Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
Shortcuts:
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.

« Older discussions, 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
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.



Should the +reviewer bit be removed from inactive reviewers?[edit]

There are currently 6206 reviewers, most of which have not made any reviews or edits to pages under pending changes protection in the last month or so. I'd like to suggest that reviewers who have not made any reviews for a month can have their reviewer bit removed by any sysop. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact the flag is a common victim of hat collecting; Introducing a timeout, like we have for sysop, should hopefully reduce this. Also, this should better indicate who is actually responding to the requests, and if level 2 is ever rolled out, it shows who is actively using the user right, so who the people to approach are.
--Mdann52talk to me! 16:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Happy editing, L235-Talk Ping when replying 16:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR: proposal changed to 6 months of inactivity needed, and I'd like people to reconsider oppose opinions. Wall of text: I'd like to change the proposal a bit. I'd like the proposal to be removal if there are no reviews in 6 months. Also, re. no hatshopping seen: then you've never seen WP:PERM/PCR when it's busy- people request it, use it for a couple of days, then never use it again. It's not useful at all for reviewers that don't actually review anything. Also, I'm quite frustrated by what I feel is bandwagoning- people see an almost-empty support section and a quite lengthy oppose section, and have a bias towards opposing and unintentionally don't consider the merits of the proposal. It irks me that if Mdann and I had put down supports "as co-author" the proposal would be in a different direction right now. That was a bit harsh, sorry, but it gets the point across. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 05:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

When reviewer first became available, it was handed out without request to around 5000 users (mostly by Courcelles [1]), this is where most of the "never reviewed reviewers" came from. –xenotalk 17:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. Why should we keep these reviewers that aren't interested? --L235-Talk Ping when replying 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Xeno: I'm not so sure. I've reviewed the logs for a number of accounts with reviewer permission (both recently granted and who have had it for a while), and most of these have never used it (or rarely have used it). User rights should only be granted if they are going to be used, not just so people have something in case it is useful one day. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Just more of an observation than anything. If the proposal carries, admins should probably stop handing it out without request. –xenotalk 18:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: I agree on many points. Reviewer doesn't give you any possibility for abuse, that's true. One consideration here is hatshopping. This proposal would a) reduce the number of hatshoppers with the reviewer permission, and b) increase the rate of reviews as the hatshoppers that are interested in keeping the flag review pending changes. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I would be willing to support the removal of the flag for inactivity, however, 1 month is way too short of a time period. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid six months is still too short. Let me make it clear what I would support. I would support removal of the bit from editors who were put in the group more than three months ago without requesting it and have never used it and or users who haven't used it in over a year. The main reason I would support it is to make {{NUMBERINGROUP:Reviewer}} more accurate as to the number of actual reviewers. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Reviewers rights are granted liberally to trusted users regardless of whether they may use it or not because we didn't want this to be a closed system, and also because of PC2, for which there's no general consensus but which is used on occasion. There's no hatshopper issue, most of those users didn't even request it. Cenarium (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Per the nom. I'd recommend a more liberal timespan like six months. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Sorta I support removal after 1 year of complete inactivity; it is very easy to request back if someone who has left the project returns in the future. — xaosflux Talk 05:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Sorta. I would say that if someone has been inactive edit-wise for over a year or more then it would probably be a good idea to remove permissions. Why? Because notability guidelines change and we can't automatically guarantee that the absentee reviewer would be aware of how much rules have changed- especially if they were from some of the "wild and wooly" times of Wikipedia. Even if the guidelines haven't had some sort of dramatic change, being gone for a year or more could have a negative impact on how well they remember those notability guidelines or some of the other pertinent guidelines of Wikipedia (BLP, etc). It's not like it's requesting adminship, so it's not that hard to get back and this way we'd ensure that they refreshed themselves on the basic guidelines of Wikipedia. Now if they are active but haven't used their reviewer status, then that's sorta debatable. I suppose that what we could do is just ask them after a few years if they want to continue using it- and more importantly, ask them why they haven't used it. I think that one of the biggest issues here is to try to find out why people aren't using their reviewer permissions and what we can do to improve the chances of them using it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think one of the reasons is that there just aren't that many opportunities to use it. I don't head over to Special:PendingChanges that much at all (just review now and again when they appear on my watchlist), but right now there's only four articles in the list. At least there's no backlog! Putting more pages under pending changes seems to be a good idea, we can obviously cope with it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    Right now, pending changes is only approved for use in fairly limited circumstances - vandalism/disruption from anon/new users that is frequent enough to be considered "persistent", but not so frequent that semi-protection would be a better option. Mr.Z-man 14:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Sort of weakly support, exactly like Xaosflux says. All advanced flags should presumably follow the same rules as the admin bit: If you are 100% inactive (not just inactive on pages requiring that particular flag) for at least one year, then you should probably (I guess) lose the reviewer flag. I don't think that this is hugely important, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. Use it or (after 6 months of not) loose it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. The admin bit is only removed after a year of inactivity because it can be very dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands. Sure, the reviewer permission gives you the ability to approve edits and edit PC protected pages without being reviewed, but it is not a dangerous tool. Besides, suppose a reviewer goes on an extended vacation or is busy doing other things on WP. Doing this would just make things unnecessarily complicated. --Biblioworm 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - (IMO) No real need to remove, unless "extra drama" is needed. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Accepting reviewer permission does not imply the editor will start watching pages that are not already on his/her watchlist. If there are few or no pages on the reviewer's watchlist with pending changes activated, naturally the reviewer will not have much occasion to use the permission. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Jc3s5h. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The OP states "There are a number of reasons for this,..." (justifications for the proposal). They have provided a single, IMO rather weak reason. If there are further reasons the OP might like to share them in detail. Otherwise it has no merit. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Even the most active of editors sometimes go inactive for months, either for RL commitments or wikibreaks. Forcing them to reapply when they return adds an extra layer of bureaucracy and creates unnecessary work for the admin corps. Altamel (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Why would we want to remove it? To make it harder for volunteers to do volunteer work? I can't fathom why this would be a good idea. Kaldari (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Not everybody edits in every single month, let alone does reviews, and implementing this will greatly reduce the number of reviewers to pass pending changes requests, thereby causing more backlogs. Reviewer permission does not imply that the user will be reviewing pages 24/7. Finally, one can't go rogue with the reviewer permission like they can with admin permission; a wrong review can quickly be undone by any autoconfirmed user, while if a block is mistakenly placed, another admin has to come along and unblock. Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    Still oppose with six months. I'd like to see at least a year of total inactivity (not reviewing inactivity; I mean, zero edits in a year) to remove this right. Epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I've no idea what we'd gain by removing it from people. If there was a finite number we were able to give out, then maybe, but there isn't a finite number of reviewer permissions. I can well imagine that editors/reviewers like to focus on one type of edit for a good while, then another type etc etc, and those phases could last for any amount of time. I know I do; sometimes I'll be focussing on referencing articles, sometimes on NPP, sometime in AfD, or whatever. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose What others have said above is very true. Additionally, compared to recent changes and new pages, the amount of work needed for PC reviewing is magnitudes lower, and reviewers sometimes may not have any pending change to review. And 1 month is way too short, IMO. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for changing the proposal. 6 months is indeed better. But anyway, L235, you really should consider our reason given for the opposes before blaming bandwagon. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 10:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. If wikipedia had a problem with mass vandalism caused by sleeper PC-approved users, then sure, but there's no utility to be gained by putting an expiry on the tool as a rule. Deadbeef 07:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Sometimes a whole month goes by without anything to review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Hat collecting is an "issue", but I wouldn't say it rises to the level of a "problem" that warrants the creation of a new process and more work for admins. Also note that the inactivity requirement for sysop doesn't require actually using the tools, just making an edit every 12 months. If we're going to do this (and I don't think we should), using a stricter standard than for sysop doesn't make any sense. Mr.Z-man 15:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Mr.Z-man. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Not everyone edits in a month and if everyone needs to take breaks and whatnot It's going to be a pain in the arse!, All in all IMHO this'll create more crap instead of less. –Davey2010(talk) 16:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  16. OpposeLittle use in removing this bit from people even after long inactivity. Admin bits can be abused or accounts can get compromised and can really damage the wiki. A reviewer bit getting compromised? I'd be more concerned about vandals finding out about the backlinks feature of Twinkle, tbh rather than this. Oppose. Tutelary (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  17. I hope the fact that I'm a long-term reviewer doesn't weigh heavily against me here, considering the fact that I haven't done very many reviews (and none in at least a year). I just don't see the point of revoking access to this user right. It's not really the type of tool that's easily abused; you click a button and approve an edit. It also allows you to contribute to PC-protected pages without having to have your every contribution scrutinized beforehand. "Hat collecting" is a ridiculous reason to strip people of advanced permissions; if you are unable to prove that they can't be trusted with them, then why bother complaining? To offset accusations of "bandwagoning", I didn't even read past the first paragraph before I knew that I'd be against this proposal. My opinion here would remain the same if I were the last man on Earth Wikipedia holding it. Kurtis (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  18. OpposeThis is just more trouble than its worth. Unlike with admins, there is no real benefit to removing reviewer rights from everyone who is inactive. Doing so will just waste our admins' time and prevent them from doing more important work. Additionally, what about infrequent reviewers or users who go on long hiatuses? I imagine many people with the reviewer right fall into these category, and it seems silly to remove rights from people who are positively, if infrequently, contributing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  19. Oppose- there does not appear to be a problem in need of solving here. So what if inactive users have the reviewer bit? Reyk YO! 07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  20. Oppose - Pointless bureaucracy, trying to solve a problem that is nonexistent is always a bad idea anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  21. Oppose As has been noted by many others, no case has been presented that makes it clear that these users having an unused low-level userright causes harm. Should we remove autoconfirmed status from anyone who has not edited a semi-protected page in six months? Should we remove rollback from users who don't use it? Of course not, because it doesn't accomplish anything. Neither would this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - a solution looking for a problem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - There are only about a dozen pages at Special:PendingChanges awaiting review, and you are going to disparage some six thousand reviewers as "hat collectors" because there aren't enough pages to go around for all of them to review? Maybe the problem is that the process for configuring pending changes settings doesn't configure enough pages? There's about one page on my watchlist that's so configured, and half the time I can just revert it, which doesn't require the hat, which is why I haven't bothered to ask for it. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  24. Oppose - pointless work, and no real advantage. HÆDOreply 03:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  25. Oppose I fail to recognize the problem which this proposal would solve. I think the asserted problem is lack of uniformity in the process of maintaining user rights, but this is not recognized problem and I see no argument in this proposal which describes it as troublesome in this case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Mostly harmless. Should only be removed if there's evidence of abuse. NE Ent 02:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Why do we even need to remove their reviewer privileges? It is a total waste of time. What outcome would this have on Wikipedia anyway? The people might be taking a small break. When they come back, they will be distraught to find no reviewer privileges. If we used a robot, that would be faster, but it makes no sense. We need all of the reviewers we can get, anyway. EMachine03 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Reviewer is only a small indication of trust. Not much havoc could result from a compromised reviewer account. Even though I strongly supported the sysop timeout, the potential damage here is just too low to justify removal. To me it's a flag that's more similar to autoconfirmed than any kind of sysop level permission. Gigs (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  29. Oppose No sign of there being a problem here to be solved - for example, it would make more sense to remove all permissions to use varying fonts, AFAICT, or require special flags to add images to articles, each of which would seem a far bigger "problem" than has been presented here. Collect (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC) .
  30. Oppose We de-sysop administrators for inactivity as a safety issue, not a punitive one. An authorized user gaining access to the administrator tools is far more dangerous than one that gains access to pending changes review. Therefore I don't see much of a need to stir up drama by removing reviewer tools, in which case we may as well have over user rights, like rollbacker and template editor, removed for inactivity as well. We don't need more drama, do we? --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per WP:VOLUNTEER and even if inactive, we'd still have a pool of reviewers that could become active any time and help if they so choose. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  32. Oppose I see no issue that needs to be "fixed" here. Irondome (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Why should an infrequently-used (rather innocuous) capability be taken away from a user? What would be next, removing the ability to edit articles if none have been edited in the past six months? --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

  • If most of the reviewers don't want to review... that says something about how the community views the entire review process. Is (perhaps) the idea a well intended, but failed experiment? Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Your first sentence appears to be a non-sequitur. Review is in my experience used for what is on your watch list, and several articles may have multiple reviewers watching but its not a race. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It's more like reviewers don't have much to review, which is a good thing. The backlog is well under control, so on that count this experiment, as you say, is a success. Cenarium (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see pending changes used more often but the community only seems willing to apply PC1 (or PC2) for editor behavior issues rather than preventative content protection. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not in my case; my recent requests for protection have been for PC, for articles that aren't really getting semi-protection levels of vandalism, but where the vandalism isn't being caught very quickly, and it is happening at least once every couple of days, on fairly high traffic pages. Both were granted, as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more pending changes applied to articles as well, especially the extremely popular articles that are vandalized, spam edited, or similarly unhelpfully edited at least once a month. (By this I mean that it's not spam, personal attacks, or vandalism, but people writing in obviously non-usable content along the lines of what you'd read on a fan page or rumor site. You know, the stuff that is almost always inevitably reverted when it's caught.) I know that when I was just getting started with editing I would get very, very frustrated with pages like this and get even more frustrated when the pages would get semi'd but not really protected because the problem editors knew how to get around semi protections. I still get frustrated with those, I must admit. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • There are probably at least hundreds of thousands of pages where non-usable content is added at least once a month. It would be too contentious (just adopting pending changes is one of the most contentious decision en.wikipedia ever made). It would also risk bogging down the entire system because reviewers would no longer have clear cut criteria, resulting in huge backlogs. This looks more like flagged revs than pending changes, and consensus has always been strongly against flagged revs. I think the only potential extensions are targeted proposals like Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks. Cenarium (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As one of the people who helped push the decision on whether to use PC over the finish line after it had been stuck in limbo for several years I have to say it was always the consensus in every discussion I can recall that the reviewer right should be easy to get. In practice (at WP:PERM) it seems it is generally just slightly harder to get than rollback. The reason is that it has as little potential for causing real harm as rollback does. If someone is mis-using this tool, by all means, yank it back, but there is no need to take it away from users just because they aren't using it. If hat collectors think this very low-level tool gives them some sort of prestige that is their problem, there's no need to do anything about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, that was one of the big selling points we used to help get it passed, that it wouldn't be a closed group and that most any sane editor could probably get the permission. Gigs (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Increasing length of time for AfD discussions[edit]

I'm still relatively new here, so I'm not sure it's really my place to be making such a suggestion, but I've noticed that articles for deletion discussions are frequently relisted multiple times due to lack of consensus, in many cases because there are no !votes either way. I'd like to propose increasing the length of an AfD discussion, either to 15 or 30 days with a single relist allowed - this allows a longer base period for discussion and hopefully will prevent the multiple admin reviews and relists due to lack of consensus. If after one 15 or 30 days relist, a consensus is still not reached, the AfD should be closed as no-consensus. Peterborough Street (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly helpful to close as no consensus too readily. Further, the longer the list, the less people will look at the bottom of it. Clearing out as much as possible and relisting the rest at the top maximises the chances that there will be a resolution. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
My idea with making AfD 30 days would be to reduce the number of articles being sent for deletion. If the nom knows they'll have to defend why an article should be deleted for that length of time, it might encourage editors to try make more improvements to the article first. Peterborough Street (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with that would be that some AfD discussions are so done by the time 7 days is up.There's not really an issue with relisting discussions a couple of times, although I think in the past there have been discussions about having a maximum number of relistings (before closing as no consensus). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about that last night, perhaps include a clause that says if after 7 days there is an overwhelming consensus to delete or keep, then a Sysop could choose to action the article.Peterborough Street (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not have the lists separated into weeks? This will help prevent articles (and images) getting deleted during vacation times when most editors are otherwise engaged on other things. There are many deletionists that seem to live on WP 24/7/356. Is it possible to get any graph showing the annual periods of deletions and those that eventually get reinstated?--Aspro (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Adam. The benefit to relisting is that it puts the ones that need more discussion back at the top of the list. It might also be useful to make a list like User:Cyberbot I/Current AfDs more prominent, where people can see at a glance which AFDs need more comments. Mr.Z-man 15:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Article content Requests for Comments run for 30 days. Does anyone know what the historical reason is why content RFCs run longer than AFDs, or why AFDs run longer than content RFCs? I assume that it is the desirability of getting rid of articles that need deleting but that do not qualify for criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion. This may be a semi-exception to the principle that there are no deadlines. Since there appears to have been a deliberate decision to make deletion discussions different from content discussions, I would oppose making deletion run 30 days, especially since I have seen many article that really are worthless. I would support 10 days and be neutral to 14 days. We should also encourage nominators to publicize AFDs in WikiProjects, in the way that AFCs are publicized. I would oppose extending AFDs to 30 days, because some articles really need deleting, while content disputes need resolution, not quick resolution Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Truly problematic articles that have no place on Wikipedia could be deleted after a shorter timeframe at a sysop's discretion, as could AfD's where there is an overwhelming consensus to delete or keep. I'd honestly happier if we even went to 14 days, I'd just like to see more of an opportunity to discuss, make changes, and save articles where the potential is there (assuming WP:V and WP:GNG are satisfied) Peterborough Street (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, content RFCs "run for 30 days" because they don't. The 30-day 'timer' is a myth. Content RFCs can and should run for exactly as long as the participants think the discussion is useful, and then they should be closed. The RFC bot (as in, a completely mindless script that has no idea what the state of the discussion is) automatically removes RFC tags from discussions after 30 days, because participants routinely forget to remove the RFC tags themselves, and the community doesn't benefit from having ages-old stale RFCs in the central lists.
(Does anyone else remember when AFDs were just five days?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose extending duration of discussions. There are some XfDs that are clear-cut as delete or keep but don't fall under "speedy" or the "snowball clause" which means that in order to close them before the discussion period is up would require an "iar" close or an additional clause to be added with the extension of duration that says snow/speedy does apply in those cases adding a level of bureaucracy that I think is unnecessary. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose extending AFDs. I haven't been active at AFD for a while, but my experience in the past has been that most comments appear during the first three days, and that comments after those first three days rarely change the outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we already have options to relist if there are a lack of comments or it's determined that further debate is needed. Also as mentioned simply because an article like List of fictional characters who wear fingerless gloves (yes that was real) did not meet any of the CSD criteria does not mean that the AFD should have to run for at least 15 days.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose AfDs that need longer to be discussed are relisted. No point lengthening the process arbitrarily. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No reason to double the length of discussions that have reached a consensus, when you can just relist the ones that haven't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The existing procedure works fine- if the reviewing admin doesn't think enough time has gone by to generate a consensus, he can relist the discussion. There's no need to extend them even more by changing procedure because many AfD's are actually ready to be closed after a week, and there's already a procedure in place for those that aren't.--Slon02 (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure what needs fixing - if an AFD is not conclusive it can be relisted. Some are relisted two, three times. That's 20+ days in some cases, more than enough. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of columns in references[edit]

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
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.[edit]

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: [2] 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.[edit]

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)

[edit]

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)

Redefinition of revert[edit]

WP:3RR and similar restrictions exist to limit the effects of edit warring. They are defined as An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. This definition depends on the definition of a revert, and it is open to interpretation and abuse. For example:

  • A revert is undoing a specific edit by another user
  • A revert is returning text to a state it existed in before
  • A revert is undoing any work by another user

Each of these definitions has inherent problems that can lead to arguments:

  • A user largely undoing another editor's work but using different words can claim that they were trying to find a compromise
  • Any edit that deletes or replaces a latter (even correcting a typo) undoes the work of an editor who typed that letter, so a WP:GNOME could be accused of edit warring.
  • An editor may unknowingly be returning a piece of text to a state it existed in before a long time.

Another issue with revert is WP:BRD. If on a page under 1RR editor A performs an edit, editor B reverts it, editor A performs the edit again it is A's first revert, but B cannot revert it. However, according to the spirit of WP:BRD, the contested edit should remain off the page while the discussion goes on. With 3RR it's the same, with 2 more cycles of reverts before they are forced to stop and discuss.

I think these problems can be addressed by defining revert for the purpose of 3RR and other restriction differently: "do not commit an edit that is very similar to one already done in the last 24 hours without reaching consensus". It would have the following benefits:

  • Facilitate BRD. Editor A made an edit, editor B disagreed and reverted it, now both have to discuss it.
  • Avoid group revert war. Currently if there are N editors pushing an edit and M editors reverting it, the number of N or M is the determining factor in the state the page will be in before they can begin discussing. With the new definition one of the N editors will make the edit, one of the M editors will undo it, and then they all will discuss.

This definition isn't perfect, it creates a problem with WP:OWN, where a single user will be able the undo any edit by any other editors - since these undoes would be each a unique edit. To handle this case the rule has to be augmented with "...and do not undo large parts of recent work by other editors...".

Are there cases that I'm missing and this definition makes much worse ? WarKosign 07:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if under this proposal a first revert would in a sense be "protected". Reversions are not always right or the best action to take. I know we have to revert vandalism and disruption quickly, but there is too much other reversion without explanation. Part of the trouble is the mechanics of Wikipedia, making it ten times easier to revert the whole thing and pass on, than to look into the matter a bit more, retain a useful part of the edit and change or remove what is objectionable, add a few words of explanation in the edit summary, and often put something on the other editor's talk page. The reversion habit generates a lot of avoidable hostility. I could accept the spirit of the proposal if there was also a duty put on reverters, to ensure that wholesale reverting was the only course, and always provide some explanation: Noyster (talk), 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the problems begin when a user un-reverts an edit. Per WP:BOLD the first edit in a sequence is fine, and per WP:BRD it is OK to revert it if another editor feels the bold edit violated the consensus. The edit war begin when someone insists on re-introducing the same edit without reaching an agreement on the talk page. WarKosign 12:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Rather than Wiki-lawer over who gets to have the "last word" in a revert war, it is better to focus on the intent of 3RR. That intent is that we should not engage in revert wars to begin with. The point is that editors should go to the talk page and discuss instead of engaging in revert wars. We are supposed to hammer out any disagreements on the talk page, and not in the article. The thing is... anyone can end a revert war simply by not reverting (and shifting to the talk page)... so, if you have reverted an edit, and the other editor un-reverts your revert... don't continue to escalate the revert war by re-reverting (even though you might technically be allowed to do so). Temporarily leave the article at the "wrong version" while you discuss the issue and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to have 3RR at all if nobody engages in a revert war. One stubborn editor that refuses to discuss is enough to create a disruption, and there must be rules to handle these situations. WarKosign 12:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
BRD shouldn't be viewed as a free pass for reverters, the page itself linking to Revert only when necessary. I'm saying the talking should start at the first revert. If the original editor meets with a blank reversion, with no indication what was thought to be wrong, they are given little option but to reinstate their edit unaltered, forget the matter, or start a discussion with a lame question like "What was wrong with that?": Noyster (talk), 12:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that proper etiquette when one sees a problematic edit is to create a talk page section with their complaints pinging the original author and then if there is a very good reason to revert the original edit. But again, polite and well-intended editors do not need rules such as 3RR. The rules are needed to force otherwise stubborn editors into a resemblance of politeness. WarKosign 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:3RR already does define what a revert is.
The most obvious problem with the proposed definition here is that it means the first revert won't "count" as a revert, since in most cases it will be reverting to a version that's more than 24 hours old. We don't need to rewrite rules for hypothetical situations like typo fixes or accidents, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The intent of the rule is more important than the wording.
The spirit of BRD does not mean "the contested edit should remain off the page." Which edit is contested depends on who you're asking. There's no requirement that the original version always be used during the discussion unless the new version has potential issues with BLP or copyright violations. BRD is not a required process. You are free to simply do BD, and only revert if the other editor doesn't respond.
"if there are N editors pushing an edit and M editors reverting it, the number of N or M is the determining factor in the state the page will be in before they can begin discussing" - No, it's not. 3RR is a bright line, but it's not the sole factor considered. From WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Mr.Z-man 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3RR's definition is problematic since it can be taken to extreme. Fixing a typo involves deleting a wrong letter, which reverses the action of another editor who typed this letter.
Which "first" revert do you mean? I'm describing a situation where an article is at a certain state which we'll assume has consensus. Editor A makes a change - and and doesn't matter if this change is a new edit or a revert. Editor B who disagrees weakly with this change should just voice the objections on a talk page. If B disagrees strongly, they should revert and voice the objections.
Let's assume now that they are not so polite and that B considers A's edit so horribly biased it must not stay in the article. Under 3RR A is allowed to make the same edit 3 more times (3 reverts of B's revert), while B is be allowed to revert 2 more times. The result is that A forced their potentially horrible edit to remain while the discussion begins. WarKosign 15:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You are showing a serious misunderstanding of both the letter and intent of the edit warring policy. As I said, 3RR is not an entitlement to make 3 reverts. If you do more than that, you will almost certainly be blocked. But the page can be protected or users blocked before that threshold. Basically you're saying that Editor B's initial revert shouldn't even count as a revert for the sole purpose of allowing the "consensus" version (regardless of whether that's really true, all we we know for sure is that it's B's preferred version) to be the version that ends up on the article when A and B hit the 3RR limit. That's not really improving anything. All it does is allow B to edit war one revert longer so that the article doesn't end up in The Wrong Version.
What if there was no consensus? What if B was WP:OWN-ing the article, keeping it in a biased state and independent editor A came along to try to fix it? Policies don't, and shouldn't, assume that either version of an article in an edit war is the "correct" one. Mr.Z-man 17:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree 3RR is not ideal. In my opinion 1RR works better; if an editor doesn't accept a single revert there is no reason to think they would accept 3 reverts. My suggestion is to count A's first edit of a stable version as one of reverts and thus to reduce the number of iterations before the editors must begin discussing. Another effect is that while the discussion goes on the article will remain in the state that had consensus previously.
"What if there was no consensus" - even if "now" there is no consensus, at some recent point in time there was a consensus, and then came an editor that changed the artcile from consensus, I called this editor A. It could be that A's edit is correct and justified while B is trying to OWN the article, yet until they (and other editors) reach a new consensus the default should be the previous consensus. WarKosign 20:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
"at some recent point in time there was a consensus" - Unless you assume consensus by silence, not necessarily. The vast majority of edits are non-contentious and never explicitly discussed. The idea that the "consensus" version or original version should be the default state during discussion is not supported by the letter or intent of any policy. The protection policy states that when protecting a page in a content dispute, it should be left in whatever version is there when the protection is applied, unless there are copyvio/BLP issues or there is an undisputed older version. Mr.Z-man 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If "A"'s edit is "correct and justified", he should be able to convince others of that fact. The same goes for "B"'s objection to that edit. Neither will be able to "own" the article in the face of multiple editors trying to do what is right. So... if "A" makes an edit, and "B" objects... all either party needs to do to break the stalemate (and the revert cycle) is file an WP:RFC and let others settle it... stop editing and reverting for a while... call in outside opinions from neutral third parties (per WP:Dispute resolution) and let those outsider's determine whether "A" or "B" has the best argument. Hell... they may even be able to find the middle ground, and suggest compromise wording that both "A" and "B" can live with. Take a long term view... the article may temporarily be stuck at The Wrong Version while everyone sorts out the dispute... but eventually everything will get sorted. Don't insist... convince. Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So far I got mostly negative reactions, and I think they are based on the incorrect assumption I'm trying to promote edit warring. This proposed change is intended to reduce edit warring. 3RR and 1RR are intended to limit the number of reverts a single user can (not "entitled to") perform unpunished, but they do not handle group edit warring, and do not promote WP:BRD enough, and this is what I tried to amend. My proposal works best with 1RR, effectively becoming "Any edit that was reverted cannot be re-applied without a discussion. Don't revert more than once per day since you don't own the article." WarKosign 13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Dismayed, maybe, but not surprised. To give you an idea of where this stands, last year we had a long discussion about whether this constituted an edit war:
Editor A: Creates an unsourced stub
Editor B: Adds a source
Editor A: Adds a new section
Editor B: Corrects a typo
Editor A: Adds a source
Editor B: Moves a sentence into the new section
Editor A: Awards a teamwork barnstar to Editor B
We literally had people saying that this was an edit war, because "technically, any change is a revert", and that Editor B's first action was "reversing" Editor A's "action" not to have any sources in the article. Yes, it was a stupid position. Yes, we made a small bit of progress on this attitude.
However, the progress that we made did not extend to a correction of the problematic definition, because A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. means that Editor B was "reversing" Editor A's "action" of failing to source the material, his "action" of misspelling something, and his "action" of putting a sentence in a less desirable location, and a couple of people were worried that providing an accurate definition would hamper their ability to punish wikilawyering edit warriors. The fact that people have been yelled at and accused of edit warring for normal collaborative editing by admins who misunderstood this definition did not seem to bother them very much.
One clarification that I think would help is fixing the "same or different material" line. We don't actually mean that if you fix a typo that you're "reversing" an action. If you do this:
  1. reverse a new addition,
  2. wait until the first editor has restored it, and
  3. fix a typo in an entirely different part of the page,
then you have not "reversed the action of the editor" twice. You've only done it once (in step #1). What we mean by that line is that if Editor A adds spam to the lead, and you revert it, and then Editor A re-adds spam with slightly different wording, and you revert it, and then Editor A re-re-adds the spam to a different part of the page, and you revert it—that is an edit war. We don't mean normal editing plus one actual revert.
Also, it would be nice to have the policy directly say that a single revert by a passing vandal fighter is never punishable edit warring. We've had people say that if you're patrolling RecentChanges, and you see something that looks like spam or vandalism (or even something that just doesn't seem to improve the page), that it's your bound duty to first investigate the history to make sure that nobody else has reverted it recently, because if you're the second, third, or fourth person to remove the spam, then you're an evil edit warrior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing, apparently your explanation there is wrong based on this discussion which resulted in my losing my access to the Template editor usergroup based on me being accused of edit warring for making a series of entirely unrelated edits to a template which were all reverted. Now as far as the whole situation goes, I am over it, but I do find this discussion that suggests that my edits were in fact not edit warring, despite there "seeming to" have been a consensus at the time they were. As such, I intend to re-read this discussion a little more as I am fairly intrigued by this and would love to help with a clear definition of "revert" which apparently isn't very clear at the moment. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Were you trying to do basically the same thing every time? Adding "tobacco kills people" to the lead, getting reverted, trying "tobacco can make people die" in another paragraph, getting reverted, and then adding "tobacco use is associated with shorter lifespans" at the very end of the article isn't "entirely unrelated". What I'm talking about is more like adding "tobacco kills people" to the lead, getting reverted, and then fixing the spelling of the word research in a different section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, what I did was set the documentation template to be hidden when editing a template that uses it. Another Template editor objected and reverted it. Instead, I wrapped the entire template in a classed span that did nothing at all to the display of the template for anyone (unless they added special css to their custom css file, which is what I was going to do to hide that template when editing templates so it wouldn't interfere and cause issues with previews). That was objected to by an administrator, and reverted on the basis the the class I used wasn't the same as another class used by a module. So, I made another edit using the the class I was told was preferred to use as it was part of the module (which was insufficient to hide the parts of the template that weren't in the module). That was reverted, the template fully protected, and my permissions stripped. To this day, in order for me to edit a template using {{Documentation}}, I have to remove the Doc template while I'm editing the template and put it back at the end. This is quite a pain and editing shouldn't have to be done this way. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Three attempts to do basically the same thing (just in different ways) can be edit warring. Of course, it could also be collaborative editing: I tried to do this, you said not to do it that way, I tried to do it another way (one that I thought you would support), etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Technical... once you knew that others were objecting to your edits, did you ever go to a relevant talk page and try to explain why you wanted to make the edits you made? The determination as to whether a series of edits is disruptive or collaborative can often rest on doing something as simple as doing that. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, there was an ongoing discussion about it on my talk page, of which my subsequent edits were what I interpreted the objecting editor was suggesting I do instead of what I had done. I'm sure that if I requested to be in the group again at this point, it would be granted without much hesitation. I don't care to be back in the group for at least a little bit longer, so that's not the point. I'm just interested in how this topic intersects with that situation, and I'm quite interested in making sure that it is clearly defined someplace so that if this situation ever starts occurring again, and I see it or another editor that is aware of that definition sees it, they can say "Hey, take a look at this definition." — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there is not going to be a definition of what is and what is not a revert. "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" WarKosign 19:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

When consensus screws thing up real bad[edit]

Anyone who has constructive ideas (note: not a rehash of negatives, please!) is welcome to comment here. I was told that this ("Accuracy versus consensus") was not the right place to get input on it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a question of accuracy vs. consensus... it's more a question of what is accurate in English vs. what is accurate in various Scandinavian languages. The English language sources spell the subject's name one way, while Scandinavian sources spell it another way. Since this is the English language version of Wikipedia, we follow the English language sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest and attempt to reply, but you've taken a sloppy look and missed the point. It's not at all question of spelling but of two different names, as different as Edward (Edvard in Swedish and German) versus Howard (Howard in Swedish and German) or as Blueboar versus Bluebear. (See all the other relevant examples I also gave please!) I asked that irrelevant arguments like yours not be rehashed. Spelling is irrelevant here. My name is correctly spelled Sergio in Spanish and Sergius in Latin (those are legitimate exonyms), but Serde or Serve or Serke in no language. If a Serke Woodzing exists anywhere, in any country, in any language, that is not me. Get it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Duplications stricken - see here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be forum shopping at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Accuracy versus consensus and now here. There is already plenty of discussion at Talk:Hedwig of Holstein where it belongs. Please don't forum shop, and don't disparage disagreeing editors or try to ban them from discussing the issue. They have the right to participate. Your excessive bolding is also annoying. If you want support for your case then I suggest trying to find some reliable English sources for the spelling instead of keep arguing that we should ignore consensus and spelling in English sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"Now here"!? I've struck just about the whole thing and referred the matter on to exactly the page you pointed out! Didn't you notice? What "how here"? I was also specifically referred here from the Teahouse. Didn't you notice that either? I have every right to ask people not to discuss matters that obviously are irrelevant to a discussion I started and to try to get them to focus on the issue. I also have the right to use bold type to remind errant people of what the issue actually is, when they comment without having read. Since the issue is not a matter of spelling - didn't you notice that either? - I'll have to chalk your unhelpful, issue-disregarding and condescending lecture up to what the Swedes call blåskontot. ask: why lecture? Why not contribute something constructive? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
PS PrimeHunter versus Prime Hunnter would be a spelling issue. PrimeHunter versus PrimePunter would be an issue of two different names. That's what this is all about. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The Teahouse post said "If you wish to propose a change to Wikipedia's policies or procedures, the Village pump is the place to go". You don't appear to be proposing a change to the policies Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names or Wikipedia:Consensus. You want a specific article moved. That discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. If I was notable and was generally called PrimePunter in reliable English sources then that's what a Wikipedia article should probably call me, with a remark that my Wikipedia username is PrimeHunter. Similar to the opening line already mentioning the German name you want. You don't have the right to decide that our naming policy about common English names is irrelevant and that people must not refer to it in a naming discussion. And you don't define what "the issue" is and control the discussion just because you started it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand or support your personal opinions about discussions, nor why you think you have the right to order me around like a dictator as if you owned Wikipedia. To me it's very important that we don't all waste a lot of time and energy discussing irrelevant things. Clouding the issue is a destructive discussion tactic, not a constructive one. It's more destructive than me reminding people to discuss a certain issue in a discussion I started, or you doing that too, if you don't want your debate inflated and ruined by virtual filibustering. If someone starts a discussion on a certain issue I would always try to be considerate to everyone involved by discussing that issue, not a lot of things that I would like to steer the discussion away to, but that are not what the discussion is about. It's a matter of consideration, not of what you or anyone else feels I am allowed to do in a discussion I started. You don't make the rules all on your own, and neither do I. If people are considerate, and discuss ethically, we never need to argue about things like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia's policy on naming biographies:

  • When it is obvious that an article has been given a name which is not that of the subject person, because of a small amount of English language sources through which that incorrect name has been spread on the Internet, WP:Common sense should prevail. No article should be given a name which is not based on facts as to the actual name of the subject person in his/her life or in history therafter. What a small amount of English language sources tell us is not a fact in every single case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is... when the majority of English language sources use name "A"... common sense is for the English language Wikipedia to use name "A". And it is not at all "obvious" that name "B" is in some way more "correct" than name "A". Your campaign is directed at the wrong target. We reflect what the sources say. If you think they are "wrong", take it up with them... not us. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The only real exceptions I can think of are extremely rare exceptions where there might exist only one or two English language sources about a topic which all use the variant name. Actually, in some such cases, I honestly could see saying that the sources are wrong, if, for instance, the publishers or writers or other reliable sources say that there was an error in the texts used. But in such cases, it would still be incumbent on the person hoping to ignore those English uses to verify such information as per WP:BURDEN. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Oppose[edit]

  1. as the proposal is to my eyes excessively long and to some degree redundant, and that there already exists a relevant policy, WP:COMMONNAME, which deals with these matters. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yup... WP:COMMONNAME deals with it well. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. An editor shouldn't arbitrarily decide that it's "obvious" that all English sources are wrong and must be ignored. This is the English Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME is fine as it is. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. This is a proposal to disregard verifiability in favor of "truth" (as determined – at best – via original research). "Contradict reliable sources when it seems obvious to you that they're wrong." is about as inconsistent with our core policy as possible. —David Levy 02:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Is anyone interested in addressing the actual problem, touched upon by John Carter above (thank you!), or is everyone interested only in defending and perpetuating a system that makes such problems (albeit rarely) come up? Ergo, what do we do when an article has a name which we can agree (given enough interest!) is not correct, as in not factually associated with the subject person? Do we ignore the fact that the arcticle is incorrectly named? Did you all miss the words "small amount" in the proposal or did you just choose to ignore them? Constructive suggestions? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The constructive suggestion is to find reliable English sources that say that the reliable sources upon which an article is based were actually in error as to the subject name. When all the English language sources call something a particular name, that is its name in English. Unless you can document in reliable sources that the subject, because of confusion or unfamiliarity, is actually supposed to be called something other than what the English language sources are calling it, then you are engaging in original research, pure and simple. Find sources that say other sources are wrong about the name, and people will begin to discuss whether a change can be justified. VanIsaacWScont 01:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be fine in a few cases where the subject person is well known enough in English literature to be discussed like that. Obviously (to me), when unfortunate things like this (rarely) happen, that is never the case. Then what do we do, if we all agree that the name is wrong, based for example, on unanimous reliable sources in a language or two of the person's origin(s) where more has been written about h, whereas we only have a very few and questionable English texts with the wrong name? That's what I'm after. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's just it: you're the only one that thinks the name is wrong. Aside from you, we actually all agree the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim, and policies like COMMONNAME are a codification of that same agreement by hundreds or even thousands of English Wikipedians for the last decade +. English Wikipedia names its articles on the basis of reliable English language sources, and will only consult non-English language sources when English language sources don't exist. When those English language sources say the name of an article subject is X, that is what our policies and long-standing consensus say our article needs to be titled, and it is immaterial if some other language sources or an editor happens to think the "correct" name is actually Y. When all English language sources call a subject X, that is it's name in English. Period. VanIsaacWScont 02:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't trust a Wikipedia editor to decide that there are too few English sources and that the native sources unanimously use another spelling. The whole proposal is based on your quest to change Hedwig to Helwig for a German-Swedish woman. I find many English sources for our current name Hedwig, and did you even try to search for native sources? I immediately found Hedwig in both Swedish and German sources, for example [3] and [4]. By the way, our German article de:Helvig von Holstein is older than the English article and has included the alternative name "auch Hedwig von Holstein" from the beginning. And if you keep claiming that every single use of Hedwig is "obviously wrong" by people who didn't know her only "real" name Helvig/Helwig then [5] is an interesting source. It's a Swedish folder with the same text in Swedish and English. The Swedish text says Helvig. The English (below the child photo) says Hedwig, and only Hedwig. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
So according to you, Hedwig is the English name form for Helwig, the same name. Mind blowing! No use to even discuss something like that. And it hasn't occurred to you that that the further spreading of this error through WP is exactlty what i'd like to try to prevent. It's been going on for years now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipeida is not the place to right great wrongs. The fact is, even if all those English langauge sources are using the wrong name... it is not our job to correct them. We reflect the sources, we don't lead them. If the English language sources are wrong, take it up with the authors and publishers of those sources... convince academics to comment on the error in academic journals, and to start using the right name in their writing. Once that occurs, Wikipedia will quickly follow suit. but as long as the English language sources call her Hedwig, so will Wikipedia... the best we can do is note that Scandinavian sources call her Helwig. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is about a particular 13th century woman called Hedwig of Holstein in some English sources. If Wikipedia says North Korea instead of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" then it isn't a general claim that "North" means "Democratic People's Republic of". PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"comprised of"[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

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[edit]

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)

Child protection[edit]

I'm going to be blunt. The way child protection has been handled both in the past and is being handled at present has been far from ideal. The registration page is completely useless when it comes to informing children and minors about the need to protect their private/personal information and providing information to parents and guardians of children and minors about the potential dangers of children revealing any form of identifying or otherwise personal/private information and the immediately visible nature of userpages and talk pages. The Foundation's Legal Team, Arbitrators and administrators have had to intervene in the past to make use of revdel, oversight tools and bans to ensure that children and minors are protected and that child predators and paedophiles are not able to cause or effect harm on children and minors.

The present system is visibly inefficient, especially given how certain predators and paedophiles were able to do one or more of the following:

  1. possess accounts for as long as they did
  2. edit for as long as they did
  3. communicate with children in an administrative capacity
  4. gain the trust of and manipulate various members of the community in the way that they did

It speaks volumes about the community when the page for account creation does not at the very least contain a transclusion of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:Advice for parents. It is vitally important that the Foundation and the Community take steps to ensure that parents are made aware of the potential risks and dangers involved with having their child or ward edit on the English Wikipedia or any other Foundation wiki. There needs to be visible information on the account creation page — be it a brief summation of the information as contained on those advisory pages, or even a short statement of rights and responsibilities — something which makes it perfectly clear that the Foundation and the Community are committed to a safe and open environment, not just for the adult editors but for the children and minors who want to make a difference and who want to contribute positively.

I know for a fact that the safety of editors is something which the community takes seriously, but I feel that, of late, there hasn't been enough done to stress the importance that is due to the creation and maintenance of a safe and cooperative editing environment. Everyone deserves to feel safe from credible threats of violence and abuse. Safety is not a privilege, it is a right and it is one which, I feel, has been overlooked or not had as much weight given to it in discourse around and related to policy changes.

I think it also important that we look at redesigning the Main Page to accommodate links to important policies, guidelines and advisory pages. As it stands, the "Wikipedia languages" section is useless, the sidebar exists for that purpose. "Other areas of Wikipedia" could and should be changed to accommodate the navboxes for policies, guidelines and advisory pages. This virulent culture of maintaining the status quo on the Main Page simply because a handful of stubborn editors can't strike a consensus is, frankly, beyond me. The more we bicker and argue, the more Wikipedia becomes the pariah of the major websites in terms of its approach with respect to child protection.

I submit this for community discussion.

James (TC) • 8:39 AM • 21:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Policy on nationality statements[edit]

Nationality is always a contentions topic. In accordance with the fundamental principles of WP it is important that we treat this subject neutrally in all articles. At present ther is no clear guidance on how to do this, and thus results in various regional and separatist group using WP as a promotional vehicle for their cause. It also results in squabbles and edit wars over who 'owns' the good and the great.

I think it would be beneficial to have a community-wide discusssion in order to provide policy guidance on this issue. The important thing is to keeep WP neutral and stop it being used to push any particular POV. What is the best way to start this process? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you give an example, even abstract, of what you mean by "various regional and separatist group using WP as a promotional vehicle" and neutral vs non-neutral treatment of nationality statements ? Neutral POV is always a concern, and there are policies for exactly that reason. WarKosign 11:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
One example of the kind of thing that I am talking about is the discusssion at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#Nationality. Maxwell's nationality is listed as 'Scottish' which from an international or diplomatic perspective does not exist. All inhabitants of the UK have British nationality.
In my opinion, the problem is that the discusssion rapidly moves from the factual to arguments about personal self-identity and strong feelings of cultural, ethnic, and historical identity. Let me make it quite clear that I have no desire whatever to suppress any of that, only to prevent it from being expressed in a statement of nationality, especially in an infobox, where readers should expect something factual that takes a world view supported by official reliable sources. I would therefore propose that 'nationality' should only refer to an independent state recognised by the UN. This is a simple, non POV, easily undersood and enforced rule that gives a clear level of consistency for our readers. It does not in any way prevent cultural, ethnic, and historical identities from being expressed in articles.
Another example would be the nationality of Marie Curie. This is a more complicated case but sime simple rules, relating formal and verifiable facts would, in my opinion, help. 'Nationality' should be treated as a formal fact, decided by diplomatic status. Country of birth, self-identified geographgical home, places of residence, nationality of parents are all important facts but they are not 'nationality'. The problem is that everybody wants to 'own' the good and the great. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
In most cases, self-identification is best. Where the nation no longer exists, I suggest we still use the term the person would have recognized as their nationality. Not just "current nation sovereign over the person's birthplace." Alexander the Great was Macedonian. Collect (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Self-identification is a recipe for endless arguments. Where the subject is a national of an independent state, 'nationality' should be of that state. Other facts should be stated in context if supported by reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that your exaple contains several claims that are arguable and are very far from neutral point of view. Scottish people "are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland", which I believe makes them a nationality.Nationality "differs technically and legally from citizenship". A Scottsman living in the USA is likely to still declare his nationality as Scottish. Are you denying ethnic minorities living in exile their nationalities ? What about immigrants, does their nationality suddenly change ?
There is no single definition of nationality, so no matter how you propose to determine it, many people would disagree. It's a matter of reaching a (painful) consensus in each individual case.
In my opinion, self-identification is a good start in many cases. WarKosign 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
WarKosign, You have a point about ethic minorities, especially where they don't identify with the state that defines their nationality, and where their own state exists today. However, the issue that Martin has raised does not concern ethnic minorities, neither does it concern historical boundary changes, nor does it concern a subject who was uncomfortable with his official nationality. For your information as a side issue, most Scots are ethically indistinct from the English. Only the Gaelic Highlanders in the north west stand out as being in any way ethnically distinct from the rest of the population of Britain, and they are only a small minority within Scotland, albeit that aspects of their culture such as kilts, tartan, and bagpipes, have been adopted by the Lowlanders since the nineteenth century in order to forge a Scottish identity. Also, Martin is quite happy to have the subject described as Scottish in the main body of the text. He simply wants the nationality field in the info box to read correctly. At the moment it is wrong, firstly because in the time of the subject, the status of 'British citizen' did not exist. The subject was a 'British subject' and so the nationality field should read 'British' and not Scottish. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The best thing to do is walk away from the British -vs- English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish/Irish usage argument. I tried adopting British & United Kingdom to bios in the past & was unsuccessful. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In any case, what is 'nationality'? Are you saying no one can be of Kurdish nationality, Scottish nationality, etc? We have an essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. What do you think of it? You're going to have a hard time insisting that every UK citizen be called British. And how do you deal with dual nationality if you won't allow self-identification? I still identify with my home country, I wouldn't want a nationality foisted upon me. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In the case that Martin is referring to, the subject is described as Scottish in the main text. Martin is not complaining about that. He simple wants the nationality field in the info box to read 'British'. Do you have any evidence that this particular subject would have objected to his official nationality? 109.152.249.9 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If it's about a specific case, it's best to reach a consensus on the relevant talk page with people somewhat familiar with the subject. WarKosign 19:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language[edit]

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)
"Man-made" is a redundant term. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 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)
  • This is not the place for advocacy. Changing the English language is not something that should be done on Wikipedia. RGloucester 22:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with using 'artificial' instead of 'man-made' if I'm honest; they mean the same thing in this context, but then again I don't see the problem with 'man-made'. Gender equality advocacy has a lot bigger fish to fry than this... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiably false statements with unavailable citations[edit]

If I have sources to back up my claim that a particular piece of information is false, can I justify deleting it without having access to the sources that are cited for its inclusion in the article? PolenCelestial (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not delete without discussion and consensus. You don't necessarily have to have access... but you should talk to those who do.
Remember that things are not always black and white... equally reliable sources often disagree with each other. When this occurs, we (Wikipeida's editors and article writers) have to maintain a WP:Neutral point of view about the dispute. One option is to "present the fact of the disagreement"... and explain what each side says. Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)