OTRS agents have done similarly. They should not be doing it in such situations. They have in disputed situations like this no special powers whatsoever, and an attempt to claim it is an attempt to claim super-editor, a privilege that does not exist in WP. (There is a privilege to suppress material or to block vested in every administrator but subject to the review of every other administrator and discussion on-wiki, and in some cases supervision by arbcom; and the right of WP:LEGAL or the oversight team to make a suppression or a block that cannot be reversed by an admin or ANI in the usual way, but which there is an existing review mechanism).
(6) The unique ability of an OTRS agent is the access to private information. Nothing further.
(7) Problems from this will continue to arise. The OTRS policy pages must be revised to indicate that all changes other than those that are specifically stated to be based on private information are subject entirely to the normal editorial processes. Complaints about OTRS agents overstepping their authority or making errors should probably normally be handled within OTRS by an appropriate procedure , but there remains a right of anyone to deal with them directly on-wiki as for any other actions or any other editor. The current special dispute resolution procedure is only indicated for ones that are specifically stated to be based on confidential but verified communications,and it must be so indicated.
(8) Assurances that this is all being dealt will will be justified when they have been dealt with. The responsibility for training and supervising OTRS is the joint responsibility of the Foundation and the community. The Foundation does have the responsibility to grant or withhold OTRS access, as for everything requiring access to identifying information; I assume that they would not refuse an on-wiki request that such access be removed, but the community does retain the power to block anyone. Legitimate power in a complex organization is based on a systems of balancing and overlapping authority."

It was generally agreed subsequently that discussion should continue elsewhere.

A suggested opening point for discussion was:

"We need a section with two subsections which clearly describe the delimitations of the OTRS system. There should be two lists (not prose):

A. What OTRS volunteers can do for you
  1. If you don't understand the editing process or Wikipedia policies and need help assistance , they can give you pointers advice. They will tell you dispassionately and honestly what can and cannot be properly done at Wikipedia.
  2. They will attempt to address any privacy concerns you may have, and assist in protecting your privacy to the extent permissible.
  3. If you feel that you or your organization have been libeled or treated unfairly, they will see if anything needs to be done and can be done. They will follow the normal manner of dealing with information covered by our Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.
  4. They will ask you to provide any reliable sources which can be used to back up and justify any changes. Your word alone is what we call "original research" and cannot be used to justify changing any content.
  5. They will advise warn you about not making legal threats or personal attacks, and advise you that getting too aggressive, whether here at Wikipedia or in the real world, can create a Streisand effect. Tread lightly and be patient.
  6. In some cases they may choose to make or suggest edits for you , but will usually advise you how to request them or make them yourselves. If they do make or suggest edits, they will identify that they are doing it on the basis of a request.
  7. or More suggestions.....
B. What OTRS volunteers will not do for you
  1. Volunteers have no more rights than any other Wikipedia editor, so they cannot be used to strong arm over-ride the reasoned opposition of other editors. They cannot force other editors to do anything, and they will discuss the matter with other editors. This is a process of give and take, and patience is required. Many situations are best solved by compromise
  2. The OTRS system is not a means to circumvent normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Volunteers will use the normal collaborative editing processes while dealing with your request.
  3. Volunteers will not violate any policies for you. If what you disclose or what they see for themselves leads them to conclude that policies have been violated, they will try to correct the situation.
  4. You may have a conflict of interest (COI), and thus your concerns will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone else who has a COI. Volunteers will not automatically take your side: they will not insert advertising; and will never force your preferred version of content into an article, nor will they and will not delete negative content which is properly sourced and of appropriate weight.
  5. More suggestions.....

That section (possibly as a template) should be placed on at least these two places:

Please feel free to suggest other points and alternate wordings. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)"

Since the feeling at ANI was that discussion would benefit from wider community input, I'm opening this discussion here. I'll leave it to other editors to decide how this should proceed, although the feeling at ANI seemed to lean towards this being a widely advertised RFC. Begoon talk 00:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few strike-outs , and added some substitutions or additions in italics. They're based upon what I understand to be the best current practices, and to address the concerns that people are likely to have. I myself deal with only a limited range of situations, so there are undoubtedly other things to include. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Those are definitely improvements. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I support these proposed changes. The version as modified by DGG seems quite clear and this provides needed clarity on important policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer, I just stumbled upon this discussion as it was mentioned on the OTRS team's IRC channel and thought that maybe I can give an outsider's perspective to the issue; feel free to ignore :), it's just that I've been involved in similar discussions on other Wikis in the past. I think the points you make in that list are mostly perfectly valid; thanks for that! I just feel that it's not addressed at the right people. Speaking with my OTRS volunteer hat on, let me say that we already have huge difficulty explaining people even which address to send their request to (I'm sure DGG can confirm that). So I'm a bit concerned that overwhelming them with ever more information makes all these things even worse. From my impression, most people who write to the info address just don't understand how Wikipedia works -- either they do not know where they should put their question or they deliberately want to save time and just write an email. They may have questions, they may have suggestions, they may have concerns. If you give them such a long list of do's and dont's before they send their email, that will just add to the confusion. And it doesn't really fit the friendly environment we're trying to create: Imagine you want to help Wikipedia and suggest a change to an article, but don't know how Wikipedia works. We should be happy that you drop us an email about that! In my opinion it's a bad idea to give you the email address only accompanied by a huge list of "BUT"s; if I were a newbie, I'd have the impression that someone is trying whatever they can to distract people from sending emails -- and that, in my opinion, is certainly not the environment we want.
I think the people you should address this to are the OTRS agents. (The very fact that you're considering this a policy is quite indicative of that: We don't want to set policies for the general public that would like to send us an email, do we?) Agents must be able to process requests in accordance with Wikipedia policies. If a request cannot be fulfilled because that would be in conflict with Wikipedia policy, you'd expect the agent to communicate that to the requestor. For me, the right approach is to tell the agents what to do and not to do, rather then tell the public what to ask and not to ask -- people should feel free to ask us anything really. So what about re-wording your suggestion in this spirit and thinking about a good way to make all info-en agents aware of it? Wouldn't that be a better way to achieve your (completely understandable) goal of avoiding problematic "OTRS edits" in future (or at least one without downsides)? Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Pajz. Thanks so much for your comments and insights. To start with, I don't want there to be any misunderstanding. What's above Begoon's comment was moved by Begoon here from ANI, where a discussion has been running for some time. We thought a different venue might be appropriate, possibly an RfC (which hasn't happened yet), and he thought that this might be a good place, so I said "go for it". Maybe it's a good place, maybe not, but there is no intention to actually create some new policy. What we need is wider input, and input from OTRS volunteers is very welcome.
We just need a basic list on those two places listed above which makes it clear what OTRS is for and what it's not for. That's all. It's just as much for Wikipedia editors and OTRS volunteers, as it is for the public, maybe more so. We've got to stop these occurrences where misuse of OTRS causes problems. The discussions we've been having have shown that the assurances from a couple OTRS administrators(?) that "we're dealing with this internally" have been rejected as insufficient. We (editors and others) need to have it spelled out very clearly in list form, so if you have any suggestions for tweaks, they would be very welcome. Some of the problems which get mentioned are more for the frequent requests from COI parties who wish to misuse Wikipedia. They may not realize that that is what they are doing, but that's what's happening, and sometimes OTRS volunteers have unwittingly acquiesced and it has caused problems. Those people/organizations need to be disavowed of that possibility. Maybe it could be worded more gently. Please help with that. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't sure of the best "pump" to put this on, but based on the opening post above I don't think we are finished until the policy statements at WP:Volunteer Response Team and elsewhere have been revised., I figured this might be the place. I was assuming that once we'd agreed on the proposed wording, that would be the time to reframe it into a clear RFC question, and add an RFC tag etc. Begoon talk 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It was my intention in writing what I did to propose policy; I agree that it is more a policy addressed to the OTRS agents (and the wikipedians) than to the general public. To the extent it's worded as being addressed to the general public, what I had in mind was a statement that the OTRS agents can use to explain to the people who write to them, explaining their expectations and limitations. But the phrasing can easily be altered, by being written in the third person, not the second. I'll do it later today. Where I suggest it would go is on the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team page.
I think it needs to be complemented by a complete and radical revision of the policy for how to challenge an OTRS edit at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team section 4.1, to indicate that the proper place to complain about an OTRS edit not based on confidential information is on the talk page of the article, and the existing method there is a backup for special circumstances where that would be unsatisfactory. I'm going to propose a wording here also for use there.
I think this is better developed at a common area, not a specialized talk page, but it doesn't matter all that much, as long as it's done in one place. Adopting it probably would need a RfC, unless by some chance there is general agreement.
I did not plan to get involved in this. I am not among the most active OTRS agents. Until very recently, I worked only on complaints regarding schools and colleges, where I could use my particular experience. But as I have over the last year or so been increasingly working on-wiki with COI editors,I came to realize that here too I had experience with our practices I could use there. As I've been observing the work of other agents, I see a great range in approach, from the inappropriate use of merely the official templated responses (it would be good to have these stock responses public on-wiki for general criticism--there's nothing confidential about them) to an overly activist approach. I've talked with some of the most active OTRS agents whom I most respect, and they have each developed their own balance here, a little different but pretty much in agreement--as would be hoped for and expected. I base my work on what I see of theirs. I am also aware of the great temptation for anyone working with COI editors or correspondents to adopt a non-neutral POV, which can equally likely be hostility to anything they suggest, or the complete adoption of their outside POV. (Generalizing further, there is no such thing as a truly neutral editor on any thing controversial--no one can look at a controversy without internally taking sides. One can avoid expressing the POV by relying on technicalities, but one can not be neutral if it is necessary to balance the issues. As a consequence, many of our rules focus on technicalities, as do legal or quasi-legal codes generally. The results are often pretty inappropriate. But the only way to keep erratic decisions in check is to have some rules, and some manner of applying and enforcing them. )
Normally, I think the operation of the enWP should be as autonomous as we can handle. OTRS (and oversight and of course Legal) is to some extent an exception,because it deals with matters that the Foundation must ultimately take responsibility for. They need to be involved in this too. It's a coincidence that the particular matter giving rise to this has been noticed a the same time the WMF is also taking action. They have sometimes had a critical role in doing things that for some reason or other are stalemated or avoided on the enWP, and it is therefore good that we are not altogether autonomous. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brangifer, thanks for your reply. The point where our opinions seem to differ is when it comes to discouraging people/organizations from making such inquries. I think this is the wrong approach. You are talking about a very small subset of tickets we receive, namely article complaints that contain requests for highly controversial edits on Wikipedia. I'm saying that putting such a huge list of instructions on a central help page tends to discourage members of the far larger group of other people from emailing OTRS (last year, info-en volunteers dealt with about 30,000 tickets). It's like adding a huge disclaimer to the Teahouse ("Questions that volunteers will answer, what they will tell you, and what volunteers won't do" -- would you really feel as comfortable asking your newbie question after reading this [or even answer it]? I wouldn't.). On the other hand, most people with controversial requests have no clue (and don't care at all) whether something violates Wikipedia policy or not. They are angry and just want us to comply with their requests (from my impression, the majority of these is along the lines of "The article is about me, so it's my decision what should be there"). Would a large "What OTRS volunteers can(not) do for you" list stop them from emailing us? That seems far-fetched.
I think one also needs to see that these matters are extremely clear policy-wise. Everybody editing enwiki is subject to enwiki policies. There is no basis for the assumption that OTRS volunteers stand above enwiki policies. So whatever you're putting on that page to discourage illegitimate edits, it's nothing new, it just serves to clarify something that is obvious from the existing policies (WP:Volunteer response team also has a reminder: "Team members must abide by the policies and guidelines of the individual wikis when carrying out tasks on those wikis related to requests received via the OTRS system"). If you see that your policies have been violated, I think the proper reaction is a) to hold the user accountable who violated the policies (no matter if it's an anonymous editor or an OTRS volunteer), and, if you deem it necessary, b) turn to the OTRS admins and point them to the user's behavior. Of course, the OTRS admins have no say over what the Wikipedia community should do (it's not a substitute for on-wiki deliberations), but they will exert additional pressure on a problematic user to make sure this won't happen again. (It stands to reason that someone who consistently violates Wikipedia policy should not have access to OTRS.)
So if your view is that "We've got to stop these occurrences where misuse of OTRS causes problems" (that's mine as well), it would make sense to me to remind(!) OTRS people that they are bound by project policies -- that's nothing new, after all. And this could indeed be done in the form of "dos and don'ts". I'd be happy to help drafting such a list (the result could be a note that is then distributed to all info-en volunteers), but I fail to see the point of this particular approach, namely overloading the OTRS information pages on Wikipedia with information that's actually intended for OTRS volunteers (and that is also not needed for taking action against misbehaving agents because the rules are already there). We need to look for ways to make sure that people abide by the rules. Just my two cents, not sure we can find common ground on this :). — Pajz (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a clear, prominent and explicit policy stating that when driven/suggested/inspired/suggested by a party with a COI an edit by an OTRS team member MUST be disclosed as a COI edit on the talk page of the article edited. I think this is fundamental to preserving the integrity of English Wikipedia and to maintaining a good faith relationship with the OTRS team among the community. Vague indications that policy must be followed do not seem to have resulted in actually following the COI guideline in editing by the OTRS team. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. This seems to be at the heart of some of the problems we keep witnessing. Edits made by OTRS volunteers are by nature COI edits, and are thus proxy/meat puppetry for people/organizations who naturally will tend to pull content away from NPOV. That some OTRS volunteers don't understand this is very alarming. The way to stop this is to make it very explicit, in writing, for all to see. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
We need to exempt obvious vandalism from this. I for one don't want to have to spend time explaining on a talk page that I've reverted vandalism because of an OTRS report by the subject of the article - obvious vandalism should be reverted no matter who reports it or who. I'm happy with the rest of this and I've always realised that when editing because of an OTRS report I still need to follow guidelines and policies. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. The point isn't to impose extra requirements on OTRS edits, rather to emphasise that such edits are no different to regular edits, and carry no more authority. The concern is allusion to "authority" where none exists. On the odd occasion there's a genuine privacy issue preventing open discussion, that could easily be transparently explained. There seem to have been too many recent incidents where "OTRS edit - Secret Squirrel - I know important stuff you don't, so don't revert my very important action without consulting me" has been inappropriately invoked. I think that's what this seeks to address. Begoon talk 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. That's the gist of the issue here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue of assertion of authority was limited (perhaps to one or two editors) and believe, despite some opacity and hand waving, that this concern is being handled by OTRS admin. In my opinion the remaining issue is the need for clarity that OTRS team member edits must adhere to PAG, in particular COI. I think policy is clear that vandalism, BLP issues and privacy concerns are priority edits that can be made expeditiously and forcefully by any editor (and assistance from WP admins sought as needed, including privately) and don't necessarily require talk page discussion.
The issue of COI driven editing is what I see as an extremely important remaining concern. I think edits (outside those mentioned above) that are based on input from a party with a COI should be disclosed as such on talk. I think this is policy and there has been and continues to be a pattern of not following this policy by OTRS team members. This should be addressed through clear, prominent written policy in the OTRS pages that the COI guideline applies and must be followed.
To propose an example that may illustrate a grey area and draw input; if a COI editor (not OTRS agent) were to remove unsourced content from an article, wouldn't policy require that that editor disclose their COI when making the edit? What about an OTRS team member acting based on correspondence from a COI party? In my interpretation of policy both instances would require disclosure of COI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm speaking purely as User:Moonriddengirl here. My involvement with OTRS these days is primarily in my staff capacity; I very seldom answer emails, and I don't handle complex matters anymore as a rule of thumb. However, I have handled many situations in the past, prior to my employment by the WMF, and I'm uncomfortable with the implication that OTRS responders have a COI simply because they are reviewing a correspondence. A WP:COI is, by our own definition, "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor" - restated as "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." (Emphasis added.) Are we assuming that OTRS agents lose sight of our collective goal simply because somebody points out what they believe are problems in an article? Are people who respond to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN listings operating under a COI? I absolutely believe and support the idea that OTRS agents should work within community processes (and have as an OTRS volunteer even more than once taken less clear matters to BLPN for consensus), but I'm really alarmed by the implication that OTRS responders are inherently prioritizing advancing outside interests. As an OTRS agent, I always considered it my role to help fix what needs fixing and - just as importantly and even more common - to explain why (professionally and compassionately) why per policy some things cannot be "fixed". I think marking edits as related to an OTRS request is an idea to consider - as long as it doesn't have the reverse effect of quashing disagreement - but labeling them as COI is, I believe, mistaken and unfair to our agents, under our own definition of COI. I'm afraid it suggests that they cannot be trusted because Wikipedia matters less to them than advancing the cause of some person whose email they happened to read. :) I do think that clear guidelines as to the limits and scope of OTRS agents on the project will provide needed clarity to other editors (who as User:Pajz notes should be aware that they are bound by local policies). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I've never had anything to do with OTRS and the Volunteer Response Team, but this sounds like the proposal here is for some WP:CREEPy policies.
I'm having trouble understanding the COI claim: How exactly is this different from private e-mail from a notable Wikipedian to another editor? If a BLP posts a note on the talk page and says, "There's a problem here", and you agree and make that edit, do you have a COI? We're allowing banned editors to post such notes on their user talk pages or send e-mail to editors, and nobody says that if User:Banned says "Look at the mess over there", that you need to post "By the way, I have a conflict of interest, because a banned editor told me about this mess" when you clean it up.
But even if I were to grant that this is somehow a conflict of interest by proxy, then I'm left thinking: Wow, this is the first incident of this type that I've seen in, um, a couple of years? Maybe this isn't actually something that we need to write policies about. We normally write policies when we have a consistent pattern of problems involving multiple, unrelated people, not when one person is involved in one dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the following quote from KillerChihuahua illustrates that this is more than a single editor, isolated instance, "OTRS volunteers are often in the position of not being able to explain why an edit is necessary without violating privacy." Not being able to explain why an edit is necessary??? That doesn't sound like an understanding that OTRS edits are subject to the PAG of English Wikipedia. That seems to reflect a belief that an edit can be justified with an undisclosed reason, that doesn't seem in compliance with policy at all. How many OTRS team members subscribe to this position? How many edits are made on this basis? I think a prominent and clear statement of policy is needed both at VRT and Dispute resolution. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that this probably rises from the tension between attempting to respect correspondent privacy and still address valid concerns, but without a direct link readers here can't assess the context of the statement, MrBill3. :) Can you please provide a diff of the statement? Again, while I'm not doing this kind of work now (ETA the word "now" for clarity, for those who don't read above) I have never had any difficulty explaining why an edit had to be made, but there are times where the OTRS privacy approach has made it impossible for me to indicate that I am doing it because I was alerted to a problem by a specific individual. If I remove the name of a private person from a BLP - say the name of a convicted murderer's child, who has no public identity and who hasn't been widely publicized, in accordance with WP:BLPNAME - it seems more than adequate to say "I have removed this in accordance with WP:BLPNAME" without saying "because the kid asked me to." Part of the intention of privacy is to avoid shaming or discouraging people from reaching out with legitimate grievances. If a celebrity reaches out to us to demonstrate that her personal address was added to her profile (again, against policy) and that she has reason to believe it was added by a stalker against whom she has a restraining order, I can remove the address in accordance with WP:BLPPRIVACY (and say I am) without alerting her stalker (potentially dangerous) to the fact that she has, indeed, noticed him. Again, unless the announcement itself dissuades dispute, I would have no problem supporting labeling OTRS actions as "OTRS". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl here is the [diff] that the above quote was part of, note the ongoing conversation on that page (talk page of OTRS admin), in particular the admin's response [diff]. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, MrBill3. I can't tell from that if User:KillerChihuahua is thinking of the kind of examples I am or opposing revealing any reason at all. It does seem that User:Keegan interpreted it as you did, but I'd prefer to hear what KC had in mind before deciding definitely that she meant no mention of policy is possible. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
BLP, mostly issues with minors, yes. One can cite the policy, but there are those who want to examine the "evidence" or details, personally, to decide for themselves whether the content violates policy. IMO to make the information public on a talk page also violates policy; I have no issue with requiring OTRS to cite which policy, or with OTRS edits being subject to review by other OTRS agents or admins, I do have an issue with Random Editor demanding the deets, which has happened to me. KillerChihuahua 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, KillerChihuahua. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun about your concern :) Keegan (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
MrBill3, I'm not talking about how often the agent feels like he's in a difficult spot or might be telling you only part of the story. I'm talking about the number of times there has been a serious dispute on wiki about it, one significant enough to involve WP:DR processes. These appear to be quite few and far between.
The mere possession of private information is not, in itself, an actionable problem. For example, I fairly often have private information about editors. It might feel awkward for me to know, for example, that the reason someone is not answering you quickly is because he's sick or traveling. I might even step in to answer a question that I'd normally ignore. But the existence of that private information, and my actions based on that sort of information, don't cause on-wiki disputes. "How dare you answer my question without telling me that the person I asked first was too sick to reply" is not a source of disputes, just like making an article conform to BLP should similarly not be a source of disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Just checking in as the admin who sent the discussion here (so to speak). I'm not convinced we need a policy plank to deal with this situation if it is as rare as WhatamIdoing suggests. I'm also not in favor of classifying OTRS edits as COI, but I think we need to respect that sometimes OTRS is used as an "if mom says no, ask dad" route for subjects who want material changed on wikipedia and it might be helpful to reiterate (as this was unclear, apparently) that an OTRS edit--even (perhaps especially) one made with the benefit of private information--is not any different from one made by an uninvolved editor. We can assume that well trained volunteers will only make edits that they're comfortable justifying, but that's sometimes difficult to discern when the motivation for the edit is an email from a (sometimes understandably) upset and flummoxed subject. What cannot happen is the escalation of a subject's desired state of the article over our normal editing process. Even if a volunteer doesn't explicitly claim that an OTRS edit is exempt from normal editing, there's still a feeling of unease when reverting them. I'm an admin and I've been around for a while™, but I don't know if reverting an OTRS edit will get me in trouble (either in the project or potentially outside, if contacting OTRS to resolve an issue is a step meant to avoid a defamation suit), even if I feel the edit needs to be reverted. That's the starting point. There's an asymmetry of information and a possible asymmetry of power between editors and OTRS volunteers and we should be aware of that when crafting the policy page. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any asymmetry of power. A BLP edit should be respected, regardless of who does it. That it comes through OTRS need not be mentioned. They can be discussed, but not immediately reverted, unless they are clearly vandalistic, and no experienced editor or OTRS volunteer would do that. A BLP issue is a BLP issue, and OTRS is just one way to call attention to the matter. An OTRS volunteer has no right to claim their BLP edit is exempt from reversion because it's an OTRS action. No, it's exempt because it's a BLP matter. OTRS doesn't give it special status (asymmetry of power).
Also, will someone please tell me what other type of situation is so pressing that normal PAG don't apply, just because it comes through the OTRS channel? Please name such situations, even one.
For any other type of issue, OTRS volunteers should not allow themselves to be caught in the middle of the "if mom says no, ask dad" situation described above by Protonk. We know that this is a frequent occurrence, and OTRS volunteers need to be en garde for that. It is then that the OTRS volunteer gets caught in a COI situation, and any edits by them must follow normal COI and PAG. The OTRS volunteer has no right to claim their non-BLP edits are exempt from normal reversion and discussion. That's why Keegan made this great edit. It needs to be respected. Keegan isn't just anybody. They know what they're talking about. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
"Keegan isn't just anybody. They know what they're talking about." <~ hehehehe, that's a dangerous assumption ;) Keegan (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought a clear exception had been carved out for BLP and privacy issues. Existing policy covers both of these anyway and is strong that BLP or privacy related edits may be made, without discussion, repeated after reversion, exempt from 3RR, explanation not required, suppression possible etc. The issue here is when a party with a COI wants edits made to an article and appeals via OTRS. If OTRS team members make edits based on such an appeal, they are performing an edit requested by a a party with a COI, policy requires that be disclosed. It seems OTRS team members either fail to understand the COI guideline or fail to realize it applies. It seems there is a lack of understanding and clarity that OTRS team member edits are fully subject to all PAG and have no special status. As this lack of clarity, understanding and compliance with policy has been demonstrated as being much more than a single isolated incident, policy pages need revision to provide clarity and give those explaining this to others somewhere to point to where it is explicitly spelled out. How many times have OTRS team members made changes to an article based on direction by a party with a COI and not disclosed or explained the edits? Isn't this an ongoing violation of policy? What steps are being taken at OTRS? Why not change VRT to clearly reflect a requirement to follow a policy that has clearly not been followed on multiple occasions, by multiple editors? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Very well put. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
MrBill3, I'm a little confused by your statement that, "If OTRS team members make edits based on such an appeal, they are performing an edit requested by a a party with a COI, policy requires that be disclosed." Can you specifically quote what line in policy you're talking about? That'll make it much easier to determine if I agree with your interpretation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that COI dog will hunt. I'm a bit biased, as I really don't like applying bright line policies or norms to marginal cases because it both weakens the norm and clouds the issue. A volunteer manning the OTRS queue does not by dint of their conversation with a subject have a COI. To give an example of how applying that rule sucks, imagine if OTRS volunteers followed the best practices for COI editing and only requested edits on the talk page (aside from obvious vandalism, etc.). It would be complete overkill for most OTRS requests and the time delay for requested edits (which is often large) would eliminate the purpose of having a team manning that queue in the first place. Now we can say that volunteers can use their judgment and only post requested edits where it would make sense to do so (which I think is a good idea) but we can't do that if we've labeled all OTRS edits as COI. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but here's your problem, Protonk: the best argument you put forward there is it might delay stuff (or make OTRS editors wait like everyone else has to). Surely that's correct. That's how updates should happen. I completely miss your "manning the queues" argument. We all man the queues when we edit. Seems to me you're perpetuating the "secret squirrel - unrevertable" kind of stuff, or, if you're not, I don't see what distinction you are drawing. We're talking here about why OTRS edits should have no strange precedence over normal edits. I support that.Begoon talk 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the best argument I've put forward is that applying COI (or any bright line and serious policy/norm) to something that isn't a COI damages both the norm and the thing we're trying to regulate. The delay is a problem but it's incidental. In regards to your suspicion that I'm supporting the claim that OTRS edits should be unrevertable, I guess I'd invite you to re-read my posts on this subject. I'm not an OTRS volunteer and I generally support the need for policy to make clear that normal editing is the rule of the day for OTRS folks. Think about it this way. If someone emails me on my personal account and says "hey page XYZ is messed up, can you take a look at it" I'll do so but I'm not about to limit myself to requested edits because the reason I'm editing the page is an email. Nor can I say "I got this info from an email, so don't revert it". If I were an OTRS volunteer and I got the same email via a ticket, I don't see how it's different. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble understanding the COI claim. So imagine this: I'm standing in line somewhere and happen to chat with the person next to me. Wikipedia comes up. He says it's a lousy site, and as proof, he shows me the article about his company, which is filled with poop vandalism that somehow managed to get past Cluebot. Okay, fine: he's got a COI, he's told me about the problem, and he obviously wants it fixed. Do you really believe that I have a COI for that article, merely because I happened to learn about a blatant policy violation in that article from a complete stranger that has a COI?
I'm looking at the COI guideline (NB, it's not a policy). It says things like "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers". Well, reverting this vandalism would obviously not promote my own interests: not only is this article not about me, my family, my friends, or my employer, I don't even know this guy's name. I have just checked the COI guideline, and I have not seen anything in it that says reacting to information from a stranger who has a COI actually causes me to have a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OTRS edits are not a COI. OTRS agents do not receive financial or any other compensation and they are not in a personal relationship with the emailer. It is no different than if an editor with a COI were to speak to others editors on a talk page. The purpose of OTRS is to create a space to communicate with Wikipedia using technologies that people are familar with. People don't understand Wiki syntax.--v/r - TP 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
"It is no different than if an editor with a COI were to speak to others editors on a talk page." That is not true, there is a substantial difference between an open, available discussion on a talk page and secret, undisclosed communication via OTRS. That is precisely the issue I am concerned about. To be clear I am not advocating for a "propose on talk and get consensus first" approach to all edits made by OTRS team members as the result of concealed communication with a party with a COI. My proposal is that notification be placed on the talk page of articles by OTRS team members when they perform edits resulting from undisclosed communication with a party that has a COI. This does not impose an undue burden and brings OTRS team members in compliance with policy. To provide excerpts from policy for Moonriddengirl, "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." As OTRS is outside English WikiPedia it is an outside relationship, further OTRS correspondence is secret and not a part of or visible to WP. OTRS team members are engaging in outside concealed correspondence with a(n) undisclosed party(ies). Clearly this is a relationship and it's external and clandestine nature create additional questions about the nature of the relationship (secrets don't allow the application of common sense). This creates an apparent COI, "An apparent conflict of interest arises when P does not have a conflict of interest, but someone would be justified in thinking P does." With no transparency concerning the content and extent of correspondence or the nature and details of the relationship an OTRS team member has with a secret correspondent how could one claim there is not a justification for thinking there is a conflict of interest. This undisclosed communication with an unidentified (not a registered WP acct or an IP even) party and the unknown relationship, agreement, statements etc. creates a relationship that cannot be evaluated but the question of a potential conflict of interest arises, "A potential conflict of interest occurs when P has a conflict with respect to a certain judgment, but is not yet in a position where that judgment must be exercised." The editing of an article is when, "A potential conflict becomes an actual conflict of interest when P is in a position to exercise that judgment."
I ask what is the reasonable objection to making clear in writing to OTRS team members and to the public that edits (except BLP and privacy issues) performed as a result of secret correspondence with a party with a conflict of interest must be disclosed as such on the talk page of the article edited? To make a note on talk when performing an edit surely isn't an onerous burden? Providing this kind of transparency is surely an act of good faith that would help relationships with the community. On what grounds do those who object do so? Revealing the identity of the COI party is not involved, nor necessarily the content of the communication. If I encountered a stranger from Acme Co. who complained about the WP article on their company, if I were to edit that article, I would bring the issues to talk at the same time I made any edits. Why is doing so such a problem for OTRS? The resistance to transparency does not rest well with me and I suspect with others. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:COI is not policy, but a guideline. There is a difference, and while it's a guideline I support, I think we should be careful in using the correct terms. That said, I appreciate your quoting the specifics from the guideline, MrBill3, because it does help evaluate. I don't think that the guideline supports any interpretation of OTRS editing as creating a COI. First, OTRS is not an "external" relationship. It is an official Wikipedia process, documented at Wikipedia:Contact us (and subpages) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and various pages of our FAQ (like Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, for instance). It is contact entered into as a part of an OTRS agent's volunteer duties for Wikipedia, intrinsically related to their work here. Do the admins who work at UTRS have an "external" relationship with blocked parties? I don't think so. It's also not private or secret - just like emails to ArbCom, Oversight, the Bureaucrats mailing list, the unblock mailing list or other official community email points, it is visible to other members of the team. These emails are not only visible to everyone on the team, but archived, so I can easily review the details of a transaction that some other agent took part in that took place in 2006, for instance.
I myself have no objection to disclosing that an edit is related to OTRS, but I think that claiming this is related to COI is misguided. WP:COI is, again, defined on Wikipedia as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor" (links omitted) and "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia". Arbs do not have a COI due to correspondence they review; bureaucrats do not have a COI due to correspondence they review; oversighters do not have a COI due to correspondence they review. Neither do OTRS agents. As to how one could claim there's not a justification for thinking there's a COI, I would suggest that there's an inherent problem in assuming that a trusted volunteer is no longer motivated to improve Wikipedia but is instead advancing somebody else's agenda just because he or she has agreed to work within approved community processes with people to whom he or she has no personal or professional connection whatsoever.
That said, as I noted above, simply indicating that an edit is made on behalf of an OTRS correspondence may discourage disagreement. OTRS-based edits should stand on their own within policy in every case I can think of (barring those with WP:OFFICE involvement). Either an OTRS agent can or cannot support the action. However, if noting the OTRS connection is recommended by consensus, I think a requirement of a talk page edit for every edit will be extreme. That's what edit summaries are for. A talk page entry is an unneeded waste of time where the change is likely to be uncontroversial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excluding CSD-g7 as a valid criterion once an AFD has commenced

I propose that we change our deletion policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Process interaction where it currently says: "Pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted regardless of other circumstances. If a page on a deletion debate is speedied, the debate is closed." so that it instead says: "With the exception of CSD-g7, (by request or page blanking), pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted regardless of other circumstances. If a page on a deletion debate is speedied, the debate is closed."

I suggest this change because Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion currently says: "You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement)." while {{Article for deletion}} which sets atop the article being discussed says: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, ..., until the discussion is closed." (boldface text is represented as it appears in the instruction).

By the above instructions, I had always believed "author blanking" would not result in deletion. I was surprised when I recently observed one closed this way. I agreed with what I believed was our policy, and disagree with author blanking as a criterion to speedy close a deletion discussion. In my opinion it too easily allows for gaming of our AFD process.

If CSD-g7 prevails as a means to speedy close a discussion, I think that at minimum the instructions at WP:EDITATAFD and {{Article for deletion}} should be clarified as to their actual intent for stipulating that the page "must not be blanked". Thank you for considering this proposal.—John Cline (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Question- what would be the purpose of the author gaming the system by blanking the article while it's at AfD? What would the author gain by that? Reyk YO! 04:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
In this particular example every reference to coi editing as well as inflammatory talk page allegations have been removed from observation and I have serious reservations that the new user who recreated the page is a different user as is being said. It also invalidates CSD-g4 which is why the article could be recreated in the same day. Rather than taxing one's ability to AGF, I think it's better to eliminate the potential. Thank you for asking this insightful question.—John Cline (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What a muddle. IIUC, the idea is that the article's creator has blanked-and-recreated the article to remove unflattering commentary from the talk page, and possibly to force a new AFD on the new incarnation. I wonder if, instead of restricting G7, it might be better to expand G4 to cover this unusual case. Or maybe it's not necessary to do anything since, to my knowledge, this is the first time this issue has come up. The nearest thing I've seen is editors moving or merging articles to sabotage running AfDs that were heading for a delete consensus. Those editors got blocked for disruption and the AfDs were allowed to run their course. Maybe that's all that's necessary here. I'm not sure that expanding legislation (we already have reams and reams of it) is the way to go. Reyk YO! 05:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you have correctly discerned this muddle. It has also left experienced editors at odds with each other as this thread demonstrates. If this really is the first time such a thing has occurred, I still assert that the instructions about blanking the page require amended clarification. For example they could perhaps say: Except for the page creator seeking deletion by CSD-g7, the page must not be blanked.
I also feel that the interpretation of a substantial contributor fails to acknowledge many contributions. For example each contributor at the discussion who gave of their time to research the articles notability have contributed something to that page. In this example the emerging consensus was to merge and redirect, a consensus reflecting the accumulated hours of each participant's endeavor, yet it is treated as no contribution at all when the one person has the ability to be declared the only substantial contributor.
I gave several hours myself, creating redirects, tagging erroneous redirects for deletion, ensuring deletion of the erroneous upload to Commons and uploading the image to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Then, after reviewing sources, uncovering new sources and preparing to !vote, I find the page deleted by the blanking of one called the only substantial contributor. It is a recipe that leaves a lingering bad taste in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe we should always allow G7 requests, even if the article is at AFD. The cornerstone of G7 is that it allows article creators the ability to self-correct when they recognize they have done something wrong; we shouldn't force an article to remain, and invalidate G7, merely because an AFD was started. That has the effect of forcing the article creator to listen to everyone's criticism of them, and that's not treating them with dignity. Instead, we should CLEARLY allow G7 requests during AFDs to allow people to correct their own mistakes at any time. My understanding is the "you must not blank the page" stipulation during AFDs was added because of some people, who were arguing for deletion, would use bad-faith means to make an article more attractive to be deleted, or were using blanking as a fait accompli move to pre-empt discussion in their own favor. However, the use of G7 by the author CLEARLY doesn't match that rationale, and we should insert or modify language here that makes it clear that clear G7 requests are to be honored, including author-blankings during the AFD process. The problem is only with blankings of the article by those other than the author, especially when such moves are used to gain an upper hand in the debate unfairly. --Jayron32 15:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think John Cline gets it right. Once an article is at AfD, it is in the hands of the community, so it's not anymore an issue of the original author alone. I general I don't like G7, but I can see its point if it is to revert a quick mistake. But when people pile up opinions and discuss on an article, then it's not anymore an individual problem, but it is something that has to be dealt by consensus. What if all !votes were to keep the article, for example, with good reason? Should the author have a "supervote" in this case? Also, I completely disagree with the notion that giving criticism is "not treating them with dignity". Since when fair criticism on an article's compliance with our policies means the author is not treated without dignity? Are we talking seriously?--cyclopiaspeak! 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, it isn't treating someone with dignity when they say "OK folks, I totally understand, let me undo my mistake" and you return with "No, fuck you, you stay here for the week and take your beating like a man!" That's what these AFDs can become if we don't allow G7 to take precedence. Yes, I can conceive of sui generis cases where the community decides to keep the article over the creator's G7 request, but those G7 requests can be undone if a discussion appears to be heading that way. As a matter of course, however, those situations would be rare enough to deal with on a case by case basis, where written policy matters is dealing with the vast majority of situations, where there is going to be a general consensus to delete the article. If the author of the article reads the first five or six !votes for deletion, begins to understand the policy, and concedes to delete the article per G7, we should allow that. It would be a rare situation where an author would request G7 in the face of a large number of KEEP votes, and in those cases, I would expect the closing admins to be able to use good judgement and deal with the situation as you describe. We don't make policy to deal with the rare-one off event in the face of doing the wrong thing in the more common event. That's bass-ackwards. --Jayron32 16:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It is to treat someone with dignity when this one is guaranteed the same process and respect of anyone else. The point is that, per WP:OWN, articles are not of the creator, once an article is on WP it is of WP. G7 acts as a quick form of courtesy to reverse mistakes, but not for else. For everything else, we have consensus here, where all users are equal and can fairly offer their opinion. Calling such a process "beating" is ridicolous. And here we are in an "else" situation, since fixing a quick mistake is not what the original request was for, apparently. If it is a snow delete, then the article will be deleted anyway. If not, we see what happens. But the discussion should not be closed prematurely.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Hard cases make bad policy, we don't write rules to deal with the odd case which annoys us, we write rules to reflect best practices. When the unique case comes along, we deal with the unique case on its own terms (that is uniquely) and don't create the rules to apply to the vast majority of situations only because some weird situation came up this one time. I think you misinterpreted what I said, however. See, when I said "Yes, I can conceive of sui generis cases where the community decides to keep the article over the creator's G7 request, but those G7 requests can be undone if a discussion appears to be heading that way. As a matter of course, however, those situations would be rare enough to deal with on a case by case basis, where written policy matters is dealing with the vast majority of situations, where there is going to be a general consensus to delete the article." what I meant by that was "Yes, I can conceive of sui generis cases where the community decides to keep the article over the creator's G7 request, but those G7 requests can be undone if a discussion appears to be heading that way. As a matter of course, however, those situations would be rare enough to deal with on a case by case basis, where written policy matters is dealing with the vast majority of situations, where there is going to be a general consensus to delete the article." The policy as written should reflect best practices in dealing with most situations, and should not have been written to stop that one time where someone did that one weird thing we didn't anticipate and dammit, we're going to make sure that never happens again. Writing policy from the mindset of a single, recent situation we got alarmed at is a bad idea. --Jayron32 19:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Jayron32 you've made some good points and I don't entirely disagree with your premise. I do however think there is a disconnect between a well articulated request, and the blanking of a page. The cornerstone of G7, which I hold, is that the request must be proffered in good faith. While this can be effectively ascertained in the verbiage of a request, a page blanking leaves its measure to the prowess of one's imagination. It is hard to interpret an editor who retires their account, babbles recantations of everything they once held true, and blanks every page they ever created, as good faith actions. While a page blanking can be interpreted as a request under G7, under what circumstances should it be rejected if not ones like these? This is why I feel that blanking alone should not suffice as a request in good faith once an AFD has commenced. And the instructions as currently written seem to support this approach.—John Cline (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, unless there is specific evidence that the OP is actually up to shenanigans, nearly all page blankings amount to G7 requests. The entire CSD process is arcane enough that the vast majority of casual users would never even know of its existence, and would not even know how to apply a CSD tag to an article, much less what G7 even means. That's why the page blanking aspect of G7 exists: When a user blanks a page they have created, the reasonable interpretation is that they want to delete the article, but don't know how deletion works. Does that mean all such blankings are good faith attempts to delete the article? No, but when they are not, we're perfectly capable of dealing with them as they arise. We don't need to create policy that makes it harder for good faith editors to do what is right, merely to catch the occasional shenanigans. We caught this guy didn't we? He didn't fool us, did he? Did the lack of policy to say "you can't do that" either stop him from disrupting, or tie our hands in dealing with him? No. So why write policy that cripples good-faith use of G7 merely to address a situation we're perfectly capable of dealing without said policy... --Jayron32 23:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
While I again, primarily agree, I will not acquiesce your conclusion that this somehow "cripples good-faith use of G7". My proposal merely asks that we disallow G7 blanking once an AFD has commenced, or clarify the instruction that "You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement)." The only thing thereby crippled is the thriving ambiguity borne by this prominent contradiction.—John Cline (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, G7 should always be allowed, provided that no editor opposes. If an article is at AfD, I think that a request for G7 should be accepted, ~provided that no one has placed a "keep" vote in the AfD discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • G7 could always be allowed but I don't see why deletion is always the result at AfD. It can be that people say 'it's not there yet, let's userify it and let them work on it a bit'. Besides, there's time where an article is saved at AfD after a number of days even because new editors swarm in to improve it. The seven days isn't always a terrible option. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note about speedy deletion - just a reminder, speedy deletion should only be used in cases where there is no controversy whatsoever about deletion. An articles for deletion discussion is, by its mere existence, a controversy. Since author-request (G7) is a lower priority deletion, an author's request to delete a page under a deletion discussion should almost always be denied. If the user was getting the page deleted to hide evidence of their own wrongdoing, it also should be denied, which is why admins need to check before they delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, if an article is tagged with any deletion template, and the author blanks the page, the immediate reaction should not be to delete the page. (Though if the deletion template happens to be a speedy, it may make sense to delete the page based on the original criteria anyways.) Perhaps they mistakenly think that this is the correct way to contest the deletion, and instead we should revert the blanking and post a note on their talk page asking if they really want the page deleted. If they blank the page again, then we delete it. Note that this does not affect explicit requests to delete one's own page; these can always be handled immediately as their intentions are clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I encountered this exact scenario (an editor gaming AfD with repeated blanking during AfD/G7 deletion/article recreation) this week for the first time. Nevertheless, if there are no "keep" votes at AfD, this seems like more of a situational awareness and IAR block or salt situation than one that drives the need for policy changes. VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I saw this particular case. It is perfectly clear that the editor was trying to game the system, by having the article deleted and then re-creating it via a sockpuppet, thereby trying to put the existing history out of sight. John Cline is perfectly right. However, I don't think that changing the deletion policy as John suggests would be helpful. It is always a good idea to be very cautious about changing policy on the basis of one incident. Such attempts to game the system via author-requested deletion are rare, while good-faith "OK, I accept that I was wrong, so let's just get the thing deleted without spending further time on it" are more common. It would not help to make a change that would make things worse far more often than it would make things better. Attempting to make a more elaborate rule that tries to cover each possibility would be even worse: it would serve only to make the policy more complex and confusing (especially to inexperienced editors) than it already is, and in any case, it wouldn't work, because sooner or later someone would come up with another way to get round it, or another situation which we failed to anticipate. It is far better to keep things simple, and treat any exceptional cases individually, using common sense. It is worth mentioning that in this case the deletion has been reverted, the article has been taken back to AfD, and the disruptive editor has been indefinitely blocked, so even without the proposed policy change, the attempt to game the system has been thwarted. We can manage perfectly well without the change. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO jayron is right here. We don't want to ignore page blanking (which is a request, albeit sometimes hard to interpret) during an AfD. Remember that although we're all mostly familiar with the vagaries of deletion debates and how to participate in them at all, many new editors are not. For those editors an AfD is a stressful and unpleasant experience and if they're the only editor to the page and they want to delete it then we should let them. The AfD template says "don't blank this page" but nobody reads templates anyway and we shouldn't let that get in the way of doing the right thing. I think an easy solution would be to delete blanked pages (where G7 would normally apply) by closing the AfD and noting that in the deletion log. That allows us to end the debate and allows us to prevent recreation should the blanking have been done to avoid G4 (and again, read that sentence and tell me how many new editors will lawyer their way to that conclusion rather than experienced editors imagining it as a motivation because we know the policies). Protonk (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Without reading all the discussion here, and focusing my thoughts and response on the main proposal at the top: The third paragraph at the top of CSD contains the text "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." I think this answers the question asked in the proposal. If there is an existing AfD discussion, and there is any objection, then it is not obvious to delete. That being said, I think the speedy close should be the result of the deletion discussion itself. Which means the page will be closed as the result of an AfD and G4 still applies. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative solution

Here's a slightly different solution: If an article's author requests G7 for an article while it's at AfD, the AfD is to be closed immediately (pretend that its week is up and it's already been relisted twice). If the author !voted in the AfD for any option except delete, their !vote is to be discounted during the close. If consensus is to delete, then delete the article with the AfD as the reason. Otherwise, delete the article with G7 as the reason. This fixes the ability to "dodge" an AfD heading for delete without impacting a user's ability to request deletion in true good faith. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If an article is deleted when a discussion is in progress the discussion must always be listed in the deletion summary, while the G7 can be omitted. Also, if anyone voted anything but delete, including the page creator, do not delete under G7, period. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Personally, if I speedily delete an article (whether for G7 or any other reason) while it's at AfD, I normally include the speedy deletion criterion in my closure reason at AfD, and then delete the article referring to the AfD in the deletion log. Anyone who wants to know more than that it was deleted at AfD can then look at the AfD discussion and see both the speedy deletion criterion and the other reasons advanced in the discussion, whereas if the deletion log just gave the speedy deletion criterion, most people would never know there had been other reasons proposed. It is pretty well impossible for this to lead to any conflict, because if the AfD looks as though there is any reasonable likelihood of a "keep" decision, the article should not be speedily deleted: the AfD should be allowed to run its course. That includes G7 deletion, because if there is a consensus at a community discussion that the article is worth keeping, the opinion of the creator of the article does not over-ride that consensus: the creator of an article does not own it. (One exception is if it is found that the article is a blatant copyright infringement, which was not known by the editors of the AfD, but obviously that is irrelevant to G7 deletion requests.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For clarification

This proposal asked for one of two things: either disallow G7 once an AfD has commenced, or to clarify the instructions. The emerging consensus is strongly in favor to allow G7; the remaining question simply asks: "should we clarify the blanking instructions or not?". If consensus is for "yes", a talk page discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion can determine the exact prose. If consensus is "no", my part is done with everything remaining as it is.

I had added this. I've stricken it and apologize for any confusion it caused.—John Cline (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think my question must have made it harder to see the signature link! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

;Editors who endorse yes:

Editors who endorse no:

Notice of RfC on proposed deletion of copyright template Free--PublicOnFacebook

When users upload files, they have to tag their uploads with a template called a copyright tag. Please come comment on whether the free content copyright license tag {{Free--PublicOnFacebook}} is valid, per our policies, or if the tag and all the uploaded files that rely on it should be deleted. It's intended for use on local copies of free content from facebook. It's argued that a poster may not know that when content is posted using the "Public" setting of Facebook, it's thereby licensed as free content, because the legal Terms of Use of facebook say: "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." and "By "use" we mean use, run, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of." [1] so the license may not be valid. When facebook users grant a license to work they don't have the right to grant by misusing facebook in this way, it is they who are liable, not someone who relies on that license, whether that's me, facebook, wikipedia or any other reuser of what is (based on the facts available to the reusers) freely-licensed content. Should we delete the template because it can be misapplied in this way?

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/terms.php November 15, 2013 version, accessed Aug 2 2014.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28, for those who like participating in this kind of thing. User:Moonriddengirl? --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR and Comparison of Foo articles

Wikipedia contains many articles of the style Comparison of Foo, where Foo may refer to (eg) a class of software, or a method of engineering. Many of these articles are broadly unreferenced. Almost always the features list when comparing Foo Vendor A's product with Foo Vendor B's product are entirely unreferenced. By definition these are WP:OR. They have come from research performed by the editors maintaining the articles. Often even primary sources are not offered. WP:PRIMARY suggests that this might be a valid place for them to be deployed.

I recall putting one such up for AfD once, or offering an opinion in such an AfD. I can't recall what or when. It was stoutly defended with arguments such as "But it's encyclopaedic!" not exactly policy based.

So, my question is, how does Wikipedia not apply a policy requiring no original research to obviously useful but broadly unreferenced Comparison of Foo articles? Why are they deemed to be acceptable by consensus when the No OR rule is created by consensus? Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes the consensus is to follow our WP:Ignore all rules policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

MOS on match result formatting (MOS:SPORT?)

Hello.

Where do I find guidelines for how to properly format match results? I've read WP:MOSNUM, but didn't find anything there.

So, is it 1–0 or 1 – 0?

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: I'd say it is the former, not the latter, so "1–0". The en dash indicates a range, or opposition, between the items on either side of it. Normally en dashes are unspaced for this usage. The one exception is that when dealing with dates that have spaces, we space the en dash ("October 1–15", but "October 1 – December 31" or "January 1, 1901 – December 31, 2000"). Otherwise, a spaced en dash has the same meaning as an em dash, which is to indicate a break in a sentence in a stronger fashion than commas or parentheses—like this. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew about the general rule, but since sport wasn't mentioned specifically, I was unsure. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussions on italicization of quotations

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere.

I've opened an RfC at Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option that could affect the frequent problem of quotations being italicized simply because they're quotations. See also Template talk:Qq#Italicization disputed for some related, slightly earlier discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Reform for Wikipedia

There is an ongoing discussion over at User talk:Jimbo Wales#WP needs to evolve that involves a proposal to revamp policies already put into place.

Proposal 1

I will quote Ihardlythinkso here:

"For God's sake, the solution is obvious. (Jimbo, I plead you, for inspiration watch: Star Trek: The Motion Picture!) WP needs to evolve. Said evolution will solve all these bickering, "unsolvable" problems. (It means radical restructuring. What restructuring? I don't know, but there are 10 editors who do: The top 10 content contributors, elected by the WP community. [Put them to work. Want to "reform" Eric? {I don't believe he needs reformation, but let's assume.} Then put him with nine other top content contributors, to restructure how WP operates to maintain and grow articles. They will work it out, they can't do otherwise. They have too much devoted already, too much love of this project, to possibly do any harm. Now Jimbo, I know you like to retain "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" slogan. That's political/marketing/guidance that is good. Let's make it a condition that the panel of top 10 content writers, retain that basic premise. {Hello, they might decide that anyone can edit/create articles, save FA articles. But then the "anyone can edit" still holds essentially, doesn't it!?} The top 10 content writers know what the problems are -- all of them -- and they know what the solutions are. Let them work it out. Give them the responsibility. That is what this project is about {quality articles, maintenance & develeopment}. The consensus model is maintained by election of top 10 content contributors -- just like Arbcom is elected today.])

This is the solution. It is appropriate, and guarantees a bright future. There is no chance for failure with it. Just the courage to restructure, rather than suffer the countless problems exacerbated by the current structure. (E.g., suggestions that Eric is a great content contributor but "just cannot control himself" is bogus and absurd. The fact is, he's enormously capable and intelligent, and is simply responding to the current dysfunctional structure full of flaws and hypocrisies. Put him to work with other top writers to solve/evolve out of the current conundrums. Given time/discussion such a team will work it out. Elect 15 so there are 5 backups if RL considerations cause any of the elected 10 must drop out. Not all top content contributors will want to offer their services {they may just want to continue to devote themselves to writing}, but many probably will, since their investments to-date dictate instinctive perservation of all the good that has been wrought from the wonderful seed of idea to make a comprehensive encyclopedia free to the world. {I suggest too, to get Neil deGrasse Tyson as spokesperson-partner for the ongoing efforts of everyone. I'm sure he will agree to do, free-of-charge, happily! <Because he is a good man, with eye on the future.>}]) Sincere"

Proposal 2

From Wnt:

  • Set up a random jury system for deciding "verdicts" in "judicial" matters, rather than relying on the impartiality of arbitrators/admins. That way they can stick to interpreting the rules narrowly, and the impartiality of decisions is clearer, or at least randomer. (Further information)
  • Set up a work-based path to adminship, no votes and politics. You put in the effort and do (a), (b), (c), (d) without getting "convicted" of some sort of misconduct, you are qualified as a good enough editor all-around to do adminly tasks. Setting up some a la carte admin privileges ("unbundling") can be part of this.
  • Remove every invocation of "editorial discretion" from policy. Editorial discretion doesn't make sense in an environment anyone can edit - it's like a flag in a video game. As long as there are flags, people fight for them; as long as editors are encouraged to use broad latitude to exclude information based on discretion, rather than clear policy guidance, they will fight over whose POV commands the gray area. Policy should be simple and focus on the basics of verifying the facts and handling them neutrally.
  • Do not encourage templating. No one should have an expectation or duty to read and comprehend a message that a human being didn't take the time to write personally to him. Much of the incivil attitude on Wikipedia doesn't actually originate from human beings; it is people echoing and reechoing attitudes that ultimately began, one way or another, in a machine.

Seeing this would involve all of Wikipedia I figured I would bring this to the community's attention for some input on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso's suggestion seems contradictory - is he saying we should select people because they are the 'top ten content producers' (defined how?), or we should elect people, and define them as a 'top ten content producer'? Are they elected, or appointed because they meet some predefined criteria?
And as for randomly appointed 'juries', how are they to be selected? At random from everyone who has ever contributed to Wikipedia? And what happens if someone doesn't wish to serve on a 'jury'?
As for removing editorial discretion, that has to be about the most brainless suggestion I've ever seen proposed - we use discretion all the time, and it is actually impossible to write intelligible prose without doing so. If content is to be based on nothing but rules, we might as well remove the human element entirely, and get the bots to write the articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andy, no contradiction, by "top 10" I mean based on content contribution considerations -- quality, quantity, experience, collaboration. (People already have their favorites. E.g. many admire Eric due to his high level of all these: research, writing, editing, number of FAs/GAs, helping others & collaborating to take articles thru FAR/GAR.) Arbcom members are (presumably) elected on their qualities to fairly/wisely weigh/resolve intractable disputes according to policy. This would be different, election based on content considerations. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If you have an election, people will vote based on what they personally consider relevant, and not on predefined 'considerations'. That's how voting works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added a link to some detail I came up with about the jury system before. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andy, of course. (I never thought different.) But I don't know you you're meaning to imply something!? (Arbcom elections seem to work, with !votes cast on what they personally consideer relevant, too. Just in this case the elected would be given responsibility to restructure WP operations via 10-member team consensus.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not implying anything other than that you seem to be suggesting that people would vote for certain individuals based on specific criteria, and furthermore that if they did so, a certain named individual would be amongst those elected - and that his election would result in a specific outcome, which you see as desirable and therefore good grounds for having the election. To my mind, that is questionable logic. Personally, if there were to be an election held to select a team responsible for 'restructuring WP operations', I would expect candidates to state in advance what their proposed 'restructuring' would entail, and vote accordingly. Though why such an election would be required at all is open to debate, since we could vote on proposals directly. What exactly is the objection to this? And why do we need to elect individuals at all? It is entirely open to anyone (top-ten content contributor or otherwise) to make proposals regarding reform right now, for the community to decide upon. If there is support for 'restructuring', then the community itself should decide what form that 'restructuring' should take. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of unbundling, unbundle this. There is too much change here to sell as a package, so pick one piece that is most likely to sell, and sell it. I would buy the admin selection reform, but it would have to be done without grandfathering, meaning a lot of resistance from admins who wouldn't make admin under the new system. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Done I have made two subsections. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of restoring formatting to my quote above. These were in fact four separate ideas, not needing to be taken as a package. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay no problem ,and it looks like you are getting feedback here which is a good start =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how we can have a comprehensible discussion of four proposals in one subsection. It's hard enough with one. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If @Wnt: wants to split them up then feel free, I am curious on what the community feels about the ideas and would like to get this ball rolling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

when is it acceptable to remove 'external links' warning?

There is an 'external links' warning posted on the top of this article. It has been there since 2012, but the article has long since been cleaned up.

Is it acceptable to remove the warning now, or does a wiki bot or a certain person need to remove it?

Spinlock55 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Spinlock55: If you think a notice no longer applies, feel free to remove it. --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN Thanks for the feedback.Spinlock55 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR and Comparison of Foo articles

Wikipedia contains many articles of the style Comparison of Foo, where Foo may refer to (eg) a class of software, or a method of engineering. Many of these articles are broadly unreferenced. Almost always the features list when comparing Foo Vendor A's product with Foo Vendor B's product are entirely unreferenced. By definition these are WP:OR. They have come from research performed by the editors maintaining the articles. Often even primary sources are not offered. WP:PRIMARY suggests that this might be a valid place for them to be deployed.

I recall putting one such up for AfD once, or offering an opinion in such an AfD. I can't recall what or when. It was stoutly defended with arguments such as "But it's encyclopaedic!" not exactly policy based.

So, my question is, how does Wikipedia not apply a policy requiring no original research to obviously useful but broadly unreferenced Comparison of Foo articles? Why are they deemed to be acceptable by consensus when the No OR rule is created by consensus? Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes the consensus is to follow our WP:Ignore all rules policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm kind of late to the party, but a bot asked me to weigh in, and, basically, I have to strongly agree with Timtrent (Fiddle Faddle). Ignore all Rules is just recipe to add crap and do nonsense without any logical reason for doing so. It's the last refuge of people who know they shouldn't be doing something but emotionally want to anyway. Wikipedia should be better than that. There may be some comparison topics with solid reliable sources establishing notability. Otherwise they should be deleted outright, like any other article that fails to meet basic standards. DreamGuy (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think such articles should be strongly discouraged. They are usually very badly sourced, and full of original research and synthesis. They are also frequently thinly-veiled advertisements "Wowzerz! Product A can do foo, bar, and baz but Product B can't do any of those!" My opinion is that such articles need to be viewed very skeptically, and should only generally be allowed if there are substantial, neutral sources that explicitly compare those products. Reyk YO! 00:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know. Although useful, they probably should be discouraged somewhere if they are not verifiable and notable. Some of these topics are regularly covered in reliable sources, and articles that compare/contrast a range of competing products are fairly common in tech journalism. However, topics which receive no coverage probably should be nominated for deletion. If someone wanted to, they could probably write/rewrite some of these articles to paint an extreme POV, such as prominently highlighting multiple missing features in popular software products. This is definitely a problem, but I guess existing due weight concerns can alleviate it. That, of course, depends on the existence of coverage reliable sources, which is something that we have established may not exist for some of these articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Moves from Main to Draft: Namespace

I am perplexed by this. Take the following situation:

New user creates an obviously poor article in the main namespace, so poor that WP:AFC reviewers would have pushed it back for improvement instead of accepting it. It is an obvious failure, perhaps unreferenced WP:OR. Prior to the Draft: namespace existing it would be an obvious CSD candidate (if a relevant category existed) a PROD, or AFD.

A wise admin might well have userfied the material after/in place of deletion, but deleted the item form the main namespace

Now we have Draft: what are the rules?

  • May only admins move main namespace articles to Draft:
  • As a non admin, may I do it?
  • Under what circumstances may such a move take place? Must a discussion happen to empower the move? May it be done when it seems reasonable, or must we have a formal consensus each time?

When you examine this please look at it from the perspective of being a caretaker of Wikipedia's portfolio of articles, and then look at it as if you were that new user. Will your thoughts be different depending upon where you view it from?

What are the rules, here? Fiddle Faddle 09:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Has the bad article been deleted?
If not, then simply improve the article (it sounds like a total re-write is in order).
If so, then I think the best option would be to act as if the previous (now deleted) article never existed... start over from scratch and create a completely new article that happens to be about the same topic as the failed (now deleted) one. I would suggest starting with a "draft" in user space - Work on that "draft" (to the point where you think it would survive an AfD challenge.)... and when you think it is ready for prime time, it can simply be copied over into main space.
The only question is what title to give the new article... If you want to use the same title as the failed (now deleted) article, you may need to ask an admin to "free up" the old title for use by your completely new article. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Your advice is sage, but I think I am asking a different question from the one you are answering. "The" article is a theoretical article, so does not exist as a specific example. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
My advice would stand even for a theoretical article.... how you deal with the issue of a poor quality article depends on whether the poor quality article has actually been deleted or not. If so, then the solution to is to start over and write a new reasonably good article on the topic. If not, then the best solution to a poor quatlity article is simply to fix whatever is wrong with it.
If, on the other hand, a deletion is pending (ie the article has been nominated for deletion, but has not yet been deleted) then we have a choice... we can either 1) simply let it be deleted... 2) keep and try to fix it in place ... 3) userfy and let the article creator try to improve it... or 4) move it to draft space in the hope that multiple editors will be able to improve it. Which of these options is the most appropriate, however, depends on the specific article. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

narrow vision

search for background on a non profit organization ISIS only led to an article with funny links ... if your idea of ISIS is so important to you give it a bold link but dont leave out information which might mean something to others too ... this has definitely changed my view about WIKI in general ... thanks for this eye opener ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.71.203 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Which ISIS non-profit are you looking for? There are multiple non-profit organizations known by the acronym ISIS, you can see some of them at Isis (disambiguation), so I'm not sure which non-profit to direct you to. Can you give us more information about which one you are looking for? Do you remember what it's un-abbreviated name was? --Jayron32 00:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It is true that some degradative assumptions in the structure have created a mess here. We redirect ISIS and ISIL to one page, which necessarily has a more confusing hatnote, which redirects people to Isis (disambiguation), where upper and lower case are confounded. Also, "disambiguation" is not exactly basic vocabulary, and I admit some skepticism as to whether it even counts as an English word, making that navigation more difficult. Conceivably we could have some technical solution, like making ISIS not a redirect but a page that transcludes Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant after an ISIS-specific hatnote, going to an ISIS-specific disambiguation page that doesn't contain, or only transcludes at the end, the Isis disambiguation. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Google Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com think it's an English word. That usually has to suffice for me, as I don't have a copy of the OED. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Good research; still, the latter two trace its origin to around 1963, which puts it kind of on the same level as "grody" and "twerking". I bet some people look at that jargon and don't even have a thought to what it means. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"McCarthyism" dates to 1950, which puts it kind of on the same level as "cool it" and "back seat bingo". ‑‑Mandruss (t) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Most people looking for "ISIS" right now porobably do want the article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (it's been one of the top 25 loaded Wikipedia articles for a while now); anyone who wants something else can follow the link at the top of the page to the relevant disambiguation page, where what they are looking for can be found (if we have an article about it). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC regarding the issue of article bias

Please comment on this RFC regarding bias issues in the article on the Gamergate controversy. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Using RSSSF as a source

Hello everyone. I'm a regular editor at esWiki. Over there we're having a debate about the use of this site as a source for articles. I think I speak for many users over there when I say that your opinion on this matter would be helpful to resolve this dispute. I don't intend to bias your opinions so I will keep this message short.

The question would be: Taking into account it's editorial policy and process, can RSSSF be regarded as a reliable source?

If you need further information I'll be glad to answer.

I would appreciate any opinions. Thanks in advance. Facu89 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This question should be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --  Gadget850 talk 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I just did.--Facu89 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"is" a television series?

We have a practice of referring to past TV series in the present tense. For example, "Nowhere Man is an American television series that aired from 1995 to 1996 starring Bruce Greenwood..." (emphasis added).

  • WP:TVLEAD: "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows—even though no longer airing—still exist, including in the lead (e.g. Title is a...)."

Do we do this for serials in any other media after they have ended and are no longer being produced, despite their continuing to "exist"? In my cursory search, we do not. Many things technically still exist in one form or another, and it's both excessively pedantic and rather inexplicable to single out TV series for this sort of present-tense treatment.

Wikipedia has an important tradition of sticking to common phrasing as opposed to rabid technical accuracy, especially in article lead sections. Serials are generally referred to in the past tense when they are no longer being produced, including TV series, because when we say something "is" or "was" a serial, it colloquially communicates its production status, at least in the English language. Publications generally refer to them that way, and Wikipedia shouldn't reinvent this.

I can understand using present tense in other areas of an article on a TV series, for example saying that the series "features a character named Marianne". Aspects of past TV series are often described this way, and it could become confusing to require that all wording throughout an article be strictly past-tense. However, at least the lead sections of past TV series leading off with "...is a television series," or similar, is awkward, and its immediate effect until one reads further is to depict the show as currently airing in production. equazcion → 11:18, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)

It's a tricky area. In my country right now, M*A*S*H IS currently airing, for the 473rd time (roughly). Any TV series can be repeated, and it immediately becomes present tense again. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I amended that. The effect of this wording is to depict a show as currently being in production. equazcion → 11:31, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)
My point still stands. Because it is currently airing, discussion about M*A*S*H around here right now tends to be in the present tense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Books use present tense, as do film and video games. And the advice at WP:TENSE is that, as HiLo48 said, the work of fiction comes alive and is present tense when its read, viewed or experienced. We can only say "was" for a TV show if we are categorically certain that no copies of it exist anywhere - but even then, they have a habit of becoming "is" again. - X201 (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Serial productions like TV series gain a load more from the word "is" than one-shot media, as I described above. When you say something "is" a series, it communicates that it is in continued production. equazcion → 12:04, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)
The series isn't the import part, the fact its a creative work is the important aspect. Regardless of whether its a standalone show or part of a series, it exists as as a creative work and can always be experienced so its an "is" rather than a "was". THe series exists, just as a single episode of it exists, I can watch a single episode of a show or the whole box set, either way, it is present tense because I'm watching it. - X201 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Equazcion here. And I would use a similar distinction for books... as long as the book is still in publication, we should use "is"... but once it stops being published (and becomes an "out of print" book) we should shift to "was"... even though the book may still be in a library somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, just because a book isn't being actively printed anymore doesn't mean that it has ceased to exist. If the item is readable/watchable/playable somewhere then it still exists and thus "is". Sam Walton (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't extend this to books. The key in my view is that when you say something "is" a serial, you communicate that entries are still being produced. And, if we say "is" for TV series, there's the question of how to justify not treating magazines and other serial media that continues "existing" with the same language. equazcion → 13:11, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)
We already use "was" for magazines that are no longer published (see our article on Harper's Weekly as an example). Copies of these magazines exist in libraries and archives... so you could view them as "creative works", and use is... but we don't. As an article topic, these old magazines are seen as being historical in nature and we use "was". The question is... is there a TV equivalent of an old magazine that is no longer published? Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Pedantically speaking I think it would be most correct to say things like "Harper's Weekly is a magazine that was published from..." The magazine still exists as a work, it's just no longer in publication. But that could always change at some point, theoretically. DonIago (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the difference between magazines, newspapers, and scientific journals, and between TV series, comic series or the like, is that the former are generally published that they will have an indefinite run - so that when that run actually ends, the work is no longer ongoing, while a TV series is a show while might not start with a definitive end, is not expected to run indefinitely, and because it is a creative work, continues to remain current. I note that I would apply the "was" to a non creative show that no longer was in production, for the same line of reasons as magazines are treated that way. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I very much disagree... To me, it makes no sense to say "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour is an American comedy and variety show television series ..." The show has not aired since 1969. The opening sentence should place the show in a proper historical context (note that the rest of the article is written in the past tense... the opening sentence sticks out as being "odd" because it is written in the present tense). TV shows (like newspapers, and magazines, but unlike film productions, paintings and sculpture) are designed to be ephemeral in nature... they air, and then become historical. It is precisely because a TV show is not expected to run indefinitely that I think that they should be discussed historically once they no longer are in production. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

These are again primarily pedantic arguments. When a show has ended, it's generally referred to as something that "was" a series, everywhere but on Wikipedia. equazcion → 14:03, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)

  • I have always found the use of the present tense to be jarring. I get the logic behind why it is used, but any time I read an article about a TV show that no longer airs, that use of "is" causes a mini BSOD. Resolute 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is this: If any copies still exist, it IS a TV series. Let me ask this: The Avengers is a movie. Right? Or was it a movie? Did it become past tense the moment it was released? Because if not, then why should a TV show become past tense the moment it is broadcast? TV series are things that exist that were broadcast. The fact that it was broadcast in the past does not change that it is a TV series. If it has ceased to be a TV series then how could people watch the series? --Golbez (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The distinction is that film is considered a "permanent medium" while broadcast TV is not. To my mind, it depends on whether you are viewing a copy or the original. Think of it this way... The famous painting can be viewed in the original (by going to the museum where it is displayed), or through photographs (accurate reproductions). Now, let's say the original is destroyed in a fire. Even though there are still accurate copies (photographs) the original is lost, and it would be appropriate to phrase our article about the painting in the past tense: "X was a painting by Y artist". With a TV show, the original of the work is what aired while the show was in production. What you are seeing after that initial airing (re-runs, DVDs, etc) are accurate copies. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
"The distinction is that film is considered a "permanent medium" while broadcast TV is not." You need to explain this to me. And yes, I would absolutely say that, if the actual item was lost, it should be in past tense. But TV is fundamentally no different from other audio-visual media. Yes, the rules for paintings and TV are different, but why would the rules for TV and movies be different? For example, if we are talking about a movie that has been completely lost to time, or a TV episode like the lost Doctor Who episodes, would say "was". But movies and TV exist beyond their master copy. They are not a product of both the art and the medium like paintings are. We never give special meaning to the reel that a particular movie is on. --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Especially nowadays as modern television is developed with the long-tail of home video and digital media, TV works are produced for longevity. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
If a TV series stops showing, does it cease to be a TV series? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It becomes a former TV series. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how, for example, Lost can cease to be a TV series when I can quite plainly purchase and watch "Lost: The Complete Series". It has not ceased to be a TV series; it has simply ceased to have new episodes. Should we change Harry Potter to refer to the series of films or books in the past tense? If not, then what's the difference, apart from some cultural idea that TV is more ephemeral? --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
So maybe that is the answer, "I Love Lucy is a former TV series that aired . . ." 162.58.82.135 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it becomes a TV series that originally aired. (Can't say formerly because some network probably shows it). There's no reason to use past tense with these things, otherwise we would say "The Jaws series is a former movie series that was shown ...". --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I would expect the lead, read in full, will be clear that a TV series is still in production or not, so we don't need to clarified the "is", if we use the present tense. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It could be clear from the first sentence, if we said "was" instead. No one is going to take this as a statement that the show no longer exists or is unviewable. equazcion → 15:49, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)
The problem for other more tangible works is that the "is"/"was" distinction is that "was" reserved for things that no longer exist in any form, the deceased, demolished buildings, extinct animals, past events, etc. The fact these works still exist in some form (and increasingly more with digital storage), suggests we should be using "is", unless 1) the work was never published or 2) all copies of the work have been subsequently destroyed in any form. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I am so happy at this moment that I can finally understand one of the greatest lines of the 1990s, and to use it myself: It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. --Golbez (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I suspect Wikipedia:WikiProject Television has gone through this discussion (or is it was). --  Gadget850 talk 16:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC notice: Comma before Jr. or Sr.

There is an RfC proposing a clarification of the guideline about the use of comma before Jr. or Sr. in article titles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Physics equations

w:electrostatics
v:Vectors
b:vectors
w:Vector
w:Coulomb's law v:Coulomb's Law*
v:Vector calculus*
v:Coordinate systems*
wikt:Vector

  *-uses calculus

Does anybody know where I should post a suggestion for a new template?

I propose that interwiki links be collected together and put under one image as a sidebar. What goes into the links will be, of course, at the discretion of the editors of each article. The present system requires a separate icon for each sister (Wikiversity, Wiktionary, ect.). This wastes space and also precludes multiple links to parallel or multiple articles on any given wiki-sister. Shown to the right is a hastily written prototype that I currently use to link physics resources related to my project on Wikiversity.

The proposed template would encourage authors to write on wikis, and this would help Wikipedia evolve from the world's greatest encyclopedia to the world's greatest bookstore where everything is free, open-source, and editable.--guyvan52 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects for current policies and guidelines.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I copied and pasted this suggestion to its Talk page--guyvan52 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do we redirect the talk pages of indefinitely blocked and banned users to their user pages?

Is this actually policy or a common practice? KonveyorBelt 21:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen that done for just blocks (except in the case of some sockpuppet accounts), since that'd cut off a means of appealing the block. If someone is site banned or community banned, the person is not allowed to edit in any way, so there's no reason to leave a defunct account a message. It is policy, see Wikipedia:Banning_policy#User_pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
so there's no reason Good point; it always looks silly when an indef-blocked user (whether banned or not) has a talk page full of deletion-debate and speedy deletion notices. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a good way to keep inappropriate chit-chat away from the talk page. If a user cannot edit their own talk page it is almost never a good idea to allow a debate to take place there, same goes if the user is not around. It also makes sure anyone trying to contact them knows what is up. Chillum 15:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Throw-away account??

How does a "throw-away account" on the WP work, is that really allowed? In a discussion at Talk:Kim Jong-un#New potential Kim Jong-Un sketches, user F0064r states this: "Note: I'm using a throw-away so I don't link my Reddit account with my Wikipedia account which uses my real name." Can you really just make a WP account for a specific "quest" and then leave and go back to your regular account? The user may of course be referring to a throw-away account on Reddit, the Note is a bit fuzzy. Just curious, w.carter-Talk 10:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy section is WP:SOCK#LEGIT. One example of the legitimate uses of an alternate account is long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, there's also a point about "privacy" which may be more relevant. Generally it's one user : one account but without looking into this too closely it seems a valid use of alternate account and is covered by existing policy. benmoore 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ben Moore:Ok! Thanks, w.carter-Talk 12:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It's better to think about these things in the other direction: So long as a secondary account is not being used for any shenanigans, it's generally always OK. It's only where a user creates a new account to do something overtly against the rules, or deliberately disruptive to Wikipedia's processes, that we disallow it. Some examples of bad uses of account would include creating dummy accounts to give a false sense of support in a consensus-building discussion, creating a new account to dodge a block or a ban, creating a "bad hand" account to vandalize or to harass other users while keeping one's main account "clean", etc. As long as the person isn't trying to do any of those things (or any other bad-faith actions not listed) we generally allow people to maintain multiple accounts... --Jayron32 13:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A chronic problem in reaching consensus

I am asking this here (rather than at WP:Consensus) because I am not proposing any changes to the policy... instead I would like to have a more generalized discussion of a problem, and ideas on how to resolve it.

I have seen the following situation time and time again... an editor notes that there is a flaw in the current language of some policy or guideline... lots of editors agree that the flaw exists... but no agreement can be reached on how to actually fix the flaw. Suggestion after suggestion is proposed, and each is picked apart. The discussion soon gets bogged down - side tracked in arguments about the details of the various proposals and why they will or will not work, and everyone loses track of the original goal (fixing the problem in the current language). With the result that the problem never actually gets fixed.

When this occurs, a log jam occurs. Has anyone come up with a good strategy for breaking such log jams? Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

First, is this with articles, or policies and guidelines? Second, has a Request for Comments been attempted? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It's more common with policy/guideline discussions... but I have seen it happen with articles. And yes, I have seen it happen with RFC's. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
it is in fact normal for most significant changes on policy. There have been various attempts to divide an RfC into two parts: 1/ should we change this, and 2/ what should we change this to., but the decision to change does often depend on whether there is a good alternative. It can help to have a more directed way 1/Should we make this policy more restrictive, and 2/ how much more restrictive, but usually when a policy change is desired there are a significant number of people who wish to change it in any possible direction. In the RW, too, a great deal of the nuances of parliamentary procedure comes in manipulation of the process of successive amendments.
As a result, most positive changes in our practices come by a process of gradual reinterpretation, and we are stuck with a great mass of outdated policy and procedures that almost nobody likes, because there is no effective way to get rid of them. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I find that often a lack of persistence in forcing a talk page to a conclusion is the problem. A question is aired, several people comment, solutions are proposed and tossed around, then nothing happens. This is sometimes because of a genuine deadlock, but often because no one is quite interested enough to push things to a conclusion, or indeed to execute one, if that is not simple. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, in general, for your scenario, is everyone agreeing that the same flaw exists, or are multiple people seeing different flaws? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:01, 9 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 18 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 01:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Remedy six of the infoboxes arbitration case

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox for an initiative regarding this recommended remedy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose holding any such centralized discussion in a venue inside the "WikiProject Quality Article Improvement", which is essentially just a private echo-chamber club of a small handful of pro-infobox activists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
True, I'd have it in a more central venue, but for the preparation of any such developments I'd have it on a separate page, with lots of notifications that the preparations have started (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Invitations posted).
Once something has been prepared that could be presented in RfC format, and/or on this page, or wherever deemed necessary for sufficient wider community involvement the decision has to be made where and how this shall be presented: currently I'm only petitioning involvement in the preparations to that. And have moved out (userfied) content that in my view was blocking the developments suggested by ArbCom in remedy six of the infoboxes case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with having such a discussion at any discussion venue on Wikipedia, provided that the discussion ois relevant for the chosen venue, and the public is informed at the proper places and is welcome to participate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Policy on removing expert tags

Is it against WP policy or consensus to request a bot task to remove expert tags (Template:Expert-subject) without reason or talk parameters (in this category list)? (I first asked on Special:Diff/633100974#Expert policy on the Help desk.) Iceblock (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) (Added section link Iceblock (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC))

Against policy? No. But you'll be asked to show that there's consensus for a bot to do this. Anomie⚔ 02:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I definitely would be opposed to a bot removing the tags... bots can not make judgement calls, and this is the sort of tag that requires judgement to add or remove. Looking at some of the articles in the cat, there are quite a few cases where it is fairly obvious why the article was tagged (and thus no need to state a reason why the tag was added). Unfortunately, "obvious" is not something that a bot can pick up on. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wykop.pl

For administrators: Could anyone block edition of site Wykop.pl for non-registered users editing from their IPs? Section "Controversies" about films about John Paul II should be deleted in this site. These films weren't made by Wykop, but by karachan.org, mutation of 4chan. Some users of Wykop with its chairman, Michal Bialek, checked authors of these films and committed it to prosecutors, so they started to sign the films with Wykop.pl logo. Link about it in Polish [5] Links used in this section are not reliable - one [6] links for a blog, other - to "films" [7]. Looking in history of IPs, they often troll in their editions and reasons of editions often contain Polish vulgar words. --CzakNoris (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you wanted Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. But I'm not going to semiprotect the article, as it has had only two edits in November.
As for the disputed content, unfortunately I don't read Polish and I'm certainly not going to depend on Google Translate or similar. Perhaps the article needs the attention of a greater number of level-headed people who can read Polish. You could invite such editors via for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD as essay

NAC: There was no consensus for elevating WP:BRD to the status of a guideline or policy, partly because it doesn't work well in contentious situations (as if anything works well in contentious situations). It will be left as an essay, although one with strong support. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2014 (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.

As far as I can tell, there is pretty wide agreement that WP:BRD is a good thing, that things work a lot smoother when it's followed by all parties. Why, then, is it defined as only essay? When someone deviates from BRD in a contentious situation, and someone else calls him on it citing BRD, and he says, "Well, that's only an essay", what are the appropriate response and reaction to that? Do we have to go to talk just to establish consensus that BRD is to be followed? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is supposed to limit edit warring, but still encourage editors to be bold. As when you're bold, and it turns out to be good thing when it's discussed, it stays in the article. But if you're bold, reverted, and then you discuss it (WP:BRD), the real reason it was excluded begins to come to light and you attempt to convince the other editors that it would be beneficial to add to the article. Why it's not a policy or a guideline is because it has not passed a formal RfC to make it such. I'm not exactly sure of the process of adding a new rule or guideline, but I'm iffy on including it as a guideline or a policy. Just because of unforeseen circumstances and consequences which my mind seems to be missing atm. Tutelary (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BRD doesn't work very well for contentious content, while there is some ambiguity whether or not to discuss before reverting. If each contending party only comments on the talk page after reverting, well, what you get is a thinly veiled edit war (and WP:BRD has been used in defence of such practices). I'd deprecate WP:BRD rather than uplifting it to guideline. Also, there is a viable alternative, the flow chart pictured & explained in WP:CONSENSUS#Reaching consensus through editing. WP:BRD could be made a shortcut to that policy section.
Otherwise said, the current WP:BRD will not become more than a somewhat dubious essay, as long as its position w.r.t. consensus-seeking (or: its positive effect in the frame of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) remains unclear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, please read WP:PGE, and remember that BRD itself tells people that they shouldn't use BRD all the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, WP:PGE is a good example of an environment that, in its desire to be flexible, seems designed to encourage counterproductive and self-defeating conflict. Aside from perhaps MOS matters, there isn't clear guidance on much of anything, the rules themselves are largely matters of opinion and interpretation. But I suspect I'm not the first person to have figured that out, so I'll leave it there. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's why I believe BRD should become part of the edit warring policy.

  1. It helps to stop edit warring.
  2. It encourages discussion of controversial edits.
  3. It leads to establishing consensus.
  4. It establishes collaboration by stopping contentious solo editing.
  5. It's nearly always the only known method for figuring out exactly who started an edit war, and the exact diff for when it happened. (The edit which starts an edit war is well before 3RR.)

While it's good to write "follow BRD" in an edit summary, because BRD doesn't have the weight of policy it's often better to also write "don't edit war", because that is the consequence of the first violation of BRD.

It's spelled BRD, without exception, and it's that second B in a BRB sequence which is the first shot fired in an edit war, and that second B should not have happened. I have seen many admins wisely use this sequence of events to pinpoint the most guilty party in an edit war. They don't even have to cite BRD, but can with certainty say "You started an edit war here (diff), and you failed to edit collaboratively. That's very disruptive." Determining "who started it" does matter.

Sure, there are exceptional situations where BRD isn't perfect (the same applies to all our PAG), but it usually works as intended, and that's important enough to give it policy status. That's why I'd like to see it become part of the edit warring policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And here's a list of reasons why we shouldn't:
  1. It discourages improvements to pages by favoring the status quo ante. The reverter's dislike of your changes is privileged over the good-faith contributions of the bold content creator. Change is bad.
  2. It encourages WP:OWNership by giving the reverter an unfair advantage: you can make a bold edit (or even a timid one), but if I revert it, then all subsequent edits by you (even if unrelated) will be thrown in your face as proof that you're "not following BRD". This is very handy if I want to make sure that nobody else gets to edit "my" article.
  3. It does not require the reverter to do anything except revert. As a bold editor, you can show up on the talk page, but there's nothing requiring the reverter to participate in discussions, to explain why I reverted you, or to be reasonable or collegial.
  4. It encourages needless discussions on talk pages instead of collaborative editing and efficient use of edit summaries. Example: Someone added a line, an editor made a good partial reversion, I reverted it for reasons that seemed good to me at the time, and my edit was re-reverted by someone who knew better than I. By my count, that's BRRR, with zero talk-page discussion, and definitely a good, efficient outcome.
  5. It leads to reverters claiming that bold editors are not allowed to make any other changes unless and until you can document "consensus" (defined as their personal agreement) on the talk page. This is very handy if I'm a POV pusher who thinks that the status quo ante is The Right Version™.
  6. It prevents collaboration by encouraging the second editor to revert instead of to offer their own bold adaptation of your edit.
  7. It's never necessary for figuring out who started an edit war, and often not useful. Look at the example above: I count it as BRRR, but you could also legitimately count that as BBRR, especially if you noticed the dates on those first two edits, which are more than two years apart.
  8. It assumes that there are only two editors. In fact, BRD explicitly encourages bold editors to focus on the objections of a single person instead of trying to please an entire group. My example shows four.
  9. Reverters don't read BRD. WP:Nobody reads the directions in general, but reverters, taken as a group, really don't seem to understand BRD. BRD is advice written for experienced editors who are trying to find a path forward when things are stuck. The steps are: make a bold edit, wait until someone objects, and then find out why that specific person objects before trying to edit again. Some reverters hear about BRD, never quite bother to read the page, and somehow conclude that BRD requires them to revert bold changes that haven't been discussed (even when they agree with the changes!).
I could go on, but I doubt that it's necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Fine, if BRD is a bad thing, then an enormous part of the real-world community hasn't gotten the memo. If there is community consensus against BRD, then a big note needs to be added to the top of WP:BRD: This essay is contrary to community consensus. Please see X instead. Yes, you would think its mere-essay status would be enough, but it's clearly not. If community consensus does not exist, I can't think of anything more important than seeking one, as difficult as that may be. You can't allow alternate sets of laws to exist and expect a community to survive very long, let alone thrive. We must agree on the ground rules. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We do agree on the ground rules. The ground rules are in the policies WP:Editing policy and WP:Edit warring. BRD is merely one of many, often equally valuable, ways of complying with the actual policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to concur with Francis Schonken and WhatamIdoing on this. BRD is overrated, because it's too easily gameable to sugar-coat an editwar. It's been my experience that a large number of combative, PoV-pushing, WP:OWNish editors refuse to abide by it, when they're they one trying to make a controversial change, until essentially forced to by 4 or more editors shouting them down, while the same editwarrior will insist on BRD, and revertwar incessantly against changes they don't like, always declaring that not enough D has happened to satisfy them. BRD is too often a tool of, not against, strife.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My point is that BRD is both widely used and widely contested, resulting in a ton of counterproductive conflict. WhatamIdoing asserts that we agree on the ground rules, but it's obvious enough that we as a community do not. You can say all day that those who misapply BRD are simply wrong, but that does very little to address the conflict. There must be clear community consensus on this, and that consensus must be made clear to all editors. The amount of conflict is all the evidence I need that the ground rules are insufficiently clear and inadequately communicated. I think a majority of editors will attempt to follow the ground rules as they understand them. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It can't be policy; policy is something that should always apply. Even a guideline is probably too strong. Quite simply, BRD is very good advice, but there's far too many exceptions for it to be given enforceability. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Mandruss, I'm not quite sure what problem you're thinking of. I tell you that we have two widely supported policies that lay out the ground rules for editing. You say that we don't agree on the ground rules. Exactly which rules (or non-rules) are we disagreeing about? Do you think some editors disagree with the WP:Editing policy? Do you think some editors mistakenly believe that WP:BRD is a policy? Which ground rules are unclear and/or uncommunicated? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The first sentence at [WP:Edit warring#What edit warring is] states, "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That sentence needs to be fixed. The "D" in BRD is not silent. Bold-Revert is not the same thing as Bold-Revert-Discuss. (Also, it might not be BRD at all; it might instead be Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert-Revert-Block, or Bold-Revert-Give up, or Bold-Revert-Timid, or several other patterns.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • For the most part, WP:BRD is being misused by the edit warriors themselves - basically, tell the other person to WP:BRD while I revert this ten more times. It also contradicts some of our other policies, by favouring the status quo instead of favouring verifiable and reliably sourced information presented in a neutral manner. One could re-insert factually wrong info and cite WP:BRD. I'm also seeing that those who hide behind WP:BRD often never start the discussion as they have no intention to discuss anything, beyond jumping onto a page and claiming to WP:OWN it. Sometimes, I´m even seeing WP:BRR in a format where someone boldly adds info, the next editor reverts it and then (as the second 'r') removes a huge chunk of the existing article, either because they don't like the article's topic or they have an axe to grind. We already have policies on consensus. They accomplish nothing as every edit warrior assumes their version is "consensus" and the other editor's version is "vandalism", COI, "sockpuppetry", "disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT" and whatever else comes to mind. Add another policy to the mix and it becomes just another stick with which to browbeat editors during edit wars, while doing nothing to improve collaboration. It's a road paved with good intentions, but I fail to see what problem will actually be solved by making this a policy or guideline. K7L (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't worry, there's very little danger of that happening. I just look at rampant counterproductive conflict and instinctively want to eliminate it. Clearly, placing all the blame on the people involved—saying, "Well, there wouldn't be a problem if only x would stop doing y"—is not working and is never going to work; years of experience tell us that. My conclusion is that something needs to change in policy, in the system. There's nothing more important than that, but I see nothing being done aside from endless circular discussions that go nowhere. Like this one, for example. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support elevating WP:BRD to a higher level of authority. The fact is that it is already de facto policy, because a bold move made in good faith by one editor and reverted in good faith by another should never be reinstated without some discussion to iron out the dispute. If one editor makes a bold edit, another reverts, and the issue is then abandoned, this at least suggests that the editor abandoning the issue is either not paying attention to the consequences of their bold edits, or is not willing or able to defend the propriety of the bold edit. bd2412 T 23:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If you really believe that "never", then I will conclude that you have not looked at the diffs I gave as an example in #4. (Also: I don't suppose that you've ever seen any good-faith BLP violations? "Never" means that you can't boldly correct a BLP violation, get it reverted by a POV pusher or a careless editor, and then re-remove the BLP violation, unless you have the time and ability to start a discussion. I suggest that you consider a word other than "never".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Guidelines can be deviated from with good cause. Even policies can be deviated from with good cause. You could even explicitly state in BLP that it trumps BRD. There may be good arguments against guideline status for BRD, but the need for flexibility is not one of them. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Promote the page. It deserves it. Brangifer has explained very well. --Tito☸Dutta 16:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it as an essay. I agree with WhatamIdoing. It is an essay and never useable as a policy. Compare WP:DRNC and its recent enlargement for some of the issues. BRD is a sort of bad policy, as it leads to disruptive editing behavior instead of using appropriate gradual steps. Serten (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose elevating this essay to the level of policy. If there are policy changes that need to be made they should be made at actual policy pages. Per Francis Schonken, I would support making BRD a redirect to WP:CONSENSUS, and any pertinent bits from this essay might be added there, assuming there is consensus to do so. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC/U

There is a Request for Arbitration currently open in which one of the issues is the closing of a Request for Comments on User Conduct that had not been properly certified within 48 hours. The question is being discussed at RFAR as to whether RFC/U is a broken process, but RFAR isn't really the proper forum for discussing whether RFC/U is a broken process. I think that RFC/U is a broken process, and has probably been broken for a very long time. I don't know the origin of RFC/U, but it may have originally been used to advise User:Jimbo Wales as to whether to use his reserved power to ban a user. In 2005 through 2007, when the banning of users was done by the ArbCom (rather than the noticeboards), sometimes the ArbCom looked at an RFC/U in deciding whether to ban a user, and sometimes they didn't. RFC/U is no longer a preliminary step to a community ban of a user at the noticeboards. The RFC/U asks what change is expected, and the certifiers are normally supposed to say that they want the editor to be more flexible or more collaborative; but the RFC/U process, which is adversarial, is not by its nature likely to succeed in making the user more collaborative. Does anyone else agree that RFC/U is not a useful process? Should it be retired from use, or is there a way to "fix" or reform it? RFC/U certainly bears little or no relationship to article content Request for Comments, which is an extremely useful process as a way of obtaining consensus. If RFC/U isn't broken, maybe it should be renamed so that it doesn't resemble a useful consensus process. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Though I doubt it will happen, I would like to see ArbCom once again handle all bans, as the idea that just one admin may indeff someone without requiring discussion with anybody else is damaging to the project, and it reinforces the inequality between admins and non-admins. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Right, because when someone shows up and starts pasting "fuck fuck fuck fuck" rapid fire into 20 articles, admins shouldn't have the authority to act on that without seeking community discussion... --Jayron32 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Did you really think I was talking about obvious vandals? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
No one here is a mind reader. You said admins "indeff<ing> someone without requiring discussion...is damaging to the project" If you didn't mean that, you shouldn't say that. If you meant something else, you should have said something else. --Jayron32 02:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocks ≠ bans. KonveyorBelt 17:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As User:Konveyor Belt says, there is a distinction between blocks and bans. User:Rationalobserver: Are you asking that WP:ANI should no longer be able to impose community bans? Bans are imposed either by the ArbCom or by the "community" at the noticeboards. A block, including an indefinite block, can be lifted by any uninvolved administrator. (An indefinite block that no other administrator is willing to lift is considered a de facto ban.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The above comments are not really about RFC/U but about blocking and banning. RFC/U was formerly a preliminary step to banning. I don't think it serves a useful purpose any more, but is just a way for combative editors to engage in combat. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
My comments relate because if admins issued blocks and ArbCom issued bans there would be no need for RfC/Us, which as you say are next to useless and not much more than a venue whereby editors can argue procedure over substance. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Administrators do issue blocks. ArbCom and the noticeboards issue bans. Are you saying that you want community bans from the noticeboards ended, and the banning power limited only to ArbCom? I still don't see a connection between RFC/U and how bans are issued. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But an indef block is a de facto ban, and admins may currently indef users without any discussion with others. I think admins should only be able to issue blocks of up to 30 days, and anything longer should require an ArbCom ban process, which would essentially supplant the current RfC/U. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
No. An indefinite block is not a de facto ban. An indefinite block that no other admin will reverse is a de facto ban. Sometimes another admin will reverse the block. If you are saying that trolls and vandals should only remain blocked for 30 days and should then be sent to ArbCom, I disagree. It would create too much work for an ArbCom that is already too slow. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I will don't see what the blocking and banning process has to do with RFC/U. Blocking by one admin, indef blocking by one admin, community bans at the noticeboards, and ArbCom bans very seldom rely on RFC/U. If you see a connection between RFC/U and the blocking and banning process, please explain what it is. I don't see the connection. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You said that ArbCom used to use RfC/U during ban discussions, but since admins don't need it for blocking, ArbCom should do the banning without the need for an RfC/U, as it's a redundant step in a process. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see the connection. The original purpose of the RFC/U was as part of a request to User:Jimbo Wales to ban a user. When Jimbo Wales created the ArbCom to handle bans, the RFC/U became optional. As you said, it is a redundant step in the process. I don't see what any changes to the blocking policy have to do with RFC/U. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It has to do with RfC/U because ArbCom will sometimes reject cases on the basis that an RfC/U hasn't been completed (see Dangerous Panda). If RfC/U is really optional, it ought not function as a required step to bringing someone to ArbCom. If we eliminate RfC/U, ArbCom won't be able to reject cases based on a lack of an RfC/U. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The ArbCom revoked the admin privileges of two admins early this year, without an RFC/U. The Dangerous Panda case isn't being declined because there isn't an RFC/U. If it is declined, it will be declined for other reasons. I agree that RFC/U should be eliminated as a step toward arbitration. I still don't see what any changes to the blocking or banning policy have to do with RFC/U. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom dismissed the previous case against Dangerous Panda on the basis that an RfC/U had not yet been undertaken. Blocking and banning are related to RfC/U in that all are aspects of the same behavior management system. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Other Opinions

Does anyone else have an opinion about RFC/U? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It doesn't work because it is both onerous to actually run one, and toothless in solving problems. That is, the requirements necessary to start, and the hoops to jump through, to file, certify, run, and close one scares people away, and at the end of all that, it doesn't actually stop genuine pains in the ass from continuing to be pains in the ass. We should have a formal process whereby the community has the authority to tell admins "this person needs to stop or GTFO", but RFCU doesn't work for that purpose because of the reasons I just outlined. It has largely been supplanted by discussions at AN or ANI, many of which go something like "If you want to do something, start an RFCU", which no one does because it doesn't solve the problem, and we end up with endless ANI cycles. --Jayron32 03:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
That is consistent with what I had said. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I started a RFC/U earlier this year: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles. The editor did not participate but their disruption was cut way down. Now when they pop up, I just point to the RFC/U and they go away again. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I had on several occasions users with an obvious pattern of misconduct. If they edit for a long time, I used to take them to ANI. ANI generally proves to be inefficient. One was an obvious sock but the sockmaster edited so long ago that it could nbot be technically confirmed. It cost me a lot of efforts to get the sock blocked, and only because some users happened to know the sockmaster very well and saw the ANI. Another one was causing disruption by removing parts of the text he did not like as unsourced (sometimes the whole articles). I had to take him to ANI four times, and he was finally blocked after he started to require sources to figure captions and to the official documents. The third one, who is generally incivil, I gave up. I was told that the only means to deal with him is RFC/U (for which I have no time for now, and he seems to have retired from the topics we could cross). I know that RFC/U is very time-consuming and very inefficient - but if we retire it, what should we do with such editors? ANI and AN usually refuse to handle them. Arbcom will not be able to digest it if all these editors are sent there, and it is time-consuming as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Obstructive article names

I do not understand why English Wikipedia has articles with names like Þorfinnr "Karlsefni" Þórðarson. Could someone please explain how that coincides with our Manual of Style here and sensible guidlines such as thisand this and this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If these forms are frequently used in English sources, then it actually makes sense - we use redirects tomake it easier to find the pages without using special characters (in this case, for example, we have THorfinnr "Karlsefni" THordarson and Thorfinnr "Karlsefni" Thordarson. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Why would incomprehensible non-English lettering be frequently used in English sources? What sources? Seems to contradict WP:Common sense. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
English sources frequently use non-English lettering because they are being consistent with the sources that they have copied from, and, for those who are familiar with the original script, they are more precise. In the case of the Viking mentioned above, different scholars may use different rules for transliterating runes into the Latin alphabet, but a particular runic spelling is unambiguous. In any case, the runic spelling should be used either as the primary title or as a redirect, so that someone who knows the runes can find the Viking without having to worry about transliteration. This also applies to Cyrillic and Arabic names and to Asian scripts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
By the way, is "TH" used as well as "Th" to represent a capital Thorn? I have never seen that representation of a capital Theta. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
In looking further at the article, I agree that it is an incorrect title. The title should be in "English", that is, in the Latin alphabet. Any runic form of his name should be a redirect. I suggest that you discuss what the primary title should be on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've taken the issue to the article talk page to ask whether the primary title can be the "English", that is, Latin alphabet, title, rather than the runic version of the name. (The runic spelling of his name was, for a little while, the correct "American" spelling, since he explored parts of what is now the Eastern United States.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Like all issues regarding diacritics and other non-English Latin letters, this has been discussed to death before, so at least let's avoid some of the most glaring red herrings here: of course this is not a "runic form", and of course it already is in the "Latin alphabet" (though not in the English alphabet). The most recent debate about this particular issue can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#RfC: Use of characters from the Icelandic alphabet; it was closed as "no consensus" in July 2014. In theory, the status of Icelandic "þ" is no different from that of German "ß", which we routinely do tolerate in our articles titles (see Category:Streets in Germany, which pretty consistently has forms in "-straße".) The problem is that for Latin-script names from non-English languages, we normally take over the original orthography from that language (in the absence of a firmly established conventional anglicisation), and this routinely includes diacritics and extra letters that don't occur in English; but unfortunately there's a large cline between things that are relatively common and relatively well-known to English speakers (such as "é" or "ç" in French, "ñ" in Spanish or "ä" in German), to things that may be a lot less familiar (such as Icelandic "þ"), to languages where the sheer number of unfamiliar forms can make a native spelling look positively bizarre to English speakers (such as Vietnamese). We have never been able to form a consensus about a commonly acceptable, rationally justified cut-off point along this cline, between what we tolerate and what we avoid, or indeed about whether there should be such a cut-off point in the first place, with both the exreme positions (reduce all non-English spellings to the native English letter repertoire, or leave all non-English spellings faithful to the original) being upheld by some editors. This is a perennial area of strife, and no single rational solution in sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. makes the salient point here that bears repeating: We frequently recognize and use diacritics or additional letters in names all the time; the implication that the English language never uses anything except the unadorned 26 letters we all learned in kindergarten and nothing else is demonstrably false. We can find examples all over the place, including Pierre Garçon who uses the cedilla on his own uniform [8]. We have Coös County, New Hampshire which uses a diaresis in its official website. Yes, sometimes historical convention favors an alternate English spelling for foreign words (for example Cologne for Köln) but in the absence of established convention, we should default to the predominant spelling, using whatever letters are used most commonly. For people with very few English sources, this means we will sometimes need to use letters that aren't in the English-26, but so be it. The problem is not that sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't, the problem is that we demand that we MUST follow one convention or another all the time. That's the harmful position, to unbudgingly demand that we must ALWAYS use ONLY the native spelling or must ALWAYS use ONLY the standard 26 English letters. Sometimes we need to use the native spelling, and sometimes we need to change it to English letters. Lest we become foolish hobgoblins with little minds, we should embrace the inconsistency, not fight against it... --Jayron32 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well said, Jayron. When it comes to diacritics (and other "non-standard" symbols), the solution is quite simple... do what the majority of reliable English language sources that discuss the subject in some depth to (Per WP:COMMONNAME). Yes, that will mean that some names will be presented with a diacritic and other (similar) names won't. That's OK. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is at the wrong title. You only need to know three facts to figure this out:
  • Thorn (letter) says "The letter originated from the rune ᚦ in the Elder Fuþark and was called thorn in the Anglo-Saxon and thorn or thurs (a category of beings in Germanic Paganism) in the Scandinavian rune poems."
  • The runic alphabet is not the Latin alphabet. (There are some languages that use both, but these are independent sources of letters, with nothing in either original alphabet deriving originally from the other.)
  • The article titles policy says "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated" (emphasis in the original).
"Latin alphabet" easily encompasses all diacritics and several letters unfamiliar to English speakers (including ß, which is just a ligature of long s and z), but it does not encompass Thorn, or any other letter whose direct origin is the runic alphabet (or Greek, or many other systems), even if those Runic (or Greek, etc.) letters are being added to an otherwise Latin-based alphabet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Icelandic orthography and List of Latin-script letters disagrees with you on that one. Whether it is the dutch IJ, the Icelandic thorn, the French cedilla, or the German eszett makes no difference. There are other languages that use additional letters beyond the 26 you learned in Kindergarten, and those letters do get used in English language sources. Insofar as they are used in English Language sources, we should use them in Wikipedia article titles as well. If they aren't used in English language sources then that's fine, and we don't have to use them here either, but to imply that we ignore characters used by English language sources if those characters also exist in other alphabets doesn't make any sense. Why does eszett get treated differently than thorn, merely because thorn just happens to exist in both runic and latin alphabets? --Jayron32 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Jayron, none of the claims about Thorn's alleged status as a Latin alphabet are sourced in those two pages. I find sources that say things like this:
  • However, four sounds in Old English did not occur in Latin as written in the seventh century, so new letters had to be found to convey them: ...[th sounds] were both written using the single Runic letter P, or 'thorn'.[9]
  • two runic letters borrowed from the futhorc: 1) thorn[10]
  • Sounds in Old English for which the Roman alphabet had no letters were represented by letters drawn from various sources: the letter þ (capital Þ), known as 'thorn', was borrowed from the runic alphabet to denote the dental fricative phoneme /y/ (both the voiced and voiceless allophones)[11]
which suggest that those pages are at least incompletely describing the subject. What I don't find (perhaps you will have better luck?) is any source saying that if you take a letter out of another, established alphabet (whether that alphabet be Greek, runic, Japanese, or anything else) and stick it into an otherwise Latin alphabet (with no significant modification), that said letter suddenly quits being what it has always been, and starts being Latin instead. It appears, instead, that it's possible for Icelandic to be a Latin alphabet overall without this particular letter being Latin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The argument that any letter can't be considered part of the "Latin alphabet" if it was borrowed from some other script is rather nonsensical anyway – by this criterion even "Y" and "Z" would have to count as "non-Latin" (because they too were (re-)borrowed into the Latin alphabet long after its formation). What matters is not provenance, but function: anything that functions as a letter in a Latin-script orthography is, by definition, a letter of the Latin script, just as any word that is regularly used in English is, by definition, an English word, no matter where it historically comes from. Of course, that's not to say that we'd be obliged to adopt all of them here; as I said above, I'm quite opposed to dogmatism on either side here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A question rdging political designations in blp infoboxes (or, "Is Orson Scott Card a genuine Democrat?"...)

This query turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where's the right place to unlock this, so I'm posting it here.

My question is: Why every edit containing onion link is refused by MediaWiki? Since such giants like Facebook#Privacy offer their services via Tor. I was unable to insert their official URL – https ://facebookcorewwwi.onion

There's no logical reason to block top-level domains! --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 15:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The .onion psuedo top-level domain has been frequently used by black market sites like Silk Road to conceal their activities, and most sites that exist only in the .onion domain are not suitable for links from Wikipedia. In addition, there is also a general policy discouraging links that require browser add-ons / special software in order to work properly, as .onion links do. Given this, .onion links were added to the spam blacklist. Proposals to remove items from that list are generally handled at Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist. If there is good argument to exempt a specific link (e.g. Facebook's), one can alternatively propose exemptions to the blacklist at Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Dragons flight (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dragons flight: They refused all requests for official service URL's of Facebook, WikiLeaks and DuckDuckGo. I don't understand why. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a good reason in the comment you are replying to—why provide a link that would confuse almost all readers? Why would adding a couple more links help the encyclopedia? If Facebook thinks the links are important they will feature them on the standard web page that we link to. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rezonansowy: If you can get consensus on the talk page for it, for each of them, I'm sure it would be accepted. Cenarium (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Require users to sign in

A suggestion made for all the right reasons, but there are good reasons we allow IP editors and the good usually outweighs the bad GoldenRing (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2014 (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 would like to make a suggestion to require all users to sign in when editing Wikipedia. I have many good reasons.

  • It prevents IP addresses from vandalizing articles. I have seen many cases of vandalism by IP addresses.
  • It protects those who use IP's by preventing hacking.
  • Signing up is free and open to all the public so maybe it would be better i they created an account anyways.

Mistaspock (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mistaspock: The top of this page contains a message that states: "Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them." On this FAQ page, one of the frequent proposals is Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally I'd like to see the whole IP editing done away with, Don't get me wrong there's some IPs that actually help here but IMHO more often than not these days it's just IPs vandalizing everything. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I read a statistic once. It was a few years back and I can't remember where, so take this with a pinch of salt, but I think it was that 80% of all vandalism comes from unregistered editors (IPs) but actually 80% of edits by IPs were constructive. Make of that what you will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You can read it in the links that Batty provided above! The data is old (2007), and newer data would be nice, but I doubt it would reveal anything different. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps some of us could take samples of the vandalism that we revert and see how much comes from IPs. --Biblioworm 21:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Any study of IP editing really needs to consider both good and bad edits. It is true that IP editors contribute a majority of the vandalism, but they also seem to contribute several good edits for every bad one. The belief that the good outweighs the bad is a large part of the argument for not blocking all IP editing. Dragons flight (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There is more to it than that. There is the issue that if you don't allow editing for non logged-in users, you may miss out on potential new editors that make their first edits without an account (I personally never contribute to wikis that require me to have an account). Other than that there is the basic idea of what a wiki is - and not needing an account is part of that basic idea. You can edit this page. Yes you. Right now. No need to sign up or all that nonsense, click edit, and fix what is wrong. That is what underpins the entirety of what a wiki is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At the end of the day, there's little difference between IPs and brand-new accounts. Some are great, and are very constructive; others are here to do nothing other than vandalize and/or troll. Axing IP editing won't make much difference other than to dramatically decrease the amount of editing that actually goes on. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There are editors here who have earned my respect and others who have not, and I think that's important. It's part of the accountability that goes with having a username. IPs are virtually free from that kind of accountability because IP addresses are virtually impossible to remember. Of course there are reasons to allow IPs, but the downside is greater. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
While I would personally support doing away with IP editing, I will note, as was noted above, that this is a perennial proposal. Unregistered editing has been around so long that any change to eliminate it is not going to come from the English Wikipedia community but would only come from the WMF, and don't hold your breath expecting them to change it quickly. I would suggest that someone close this thread as having been discussed ad infinitum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
An other reason not to get rid of IP editing: Some disruptive users who keep coming back don't bother creating an account; we can see them when they go back to the same IP address/range. If we forced them to create an account in order to edit, they would start with sockpuppetry, which mwould make identification more difficult. Additionally, if established users happen to use the same IP address, the checkuser necesary to check these vandals out would violate the privacy of these innocent established users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:52, 20 November 2014 (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.

Demotion of Wikipedia:Etiquette

I have proposed demoting Wikipedia:Etiquette from a guideline to an essay. Please join the discussion at the talk page. G. C. Hood (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Desk guidelines

Guidelines as to the proper use of the Reference Desk pages clearly state that (1) questions should not be asked requiring opinion or debate, and (2) responders should avoid responding with opinion or debate. Relevant guideline sections are here and here.

A dispute has arisen around these guidelines, specifically whether they are important enough to supersede the whims of the majority present. I.e., under what circumstances is it acceptable to deviate from the guidelines?

The thread that brought up this up is here, but the question obviously applies to any thread on any RD page. I hatted the opinion part of the thread (about 95% of it) but the hat was removed and the opinion discussion continues. Any feelings on this? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hatting should really only take place if the conversation is going bad in some way, such as off topic, criticizing people, stupid behaviour. But if multiple people are joining in something that is not a problem, you should not delete or hat it, as it is clear that they want to cover that topic. You can be pretty sure that hatting will upset people. Just respond calmly to say that opinions should not be called for. A new consensus should override previously determined consensus. A WP:Guideline is a guideline and not a WP:Policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This RD thread was hatted just the other day, citing the same guideline. It was not off topic, criticizing people, or stupid behaviour. Multiple people were joining in it; whether it was a "problem" was the crux of the question. And yet that hat remains. I understand that the subject hat upset people at least one person, and that's regrettable. But is that the sole criterion here? Is the most important thing to avoid upsetting people? I commented calmly, I was accused of "preaching" and told to take it to talk, and the opinion discussion continued. Only then did I add the hat.
My understanding of the word "guideline" is that it should be followed unless there is good reason to deviate, and I don't consider "because we feel like it" a good reason.
Let's contrast the subject thread to this one. It's a long one, and it's not finished yet. People are stating opinions, or, more accurately, guesses. But the question is one of fact; there is one objectively true answer, we simply have yet to find it. Not so in the subject thread.
This is not about rigid enforcement of rules, and I'm not one to go around looking for excuses to play Wikipedia cop. It is about the perceived importance of limiting RD pages to their designed and stated purpose—answering questions of fact. There are other venues designed for questions of opinion or debate. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The guideline is against giving personal opinions, not opinions in general, and it is not a total ban. What it says about answering is "Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate". Pointing to an article about a subject or writings by outside sources on a subject is well with the guideline. If a question seems like a request for a personal opinion try first of all rephrasing it as a request for some source upon the subject unless it seems clearly aimed at just giving the OP's opinion or starting a debate on the reference desk.
For example if an OP asks 'Do you think people would be more spiritual if they had wings and could fly?" One could answer "I can't give an informed opinion on that but some people have written on that, for instance Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Men has a chapter on such beings with a discussion of their way of thinking being influenced by flight and there are many more at List of avian humanoids. Dmcq (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The example on SOPA you mention was a controversial discussion which was getting a bit personal at moments and may have generated significant drama. The intent of this guideline in this regard is to avoid drama. Here, it's just a polite disagreement on the cornelian dilemma of turning up late for formal dinner. No big deal. Cenarium (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Case in point. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem of significant content and trustworthy source

Hello all.

We had a problem, me and one Turkish user on this article. I was saying that this is Wikipedia, we can not put everything which some! people write on their newspapers. He was saying that I am supporter of Turkish goverment that's why I wanted to delete this section. At least the page protected beacuse violating 3RR.

I want to ask you very easy question. If some newspaper would call Barack Obama is terrorist with over 100+ references by newspaper. Will we add that information to Barack Obama page? I have a problem on Wikipedia's objectivity.

Does Wikipedia support dissident people out of United States in the world? Is it a project of supporting opposing? One guy procted this page without saying anything as you can see here MEOGLOBAL (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I was the guy that protected it and I explained why at User talk:MEOGLOBAL#Media of Turkey article and where to go to follow this up. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the reference list of article in subject. There is BBC, Bloomberg, New York Times, Der Spiegel, Foreign Policy, Deutsche Welle, Huffington Post, Al-Monitor etc. There are also respected Turkish newspapers like Cumhuriyet, Hurriyet Daily News, Today's Zaman etc. He doesn't find these sources trustworthy, because the info they provide conflict with his political views. There is an obvious government control over media in Turkey today. There are even leaked calls of president Erdogan interfering with media, which he acknowledged making those calls. But because this user is a supporter of government, he is trying to hide this obvious fact. It is that simple really. Gezginrocker (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss this with you. I am trying to get an answer something else that you always type like "supporter of goverment." You want to write information by one media group which you call them aganist to goverment and I am saying that should we add some specific information got by specific media. You won't understand what I say here because you are Turkish. So let me discuss this problem with non-citizen of Turkey.MEOGLOBAL (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want people to 'discuss this', you will need to make clear what it is you actually want to discuss. Which clearly isn't what sourcing Wikipedia would require in order to describe Barack Obama as a terrorist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I want to discuss that do we use specific media or newspaper for source. I said IF some newspaper call terrorist, will we add this calling to Barack Obama page because we have references by some newspaper? MEOGLOBAL (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss whether a specific source can be used for specific content, ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, providing the necessary citations, and the disputed text in question. This page is for discussing issues concerning general policy, and is not intended to go into details regarding particular disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I did it here because he did beacuse of policy. Thanks anyway. MEOGLOBAL (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation formatting RfC

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting for an RfC about the scope of WP:CITEVAR and whether it can be used to prevent changes to underlying technical coding of reference citations, including correct XML, and changing problematic ref IDs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

An RfC on industry websites the management of which are outsourced to web development and PR firms

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on Italian dairy & farming industry sources for a discussion of whether a website produced by an industry consortium and managed by an Internet publishing/marketing firm, is a presumptively reliable or unreliable primary source for (non-promotional) information. This could have broad implications, because outsourcing of online publication is increasing, not decreasing, as more and more companies see no point in having an on-staff webmaster when firms provide these services on a contractual basis with entire teams of people, with many collective years of experience, and the cost of whom are shared across numerous clients.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on RfX closures by involved crats

In light of this debate, I have opened a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Voting crats cannot close. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

sourcing for implicit claims made in templates

Specifically, in Template:Succession box usage for Michael Grimm (politician) [12] the claim is explicitly made in the box that he was succeeded by Charles Rangel, although no sources are found making that claim other than Wikipedia itself. I note that on Template:Infobox officeholder that the following instruction is given: but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders. In the case at hand, other than using Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia, there are zero sources saying Rangel "succeeded" Grimm - I know this occurs in other places, but do not think listing every such bad example is necessary here. Indeed, the NYT specifically notes they never ran for office in the same actual district - and Congress does not use the "district numbers" to determine succession either. I started an RfC at the succession box template page, but wonder of the worse problem is using Wikipedia as a sole source for Wikipedia here? Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

wikihow:

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T76205

As far as I know, wikiHow is not a sister project of Wikipedia. However, the interwiki shortcut "wikihow:", that is not listed at WP:INTERWIKI, is not adding the external link icon. In my opinion, this is misleading. See, for example, the last paragraph of WikiHow#Criticisms. This should be changed. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have created a request at phabricator for the option to show the external links icon or not on a per-project basis. The same issue came up for wikia a while ago. Cenarium (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Cenarium. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of columns in references

This is about the number of columns in references. For one thing, I've seen many instances of where there are only four, three, two, or even one reference, broken into columns. This looks bad. Secondly, columns look OK if there are many short references, but not otherwise. Lines get broken into two or three parts for the sake of clarity. Case in point, the references in UniDIMM. I think the one-column format is preferable in cases like this - just 1, 2, 3, 4 straight down the line, and not breaking the lines.

two columns
two columns
one column
one column

What do you think? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this belong in Policy? There are no rules for formatting reference lists, but the general consensus is towards using dynamic columns (like 30em) for long references, but only if there are more then 10 references. With less than that, columns add no benefit to legibility. Using a fixed number of columns is deprecated. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it belongs in policy or not. The two-column sample is with 30em, but it causes two columns. (If the references were short enough so they aren't broken into two or lines, then I agree with having columns.) I agree that there is no benefit for breaking into columns with fewer than 10 references - it doesn't save any space, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
How does this differ from Template:Reflist#Practices? --  Gadget850 talk 01:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That seems entirely consistent with what I think. Yesterday I applied the first bullet point to UniDIMM, but it was reverted by another editor. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Then discuss it on that talk page. WP:BRD. --  Gadget850 talk 03:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Well, I'm that other editor mentioned above. :) As it's been already suggested, I've explained it in Talk:UniDIMM § Number of columns for references. Of course, I'm more than open to discussing it further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm an editor too, and we have the aforementioned Template:Reflist#Practices. Also, I checked Turabian and the Chicago Manual of Style. Turabian (section 13.34) says that it is fine to have more than one short reference on the same line, but otherwise do not break a reference (unless it will not fit on one full line). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, Template:Reflist § Practices says there are actually no strict guidelines. Should we discuss it further here, or in Talk:UniDIMM § Number of columns for references where I've already described my point of view? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
At the same time, please take into account different screen/window sizes; if something fits into a single line with one screen/window size, that might not be the case for smaller screens/windows. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The issue goes beyond this one article, which is why I brought it up here instead of that article's talk page. I've changed probably dozens of these, and this is the first one I can remember being reverted (although I often don't watch the page). Turabian says that you should never break any reference into more than one line (if you don't have to), and so that avoids differences in browsers/monitor sizes/screen resolutions/fonts. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the reference you're mentioning (or at least its first edition) was written way before text began to be displayed in peoples' homes on differently sized computer screens. Anyway, how could that simply avoid differences in sizes of computer screens? There's simply no way to enforce an arbitrary length of a line, short of turning it into a pointless and ugly overflow.
For the sake of completeness, here's my reply from Talk:UniDIMM § Number of columns for references:
As stated in Template:Reflist § Practices, "the number of columns to use is up to the editor", meaning there are actually no strict guidelines. From my point of view, breaking references into columns brings additional readability, simply because it's easier to follow the lines in the smaller font used for displaying references. Please, let's have a look at newspapers – pretty much all of them put their content into multiple columns, making it easier for reders to follow the lines and also to find the beginning of the line after the one they've read. Additionally, a list of references may be read independently of where they're used in the article (what I do quite often), and it just increases the importance of making it easier to follow the lines. The whole thing could be seen as an accessibility improvement, which is surely debatable.
Of course, I'm more than open to discussing it further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not a newspaper and you don't read a reference the way you read text/prose. And the text of WP articles is not in columns. Look at the three bullet points under Template:Reflist#Practices and click on the examples and you will see what I mean. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, but how can you say in which way someone should or should not read the references? I simply read them that way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To put it simply, we don't have a rule as to which format to use... nor do we need one. This is the sort of thing that editors can discuss at the individual article level, and settle through consensus. Blueboar (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the three-column option should be banned. Not everyone has a 20-inch monitor. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
There are no such readability/formatting issues when a dynamic layout is used, for example with {{Reflist|30em}}; in that case, the number of columns changes dynamically depending on the screen/window size. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
NaBUru38, From WP:FN: "Three-column lists (and larger) are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided unless they are supporting shortened footnotes." (Well, that is what it used to say - it isn't there now.) Dsimic, that 30em is what causes the references to break when they shouldn't. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Bubba73, we obviously remain on different pages, but that's fine as having different opinions between editors is Ok. However, NaBUru38 was concerned about the three-column layout, and {{Reflist|30em}} doesn't cause it on smaller screen/window sizes while {{Reflist|3}} does, but using {{Reflist|n}} to produce a fixed number of columns (n) is deprecated anyway. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It happens that an hour or two ago I changed reflist|2 to reflist|em40 in En passant, and that fixed the problem. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop re-directing murder and kidnap victim's pages to their murderer.

Currently, if you search for a murder victim's name on Wikipedia it will re-direct you to the murderer's page. This is wrong. And probably an oversight. I realize that most murder victims do not qualify as "notable" under Wikipedias notability standards. But they should not re-direct to their murderer's page. That is horrifying! Because the victim is not notable at least the search should go to a page that has a link to the victim's Find A Grave memorial. I am using as an example Caryn Campbell (murder victim), a victim of Ted Bundy. Not all victim pages re-direct. But Caryn's does and that needs to stop. I came to this by searching for the name of a young girl who was kidnapped and her family was brutally murdered. When you search for her name it redirects to the monster who murdered her family. She is still alive!! I can only think everyone is too busy to have noticed this is going on. There needs to be a policy against this. I don't quite understand how all these sub-forums work and if I put this in the wrong place please let me know so I can move it. --CDA 21:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If the murder victim isn't notable (in Wikipedia terms), we really have only two choices. To redirect to an article about the crime, or to ignore their existence entirely. Given the two alternatives, I think the former is preferable - it directs readers to the only relevant place on Wikipedia that will say anything about the victim. I'm not sure why you think this is 'horrifying', either - you don't actually explain what the issue is. Are you suggesting that we should exclude victims' names from articles on crimes? As for linking to 'Find A Grave', we don't redirect to external websites - that would imply endorsing external content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree; unless we want to create a list of victims of notable criminals and point all the victim names there, this is the best option. bd2412 T 22:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
BLP1E and VICTIM reflect current Wikipedia practices in this area. As you mention, many crime victims are not notable in their own right, but rather interest in that person arose solely or primarily due to the crime that was inflicted upon them. Wikipedia's practice is not to create dedicated pages for such people, as doing so tends to encourage others to further invade their privacy. In general, Wikipedia is a not a memorial. However, when the names are widely known in the news, it makes sense to incorporate that information in discussions of the crime and/or the perpetrator. Unless you are suggesting not putting well known names in those articles at all, then the question boils down to whether or not to redirect the victim's name to the only place on Wikipedia that provides information about them. Personally, I think such links do serve the readers' interest in finding related information. I can imagine that reinforcing the link between victim and victimizer might be seen as insensitive by victims and/or their families, but in cases where that link is already well-known to the public through the news, I'm not convinced that such sensitivity is a good enough reason to forgo a redirect. That said, when redirects exist they should be directed to the relevant subsection of the target article (i.e. the part discussing the victim). Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean to say to me that if you are a young girl and you search for your own name on Wikipedia and it redirects to the monster who murdered your family, who tortured your brother to death while you watched and also filmed it -- that if you were that little girl you would not be horrified??! --CDA 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If the little girl searches her name on Wikipedia either A) there is a redirect and she goes there immediately, or B) there isn't a redirect and the first search result is the article about her kidnapper. B) doesn't seem much better to me, though perhaps you disagree? The only way to stop her from seeing that association is to either remove her name from the article entirely (so it won't show up in searches), or create a different target for her name. I would be sympathetic to the suggestion that victims names should be removed from articles in at least some cases (e.g. living victims who have generally aimed to retain their privacy). However, creating some other type of dedicated pages for victims doesn't really feel better to me. It's hard to imagine what kind of alternative target page one could create for the little girl that wouldn't either be completely devoid of content or still focused on the crime. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think the redirect is inappropriate, then please nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD, some redirects of this kind have been deleted in the past. This isn't the place to speculate on what a little girl would do in those circumstances, but I'll just point out that in this age of social media, she would get constant unsolicited reminders, and professionals would help her cope with those. She would know very well what she would find if she made the decision to search for her name on google, wikipedia, or any other search engine. Now, let's keep this non-personal please. Cenarium (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to know what criminologists think about this. Because my guess is that a murderer would get off on having his victim's pages redirect to him. And for that reason alone these re-directs should stop. If some criminologists don't pop in here to weigh in on this I will try to seek them out. Obviously this little girl that I mention knows a Google search will come up with her kidnapper. But to have her page redirect to the murderer of her family seems extremely callous to me and sets a tone for her life. Every other young girl gets to think maybe I will be in Wikipedia some day as the winner of the Nobel prize or a famous dancer or an author. But no, this little girl has the specter of FOREVER being a redirect to a monster. My proposal would be something like this - when you search for Caryn Campbell you come to a page like this - Caryn Campbell (Sep. 20, 1951 - Jan. 12, 1975) was a registered nurse in Aspen, Colorado. Link to her find A Grave memorial. Or link to her family's memorial to her. Or link to her online obituary. And then, on Jan. 12, 1975 she was murdered by Ted Bundy (link to Ted Bundy.) Is that so much to ask for? I don't care that if you Google her name it comes up with a thousand Ted Bundy links. That is not an excuse to be insensitive at Wikipedia. If the victim is still alive then have a similar very short page that is a placemaker for if they ever do something else notable with their life. But don't sentence them to be entwined with a monster the rest of their life. I am learning from this discussion that everything everyone is saying about Wikipedia not being a welcoming place for women and girls is true. --CDA 00:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You do not make any sense. What about little boy victims? Someone—male or female—who becomes noted outside of having been a crime victim will not be redirected. This is obvious. For example, there is extremely famous woman crime victim Malala Yousafzai. Choor monster (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Since CDA has specifically mentioned Caryn Campbell, and suggested we link to the Find a Grave page on her, I suggest that people look at the page in question: [13] It tells us next to nothing about Campbell, and instead describes how she was murdered by Bundy. I fail to see how this is any more 'sensitive'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You have somehow turned this into a gendered issue, which it is not. Neither your gender nor the gender of your hypothetical victim is relevant here. What IS relevant is that Wikipedia is not a memorial, so redirecting to their memorial on another website is not only not possible on our software, but against of of our fundamental policies. Creating an article on victims and survivors would violate WP:NPEOPLE, an impotant guideline, and WP:BLP1E, a part of the most important policy on Wikipedia that supersedes all others. The only options are to redirect to the most appropriate article (usually the perpetrator), or have nothing. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I mostly agree with DF above. But the argument that this would conflict with existing policy is not a good argument here - if a policy does more harm than good, we should modify it. One of the major aims of WP:BLP is to avoid doing harm - if current policy fails to do that, it may need to be modified to better fulfil the original goal. Note the subjunctive - in the concrete case, I don't see many options. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I never meant to imply this is only about women and girls. I don't want the pages of boys or men to redirect to their murderer's pages either. My examples are of a woman and a little girl and I think the fact that all of you can't see how insensitive this is, for these examples, makes it a gender issue. And I think that Caryn Campbell's Find A Grave page needs work to be a tribute to her. That's another issue and is just distracting to my point. --CDA 03:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In what way is simply mentioning the names of murder victims insensitive? It's factual information. Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Don't worry, you didn't come across as sexist, what came across was Think of the children. As others have said, Wikipedia is not a memorial or tribute site (and we're not in a position to tell others how to run their sites), we merely summarize other academic and journalistic sources. If the previously-kidnapped child in the example searched for their name on Wikipedia, why should their name pull up any results unless that name came up in connection to the crime so often that any internet search (not just Wikipedia) would be an obviously bad idea? Why would it be Wikipedia that's traumatizing the child, and not the actual trauma?
Removing the trigger doesn't un-fire bullets that hit their targets years ago. Removing a trigger on our site when all our site does is hold a mirror up to academia and journalism is only scratching the mirror, not removing the triggers reflected. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the policy currently in place to have non-notable crime victim's pages redirect to their murderer's page feeds the psychopathology of psychopathic murderers. I think that professional criminal psychologists should weigh in on that and Wikipedia should change their policy if the psychologists recommend to do so. Blueboar - it's the redirection not the facts. --CDA 05:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. You haven't expressed that there's any problem with the articles on the criminals. Would those not be much more important to their egos? --NE2 05:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that psychopathic murderers are spending their jail-time looking up their victims names on Wikipedia to be perfectly honest. Nor do I think survivors are at at home searching for their name on Wikipedia and getting surprised and upset when they find that it redirects. Wherever the victims name is mentioned on the net, it'll be in conjunction with the person who killed (or tried to kill) them. I think you're seeing a problem where there just isn't one. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I am the only one here who can think like a psychopath. (attempt at a joke) But here is another problem I see. What if a non-notable child is the victim of two crimes in their lifetime. First they are kidnapped at age 5 and they are miraculously rescued only to be tragically murdered when they are 17 (they live in a high crime area!). Both their kidnapper and their murderer are notable criminals who have their own page. Where will you redirect their page? To the kidnapper or the murderer? What if the child is kidnapped by two people? Both are notable and have their own pages. Which one will you redirect to? I'm trying to make a point that not only is this sick and wrong but it is unsustainable.

WP:BLP2E --NE2 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am just starting to figure this out and it is not that a victim page redirects to their murderer - it is that the page Caryn Campbell (murder victim) (for example) should never have been created in the first place, and that policy already exists. If the page had never been created in the first place the redirect problem would not exist. I apologize to people who have tried to point me in that direction (Cenarium and others) but I have been side-tracked by not understanding why no one thinks this is a problem but me. I think what I need to do is work on the policy page to make it clearer and to maybe put something in there about where to go to make a memorial for a person outside of Wikipedia. Before I start deleting un-notable victim pages. Thanks to everyone here who has tried to help me out with this. --CDA 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The advice you were given by Cenarium on 27 November 2014, in this section, is sound. Have you followed it? If not, why not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reduce waiting period of first time site-ban appeals, from 12-months to 6.

For any editor who's been sitebanned his/her first time. The waiting period to appeal a siteban, should be reduced from a full year, to six months. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What difference would that be likely to make? How many successful appeals have you ever seen? Eric Corbett 19:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I've seen atleast three :) GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The best counter-point to Eric's argument is that some people believe that Allowing more frequent appeals is effectively changing the duration. So don't worry, if he believes that, he must believe in the likelihood of successful appeals. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeepers, I see my policy-change proposal has certainly been considered. A Rodney Dangerfield moment, for me :( GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I thought it was already 6 months. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought OFFER was available to community-banned editors only. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"comprised of"

Wrong venue

As many of you probably know, there has long been at least one editor constantly patrolling WP and removing all the instances of the phrase "comprised of" he can find. User:Giraffedata/comprised of

Note that there is no agreement even among the style guides on the subject, and the wording is absolutely ubiquitous in the real world. As a way of example, google scholar finds some 500K books and scientific papers with "is comprised of" in them alone: link. For goodness sake, if Dickens used it, so can everybody else.

But no. Now that one of the admins (User:JHunterJ) as well as a few others have joined the crusade, it has become impossible to argue the issue. Basically, it goes like this: they descend on the article one by one and after a while claim a consensus. And here I was thinking that consensus was supposed to be reached either by the broad community or by the contributors to the specific article — and not by idle passers-by with an ax to grind.

Is this how the grammar rules are decided upon now? Three users with enough time on their hands can tell everyone else how to write?

What next, The War On Stranded Prepositions?

May be, a ban on "moist" because it sounds silly?

Primaler (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Giraffedata's actions are in no way policy, they're merely his good-faith and non-disruptive actions that do not waste anyone else's time. Anyone is free to write "comprised of," and because no one owns any of the articles here, Giraffedata is just as free to come along after and replace it with "composed of" or "consists of." This should honestly be less of an issue than the MOS giving the thumbs up to serial commas where they do not cause confusion, and I happen to love serial commas. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, you can't just revert these edits — as he keeps coming back, and so do others. In the case of Gervase of Melkley, JHunterJ specifically said he'd ban me from editing if I continue to resist (quoting the consensus of the three patrolees as well as the 3RR). Primaler (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
In other words, you disrupted the site by edit warring against multiple editors over something that shouldn't matter, and are now asking to have policy changed over something that doesn't matter. Yes, Giraffedata does stick to one particular grammar peeve, but he didn't edit war against multiple users and he hasn't called for a change in policy over someone rewriting something he added to the site.
There is a relevant policy already in place for this: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
So I was right, then. If three editors don't like a word, off with the word. No rationale required. No surprises here. Primaler (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't like their wording, they don't like mine. How am I disrupting and JHunterJ isn't? How is what I think doesn't matter but what GD thinks -- and keeps doing for years despite there being zero rationale for it -- does? I'm not requesting a policy change, I'm asking for the basis of their actions. Primaler (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's reverse the situation. Let's imagine Giraffedata added "composed of" to an article, some other user changed it to "comprised of," and then Giraffedata changed it back and proceeded to edit war with that user and two others. Giraffedata would be edit warring against the consensus for that page (consensus is not only site-wide, but per-page and even per-subject). If he then created a thread here at the policy village pump to (however indirectly) seek justification for edit-warring, I'd accuse him of disrupting the site to make a (pointless) point.
Even further, if I found some alternative to "comprised of" and "composed of" that both you and Giraffedata loved, and I then proceeded to edit war against a dozen users who thought that "consists of" was still a better phrasing, I would still be edit warring, and it would be disruptive of me to make a thread here to try and argue against that.
The words do not matter, so long as the article is still grammatically correct and readable. What matters is cooperation and a lack of disruption.
Breathe in to a count of eight, say "it doesn't fucking matter," and breathe out to a count of eight. Repeat as necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand the "let them eat dirt" attitude, but seriously, this absurd multiyear pet peeve eradication project is laughable in itself and certainly unbecoming of an administrator. But OK, if nobody cares, why should I, your sandbox, not mine. Primaler (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ian.thomson, for cases where it in fact doesn't fucking matter. If someone is on a crusade that incorrectly alters meaning, that's a different ball of wax. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Primaler: My sympathy—the bludgeoning above is done in good faith but is nevertheless bludgeoning of a content creator and is very unfortunate. People who patrol hundreds of pages and enforce their favored style need to have a better method of imposing their will than calling in fellow enthusiasts and brandishing wikilinks. It looks like the issue has been settled with Primaler rewording the taboo phrase "The book is comprised of three sections" and that probably is the best outcome. My suggestion for the future would be to find some content creators who write similar articles and seek their opinion; contact me at my talk for suggestions if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is seriously inappropriate to frenetically "correct" this usage, which may not be at some people's taste but is nonetheless acceptable, when the main writer (or writers) of an article objects. It certainly is in line with MOS spirit as in WP:RETAIN to keep the original in such cases, and repeatedly attempting to enforce one's preference in such a way is disruptive to the encyclopedia and to our goal of encouraging content writers. Cenarium (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
In other words, article writers are article owners? I am either the author, major contributor, or overhauler of Arbatel de magia veterum, Debtera, Lesser Key of Solomon, Liber Officium Spirituum, Livre des Esperitz, Magical Treatise of Solomon, Reuben Swinburne Clymer, and Shemhamphorasch. I readily invite anyone to replace material with synonymous material so long as the actual meaning remains the same (or additional sources are brought in to justify changes in meaning). That's because I don't own the articles, I just put the information out there and want it to take the most readable form possible, and I acknowledge that that's not always my writing voice. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that. But with regard to your reference to WP:OWN, I would like to point out that this applies in reverse just as well. It would seem that some editors around here think that they own the entire encyclopedia and can make every single article use their preferred wording variant through edit warring. Well, if an article uses a wording variant that the main editors chose and prefer, for god's sake let's keep it that way and move on, since no guideline can justify either way. It doesn't mean that they own the article, WP:RETAIN and the like simply aim to avoid pointless bickering and lame edit warring of this kind. Cenarium (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
A small potato
But it was three editors going against "comprised of," and only one editor repeatedly going for "comprised of." The latter was the edit warrior. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many people are on either side of a dispute (or if one is an admin, for that matter), or at least it should not, it's not a proper way to settle a dispute, the others were edit warring too, as discussed at #Redefinition of revert. Cenarium (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I could get on board with a ban on "moist". It does sound silly. Also the plural form of "wasp" should never be used because it also sounds silly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Best candidate for WP:Lamest edit wars I've seen for a good while. Just step away from it; they haven't changed the meaning of any information, so let it be and direct your energy into something worthwhile. (For the record, I'm not condoning them edit-warring either, but if they really wanna scratch some mundane itch to get rid of 'comprised of' , you'll drive your insane reverting them back all the time - and it just doesn't make a difference). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, Talk:Gervase of Melkley is a talkpage with no content. Perhaps Primaler, JHunterJ, Giraffedata and Just plain Bill would like to go and have a read of WP:BRD, and then talk about contentious changes (however small they may be) on the talkpage instead of in edit summaries. Consensus doesn't just magically happen. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dylanfromthenorth Do explain to me how it's supposed to work, then, if the only two sides to this argument would be me (afaik, nobody else is watching the page) — and the three editors who only come to the article to scratch the itch. If this is how site-wide style changes are implemented, a tightly knit grammar nazi sonderkommando is going to win 99% of the time, no matter what everybody else thinks. Primaler (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to jump in here to correct a possibly misleading characterization of my work on "comprised of". The sentence, "The problem is, you can't just revert these edits — as [giraffedata] keeps coming back, and so do others" makes it sound like I engage in edit wars. It's true that some grammar editors press their beliefs and assert their right to have a voice equal to everyone else's by changing "comprised of" to something else as energetically as others change it back. But I am quite deferential to "comprised of" lovers. In spite of the fact that I am 100% convinced that essentially every Wikipedia article is better off without "comprised of" than with it, I let article owners have it their way. "keeps coming back" means 2-3 times per year for any given article. Someone serious about "comprised of" can simply watch an article and revert immediately and effectively nullify my opinion; the world will never see my preferred wording. And I know of a few editors who do just that. And you don't see me complaining, because it's not worth fighting over. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors who write "comprised of" are happy to let it go when they find out others don't like it, and that's good enough for me.
"and keeps doing for years despite there being zero rationale for it" is a serious overstatement. Thousands of words of rationale for the grammar have been written in countless style guides, including about a thousand I wrote myself and link to in every edit summary. Likewise, there is abundant rationale for the Wikipedia behavior in implementing this grammar -- it's just basic Wikipedia that when one sees something one believes could be worded better, one edits. I get that some people are not persuaded; of course, that's inevitable. But "zero rationale" misrepresents the situation. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
But, @Giraffedata: why? Why spend your whole Wiki career doing this? Why, why, why? I get that you may want to do it, as and when you see the offending phrase in the course of doing other stuff. But, why, oh, why just this? DeCausa (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bryan Henderson (Giraffedata) I'm sorry, but your thousand plus words (which, in case you were wondering, I didn't just link to at the beginning of the thread, but also bothered to read) boil down to "there are different opinions, but I like mine better, and this is why". Well, that might be a rationale for the odd but harmless way you choose to spend your time (having spent hours untold compiling a meter-long historical section for the article on Honorificabilitudinitatibus, I can certainly relate). But it's totally unconvincing as a rationale for the final solution. I know you've written more than once that you don't insist on your position and respect other editors' opinions, but the repeated edits say otherwise. Since there is no way to opt-out, you'll eventually wear down any single editor's resolve — since, let's face it, nobody cares anywhere as much as you do. You may not intend it to come out as rude, but that's what your headstrong antisocial tactics felt to me. Primaler (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
But what do they know
"Comprised of" is unequivocally incorrect. Comprise means "consist of". The correct usage is "a week comprises seven days". (Not "a week is comprised of seven days" -- that makes no sense whatsoever.) There is no dictionary, no style guide in existence that will say otherwise, despite ignorant usage. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Softlavender is correct. "Comprised of" is not. Case closed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Poor Dickens! If only he knew that Softlavender himself would eventually disapprove of his clumsy English. And the shameless, dirty, ignorant Merriam-Webster! How dare they call themselves "a dictionary", when the great Softlavender clearly explained that no dictionary exists that would take such a disreputable position. The use may go back to the 18th century, hell, it may go back as far as it likes, but a professional editor of 17 years always knows best. Primaler (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, Webster's example is "a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings", not "comprising of fifty buildings". According to them comprising should be used as "containing", not as "consisting".
Dickens' use is similar to yours, but he made mistakes, sometimes deliberately. “WarKosign” 09:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign Since I can only assume you are a getting a different version of the page, I'll quote their sense 3 and related usage notes in full:
3. compose, constitute <a misconception as to what comprises a literary generation — William Styron> <about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women — Jimmy Carter>
Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.
Primaler (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right, sense #3 supports your point. It also indicates why this sense is better avoided. Is there a good reason NOT to avoid it ? “WarKosign” 09:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It gets better, OED simply calls it "part of standard English". I bet, this won't convince anybody either.Primaler (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"This usage is part of standard English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect." “WarKosign” 09:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign Seriously, you should sue your provider, they keep sending you selectively edited pages of online dictionaries:
When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense ( the country comprises twenty states). This usage is part of standard English
Primaler (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, it's ISP's fault, it's not that I'm skimming without paying enough attention. “WarKosign” 10:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This thread comprises 2741 words. Am I using the term correctly? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's look at this from a blind perspective, removing user names, as close to a hypothetical as possible:
1) User A (doesn't matter who) contributes to article, User B (doesn't matter who) makes an extremely change to a bit of grammer that sources either say "this way is right, the other way is absolutely wrong (with reason)" or "use either, (perhaps noting the other is informal)." In other words, no source actually argues specifically for the original grammar choice, they merely accept its use -- while the other sources forbid it.
2) User A restores edit, and repeatedly reverts against users B, C, and D (doesn't matter who they are)
3) User A starts a thread at the village pump specifically for "proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines" to try and argue that they should have their way with the article over minor details in they contributed so much to.
4) When multiple users point out any of the above, explain User A's actions, or otherwise encourage User A to not give a fuck, User A continues to fuss, until there's roughly 3000 words.
5) While User B assumes good faith from User A when disagreeing over the word choice, User A denigrates User B's well-explained edits, calls User B and those who support him grammar nazis, and selectively quotes grammar sources while accusing others of doing so.
Completely ignore the exact word choice here, it doesn't matter what the grammer change was. Ignoring the word choice, how is 1 not a completely minor but good faith improvement? How is 2 not edit warring by User A? How is 3 not a case of WP:OWN and (especially with everything else) WP:POINT? How is 4 not a case of WP:IDHT? How is 5 not a failure of WP:AGF, if not WP:CIVIL? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr = an editor is unhappy with another editor(s). Please see WP:DR for how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention for places of Bangladesh

Naming convention for places of Bangladesh [[WP:BDPLACE]] is being proposed and a discussion is going on. Please add your feedback there. – nafSadh did say 22:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the following text be added to the section of WP:COI on Paid Editing:

If you receive compensation as a "Thank You" or a gift for your edits in a topic area, particularly a contentious one, you may have a conflict of interest and should discontinue editing in that area.

There was a recent controversy in the GamerGate topic area where an editor was given a donation by the moderator of a partisan forum, and later had his own fundraiser promoted by said forum. While multiple uninvolved admins didn't like it, there is nothing addressing this unique situation in policy. I would like to close that loophole. Thoughts? The WordsmithTalk to me 00:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

From WP:BATTLEGROUND: "do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not have a grudge or battle with Ryulong, but I was surprised to discover that the COI guideline didn't mention this sort of arrangement. I thought it would have been an obvious COI, but I guess its never come up before. I'm not trying to advance my "position", i'm trying to correct what I think is a hole in the guideline. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Unless one goes around reading policies looking for possible problems (in which case they would be accused of trying to solve problems that don't exist), I would think that all such proposals would naturally result from disagreements. How much time should pass before "trying to advance your position" becomes "trying to improve Wikipedia policies"? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No. First, editing policy to obtain a result wanted for a particular case is never desirable. Second, Ryulong has no COI—he edits the Gamergate articles according to his beliefs and interpretations of policies such as BLP and DUE. The claims about a "thank you" after-the-event payment are raised by a string of SPAs who are coordinating off-wiki in order to knock out editors who are defending the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The case will probably be over long before this RFC is. I'm an uninvolved admin; if I wanted to topic ban Ryulong I would have just done it. No, I'm looking to determine a precedent if this should happen in the future. Pretty much all policy changes nowadays arise from having a situation take place that the existing policy wasn't sufficient for. Regarding the one-off payment, Ryulong himself has acknowledged that it happened (several times over). The WordsmithTalk to me 04:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed text refers to a "gift for your edits in a topic area". Could you point out where Ryulong has acknowledged that any 'gift' was 'for edits'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Once again, this isn't about Ryulong. This is about a situation that the COI policy doesn't currently cover that I think it should cover. This isn't the proper forum for discussing Ryulong. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
If this isn't about Ryulong, why have you repeatedly referred to that contributor in this thread, while referring to a 'paid editing loophole' in the thread title? It seems to me you have taken it upon yourself to preempt an open discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement, reach your own personal 'verdict' as to whether there was 'paid editing' involved and then cite that personal 'verdict' as grounds for a proposed change in policy. Frankly, I don't think it at all proper that an administrator should be attempting to short-circuit the process in that way. If the community is to change policy, it should do so as a result of decisions arrived at collectively by those appointed to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You're assuming a lot about my motives, when you could have used your brain instead. An RfC generally runs its course in about 30 days, less if there's strong consensus. The General Sanctions thread you're referring to is probably going to last another 3 or 4 days at most, before it closes as no consensus. If I'm trying to change policy to "win" a dispute, I'd be doing a very poor job of it. And furthermore, a decision arrived at collectively by those appointed to do so is exactly what a policy RfC is. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am assuming nothing that you haven't made perfectly clear already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's about Ryulong (Special:Contributions/The Wordsmith). Ever since you returned from a 14-month wikibreak, you have focused on removing Ryulong. It is unfortunate that many of the editors who oppose Ryulong have either recently joined Wikipedia, or have recently returned. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's remember WP:AGF everyone. This would seem to be covered under the mention of "money and rewards". Perhaps some language that just says "including thank you gifts" or something similar. I am against this situation but I don't want to give this specific type of situation too much weight in the section, as the section should be much more concerned with outright paid advocacy like public relations people. Gamaliel (talk)

  • No. In order for a conflict of interest to exist, the editor must have an expectation of reward (financial or otherwise) at the time that the relevant edits are made. And in the case of Ryulong, since he has no any expectation of future reward, no conflict of interest currently exists, in spite of the unexpected gift. He may edit in the topic area without restriction. Of course, Ryulong may judge himself to be no longer impartial but that is a matter for Ryulong alone. CIreland (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair argument against applying COI to past edits: he had no expectation of reward. But once past edits result in rewards (and unquestionably, had his edits supported a position contrary to that of the "forum" the rewards would not have been given) a precedent has been set and it would be reasonable for the editor to assume future edits may result in similar rewards.
107.15.41.141 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Personally, I find WP:AGF rather difficult when someone starts a thread claiming that there is a 'loophole' made apparent by a 'unique situation', and then insists that the proposed policy change isn't about the 'situation' at all. And what exactly is Wordsmith referring to when he writes about "this sort of arrangement"? I've seen precisely zero evidence that anything was 'arranged' that even approximates to paid editing. Nobody has offered any evidence that any edits made by Ryulong were influenced by payments, or by the prospect of future gifts or payments. He (foolishly in my opinion) let it be known that he was short of funds in a place where those on one side of a dispute might be expected to see it, but nothing even approximating an 'arrangement' regarding his edits was ever made. Conflict of interest editing involves making edits - and nobody has produced any evidence that edits made by Ryulong were the result of this gift. In my opinion, Ryulong made a mistake - but the mistake didn't involve paid editing, or any sort of violation of WP:COI policy either in its existing wording, or its intent. Asking for funds in a partisan forum while involved in a dispute was unwise, but not because it created 'a conflict of interest' - it was unwise because it gave potential opponents the opportunity to claim that it did, without actually having to demonstrate that edits were influenced by funds. The burden of proof rests with them - and given that Ryulong's position in this dispute was clear before the gift, I can't see how the fact that he held the same position afterwards can be evidence of anything. Contributors should be held accountable for their actions on Wikipedia - and nobody has demonstrated that Ryulong has done anything wrong in that regard, in relation to this issue. Accordingly, a proposal to change policy based on the premise that there is 'a loophole' that we have no evidence was ever exploited (or actually exists) is ill-conceived. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The fact that a subsequent gift to one editor for one type of edit is not necessarily grounds for anyone, that editor or others, to have any real reason to believe that any subsequent edits of that type will also receive similar rewards, unless their are specific statements to that effect from the gift giver or there develops a history of such subsequent gifts. At this point, I would oppose any such changes on the basis of overkill. I would not necessarily want to have some potentially useful "gifts" to editors, like for instance a complementary copy of a book or video or performance ticket for use in content development related to the item and its topic here, to necessarily be considered grounds for a declaration of "paid editing". Having said that, if such gifts were to recur in the future for any specific editor or outside group, then maybe there might be clear grounds for making such changes. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been awarded prizes for articles from the German-language Wikipedia for articles I have written. I had no expectation of reward (or even knowledge that there was any) when the articles were written, and have no reason to believe that I will ever get one again. I have no intention to discontinue editing in that area. I regard this as an absurd amendment to an already severely flawed policy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Consider whether your position could stand public scrutiny: "Editor X made Wikipedia edits favorable to group Y's position, for which X was later compensated." Wouldn't such publicity encourage more groups to compensate favorable editors after the fact? It creates, minimally, the appearance of conflict of interest which undermines the public's trust in Wikipedia. The argument that we needn't address it until it becomes a problem favors pragmatism over correctness.
107.15.41.141 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You may have a point, depending on the size of the gift and the degree of effort being rewarded, neither of which is addressed at all in the current proposal. I think most people would agree that a gift in the thousands of dollars US for editing a single article is almost certainly a basis for some concern, but the lack of any such indicators of effort involved or size of gift there is to my eyes no real basis for making such changes. In the possible examples I indicated, a single book of perhaps 20 to 30 dollars given as a "reward" for editing an article related to another book, or possibly the same book, of that author is to my eyes far less than sufficient for asserting that the editor in question would have a COI. John Carter (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment While I am generally in favor of strengthening COI rules, this one is potentially troublesome because it suggests that an editor disclose compensation that he/she has made after making edits. What if the editor ceases editing in the subject area? John Carter's points above are well taken. If people edit in certain areas in the expectation of getting compensation, that is troublesome. However, I know of no COI rules in the real world that address such situations. Maybe ours should, but it is not standard. I must say that the wording is not bad at all and that I am inclined to support. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from here, but as is the tradition with loopholes, plugging one may open another. A coordinated effort to send donations to all ones "opponents" in a dispute could effectively knock out all opposition in a dispute. It would encourage gaming the system. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting the "five strikes and you're out" rule for vandalism

I suppose there is a history behind the five-strikes convention, with reasons behind it, however from my perspective it seems a bit too lenient and time-wasting. Of course admins are permitted to act before the fifth strike, but rank-and-file patrollers are resigned to follow the sequence of warnings. Moreover, since warnings must be interspersed between vandalism edits, it often works out to more than five strikes.

Wouldn't four strikes be enough AGF? Permitting vandalism a fifth time brings to mind WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. I realize this change would not be trivial -- uw templates and bots would be affected -- but it seems worth discussing nonetheless. As Wikipedia's user base continues to dwindle, reducing waste becomes more important (and may eventually be necessary). Manul 03:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I will block if the user continued after a final warning or only warning(one that mentions blocking) or if the user has vandalized and has no useful contributions. A full series of warnings is not required as far as I know.
The lesser warnings are for users who may not be acting in bad faith or are likely to respond to such things. When vandalism is particularly nasty or in clear bad faith it is okay to start with an only warning template and report if it continues. Vandalism only accounts can be blocked without warning. Chillum 03:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Per Chillum, there is no such rule. A single warning (which can be as simple as a hand crafted note saying "Stop vandalizing Wikipedia") is all that one usually requires. Some people newish to Wikipedia see the system of templates at WP:UWT and presume that the fact that there are 4 levels of vandalism template means that one must apply each level in order before a user will be blocked. You don't even need to use those templates; they exist to make it easier to warn someone, but just dropping a note on their talk page that says "Hey, quit it!" is a fine warning. Wikipedia has no such formalism or system of rules that require a certain number of warnings or a certain format the warnings must follow. Instead Wikipedia's One Big Rule is "It's an encyclopedia." People who do not treat it as such will be shown the door, very quickly indeed, and there is no formal "you get to be an asshole X number of times before we kick you out" rule. Never has been. Once is quite enough, TYVM. --Jayron32 03:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I already acknowledged that "admins are permitted to act before.." The issue is time-wasting for rank-and-file patrollers, who may get rebuffed at AIV if the uw sequence is not played out. Manul 04:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a few possibilities for why you are getting rebuffed at ANI. The two most likely are 1) The person who you think is an obvious vandal is not an obvious vandal, but a well intentioned newb who is messing up because they don't know what they are doing or 2) You've made a valid report for an actual vandal, and the admin declining you doesn't know what they are doing. I have no idea which of these is happening, we'd need to view a specific example of a specific incident to know what is going on. It could also be something else, such as a user who vandalized a long time ago, where it would be pointless to block, or something similar. But when you speak in generalities, there's no way for anyone here to decide who is right and who is wrong. We literally can't say anything about the specific situation or situations you have in mind unless you show the specific situations to us. Otherwise, no one here can comment on them directly. I don't know any experienced admins who see a user filling an article with racial epithets or pasting pictures of penises into them and insist that they cannot be blocked because they haven't been warned 4 times in a row. Either you're interpreting a situation wrongly, or there's an admin that needs a little talking to. Show us which specific situation or situations led you to this odd conclusions you've come to, and maybe we can set someone straight. --Jayron32 04:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I usually start with uw2 for stuff that they could've claimed was an accident, uw3 if the edit could not have been an accident (replacing page content with "i h4cked wiki!!1!") or the account seems to be vandalism-only (judging from username) but the edits could be accidents in isolation; uw4im if both the username and the action indicate a vandalism-only account. The last time I can recall being rebuffed at AIV was years ago.
In fact, I think the only time I use uw1 is uw-test1, maybe also delete, chat, and (if the error inserted was a common mistake like the "you only use 10% of your brain" myth) uw-error1.
EDIT: Just came up, I also remembered that if someone else has warned a user with uw1, I'll jump to 3 (or 4 if it's gone uw1 and then uw2). If they run up to uw3 at the end of the month, and Cluebot starts giving them uw1 again next month, I'll go on and give them a blanket 4im. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
(Actually, always starting at uw-v1 makes the most sense to me, as a matter of human psychology -- AGF can disarm bad faith, and harshness can escalate it. I figured there was a science behind the uw sequence, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) Manul 04:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nowhere on the page you just linked does it list a minimum number of warnings. Neither does it require the use of templates. It merely notes the existence of templates for use, and notes that templates exist for various severity and types of vandalism. It doesn't say "admins may not block anyone who has not been warned X times", nor does it say "Admins may not block someone who has not received a specific template". It just says to warn users when they vandalize. --Jayron32 10:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If there's any meager amount of good-faith to be assumed and the user encouraged to do better (or the user might well have made a mistake), I'll usually just leave a prewritten introduction to relevant site policies and guidelines on their page. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the main point of vandalism warnings is being missed here, this isn't about being more or less lenient, this is about dissuading further vandalism. For the majority of vandals, one simple warning is enough, and at each further warning, an even greater proportion is deterred. Blocking is reserved for the most persistent, or for those who are assessed as very likely to continue regardless of warnings, and there are very good reasons for that. Admins are overworked, the response time at AIV for obvious vandals can reach several hours (I've analyzed this at length for my deferred changes proposal), so the more vandals that can be deterred through other means the better. If, as suggested, we would reduce to three the 'standard' number of warnings, then this would result in a massive increase of AIV reports (just look at the relative distribution of warning levels), and the worse part is that most of those reported users would have stopped on their own anyway, while at the same time the persistent vandals who really need blocking would be lost among all of them, taking longer to be dealt with. So this would result in a significant net loss of efficiency. Cenarium (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    The main problem with being overworked is that lots of page patrollers have no idea what vandalism is, and report things at AIV that no reasonable person would consider vandalism AT ALL. This is also a problem with the warning templates, as they slap an unfriendly "level 4" template the first time someone edits with a test edit, which tends to scare away good faith editors who are just trying out the system. Look, here is a user which was recently reported at AIV as a "vandalism only account". Seriously, I can't find a single edit in their history which would lead someone to that conclusion. I see a few test edits on an article they were interested in, which were not in any way bad faith, Clue Bot dropped a few friendly notes on their page, and then someone instantly reported them to AIV as a vandalism-only account. The issue has nothing to do with the number of warnings, or templates, or anything, it's that too many people are too damn block happy and too sensitive to "vandalism". A large proportion of the traffic at AIV is not reports for people who are committing vandalism, or even need a single warning, but rather for people who don't know how to properly edit Wikipedia, make a few good faith test edits, and get blasted by an overzealous "patroller". There's a LOT less vandalism than people suppose there is. Nearly all of the really bad stuff (gibberish, racial epithets, insults, swearwords, etc.) gets caught by the Edit Filter or Cluebot and gets reverted without the intervention of patrollers. As a result, these patrollers get WAY too over sensitive, and start looking for boogeymen where there aren't any. If you want to improve the efficiency at AIV, it isn't about the number of warnings, its going to take admins and others to deliberately educate people who make bad reports as to why their reports are bad, and if they continue, to kindly ask them to stop making reports, because they don't know what they are doing. --Jayron32 12:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    I agree completely on that count. AIV gets bogged down with unwarranted reports, sysops don't act on it, the requests linger on, and the appropriate reports are mixed with it, not getting the proper attention. But the number of standard warnings still plays a major role, if ClueBot and Huggle users for example used three standard warnings instead of four, there would be a huge increase in reports of users who would have stopped anyway, further bogging down the system. Cenarium (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Experienced admins don't take hypothetical rules into consideration, they know by instinct what is vandalism, who is likely to need to be blocked, and how soon. AIV? I can't be bothered to go near the place. Like so many adminy areas, including NPP where I'm constantly educating some and kicking others out, it's a magnet for wannabe Wiki policemen. They grow up and out of it after a while, but a new generation of newbs always takes their place. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're new at vandalism patrol then following the levels is a good place to start. However once you gain a bit of experience you'll get a good feel on when it's appropriate to start at a higher level or to skip a level. Admins who do the necessary work at AIV take this into account and it's pretty rare that an experienced editor's report is declined because the vandal wasn't "warned enough". --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Facebook#Official Tor service URL

We had a little entry here and now there's a discussion on Facebook talk page. However, there's not enough users to talk on it, so please just have your say! --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

this stopped being constructive long long long ago. Let's move on and edit constructively, not bicker over small matters. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:31, 7 December 2014 (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.

No one but me appears to be paying attention to whether Wikipedia is using gender-neutral language. Everyone appears to be going by this rule:

Either gender-neutral language or generic "man"/"he" is acceptable; please leave whichever was used in the first version of the article unless there's a real reason not to.

If you don't believe me, look at the recent history of the article Eiffel Tower. Georgia guy (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Man-made" has never meant "made by members of the human male sex". Anyway, this is what article talk pages are for. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:GNL says that we should generally avoid using "man" to refer to both genders. Georgia guy (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:GNL is an essay. There are probably thousands of essays on en-wiki, all of them advocating that we should do something. Some have widespread support, many don't. But they're all just someone's opinion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
But the essay isn't very popular nowadays. The "Either gender-neutral language or generic man is acceptable; please leave whichever was used first" rule appears to be more popular these days. Georgia guy (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If it's true that the essay doesn't have widespread support (I wouldn't know), then we have no reason to follow it. Why would anyone suggest otherwise? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If it's true that the essay doesn't have widespread support, then we wouldn't have it. Perhaps it once did, but now it doesn't. We need to allow more people in this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We were not excluding anyone from this discussion. But I'll sit out the rest after leaving you with the dictionary definition of "man". Please note senses 1b and 1c, which have nothing to do with gender. More specific to your example, the definition of "man-made", which does not refer to gender in any sense. It is not Wikipedia's mission to get ahead of the dictionary as to vocabulary like this. It's our job to document social issues and trends, not move them. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It refers to the word "man" as a gender-generic term meaning "human being"; so it is an example of the statement that "man" is a gender-generic term. Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Using "man" to refer to "human being" is a good exmple of what gender neutrality is NOT. Otherwise this would make sense: "Some men are female". “WarKosign” 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
As problematic as it is here, spanish wikipedia is even worse consistently using the male plural as "gender neutral." I think we should start there then work our way through the other romance language wikis. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Things can be made by animals rather than humans, for example "Who made this mess ?". “WarKosign” 21:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Never seen an animal reading blueprints for a building :) GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to watch more cartoons “WarKosign” 10:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We cannot change the English language, but there is nothing stopping us from using the English language in a way that does not discriminate women. If an article speaks about something that is equally applicable to men and women, there is no reason not to use gender neutral language. For example, no reason to call an article Fireman when Firefighter means the same and is gender neutral. Of course the non-neutral name should exist as a redirect. I am surprised there is no policy/guideline on this. “WarKosign” 16:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry got the wrong person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"Man-made" does not discriminate against anyone. It is hold-over from the time when the primary meaning of "man" was as a non-gendered reference to what we now usually call "humans". Should we rename "werewolf" as "humanwolf" to avoid discriminating against "wifwolves"? No. When someone says "man-made", all they are saying is that whatever they were talking about was made by "man", aka "humans". Is there really a need for linguistic revisionism, here? I would say that there isn't. In fact, I would argue that "artificial", which is Latin-derived, is much less natural to native English speakers than the Germanic "man-made". RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
See these guidelines as an example. Instead of "artificial" you can go with "handmade, manufactured, synthetic" before defaulting to using disriminating language. There are many things "man-made" by women. What's important is not a specific word but a principle - avoiding expressions that imply men for concepts that are equally applicable to women. “WarKosign” 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been pointed out many times that the expressions you complain about DON'T imply men. They refer to all mankind. (Which, unsurprisingly, includes women.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Kindly point me to a gender neutral language guideline that says that "man-made" or similar expressions are acceptable. “WarKosign” 21:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to. I just want to see informed, intelligent conversation here. The word "man" in "man-made" simply DOES NOT imply men. I have no problem with you choosing to use other words. Just don't impose your linguistic revisionism on the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are repeating your own assessment. Are you an expect in the field of gender neutrality ? Are there experts that agree with you ? “WarKosign” 21:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been using "man-made" for all of my longish life. When I use it it is gender neutral. You cannot claim otherwise. That would be just silly. "Experts" are irrelevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:IDHT? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
To whom was that directed? HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Good point, sorry. It was referring to WarKosign. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 have spoken, so the conversation is over. Sure, it's the exact opposite of all the gender neutrality guidelines, but what do they know ? We don't need no stinking experts, we have HiLo48 with us. “WarKosign” 21:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If the grammar in that post is your idea of good language usage, please take your ideas elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Many more than HiLo48 have spoken. Your inability to see that is what implies WP:IDHT. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Gentlemen, respect your positions on this topic & move on :) GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Those who have spoken repeated their position over and over again without providing any new argument. I provided several sources for my position. If you are correct it shoulnd't be hard to find a reputable source that backs you up, so far I've seen refusal to provide any. “WarKosign” 22:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't need a source to prove that when I say "man-made" it is gender neutral. It has been all my life. Anyone saying otherwise now is talking nonsensical, revisionist bullshit! My language means what I intend it to mean, with a long history of it being that way. It's YOUR problem if you choose to interpret it to mean something else. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement that the English language has been discriminating women for generations. You believe it is acceptable and should remain so, and I believe otherwise. “WarKosign” 22:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
We are NOT in agreement that the English language has been discriminating women for generations. And what do you mean by "discriminating women"? It's poor English. I think you mean "discriminating against women", but it could equally mean "discriminating in favour of women". It actually has no meaning the way it is written. I cannot accept being told how to use my native tongue by someone unable to get its grammar and syntax correct. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
WarKosign, what you or I or anyone else believes about the English language is beside the point - Wikipedia isn't here to reform it. Certainly there are times when we could avoid discriminatory language, and fail to do so, but a prescriptive approach that demands something that existing language is incapable of isn't going to work. If you want to rewrite the language, I wish you luck - but you can't do it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
That guideline from the Canadian government is the most absurd thing I've ever read. I don't know why people can't understand that "manpower" does not exclude women. It is using the generic "man". "Man" was originally completely genderless, and referred to humans in general. Words can have multiple meanings, and the genderless meaning is the oldest one in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@HiLo48:, I am beginning to feel some hostility. Thanks for the correction, of course I meant "discriminating against women", and perhaps it's too harsh - "marginalizing women" would be more correct. English is not my native tongue, and perhaps this gives me a better perspective - I know that "man-made" means "made by human beings", but I also see that it implies that things are usually done by men and not by women. Imagine the norm in these expressions was "woman" and not "man", would you agree that "woman-made" is perfectly acceptable to represent things done by you (assuming you're male) ? Unless the alternative is very awkward I think it's best to avoid using gender-specific words that are irrelevant to the intended meaning. Anyway, there is no official policy, so it's just a matter of personal preference. “WarKosign” 08:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If English is not your native tongue, how the fuck can you claim that "man-made" IMPLIES "that things are usually done by men and not by women"? You can't get normal syntax or grammar right (which is not a problem on its own), yet you claim to know exactly what a very common expression means whenever and wherever it is used. Hostility? Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
English is only my 3rd language, maybe this is why I do not use "fuck" or "bullshit" as arguments in a dispute; perhaps I do not fully gasp what these words IMPLY and how they prove your point. Suit yourself. Wikipedia has a manual of style supplemented by an explanataion; whether you choose to follow or violate them is not up to me. “WarKosign” 12:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It comes down to this... using gender neutral language may be the nice, politically correct thing to do... and we could write a policy to try to mandate it. However it isn't something we should try to mandate through policy. First, if we tried to do so our editors will simply ignore it. And it is never a good idea to write a rule you know no one will follow. Right or wrong, politically correct or not, people are used to using certain words in certain situations, and they will continue to do so no matter how many time you tell them not to. Second, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. And finally, if we tried to actually enforce such a rule, we simply upset a lot of editors and drive them away from the project. Blueboar (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that forcing would upset many people, there are several examples above. However, gender neutrality isn't black or white - people should be encouraged to write prose that does not marginalize women. "Man-made" above is an arguable case, there are many cases that are far less arguable and are already neutral on wikipedia, for example fireman is a redirect to firefighter, policeman is a redirect to police officer. I do not recall blatant violations of gender neutrality in articles, all that is needed is for editors to keep gender neutrality in mind when choosing article names and mentioning generic members of the human race.“WarKosign” 08:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
And nothing prevents you from encouraging others to keep it in mind (you don't need a policy or guideline to give you permission to do so) - as long as you don't get disruptive and pointy about it. Stating your viewpoint on a talk page and suggesting alternative terms is fine... going on and on about it (and insisting that your view is correct and so be implemented) is not.
You are quite correct in saying that gender neutrality isn't black and white... but that goes both ways... you may feel that a term like "Man-made" is non-neutral and marginalizes women, but realize that others disagree with that view. They feel that such terms are neutral and don't marginalize women. If you want others to respect your view on the matter, you have to respect their view in return. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_116&oldid=1144523244"