Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
• Consider developing your proposal at Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed software changes should be filed at Phabricator (configuration changes should have gained a consensus).
• Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
• Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk

 – Due to the discussion becoming rather long (200,000+ bytes) I have moved the discussion to a subpage. I apologize for any confusion this may cause. Thank you. SemiHypercube 00:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 10 days. Danski454 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Reduce number of vandalism warning levels

It has long been my view that four warning levels is rather excessive. People really only should need to be told once to stop. The only caveat is whether they actually read the message, but those who clearly don't are also those for whom extra warnings are useless.

On nearly every other Wikimedia project I edit, usually only one or two warnings are given at the most. I think two levels would be a good compromise, retaining the softly-worded first level (in case of good-faith mistakes) and the third level while eliminating the second and fourth levels. Those who continue vandalizing after they know it's blockable don't need another warning (level 4), and level 2 warnings could easily be merged into level 1. This would decrease patrollers' workload while also decreasing the total amount of vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support too many levels. I don't warn when a level 4 is needed I report. Vandals know they are doing vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Jasper Deng: Not sure if I'll end up actually participating in this as far as support/oppose goes, but are you proposing this for only the uw-vandalism series, for selected user talk warnings, or for all user talk warnings?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 04:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  I guess it's {{uw-vandalism}} only since that is only warning template series for vandalism ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  For now, I'm just proposing it for the vandalism templates, but I do want to bring it up as a general point of discussion. Other templates for which we should be reducing the number of warning levels are those related to spamming (since spam often falls in the same realm as vandalism), introducing deliberate factual errors, creating inappropriate pages, and maybe even BLP violations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. I personally would probably support defining the other templates besides vandalism whose number of warning levels should be reduced as ones designed for any user whose is very likely to be acting in bad faith; imo, adding original research and expanding plot summaries unnecessarily should be treated very differently than blatant vandalism as far as warnings go.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 04:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support I don't think tolerating vandalism is a good idea. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Is there any way to gather statistics on the effectiveness of the warnings? How many people get two warnings and then become productive Wikipedians? How many new editors change their ways after three or four warnings? Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support provisionally, although like Jack just above I think it's better to make this sort of decision with more data. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no requirement to go through all four levels. For egregious vandalism, I'll start with level 2, or I'll escalate 1 to 3. I also have no qualms blocking for clear vandalism after a level-3 warning has been given, since it mentions the possibility of a block. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I myself always start with at least level 2 unless I suspect it to be a genuine good-faith mistake. Long ago, I've had AIV requests declined after I did not go through all four levels. In the vast majority of vandalism cases, we really only need a single warning, not even two. So there is virtually no legitimate use case for all four levels.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Two warnings - Mild and Serious - should be enough. Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Please create a sandbox showing the proposed new warnings (could be fairly rough but enough to see likely wording). Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I would keep uw-vandalism3 as-is, remove level 4 entirely, and pretty much keep level 1 with the modification that "did not appear to be constructive" is wikilinked to WP:VAND. This way, we can introduce the notion of vandalism without scaring the user by explicitly labelling them as such.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment On the one hand, there are edge cases, where I might have to see several edits from a user before I'm sure they are vandalizing, so a series of warnings (of one type or another) is called for by AGF. On the other hand, I have blocked a user after as few as one warning when the user was rapidly vandalizing many articles. I no longer monitor AIV, because after carefully reviewing each request, I almost never did anything because the case did not require blocking (ie, not vandalism, stale, etc.). The few times I thought blocking was called for, another admin usually blocked while I was reviewing the report. - Donald Albury 14:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Unneeded - Like Jasper Doeng, I start with level 2 for vandalism. There's no need for a lvl 1, since a good faith vandalism mistake doesn't really exist - I tag them as lvl 1 disruptive instead. I wouldn't mind removing the bottom one, but I suspect people would then want to rephrase them and I think that would be counterproductive. I would definitely NOT want a reduction for the others warning templates. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - While it may be unneeded, the extra warnings are also unneeded. While some admins see the 3rd warning as enough warning, I imagine that not all do, and may not block until after the final warning. I also support the single warning idea, however, leave the 1st warning for WP:AGF. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 16:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Unneeded As has already been said, there is no requirement to progress 1, 2, 3, 4 through the existing templates. Just give the appropriate level warning according to the situation, or no warning at all if that is what is warranted. GMG^talk 20:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose we block as needed and when appropriate warning has been given or when no warning has been given at all if bad enough. This change would have no impact on admins. The advantage of the 4 stages of warning is mainly that it prevents people playing Huggle the Video Game® from reporting good faith IPs/school children and requesting indefinite blocks for stuff that isn't vandalism/doesn't need a block. Changing the warning levels would dramatically increase the bad reports at AIV and waste admin time in areas where it isn't needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Those suggesting that there is no need use all 4 levels in turn are correct. They are also fundamentally wrong about the lack of need to reduce the number of levels. As usual, they look at things narrowly, through their own myopic lens. The vast majority of non-admin vandal fighters will not come here. They will plod on with the 1-2-3-4 warnings in fear of ANI if an over-vigilant Admin. reports them or refuses to enact a block because 1-2-3-4 has not been followed. There should be an immediate reduction from 4 to 3. In 6 months, 3 to 2. Leaky Caldron 20:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Loving the personal attacks. Do you want 1, 2, 3 or 4 warnings for that ? Nick (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no requirement to go 1-4. Use common sense. But graduated warnings have a purpose, just not for obvious trolling and blatant vandalism. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Praxidicae. If you don't feel a certain warning level is appropriate, use the one you feel fits the situation. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Can any opposer give a single case of nonaccidental vandalism where all four levels’ use has been useful? Because if we are always skipping levels, then there’s a redundancy, and it has always been the case in my experience that I am skipping level 1 and giving at most two warnings in total. Also, Huggle and ClueBot NG automatically escalate by just one level at a time in many situations where a quicker one is warranted. If those who use the tool are making frivolous reports after going through all four, then that quite frankly is abuse of the tool and does not address the broader problem. @Nosebagbear: my surname is not “Dong”.—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Jasper Deng, the point is that what Leaky caldron is saying as a negative is actually a benefit: it really cuts down on bad AIV reports from people who are new and decided on their 3rd day on the project that they were going to dive into anti-vandal work without realizing how Wikipedia works. If you're an experienced user, use your judgement as to which warnings to give. Having the graduated warning system is very useful for new users who want to get involved with anti-vandal work, however. Basically the warnings exist equally to train them as much as warn vandals. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I contend that the amount of vandalism eliminated will result in a net decrease in the amount of work. It might result in more work at AIV itself, but result in a net reduction of reverts, making vandalism-fighting less high-speed and less tempting to rush. Also, I seriously doubt it will result in a decrease in the amount of frivolous reports. Those who make them should, if anything, be educated earlier on NOTVAND rather than later, and we get a net reduction of frivolous warnings and consequently less BITE'y behavior overall. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like others have stated, there is no requirement to go through all of the warning levels. But the warning levels do have their purpose, including for reports at WP:AIV. Some newbies just don't get the point and need at least two warnings. I don't see that four warnings are needed unless the editor missed the talk page messages somehow, but anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• oppose unnecessary. If I only want 2 levels warning for serious people, I will start level 3 directly. If someone is a newcomer, we should remain level 1 per WP:BITE Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Hhkohh: I did not advocate removing level 1. See the second paragraph of my proposal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Seen and known but I sometimes give them level either 1 or 2 depending on their edits Hhkohh (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral per Johnuniq. Without a sandbox version of these new templates, I have no idea what I'm !voting on here. I completely sympathize with the idea; every time someone gives the goatse LTA the obligatory four warnings before reporting to AIV, I want to come out swinging with a clue-bat, but I can't imagine how these would be phrased so as not to be overly WP:BITEy when it comes to kids making test edits, or when the RC patroller made a mistake and flagged a good edit, etc. I'm open to ideas, though. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've also had a request or two turned down at AIV. But if the editor is clearly vandalizing or clearly otherwise editing disruptively and I have warned the editor at least twice (via template warnings or non-template warnings), that is usually enough to get the editor blocked. Some admins will make a WP:NOTHERE block. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - This adds unnecessary bureaucracy to the process and regarding an issue that hasn't shown a need for any kind of change. The number of warning levels exist in order to make the process easy for patrollers, accommodate for all situations that occur, and (most importantly) assume good faith by default with bots, editors, and automated tools. There's currently no requirement that users be warned with all four warning levels and have made a fifth disruptive edit before they're blocked. As stated above multiple times by other users: I warn users very differently depending on the severity of the vandalism or disruption, their past warnings, their block log, how quickly they're attempting to push disruptive edits, what pages they're making bad-faith disruptive edits to, if sock puppetry or abuse of multiple accounts or editing while logged out is suspected, and many other factors. I use this information to either start the user at a level 2 or 3 warning compared to a level 1 warning, start the user at a level 4im warning, block the user only after they've been given a level 3 warning as opposed to waiting until after they've been given a level 4 warning, or use a different method to warn the user alltogether. The warning level system, which warnings are left first, or when action is taken earlier as opposed to waiting until the user has been warned four times and has made a fifth disruptive edit - is widely practiced and used on a judgment-level basis, and administrators who regularly handle this disruption already know to review reports at AIV, ANI, or other places thoroughly, verify and determine if the edits constitute vandalism or bad-faith disruption or not, determine if the user was sufficiently warned given the disruptive edits made, and do this before they consider action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• On the fence I usually start off at uw-2 and work up through uw-4 before blocking someone (unless it's pretty obvious they know what they're doing). This is not to say that uw-1 messages are useless: I use uw-test1 almost consistently in place of uw-vandalism1 when I feel that uw-vandalism2 might not yet be appropriate. There is no uw-test4 because, well, they're obviously engaging in vandalism -- that suggests uw-test and uw-vandalism need to be merged. That said, I manually post warnings just to be sure I'm using the right one. I've encountered plenty of middle-experience users using Twinkle who issue generic vandalism warnings for any revertable actions (instead of uw-delete, uw-npov, uw-notcensored, uw-agf, uw-npa, uw-fringe, uw-nor, uw-spam...), ignoring WP:NOTVAND to the point of failing WP:AGF. The reported user (who wanted to be productive) then gets it in their head that either:
  - anything that doesn't fit the mold is "vandalism" and sees no reason to try to cooperate
  - any idiot can leave whatever message they want (no matter how wrong) and so there's no point in paying attention to messages
  - because the reporting user was wrong to use the vandalism warning, the reported user's edits were somehow in the right
  Meanwhile, the reporting user gets frustrated because I have to stop and properly explain to someone who sincerely believes they're trying to help how their behavior wasn't helpful. Now, the counter example of LTAs is brought up, and for fuck's sake if it's an LTA just report them on sight. If someone is leaving automated warnings for an LTA to enable a report button, they should have their tools taken away so they can learn how warning and reporting users actually works.
  TL;DR: Three levels (maybe a mistake, warning, final warning) seem good for users who are manually warning and reporting but I feel like any automated warning tools should stick to four levels. Take away tools from people who use them to the exclusion of common sense. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, this is the best description of the issues surrounding AIV I have ever read. Also, yes, if its an LTA, we block on sight. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ian.thomson regarding how users tend to default their patrol actions to leaving a vandalism warning template compared to a more in-depth and explanatory warning (or God forbid, a custom warning... lol) for the actual problem - such as NPOV issues, unexplained content removal, adding content without a reference, test edits, or other actions that can be done and entirely in good faith. I consistently see users who patrol recent changes and do this, and it bothers me a lot when I see that. If anything, I think that certain templates shouldn't be automatically grouped into just warning the user for "vandalism" if a level 3 or 4 warning is left. I'll also add that automated tools should separate previous warnings left and know if it was for vandalism and blatant disruption vs the others, and not automatically stack and leave the next warning level template regardless of what the user was previously talked to about - especially if this or a similar proposal in the future should ever pass. Example: A user is warned twice (level 1 and 2) for content removal without an explanation, but a day later an editor leaves a warning for vandalism - in this situation, since the user wasn't warned for vandalism before, they shouldn't receive a level 3 warning for vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Meh I tend to think a better idea would be to make it clear that you don't have to work through all four stages or even start at the "general note" stage when it comes to blatant and obvious vandalism like writing "poop" or something similar in an article. I, and I belive many others, choose the template they belive is right for the situation, which sometimes means going straight to level 3 or 4, but in less clear cases starting lower. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Vandals know what they're doing. Having four levels makes editors feel they have to clunk through them in case they're later told they've jumped the gun. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Opposition This... can already been achieved. Yes, 1-4 are there and are meant to be used, however... there is warning 4im. If 1-4 doesn’t cut it, then you can use a 4im. In the rare event you need to give an instant only one warning to a vandal, just give a 4im. 4im exists, and “one warning only” is EXACTLY what 4im is. Essentially, you’re reinventing the wheel. This system has more flexibility with the ability for 1-4 and also in extreme cases skipping those. This’ll just add less flexibility and versatility to the system, you won’t put a littering person in jail for life, would you? Best regards, Redactyll Letsa taco 'bou it, son! 23:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC) 23:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Redactyll: This proposal is emphatically not about my preferences for giving warnings but about setting a project-wide precedent; I propose it because I see others wasting time and resources with giving all four warnings to blatant vandals. I might give that littering person a warning the first time if it were by accident (hence my proposal to keep two levels), but I would not hesitate to fine them if egregious. Also, since blocks are not punitive, this is not a proper analogy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support CLCStudent (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The German Wikipedia, second largest after the English one, has only two warning levels for all cases, and a "-im" version if level 2 is applied directly. See de:Wikipedia:Huggle/Vorlagen. I personally never liked these templates; they instantly confront the editor with a big red stop icon and tell the user that their edits have been "unhelpful". However, it does seem to work there. Just for your consideration.
  ^{Disclosure: I have been invited to this discussion by a notice on my talk page, likely based on my Huggle activity.} ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose 2, Support 3; I use uw-vandal1 for cases of people trying to do something that they might think is right, clearly isn't, and could be construed as vandalism. I use uw-vandal2 as a first warning for obvious cases of vandalism. I think 3 and 4 could be merged. At play there is an issue that if it is rapid fire a person may commit more vandalism without having seen an incoming warning and then end up being blocked before they've had a chance to read a warning. 2 warnings alone might not allow for this. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've never interpreted the four warning levels as implying that all four need to be used in succession. In fact, I probably never have used all four in that way. I prefer level 1 for newbie edits likely made in good faith, as the text of the warning bears that out. If it appears deliberately-disruptive but is relatively benign, starting out with level 2 is perfectly reasonable and assumes no intent. With severely-damaging edits, there's no reason why one couldn't go straight from 2 to 4, or if continued disruption after level 1 belies bad faith then level 3 can be next.

I feel that the distinction between "probably good faith" and "probably bad faith" should be maintained; the "Hello, I'm Sable232" and direction to the Help Desk are good for the former, but sound laughably patronizing (or even condescending) to the latter and may prompt further disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: no-one is saying you have to use all four in order, as if the vandal is levelling up at each step and once they've surpassed level 4 it's time for the boss battle. The last thing we need is more BITE and merging level 2 and level 1 would do exactly that. Plenty of edits that I revert are unhelpful but done out of ignorance rather than malice, and I need a pre-written message to slap on their talk pages to explain why I undid it, but something kindly written enough to not scare them away. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I am a big fan of the three strikes rule and think a solid argument could be made for dropping the level 4 warning. Once you have been told to STOP a given pattern of behavior three times, a 4th warning should not be needed. However, dropping things down to two warnings is a bridge too far for me. And some of the comments above make good points by noting that multiple warnings helps keep overenthusiastic newbies from reporting people too quickly. Also correctly noted, there is no requirement to go through all 4 levels of warning. If the behavior in question is obviously bad faith start with a level 2 or 3 warning. There is actually no firm requirement to issue warnings at all when dealing with egregious behavior. I have issued more than a few no warning blocks. It all depends on the exigent circumstances. Editors should adjust their response to the nature of the problem. How serious is the disruption? What is the chance that it is good faith mistakes (and so on)? Dealing with disruptive behavior requires a lot of situational judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It's easy enough to issue a level 2, 3, or 4 warning "off the rip"; much harder to allow for good faith errors if the 2nd warning automatically triggers an AIV report. If anything, make sure it is abundantly clear in the instructions that it is acceptable to increase the automated level based on the patrolling editor's interpretation of severity and the clarity of a nefarious intent.--John Cline (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A better solution would be for people to stop defaulting to level 1 warnings for malicious vandalism. Choose whatever warning level is appropriate based on the edit. I recommend setting your twinkle default to level 2 if you are lazy like I am. Natureium (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Current system is a flexible tool to cater the appropriateness of warnings and levels as one see fits. I am an active vandal fighter and one of the handful counter vandalism program/course graduates. My vote based on my knowledge and experience as below.

1. New IP editors (most of the vandals) - WP:Assume good faith. Warning level start at 1 and increasing accordingly to 4 before reporting to AIV.
2. Choose the warning level appropriately to justify the nature of the edit or the behaviors of the vandalized editors. Any level warning can serve as the starting level and the warning level could skipped (such as from level 2 to level 4 for example) for clear malicious vandalized edits.
3. Level 4 or (im) warning. It could be given to a vandalized editor who performs egregious vandalized edits across multi-pages in a quick succession or inserts shocking inappropriate image(s).
4. an (im) warning. It could be given to the vandalized editor and report them to AIV at once if any abhorrent personal attack(s) such threat of legal action or threats of violence against an editor on their talk/user page.
5. If any of the template wording is not suitable or additional details need to be included, one CAN always write a personalized warning messages and give warning level on the vandalized editor talk page without using the warning templates. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose If you don't think all 4 warnings are necessary, just skip to level 4 or 4im. SemiHypercube 14:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps an alternative is to keep the different warnings for different levels of disruption, but remove the presumption that there must/should be some sort of escalation through them before action must be taken (and ensure that those who act - especially at AIV and the like, understand this.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In my admittedly limited experience most vandals stop before I have to file an AIV report, but sometimes it takes multiple warnings to get their attention. Level 4im is available for editors who feel that a single report should be enough. Besides {{uw-vandalism}} I often use {{uw-delete}}, {{uw-unsourced}}, etc, which likewise have four levels. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Meh AFAIK, there's no requirement to escalate in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, report. I tend to use 4im or start on 3 if it's obvious vandalism. Probably best to keep it as it is but definitely support a measure to avoid instruction creep requiring anti-vandals to escalate in the aforementioned order. Leave it to the discretion of users. SITH (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This thread doesn't seem to have any relationship with Middle Eastern military history task force... ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 08:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm probably one of the guilty ones who go through all the levels when probably not required, but I certainly don't see it as a requirement in the most egregious cases, and I've seen lots of IP edits who stop after the 2nd warning. I have seen plenty of individuals who get reported to AIV before the final warning if they are particularly egregious, and there are also no restrictions in placing a higher level warning, as outlined above. Agent00x (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If one really does use all current levels, that amounts to five specific, distinct incidences of vandalism before a vandal is blocked, one for each level of warning plus the vandalism-after-final-warning that leads to a report. That's too many. So some say skip levels. Then what's the point of having so many levels? I've long thought we should reduce the number of warning levels, and I'm glad to see I'm not alone. As for how many levels, I'm fine with two. That way the number of incidents of vandalism before a block is three. And maybe it's just the baseball fan in me, but "three strikes you're out" is a fine paradigm. oknazevad (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Question for the supporters: My personal preference is to not use the template at Template:Uw-vandalism1 for obvious vandalism like "H1TLER WUZ R1GHT!" or "qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm!" because I don't think that vandals should be sent to the help desk. I also don't like the redundant "I am X" (I already have a signature at the end) or the insincere "hello" (I am warning them, not greeting them). Instead I use Template:Uw-vandalism2 as the first warning. And no, I have never been criticized for that choice. Other editors clearly like to use Uw-vandalism1 as the first warning. So are you proposing that I cannot use the template that I prefer or are you proposing that those other editors cannot use the template that they prefer? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • (...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think I've ever used all four levels, but I think flexibility is beneficial. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• ’’’Meh’’’. I’m with those above who note that there is no requirement to follow the 1234 increasing level of naughtiness warnings. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As someone who handles problematic edits by new users, I believe that only two warnings are necessary. For those who are opposing this based upon flexibility reasons, I totally understand your point of view and it wouldn't be that bad if things were to stay as they are. I frequently accelerate the warnings that I give to users who make severe problematic edits so that they receive level 2 warnings to begin with rather than level 1 or even that they receive a level 3 warning, if they make a significantly problematic edit after receiving a level 1 warning. So why do I believe that only two warnings are necessary? Because in the multiple years that I've been handling problematic edits from users, I've never seen anyone redeem themselves on that specific account. I'm guessing if someone matures from making this kind of edit, it is likely to be 5 - 10 years from when they made the account that has problematic edits attached to it. So what happens then? I believe they make a new account and go on to be productive members of the community from their first edit without the stain of the problematic edits made in their youth being associated to that account. Often I've noticed that new users who are here to contribute positively to the Wikipedia make good edits right from the start or as an IP before they make an account. Assuming that most, if not all new accounts will make problematic edits within their first edits is a flawed assumption to make because it just doesn't seem to happen that way. Sure, there are users who make mistakes that aren't vandalism related, like not being aware of NPOV or making formatting errors but on the whole, there are little to none productive users who produce edits that seem like vandalism within their first few edits to Wikipedia. Practically every account that within their first few edits make problematic edits that look like vandalism are here to vandalise. So on that basis, clear vandalism should be given 1 - 2 warnings before that user is blocked from disrupting Wikipedia any further. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGF. Four warnings has always been the norm. Skipping levels is occasionally appropriate for particularly egregious vandalism, and then it's up to the discretion of the responding admin whether to block. Reducing the number of warnings required would have no effect other than to increase the number of inappropriate blocks. Bradv🍁 17:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. However, it should be made clear that it is not required for anti-vandalism fighters to start at level 1 and work their way up. We also more test-or-vandalism templates at level 2-4; I can often say either it's a disruptive test or vandalism (especially with the Visual Editor, when the user may not even be aware of the problem), but neither the uw-test nor the uw-vand template series say what I'm trying to say. Also, WP:AIV should not require that a level 4 warning be issued. But that's a different proposal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Eliminate level 3 I don't see a need to warn again after level 3, if someone vandalized after being told clearly that what they are doing is vandalism and may lead to a block, they should not be warned further, as this just gives them more chances to vandalize, so I would like to just get rid of the level 3 warning for vandalism and go straight from 2 to something like 4. I find it annoying when people(or bots) go 1 by 1 thought all 4 warnings for an account with no purpose other than adding racial slurs or profanity. We still must keep level 1 for unclear cases where a mistake could be good faith, I know some will say just leave a custom message, but this takes time and would make me much slower at removing vandalism. I could see merging uw-test1 and uw-vand1. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The levels don’t have to go to 1–4 — you start at a level based on if the edit is good faith or not. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Excessive warnings are just a waste of time for all concerned--simplify, simplify, simplify. I've been a lot less active on anti-vandalism for the past few years, but there used to be some admins patrolling AIV who were very fussy about denying even mild blocks if some newbie IP or SPA wasn't given four full warnings in a very tight timeframe. This proposal seems to be heading towards "reject", but could closer please note that a major reason is that opposers don't think more than 1-2 warnings are necessary to justify a block? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 2, Support 3 per Hammersoft. Level 1 for possible good faith edits, specifying why the edit is not appropriate. For intentional violations, start with level 2. Eliminate level 3, level 4 remains the final warning. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The levels are really a check on automated tools and bots, there's no reason to jump through them all manually for blatant vandalism. Notices for good faith edits can be escalated by automated reverts, so fewer levels would result in more false positives in AIV. Qzd (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, but change the level 1 warning to wikilink "did not appear to be constructive" to WP:VAND, which should do to give the hint that blocks can come from this activity. bd2412 T 02:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I mean you need these levels of nuance. I have seen editors who have been stepped up the ladder 1-2-3-4 and turned out to be useful editors. It's rare, but it doesn't happen never. I had one guy, like a year ago, who insisted on adding HTML tags. It took a while, stepped up the warning levels (also some actual person talk) and eventually even blocked for a bit, but he got it. And then he made good edits and AFAIK still is. And he wasn't summarily shunned from this human community, which don't we have enough of that in the world. So allow me this tool please. I have gone level 2-level 4 often enough, or even level 4 directly on rare occasions. But leave me the tools so I don't always have to do that. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Usually while recent-changes patrolling, I utilize all four warning levels whenever necessary, to their full potential. From experience, it appears that the current four-warning system works well; in my opinion, reducing the amount of warnings to two would give the warned too little leeway. Anon. U. 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Uneeded Warnings should be given out on a case by case basis. Sometimes 3 warnings are enough and sometimes edit warring noticeboard is the way to go. I guess in certain situations, four is enough. It all depends, I believe that showing specific examples in the help pages on when to report after 3 warnings and when to go straight to a level 2, 3 or only warning would also be helpful. JC7V (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support I agree that not all of them are needed, but I think we should only go down to 3 --DannyS712 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have pointed out there is no requirement that you go, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4in, then AIV, although personally I would always go up like that (as long as there is a 4in) without missing any out, I would not necessarily wait until after 4in to report/block. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP, in that doing so reinforces a view not supported by policy that an editor must be warned a certain number of times before blocking. Except for things like discretionary sanctions enforcement, warning a user is a courtesy, not a requirement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. There already is an "only warning" template. And all the others can be used to suit any situation. No requirement to go through the levels sequentially. -- œ^™ 06:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is no need to go 1, 2, 3, 4 .. and all have their use, sometimes a start of 2 is good; sometimes a start of 3 is good; sometimes 2, 4; sometimes 4im. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. mostly per Jack n Stock. it should be possible to get figures on the effectiveness or otherwise of each warning level and make changes accordingly. most of the blocks I issue are without 4 warnings, but we should look at stats on this, and remember that the current system has flexibility. But also not every newbie gets it right and some people do give vandalism warnings when they are really in an editing dispute. When they do I would rather they gave the current vandalism 1 than something stronger. Also don't forget the Visual Editor fiasco, what happens the next time some foundation mistake means that we have goodfaith newbies making edits that are indistinguishable from sneaky vandalism? ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The number of people here who appear to oppose the idea because "they" do not use all 4 warnings actually make a very good case for supporting the proposal. If people use the existing warnings in a discretionary manner but not all 4, then surely it supports reducing to 3, which can still be used in a discretionary manner? To say "I personally don't use all 4 but I oppose reducing to three" is like saying I drink milk so I must catch the next train Leaky Caldron 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Leaky caldron: I think you misunderstand the 'I personnaly don' t use all 4 but I oppose reducing to three' thought. The way I meant it (and I think that is what most people mean here), is that sometimes I start with a 1, and then go to 3 and/or 4. Sometimes I start with a 2, then go to immediately to 4. The different levels are of different strength. I hardly ever use all 4 on one user (and I don't think that it is really meant to be used like that), but I do use all 4 (better: all of them). I do a lot of work on anti-spam, and my general order is 1-3-4 for not-too-bad-stuff, and 2-4 on bad stuff, and 4im on the really bad stuff. XLinkBot uses (non-warning)-1-2-3-4. With spammers it is very depending on the case: if I do a level 1, and the editor edits after that reverting my removal, then clearly this is a spammer and a next warning is a 4, if they do a next edit and stop, I don't warn further, if they spam on, likely they get a 3 or a 4 next.

  The 4 levels (adding a self-written non-warning AGF remark for the 'sorry, we don't need that stuff here', and the 4im making 6 levels) are needed to have a more fine-grained tuning of the message you want to convey, but I do not advocate that non-bots should ALWAYS do 1-2-3-4-AIV. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. I haven't misunderstood. I also use the available tags in many varying ways. 2. 3. 4. 1.3.4. 1.2.4. 3.4. 2.4, etc. But I see no need for 4 fixed notices. Leaky Caldron 13:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - "Templating editors" is one of Wikipedia's rudest features. If an editor is a genuine vandal he might as well be blocked. If an editor is making understandable mistakes (starting an article about his high school basketball team) he deserves a sympathetic message written by a genuine human being. But even if professional patrollers feel like they need a canned message to blast at the legions of nobodies they oversee, they should at the very least not sequence these messages according to some kind of escalating-strike system of the authoritarian, but simply use the message that is right for the circumstance. Somebody blanking an article (if not a vandal) on his first edit should be told that he really screwed up, not that his good faith edits have been reverted. Somebody deleting whitespace for the 55th time should still get a mild message if it is unproductive, and if the templater really wants to go further he should write his own message about further measures. Still, if an editor has to get eight such messages from eight different templaters, maybe it'll convey the message better without some admin process being invoked. So no 1,2,3,4, but random access. You might try renaming some of the templates so it is clearer what you're saying at people. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I've found all 4 levels useful. For egregious cases, 4IM warnings (or straight to AIV with no warning at all) is an option. For simple "students adding stupid shit to articles", several warnings is useful (as they may not notice the first one). For other behavior that can have warnings, there is a need for a pattern of behavior before a block would be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I'd reduce it to 2: "Hey, looks like you're testing things out, please stop" for good-faith screwing around (without malicious intent) and "Cut it out or we'll block you" for stuff with obvious malicious intent. --Jayron32 02:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Power~enwiki above TheMesquito^buzz 02:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support reducing number of warnings to 3, not only for vandalism as such, but for other types of disruption in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – If disruption is often misconstrued as vandalism then that category shouldn't have the quickest route to reporting at a noticeboard. My routine is to start with level1, because that's the most explicit, bland, and unlikely to give a vandal the satisfaction of having provoked anyone. uw-disruption1 is my favorite catch-all message for cluing people in. I usually don't report until the fifth incident, probably because my early reporting was considered premature and I saw such a routine prescribed. That doesn't stop some of my level1 warnings being followed by indef blocks, presumably not because I'm taken seriously but because an admin undertakes their own investigation or is receiving alerts I'm not aware of. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support reducing from 4 to 3 levels. Imho, we only need "AGF", "we really don't like that" and "stop or you will be blocked". As such, most level 3 and level 4 warnings can easily be combined, e.g. {{uw-vandalism3}} (Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.) and {{uw-vandalism4}} (You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.) use some of the same language and could easily be merged into one warning that says Please stop your disruptive editing. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. The question we should consider is not really whether one has to use all levels before going to AIV but whether there is really any point in doing so. Having four warning levels only serves a real purpose if there are frequent cases where editors will stop their behavior after four warnings but not three (I don't really see that this happens that often although I'd like to see some stats on the effectiveness of each warning level). Regards SoWhy 08:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Four is too many, two seems like too few, so it looks like three would be optimal. In any case, for instances of obvious vandalism, in which there is absolutely no doubt that the editor involved knew they vandalizing, I either report them immediately, if the vandalism was major, or skip Level 1 altogether if the vandalism was minor. Even if the number of levels is decreased, we need to make it clearer -- especially to admins working AIV -- that there is no absolute necessity to work through all the levels before any action can be taken. Too often real vandals are free to vandalize again because the admin working AIV sticks too closely to the "letter of the law" and refuses to block because insufficient warnings were given. That's harmful to the project, in my opinion, and the balance needs to be changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an extremely relevant and important point. Associated Admin. process needs to be looked at. Leaky Caldron 17:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Reduce to 3 at most - Per BMK and others here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is sometimes reason to use all four levels, and sometimes there is not. Some vandals should be blocked without warning. Others stop after slow escalation of warnings, which is the ideal result (end to disruption without a block, and perhaps with some learning on the side of the vandal). The fact the levels are there does not mean you have to use them. —Kusma (t·c) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In some cases (many?), you really can't tell if someone needs all four levels. How does it hurt to try? If you have good reason to doubt that the person will listen to all four of them, then as noted by many others above, that's when you skip one or two or even three of the levels. If the problem is that AIV reports get declined because unneeded warnings aren't being given, the solution is to remind AIV-monitoring admins of WP:BURO, not to remove options that are sometimes beneficial. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The user might not know that what they did is vandalism. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. One warning is enough, in areas where vandalism/trolling is rife. It's a cost-benefit balance between not biting the newbies and letting the trolls shut down a useful part of Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose We have an "im" series of warning templates that can be used if one wishes, and editors can always chose to skip warning levels. funplussmart (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see how there can be a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Context matters and what was said matters. Is the vandalism at least funny? Or on the other hand does it conceivably create a hostile environment for another editor? I would be tolerant of humor but less tolerant of the attempt to make others feel uncomfortable. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reasons as many others. There is no requirement that we step through all four warnings, and that should probably be emphasized more strongly. The warnings we have now exist for different purposes. 1 is a polite notice for things that could be mistakes, 2 is neutral, 3 is a warning, and 4 is the final warning. For egregious vandalism, it's not uncommon to go straight to 3 or 4im. For less egregious cases, just a 1 or a 2 is sometimes enough to deter further vandalism. Novusuna ^talk 21:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't everybody start at level 2 anyway? Level 1 has, in my experience, been restricted to the newest of new users. On the basis that we're already in effect on a 2-3-4 path rather than a 1-2-3-4 path, further shortening seems over-harsh. Cabayi (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'll often start at level 2, generally what I'm reverting is fairly obviously unhelpful. Level 1 is useful for good faith mistakes, or things like breaking syntax, which, while maybe vandalism, could just as easily be newbie syndrome. If L2 is ignored I'll either do a 2-3-4, or just a 2-4 (if they're just redoing the vandalism without engaging is a good example). Things like inserting racism get a 4im, if any warning at all. But all the templates are useful. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - My first thought was to oppose this but after reading through the comments I support reducing the number of vandalism warnings. A lot of the support reasons actually make sense. I think 4 warnings in any case is too many while 2 in some instances are not enough. 3 is a good number reminds me of baseball "three strikes and your out". Granted we don't have to start with level 1 warnings but I believe level 3 and 4 should be merged into one. In cases of WP:BLP violations I believe only 2 warnings should be used (i.e. level 1 and level 4). From my experience users who violate the WP:BLP do it on purpose and if the first warning doesn't get the message across they continue until blocked. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I think there is confusion between having multiple levels of warnings and using multiple levels of warnings. In my opinion, having a range of warnings is a good thing... it gives us options (a choice) to use, whether we actually use them or not. Which warnings to use is situational. So... I have to oppose getting rid of the templates... but support continuing to give editors the freedom to choose which are appropriate to use in a particular case (and to skip those that are not appropriate). Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Auto-archive old IP warnings

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Auto-archive IP warnings

I imagine it's fairly confusing for IP users to have to scroll through lots of old warnings from previous users of their IP before getting to their actual message. We have {{Old IP warnings top}} (or {{wan}} or {{ow}}, but that can be bikeshedded about later), but it's rarely used—thoughts a bot to automatically apply it to everything more than a yearish ago? Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don't think IP warnings need to stay up more than a few months. In my experience, vandalism from IPs comes in bursts that rarely last more than two days (probably because of blocking).
• I think this is a good idea. No opinion of length of time I thought a year was too short but who knows. Technically it would work like an archive bot but instead of archiving to a sub-page, it would archive to within the top/bottom portion of {{Old IP warnings top}}. It would look at the most recent post within a section to find the date, and if that section leads off with a warning. There are ways for things to not go right like if a warning is not within a section and has followup posts etc, so this would not be a perfect solution more of a best-effort, if it can't understand the formatting it leaves alone. -- GreenC 20:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think its a great idea to send a bot around to chase all these. However, I'm assuming most of these warning etc are coming from tools like Huggle/Twinkle/etc - if so, approving a general concept that "archiving old (time to be determined) IP talk warnings to history" is allowed - these tool systems could add that functionality to their warning routines. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Having looked at this for a few examples I'm surprised to see a lot dating back to 2006 ..., I personally would say warnings should be archived after a year and a half from when they were left, 2-3 years seems too excessive and just a year seems too short, –Davey2010^Talk 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I imagine most IPs people edit with are dynamic ones that don't last all that long, but I have no idea. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• There's some previous discussion here here here and here, and in fact several other places which people should probably look at before anything. There's been more than one bot (and editors like BD2412) already doing this at various times. As with anything there's going to be some complicating factors: if it's anything recent the IP should probably not be actively or recently blocked, range blocked, or globally blocked. The bot probably shouldn't archive or blank sockpuppetry tags, whois tags and shared IP templates, and probably shouldn't blank spam-related backlinks, some custom notices, and intelligible non-warnings, IMO. I don't think the question is whether it should be done, as it's something that's been done for a long time, but the bike-shed details which were avoided in the proposal. And of course who is going to write and run the bot. Personally I think as a general rule a year is probably too short. (should probably also ping Dirk and Petrb). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I have previously requested a bot for this and the conversation died out with no one taking it up. As with others in this discussion, I would propose very specific limitations, those being that all discussions older than five years be removed from the page so long as the IP has not been the subject of a block within the past two years. Personally, I have been blanking tags if the page is pre-2010s, because IP addresses can be reassigned in that length of time - and even if they are not, Wikipedia is not a permanent directory of IP addresses. bd2412 T 22:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment the more complicated the policy, the more time consuming becomes writing and running the bot, the less chance anyone will take up the project, the greater the chance it never happens. -- GreenC 22:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Well then let's start with something easy, that everyone can agree on, like ten-year-old warnings. bd2412 T 04:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That's how you do it. Start with something conservative and uncontroversial. Proof of concept for everyone to see. Once the bot is approved and running, taking it to the next step is considerably easier. Trying to build a complete castle from day 1 is probably an over-reach technically and with the community. -- GreenC 00:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Thoughts on this as a starting point?
  • When an IP user makes an edit… (no point in making a ton of spam cleaning up inactive users' talk pages)
  • If the IP has had no activity in the past 3 years… (activity = contributions, receiving talk messages, being blocked, even if the block was issued >5 years ago)
  • If the talk page consists only of templates from a whitelist… (for starters, uw- templates, along with their ClueBot and Huggle variants, and the Shared IP Notice Twinkle uses)
  • Wrap the talk page in {{Old IP warnings top}}.

It's super conservative, but would cover most cases and we could expand it in the future. Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support archiving any notice that's more than a year old. That doesn't include "school" notices and similar, or any block notices that are still in effect (e.g., hardblocked IP addresses). Would also recommend removing 100% of sock tags on IP addresses that are more than a year old, even sooner if it's a known dynamic or mobile phone IP. These warnings and tags are quite likely to scare away potential new users, and serve little to no useful purpose for the administration of the project. Risker (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as is I'm with User:Zzuuzz here. @Risker:, I think a year can be too short. I'm not sure we can get one size fits all. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sure it can be done with a little preparation, but yes I think just blanking pages after a year is probably a bit too much. If we're to start going after the low hanging fruit I'd probably go with something like Gaelan said above: No activity for 5 years, no talk page history for 5 years, and only automated warnings in the history. Five years is again super conservative, but it's about the longest block you'll see and it's probably a good starting point for a general rule. I know BD2412 has complained about the backlinks before, so I don't know if wrapping the warnings would be as helpful as just blanking them. If it could (or would) be fitted into existing tools for when an IP edits that would be useful, but I don't really see any problem with a bot doing it on a schedule. My main concern really is just blanking what could be useful notes or discussions which can help understand edits made years earlier. Some may dismiss this stuff as some sort of waste of space, but historically I think it can be really useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, backlinks have been one of my main concerns because sometimes an editor needs to get an accurate sense of what is linking to a title from all namespaces, and a bunch of IP talk page links just muddy that view. We should not keep these in any form longer than is necessary to pass on the message to the IP about them. bd2412 T 17:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As I have stated before, I have no problem with archiving or even blanking of old warnings/remarks. I have a problem with outright deletion of old-IP talkpages, which is something that should NEVER be done.

In my view, there is no issue with archiving (or even blanking) anything (like regular archiving) anything on a shared IP (yes, I know, detection) after even 2-3 months, and anything on a static IP (that has not been used for over 1-2 years). I would prefer just archiving everything as that leaves tracks better visible and avoids having to select what not to blank.

To reiterate my reasoning: plain vandalism on an IP is untraceable to a person. But any form of systematic vandalism (most specifically spam, but also socking, strong COI, string single-purpose editing) is always done by a certain person (/organisation). The IP is changing, the person/organisation is not. Say Mr. X. is spamming www.mrx.com to a page using IP 1.1.1.1 and we give them a level 1 warning that they should not do that, and Mr. X. is coming back 1 hour later using IP 1.1.1.2, he technically deserves a level 2 warning, not another level 1 warning. It is, obviously, the same person. Some spammers rack up 10 level-1 warnings because no-one notices that they are actually spamming. On the spam blacklist that is still enough to say 'they do not listen, we tried to warn but warnings do not arrive'. Regarding age of that: if Mr. X. in 2009 spams a handful of times (on IP 1.1.1.1), racks up a level-4 warning and stops .. and comes back in 2019 starting (on 1.1.1.2) to rack up a handful of warnings, it is still the same physical entity spamming (unless the domain changed owner, which can be seen). They may expect that rules have changed on Wikipedia, but 4 warnings in 2009 and an unheeded level-1 warning in 2019 could be enough to just blacklist to stop further disruption (on 10 years we will likely be a bit softer ..). If such user talkpage is deleted, the track of 1.1.1.1 is lost. However, we can see far back that 1.1.1.1 has spammed the same site, but without the talkpages it is very hard to detect (you need admin rights, seeing that there are deleted revids on the page). (note, we have cases where companies/entities are spamming for 8-10 years, it appears a long time, but it is not). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why we cannot simply add an existing archive bot with a 1-year or 2-year archive time to every non-blank IP talk page that contains material older than 1 or 2 years? If I do this manually when I add a warning to an IP talk page, is there a preferred bot? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• It would need to run from the expiry of the last block, not the time the warning was left—if an IP has been unblocked after a long period (e.g. a year-long block as a believed open proxy) and within minutes of the block being lifted the problems resume, we obviously want to know the background. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to code a bot to do this, but one of the existing bots couldn't be used off-the-peg. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support whatever the details, this is a good idea. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• I like the general idea, assuming "archived" means archived and not just blanked. I also wonder if, as opposed to a bot, it wouldn't be possible to add some sort of function to existing tools such as Twinkle to semi-automate use of {{old ip warnings top}}, which doens't archive but does collapse old warnings. we could leave it up to the best judgement of the warning user, as it is now without any new policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tentative support. I quite like the idea of modifying Twinkle, Huggle, et al. to automatically collapse old warnings when issuing new ones, since those tools are how a great many warnings are issued in the first place. Novusuna ^talk 22:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support modifying Twinkle, Huggle etc. If we run a bot to do this, we should take into account that this will pop up as "You have a new message" for the IPs in question, which might be a little confusing and definitely counterproductive for users with dynamic IPs. Daß Wölf 23:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot to add Template:Unreferenced and Template:No footnotes to pages (single run)

There's a BRFA to make a single run through all pages, adding {{Unreferenced}} or {{No footnotes}} to pages as appropriate. GreenC kindly did the leg work making the bot. As currently written the bot will not tag stubs, redirects, "List of...", "Index of...", "<year> in...", and some other cases. You can see test results here for where the bot would or would not apply different tags. There is concern at the BRFA that this run may appear disruptive if consensus is not gained at a wider forum first. Hence, this post: would folks support a bot run to tag unreferenced or no footnotes pages? Ajpolino (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• As it's easy to do, I'd like to see this new tag annotated such as |source=GreenC bot, with a link to some relevant explanation. We gain little benefit from tags and a lot of friction, especially where they're seen as "drive-by" tagging with no explanation.

Also, what happens afterwards? Will those articles then be speedied for deletion as "unsourced"? I can see all those itchy trigger fingers just waiting to do such a thing. And of course, a bulk deletion run of massive volume would have so much greater 'success'. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, will this recognise BLPs and treat them differently? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Do "unsourced" tags need an explanation? Natureium (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because there's so much pushback against them (and many wind up mis-applied - an article without inline citations might still have references). If we're going to tag things, make the reasons and their provenance clear – saves argument later. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Now that new pages patrol is fairly organized, most new unreferenced pages are likely getting tagged. So a single run of the bot should be sufficient. Category:Articles_lacking_sources already has 184,000 articles in it. But a group of editors are making steady progress, and have chopped that number down from 202,000 a year ago. Knowing the scale of the task would be nice. Also, I usually search through the category by keywords so I can deal with e.g. all Kyrgyzstanian villages in one go with one good source. Having all the unreffed articles tagged would greatly facilitate that. Lastly, I see no down side to having unreffed articles tagged as such. Who knows, the tag might even cause someone to fix a few of them? Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Easier to find articles with issues if they are tagged. Easier to fix them if you can find them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This would let us target unsourced articles. I stumble across one every once in a while, and try to find some source, but we should be more systematic. And if we can't find any source to support one of those articles, then we should delete it. - Donald Albury 20:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Would be super helpful for this to be implemented. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This is a straightforward task that would save a lot of editor effort. — Newslinger talk 23:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. These tags sit very prominently at the top of an article and so ought to be used judiciously. {{Unreferenced}} should ideally be placed on articles only if the absence of sources isn't otherwise immediately obvious to the reader and there is reason to believe some of the article's content might not be completely reliable: for example, there's no point tagging short articles whose content is easily verifiable in a quick web search. This is a task that requires judgement and so it can't be performed by a bot. I understand that many editors might disagree with this view on the use of the "unreferenced" tags, but the case against adding {{No footnotes}} – which is also the major task of the bot as it's expected to affect over 110,000 articles – is much clearer. In-line citations, though useful in many circumstances, aren't a universal requirement (see for example WP:MINREF). It's perfectly acceptable to have a reasonably developed article with a list of general references at the end but not a single footnote. If it doesn't contain potentially contentious statements (or other material that needs to be supported by in-line citations), then there's really no issue to point to and so the placement of a "No footnotes" tag can be seen as disruptive. Again, the decision on whether to place the tag or not requires evaluation of the content of the article, and that's not something that a bot can do. And of course, if editors find it useful to have a bot flag up articles in such a way, then this can be handled in any of the less obstrusive ways that many similar maintenance task are handled: for example by the creation of a list in projectspace, or by the addtion of invisible categories. – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support very helpful. :) Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 06:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support very useful, saving hours of editors' time. Carefully thought out and ready for a trial. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support On several levels. We owe it to the reader to tell them that we haven't checked the veracity of the article. To be able to counter the slur "Wikipedia is unreliable, people can write any nonsense" with "Not true- all articles require references- and if they don't have them we tag them prominently with "No footnotes- please help to provide them". Then, in talking to newbies at editathons- my line of "each wikipedia edit has three parts 'an interesting fact- a reference saying where you found it, and a note telling other editor what you have done" now has teeth. And, for the nervous new editor. ¨Don't try to start a new article- just go to one with the No footnotes tag and start there- it is unloved and you can only improve it.ClemRutter (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much everything but your last two sentences. Firstly Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source because people can write any nonsense. Go look at List of hoaxes on Wikipedia and see the 50+ hoaxes that existed on this website for over 8 years. One of 12 years was just deleted not two weeks ago. Second, the information has been checked by the the author of the article and if you doubt that you should challenge it specifically, not have a bot tag things that don't have a little blue number after them. Third, unless an article contains direct quotations, claims that have been challenged, claims likely to be challenged, or contentious material about living persons, policy does not require references: ...the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library. Lastly, if we "owe it to the reader to tell them that we haven't checked the veracity of the article" then we should pending changes protect this whole place and turn it into Citizendium. Not having a template at the top doesn't mean the information is true, reliable, or even verifiable. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with Clem. As for the tag's prominence, they ought be. Most of the time these conditions are easy enough to correct, how long they remain so situated is mostly an editorial choice (even for new users as referencing is usually a task learned early, even by casual contributors).--John Cline (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Uanfala and WP:CITEVAR. Articles don't need to have footnotes, see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing, and I doubt throwing a {{No footnotes}} tag at the top of the FA Actuary will be helpful to anyone. {{No footnotes}} which would be added to Aerin says "its sources remain unclear" except that the source is very clear given it's three paragraphs on a Tolkien character cited to two of Tolkien's books. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the information about this Tolkien character comes from one of Tolkien's books (perhaps even the ones in the references). While {{unreferenced}} definitely applies to Love After Midnight, should it really be added considering the information is clearly available if you just looked at the album cover (a fair use image of which is included in the article, but a bot wouldn't know that). Inline citations are only required if material is challenged, so adding a tag to an article that is already verifiable isn't useful and bloats a maintenance category for pages that actually do have issues with verifiability. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  To say: "Inline citations are only required if material is challenged" is to rest verification on diligence to only a fourth part of expected standards. There are four instances that necessitate inline verification. If you focus on the larger picture, where the other 75% may dwell, I think both you, and Uanfala would find it much more intuitive to support this reasonable measure; for the larger good that it will do.--John Cline (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'm well aware, I mention all four in a comment I made above, but none of the other three apply in the articles I mention (no direct quotes, not BLPs, nothing seems likely to be challenged) so I didn't mention the other three. Determining whether the state of sourcing and verifiability is in line with policy is a task for humans and it should be done by humans. This is not a bot proposing to add {{BLP unsourced}} to unsourced BLPs, it's not a bot that would add {{Quote without source}} to direct quotations without an inline citation, it's not a bot that would add {{Disputed}} to articles which seem to be hoaxes, it is not a bot that would add banners which show actual problems stemming from policy but rather is asserting that a whole article has problems because it doesn't have little blue numbers. If the bot were to add any of those three banners (appropriately) I'd be more inclined to support, but right now this just seems like what will happen is a ton of articles that comply with policy and with style guidelines will get swept up in. Category:Articles lacking sources contains 3% of all articles. Category:Articles lacking in-text citations contains over 1%. It will take 9 years to get through {{unsourced}} at our current rate of 20,000 articles per year. I fail to see a "larger good" in bloating already massive categories with an unknown number that may not even be a valuable use of our time because no human actually triaged it.

  And this isn't even me hypothesizing. I went through all the type 2 {{no footnotes}} articles in the dataset listed at BRFA and many of them I would not tag at NPP. There are even articles like Fossilized affixes in Austronesian languages, Nummer 5 which would have been tagged but do use inline citations (with page numbers!) via parantheticals; the second article, Nummer 5, even uses citation template {{harv}}. If you want to bloat those categories, I'd be fine with the bot adding the category alone, but if we're going to be prominently displaying a message to our readers that there is a problem with an article I want a human to have judged that it is in fact not in line with policy, not a bot failing to find its prefered citation style. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  Your rebuttal is cogent and well reasoned; I respect your entire platform. I think it will not achieve more than its due recognition (as great philosophy) until nirvana hath come. Meanwhile, this reasonable thing (that we can do) should be done; and continuously improved (until nirvana hath come).--John Cline (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  Addendum - I'd like to add that my support of this proposal is in no way meant as a dismissal of your valid concerns. They deserve mitigation,as they did (even before this proposal) and reasonably. perhaps, even more so amid the emerging consensus. I share your disdain for arriving at a page only to see a prominently displayed maintenance tags that inappropriately ascribe the wrong maintenance needs and very often show they have been mistagged this way for years. A bot that can add a tag ought always multitask to remove tags that are misapplied as well (that might do a lot, in itself, to reduce some backlogs. And to alleviate the potential of bloated categorization, it would be technically easy and editorially prudent to modify the categorization for each of the tags the bot will handle so as tags placed by the bot can be categorized as such, and diverted to a sub-cat of the main-cat eliminating any potential effect from bloat while allowing the segregation of bot placements where an editor may want to deal with pages tagged by the bot in particular, and thereby could. I hope they will do such things just because it is an improvement compared with not doing it. Anyway, I did not mean to seem dismissive, and I saw in my comment where it could easily seem like that is what I was attempting when I really was not meaning to. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Every mainspace article should be flagged for such sourcing problems; doing so is de rigueur for patrollers, but because of the decentralized way patolling is done, many article have been missed. Let's find and fix that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support unsourced only some of the concerns about "no footnotes" seem legitimate; on a spot check, while many of those articles have problems, often the lack of footnotes is not the main problem with the article. Stubs like Forstegg Castle or Robert Săceanu don't have enough content to need footnotes, and David Garst is all clearly sourced to the one reference given. I don't see any reason to not support the {{unsourced}} run; the only false positive I found was a crypto-list at Clarinet-cello repertoire. I'm assured through the earlier discussion that templates that generate references are all included, it's not just checking for ref tags). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support With Conditions. I am not too excited by the Template:No footnotes part of this proposal. It would really be a hassle if anything. However, adding unsourced is a great idea and has my full support. That would seem awfully useful for readers and editors alike. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with the comments made by Andy Dingley and power~enwiki on this matter. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 17:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support (and tweak?). I don't think this is a bad idea, but I'm cautious about "will not tag stubs". A lot of stub-tagged articles are very long, not really stubs any more by any reasonable definition, and often these are some of the least well-maintained pages - the fact that they still have a stub tag suggests an experienced/confident editor hasn't worked with them enough to notice and remove it.

Would it be worth tweaking this so it's a little more sophisticated and eg/ only skips anything that's a stub and is also under, say, 5000 characters (a very generous upper limit)? If that's not practical, fair enough, but it would be good to include these large "not really stubs" as well if possible. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose all. {{No footnotes}} should not be bot-applied ever, because it will tag pages that actually contain WP:Inline citations (but don't happen to use ref tags – this includes several FAs, by the way). That tag requires human judgment. Bot attempts to apply {{Unref}} result in a number of errors, although usually a fairly small (couple of percentage points) number. But the problem is that this tag is basically pointless. Except with quite new articles, we have no evidence that anyone sees that tag and addresses the problem. Also, when it's a stub, I like to think that our readers are smart enough to see that there aren't any blue clicky numbers on the page.
  As an alternative, I'd like to see a bot remove the unref tag when refs are added (NB: not "substitute {{refimprove}}", which is something that a bot can't form a judgment about; just take it out). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

2nd chance script

Following a request at WP:SCRIPTREQ on the advice of Enterprisey, the awesome DannyS712 and Danski454 have respectively written a script and a module to automate large portions of {{2nd chance}}. I'm particularly interested in using the user script, as it automates away a large portion of the technical/legal steps in {{2nd chance}} for the new users who receive that template. I'll be sending DannyS712 some requested changes to the script, but it's just about at the level I'd like to test it on real unblock requests.

I'm here to ask for consensus to do a limited trial of this script on real blocked users. In particular, when I would've otherwise used {{2nd chance}}, I'd like to add this user script to the user's common.js and notify the user on their talk page how to use the script. The trial will last until three users have used this user script to request unblock for a second time after their unblock request was declined as {{2nd chance}}. Because this requires directly editing another user's common.js, I'd like to get the community's sign-off before doing this test. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235: I wanted to test the user script out on myself over at test wiki, and asked for admin and iadmin (there, not here) so I could block User:DannyS712 test and try it from that account, and be able to edit any bugs that come up. I'd prefer to do that before we start editing the common.js of a blocked use. @Xaosflux: declined my request for permissions, directing my to one of the wikis dedicated to messing around with admin powers, but if this is going to become a tool that blocked users have installed then I hope that they will reconsider. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Open an account at the beta cluster and I'll get you the testing permissions. Based on a couple tests I did here, though, it seems like it works well enough to test with a few users here. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235: See your talk page --DannyS712 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ummm....you're looking for permission to forcefully add personal javascript to other users, and citing legal requirements, and this script appears to also include import scripts from other users - if so, I'm really strongly opposed to this for security concerns alone. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: I'd be happy to, once I iron out the kinks, have it moved to the mediawiki space so that I can't edit it. The only thing my code imports is another function of mine, which likewise can be moved. We already add javascript for other users (common.js, skins, etc) under the belief that it is secure if only iadmins can edit it, which would be the case with this script once its moved. I'd don't see how this creates any new security concerns, given that this would be limited to 1) users already told to attempt a "second chance" and 2) makes no edits without being activated by the user and 3) the code itself is (imo) pretty easy to read and see that it has no hidden edits --DannyS712 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  Common scripts (such as vector.js, common.js) are not just secure because their write access is severely limited, but because they are highly visible (i.e. highly watchlisted). Significant changes to such pages generally undego a propose/review/execute/monitor process for each edit. Forcing changes in to arbitrary User:username/common.js files would also require that everyone who will participate in this process become an interface administrator, contrary to one of the goals of reducing this access. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Alternatively, every time a blocked user has an unblock request declined as 2nd chance, a note is put somewhere (a dedicated page, iadmin noticeboard?) which user it is, and then a pre-existing iadmin can add the one line of code to that user's common.js (importScript ( 'MediaWiki:Second chance.js' );) or something like that. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  We can also package it as a gadget of some kind if the concern is not having the user's consent, but I'd expect that would take considerable texting testing Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC) beforehand. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  @L235: Testing? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Until I can test this out at the beta cluster, I don't think its ready for even a discussion about inclusion. Thus, this should be put  On hold until phab:T212327 is solved, since I need to be able to confirm my accounts there. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Though I think this is a bad idea as referenced above, it should be trivial to have your alt account load this to their own user.js and have someone block your account. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I have added the script to "my" userspace on test wiki, and have the test account import it, so if beta isn't working can you please just block User:DannyS712 test on testwiki for a week? And, can you also give me importer there so I have a variety of pages to test the script with, to ensure that there aren't any bugs? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

We could make this into a gadget and add a line to the template asking them to enable the gadget and proceed from there. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 06:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@FR30799386: I'd much prefer to see that type of mechanism. From a non-technical aspect, such a request should be an option to 'make it easier' for the blocked person, not necessarily the only way we would ever unblock them IMHO. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: the block is made, importer is issued even rarer than interface admin (plus you would need to get a steward to do it) - feel free to copy/paste a reasonable number of test pages there and just mark for speedy delete when done. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Oh, okay. Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I'm not actually totally sure what the current concern is. Are you worried that your account on the beta cluster will be compromised? It's a testing site, there's no content on it and accounts can be easily locked in any case. @Xaosflux: What if we obtained the blocked user's consent before adding the script? Would that alleviate your concerns at all? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235: Its that I can't log in to the beta cluster with my test account at all. I've tested it a bit on test wiki, and will go do some more tests now --DannyS712 (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235: Hey so I have a version 2.0 of the script that should work for beta testing on users that agree. Maybe we can ask if anyone is willing to be blocked for a day to try it? --DannyS712 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235: The idea above of publishing as a gadget, and telling the user to opt-in to it sounds best to me. Additionally, process wise: this should always be optional (i.e. tasks we want an editor to perform should be able to be done even without script assistance). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I would just create a new testing account for now, and not worry about a specific name on a test cluster instead of waiting for that ticket to be resolved (which could potentially be a very long time). Feel free to let me know if you need any rights on the beta cluster. SQL^{Query me!} 16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: In that case, I have made a new account. For this (my main account), can you add admin and iadmin rights? Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, Sure thing, done! SQL^{Query me!} 17:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Do people use this template that much anymore? I'm fairly active in CAT:RFU, and I don't think I've ever seen this used. {{decline reason here}} is what is used most often now, if a template is used, and most other times when 2nd chance is an option, you'll have a non-templated response. Not really a technical comment as much of a "are we discussing something that would ever be used?" TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I uss it quite a lot but feel guilty doing so becuase it's not actually that plausible for the new editors to follow the technical instructions. I'm sure if it's an actual option it'd be used more. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Idk, I just make the scripts lol; maybe if we have this, more people would take advantage of a second chance? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you used it since you brought it up :) I don't think I've seen anyone else use it, though. I was talking to SQL about it, and I honestly didn't know this existed before today because I've never seen it used.

From a practical standpoint as well, I don't think the language is that useful and if I were a blocked user I'd just give up on ever being unblocked if someone templated me with it, because its a wall of text and the message I'd get was We don't trust you. I don't think a script will change the fact that the template is really poorly designed/worded for the task it is intended for. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Well, if you look at https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-secondChance.js, I tried to soften the language. Of course, for some reason its not working on the beta cluster, but it does work on test wiki and stuff, so I'll try to troubleshoot the issue --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean, a block is probably a good clear message that "we don't trust you". How are we supposed to respond to appeals from, e.g., VOA blocks? 2nd chance gives a good middle ground between a straight unblock (it allows you to edit real WP articles, subject only to being posted to the user talk page) and a decline (it doesn't actually change the block). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235 and SQL: hey. I've been testing it out more on the beta cluster and I've run into 2 issues so far. The first is dealing with captcha, which I think I solved. The second is abuse filters. Global rule 11 (https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/11) prevented me from adding external links, but I'd like to be able to see what specifically it scans for so I can change my regex accordingly. I can't see it, because its marked private. Can one of you give me admin on the deployment page, so I can fix my script? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

L235, re: how are we supposed to respond: if it’s clearly a high school kid messing around I normally unblock on their word that they won’t do it again if the unblock request is reasonable. No need for identifying helpful content or whatever. If it’s an LTA who is claiming to be reformed, a deeper discussion than a template is needed, IMO. I don’t really see a situation where I’d support using the 2nd chance procedure outside of having someone explain how to add sourced content for an unsourced content block. Either it’s way over the top (high school kids) or not enough (LTAs). Blocks of “regulars” tend to be too complex for it as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235 and SQL: So I read the private filter, and I think I found a work-around that will stop it from messing with my script:

"&! (user_blocked & page_namespace == 3)"

However, I can't actually test it, because the global filter requires "abusefilter-modify-global" to modify. I'm sorry to keep bothering you guys, but would you mind adding me to one of the user groups that includes this? See https://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:GlobalGroupPermissions for the list.

Thanks so much, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, Done! SQL^{Query me!} 02:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@SQL, TonyBallioni, L235, and Xaosflux: see the newest version at https://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-secondChance.js. I think this is ready for some testing. There is a current AN discussion about unblocking someone under the standard offer. Maybe see if they would be willing to try it? I'm not pinging them, since this would need IAdmin approval (among others) first, and since that editor is currently unblocked (but only to participate in the AN discussion), rendering the script useless (it only works if you're actually blocked in its current form). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Expanding G13

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

---

{{rfc|policy}}

Proposal: Should G13 be expanded to include stale userspace drafts with {{Userspace draft}}? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently, WP:G13 applies to:

Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

1. Draft namespace,
2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

This proposal would expand the second part of G13, resulting in:

Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

1. Draft namespace,
2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} or {{Userspace draft}} template
3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

--DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn given the very clear lack of support for this proposal, I am withdrawing this RfC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Please cast your !votes as Yes (or Support) or No (or Oppose), optionally with a one-sentence explanation. Please do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, which should be in the Threaded Discussion. (Back-and-forth in the Survey makes it more difficult for the closer.)

• Support as proposer --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support for indef blocked users and those who have left Wikipedia or retired from it, Oppose for actively editing users. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 03:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, there at the very least needs to be a one week notice. Preferably a month long notice. I don't want something in my userspace deleted out of nowhere simply because I forgot it was there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. When users put {{Userspace draft}} on their drafts they did so in the understanding the draft would not be deleted after six months. If rules are to be changed, then create a new userspace draft template, and clearly give that a six month time limit rule so everyone understands what is happening, and can elect themselves to use that template if they wish. There are some users, User:Giano for example, who create valuable articles in their user space, some of which may languish for years without attention. I would hate for Giano's userspace articles to be deleted merely because he has chosen not to touch them for over six months. SilkTork (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose" I have dozens of half finished articles in user space, representing hundreds of hours of work and research. I have often taken over two years to finish a page and put it in main space. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Giano (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This will achieve nothing but the loss of potential articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as unhelpful, unless the intention is to lose articles and writers in approximately equal measure. ——SerialNumber54129 11:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per SilkTork. Would create more trouble. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per most above. I, too, have a number of (very old) drafts in my userspace and I would loathe for someone to delete them just because I didn't touch them. WP:U5 already exists to handle those drafts created just to be hosted in userspace indefinitely and should be sufficient for any actual abuse of userspace for hosting purposes. Regards SoWhy 11:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We should only delete pages that are unsatisfactory (in any name space) and the procedures in WP:UP#DELETE are suitable as they stand with no benefit in trying to guess what are the user's future intentions. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blank them instead, with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. We did G13 because of the vast number of AfC drafts made by IPs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per BARF, an article I started in my userspace in 2010, returned to in 2016 and which is now in article space. I see no benefit and plenty of annoyance to deleting these drafts in the userspaces of active editors. Someone coming and managing my userspace for me will likely just leave me entirely lacking in gruntle. EdChem (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keeping AfC from getting cluttered is one matter, deleting pages from other editors' userspace without a discussion is quite another. Give editors a place to work on articles slowly. Novusuna ^talk 12:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support The proposal makes sense, but I understand that we can lose potential articles from this. That is why it is important for any draft (not just userspace drafts) to be reviewed before deletion, and why we have templates such as {{promising draft}} funplussmart (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - It made sense to have a time limit for drafts that have been submitted to the AfC process... but there is no need for a time limit for those NOT submitted for review (as there is no “process” to end). Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. (A) This should be at WT:CSD, the accepted forum for speedy deletion criteria. (B) What problem does this solve? (C) Please leave other people's userspace alone unless you have a very good reason not to. —Kusma (t·c) 13:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This encyclopedia has no deadline. We rely heavily for our content on established users creating and improving articles in their own userspace. I do not believe that we benefit by setting limits on the speed at which these users work. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no need to delete pages that could possibly become articles, especially with the help of other users who may desire to claim, or build upon, stale drafts. Most very bad userspace drafts can already be discussed at WP:MFD or are eligible for speedy deletion under another criterion. ComplexRational (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• Could we just clarify that {{Userspace draft}} (which currently has about 40,000 transclusions) is not exclusively placed on a draft by its author, and that in fact it is often put on drafts by editors who are systematically going through user pages? This means that the proposed G13 extension has the potential to affect virtually all drafts in userspace. – Uanfala (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: I think it should apply to such cases, because if a userspace draft is so stale that it was first dagged with {{Userspace draft}}, and then another 6 months have passed without it being edited, its unlikely to be improved in the future. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Put another way, you want to 1) Reduce the time for a page to enter Category:Stale userspace drafts from 12 months to 6 months; and 2) make pages in Category:Stale userspace drafts eligible for G13? Thus eliminating the category entirely (or rather, making it a db category). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's the point of speedy deleting userspace drafts? What is the ultimate problem that this is trying to solve? – Uanfala (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: For the same reason that other CSD exist - not needing to go through the long deletion process for a clear delete decision. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 65#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts explained that stale drafts in draft space shouldn't require having an AfC tag to be deleted, and this would partially extend that to userspace drafts. Again, WP:REFUND would apply. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  DannyS712, I think Uanfala is more asking - why do these drafts need to be deleted just for being old (through any process)? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• There is a significant difference between userspace drafts marked with an AfC tag, and those that are not. Those that are tagged have been submitted to the community for a review process. It makes sense to have an end date for that process. Userspace drafts that are NOT marked with an AfC tag, however, have NOT been submitted to the community for review. Such material is not part of ANY process that needs ending. It does the project no harm to simply ignore such material... unless it contains stuff that should be deleted outright (attack pages, promotional material, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Just trying to think outside the box here... Would it help if we stopped referring to non-AfC material in userspace by the word “draft”? What if we called this material: “user’s notes and ideas” (or something like that)? A change in terminology might clarify the status of the material in question, and thus what needs a time limit and what does not. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: In general, that would be more accurate, but for pages explicitly marked as "drafts" I think the word draft is appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy deletions are designed to bypass the normal deletion process as a convenience in uncontroversial circumstances. However, examples can be provided of editors such as Giano sometimes taking years to work on articles that they create, and that demonstrates that you can't set an uncontroversial criterion for deleting userspace pages.
  Of course, there are many abandoned userspace pages, but you won't find a reliable way of identifying those that can be deleted uncontroversially. The normal deletion processes are perfectly adequate for dealing with suspected abandoned userspace pages, and that should provide a sufficient safety net for avoiding deletion of pages which are still being worked upon, no matter how slowly. --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the regular deletion process can be used... but the more fundamental question is this: Why do we even want to delete these “abandoned” userspace pages in the first place? Is there any benefit to doing so? Is there a downside to simply ignoring them? Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Rather than just considering the age of the draft, what about taking into account the activity of the user. I see a lot of things created by a user that made a few edits and then disappeared. I agree with the Opposes above that there is no reason to delete anything in user space as someone may be working on it very slowly. But if the user has not made any edit to anything in a long period - say 5 years, then they probably aren't coming back. This would cleanup some dead stuff that does keep getting updated by bots for various things. MB 16:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Why are there any bots getting involved here? I can understand why bots might be tracking AfC submissions, but why would a bot be looking at material that has NOT been submitted to AfC? Again... I don’t understand the rational behind any of this. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Given this feedback, I have withdrawn my proposal. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Reference desks

The thread about the Reference Desks that was moved to a subpage seems to have about run down. Is it going to be brought to a conclusion? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion still seems to be active with people posting today as well and the default time for an RFC to stay open is 30 days, so there is still time. Anyone is free to request a close by uninvolved editors at WP:RFCl once the 30 days are over although this probably needs closing by a larger number of experienced editors. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a default duration. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we're now past 30 days (and on the relocated thread it's also being suggested that it's time to close it). Now what? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It is already listed at WP:ANRFC but I would not hold my breath for a timely closure on that one. It is a very large discussion with many proposed options. The main policy question (shut down the whole thing or not) is little more than a show of hands (no real discussion / consensus-building). I would commend anyone extracts actionable information from that mess, but sometimes, RfCs simply fail... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP Dating

I would like to suggest that as we are not "Hello" magazine we do not cover a relationship until someone is engaged, or some other defining point that may be suggested. I am concerned that without a defining point undue interest in someone's relationships is not healthy and looks like stalking. Britmax (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Surely the most important factor is how reliable sources cover the relationship, and not what stage the relationship is at? Iffy★Chat -- 10:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

We should only mention relationships when they have been covered by reliable secondary sources (which Hello and gossip columns are not) and are relevant to the encyclopedic coverage of a person. As Iffy said, the coverage is more important than the stage of the relationship, but in practice it is very unlikely that any current short-term relationship will attract such coverage and be a relevant part of a person's encyclopedic biography. This doesn't require any change to current policy and guidelines, but just proper enforcement, particularly when it comes to biographies of living people. Do you have any examples where you feel that our current content inappropriately invades privacy? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

How do you know that Hello is not reliable. My guess is that they have some sort of fact-checking operation and some incentive to get their facts right. The "litigation" section of their articles lists two suits for invasion of privacy but none for making false statements. I get that Hello is read by the The Sort Of Persons With Whom We Do Not Wish To Associate, but that's different from being unreliable for statements of fact. Herostratus (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Herostratus is probably correct: Celebrity gossip magazines tend to get their facts right, and if one says that Sally Star and Joe Film are dating (and especially if several of them say the same thing), then you can generally "rely" upon them to get their facts correct. Whether to include that (reliably sourced) information is a matter of WP:DUE. If sources overall put a lot of emphasis on this relationship (e.g., more stories in gossip magazines about dating than stories anywhere about anything else), then we should include it. But I think in the typical case, User:Britmax's sense that this is undue is correct. The only difference is that I'd say that it's "WP:UNDUE", as well as regular-dictionary-definition undue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely on that point. We shouldn't report on dating relationships, and on non-marriage relationships unless its at the level of crypto-marriage. And not at all if there're any privacy concerns whatsoever. In fact, WP:NOTNEWS engages on this. Most people, reading only the title, assume NOTNEWS says we don't cover very recent events, when it says no such thing. But it does say "news reporting about celebrities... can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary" and "routine news reporting of... celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". So there's your rule to cite.

I was just making the point that sometimes there's some unwarranted snobbery regarding some sources. For instance, some people would disdain Cosmopolitan as a source, but here is a piece from a Cosmo fact-checker. "Any material that is vaguely health-oriented has to be verified by a medical doctor or published medical literature" and her job is to that. "All descriptions of beauty tricks must come from interviews and are cross-checked with follow-up emails or calls from the research team.... Every word in Cosmo, surprisingly, is verified with a professional rigor that far exceeds virtually all Internet publications and daily newspapers". (Incidentally, your Important Book by your Distinguished Professor is usually not independently fact-checked.) So, I don't know what kind of operation Hello is, but I'm not going to base my assessment on snobbery. Herostratus (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that includes a proposal, and a discussion (that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating) I hope that many will! The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Public Domain 2018 Russia

• EN: Dear colleagues, please comment on CentralNotice banner proposal for Public Domain 2019 Russia uploads & article contest. (18 February - 31 March , all IPs from Russia, Wp/Ws/Commons, 1 banner impression per two weeks). Thank you. JukoFF (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Full screen edit button

Sometimes when I am editing a longer page or section, I like to drag the corners of the edit box to take up the largest amount of space that it can on the screen. This requires some maneuvering and adjustment. It occurs to me that others may also like to do this, so it would be nice to have a single button that automatically expands the edit window to the largest size it can occupy without going offscreen. Is this doable? bd2412 T 16:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: - YOU CAN EXTEND THE SCREEN?! Why did no-one tell me? I don't know about the proposal but the issue alone is enough to be helpful! Nosebagbear (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Or shrink it, as the case may be, assuming that you're using the 2010-era mw:WikiEditor. Just drag the little triangular-ish lines in the lower right corner of the main editing window. If there's a particular size that fits well for you, then you can set that size in your personal CSS pages. (Check WP:VPT's archives for directions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the need for and implementation of a Current events noticeboard

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard I just opened up a RfC. Please check it out! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename several country articles

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

---

The Wikipedia edict to “Use commonly recognizable names” has, in some cases, led to the use of article titles that have become obsolete. Many editors wish to use an article name they learned many years ago and with which they are comfortable. (By that rational, some of us elderly Wikipedians might wish to use “Belgian Congo” for the article on the “Democratic Republic of the Congo”.) The following proposed article moves are all controversial. In each case, the proposed article title is somewhat less familiar than the current title. I wish to put them out here for discussion before I make any formal move proposals.

I have included references to ten recognized English language authorities on country names:

1. The United Nations
2. The United States Department of State
3. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office
4. Global Affairs Canada
5. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
6. The South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation
7. The Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
8. The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
9. The International Organization for Standardization
10. The World Trade Organization

Move Ivory Coast to Côte d'Ivoire

Since 1986, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire has preferred to use its French country name “Côte d'Ivoire” in the English language rather than a literal translation of its name such as “Ivory Coast”. The United Nations, the United States Department of State, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Global Affairs Canada, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the International Organization for Standardization, and the World Trade Organization all use the country name “Côte d'Ivoire”. Without question, the article for this country should be moved to “Côte d'Ivoire”.

Move East Timor to Timor-Leste

Since its founding in 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste has preferred to use its Portuguese country name “Timor-Leste” in the English language rather than a translated version of its name such as “East Timor”. The United Nations, the United States Department of State, Global Affairs Canada, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the International Organization for Standardization, and the World Trade Organization all use the country name “Timor-Leste”. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade use the unhyphenated country name “Timor Leste”. The South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation continues to use the country name “East Timor”. I believe the article for this country should be moved to “Timor-Leste”.

Move Cape Verde to Cabo Verde

Since its founding in 1975, the Republic of Cabo Verde has preferred to use its Portuguese country name “Cabo Verde” in the English language rather than a translated version of its name such as “Cape Verde”. The United Nations, the United States Department of State, Global Affairs Canada, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the International Organization for Standardization, and the World Trade Organization all use the country name “Côte d'Ivoire”. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation, and the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade continue to use the country name “Cape Verde”. I believe the article for this country should be moved to “Cabo Verde”.

Move Czech Republic to Czechia

Since its founding in 1993, the Czech Republic has preferred to use “Czechia” (“Česko” in the Czech language) for the country’s name and reserve the name “Czech Republic” (“Česká republika” in the Czech language) for the country’s government. The United Nations, the United States Department of State, and the International Organization for Standardization all use the country name “Czechia”. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Global Affairs Canada, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the World Trade Organization continue to use the country name “Czech Republic”. The Czech language Wikipedia uses “Česko” as the article title for this country, and I believe the English language Wikipedia should use “Czechia” accordingly. (Not going to bet my life on this one.)

Not a country, but move Washington, D.C. to District of Columbia

Created in1791, the capital district of the United States is the “District of Columbia” and the city coterminous with the district since 1871 is the “City of Washington”. The United States Postal Service address for the city is “Washington DC”, which replaced the previous United States Post Office city address “Washington, D.C.” in 1963. The term “Washington, D.C.” is still approved by the Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, although it has been officially obsolete for 56 years. Most denizens of the city refer to their location as simply the “District”. The United States Census Bureau considers the District of Columbia to be a “state/territory-equivalent” and the City of Washington to be a “county-equivalent”. I believe the primary article for this entity should be moved to “District of Columbia”.

Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this what WP:RMCM is for? Killiondude (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered about what name they are at but I would suggest that you look for another 10 sources that use the common name. The 10 you used are all political and may not reflect what a countries newspapers or the general public would call them in English. As for the last one not a chance. Is anybody outside of the US (and I would suspect some citizens) going to know that the District of Columbia is the capital city? If you search Google US and Google Canada it's fairly obvious that Washington, D.C. is a lot more familiar. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

And, as far as Czech Republic/Czechia goes, that has been dicussed to death many times. Very nearly all reliable sources in English call it the Czech Republic, whatever governments might want. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Washington and the District of Columbia are 2 different things, similar to the fact that Boston and Massachusetts are 2 different things, renaming Washington, D.C. to District of Columbia would be the equivalent (if it wasn't for Washington and the District of Columbia having the same boundaries) of renaming Boston to Massachusetts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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