:I would not consider a designations like "Patrol Missile Hydrofoil" as a title. It is more a proper noun, which is covered under different MOS rules and allows for it to be fully titled when speaking about the classification. Titles more refer to the title of a book, movie, article, etc. and not designations as titles. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:I would not consider a designations like "Patrol Missile Hydrofoil" as a title. It is more a proper noun, which is covered under different MOS rules and allows for it to be fully titled when speaking about the classification. Titles more refer to the title of a book, movie, article, etc. and not designations as titles. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::There are many misconceptions about what a proper noun/name is, including a false view of equivalence between capitalisation (a matter of [[orthography]]) and what is a proper noun (a matter of [[onomastics]] and grammar). A [[proper noun]] is not descriptive yet such a designation is. Consequently, asserting that this disignation is a "title" actually has more merit than asserting it is a "proper name". My version of ''[[A Dictionary of Modern English Usage|Fowler]]'' (2nd Ed, 1990 reprint) refers to capitalisation of titles in such a way as to make them separate from proper nouns (section on capitalisation). This type of military double-back speak (Boat, Patrol, Torpedo) is a designation format (complete with the capitalisation of which the military is fond). It is used in equipment tables and like for everything from the common nail upward (nail, bullet-head, 10 ga, 2 in long, wire, plated). While a "designation" may be considered a synonym of "title", it is not a "title" in the same sense of the guidance on titles of works. Further, if it ''were'' the title, it would (probably) be written by the designation, ''Boat, Patrol, Torpedo'', and not ''Patrol Torpedo Boat'', since the latter may be common usage but is unlikely the ''formal'' designation. The OP's proposition only has any chance of being compelling if it is used as the title of a work and I am not yet seeing any ''evidence'' that would support the arguement being made that it is. Regards, [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
== Draft of partial/temporary office actions consultation now live ==
== Draft of partial/temporary office actions consultation now live ==
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards. This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.
RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a close, complicated by allegations of votestacking, which might, in itself, be reason for finding "no consensus". The OP has premised this as a means to resolve conflict/disruption as a systemic/ongoing issue. They note that the guidelines (RETAIN and ENGVAR) that normally resolve these issues do not explicitly apply to categories. I have looked for a "weight" of arguement to support or oppose the proposition that the solution is to stanardiz[s]e on a particular spelling in categories (as opposed to !votes). The most compelling arguements are to embrace our differences. Perhaps this might be done in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories (CREEP to avoid CREEP - irony). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This question may sound like trivial pedantry, but Category:Organizations has about ten thousand descriptively-named sub-categories. Those are inconsistently named, and therefore generate a steady stream of renaming proposals at WP:CFD.
Per WP:NCCAT, category names should "follow certain conventions", but there is no clear convention here; no single principle (or even agreed set of principles) defining which spelling to use. This makes the category system hard to use and hard to maintain, because it is difficult to predict which spelling is in use in each case
Over the years, these categories have been the subject of numerous renaming discussions, and several are open now. Several well-established principles are applied, but they are often fuzzy or conflicting, and they produce varying outcomes depending on the good faith interpretations of the experienced editors involved. Many categories have been renamed multiple times.
MOS:TIES recommends that for English-speaking nations, we should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. However,
It is often hard to determine which (if any) usage is preferred in any given country
There is disagreement about whether the "S" spelling is actually the clearly-preferred option in any national variant of English
MOS:RETAIN advocates that the initial version should be retained in the absence of consensus to the contrary.
Geography. No policy appears to cover usage in non-English-speaking nations, so editors apply in good faith a variety of well-reasoned principles which produce different outcomes, e.g. A/ Countries which are geographically closer to the UK than the US should use the British spelling, and vice-versa B/ Commonwealth countries (i.e. the former British Empire) should follow British spelling. However
Those two principles clash for the many former British colonies in the Americas
There is legitimate dispute about the extent to which British usage persists 50 years after independence
These inconsistencies create clashes of principle. If MOS:RETAIN is applied, then each container category ends up with a random assortment of spellings, depending on the choice of the creator.
In CFD discussions, the main argument for standardisation is that per American and British English spelling differences#-ise,_-ize_(-isation,_-ization), some British usage prefers the "S" spelling, bit there is no overall preference ... and that while the "S" spelling" is unacceptable in American usage, the "Z" spelling is acceptable variant in all countries.
On the other side, arguments against standardisation prioritise MOS:TIES, and assert that "S" is the standard British usage. They note how ENGVAR variations are accepted in other types of category. One example of this is Category:Association football players, whose subcategories variously use "association football players", "footballers" or "soccer players", depending on local usage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations: Discussion/survey
add your comments and/or !votes here
Use "z". I'm British, and use both spellings interchangeably. In some parts of the English-speaking world only "z" is correct, but in others both "s" and "z" are correct. I don't know of anywhere where "z" is incorrect. I must add that it's very tiresome that we have to even discuss this, but there are certain editors who seem to like arguing for arguing's sake. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't category redirects solve tis without renaming anything? If the answer apears to be "no they can't" then I agree with every word of the above comment by Phil Bridger. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox, two years ago I thought that redirects might be a partial solution (with the limitation which @Fayenatic notes), provided that there was a bot to apply them in all instances, on an ongoing basis. So I proposed the bot, at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3, and there were so many niggles that I gave up. (The bot was approved for a trial run, but there were strong objections to making it an open-ended task, which is exactly what would be needed for the bot to solve the problem).
That's why I have come around to the view that we should fix the problem at source by abandoning the pretence that British English has such a strong preference for the "s" spelling that we shouldn't use Z in any topic relating to the former British Empire other than in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't standardize. Personally, I use British English with a "z", but I don't think it is good idea to bow to the consistency zealots on this. They'd only find something more serious to worry about. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is continuing conflict without standardization, "don't standardize" is the wrong solution. There might be some reasonable middle ground toward standardization and away from conflict, but a basic non-vote definitely isn't it. --Izno (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use z. I'm British and use "s" in my personal and professional writing, but it is often inconvenient in Wikipedia that the spelling of categories for orgs is unpredictable. Using the Oxford spelling with the "z" is not un-British anyway. We already use the non-French "z" spelling for France (see CFD in 2017 closed by me) and various other countries in Europe/Commonwealth. Let's take it all the way. – FayenaticLondon22:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to make exceptions for Australia and New Zealand. NZ apparently uses -ise; these sources are not best quality but IMHO suffice to demonstrate that point.[1][2][3] However, other former colonies are not so evidently wedded to the "s" spellings. Let's switch to "z" in UK, British Overseas Territories, Europe, Asia, S America, the Caribbean, and the remainder of Oceania. – FayenaticLondon08:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - organize was good enough for Samuel Johnson and so it is good enough for me (in the UK). The Americans have in this case adhered to correct classical English. Oculi (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use z. I agree with the observations of both Phil Bridger and Oculi. And if something is correct everywhere, it ought to take precedence over one national preference. Now the consistency folks can worry about why Category:Television shows by country rolls up to Category:Television programs where "shows" is correct wherever English is used but the spelling of program/programme may differ. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't standardise. Continue to use "s" in countries that predominantly use "s" (like the UK, Australia and New Zealand). It's very rare to see "z" in the UK outside Oxford these days. We don't change other category names for consistency, so I have no idea why we'd want to here. It is clear from the media, from previous WP discussions and from usage in WP articles by British editors that "s" is now greatly preferred in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, your statement that we don't change other category names for consistency is plain false. On the contrary, large numbers of category names are changed for consistency every single day. Most weeks, several hundred categories are renamed for consistency at WP:CFDS per WP:C2B, WP:C2C, or WP:C2D ... while new consistent conventions are repeatedly established at full CFD discussions.
It's also clear that you well know that statement to be false, because you yourself have made plenty of CFDS nominations on the basis of consistency. including [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. That's only a small sample, and it is very sad to see an admin asserting as fact something which they have demonstrably known for many years to be untrue.
The reason we seek consistency, as you clearly well know, is that inconsistent titling is confusing for both readers and editors. You also do huge numbers of article moves on that very basis per the policy WP:CONSISTENCY (part of WP:Article titles), and as noted above the same principle applies to categories: see WP:NCCAT.
In this case, we have policy on what to do: MOS:COMMONALITY says "For an international encyclopaedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles". In this case, the Z spelling is a universally accepted variant, even if it is not universally preferred ... whereas the "S" spelling is not acceptable in American English. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. As usual, it appears. We do not change category titles for consistency in WP:ENGVAR circumstances. We may change them for consistency in non-ENGVAR circumstances if it is uncontroversial, yes. This is a different issue. And despite claims to the contrary, this is an ENGVAR issue, as "z" is indeed very rarely used these days in British English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Necrothesp, I did not misunderstand you. I correctly understood the clear meaning of what you actually wrote, which now turns out to be radically different from what you now claim you intended to say. Please do not misrepresent your change of assertion as someone else's failure to understand.
As to ENGVAR, for over a century the leading dictionary of British English has been the Oxford English Dictionary, which continues to recommend the "Z" spelling as the preferred form. Are you really, seriously, trying to claim that OED's recommendation is not an acceptable usage in British English? Really? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our present policy wastes a great deal of editors' time and effort. It doesn't produce consistent results. Consistency in country subcategories is achieved at the expense of inconsistency in all the other hierarchies. Consistency would increase our efficiency and enable us to quibble about things that are more important. There is nowhere where spelling organization with a z is wrong. The problem really is that in the UK it is seen, quite mistakenly, as American linguistic imperialism.Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "z" - Barring specific cases where a proper name using "Organisation" is involved, the more inclusive "organization" should be used in all other cases. It is clear that this has been an ongoing issue that repeatedly comes up and it will save everyone's time in the long run to make this a standard convention. The fact that one spelling ("z") is acceptable (if not preferred) globally and the other is unacceptable in large parts of the world makes this change an obviously better convention over the current hodge-podge of MOS:RETAIN-based random spellings or multiple CFDs to attempt to meet MOS:TIES. I think BrownHairedGirl has made a very compelling argument and I haven't (yet?) seen any substantive argument against it. - PaulT+/C14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't standarise per Necrothesp. There's no reason to change the status quo here, and Oxford is not an authority for the whole of British English (and definitely isn't for Australian or New Zealand English, where -ise is strongly preferred). Iffy★Chat -- 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is NOT a commonality issue, many parts of the world primarily use 's', just as much as many areas use 'z'. This isn't the American english Wikipedia, it's the English language wikipedia for all users of the English language. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly alternate proposal: Use "z" but create a preference setting where editors who want to see the word spelled with an "s" in category names can see it that way. bd2412T14:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I appreciate the quest for a solution which gives as many people as possible most of what they want. That's a good approach throughout life.
So I have no objection in principle to that idea, but is it technically feasible? I know that much wizardry can be achieved by AJAX, but even if some cunning code could change the displayed spelling of category titles as they appear at the bottom of an article or at the top of a category page, how would it distinguish between descriptive titles and proper names, so that it converted Category:Sports organizations of Estonia but not Category:International Labour Organization or Category:Organization of American States?
Readers might like this, but it would cause problems for editors, who would never see the actual title of the category, and be mystified why tyoing in the "S" spelling produced a redlink. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thoughts on this would be that 1) some kind of tag would need to be put on formal names to prevent them from showing up with the "s" spelling, if we care to do that, and 2) irrespective of the outcome of this discussion, there should be a category redirect pointing from the "s" spelling to the "z" spelling. When using hotcat, at least, this will change the input to the correct category. bd2412T15:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So who gets the job of tagging all the relevant categories, and maintaining those tags? As the Pages per ActiveEditor ratio continues to grow, we need fewer of those maintenance tasks, not more.
As to redirects, yes I agree. As I noted above in reply to Beeblebrox, I tried two years ago to create a bot to do just that, but the BRFA got drowned in nitpicking so I gave up.
I do think that Phil Bridger's reminder of the fate of the time/date preference thing is worth remembering. It was all just seen as too much complexity for too little benefit. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before going too far with that proposal I would remind editors that we used to do something similar with dates in articles, where they were presented in dmy or mdy format in accordance with a preference. That system was done away with - here is one discussion but I'm sure there were more - for reasons that could also be applicable to this proposal. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "z" I do a lot of work on organizational categories. Our present policy wastes a lot of my time and energy. It prioritises consistency by country over consistency by subject, for no obvious reason, even where English is not a native language in the country concerned. Personally I have been using s for about 55 years, even though I was brought up to revere the Oxford English Dictionary, but I think the importance of consistency should outweigh personal preference I . Rathfelder (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose standardisation z these days is a variant, not the standard modern spelling in British English with the OED and related publishing house very much fighting a losing battle on this. In other countries z is used even less. Whatever is done there will be inconsistency as there are numerous main articles and lists using s, to say nothing of other cases where different spellings and terms are in use (programmes/programs/shows has already come up) so trying to impose a global consistency just isn't going settle things. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't standardise. I don't see this as a problem, and "z" is not acceptable in Australian (or I presume NZ) English. Frickeg (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Frickeg, do you have any actual evidence that the "Z" spelling is not an acceptable variation in Australian English? Sorry to be a where's-the-WP:RS pedant, but in countless CFD discussions I have seen many confident assertions of national preferences in spelling, but there is almost never any evidence offered. Please can you fill the gap, and be the one who actually provides the sources which support your claim that "Z" spelling is never an acceptable variation in Australia? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Macquarie Dictionary, the closest thing to an authority here, says (paywalled) "Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise". Although Macquarie does list "-ize" as a variant (perhaps "not acceptable" was an overstatement, but "very rarely used" is certainly true; Macquarie also lists practically all US spellings as variants, which doesn't mean they're generally acceptable in AusEng), I have been unable to find a single Australian style guide that allows "-ize", and you will practically never see it in Australian publications. It is clearly recognised as an Americanism, and even if there is some doubt about the common British usage, there really isn't for us. I see no reason why WP:TIES would not apply, and WP:RETAIN when we are talking multi-national categories. Frickeg (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Frickeg. Would you be ale to quote the rest of the entry? The actual wording is important to the application of MOS:COMMONALITY, and your paraphrasing raises a few questions for me.
As to WP:RETAIN, it is a disastrous principle to apply to any category set and esp large sets, because it produces random outcomes across category trees. That makes it hard for editors to add categories, hard for readers to type them, and massively complicates all sorts of maintenance and templating functions. That's why so many categories of all types are renamed very day per WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the entry "-ise": "a suffix of verbs having the following senses: 1. intransitively, of following some line of action, practice, policy, etc., as in Atticise, apologise, economise, theorise, tyrannise, or of becoming (as indicated), as crystallise and oxidise (intr.), and 2. transitively, of acting towards or upon, treating, or affecting in a particular way, as in baptise, colonise, or of making or rendering (as indicated), as in civilise, legalise. Compare -ism, -ist. Also, -ize. [from (often directly) Greek -izein. Compare French -iser, German -isieren, etc.] Usage: -ize is the usual spelling in US English. In Britain there is some variety: some publishers standardise on -ize, but others use -ise. Attempts to distinguish -ize in words based on Greek (idolize, monopolize) from -ise in words that have come to English from or through French (realise, moralise) founder on the difficulties of knowing the precise history of many words. Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise, a practice which has the advantage of being easy to remember."Frickeg (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Frickeg. That's a clear recommendation of "ise", but not an outright deprecation of "ize". That would certainly support using "organisation" in articles ... but in category titles, which are navigational devices rather than enyclopedic content, it seems to me that MOS:COMMONALITY justifies using the non-preferred spelling. This isn't a petrol/gasoline issue, where one usage is clearly deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z" - Just for fun, I did a survey of usage on Belizean news sites. Belize is a Commonwealth country, but geographically close to the U.S. I expected usage to be about even, but usage of "organization" was 34 times higher than "organisation"! I would be OK with leaving a specific exception for UK-related categories, but overall it seems like "organization" is the more internationally-prominent spelling. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Proposal - use z for all categories except in the country where s is the clear choice - and I'd suggest a discrete list be created of these (UK, NZ, Australia are primary). This will at least shrink the issue - where it's an either/or, or any of these geographical proximity cases, they default to z. It won't quite resolve the issue, but I think it's an improvement that will avoid most of the likely blowback from fellow s-speakers. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear, I'd very much prefer simple standardisation, but I think that your proposal could provide some limited improvement if this RFC agreed an actual list of which countries fall into that category. Without that definitive list, we would effectively have no change; we would still face the same CFD debates over and over again about which if any is the preferred usage in Ruritania (see e.g. the CFR debate on Organizations based in Oman). I appreciate what you are trying to achieve by changing the default, but it still risks an ongoing saga of many dozens of case-by-case debates. So I think that proposal would have more chance of meaningful assessment if there was some actual evidence for the claimed clear preference for "S" usage in NZ+Australia, and in any other country which editors want to list. As I note above, these discussions are overwhelmingly dominated by assertions rather than evidence, but the sincere indignation which often accompanies the objections is nearly always unevidenced. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use z unless the content categorized is predominantly using s. That is, default to z which is acceptable in every ENGVAR, but retain s for local WP:CONSISTENCY if all or most articles in the category are non-North American and (not "or") are also using the s spellings in their content and (where applicable) titles. E.g., a "Category:Animal rights organisations in England" category should likely not move to the z spelling, but "Category:Animal rights organisations" certainly should be (and is) at Category:Animal rights organizations, for MOS:COMMONALITY reasons. The z spelling is preferred even in British academic writing (and an encyclopedia is basically academic writing), so z is a sensible default for multiple reasons. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see several problems with that:
It would lead to inconsistencies within the category tree for each country, which would be even worse than the current mess
It would make category titles unstable, because as articles are created or deleted or recategorised the balance would change
Assessing it would require a lot of editor time, but editor time is increasingly scarce: the ratio of articles per active editor is almost 4 time what it in 2007, and participation in CFD discussions is at ~5—15% of the levels in 2006. There is a persistent, multi-month backlog of CFD closures. However nice it might theoretically be to have such fine-grained decisions, we simply don't have the resources to sustain them.
I don't see 1 as a real problem. There will always be inconsistencies, unless Oxford/Harvard spelling is made mandatory on Wikipedia for everything, which isn't going to happen (though it's a proposal I would support for the same reason I supported MOS:JR getting rid of the comma that some older Americans still prefer). Not concerned about 2, either. It's already a criterion (a speedy one, in fact) that category names are to align with article names, so it's already just a fact that they'll shift over time as the mainspace content changes; this is a dynamic site. But the rate of change of s/z stuff is barely detectable, anyway, so there's not really much potential for churn. I'm not sure how much editor time would be consumed, per point 3, but it's something we already do at CfD anyway, about lots of things. It only consumes the time of editors who choose to spend a lot of it at CfD, like you and I do, and we're pretty good at recognizing patterns and getting on with our !votes. If we had a rule like this, it should produce one outburst of category renaming activity, then remarkable stability after that: defaulting to z, unless there's a compelling and demonstrable reason to use s for a particular case. I'm "optimizing for the probable rather than the possible" here; there is no limit in the imagination to what could be possible, but we know from experience that most British topics, for example, are going to use the s spelling, so we can already predict how British-specific categories are going to be spelled. If we default to z for stuff with no national tie, then we can also predict how the majority of categories will be spelled, absent some overwhelming cluster of s-titled articles within one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z" - Our categorization system should not be a endless battleground for nationalistic emotions or editorial ownership, but to serve as an internal system by which we order pages. As such, having a consistent style which makes life easier (and faster) for readers and editors, and will save time wasted in category discussions, is much better goal than any variation of the current system. Also editor supporter statements above me. --Gonnym (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "zed" (or "zee" if you like) As a bit of a traditional Brit, I support Oxford spelling which prescribes -ize endings and hence avoids transatlantic conflict. Not sure on Australian / New Zealand / Indian usage though. Greenshed (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z" – Though "s" may be more common in the UK, that's like 60 million people compared to 1.5 billion English speakers. Z is more global, used either primarily or as an acceptable variant in almost all if not all English-speaking countries. Standardization is a good idea for consistency, readability, searchability, and reducing the needless category renaming. Levivich22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
India, Australia and New Zealand all use 's' primarily, and so do most English speakers in Europe and Africa, It's not just Britain. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z". When I use HotCat to put articles in categories it is a nuisance to have two seperate alphabetical lists. And my copy of the Collins Paperback German Dictionary, 1988 edition, only lists Organization in the English side. It tells me that Organisation is the German spelling. Bigwig7 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use only one, this is a direct presentation to readers, so having 2 content categories for a spelling variant isn't useful. I prefer the "z" option slightly, as there seem to be more sources with that variant. — xaosfluxTalk18:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about having 2 sets of categories for the 2 different spellings, it's about how the categories should be spelled. Iffy★Chat -- 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly use "z" - except for English-speaking countries where "s" is more common, use "z" everywhere. It's more intuitive, although this doesn't override the ENGVAR principle to use the local spelling. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu15:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Standardise on "z", with the exception for names involving "s". I'm normally one for letting people use whatever spelling they feel is appropriate, but this seems like a reasonable case for standardisation, and as noted, there are very few contexts in which "z" is actively wrong rather than merely not-preferred. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z", except in official names of organisations (sic). My initial idea was to use "z" for all non-specific categories and "s" for categories specific to regions that use that spelling, but it might be too hard to determine for non-English-speaking countries. We'd waste a lot of time arguing over individual countries, like Russia where usage can be quite split. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z" When it comes to global categories like this standardization is far more important than ENGVAR. And I say that as one who has always spelled organisations with an S. Harry Boardman (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z", except when referring to a proper name. A convincing cost benefit case has be made for more uniform and predictable categories. A Google comparison of hits for the two spellings shows a 76% dominance for the Z spelling, and I came across a graph showing that Z is dominant in the UK by a 2-to-1 ratio and apparently increasing. Australians and some others may not be happy, but they surely are familiar with the predominate US/UK spelling. At least they will find that Wikipedia consistently has the "wrong" spelling, rather than having to deal with it being chaotically wrong. Alsee (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Followup comment: Regarding WP:ENGVAR, there is a big difference between articles and categories. Individual articles can happily co-exist with different ENGVARs, however categories are encyclopedia-wide and a category naming must be done (as best we can) from an encyclopedia-wide perspective. WP:ENGVAR does not apply to categories, and I reject slippery slope arguments that this proposal is a threat to article content. The opposes are making a very poor argument that unpredictably and inexplicably confusing the majority is somehow preferable over predictability and minimizing the issue. I also urge the closer to take into account Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome that consensus is not determined by counting heads, and the fact that there was an abrupt surge of oppose-votes after this discussion was selectively canvassed. That surge in opposes is clearly not an accurate reflection of general community consensus, and canvassed responses should be weighted accordingly. For comparison, I closed a 20-vs-10 RFC[9] with a firm consensus for the 10, after almost entirely discounting the majority as blatantly canvassed. In this case the result is easier - I believe there is still a majority for Z even with the canvassed responses. Alsee (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet money the answer is "no". NZ doesn't have any NZ-specific style guides from a reputable publisher. NZ writers follow British style guides, like almost everyone in the rest of the Commonwealth, aside from Canada. Even Australia does (the government-published style guide is obsolete and generally ignored, and the Cambridge style guide for .au is simply the British one with some Australian vocabulary added, and Oxford doesn't make one for .au in particular, nor does any other publisher we'd care about). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z". I agree with OP arguments, and find opposing comments ineffective. Years back, the article Theater (Amer Eng) was moved to Theatre (Brit Eng) based on the fact that Americans sometimes spell it the British way, so MOS:COMMONALITY overrides RETAIN. The same argument is works here: Americans use only one spelling, but British use both, undermining any TIES argument. RETAIN is a fall-back position used when nothing else can reach consensus. Now, in all the many thousands of categories, I suspect there may be a very few specific exceptions that can be made, but I believe that for "Organization", COMMONALITY trumps RETAIN, and these should all use "z" to avoid the great majority of pointless future category spelling discussions, and let a new separate special discussion/RFC can started for the very few that somehow "must" use "s". --A D Monroe III(talk)17:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that in New Zealand, or some other part of the English-speaking world, "z" is regarded as incorrect, but is anyone really offended by its use? I, as a Brit, do not get offended when I read an Indian or American book in English that doesn't always use the same grammar or spelling that I use myself, but simply, if I notice it at all, treat it as part of life's rich tapestry. Surely we have more important things to concern ourselves about? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. The category system is broken and needs replacing with a more sensible system of attributes which can be combined freely rather than being constrained into an arbitrary tree. A better system would provide for synonyms and that's a better way of handling such variation. I'd expect this to emerge as WikiData becomes more established and we can then discard the categories. Andrew D. (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use "z" - "z" is accepted almost everywhere. When categorizing articles, it's tiresome to guess which spelling a specific category uses. Standardization to the most common spelling is the best solution. -Zanhe (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES are pretty clear in this regard. Unless we're going to go down the same route Wikidata have taken - treating US English and UK English as different languages, and therefore setting up a whole new Wikipedia project for one or other of them, then let's continue to be inclusive and stick to the existing guidelines. WaggersTALK11:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use Z because category names need to be predictable and standardized to serve some of their controlled-vocabulary purposes, and thus should be considered all part of a single document for the purposes of ENGVAR. EllenCT (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not standardiseWP:CREEP, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES, as cited by others, are convincing and clear. We shouldn't be forcing editors to use what are considered clear misspellings in some countries. If we were to standardise then it should be to international English but I wouldn't support that as that would be considered incorrect in the US. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles." Categories are not articles. Oculi (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other." I don't see a need to distinguish between categories and articles here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use Z - As we are talking about categories - a Wikipedia-based navigation structure - we should simply use the spelling most often used in English as a whole. MOS:ENGVAR is an article prose guideline - it does not strictly apply to categories of Wikipedia origin. As has been pointed out, some countries use "s" predominantly, but its often inconsistent and seems to be on a decline. In fact, Google Ngrams limited to "British English" only shows a "z" dominance. The key, though, is that "z" is recognizable by almost everyone. This is a default, and exceptions may be allowed for categories with strong WP:TIES, but editors would need to demonstrate with strong evidence "S" is dominant for that category's topic area. To accomplish that, I would say we hold at least 3 sub-RFCs after this one to determine specifically the S/Z question for UK-, Australia-, and NZ-related categories - perhaps held on their respective WikiProjects. Evidence, not anecdotes must be presented. -- Netoholic@14:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Use S - This is English Wikipedia and we should be using the standard spelling in England/Britain. Z is American, and since the British have colonised almost every country in the world, we should be using the Queen's English, not American English, unless the organisation in question spells its name with a Z. To use the American spelling here would be pushing for the American spelling rather than traditional British spelling. Despite their super power status, America did not colonised the world, and most English speaking countries especially in Africa use British spelling, not American spelling. E.g. colonised (and not colonized), organised (not organized), organisation (not organization), capitalised (not capitalized), etc. The English language came from England, not America. So let's use the traditional spelling in England. Failing that, let's not standardised but leave it up to individual editors.Tamsier (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm not persuaded that we need a one-off micro-exception to ENGVAR just for categories. Though ENGVAR has its rough edges, it has kept relative peace for more than a decade. Keeping category names tidy doesn't seem like enough benefit. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for stanardizing but don't care if it's s or z. Can we start making deals? Maybe America agrees to concede ou/o (colour) and ll/l (travelled) in exchange for s/z? Or we could hold an ENGVAR draft! :) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written: Lets not be confrontational about something that has been pretty well settled for at least a decade, if not longer. There is little to be gained by this proposal. Can't ReDirects from one spelling to another be set up rather than, as one person above alluded to, setting up two separate language wikis? I'm American, by the way, and I cannot support, per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. Think about it. GenQuest"Talk to Me"21:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment unlike a spelling like 'color', the use of '~ize' is a regional affectation. A support vote suggested it would be "fun" to do this, the enjoyment being the reaction I assume; unnecessary, overtly divisive and disruptive 'fun'. cygnis insignis01:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose standardis/zation, it's incorrect to say category names are inconsistent, simply on the basis they differ from the American spelling. As per most things on Wikipedia, WP:COMMONNAME should apply. If the categories are related to countries where 's' is normally preferred to 'z', then why is "organisations" not perfectly acceptable? The important thing is the category 'tree' and being able to find the correct category as easy as possible. Sionk (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to standardize - ENGVAR can guide us when there is a strong national tie to the categorization... and where there is not, I see no need for over-consistency ... No one will be confused if a category using “ise” contain a sub-category using “ize” and vice-versa. Readers will still be able to navigate between related categories and articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – We should not be giving preference to any particular variety of English. ENGVAR is a long-standing agreement, and the precedent established by overruling that here would be a bad one. – bradv🍁16:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose last tim ei check this was the English language Wikipedia, not the US Spelling English language Wikipedia, or for that the English spelling English Wikipedia. As so many before have link ENGVAR says acceptable to either spelling, this action stikes me that it ahs a a lot similarities to things like Infoboxes & Templates which have already altered a person understanding of a topic. Why would we as the English language Encyclopaedia want to destroy what is a beautiful language that accept variations in all its glory, whether its an s or z it doesnt matter each have their origins in difference that make English such a wonderful language where we can use the same spelling to describe so many different things in different ways, where every place adopts words from where it is.... To stay ture to being an English language Wikipedia then our priority should be to ensure the regardless of the variants in spelling or meaning we should embrace its usage to reflect its diversity. Until there is a body like that in France which defines every french word, its usage and spelling then value our differences as they are, there enough other work around here to be done that has real benefit. Gnangarra07:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Z is not American usage. Its the original British usage. MOS:ENGVAR is very unhelpful when it comes to categories, because if people use Twinkle, as many do, it creates two seperate lists of categories. Nobody is suggesting changing the spelling of the names of articles. What we have at present is a system which standardises categories withing a country, but messes it up when it comes to the other heirarchies of categories. Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Category police should not be making ise/ize decisions. Instead, categories should always reflect and defer to decisions made at the parent articles. Top level categories should always have a parent article. Categories exist to serve article navigation, little more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any problem ... the Czech articles are categorized with “z” and the Slovak articles are categorized with “s”. Simple enough. different categories, different spellings. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose /Do not standardise - I asked for the debate to re-opened. A lot of groups use the -s spelling. There is no need to standardise, just use common sense. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not standardise: while the primary usage in Britain may be up for debate, that's not the case in Australia (admittedly I don't have access to an authoritative Australian style guide, but other Australian Wikipedians seem to agree, and I've found several sources that imply "-ise" is common in Australia (e.g. It’s time to recognize and internalize the US suffix ‘ize’) and a couple of style guides (e.g. National Museum of Australia)). The nomination mentions several unresolved disputes, regarding ise v. ize in various forms of English, that affect the application of MOS:TIES; the solution is to resolve those disputes, not this attempt to impose a standard contrary to ENGVAR. EDIT: I've just noticed Frickeg has been kind enough to quote the Macquarie Dictionary, which says "Current Australian usage clearly favours consistent use of -ise". – Teratix₵13:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the goal of standardisation (nudge nudge wink wink) is a noble one, as others have said, ENGVAR exists for a reason. Here are some RS to illustrate the dominance of "-ise" in Australian English:
The Conversation article quoted above by Teratix[11]: Craving the firm foundations of the establishment, Australians have standardised ise as the correct national form. Proselytising for ize is to no avail. Text editing changes ize to ise by default.
In the Australian Journal of Linguistics in 2014 [12]: The Australian English references (columns 3–6) show complete unanimity on -ise across three decades... the consistency of the Australian references contrasts with the ultimately uncommitted treatment in the British set. Further, Looking first at the Australian frequency data in columns 2 and 3 of Table 2, we see the -ise spellings well in the majority from the 1980s on, based on the uninflected forms of the three verbs; and close to or over 90% when the -ed forms are added...
In the AJL in 2010 [13]: English in Australia starts with a clear majority of <ize> and moves to an even more pronounced majority of <ise>.
I hope that goes some way to providing the evidence being requested in this discussion.
I dont see a big problem in leaving S in the categorisations for Australia and New Zealand if it will let us standardize the rest of the world. But nobody is suggesting that any actual articles should be changed. The different spelling wastes a great deal of editors time. Rathfelder (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once this change is made, the next suggestion will be changing the articles as well. My view is that "-ise" is used in more countries so perhaps go with that. This does seem like debating trivialities. Someone did mention developing a system that would translate between "-ise" and "-ize"? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't standardise Per WP:ENGVAR. I have to go back and forth between -ise and -ize in the work I do based on the client, and it doesn't make sense to mandate the usage of a different form of English in areas that clearly use one form or another. I would say that in the event of a conflict, -ize should win out, though. Also, thank you to the person who reopened this discussion. SportingFlyerT·C05:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a Preference setting--show everything not in quotation marks in US spelling or UK spelling. How does he Chinese WP decide which form of characer to display? Isn't that a user option? DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
zhwiki uses ugly wikitext to specify alternate names that a reader might see, depending on their preferences (that link goes to zhwiki where the "Content language variant" preference can be seen). For example, "-{zh:米;zh-cn:米;zh-tw:公尺;zh-hk:米;}-" is the wikitext for the name of the m (meter/metre) unit. The feature is interesting but far too intrusive for use here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tempest in a teapot - This discussion is using a blatantly disproportionate amount of resources compared to the scope of the dispute. It should be ended in whatever way, in the closers best judgement, kills and buries this issue in the most permanent manner possible. In particular, oppose any no consensus or wishy-washy resolution, make a decision that ends this, and stick to it. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on that as well, if standardization is beyond reach. Many editors in this discussion seem not to realize that this is not primarily about what to use for Australia or the United Kingdom, but most and for all what to use for China, Thailand, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Spain, Senegal, Angola etc etc Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When a blanket change is created it impacts other uses. It would be better to just change those categories rather than change a policy where it has impact it to usages that are otherwise correct. One size doesnt fit all. Gnangarra07:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think some of these contributors do much categorization. They dont know how much editots time and effort is wasted because of the lack of standardisation. Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Votestacking. This RFC has been subjected to blatant WP:VOTESTACKING (or more precisely Votebanking) by @Number 57. In these 12 edits[14] on 17/18 April, Number 57 notified 12 WikiProjects which have clearly been selected as likely to attract editors who prefer the "S" spelling.
The votestacking has worked; it clearly did produce the desired influx of editors who support Number 57's view.
It is surprising and very disappointing to see a long-standing and experienced admin engaging in such a clear attempt to rig the discussion. Note that for example Number 57's list of counry projects notified [15] didn't even notify the two major English-speaking countries in North America, i.e. Canada and the USA — clearly because they prefer the Z spelling
I hope that Number 57 will apologise for this, and make some amends by promptly notifying every country WikiProject ... and that this RFC's clock will be reset from the date when #57 confirms that the notifications have all been made. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying the WikiProjects of countries that use the "s" spelling is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when there's a proposal to stop using their preferred spelling across the whole of Wikipedia, and it's not something I'll be apologising for. Cheers, Number5714:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57, you know perfectly well that this is nota proposal to stop using their preferred spelling across the whole of Wikipedia, because it applies only to a limited set of categories, and not to any other pages.
As an admin for 12 years, you also know perfectly well that this sort of votebanking is a very basic form of disrupting consensus formation.
I disagree with both of your assertions, and I won't be posting the message to WikiProjects of countries to which the spelling doesn't really matter. Number5715:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: The RFC very clearly applies only to categories, so your decision to "disagree" with that fact is a simple misrepresentation of a simple reality.
The policy on votestacking is also very clear, and it seems that you "disagree" with that too.
It is clear canvassing. You cherry-picked the WikiProjects which would increase your POV vote tally. --qedk (t桜c)06:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate 57's point of view here (disclosure: I participated in this discussion after viewing one of his notices). He was notifying projects which he thought would be most affected by this proposal. Example: the United States WikiProject won't be affected by this discussion, because the US usage is "z" and all US-related categories probably already use it. In contrast, the Australia WikiProject will definitely be affected because the Australian usage is "s" and so Australia-related categories would be changed as a result of this discussion.
It is important to understand the intent here. The term votestacking implies a bad-faith intent, which was not the case.
An easy solution is to notify any projects deemed relevant that weren't alerted initially. There is no need to escalate the matter. – Teratix₵08:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current usage is mixed, which is what we are seeking to standardize, if you think this is not canvassing, you should read over WP:CANVASSING again. The policies are clear and the malintent/intent is secondary to the canvassing that took place. If Number 57 will inform WikiProjects which are inclined towards 'z' usage as BHG said, that would be construed as informing, this is just blatant. --qedk (t桜c)08:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Canvassing: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Intent is essential for an action to constitute canvassing. 57 has outlined his reasons for not informing other countries' noticeboards. This was not done with malicious intent.
Again, a simple remedy is to notify any other projects deemed relevant. It doesn't have to be 57, anyone can do it. – Teratix₵09:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire page, i.e. WP:VOTESTACKING as well. Intent only matters upto the point it can be construed to be a mistake. If I wanted to change all references on Wikipedia from PRC to China and I informed only PRC-related WikiProjects, that is canvassing, my intent is irrelevant. The onus is on Number 57 to make this a non-partisan notification, not me, or anyone. --qedk (t桜c)14:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:VOTESTACKING: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus ...". Again, intent is central. Qedk's example of PRC and China misses the mark here; for a start there is no separate PRC WikiProject (it redirects to WikiProject China). Secondly, it makes sense when changing all references to a country to inform all WikiProjects related to a country; both WP China and the hypothetical WP PRC are involved, as articles related to them would be affected. This is not the case here. US-related (and others that use "z") categories won't be affected by this discussion, as the primary usage in the US is already "z" and thus categories will already use "z". This proposal is only looking at extending the "z" usage to other countries's related categories.
@QEDK: I never said the onus was on you to notify other projects, merely that if you felt concerned, the option was available. – Teratix₵01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix, the majority of countries are not English-speaking. Some of them have a consistent usage, and some do not. Those which have been standardised on one spelling have been chosen on a range of ad-hoc bases as set out in the nomination.
If these notifications had been done in good faith, they would have been done transparently, i.e. with a disclosure here of which projects were notified and why. @Number 57 is a very experienced admin, and knows well how to ensure that the neutrality of notifications can be scrutinised. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to assume bad faith on both sides of this proposal. For instance it could be argued that if standardisation truely is the goal, then this RFC would have been to adopt common spelling, not “only Z”, with the spelling to be determined by a separate (or a preferential) poll.
The solution is to identify and notify any relevant WikiProjects that haven't been already. 57 notified the WikiProjects that would most obviously be affected – countries that use the "s" spelling. – Teratix₵06:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed this discussion is still active, seeing that I asked for it to be re-opened. I had no idea WP:VOTESTACKING and WP:CREEP were concepts. I actually felt that the original discussion was a potential "vote stacked" effort to push through presumed consensus, and it's nice to have had a wider discussion about this policy. I re-iterate one of the problems was that once you made the change to categories, which some claim is trivial, it would eventually migrate as a policy to most wikipedia pages. What's the ideal solution? No, idea. However as my previous vote above would suggest that there is no policy on -ise or -ize. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Master Of Ninja, it is utterly bizarre to suggest that the original discussion was a potential "vote stacked" effort. The proposal was made a central venue, and listed[16] at WP:CENT.
@BrownHairedGirl - I think what I had written was perceived in a way that I did not intend, and I am not making any allegations at all. As I mentioned I am not familiar with WP:VOTESTACKING apart from having went through the link, and the accusations made against another editor on the above thread. My feeling that such a change did not go to a wide enough forum, seeing that after re-opening the discussion there has been much more activity on this thread. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I was going to close this mess, but after a few hours of sifting through the discussion, and poring over the policy, I just decided that I didn't want to close this. I think it's fair to say I am fairly well-versed in category, naming convention, and cavassing policies on Wikipedia. But after I started to write up what was turning into a lengthy close, and with my sincere apologies, I just was having a hard time bringing myself to care enough to continue on, so I decided that I'd rather let someone else step in and close this if they want. Here are a few things I found, in case it should help whoever closes this: a.) To start with, clearly there was inappropriate canvassing done. The Wikiprojects notified were all regional ones. And were clearly a small subset of all regions potentially affected by this discussion (the whole English-speaking world). And what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics? Please see WP:CANVASS for more information on how to appropriately canvass. b.) Much of the discussion is subjective "I prefer z" or "I prefer s", rather than policy references or reliable sources. After sifting through policy (like ENGVAR and COMMONALITY), it seems that this is what is apparently being relied on, for referenced usage, in policy. As forWP:RETAIN,it would seem to not apply to this discussion because, as it states: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." - This discussion is about a page's name, not the contents of the "body" of it. And finally, International Organization for Standardization - this page's title struck me funny in light of this discussion. Happy editing : ) - jc3709:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that all English-speaking nations will be affected by this discussion. For example: United States-related categories will use the "z" spelling no matter the outcome of this discussion. This is true of all countries using "z". – Teratix₵07:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's technically true, but I count one serious !vote in support which boils down to "English Wikipedia should be in British English only." No basis in policy (indeed, outright contradicting ENGVAR), not addressed in the nomination and no chance of passing this discussion. A non-issue. – Teratix₵06:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a straw man argument and then being dismissive of it as an option, does not change that the notification was clearly done in contravention of WP:Canvassing. Make no mistake - if such disruption were to continue, any uninvolved admin, may choose to take preventative action, which could include blocking. I would rather to not see that happen. - jc3723:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Please explain what about my reasoning constitutes a straw man argument. You have claimed there was inappropriate canvassing; your justification was The Wikiprojects notified were all regional ones. And were clearly a small subset of all regions potentially affected by this discussion (the whole English-speaking world). In my reply, I have explained why this is not the case with a supporting example. Levivich has raised a valid objection (there was technically another option), so I have pored over the discussion and found virtually no-one taking it seriously. I summarised and examined the one serious !vote I observed, and found it to be completely lacking in policy-based reasoning. Then in your reply, you repeat your initial assertion and for some reason raise the possibility of a block. Why? – Teratix₵00:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@jc37 - this is why the whole rushed proposal was an utterly bad idea. You can see how much debate can be had on this, and I don't believe it's Wikipedia's role to standardise [;-)] English. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@jc37 - Can you clarify why WP:RETAIN would not apply in the light of WP:AT, which advises that "…The rest of MoS […] applies also to the title."? Thanks. I'm just trying to better understand the blend of guidelines. ogenstein (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off this discussion concerns category titles not article titles. Secondly, I went to WP:AT for find your quote to see what context might be found there, and when I did a page search for the word "applies" (among others), I did not find anything like the sentence you quoted. But to answer generally: We follow the MoS when applicable, though, when necessary, we of course may WP:IAR, or create new exceptions to the MoS, as necessary, as well. Which I believe is the intent of this proposal, and what you all appear to be discussing the merits of. - jc3723:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not standardise this is not the American Wikipedia, it is a project for all English speakers. This is why not every article is written in US English. ENGVAR is very clear on this, and many countries use the s, and they should be allowed to continue to do so. Joseph2302 (talk)10:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to say use British for UK/Commonwealth and US otherwise but what about the rest of the world? TBH I do think things should be standardiz/sed but how, eh? Maybe British for Europe and American for the rest of the world. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So you want to force uniformity and tromp on one 'side' or the other, but "hard redirects are too hard"? Precluding a technical solution while preferring a politiciṡ̃ƶed solution seems to incline towards bias rather than away from it. "Or what's a wiki for?" Shenme (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - British spelling isn't so much a mode of spelling as it is a set of stylizations which make it different from the American or Irish English. This small set of stylizations can be listed and evaluated, and each seems like they will come up short, when put to a vote (as is here). Why use s when its vocalized z? Why use ou instead of just o, per French influence (is everything French the ideal form?). -ApexUnderground (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem always is on which accent should you base the phonetics? Template:@ApexUnderground is that not the wrong way around? The major differences between English and American English spelling came about by Webster's concious decision. As regards s/z and or/our there are subtle differences in pronunciation. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
re Cinderella157 Having read your summary, I find myself unsure what your finding is. What does "embrace our differences in a more formal way" even mean? And is your closing rationale an actual finding of consensus, or your opinion as to what editors seemed to lean toward supporting most, but will require another RfC to action? Please clarify both of these things.
As this has been archived there, I will respond here. Please note a copy edit to my close. As QEDK observed at WP:ANRFC, there is [alleged] VOTESTACKING and multiple proposals. The former is, itself, reason to find "no consensus" as opposed to "consensus against". There are many !VOTES each way and some alternative proposals that take a middle ground (but without sufficiently clear support). There are arguements of MOS:COMMONALITY etc on the one hand and ENGVAR and RETAIN on the other. COMMONALITY does not appear to say what the title might imply.
BHG has Identified a problem, provided an appreciation of the issues and proposed a solution - to standardise on a particular spelling. Part of their appreciation is that ENGVAR and RETAIN do not explicitly apply to categories. Where they do explicitly apply (to articles and titles), they are the solution - if not a perfect solution. The general leaning is to embrace the difference (ENGVAR) and/or adopt a middle ground. Assuming there is a general perception that a solution is required, this would need to be formalised, that ENGVAR and RETAIN be broadly construed and applicable to categories; or, a middle-ground proposal achieving consensus would also need to be formalised. So yes, if there is a will to proceed, this will probably require a further RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: why, then, did you cite them in your closing statement as a possible reason for finding no consensus? Did they affect your decision or not? If not, why mention them at all? – Teratix₵08:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will support the summary that the best decision is having consensus that there is no consensus. I have no idea how this issue/non-issue can be sorted out - except saying that User:Cinderella157's thoughts that we should embrace ENGVAR are probably the right thing to do for now. Otherwise we will just get bogged down in this discussion for months. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could consider for each country whether there is clear evidence of local usage? I'm not convinced that membership of the Commonwealth has much influence on spelling, and it seems strange to impose ENGVAR in places where English is not a local language. Rathfelder (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157 when I started closing RFCs, I set a pair of goals for myself. In my opinion crucial criteria for the job are (1) being willing and able to close against one's own preference on an issue, and (2) knowing when to close against a majority and being willing and able to do so. My most memorable close was a 20 vs 10 discussion, where I issued a firm close for the minority. I mention this because 17 of the majority-20 were blatantly Canvassed to the discussion. I gave the canvassed votes all the weight they warranted - NONE. After discarding the 17 fabricated votes it was actually a 10 vs 3 discussion. Unsurprisingly the 10 had the right answer.
This RFC was running about 75% support before it was massively canvassed. As a closer your "remit" is to serve the community, by putting the close on this that the community as a whole would want you to put, to the best of your ability. If I create 100 accounts and cast 100 votes on an RFC, those votes are obviously not any reflection of community consensus. If I canvass 100 votes from others onto an RFC, those votes are equally not any sort of reflection of community consensus. You acknowledge above that you made no effort whatsoever to account for canvassing. You didn't attempt to assess the consensus of the community. I believe this is grounds to overturn the close. I request that you withdraw the close yourself.
Your given rationale for the close was that you set aside any numbers, and that you closed based on the weight of arguments. While that can be a valid basis for a close, it's hollow here. A primary argument of supporters is that chaotic category names disruptively hinders the work of editors. Your closing rationale is that disruption of work is is irrelevant against the all-overriding-weight-of-argument.... to embrace our differences. I literally had to do a confused double-take trying to figure out what your rationale even meant. All I see is "empty fluffy supervote". If your going to make the core of your close an overriding weight-of-argument then you need to cite something credibly respectable. The hollow rationale here is either grounds for overturning the close, or more support for the case.
I was disappointed but not surprised when I skimmed your usertalk. Not only did you conveniently close in favor of your personal spelling preference, it borders on statistical anomaly that this RFC would randomly be closed by someone who prefers 's' to the unusual degree that you do. You use 's' on everything, including "winterised". According to Google "winterised" is a borderline-fringe 6.8% usage. "Winterized" comes up at 93.2%. While it may well be a coincidence that you personally lean so far towards 's', it hardly gives confidence that your disregard of canvassing and the substance-free rationale are an unbiased assessment. To put a positive spin on it, maybe you just didn't notice how far out of sync your use of 's' is with the rest of the planet.
P.S. I've never been involved in this issue other than responding to the RFC. However I do care about respectable closes. Alsee (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
Commentary that considers consensus in terms of votes and percentages and weight in binary terms is fundamentally at odds with the WP concept of consensus - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
If the allegations of VOTESTACKING are presumed, would it rally be possible to objectively disentangle the result and without an hue and cry ensuing? I could not see a sound objective basis.
Casting aspersions of bias is unbecoming. Statistics should be (IMO) used with caution to define or resolve a social issue. "Winteris[z]ed" is not the subject of this discussion. The comments made have the appearance to me of polemic ad hominem. "Vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions does not foster collaboration and respect.
Your closing rationale is that disruption of work is is irrelevant against ... This is a gross misrepresentation. As such, it is both uncivil and a strawman arguement. Please do not misconstrue my circumspection for other than what it is.
If the problem requires resolution, move forward to a result that will achieve broad support of the community. A strong consensus has bipartisan support that everybody can live with. Unilateral decisions are generally weak.
Actually I note that further discussion on this topic is now being done at this page posted above by Cinderella157. It sounds like everyone there is also agreeing to disagree, and no-one can come up with a good summary of the outcome of the discussion. Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I had noticed the the post-post closure discussion had moved there, with everyone just rehashing their discussion and post closure discussion POVs on the RfC.
The truth is no one wanted to make a determination for over a month, then when someone bravely did (and unsurprisingly determined no consensus) they were attacked for having the courage to make a close.
As for Alsee,s arguments for overturning the close, they boil down to:
Cinderella didn’t vote count after discounting a number of !votes
Cinderella is Australian and so could never make in impartial decision
Per this post at the close review, I raise what I believe to be significant concerns about the process of this RfC. Specifically, that MOS:ENGVAR does already specifically apply to naming categories, that those commenting here have been inadvertently misdirected as to the premise of the RfC and, in consequence, the RfC, the close and the review have been compromised. I acknowledge that I was misinformed/misdirected. I suggest that what follows requires further discussion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might be the only option. If you read the ongoing discussion on the administrator's noticeboard, there might be a move to re-run or re-open the proposal. Hope this will help the situation is unclear. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A kind notice, language converter already exist for people with various preferences, therefore, we don't technically need to maintain two category tree, just make one system, and have an option to make them look the way one prefer. viz✦01:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How well does WP:NPOV work in the possible absence of demographic balance?
The last thread didn't get off to a great start but I'd be curious to see a bit of discussion on this topic and I think there is some policy relevance down the line. Is Ideological bias on Wikipedia a problem? Are we making any efforts to quantify whether it is a problem? We have some numbers on male and female editors and we try to make particular efforts to recruit and retain women. That seems reasonable to me. Do we have any numbers on, say, left-wing versus right-wing Wikipedians and do we think we have a reasonable balance? Haukur (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that US right-wingers are in general opposed to facts and reality, I'm more than fine having a reality-aligned Wikipedia. That's a left-wing bias, but only to the extent that the left is more closely aligned to reality. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a bit offtopic, but at least on a political level, the anti-vaccine movement in the US has become more of a right-wing thing over time, mostly because it's become more based in religious objections. That said, I feel that adhering to WP:RS, WP:V, and similar policies is sufficient to get us as close to accurate as we're likely to get as an encyclopedia, and I am extremely skeptical of the argument that we need to intentionally try to "balance out" political coverage, which is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's also important to remember that politics are very different on a global scale (and this wiki is meant to be global, not specific to the US), which might partially account for the fact that people on the right in the US find it jarring. This is compounded by the fact that right-wing viewpoints are often nationalistic in nature; nationalism specific to one counter will by definition will have less impact on (and should have less impact on) a global Wikipedia. On a global scale, people who subscribe to US nationalism or have a patriotic outlook towards the US should only be represented by, what, 4% of our editors? It's clearly far higher than that - but since (due to political self-sorting within the US) those people are used to living in an environment where almost everyone shows at least some deference to US nationalism and patriotism, stepping into an environment where it has less of a foothold seems jarring and reads to them as somehow unfair. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the OP above has been indef blocked. I am fine having a positive discussion regarding political bias and how it relates to our policies and guidelines though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Define "left" and "right" in a global context. I'd consider myself fairly far to the right in a British context; to our friend above I'd probably still count as extreme left. Certainly even the most left wing mainstream figures in the US like Bernie Sanders would be considered fairly far right in Europe. ‑ Iridescent17:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair enough. But let's say that for contributors from any particular country we might want some sort of balanced sample of that country's political spectrum. Haukur (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Quite. What passes as the center of politics in the USA is far from it in much of the world. As one example, the idea that my right to carry around a semi-automatic assault rifle should outweigh the right of my grandson to come home from school alive and without having seen his schoolmates massacred is seen as a wooky fringe idea in most of the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a European too and I also find US right-wingers to be somewhat alien - but they could reasonably worry that Wikipedia is biased against them and this thread so far would not be reassuring to them. Nor would, say, the twitter feed of our executive director. Haukur (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to search but I recall a survey of WPians that identified that the more experienced ones (read: the ones more likely to be admins) were generally more liberal than comparing newer editors. This is, of course, not surprising, given that WP can be seen as a similar environment to academia which also has a similar perceived left-leaning bias. Along, that bias isn't a problem, but in the current political climate and with the current body of RS we hang our sourcing hats on, we have created a serious problem of left-wing favoritism, right-ring scorning across modern political articles. It's the issues of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM that are being overrun when editors run to include the large swath of political commentary and analysis about factual events; the bulk of the sources presented these opinions and commentary will be from the left, and editors, along aligned with the left, see little issue with including them. Arguable, should not be a problem if there were also right-wing sources and editors made sure to add those, but we've all but cut off the bulk of the right-wing, leaving Fox as likely the most extreme right leaning source. I've argued many times before, but we should not be rushing to add all the commentary about a ongoing political topic at the time, unless that commentary itself is part of the factual events around it. It's hard enough to do this when there's opinions coming from all sides that we can use, its worse due to the media's own bias, our own bias in RSes, and editors' own bias turning a blind eye to some of these events. Instead, we should wait the years it takes for a reasonable hindsight analysis of the sources can be made to write about how academics and political analysis took the importance of the topic. --Masem (t) 17:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If what you're saying there is that we should enforce WP:NOT#NEWS and hold off from having articles about political and other events until they are covered by proper secondary sources then I wholehartedly agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I completely agree that the primary problem lies with a lack of enforcement when it comes to NOT#NEWS. The hard part is figuring out what we can do about it. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remember there being a discussion about this a few months ago resulting in no consensus being reached that we should enforce the basic requirement of topics being covered by secondary sources, because many editors claimed that news reports are secondary sources, even though no historian or social scientist would agree with that claim. I fear that the answer to the question of what we can do about it is "nothing". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with this is that there's still a strong contingent of editors that think newspaper articles are secondary sources. Op-eds may be, but that's the stuff we don't want in the immediate wake of an event. We want secondary sources talking about the broad summary of the analysis and opinion around the event to give coverage to that angle, otherwise we should stick to the basic facts. --Masem (t) 19:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that we can't have articles on breaking political events. For example, I am following the events going on about the 2020 United States Census citizenship question, and I will fully attest we can stay current and write about the event as these events break, as long as we are sticking to the facts (eg now as we're in judicial facets, explains when X happened in court or what rulings were issued). But if you look beyond the factual coverage for this, you can see a LOT of the media riding on Trump, analyzing and opining a gazillion reasons why he wants this, why the courts need to reject it, etc. That's stuff that is beyond the news at this point, and is the type of stuff seeped in political idealism that shows off the left-leaning bias of the media. But as it is all analysis and opinion and "talking heads" about recent events, we should not be covering that facet under NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM. That's where the bias of the media and our editors shows its head in other situations. --Masem (t) 19:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like that, mentioning "the left-leaning bias of the media" as if it's an unarguable truth, an excellent demonstration of the problem we face. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify that this is the left-leaning bias of our reliable sources from the media. The media as a whole is probably all over the media map, but as well noted, the more "truthier" ones that we'd trust as an encyclopedia lean left (or that the more right-leaning ones tend to take themselves out of being reliable by forgoing factual reporting). So we're basically looking at left-leaning media as what we base our articles on. --Masem (t) 00:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no. I think this is a problem with the globalism issue mentioned above - by an international standard, news sources like the NYT or CNN would be considered center-right. People in the US are used to an environment that is somewhat out of step with international news coverage; additionally, since part of the right is nationalism, any source from outside their home country is going to read as more left-wing to someone on the right, and any balanced summary of international reliable sources is going to leave right-wingers in any one country unhappy due to the relatively tiny amount of weight nationalism-based opinions in their home country are given. Outlets like Fox et. all put the nationalist finger on the scale far more drastically than CNN and the NYT, but it's not absent from those sources, either (look at eg. NYT coverage in the runup to the war in Iraq, which showed a deference to and trust in the US administration that was comparatively absent outside the country). It's normal and expected that any "fair" coverage of international media that runs the full gamut is going to leave someone from the US who is used to a NYT-to-Fox-News scale feeling like that particular flavor of US-focused right-wing nationalism is under-represented. But that's appropriate, because US nationalism is only ~4% on the world stage - if anything, it's drastically over-represented among our editors and in our articles. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to all of this. America use "left-wing" and "right-wing" to mean what we Brits would describe as "right-wing" and "more right-wing". No country is the center of the world and the middle of one's home country's Overton window is not the same as the center of the political spectrum. CNN may be left-wing in comparison to Fox News, but that doesn't make it left-wing. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In many topic areas, the US is about as left-wing as it gets, surpassed only by most of Europe and 4 or 5 other Western-affiliated countries. It is also true that even within these countries, the media, academia, and government sources all skew left-wing relative to the population at-large. There really isn't much we can do about it. Just like we often lack reliable sources about members of underrepresented groups, we have fewer reliable sources from certain parts of various political spectra. We can't generate new sources, and we can't just pretend that types of sources exist when they don't, or loosen the sourcing requirements just to help balance things. We work with what we have, and do our best. --Yair rand (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can make some basic assumptions using the data that we do have. For example, almost 3/4 of Wikipedia contributors have a four-year degree or more, and it's fairly widely agreed upon that educational attainment is correlated with greater political liberalism. In comparison, only about 33% of people in the US have a four-year degree or higher. The plan for the newer Wikimedia survey (as of last I talked to the foundation folks) was also to include urban/rural data gathering, and you can make a similar comparison there as you can with education. On the one hand, there is reason to believe that we get higher quality articles when there is a more diverse group of editors working on it. On the other, despite the high profile nature of contemporary politics on Wikipedia, the majority of work is done in areas where political affiliation is almost certainly almost entirely irrelevant. GMGtalk18:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That does help a little bit. As you point out, education is correlated with liberalism and we have a lot of educated people. On the other hand, being male is correlated with conservatism and we have a lot of men. So we may need to be cautious in extrapolating political leanings from the education stats. It doesn't seem too hard to poll political leanings directly in some way and that would seem desirable. Still, I agree that political affiliation is often/usually irrelevant, just as it seems to me that one's gender is often/usually irrelevant. Haukur (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would expect that oppositely slanted variable would work to cancel each other out, assuming there is no other interaction there (e.g., poorly educated men are abundantly the most conservative, but least likely to edit). Anyway, self-identified party affiliation doesn't necessarily directly pertain to article content. This study looked at a language analysis of mainspace contributions, and did a clever mini-validation using IP contributors and voting data. They found that most contributors exhibited no slant, but that these were also the least active, and the most active editors were the most likely to be slanted. Democrat-leaning editors were more slanted on average. All articles exhibited a Democrat slant, but the instances of extreme left/right slant were about equal. They also found that editors generally tend to moderate their slant over time, although I'm not sure that I see if they considered the effect of the most extreme editors simply being blocked. GMGtalk19:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would add that everything demographic-wise is going to be affected by the universal barrier-to-entry: if you don't have reliable internet access and you're not computer literate, you're not going to edit Wikipedia. This is a group we could pretty reliably expect to be less educated, more rural, and less individually and inter-generationally affluent, all of which would lead us to expect them to be, on average, more politically conservative. However, we would also expect them to be older, and the fact that the median age on Wikipedia fairly well tracks the median age (at least in the US) seems to be a curious outlier. I wonder if it's not being affected by places like Japan where the median age is creeping upward, but they are more likely to have reliable internet access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenMeansGo (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find "almost 3/4 of Wikipedia contributors have a four-year degree or more" dubious in the extreme, given that (outside of a few specialist fields like medicine) the US and Scotland (and to a limited extent Canada) are the only significant English-speaking countries where such a thing exists, and the US accounts for less than 40% of editors. ‑ Iridescent21:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is a highly dubious figure for any number of reasons, and can most likely be explained by self-selection bias. It simply doesn't pass the smell test: randomly go by WP:PERM on any given day and you'll see that obvious minors still make up a significant portion of the editor base, likely overrepresented compared to the number of minors in the general population. Factoring that in, and adding in the fact that we also overrepresent people of retirement age, where those with a university degree is going to be lower than people in their 30s, there'd have to be a lot of reasons to explain why our editor population is 2.25 time more educated than the US population. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence, and a survey with self-selection bias that makes such claims is pretty suspect. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Age groups of community engagement survey
Okay, following up from the above, I'm even more skeptical since apparently the English Wikipedia has no minors. If minors aren't being factored into that analysis, then that figure is missing a major portion of the en.wiki community. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buried in a subpage of a subpage of a subpage is "The sample size for English Wikipedia was very small at 88 respondents". I'm sure you'll be as shocked as I am to discover that the WMF are spouting made-up nonsense as fact to try to push one of their pet agendas. (FWIW, they don't actually make the "four year degree" claim anywhere that I can see; that appears to be a misreading by the OP here.) ‑ Iridescent22:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to convince me that a global WMF survey was a global WMF survey, then...yeah. If you're trying to convince me that the methodology of Greenstein is vastly superior, then...yeah. They sampled upwards of 10 million edits over 10 years. If you're trying to pick a fight over the WMF obviously excluding minors from their study, or the terminology I happened to use for a college degree, then I'm not terribly interested honestly. GMGtalk23:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Iridescent's point is that a sample size of 88 editors isn't particularly meaningful in terms of the statistics that it presents, especially when other biases in survey methodology are accounted for. I'm sure the Greenstein study is more accurate than the WMF survey, but just based on a quick ctrl+f of all the terms I could try to think of to validate the claim about degrees, I couldn't find it (if it's there, I'd really like to see it because I find this sort of stuff interesting.)My point about minors is that if you're making the quite frankly unbelievable claim that 75% of editors have a BA or equivalent degree, but excluding a significant portion of the editing population, it further casts into doubt that figure since minors generally don't have university degrees. There may be very valid reasons to exclude them from a survey, but when age is a very relevant factor in a claim that's being made to advance an argument, it is something the fact that a group that would make that statistic go down by a statistically significant margin has been excluded is something that needs to be raised. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, the exclusion of minors would not affect the comparison to the genpop with this data point, because measures in the genpop are also not counting children who are not old enough to have attained the measured degree. GMGtalk00:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but the general population statistics explicitly state they are age 25+. That's not what you said, and there's the fact that our editor population is very likely over-representative of minors. The point of reference matters when you're trying to make an argument that the educational attainment of Wikipedians causes bias. It's a fun fact to state, but the presentation is at best dubious when you factor in that we rightly encourage children to edit and we have had minors write featured articles. That and the overrepresentation of retirees both make that limited statistic very doubtful. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point you're making. If you compare a measure of the adult population vs a measure of the adult population (as in the US Census Bureau citation I provide above, 18+) then minors don't really play any part in proportionality. You should expect them to be equal, all other things being equal. The average for completion of an upper secondary degree for all OECD countries (25+) is actually at bit higher at 39% (p. 54), but still nothing compared to the global Wikimedia adult population. I'm not really seeing a methodological argument here other than "I don't believe the results". An 18+ vs a 25+ comparison between the WMF and the OECD actually skews the WMF results downward, given that many people aged 18-25 likely haven't had the time to complete their studies. I also don't understand where you are getting your demographic data regarding over-representation of retirees. GMGtalk00:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against the methodology used on the minors point: as I said above, there may be valid reasons to exclude them. I'm saying that because our editor population has a statistically significant number of children, the non-statistical conclusions you are drawing from the survey aren't justified by the data. Additionally, yes, a limited sample size of this project as pointed out by Iridescent, does cast doubt on the figures. A low response survey making exceptional claims isn't really that strong of evidence for the exceptional claim, and even if there is larger participation from other Wikimedia projects, that can't necessarily be extrapolated to the English Wikipedia. On the retiree point, I'm sure you can find the data somewhere, but it's a generally agreed statement that our population over-represents those who have the time to edit: children, university students, and retirees. People with jobs have less time and are thus underrepresented usually. I'm far from the first person to raise this... TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds a bit like "the plural of anecdote is not evidence". If you have data on the representation of these groups, then I'm happy to read it. I've read quite a bit on the matter and would like to read more. GMGtalk01:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that fact that USA related political articles are just filled with click-bait news. The main problem is coming from very few editors who belive blow by blow coverage is notable.--Moxy🍁22:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much we should, much less can, do. While I wouldn't be surprised of there being a liberal bias on this site (even beyond the whole "truth has a liberal bias" stuff), as a personal liberal I've seen quite a few conservative editors who have contributed quite productively to the site and we're not turning into Occupy Democrats anytime soon. Hot-button stuff can be appropriately protected to prevent any major shitstorms, and the one thing I think we'd need to do is to more carefully scrutinize breaking news. That said, I think NPOV is still holding up rather nicely, especially in medium- to high-quality articles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please, don't stop now. It is an interesting topic and one that needs to be addressed. Issues associated with RECENTISM/NEWSORG are real. How can we encourage WMF to invest more into WikiNews so that we don't have to make headlines to attract readers to the pedia? Is it a case of "news brings views" that keeps us in the top 5 Google searches? If so, what can we do to replace it w/o sacrificing anything? It may self-correct if more reliable news sources go behind paywalls. Earlier this year, I asked Jimbo to consider working with WP:TWL to get editors free access but the suggestion I received from (talk page stalker) was to search those sites incognito. Well, as one would expect, the sources have become wise to that browser feature, and have made/are making modifications. AtsmeTalk📧21:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are policies being used to the detriment of Wikipedia?
I have seen a number of examples where a user (including myself) has tried to add information to an article, only to have it reverted on the grounds of Wikipedia policies such as "reliable source" or "no synthesis", and in my opinion either the policies are being misapplied or they are not good policies. The result is that Wikipedia is less informative and useful than it could be. I can give two recent examples I have been involved in. One is the article Polyphenol, where I tried to point out that "polyphenols" are not polymers of phenol -- quite obvious to chemists but this was reverted a couple times for not having a reference, or a good enough reference. Another example is the article on Quercetin, where I added a paragraph about research in mice. This was reverted on the grounds that one reference was not reliable (Nature Medicine!) and "primary", even though I supplied a secondary reference.
I know that I can argue each case on the Talk page, but I find that there are certain people who seem to consider it their life mission to stop people adding interesting information, using whatever policies they can. As soon as you add some interesting information (which may be surprising and go against conventional "wisdom"), these people revert it -- within minutes. They must have watch points set on huge numbers of articles.
It seems to me that the result is detrimental to Wikipedia. Are the policies really supposed to stop Wikipedia from giving interesting information, or are they just being applied in ways they were not meant to be applied?
Policies can be abused to the detriment of Wikipedia. If someone adds or defends information that certain people don't like then first the sources are called unreliable (NOAA and the UKHO for instance), and then dismissed as primary when they report the real world. some times you just need to just drop it and accept that WP will never be 100% accurate. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: Do you really want Wikipedia to be just dry facts? Here we're allowed to tak about what Wikipedia should be, not just how the present policies make it turn out. But let's take the example of what I added to the article quercetin. Some researchers did some (very interesting) experiments using it in mice. Their results were so surprising that they did the experiments over and over (according to the New Scientist article). They got it published in Nature Medicine, which is a top journal and of course peer reviewed. Do you think the information about their findings should not be in Wikipedia? Do you think it's "non-factual" and should be excluded? (If so, then I think you'd exclude most research findings!) The question here is not what do the policies dictate, but what should happen. If the policies don't allow what should happen to happen, then they should be changed. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Kvaalen:, if you strongly feel that the material should have been added to that article, then take the question to the article's Talk-Page, or, perhaps even, submit there a WP:Request for Comment (RfC). If the majority of contributors agree that it is content worthy of adding to the article, you'll have your needed consensus to add it.Davidbena (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Wikipedia policies reflect the consensus of editors as to what 'should' happen. If you disagree with wikipedia's sourcing and consensus requirements, then perhaps its not the place for you. If policies were changed every time an individual decided they didnt allow what that individual thinks 'should' happen, it would open the doors to all sorts of rubbish. If you have a problem with the specific application of a policy in relation to an article, raise it at a relevant noticeboard (WP:RSN for WP:RS for example). If you have a problem with the basic wording and purpose of a policy, then raise a discussion on that policy's talk page. To look at your specific example re Polyphenols: something obvious to 'Chemists' doesnt come close to satisfying WP:BLUE (and thats an essay!) so yes, it needs a citation to a reliable source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one likes being reverted, but sometimes it happens. It is part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle that is the usual way to achieve consensus at WP. In this case, raising the issue on the talk page with the reverting editor may give you some insight as to why your edit was reverted. Perhaps there is a compromise statement, or a better section, etc, that would fly. I don't know the mind of the reverting editor, but in this case the Quercetin assertion added could be seen as a (bold) health claim, and for that the consensus is to require WP:MEDRS levels of sourcing, where popsci secondary sources don't cut it. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect something that is “obvious to chemists” would have lots of reliable chemistry sources to support it. If not, it may not be as “obvious” as you think it is. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: I note that your statement about primary sources is contradicted by the very link you use. Primary sources are allowed, within our limits that for any source (not just primary, despite how people often emphasize it solely with respect to primary sources) we don't add our own analysis or interpretation. In this particular case, the additional guidance at WP:MEDRS is also likely to be relevant. Anomie⚔12:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena, Only in death, Mark viking, Blueboar, Kudpung, and Anomie: David, I do take these issues up on Talk pages, but I'm usually thwarted by people citing policies. Once I did a Request for Comment and got blamed for it! (See Talk:Superconductivity.) "Only in death", maybe you're not a chemist, so it's not obvious to you that polyphenols are not polymers of phenol. (Of course, you have to know what the term "polyphenol" is used for, which not all chemists would know, but the article tells us!) Mark, the trouble with what you call "the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle" is that whenever I be bold and add something surprising or that goes against conventional wisdom, someone reverts it citing some policy or other, and then it gets bogged down in discussion. If I discuss too much they accuse me of making a "wall of text"! Often there are two of these guys against me (oce recently I saw them calling me names behind my back on a personal talk page). But even if there's only one, we don't agree, so the article stays the way it was after the reversion. In the quercetin article I made sure to include both a Nature Medicine reference and a secondary reference, but they still claim it's no good. Blueboar, the question of whether polyphenols are polymers of phenol is so obvious to a chemist (once he knows what a polyphenol is) that it's not mentioned in references. It's like a book on chess openings telling you that you can only make one move at a time. Kudpung, it's not clear from what you have said whether a primary report in, say, Nature Medicine isi allowed or not, according to present policies. But I'm saying that if it's not allowed, then the policies should be changed. I might add another problem -- sometimes I have tried to delete something even though it has a reference (see for example Talk:Tomato/Archive 2#Energy value) because it's clearly wrong. But these guys still knock me on the head with policies and won't let me do it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one is a chemist on Wikipedia.
I don’t see a problem with the policies in the examples you mentioned. Without getting into it, I agree with you in one but not the other. Sometimes editors will disagree. Sometimes they will be wrong, and sometimes you will be wrong. Often, by assuming good faith and patiently discussing concerns, you can arrive at a solution that is better than either editor’s initially preferred version.--Trystan (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trystan: I don't understand your remark "No one is a chemist on Wikipedia".
I have rarely found that by assuming good faith and patiently discussing concerns I can arrive at a solution or a compromise. At least not with the group of people I am talking about.
Here's another example, that doesn't involve me. In the last eleven years there has been a lot of excitement about a drug called etanercept as a possible treatment or preventative of Alzheimer's. Yesterday I went to the article to check about something, and I notice that there is only one sentence on the subject of it being used in connexion with Alzheimer's, and that sentence was obviously added in the last few weeks because it's about an article that was published in June. I'm sure, without even checking, that various editors tried over the years to add something about the evidence that it can have an effect against Alzheimer's and that people from the group I am complaining about reverted it each time, citing Wikipedia policies. Now, what do you folk think? Should it be that Wikipedia didn't mention this aspect until the last few weeks, and now has only one sentecne about it? Is that what we want from Wikipedia?
I mean that we don't bring the authority of credentials; we are all just editors. We all need to provide reliable sources so that other editors can verify our work, and readers can rely on it.--Trystan (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that's the way it shoild be. There are plenty of chemists who read and edit Wikipedia. If we chemists agree that "polyphenols" are not polymers of phenol, it should be allowed to put that into an article. No one has come along and said, "No! Wait! Polyphenols ARE polymers of phenol!" There's just no way that someone could argue that. Some things are so clear that they don't need references. As someone pointed out in the discussion on this (Talk:Polyphenol), there are statements in Wikipedia, like that the number 4 is preceded by 3 and followed by 5, which have no reference, and shouldn't have! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, Eric, you may wish to review all of those guidelines and policies to which you have already been pointed. They each exist for a reason, and that reason is almost always "Wikipedia has been burned for not having them". Now, that aside, surely if all chemists agree on this thing, there surely exists at least one published source indicating such? You have spent a lot of time railing against the system, when you as an expert should already have the paperwork on hand that corrects the issue. If you do, then it is possibly the case that your paperwork isn't trustworthy enough. It may also be the case your paperwork isn't the only paperwork, and someone else's contradicts your own, and so we need to find even other sources that tell us what the majority opinion is. You might be right, but you are just another random person who claims To Know More Than We. Provide us evidence, in the form of sources, so that we can come to a conclusion without relying on your own personal experience. --Izno (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If by "paperwork" you mean books and journals, I don't have many, and none on polyphenols. But as I said earlier, no one actaully claims that polyphenols are polymers of phenol. But let's not concentrate just on this one issue. What about the etanercept article, which I have had nothing to do with? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, books, journal articles, and even otherwise. I would assume an undergraduate textbook (on organic chemistry? on design of materials?) includes the definition of a polyphenol. It looks like you even got to an answer on the talk page before coming to this page. Yes, the gist of things is that we require consensus for inclusion of material. On an aside, I do not entirely understand why you think it's important for Wikipedia to say what a "polyphenol" is not . We are not here to educate people on what things are not (unless by some happenstance that is a confusion often discussed in some weight by the reliable sources on the topic).
As for the other article, we have requirements for medical sources. My first guess as to the state of the article-in-question is that there have been no high-quality reviews published about the connection to Alzheimer's disease. As such, we seek not to include that content deliberately because we have an interest in conservatively following the medical consensus due to the ethical considerations (see also WP:Medical disclaimer). --Izno (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Yes, in the end I think I managed to make the case about "polyphenols", but I wouldn't be surprised if my subsequent edit has been reverted again! The reason I wasnted to put into the article the fact that they are not polymers of phenol is simply that (as far as I know) it's the only case of the prefix "poly-" affixed to a name of a chemical where it does NOT mean a polymer of that chemical!
On the subject of the resolvin article, you say that we have to comply with rules on medical sources. Well, I don't want to get into looking at all the sources that were used in the huge amount of material that was cut, but I think the policy should be changed if it really means that we can't put in all that useful information.
Another example: I've seen quite a few articles about plants, and the articles say that these plants were in the past used in folk medicine. But they never say for what. I'm sure that's because every time someone tries to put in information like that, one of these guys comes along and deletes it because there are no Cochrane studies proving that the plant works for that symptom! The policy should be changed!
@Eric Kvaalen: it's perfectly possible to add ethnobotanical information, including uses in traditional medicine, based on reliable sources. What's important is not to imply, in any way, medical efficacy, without a source meeting the standards of WP:MEDRS. Unfortunately, in my experience as a member of WP:PLANTS, too many of the editors who add information about the traditional medical uses of a plant do so because they believe in its efficacy, and either don't look for, or, worse, refuse to accept, evidence in reliable scientific sources, which is why too many plant articles lack an ethnobotany component. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the existing page that is labeled as Portal Guidelines have the status of a guideline? 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This page has been in place since 2006 and has, in general, been recognized as a guideline, but some editors have questioned whether it was ever properly adopted, and others have wished to suspend it. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify either that it is a guideline, or that it isn’t a guideline. If it isn’t, then we can go back to square one and adopt a new portal guideline, or we can we Use Common Sense.
The key sentence of the guideline is, and has been for more than a decade:
Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers.
If the guideline is adopted or re-adopted, changes to it can be made by another RFC.
Please Support or Oppose adoption or re-adoption of the guideline in the Survey. The Threaded Discussion section is for back-and-forth discussion.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
Oppose (i.e., keep it as the internal documentation of the portals project and don't elevate it to a Wikipedia-wide rule). I appreciate the sentiment, but the small-but-vocal "the more portals the better" faction will take the existence of formal Wikipedia guidelines for portals—whatever those guidelines actually say—as evidence that portals are an integral and indispensable element of Wikipedia, meaning any further attempts to remove even the most moribund of portals will be met with "but this is a broad subject area, the guidelines say it should have a portal, and the fact that it has zero readers and hasn't been updated since 2007 is irrelevant", turning MfD into even more of a mess of portal-related wikilawyering than it already is. ‑ Iridescent19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually prefer to see "evidence must be provided for the utility of a portal, to include significant pageviews (possibly in proportion to the number of articles under a portal's sphere of topics or the portal's prominence)" as an explicit rule here or elsewhere. That would kill the conflict stone-cold dead and give us something trivially measurable. --Izno (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has been the working guideline for 13 years, regardless of whether it was properly adopted or not, and it is a guideline that works well if one takes note of the key phrase with its qualifications, so that "broad subject area" cannot simply be determined a priori because readers and portal maintainers must exist a posteriori. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is demonstrably not a guideline, if a guideline is something documenting community consensus on how something should be done. The page nominally described how to make Portals, with very loose criteria, and portal deletions at MfD from 2018-2019 prove that as a guideline it failed. How can this happen? Look at the history. It was advertised, rejected, nearly everyone moved on, someone surreptitiously tagged it {{guideline}}, it and most portals continued as walled gardens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The whole idea that a portal needs a big number of readers and maintainers to be kept around is nonsense. Readers come and go, and may be lured into portals if so badly needed. Note that the most viewed portals are, unsurprisingly, those mentioned at the top of the main page. The criteria must be a stable one, like the notability guideline for articles, which is not temporary. Maintainers? A good portal should not need maintainers: just set it up, give each section a populated queue of articles to display, and that's it. New articles may be added later, but it would still be a functional portal even if completely abandoned. I have seen deletionist users saying "this portal has a mistake, delete it!" or "nobody is keeping an eye on this portal, delete it!". Nobody keeps an eye on it? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement). There is a mistake? So fix it!. I propose that we demote this page to an information one, decide a notability criteria for portals (with that name or another), and in the meantime decide things using just the breath of topic Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, without someone keeping an eye on them, portals are vulnerable to vandalism, and the introduction of Original Research or POV bias. They do need to be maintained. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not at all unique to portals, and less meaningful than in articles our main body of work (and percentage wise makes portals look like basically nothing - and thus whatever portals problem there is basically nothing), which articles are riddled with multiple problems as anyone honestly touring our articles knows, so the work continues and never ends. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By "keep an eye" I meant "someone working with it" (yes, not the best choice of words), as usually requested in MFD discussions (a usual argument is "the last significant edit was in X date"). Add it to the watchlist and revert any potential vandalism? Most portal creators have probably already done so, and if the creator left the project anyone concerned can watchlist the pages as well. But that's something that is largely unseen, because portal pages are hardly ever, if at all, vandalized. Vandalism in portals is basically a non-problem, and we don't need a Springfield Bear Patrol to control it.
@Cambalachero, articles are the actual encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. They have inherent merit, which is why we cut them a lot of slack even if they are in poor shape, because they are at least the germ of better content.
Portals are not content. Their function, if they have any, is purely utilitarian, and so if they lack utility they have no purpose.
As to watchlisting portals, try watchlisting say Portal:U.S. roads. To do so, you need to watchlist all its subpages, and that is such a huge task that very few editors will ever do it.
@Moxy: I don't think that is true; I watch the main page and have never had an edit to one of its subpages appear on my watchlist. Is there a preferences setting that turns on ths subpage watchlist functionality? UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy:. False, it does not work like talk pages. The only way to be notified of an edit to a subpage is to have that subpage on your watchlist in addition to (or instead of) its main page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support it continuing as a guideline. I believe guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and this guideline describes how portals work today (and how they have worked for the many years this has been tagged with the {{guideline}} template): the community rejected WP:ENDPORTALS, and strongly rejected the mass creation of new portals that did not match this version of the guideline. More telling, despite frequent claims that this guideline does not reflect community consensus, no one has proposed significant changes to this guideline that have succeeded in achieving consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1
Replace the whole of the portal guideline with the one sentence quoted above by Robert McClenon: Portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers, plus a second sentence very very few portals can ever meet this criterion..
Nearly everything else about portals is disputed. But after nearly 6 months of MFDs, it is very clear that there is sustained community support for the basic principle that portals have to be good, have lots of readers, and be well-maintained.
Other proposals, such as that by @Izno, may be considered later. But the two sentences I propose above clearly mandate the continued cleanup, while other issues are debated at leisure. I hope that addresses Iridescent's concern. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cambalachero, the point of it is to cut the ground from under the professional dissemblers such as NA1K, who have been engaged in a campaign of twisting plain English as part of a FUD strategy. The argument being made by NA1K is that since most portals get abysmally low page views( >60% get less than 25 views per day), the phrase "large numbers of interested readers" when applied to portals actually means a number of daily views which is near-zero. That is of course a negating-interpretation, designed to render the guideline meaningless; if "large" just means "greater than zero", then the word are has effectively been abolished. .
It is difficult to deal with the FUD tactics of serially dishonest editors like NA1K, but rather than a prolonged conduct case I think that the simplest way to stop the nonsense is just to clarify the guideline. There may be other forms of wording which would do so more effectively, and I am open to other suggestions for wording. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, @Cambalachero, I am open to other suggestions. If you don't think that "very very few portals can ever meet this criterion" is clear enough, the what wording do you suggest to make it clear that "large number" actually means "large number", rather than "very small number shared by a big set of other failures"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that there is an actual conflict between a) those who use the actual meaning of words and b) a worryingly large group of portalistas who take a Humpty Dumpty approach to language. We have actually had portalistas arguing in all seriousness that a topic which has three articles in its scope is broad enough for a portal. Many of them still believe that 20 articles constitutes a "broad topic".
I don't like instruction creep, but when people don't apply common sense to the English language, it is necessary to spell things out in more detail to avoid endless conflicts with those pursuing fantasies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is primarily a value judgement that does not have consensus other than among a few users who generally dislike portals. The most recent large-scale community consensus suggests that the idea that only "very very few" portals should exist is not the community's opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly support: "Very very few" is overkill (although I understand why it was suggested), but I would be happy with just "few". It is essential that all navigation aids, of whatever kind, are well maintained. The idea that they can be set up with a list of articles and just left is nonsense; important articles are regularly split and merged, less important ones can decay into uselessness, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally oppose I was very disappointed when a very well done portal was deleted on the Australian cricket tour of England in 1948. This may strike those who aren't cricketers as incredibly narrow, but there are several featured articles on the topic and even more good articles, and the portal did a fantastic job of drawing you into the subject. It was deleted in the great purge for being too narrow of a topic. This may be a one-off, but there needs to be some common sense here - a good portal should be a gateway into a topic, especially if the topic is well done. I admit most of them aren't/weren't, especially the template ones. SportingFlyerT·C06:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No When we see deletion being advocated even for a brand-new and carefully constructed portal - the one on Climbing - on the grounds that large numbers of editors have not instantly become "maintainers", it seems evident that a different formulation is needed. Agree with the condition that portals should be well-maintained (no matter by whom), and on a broad topic - which I would identify as one with extensive coverage in Wikipedia, so much so that an overview of that coverage cannot readily be gained from the main article with its attendant links, navigation templates and categories. The part about pageviews doesn't wash either, under the present search facility which leaves portals as among Wikipedia's best-kept secrets: readers aren't viewing portals and rejecting them; they've never seen them. Were readers searching for broad topics to be offered such portals as have passed tests for quality and breadth, then pageviews would be a valid criterion. To reach this point would need a lot more constructive engagement with portals; after the mass-creation and mass-deletion blitzes, is the interest there?: Bhunacat10 (talk),16:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insomuch as it misses two points, the first mirroring the above comment. A portal can/could be of high quality and useful, but only to a (seen to be) small fraction of WP's audience. Heck, anything that is not sports or music is already in the lesser degree of 'interest'. Requiring a portal to satisfy a - say >1% slice of readers - is an artificial criterion not meeting the goal of improving WP. As always, judgement is required, and a portal on diseases of the sigmoid colon is ripe to be flushed, if urged.
The second point I haven't seen mentioned (enough) is that any large page/topic/subject/portal is going to take time to take shape. "Not of sufficient quality" is/was true of so much of WP. "Portals must be perfect" immediately (by implication) is wrong. Shenme (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reader numbers are artificially lowered by excluding portal links from many places where articles are linked, such as the default search. Portals on stable topics can remain of high quality with minimal maintenance. The second sentence prejudges potential portals as inadequate and is not an assessment criterion. Certes (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More fantasy. There is nothing at all artificial about the fact that when readers search for articles, the results are a set of articles. It would be thoroughly artificial to respond to search for encyclopedic content by returning pages from a namespace consisting predominantly of unmaintained junk. (Yes, there are some good portals, but most of them are junk).
It is particularly ironic to see this suggestion coming from Certes, because Certes opposed the speedy deletion even of TTH's portalspam, callling it a war on portals. In the 4 months since the bulk of portalspam was deleted by overwhelming consensus at two of the best-attended-ever MFDs (mass deletions one and two), Certes had been moaning endlessly about the deletion of the remaining abandoned junk portals. We're still finding portals which have been rotting for thirteen years; there's at least one at MFD right now.
If Certes had had their way, the portalspam and the abandoned junk would still be live. So what Certes really wants is that editors who search for encyclopedic content should have their results set polluted with spam and abandoned junk. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BrownHairedGirl. Very few portals benefit readers, while a huge number of portals waste readers' time by luring them to abandoned junk stuck in decade or more old time warps from when they were first abandoned, often just after creation. This change would bolster the good faith efforts of editors like BHG to clean up this long obscured area of Wikipedia that was allowed to decay on a vast scale. The portal sphere on Wikipedia is clearly broken and in need of a clear quality enforcement standard like this, to counteract the warped portal quality expectations a decade+ of festering decay allowed to set in. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Threaded Discussion (POG2019RFC)
Comment As background to this, some editors have been on a deletion spree attempting to remove portals. Among other possible problems, one deletion justification put forward for a portal to be deleted is that it has been unmaintained for a while. So in the crucial sentence mentioned above, portals being broad is uncontroversial, but the subordinate clause apparently requiring regular maintenance, IMO needs more discussion. In article space, we have the general consensus that there is no deadline. In WikiProject space, projects with few recent edits might be marked as inactive, but they are allowed to stand. Whilst an infrequently edited portal is perhaps less useful over time, why are portals an exception to the no deadline consensus? For my part, I would have a hard time accepting this as a guideline with this apparent editing frequency Sword of Damocles built in. And if the consensus is that it should be in there, I think thresholds need to be established, so editors are clear when a portal is endangered due to lack of recent edits. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}19:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just some additional background: that portals are intended to be maintained has been part of the guidelines since before there was a Portal namespace. The 9 July 2005 version of WP:PORTAL says, in bold, Only create a portal if you intend to maintain it. Of course, consensus can change, and I agree there should be more discussion on this point. Wug·a·po·des 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the history. While I am a proponent of not setting deadlines in general at WP, I didn't appreciate that active maintenance was built into the Portal ideal. I tend to think of a portal as a prettier version of an outline, which is just fine as a reasonably static entity. But if dynamic content is seen as a core requirement or purpose of portals, I can understand how others editors consider infrequently edited portals as failures. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}00:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At some point in the past I suggested merging outlines and portals mostly for that reason. Part of the problem is that the outline/index/portal system is so fragmented that it's not obvious what function they each uniquely serve. Consider how much different Portal:Contents/Outlines is from Portal:Sports for instance; the only thing they seem to have in common is the namespace. Wug·a·po·des 01:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to get editors to try and improve portals and make them more attractive and useful for the users, then going on huge deletion sprees based on pageview numbers is probably not very productive. And telling those editors who try to improve portals that they are just wasting their time and they should just get in line for the purge is not helpful either. If this is how portals are treated then you might as well do another RfC and delete them all. Nobody wants to spend time on a portal if the deletion squad comes next week and deletes it all anyway. --Hecato (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hecato and Mark viking: The portals project left many hundreds of portals abandoned and outdated for over a decade, and then allowed itself to be used as the base for mass exercise of portalspam. The project did nothing to cleanup the portalspam, and nothing to cleanup the junk which it has left around for a decade. On the contrary, the portalistas have hurled indignation, abuse, vitriol, lies, and much else at those who have done any stage of the cleanup which the portalistas themselves shirked.
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019The main issue now is that there are still way more portals than readers want or use, and way more portals than there are teams of maintainers.
So no, at this point we definitely do not need editors to try and improve portals and make them more attractive and useful for the users. What we need is a much deeper cull of portals, to get them down to a very much smaller number of portals that are actually used and actually capable of being maintained. Basically, we need to chop off the long thin tail on that graph, and concentrate on a very small number of portals. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the benefit of his vast experience of 35 days as a registered editor, and his massive contribution of 605 edits, Hecato is making a lot of very strident pronouncements about issues which others have grappled with on Wikipedia for many years. It can be amusing to see someone sign up and then pronounce as if they had years of experience, but it's rarely an approach which ends well in any field.
One of the many things which Hecato misses is that one of the roles of an editor is to actually to edit by removal. We edit articles to remove surplus verbiage, unsourced assertions, falsehoods and other extraneous matters. We delete article on non-notable topics, and we merge other items to lists of broader articles. We edit the template namespace to remove unused or unhelpful templates, such as navboxes with too few links. We edit the category namespace to delete categories which fail any of a huge range of criteria, and to purge many other categories.
So what Hecato maybe hasn't noticed is that in their enthusiasm for keeping a page which they created, they have aligned themself with a group of fundamentalists who object in principle to any deletions in portalspace, even of spam, and who have made it their mission to preserve the long tail of unread, abandoned portals. Hecato is entitled to join that team if they want to, but the preservation of abandoned junk seems a very odd priority for joining Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know on wikipedia arguments are won by seniority. You wrote a lot of text with assumptions about my motivations and the characters of people you assume I have "aligned" or "allied" myself to, but you forgot to answer my question. What portals are you currently improving? Do you intend to invest a lot of time working on improving portals in the future, once you are done with your so-called "deep culling"? --Hecato (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus - It has been marked as a guideline for 13 years, but recently some of the editors who defend all portals including crud portals proposed to suspend it, and then User:SmokeyJoe discovered that it had never been formally adopted as a guideline, and so it has been variously tagged. I would have thought that being used as a guideline for 13 years would grandfather it, but some editors now think that it is disputed. So the purpose of this RFC is to formalize the existing page to be a real guideline if it wasn't one. Thank you for asking. I didn't think it should be necessary, but it apparently is necessary to re-establish it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, the basic dispute about the guideline is quite comical.
In a nutshell: the guideline is entirely the work of portalistas, developed by them over a decade. The cleanup volunteers have been using the criteria set by the portalistas themselves as the principle by which to delete the vast piles of abandoned junk portals. This has outraged the portalistas, who are incandescent at the sheer wickedness of the cleanup volunteers' effort to stop wasting readers time with decade-old abandoned junk. So the portalistas have been repeatedly trying to remove from their own guideline anything which assists in the deletion of the unviewed abandoned junk portals which the portalistas love so much. Those text-removal attempts failed, so now the portalistas don't seem know whether they still want their own guideline or not, and the most currently vocal of them has taken up a stance which oscillates between fantasy and outright lying about what the guideline actually say.
So basically, expect this RFC to have people coming at it from all sort of unexpected angles. It will either be a damp squib, or an excuse to consume lots and lots of popcorn. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
User:Mark viking and User:Hecato complain that there has been a "huge deletion spree". The history is that there was a huge reckless portal creation spree in late 2018 and the very beginning of 2019, in which thousands of portals were created using automated portal creation scripts that created portals in a few minutes at a time. The portal creation spree took place quietly, subtly, because the creation of pages in Wikipedia is a quiet process that doesn't have to be broadcast. Much of that portal creation was reversed by two systematic deletions involving almost as much work by User:BrownHairedGirl in identifying those portals using AWB and listing them as it took to spam them into existence, and these deletions, like the individual deletions underway at MFD, are a noisy process, done with full publicity and plenty of notice. In the process, User:BrownHairedGirl and I and a few other editors discovered just how bad many of the portals are. While the portals that were created by the portal platoon in late 2018 were nearly all crud, we discovered that crud had been building up for at least a decade that still needs to be sent to the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that, as to the complaint that editors are not being encouraged to improve portals, it is true that BHG and I are not encouraging last-minute slapdash improvements to existing crud portals. Existing crud portals should be deleted before we decide which ones should be maintained and improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your words are hard to believe when I read discussions like this one called "Unwanted portals" which is entirely based on pageviews and not the quality of the portal or "breadth of subject" or whatever other policy is poorly hammered into shape to justify the delete-no-matter-what vote on the MfDs. I do not believe you will stop once all the so-called "crud" portals are gone. --Hecato (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hecato, if you have found a measure other than pageviews by which to identify unwnated portals, then please present it for consideration.
Note that even after 5 months of deleting ~84% of all portals (the spam and the abandoned), 94% of the the remainder get less than 100 page views a day. Over 60% get less that 25 views per day. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, let me apologise to readers who have read this comment before. I repeat it because this is the umpteenth forum to restart this discussion and some editors may have missed the prequels. In 2018 there were about 1500 portals. WP:ENDPORTALS, whilst it did not endorse every single portal, found a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. Many more portals were created, some on narrow topics and containing errors, but almost all were soon deleted. The deletion process then turned to existing portals. Although the rate has slowed, we are now down to 858 portals and losing about five a day. Many of us see a frog-boiling process of inventing ever more innovative deletion criteria. One of many examples is WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which explicitly states over 100 times that it applies only to articles. (Portals will by necessity present material which is already in articles; that's their job.) WikiProject Portals and associated pages such as WP:POG are now a dysfunctional WP:BATTLEGROUND. The talk pages have become unusably large, as any attempt to improve or even justify the existence of a portal is met with a WP:WALLOFTEXT from those who believe portals to be junk and crud and that we definitely do not need "editors to try and improve portals and make them more attractive and useful for the users". Editors are being driven away from portal maintenance, and possibly from Wikipedia. More importantly, none of this helps our readers. Certes (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WARMONGER Certes LAMENTS WAR HE STARTED. Certes has a really brass neck writing that, because Certes is one of the two editors most responsible for insisting that portals become a battleground.
Back in February/March, there was extensive discussion about how to remove the 4,200 automated spam portals created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and his cronies. There were proposals for speedy deletion of the spam, much of which was created by TTH just for the heck of it."
Certes was one of the most vocal opponents of using speedy deletion criteria to clean up the spam. Not only did Certes demand that each of these portals be examined individually, Certes explicitly refused to assist with the one-by-one cleanup which he insisted others do.
Even at this stage, when the issue was just a torrent of spam, Certes denounced those trying to clean it up as waging "war on portals".
When I tried back in March to assemble a group of editors from across the spectrum to draw up an RFC on ways ahead, Certes refused to participate.
When the cleanup of the 4200 spam portal revealed the existence of hundreds more portals which had been abandoned for a decade or more with negligible readership, the MFD process has continued.
It is a great pity that it has become so conflictual. But a very large proportion of the blame for that lies directly with Certes, who has consistently rejected dialogue and actively sought to create a battleground. The editors who have worked on clearing TTH's portalspam and then on the sea of abandoned junk have been subjected by the portalistas to sustained abuse, hostility, personal attacks, repeated lies ... and Certes is one of the instigators of the battleground atmosphere in which cleanup has proceeded. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out that this is the level of dialogue administrator BrownHairedGirl brings to all discussions related to portals. --Hecato (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Warmonger? Cronies? Really? If you want to lament that this is a battleground ripe with conflict, start by examining your own behaviour... Headbomb {t · c · p · b}16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate, and there needs to be a dial back. The WP:SHOUTING by BHG is another sign. Please look again at WP:ADMIN and the conduct expectations there, also, basically every Arbcom case has something like these words, 'even difficult situations should be addressed in a calm and dignified fashion'- so, something to ponder. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb, I have been on the receiving end 6 months of battlefield conduct from Certes and his cronies, who have sustained a barrage of accusations, name-calling, lies and ABF ever since the first moves were to remove the flood of portalspam. After month of being passively on the receiving end of these warriors' antics, I am now calling it out per WP:SPADE. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could take a WP:Wikibreak and dial things back down, and realize you are getting worked up about pages very few people even care about. The world will not end if Portal:Physics remains as is. Get perspective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}17:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could indeed do that, @Headbomb. But I believe passionately in the principle that we are here to build an enyclopedia, and in the principle that we build it by consensus between editors who discuss in good faith with integrity and mutual respect.
If the battle-mongers like Certes and the liars like NA1K succeed in driving away from a whole namespace those who actually try to use evidence and data and research to uphold long-established principles, then we have a much bigger problem than this dwindling number of unread hobbyists pages. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now repeatedly seen you call administrator NorthAmerica1000 a liar and other such epithets, while I have only observed them to be polite, helpful and interested in solving issues. To me you have also been rude repeatedly, despite me being a relatively new user who was not involved in any of these past events you talk about. I hate to play the victim here, but you even degraded me for my real life occupation and told me I was not welcome on this website. Regardless of what has expired in the past, I do not think it justifies the behavior you have demonstrate here and elsewhere on this website. --Hecato (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hecato, my initial contact with you was that I wrote a welcoming, encouraging and detailed post to you. You chose to respond promptly with a set of smartarse misrepresentations designed to score points. Your choice to poison that discussion and then double-down on your rudeness was your choice; don't blame anyone else for your choice.
I get that you have chosen NA1K as an ally, because you share the same objective of not deleting portals. But the problem with NA1K's conduct is that civilly-phrased lies and misrepresentations are still lies and misrepresentations, and I am one of those people do not consider a campaign of lies and misrepresentations to be civil conduct. Evidently we disagree about the acceptablity of lies and FUD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know you think you've shown restraint, and perhaps relative to your current tack, you have. But I wouldn't describe your previous reactions as passively receiving criticism. You have been objecting to the behaviour of others throughout. It is, of course, not unusual to engage with critics, but it would be helpful to avoid ratcheting up accusations and interpretations of motives. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a proposal to end all portals just a year ago, with a community-wide discussion, and it was decided not to do it. Nominating one portal for deletion is not a problem, but the users advocating it are very clear that they intend to delete basically all portals except for just 5 or 6 ones. Meaning, take a long detour to do the very thing that the community has already discussed and rejected. One of those users even called it unironically a "[cull]". This seems like a case of Gaming the system. Cambalachero (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero, the only "gaming the system" here is the efforts by a few portalistas to misrepresent WP:ENDPORTALS.
ENDPORTALS was the rejection of a proposal to delete in one go all portals.
It was not a decision to keep any portals, because that question was not asked.
If you or anyone else wants to propose that there should be no deletion of abandoned junk portals, or no deletions last numbers of failed portals with abysmally low readership, then go ahead and make that proposal. You could call it WP:DEFEND ABANDONED UNREAD JUNK.
It was decided that Thanos can not simply snap his fingers and make all portals dissapear just like that. That doesn't mean that Thanos can simply take a machine gun and start killing everyone one by one to achieve the same culling. That is gaming the system. Cambalachero (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What a strange and dishonest metaphor. As you know well, there is no machine gun.
There have been hundreds of MFDs of portals in the last 6 months, each of them open for at least the minimum 7 days, and overwhelmingly they have closed as delete.
Labelling that long process of individual assessment by open discussion as "machine gun" is hyperbole designed to mislead, because it is only by such misleading hyperbole that you can lay the false charge of gaming the system.
It's something called "humor". Why so serious? But if you did not get it, I will repeat the idea without humor. A year ago, it was proposed to delete all portals, as a single and unified action. This proposal was rejected. Now, you are proposing to delete all portals... though a long and time-consuming of nominating them one by one at MFD, to achieve the same end that the community has already rejected. Any individual MFD discussion can not be blamed, but the bulk of them, added to your proclaimed goal, is a clear case of twisting the rules to evade the consensus against your proposal. Cambalachero (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Irony is not conveyed well in ASCII text. If you want to use irony, it is best accompanied by indicators.
Anyway, your substantive argument is based on a misrepresentation of my position.
I do not intend to use MFD to remove all portals. I use MFD only to propose removal only of portals which clearly fail the quality standards set in the long-standing portals guidelines.
In the course of spending over a thousand hours analysing many hundreds of portals, I have come to the conclusion that the set of portals as a whole is a failure, and that there should be a mass cull of all but the most successful. But that would be a proposal for another venue, possibly RFC; it is not a matter for individual MFDs.
I have actually been repeatedly surprised that my efforts to MFD the abandoned junk portals have continued for so long, because I never expected that after hundreds of abandoned portals had been deleted I would still be finding abandoned crud such as Portal:IndyCar. I remain shocked by the fact that after 40% of the pre-TTHspam portals were deleted, junk like that still exists. And in one day last week, I found over 20 further portals which are in barely better condition. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a section above this one, you wanted to remark that "very very few portals can ever meet this criterion". Keeping just those "very very few portals" that would comply with your criterion... isn't the same thing as deleting almost all portals, who would fail it? And note that, despite the shortcut, the ENDALLPORTALS proposal also made an exception for some "very very few" portals as well, such as the current events one. Cambalachero (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors state that certain levels of regions, such as nations or states, should routinely have portals, and that such portals should not be deleted. I would suggest that any proposal that national or state portals should have a special status can be included in the portal guideline. Of course, that will depend on re-enacting a modified version of the portal guideline. I suggest that an advocate of regional portals add some provision to this RFC to ask an additional question about a guideline for regional portals. Should regional portals be:
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
The purpose of this RFC is to determine what are considered to be the purposes of portals. 01:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Some of the purposes that have been proposed are:
1. Showcasing our best content to readers. The Main Page, for example, is a portal with this very purpose. The Main Page is also very labor-intensive. Showcasing is work.
2. Navigating the encyclopedia. Along with lists, navigation templates, and categories, portals are one way readers can navigate the encyclopedia.
3. Containing content not available elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Some editors have stated that portals contain content, so that content is harmfully deleted when portals are deleted.
3A. Unique, forked or transcluded encyclopedic content
3B. Explanatory content such as guidance and reviews (others?)
4. Planning and management of WikiProjects. Portals allow editors to keep track of the current and planned scope of the project's coverage.
5. Metatext and reviews of the topic.
6. A statement of the importance of the topic. The provision that portals should be about "broad subject areas" is more commonly remembered and quoted than the qualifying clause, "which will attract readers and portal maintainers". A portal is seen as a declaration that a topic is a broad subject area.
7. An invitation to readers and editors to develop particular articles in a topic area.
8. Fun, or exercise. Some editors like making portals.
In the Survey, please specify between 0 and N (currently 8) purposes that you think are valid purposes of portals. You may add numbered purposes to the end of list and !vote for them also.
Only 1 and 4 are appropriate and feasible purposes for Portals, either old-style or new-style, and it's not really suitable for 4. Outlines or Wikilinks in the main article can replace the otherwise appropriate purposes 2 and 3, and invisible comments in the outline can better serve the purpose of 4. — Arthur Rubin(talk)06:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 3 (presentation style and selection), 7. I think portals can fill a niche that lists and navboxes cannot fill. An interactive guided exploration into the subject scope utilizing multimedia and a more visual narration style than what would otherwise be acceptable in the article space. Wikipedia's navigation methods are horribly outdated, hence other websites and web-apps survive solely by scrapping wikipedia, summarizing content and presenting it in a more modern visually engaging format. A lot of portals at the moment are just colored boxes with a bunch of navboxes stacked inside. I agree, you do not need portals for that and no reader in their right mind would use such a navigational tool. But that does not mean there is no potential behind the concept of portals. --Hecato (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in agreement with most of what Hecato states above, particularly formatting portals to further evolve as an "interactive guided exploration into the subject scope utilizing multimedia and a more visual narration style" and utilizing "a more modern visually engaging format". Very sensible notions. North America100008:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above are valid. Wikipedia portals are a failed experiment. None of the functions above justify creating a standalone page in a separate namespace.
Web portals were a major feature of the web in the early 1990, but their usage fell of a cliff in the late 1990s, because they were made redundant by two new developments: A) powerful and effective search, B) massive and deep cross-linking.
Wikipedia portals were created from 2005 onwards in a rush of naive enthusiasm, hoping that a few part-time Wikipedia editors could build a model of navigational tool which had became redundant even with huge commercial resources behind it. Unsurprisingly, they failed.
Despite 14 years in which editors can develop, test, and experiment with formats for portal, not one of the non-frontpage portals has come anywhere meeting their goal of being used by large numbers of readers.
I have sent months examining portals, looking at different models of portals, comparing states of maintenance, pageviews, incoming links ... and the simple answer is that in the end, none of them works. Even lovingly-maintained portals with plenty of incoming links still get abysmal pageviews, and most still have very poor functionality: e.g. most of them require a page refresh to view another set of topics, which is a massive usability fail. Almost none of them is designed to take advantage of the preview-on-mouseover built into the Wikimedia software.
The stats show very clearly that readers do not want portals. The portals are being created for the entertainment of their creators, rather than to meet a need. It's time to stop the farce of claiming that better design or more maintenance or or links will resolve the fundamental problem of redundancy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, 1 and maybe 2. But on the whole I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl. The "portal community" have no one but themselves to blame, as they chose to chase quantity rather than maintaining and improving quality on a smaller number. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above are valid or useful in real life. BTW, the common meaning of portals does not include the main page. Trying to lump them together is IMO a bad move.North8000 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2 only, but these criteria are only met for a handful of portals with very broad scope. I agree with much of what BrownHairedGirl says. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)11:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2, and to a lesser extent 1, 4, and 7, NOT 8. 1 is valid but labor-intensive and diluted the more portals there are. 2 is probably the best/most convincing, IMO. 3, 3a, and 3b are close to OR, SYNTH, etc. 4 is valid but not unique to portals; Many of Wikipedia's earliest articles, like CountriesOfTheWorld, were lists of redlinks to be created, and others exist in the main namespace to this day. 5 likewise hits close to OR. 6 can be dealt with via vital articles and the importance parameter of WikiProject templates. 7 is much the same as 4. 8 is quite silly, IMO; fun is not enough rationale for an entire namespace when the sandbox exists. Agreed with BHG wholeheartedly, would support the deprecation of all non-mainpage portals. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate all non-mainpage portals. The results of a one-by-one examination of portals over several months are clear. It's time to mass delete all the portals except those linked from the main page. Perhaps this is what the next RfC should be about. – Levivich14:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are good portals that play to different subsets of these criteria. I am mostly into 1,2,3,4,7 but I think 8 (experimenting with new ways to do 1 and 2) is also kind of valid (this also means that when one click portals were invented, there was no need to create more than one of them). —Kusma (t·c) 12:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 4 and 7 are all valid reasons for portals to exist. The current portal guidelines are over a decade old, vague and limited, a situation that has resulted in a poor understanding of portals, huge variability in quality and design because editors aren't sure how to create good ones that meet these never-before-clearly-articulated aims. The knock-on was, first, a licence to mass-create poor-quality portals followed, second, by a licence to mass-delete as many portals as possible - a campaign that continues as we write. Clearer guidelines are desperately needed before portals disappear entirely, something that would be in flagrant defiance of the community's consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2; perhaps 4 and 7. 1 and 2 are core purposes. It's unclear whether portals should also serve as a sort of wikiproject for editors. A little of 3A is also acceptable, because transcluding encyclopedic content is an effective way to showcase. Certes (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2; perhaps 7 - In general, I agree with those who say that portals are a failed experiment. However, that doesn't mean that they couldn't theoretically succeed. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld, after 14 years of the failed experiment, I think it's time to abandon the hope that the theoretical possibility will ever be realised. The reasons for its failure are quite simple:
portals are mostly redundant to powerful search and massive cross-linking and built-in-preview. They don't add value unless they are v well-designed and have a lot of ongoing maintenance
V v few portals get enough maintenance to actually value
So unless there is some sudden surge of editors will keen to beaver away at portals pages which are almost unviewed, the theoretical possibility will remain theoretical. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above are valid per BrownHairedGirl. Portals have been an abject failure on Wikipedia, as 14 years of hard data has shown. A very deep cull of portals is needed, as they are overwhelmingly shown to not be useful for or wanted by readers. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Part of the reason it's worth having an RfC, regardless of where, is that there really is no agreement about what the community sees as the purpose of portals. While you're right this is a straw poll, getting a wide range of input is actually helpful for moving forward with updating POG. I do think having two separate portal RfCs on the same page at the same time is somewhat excessive though, it may be better to merge with the one above so it only needs a single RfC tag. Wug·a·po·des 04:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to ask a second question: Are portals the best method of achieving these purposes? For example, I do think topic navigation is a valid “purpose” of portals, but I think that between blue links, navboxes, infoboxes, and categorization there are much better ways of helping editors and readers navigate to related topics. Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a well known 'fact' of pedagogy that there are different styles of reading and different learning modalities for each of the billions of readers Wikipedia seeks to be open to. Someone of even a modicum of curiosity could go to most portals and make connections they never thought of before (ideas of things to work on, etc). In short, it would not be an "or" issue (only, 'these' or 'that') -- 'plain list' or 'formatted illustrated page' -- it is an 'and, and', which is, more than incidentally, the spirit of the wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the reason why I think it's not really necessary to have an English Wikipedia-wide consensus on the purpose of portals. If there is a group of editors who are interested in developing and maintaining a portal for a given purpose, either one listed above or another one entirely, and they manage it in a way that does not burden anyone else, why not let them have their portal? I might not agree with that purpose, but if I can safely ignore the portal, why should I deny others the advantage of using their preferred tool? (I would consider a poorly-maintained portal to be a potential burden to readers and thus indirectly to the editing community.) isaacl (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the "well-maintained" part that's the issue. Something like Portal:Trains consistently gets fewer views than my user talk page, but I have no issue with it because it's kept up to date and may be useful to someone. Where it becomes a problem is when a portal is out of date and inaccurate, but is linked from article space, so readers regularly stumble across it. ‑ Iridescent16:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already written lots of words on the need for maintenance on the portal WikiProject discussion page. (In short: I agree.) I was commenting on this discussion's seeming goal of agreeing upon the purposes for portals. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Whatever style of reading or learning suits anyone, that style is not served by a sprawling collection of under-maintained (often abandoned or stillborn) pseudo-portals displaying outdated and/or factually wrong unsourced information.
Average daily pageviews of portal on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019 The reality is that nearly all portals are ignored by readers, and only 6% of them exceed even the low rate of 100 daily pageviews. The result is that mostly poartsl almost unused, and are under-maintained or abandoned.
In an ideal world, "both and" is a lovely principle. But the reality of Wikipedia's 14-year experiment with portals is that we simply cannot keep more than a handful at the level needed to make them viable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have discussed this before, and for readers of this discussion unfamiliar with that one prior discussion, you know I reject your few readers complaint because even 'one' reader/editor who gains something is great. And, yes, everything, everything, on Wikipedia could use improvement. (And for others, I am putting this in as abbreviated a way as possible, to just get the gist across, because it is now clear to me that no matter what, BHG thinks numbers is what matter, so much so, that it gets to angry words if someone disagrees). - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alan passionately disagrees with the long-standing POG guideline that portals should be a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Sadly, Alan does not accept the consensus has sustained that guideline for many years.
Alan also knows full well that my main objection to underused portals is not that numbers is what matter. My concern is that the numbers are reliable predictors of poor quality and of attack vectors for vandals of POV-pushers; and the existence of this huge collection of neglected/abandoned portals is a massive net negative.
But sadly, Alan prefers to misrepresent my position as being all about numbers. Other editors with more concern for truth can check my MFD nominations, where I have analysed the abysmal quality of many hundreds of portals.
It's a great pity that Alan is more concerned that I might be angry at his misrepresentations than he is concerned about refraining from making misrepresentations in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you found that particular brand of "passion" in what I say. At any rate, your commenting is in full WP:BATTLE mode. I just hold views that contradict your position, that is all, that's not a misrepresentation. This is the only the second time, I have discussed this with you. And both times you instantly come out come out in WP:BATTLE. This is getting worse and worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not true. You already knew I disagreed with your premises before you replied to my comment, here. Yet, what did you do, repeated the same things over again, to me, because you are in BATTLE mode. If my brief experience with you on this is any indication, you cannot ever accept in good faith that people hold positions contrary to yours, on this. Someone else above said they were fine with having portal TRAINS, that's my position too, that is all (and TRAINS is just an example). Because I don't hold to your BATTLE mode. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, you are entitled to hold whatever position you like, but you are not entitled to misrepresent my position.
I have misrepresented nothing. The BATTLE comes in your failures of proper conduct and assumption. Not from the very few times I have spoken on this. It's just that I agree with above that no matter your view of the numbers for portal TRAINS as 'too small' by some metric someone has chosen, it is still fine to have portal:trains, and portal others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, you said BHG thinks numbers is what matter.
That is simply not true; my view is numbers are a part of what matters.
So you misrepresent me, and then claim that my objections are BATTLE ... and claim that objecting to being misrepresented is not "proper conduct". What an utterly vile idea you have of "proper conduct". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are over-the-top in rhetoric. Nothing I have said is or even hinted at is vile and only someone so deep in WP:BATTLE could imagine so. You say numbers matter to you and I say numbers matter to you, it is thus plain you are so deep in blind BATTLE that all you can reach is BATTLEGROUND bad faith. Your failures of proper conduct and assumption are manifest. Multiple editors on this page have in effect said you need to dial it back, please do. I thought I made it clear when I said I agreed with another above that despite whatever numbers argument, having a portal, in that case TRAINS, is fine. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly misrepresent me, and then accuse me of bad faith and failures of proper conduct and assumption for challenging that.
Your rhetoric is over-the-top, and thus further evidence of your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Your battleground behavior has been noted by others as well. Again, I thought I made it clear, when I said regardless of the numbers, in whatever degree you claim the numbers matter, I agree with another, that for example portal TRAINS is fine for Wikipedia, even when someone comes along to claim numbers matter in any degree. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of most of them..
4 is what I use them for myself for project management. Working on a portal draws one's attention to the knowledge gaps in the topic.
7 is a natural byproduct of 4.
8 is incidental, and relates to why most of us edit the encyclopedia.
3A is a natural consequence of the existence of a portal, but unique encyclopedic content should be in the mainspace article. Portals should only transclude encyclopedic content, so it is not necessary to update it in two places, and so that portals do not need independent referencing.
3B would be useful to any readers who do use the portal. Does it really matter how many there are? if a portal exists, it may as well serve as many functions as one can manage.
5, like 3B is useful if it is available.
6 is an automatic consequence of the existence and quality of a portal, whether intended or not.
2 is also automatically there, whether it is as efficient as other options or not, it can be used for navigation, by anyone who wants to. Whether it is another way of expressing the content of one or more navboxes, or indexes or outline lists, or is built up on a dedicated list should not be an issue. Reuse of navigational tools in alternative ways is a saving on labour in the long run.
1, where possible is nice. Why not?
The amount of work put in by an editor who chooses to work on portals is not relevant. We are volunteers, if we want to spend all our time on a single portal, that is our prerogative. If it contributes even slightly to the utility or quality of the encyclopedia it is in line with the terms of use. The database space used is trivial. More storage space and editor time has been used in getting rid of portals and arguing about it than the portals ever occupied (I have no proof of this, it is based on personal impression. Prove me wrong if you disagree strongly enough, I would be interested to see actual data.) Spending an inordinate amount of time getting rid of portals against the will of editors when they do no harm is not a useful allocation of time. It is even more disruptive than having a large number of poorly maintained portals that nobody reads, though possibly less disruptive than banning an admin without specifying the reasons. This whole portal deletion drive is a storm in a teacup that has caused a large amount of distress and wasted a large amount of time and goodwill for no added value.
If someone chooses to create or maintain a portal, they have my acceptance as long as it complies with the terms of use and policy for the namespace in which it exists.
If an editor wishes to experiment with new and unusual formats, fine, it is their time, and there is a possibility that something new, interesting and useful may come out of it. The less the readers use the space, the less damage can be done, the more the readers use the space the more useful it can be. It is unlikely that they will break the encyclopedia or the servers.
If a portal is stale, out of date and unmaintained, by all means nominate it for deletion as a normal part of keeping down irrelevant clutter that no-one uses, but if someone steps up at the deletion discussion and personally undertakes to maintain it, let them do so, it does no harm, and spreads goodwill.
These are my opinions, as requested. I am prepared to debate disagreements of fact, based on evidence and logic. I am prepared to clarify my opinions where they are not clear. Telling me that my opinions are wrong is likely to be met with the attention it deserves.· · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thoughts. In broad strokes, the logical purpose would encompass multiple facets of in no particular order, organization, inspiration, information. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-part question for User:SportingFlyer - First, you complain about the deletion of content when the portal on the 1948 Australian cricket tour in England was deleted. Was the content unique to the portal, or is the content still present in the article? If the content was unique to the portal, why wasn't it also in an article? If the content is also in an article, why was the portal the best way of introducing readers to this particular interesting sports topic? Second, you are generally Opposing adoption of the long-standing page as a guideline. Is that because you would prefer no guideline, or because you think that the guideline should be different? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: The "content" was created by the portal creator, I'm not arguing it's distinct from the article but work was still put in. The portal was an excellent way of getting an overview of the topic because it listed all of the featured articles along with presenting a couple of those articles at random. It's saying, this topic is well-developed and there's all the best content on this particular topic. I thought my oppose !vote was for trying to make portals extremely narrow. They serve a purpose in narrow topics, if that topic has been developed very well. SportingFlyerT·C17:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "The portal was an excellent way of getting an overview of the topic because it listed all of the featured articles ..." an overview of a topic and a list of FAs are very different things. This is perhaps most clearly seen at the likes of Portal:Vietnam where nearly every FA listed is about an event, military unit, American aircraft etc of the 1950s-60s (and others are articles such as Black stork) - not articles about Vietnamese cities, regions, culture, 21st century etc that might make a good overview of the topic. Similar issues were pointed out at the MFD for the Trump portal. DexDor(talk)20:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term IP blocks affecting large institutions
I am Wikimedian in Residence at a UK university, and will illustrate the following with a real-life example from there, but it is the general point which I wish to discuss.
Following an unfortunate and serious instance of vandalism, from an IP address at the University, occurring before my role began, a twenty-address IP range has blocked for two years, initially with account creation disabled. AFAICT, no effort was made to contact the university.
The university has a staff & student body of over 30,000 people. Over two years, with student turnover, the issue is potentially affecting 50,000 people.
Is it right that so many people should be affected, for so long, in response to the actions of one vandal? Does this open the door for bad actors to harm such institutions deliberately, by vandalising from one of their IP addresses, in order to engineer such a block? What would a more proportionate, yet effective, response look like? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, would have to see the IP range (seriously? 50,000 people on 20 addresses?). I have seen multi-year school blocks that upon ending are immediately followed by vandalism sprees, as if that institution is just guaranteed to have some troublemakers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP range is a /19, which is 8,192 addresses. The vast majority of edits before the block were vandalism, but as Andy says, most of it appeared to be one person - and it's now 16 months ago. I would be tempted to lift the block and monitor the range to see if it recurs. Pinging @JamesBWatson: as the blocking admin in this case. Black Kite (talk)09:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that - I was pointing out that this is problably not your run-of-the-mill schoolblock; usually the vandalism clearly comes from multiple users and therefore blocking the entire range for that establishment is really the only option we have. In this case, it was clearly (mostly) one person and therefore - especially given that it's a higher learning establishment - my view is that we could try unblocking, whereas in most cases it would not be. Black Kite (talk)10:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unless the university's IT dept is run by incompetent fools, they are more than capable of identifying which user is/Was vandalizing Wikipedia and taking the appropriate action. As very few institutions run on a for profit basis are interested in policing their fee-paying customers online bad habits, yes everyone has to suffer the consequences as a result. No it's not an optimum solution, but it's better than letting vandals have free rein. A stats monkey could run the latest numbers but as I recall from the last time this came up, the number of anonymous vandalism edits from educational institutions outweigh the positive anonymous contributions. And if anyone is seriously restricted, they can register an account. The usual argument of "this is effecting thousands of people" often turns put to be bullshit as the vast majority of those in education have other things to do with their time. Of those 30k+ people,I would be surprised if the numbers who want to regularly edit Wikipedia top 50. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death wrote: "Unless the university's IT dept is run by incompetent fools, they are more than capable of identifying which user is/Was vandalizing Wikipedia and taking the appropriate action." Yes. The IT department is very likely run by incompetent fools, at least by lazy fools who choose to be incompetent in not thinking of track IP addresses back to users (what Wikipedia has CheckUser do). They are very likely lazy and don't want to do what is work that doesn't directly benefit them. So Wikipedia has to make the work of disciplining the vandals directly affect them by range-blocking if they don't act. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect university IT departments to know much about how Wikipedia works at all. For example, they would have no particular reason to have learned that anonymous IPs can edit articles, except when those pages are at least semi-protected, and that article creation is an ability restricted to accounts account that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. (Heck, I had to look those numbers up just now, and I wandered a bit before finding the exact figures.) Keeping track of our peculiarities isn't really their job. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its irrelevant to them as to how Wikipedia works. All they need to know is they have been given an IP address, date and time and their own internal process to track usage. They log *everything*. Perhaps I should have phrased my above as "I know they can do this, having done it on multiple occasions from both ends, worked in systems administration for large network companies" etc. Its business and liability decisions that prevent universities and schools acting on internet abuse reports, not technical expertise etc. You think if we had an IP posting child porn on random articles coming from a school and we reported it to them they wouldnt be able to tell who it was? They can in well over 99% of cases. (The remaining 1% being those skilled enough to mask their access on an educational network) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, activity by a particular vandal at a university seems to be a "burst" that doesn't run very long. So maybe shorter blocks would be a good idea. BTW this means noticing that sporadic vandalism from a university over a long period of time isn't typically the same vandal. A "kid" (to me 22 year-olds are still kids) who isn't a registered user who edits at a university is just very likely to casually screw around vs. serious editing, but this is usually no big deal. So it ends up looking like a "vandalism only" IP with 4 vandalisms per year. Not really a big problem. IMO shorter blocks would be a good idea. Also maybe with the block text at the page put an invite in for wiki-savvy IT departments to discuss it with the blocking admin if they wish. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support shorter blocks (unless of course LTA is obvious), and also preferably encourage the blocking admin to contact the institution if the IP's talk page is tagged with a template in Category:Shared IP header templates. We can't assume that IT or faculty are familiar with the workings of Wikipedia (reiterating XOR'easter). From my experience, one of my IPs (a single address, not even a range) is used by over 5,000 people per year and various users make sporadic unconstructive edits. If it were to be blocked, I do not believe that many faculty would even be aware, much less try to contact the blocking admin. That said, it's better to leave it for the blocking admin or even innocent affected users to resolve, and minimize collateral damage. ComplexRational (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the circumstances. Yale University has been justifiably hard blocked before, and we dealt with it by assigning IPBE when needed. While I do think that many admins are too quick to range block and for too long, there are circumstances where collateral damage is unfortunately required because the abuse is too great. There are some libel socks that I'm pretty confident work for universities. In cases like this, I would have no problem making a long-term hard block of a university IP range and assigning IPBE liberally. I don't particularly care about poop and penis vandals, but there are some really screwed up people out there, and unfortunately that means that sometimes we have to block entire academic institutions because of one person. If this occurs, and it is causing problems, contact a member of the CheckUser team and we will do our best to help find a solution. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have extensive experience of dealing with school/college vandalism. The vast majority (sometimes all) of anonymous edits are vandalism. The blocks are in most cases 'anon only'. When the user comes to UTRS because of collateral damage the user is given instructions as to how to select a username and apply for an account. When anon editing is needed for a project then, again, they tend to come to UTRS and we lift the block for a defined period. Even if the institution were contacted, it is not practical for them to do anything. Often it is a school library or computer room machine that is used. There is no practical way for the institution to monitor every student on every device. If you go to the talk page of one of the affected institutions you will typically find a large number of warnings and shorter blocks, none of which has been effective. The policy of escalating blocks has saved much time of editors and I should be reluctant to change an approach that works. Just Chilling (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This. Also, admins shouldn't be afraid of disabling account creation blocks when doing range blocks of educational institutions. They'll just create it on their cell phone anyway if they really want to create a vandal sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: your comment seems to contradict itself. If the vandal socks are going to be created anyway, blocking account creation in the conventional means would seemingly cause collateral damage without heavily hindering the main target.Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I can't speak for TonyBallioni but I think you may be missing the double negative there. I would parse admins shouldn't be afraid of disabling account creation blocks when doing range blocks of educational institutions" as administrators should always strongly consider disabling/turning off/unticking the "block account creation" flag when blocking institutional IP ranges. This would mean that the block of that IP range does not prevent account creation from that range. (I'm not an admin but see File:ThisIsaTestB-NAS.PNG for what the Mediawiki block interface probably looks like.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In general, from my experience at least, edits made by anonymous users are almost always unconstructive (though many are made in good faith), but that doesn't mean we should block anons lightly. I think my first edit was anonymous and I bet a lot of people in this discussion made their first edit as an IP. Unless it's LTA, we shouldn't be making lengthy blocks to institutions because many of our experienced editors would have once been affected by that type of block. I made plenty of edits from a secondary school at which friends of mine vandalised Wikipedia for fun. The barrier caused by blocking and protection is a big one, whereas the effort to spend 5 seconds pressing "rollback" on Twinkle is almost zero. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)16:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago I tried editing from a public computer in a major national library, only to find out that IP addresses belonging to that institution were blocked in perpetuity, all because of a disruptive user from several years ago. I filed an unblock request, which was swiftly declined. Is that how things are really meant to be? – Uanfala (talk)12:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah OP makes a fair point. My assumption would be that vandalism from an institution is by one person or a clique, and if blocked for a short time they're probably mostly go away and find other places to be annoying. Fairly short blocks ought to do the trick in most cases. If it's some dysfunctional institution that spawns vandals regularly, then OK after a few short blocks you can permablock. That'd be rare I would think. Herostratus (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of good sense above. Don't be inhibited to give short blocks, lengthen if needed. After all, serious editors can always register. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
All anyone needs to do if they want to make serious edits is register an account. I have blocked dozens of school IPs. Less universities though because one would expect students in tertiary education to be at least a bit more mature. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A block affecting all members (or a large portion of members) of a large institution should never be long, nor block account creation (the entire goal of the block would be to make the users register, so we can talk with them and deal with them individually). The only case where a long range block (or equivalent) is appropriate is in cases similar to an open proxy, like web hosts, in which case the duration can be of several months or a few years (but never permanent; IP addresses get reassigned). Nemo07:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Access to email addresses and requests for oversight, etc
I have a few related questions that I can't find any answer to. This is likely the wrong place to bring this up, but I can't figure out anything else, so here goes.
Who exactly has access to the email address that we've set in our user preferences? I assume that at least some WMF staff would have to, but who else?
If there's a good answer, then can this be added somewhere convenient (WP:EMAIL for example)?
The reason I've been looking for this is that I wanted to request oversighting of some material, but there's no easy way to do so that doesn't involve giving out my email address. Can a page be added on-wiki that provides a form to submit a request without disclosing one's email address?
There is not a user right that gives access to the email address stored in your preferences. I'm assuming someone with database access could but that's just a guess.
Maybe? I'm not really sure it is worth a mention since there isn't a user right that gives access.
Emails to the oversight list are handled through the OTRS system and all oversighters have access to it. Speaking personally, I don't ever even notice the email address in the oversight queue because the OTRS interface is so clunky and all I really care about is suppressing the material. You can also request suppression by joining #wikipedia-en-revdelconnect and typing !oversight. An on-wiki form for suppression is not going to happen because it would be a nightmare to handle. This may as well be a perennial proposal.
You can create a one-off email for any number of free email services and email oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org without having to use the Wikipedia email interface.
More specifically, yes, someone with private database access could read the email addresses. My understanding is that the list of people with such access is fairly short, basically limited to the people who need to have such access in order to keep the site running. In theory there's a list somewhere of who has access to what, but it may as well be written in Klingon, as I have no idea what the name is of the relevant access level. Generally, if you are concerned about privacy with regard to your email address, just register one with a random name that you don't use anywhere else and doesn't mean anything. Echoing Tony, I really honestly don't care or even notice usually what someone's email address is. Typically the only time I'd look at it is to see if that person had sent other emails, or if the person is claiming to be some specific real life person and I am trying to verify that. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some more answer to question 3.
If you use Special:EmailUser/Oversight to send an email, you're sending it to a private mailing list "oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org"; your email is disclosed to the people who have access to the list.
There is an extension called ContactPage that can be used to send a message without disclosing email address of the sender (and it can be disclosed if one so chooses). It's currently not in used on English Wikipedia, but it's on Meta; see for example m:Special:Contact/Stewards. I think that extension can provide what youre looking for. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFC on WP:ARBPOL Forms of proceeding: Private Hearings
(Placing this here, as the talkpage of WP:ARBPOL is redirected.)
Worm that Turned has confirmed that ARBCOM are currently holding a private hearing and considering evidence that will not be provided to the subject of the hearing. See here.
This RFC is to gauge community consensus on the interpretation of the wording of WP:ARBPOL - specifically (emphasis mine) "In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made.
It is my opinion that the wording of ARBPOL does not allow evidence to be considered and used against individuals without that evidence being disclosed to them. The very worst members of society - rapists, murderers and child abusers are still told who has accused them, of what, when, how etc. They are often denied the opportunity to confront their accusers directly, but they are still provided all the available information on those accusations in order to defend themselves. I cant think the intention of the ENWP community through ARBPOL is that editors will be accused and judged based on evidence they have no access to and has not been seen. The wording 'reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them' cannot apply, how can you respond to what is said about you if you dont know what it is? The pseudo-legalistic approach arbcom has codified in ARBPOL is based on the modern legal standards of fairness and disclosure, the approach ARBCOM are taking shares none of that.
There is no doubt the issues surrounding WP:FRAM are best served by a private hearing, however that does not allow ARBCOM to disregard ARBPOL because the WMF have demanded their file on an ENWP editor is kept from that editor. ARBCOM are beholden to the ENWP community, not to the WMF. If the WMF have attached conditions to that evidence, then ARBCOM should reject it unless the WMF are willing to abide by ARBPOL.
Please indicate your support/opposition below. A support vote should indicate you are in favour of the interpretation above: that 'reasonable opportunity to respond' requires disclosure of all evidence to the accused. Please provide a reason why. An opposition indicates that you think the wording of ARBPOL allows for evidence to be considered and used against a person, but not to be supplied to that person. Likewise provide a reason why.
Any other comments also welcome, however I am not interested in this degenerating into another pro/anti Fram discussion, please keep on topic as to the specific issue of the interpretation of ARBPOL.
This is not intended to add, remove, change/alter the wording of ARBPOL, only answer the question 'Does the wording regarding private hearings support that evidence to be used against an editor should be disclosed to that editor in order that they can respond.'
Support. Even the worst examples of abusive processes feature the basic components of notice and an opportunity to respond. It strikes me that excessive secrecy will effectuate a denial of those two most basic components. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An accused person should always know the evidence against them. Secret trials and secret evidence are the characteristics of a totalitarian state and have no place on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support. In a normal arbcom proceeding (as is required by due process) a party can pose questions to other parties. The secrecy not only prevents the accused from organizing his own defense but precludes the accused from posing questions to the other parties. For example, if the Arbcom says that it is opening a proceeding regarding all acts of incivility involving an admin during the past three years, and editors A through Z come forward alleging incivil conduct, the admin should have the right to pose questions making plain the circumstances of those interactions. This RFC is important because the Arbcom is about to set a group of bad precedents on how to handle anonymous incivility complaints. Hlevy2 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per natural justice, person A must not be penalized without being told "what for" and being given opportunity to respond. It follows that a person cannot be penalized based on a private complaint. the private complaint may inspire an investigation that reveals public evidence of wrongdoing, to which person A can be informed and be asked to answer; or the complaint and be investigated but with outcomes limited to non punitive things, such as better education, or safeguards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the involved parties of an arbitration MUST be informed of what has been said about them and by whom. However, the rest of the community does NOT have a need to know. ArbCom can (and should) issue a Wikipedia version of a “gag order” if necessary. I am adamantly opposed to having secret tribunals conducted by the “mistrust and unsafety team” ... I am fine with our ArbCom system holding “closed door sessions” of their normal forms of redress. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The whole point of punting this to ArbCom was that T&S had short-circuited the entirety of en-wiki's dispute resolution process; this is supposed to be our chance to prove the efficacy of that process. However, any such proof can only be found if all of the rules of the process are followed. ARBPOL is policy for a reason, and must be respected; if T&S isn't willing to have its evidence disclosed to the accused, then their evidence must be disallowed. We're already bending over backwards to accommodate them by letting them redact and anonymize the evidence; if they want our trust, they have to meet us halfway on this and let ArbCom give Fram a summarized, anonymized version of it to respond to. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The correct interpretation of ARBPOL is that evidence that remains private can only be used to initially motivate a search for evidence that can be made public. If there is already motivation to search for evidence, any evidence that remains private is unnecessary and the case must be judged on the basis of public evidence alone. Where this means that private evidence has to be disregarded, this is a valid and intentional tradeoff made to prevent filtered evidence from leading to incorrect decisions.
With respect to the community not needing to know, I disagree with Blueboar above. The involved parties are not the only ones who may be able to respond to evidence against them. If you allow the whole community to submit evidence against the parties in a case in private but do not provide a way for the community to refute this evidence, which requires that the community know what the submitted evidence was, you are systematically biasing the case against the parties.
Some of the objections below are about the Fram case specifically and I consider them irrelevant. Others miss the point: Rhododendrites, you say that arbitrators are the most trusted users on the project. The primary purpose of ensuring that evidence is made public is not to constrain arbitrators that are not trusted, but to allow responding to filtered evidence. Arbitrators need these responses all the more so if we trust them. Responses to public evidence can be targeted, which allows them to be more useful to the arbs in improving their judgment both if the responses are good and if they are not. If, in response to the public evidence, they get a strong refutation of the evidence, they can stop weighing the refuted evidence entirely; if the main points are eluded, they can weigh the evidence that is still standing more than they could have otherwise. This allows them to change their judgment or increase their confidence that the judgment is correct. — Rastus Vernon (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding here since pinged: made public - presuming you mean communicated to the relevant case party? Responses to public evidence can be targeted, which allows them to be more useful to the arbs - Indeed. But I can envision a scenario when revealing that information would be harmful and, at the same time, be sufficiently clear on its own, or in combination with other evidence that has been disclosed, that arbs can make a sound judgment without disclosure. I want to reiterate something: this should be extremely rare, and avoided as much as possible. I'm opposing because I don't want to state in any absolute terms that they are prevented from withholding evidence or from summarizing it in a way that leaves certain aspects out in those rare situations when it's necessary to do so. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the purpose overall should be that an editor should be able to better themselves. Evidence that cannot be shown or discussed with the defendant is not admissible for a case against the defendant as the defendant cannot defend themselves or put the evidence into (their) context. It is not anyone else's capability to judge evidence without having that context. (note: I do trust that ArbCom will handle this appropriately and in a transparent way). --Dirk BeetstraTC06:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to qualify my !vote here further in light of the opposes. I do not expect a full exposure of all evidence. What I expect is a reasonable chance to defend yourself. I do not expect '[here], [here], [here], and [here] you are commenting rather harshly on [user:<whoever>]'s edits', I do expect something along the lines of 'on several occasions you have been commenting rather harshly on the edits of multiple editors'. And I do then expect that the accused is allowed to come back with specific examples of edits where they themselves felt that indeed they were harsh, and put those in context. Those examples may accidentally be the same editors on which the accusation was based, it may also be other cases. An accusation of 'you were harassing editors <full stop>' is not something that one can, reasonably defend itself against. (and I do note, that the accusation 'you were harassing editors <full stop>' (or whatever the accusation(s) is/are) seems to be WAY more than what Fram knows, and it is certainly more than what the community knows.
I do believe that there will be cases of people who are currently submitting evidence that say "OK, I will have it, ([diff], [diff],[ diff] are several situations with a person where I felt harassed by this person. I felt hounded because of [diff], [diff]. Show this to the community, and lets see what the accused, and the community says." What I then do expect is that the community respects those feelings of the accusing party and not burns that down with 'grow up'/'you have to develop a thicker skin', but I also expect that the accusing party respects the community when they return with 'yes, but the accused has been nicely talking to you [here] and [here] before that and you continued.'. As I have been saying for a long time, not everything is as black-and-white as child-pornography, death threats or, if you wish, checkuser data. And I know, the community is not very good at this.
I will fully respect those editors who do not wish to be identified, and I also agree that we have entrusted the ArbCom with handling such private evidence. I also respect that that evidence may be mounting up to gargantuan proportions. It may even be of a nature that is indefensible.
What I support here, boils down to me opposing cases where the accused, even if all evidence is indefensible, is not allowed to a reasonable way of defending themselves against that evidence, and no reasonable way of appeal. And yes, that may result in a 'we have a massive body of evidence, but most of it is inadmissible as we cannot assure that the accused has a reasonable case of defending themselves against the evidence'. But you cannot chose to have justice to people while denying that to others. And I do not believe that it is up to the ArbCom to decide to do the case completely in camera, that is up to the volunteers that present evidence on a case-by-case basis. It may then happen that all evidence is not visible to the community, but we should respect those editors who chose to do make their evidence public.
Support. I am okay with certain sensitive evidence not being made publicly available to the community and I must trust ArbCom with that remit, but the accused should always know what they are accused of. Secret trials on Wikipedia are unacceptable, as is the WMF's continued meddling in our dispute resolution procedures. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱07:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible for the accused to know what they are accused of without seeing all of the evidence presented against them. For example arbcom could say something like "You have been accused of X, Y and Z. The accusations of Z are not relevant/not credible and they will form no part in the case. X relates to on-wiki actions centred around article 1 and article 2, their talk pages and discussions of them at AfD. Y relates to (a) on-wiki activity at random and (b) emails you sent regarding it (copies of several emails have been forwarded to the Committee) since June 20xx. Specifically it is alleged that you have been doing A and B and that these actions are contrary to policies C and D.". That is presenting to the accused what they are accused of and giving them a reasonable chance to respond. If anything isn't clear then the accused can ask for clarification. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The community attitude has always been for robust protections. This may be a website but people have in many cases, including Fram, devoted much time and effort to the project, without seeking a dime in return and do not deserve to be cast off for no known reason. If ArbCom feels it needs to conduct secret hearings on secret evidence, I believe that is beyond what the policy intended and that it should come to the community and ask for a change of policy by justifying it. Who knows, they might get it. But the secrecy and stonewalling, even having secret reasons for secrecy, is foreign to our principles.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such action denies the principles of natural justice. It is intrinsically abhorrent (as are other actions by ArbCom contrary to these principles). There must be ways to protect the parties while maintaining the principles without resorting to this. Furthermore, such action may be contrary to US law and expose WP to a criminal or civil liability - on the understanding that WP is based in the US and subject to US laws. It has tones of Animal House and "double-secret probation". One could link to some historical events for emphasis, but I have already got into trouble for doing that at ArbCom. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157, this is in no way a legal proceeding. It is a form of binding arbitration, which does not have to follow the rule of law or of evidence. This would be no different than someone being kicked out of the country club by the board of directors. Technically they could do so because they didn’t like the fact that you played with pink golf balls. I’d like to think that our process, while perhaps not ideal by legal standards, represents a balance between fairness to both the accused and the alleged victim(s), and I personally trust our arbs enough to strike that balance. CThomas3 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cthomas3, while the principles of natural justice do apply to legal proceedings, they apply broadly (or should) to all sorts of decisions made by governments and non-government organisations. In short, they encapsulate principles of fairness. It is therefore not a matter of following the rule of law or evidence. You could refer to questions to candidates for the most recent ArbCom election. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157, I completely agree with you on that. I wasn't implying that we shouldn't be fair; we of course absolutely should strive to be as fair as possible. I was merely pointing out that we don't risk running afoul of US law if we choose to deviate from it in the interest of fairness, and in my opinion that needs to be examined not only from the point of view of the accused, but the victim(s) as well. My apologies for not being more clear on that. CThomas3 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cthomas3, I was pointing out that the foundation may be exposed to a legal risk/liability for such an action (ie not complying with the principles of natural justice). Identifying a potential threat should be a concern to corporate risk management. I am not so familiar with US law but base my observation on Australian law. Laws relating to incorperation may impose duties or obligations upon the foundation which are pertinent and there is the matter of potential civil liability where the foundation has acted unfairly (ie contrary to the principles of natural justice). Certainly, by your analogy of the country club, such a liability may exist if the board has acted unfairly or outside its constitution and bylaws. It is a matter of prudence to consider such a risk. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Premature. I might support something like this if I were convinced that Fram really is in a situation where he will have to defend himself against unknown charges.
Fram will have to defend himself against charges, and therefore has the right to at least know what the charges are in full, so that he can present a full and credible defense. Yes, if the person doesn't want their name shown, their name can be hidden, but by all means, let Fram see the charges in full not some hacked up censored version of them! Wekeepwhatwekill (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support in theory, oppose in practice. ARBPOL should match what the arbs actually do - but given the very unusual circumstances surrounding the Fram situation I'm willing to hold off and give them time to reach their natural conclusions. I will say this to the Arbs - at the moment it appears you're only acting as WMF puppets. Many, perhaps even a majority, of the community are not satisfied with the WMF at the moment. There are (and have been) some outstanding individuals there (WMF), but the actions of T&S have put the relationship between the community (who have built this project), and the WMF (who spend the money we earn for them) in a great deal of jeopardy. I'd like to see Arbcom find a way out of this where we can all 'save face' a bit, but I'm no so sure that's in the cards. T&S violating the primary rules of our (WP-EN) site may get larger play than simply an article here and there at Breibart if they can't. — Ched : ? — 13:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support...Not only that the wording as it stands requires disclosure of the accusations, but that to refuse this information to the subject of the accusations prevents a determination of any restrictions on Fram's participation in the work of en.Wikipedia.
T&S, under the supervision of WMF erred. Promising the equivalent of redaction to the accusing party or parties, if interpreted as denying full identification of the accusations to the accused, stands in contradiction to the rules and methods of ARBCOM. The damage has been done. Fram's general record can be examined. ARBCOM can do a normal case. The secret case should be thrown out. The way T&S handled the accusations is problematic to the point that the current case can not go forward. Unfortunately, justice for the accusers is not going to be possible without their permission to allow disclosure of all evidence published on en.Wikipedia. The only exceptions that occur to me are events that happen off-wiki. — Neonorange (Phil) 17:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As written, ARBPOL severely constrains ARBCOM's ability to hold a private hearing that imposes sanctions based on evidence not provided to the sanctioned individual. It does not require ARBCOM to pass on all evidence received or generated, and it does not seem to prevent the use of withheld evidence to generate further evidence, providing that decisions do not rely on withheld evidence. The reasonable opportunity wording allows a little wiggle room to anonymize complaints, but only if it can be done without sacrificing the ability to respond. Now, I can accept the argument that there are some circumstances where the evidence is so clear-cut and yet also so sensitive that someone must be sanctioned without an opportunity to respond, but, under the current ARBPOL, the community has not given that remit to ARBCOM. So our options are to follow policy as written, change the policy, or declare IAR. Bovlb (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some further comments. I have carefully read the dozen opposes below. They offer justifications like: some cases require private evidence; we can trust ArbCom to exercise discretion; and other processes allow confidential evidence. These may all be true but don't seem to me to engage the question asked, which is about what the current policy says, not what it ought to say. Several point out that being shown all evidence is not necessary to have a reasonable opportunity to respond, which I sort-of agree with, but I still feel that the current policy gives little room to sanction based on secret evidence. Other comments suggest that the question is moot because of its relevance to an ongoing case, but this issue has come up before: see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_32#The_Devil's_Advocate_banned. Bovlb (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Support, of course. Making the accusation known to the accused is the most basic right of them, otherwise they wouldn't know from what they should defend themselves. Having been the victim of a blatantly fraudulent ban from the WMF very recently, based on secret accusations made by secret parties, of which I wasn't even informed, not even when the punishment was already over me, I totally condemn this abhorrent practice, should it be from the WMF, ArbCom or whatever party.DarwinAhoy!00:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's a shame that the question even has to be asked. Allowing the accused to see and respond to the evidence against him is part of our fundamental principles of justice. And you can't respond without seeing; it's necessary to be able to see the exact evidence in order to supply context or point out misunderstandings. We can say "trust Arbcom", but the person best motivated to give such context, and often the person best placed to know about it, is the accused. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think Wikimedians only have due process rights "if they need them" or that ARBCOM is sufficient to protect editors against possibly baseless charges. Denying evidence to the accused undermines their ability to mount a defense. Chris Troutman (talk)10:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anyone accused should know what are the accusations and what supports them (I don't know shit about Fram or Fram's case, except that there is a case and lots of discussion out there of which I have read maybe a full 50 lines about it, i.e., nothing, at most :-) - Nabla (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (ARBPOL Private Hearings)
Premature if you want to be able to deal with harassment and similar things, you have to have a way so that victims are able to submit things without having a bunch of harassers come after them. Not saying the Fram hearings is a sustainable thing, or that guidelines shouldn't be developed, but this is reactionary, and hard cases make bad law. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding the existing wording of ARBPOL. Not creating new policy, or developing new guidelines. Even in a workplace environment if you make a genuine harassment complaint, you will get the talk from HR that your identity cannot be guranteed anonymity. Do you feel the current wording allows for evidence to be kept from the accused in a private hearing, and why? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This. The RfC isn’t proposing anything new, or anything case-specific. In fact, it’s not even proposing that the identity of the accusers be disclosed. It merely seeks an affirmation of the basic fact that notice and an opportunity to respond are part of Committee policy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Premature. I might support something like this if I were convinced that Fram really is in a situation where he will have to defend himself against unknown charges. But until I see something more definitive about that, I'm pretty confident that the current ArbCom (who are, after all, the same people who drafted the response to the WMF that got well-deserved applause from the community) are conducting the inquiry in private for valid reasons and are going to find ways to give Fram a fair hearing, even if there are impediments to telling the rest of us exactly how they are going about that. We are still in an unprecedented situation, and I think we need to be careful about overcompensating or jumping to conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, they are going to withhold some, not all, evidence. That does not necessarily mean that Fram will have so little information that he won't know what he is responding to. Whether the current wording supports it depends on details that I do not know, and I am not assuming the worst. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premature, obviously. ArbCom have promised to conduct a fair and rigorous investigation. Perhaps if we stop haranguing them with endless points of order, and attempts to delegitimise their investigation through RFCs such as this one, they might actually be able to spend their time conducting the investigation itself and then coming back to Fram and the community with a set of findings that we really can scrutinise for legitimacy. — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support/yes to the boldtext question we're asked to answer (but based on the !votes so far that seems to put me in "oppose" somehow) (question/text revised, so updating) Oppose. Arbs are the most trusted users on the project. I have no trouble trusting their judgment regarding what should/shouldn't be disclosed to whom. This is not a court of law. We specifically aren't dealing with people who have committed violent crimes, and I find the comparison bizarre. We're not talking about discussions that result in taking away someone's freedom. We're talking about whether or not we want to allow someone to continue being a part of this website's community of volunteers, or whether they have failed to uphold the rules/standards of the community. Yes, of course we should allow for exceptional circumstances when there is potential harm to the victim of harassment to disclose their complaints to the harasser. People seem worried about some hypothetical situation where someone doesn't actually do anything wrong but is accused and "sentenced" without knowing what they did wrong. In what situations, exactly, do you think a majority of the most experienced and trusted users would arbitrarily block/ban someone without looking at the evidence extremely carefully, based on years of experience with wikipolicy, norms, conventions, etc. (including those norms that say that they should be as transparent as possible)? That kind of judgment is why/how we elect the arbs we do. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your comments below I have altered the question slightly to make it clearer. You may want to change the first line of your reply above, however anyone reading this will understand your position. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do just want to elaborate/reframe a little. In opposing this I am saying that I don't want to prevent arbs from withholding certain evidence or omitting certain details in the way they communicate with someone. I expect that refusing to communicate important information would be a very rare thing, but could see instances when it would be merited to protect a member of the community. Where that results in potential sanctions on someone, where I trust the arbs is in using judgment to determine the extent to which it's possible that missing part of the story due to the accused not having all the evidence might lead them to get it wrong. If it's not a clear situation, I would expect them to find a way to get that context before sanctioning. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. This is clearly an RfC about the Fram arbitration. And arbiters have the ability to be fair and impartial without giving one of the parties all of the information - discovery's typically limited in arbitrations anyways. This would have the impact of turning Arbcom into something that's not really arbitration. SportingFlyerT·C02:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's talking about judicial discovery. We're talking about notice of accusations and an opportunity to respond to them. In a secret case like this there's neither. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a long discussion about this. I trust Arbcom to treat both sides fairly, and given my previous comments supporting them closing as much of the hearing as they saw fit, I'm happy they are arbitrating behind closed doors. I don't define "fairly" to imply both sides will have an equivalency of information. SportingFlyerT·C05:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't about mere information (or equivalency of information), or about "sides" (which I don't think there are formally). It's about the bare requirement of notice and opportunity to respond (which of course must be meaningful). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What have I said that isn't clear? The answer to the question posed above, in my opinion, is a clear yes, if Arbcom deems that necessary, and as long as the Arbcom process remains fair, and I think it can remain fair while considering evidence that one party doesn't have. SportingFlyerT·C05:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How can fairness possibly be present without meaningful notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges? You're contradicting your own points. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not contradicting myself. This is specifically about whether Arbcom needs to disclose all of the evidence to Fram. A "reasonable opportunity to respond" as written on the Arbcom policy page does not mean Arbcom is required to disclose all of the evidence to the parties in the case. SportingFlyerT·C07:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premature for the reasons above. I'm pretty ambivalent on the question though. On the one hand, it feels like there is a meaningful difference between "reasonable opportunity" to "respond to what was said about them" and "has a right to view all evidence entered against them." I think it is completely reasonable to interpret this sentence of ARBPOL as being satisfied by an opportunity to respond to a proposed finding of fact that summarizes what was said about them. The question of whether we should interpret it that way is different, because the right to face your accuser is a rather central part of a fair hearing. That said, part of the reason harassment and similar behaviors are hard to adjudicate is that this framework provides a strong disincentive for victims to come forward as it risks bringing even more harassment (as we've seen the last month without even knowing the alleged victims). These are complicated questions and competing values which entire governments have struggled to address, and so I think this is reactionary and unlikely to yield a particularly well considered outcome (hard cases make bad law and all that). Wug·a·po·des 03:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Wugapodes has ably described above, the dichotomy is a false one. Not being given a verbatim copy of all the evidence is not the same as having no chance to respond to it. The committee have said that Fram will be given a summary of the evidence and he will have a chance to respond to that. Secondly, the analogy to serious crime is not apt. When someone is convicted of such a crime, they are prevented from taking revenge on their accuser, both because they are likely to serve time and because the victim then has the resources of the state to assist them. Wiki has none of that. The best we can do is to ban someone from our website; the real-life consequences of that for whoever brought an accusation are then left to them to deal with and there is nothing we can do. A victim's privacy becomes more important in this process, not less. GoldenRing (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the question. Not being given a verbatim copy of all the evidence, but rather a summary, is the same as having no chance to respond to any part of the evidence that is not in the summary. If there is a summary of the evidence, that summary is the public evidence and the interpretation in question would allow it to be used. If there is any context that can be gathered from the private evidence that could affect the arbitrators’ judgment, responses to that context could also affect the arbitrators’ judgment and not allowing the parties to respond to it would bias the case against the parties. Similarly if there is evidence not part of the summary. This is not about whether it is fine for the arbs to provide only a summary, but whether they can use any evidence or context useful for evaluating other evidence that has not been made public (in a summary or otherwise); and they cannot, at least because such evidence cannot be refuted, making it unreliable for forming an accurate judgment. — Rastus Vernon (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rastus Vernon: But the question is not about natural justice or logic or whether a process is reliable; it is about whether providing a summary of the evidence and allowing someone to respond is a fulfillment of the requirement to give them a "reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them." IMO it is. GoldenRing (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the opportunity to respond that is provided is reasonable according to the requirement has to be judged according to the purpose of the requirement in providing that opportunity. That purpose is the fairness and reliability of the process. — Rastus Vernon (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we require a CheckUser to provide the full technical details of a check to a sockpuppeter who requests a full hearing in order for the user to be considered to have a "reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them"? Nope. Do we require an Oversighter to provide the contents of abusive, suppressed revisions in order that a subsequent block based on that information be considered fair? Of course not. In the course of events, it may become necessary for ArbCom to hear evidence that cannot be disclosed to the accused party directly, that has an even greater privacy interest than CU/OS. I trust ArbCom to make that judgment, and to determine in what cases providing a user with "reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them" does not require ArbCom to make full, unredacted, verbatim evidence that may serve to harass a user further in order to properly resolve a matter before it. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 07:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that has an even greater privacy interest than CU/OS. Oh that is absolute bunkum. Virtually everything relevant in that T&S casefile is going to be on-wiki and public information. And virtually everything that anybody is going to send to ArbCom about Fram is going to be public information. For the love of Pete can people please stop pretending that the information is some super secret microfilm that's going to get our agents in Moscow killed if it gets published? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're making assumptions that neither you nor I can confirm or deny, having not seen the file. But let's entertain them for a moment. You don't think that there is less of an interest in keeping private some material, release of which serves to harass members of the Wikimedia community, than in, say, the IP addresses of sockpuppeteers (CU data), or e.g. "potentially libelous information" (OS data)? You don't think there's that potential? You don't trust the ArbCom that you elected to weigh the factors and decide fairly? The implication that I have to be "pretending" (a verb whose connotation is deception) that there might be a justifiable reason to keep the information private is not particularly welcome. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 08:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet will hear 'we have technically assessed your edits and checkuser data has revealed that you are likely the same person as Y'. You can have a rebuttal to that 'yes, I am a student in a large university and we all share only a couple of IPs on computers with the same software image, it is not unlikely that I my checkuser data is very similar to another user in the same institution'. That is something completely different than having to write a rebuttal to ' '. --Dirk BeetstraTC08:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: It sounds like you agree with me, then. I'm not suggesting that the committee hide the nature of the reasons it is considering in a sanction decision. What I am opposing is the interpretation that 'reasonable opportunity to respond' requires disclosure of all evidence to the accused. 'we have technically assessed your edits and checkuser data has revealed that you are likely the same person as Y' is also not "disclosure of all evidence to the accused". Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, 'you have harassed someone' (lets assume) is a statement out of a different class than 'you are technically indistinguishable from X'. The latter can be rebutted with 'I am logging in from a public library, the former only with 'yes' or 'no'. You cannot reasonably rebut it. (and that would already be much, much more evidence than what WMF has been willing to provide until now ...). --Dirk BeetstraTC03:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the question this RfC is answering, though. By its terms, this RfC asks whether ArbCom must transmit every shred of evidence presented to it and whether it has to refuse to consider any evidence it doesn't transmit verbatim. There are a lot of steps between sending "you have harassed someone" and that level of process, and it is frustrating to be criticized for taking the position that the latter is inappropriate on the grounds that the former is insufficient. Of course ArbCom should disclose as much evidence as it can, and it has committed to provide summaries. Making judgment calls and weighing the various interests at play is exactly what we elect ArbCom to do. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 05:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Wugapodes on the current interpretation - "a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them" is not synonymous with being presented with all evidence (including confidential evidence submitted privately). Premature relating to any thoughts on changing that interpretation. We do need a mechanism for harassed people to submit complaints privately (and some of the harassment I'm aware of - one case in particular, not Fram - has been truly horrible). I've previously committed to trusting ArbCom in the Fram case and I'm sticking to that - I say let's give them a chance and see how they handle it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: If there's a consensus that current policy requires ArbCom to provide all evidence to the accused, that will not mean Fram gets to see all the evidence in the current case, it will just mean the current case will have to be dropped. So all the work towards compromise, towards getting such difficult cases heard by the community's representatives on ArbCom, towards developing a better way to handle harassment cases, would end up being for nothing and it would all be handed back to WMF/T&S again - and that's surely the worst possible outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add (I should probably add it somewhere else but I can't work out where right now) that I'm saddened to see ArbCom's status in the minds of so many as having switched from being the Community's champions against the evil authoritarians to being the evil authoritarians. How have we managed to turn to such polarized "no compromise" attitudes, when we're just supposed to be a bunch of people building an encyclopedia? The big issue all along has been the erosion of community self-governance by WMF, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that self-governance is failing - as a fault of the community, not of WMF or anyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Must be shown all evidence against them" and "Must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to evidence" are not the same thing at all. For example I would say that arbcom giving someone an anonymised and consolidated copy of the relevant evidence is giving them a reasonable opportunity to respond but is not showing them all the evidence against them. In at least some cases expecting someone to respond to a consolidated presentation of only the relevant portions will be a lot more reasonable than expecting them to respond to reams of ramblings that include much duplication and much that is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Private Hearings and the evidence is meant to be private for a reason and should be kept private unless the WMF or a legal order requires the evidence to be given to the user Abote2 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Expecting a "disclosure of all evidence" is not possible in cases where we need to protect the identity of a victim of harassment or abuse. – Anne drew23:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature in cases of harassment or abuse, there is often some evidence that cannot be provided to the alleged offender in order to ensure that further harassment or abuse does not occur, or to meet confidentiality requirements, as two examples. I trust ArbCom to provide as much relevant evidence to Fram as they can, so that Fram can conduct a proper defence against the allegations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is true that being able to see and respond to evidence against oneself is a core requirement for any judicial procedure in any jurisdiction committed to the rule of law and basic fairness. But ArbCom cases are not judicial proceedings, and arbitration policy is not part of a legal system. We are talking about access to a private website here, not criminal or other state sanctions. I think that it is possible to interpret the policy's requirement of "a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them" such that it allows summarizing and anonymizing evidence to protect important privacy interests of the complainant. And ArbCom is elected to decide whether and how to apply the arbitration policy in this manner. Their decisions are not subject to community review, including through RfCs. Sandstein 10:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comparisons to actual judicial proceedings are invalid because apples and oranges. The committee should have some leeway to work in privacy to offer appropriate protection to those being harassed. In general editors get an opportunity to respond to and see accusations publicly and one of the things we should consider when electing arbs is do they have the good judgement to decide when to do things differently (i.e. the TDA case). Scribolt (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But we must also consider the rights of those being accused of harassment (remember, accusations may be false, so the accused may actually be the victim). The accused has a right to know who has said what about her, since that information is necessary to defend herself. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they always do. I can think of plenty of LTAs and otherwise unpleasant people who've edited on this website who shouldn't get to know certain details. And it's the role of the arbs to make those judgement calls. Scribolt (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent, Sandstein, and Roger Davies back in 2011: "Unlike real life situations, anyone can turn up and comment at an arbitration case. This produces an atmosphere totally unlike any real world situation. In some instances, it's called transparency; in sensitive issues, it's simply horrifically invasive. It is impossible to discuss private stuff publicly, no matter how cautiously, without the dots getting joined up or speculation/allegations running riot." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, and Arbcom is not a court and does not punish, it merely deals in binding the permissions of users on this private website; thus, its members individually and as a group of dedicated, mature, fair-minded volunteers on a volunteer website need and deserve trust and discretion to protect others and themselves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Responding to Bovlb's argument, his argument is plainly wrong. Not only are the opposes directly addressing the issue, the issue addressed by the opposes is that the present policy is written in such as way as to give the reasonable leeway the opposes embrace. It's the interpretation of the supports which makes no sense in the context of Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy is almost never a straitjacket because such interpretation does not accord with the purposes of Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clayoquot's comment is the most closest to what I think. I believe the extraordinary openness of Arbitration proceedings (where anyone can show up to bring 'evidence'; evidence that can eventually influence final decisions) and where the participants can be subjected to unpleasant experiences because of taking a particular stand should be matched with some extraordinary powers in difficult situations like this. At this point we basically need to trust ArbCom to move on, or distrust them to the point they abandon the case and go back to square one; the default WMF position. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I do not agree that the words 'reasonable opportunity to respond' are the same as ‘requires disclosure of all evidence to the accused’. If the latter was what was intended, that is what the wording of the current policy would say. The use of the word ‘reasonable’ tells us that there is considerable room for discretion in this matter. Mccapra (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My expectation from the wording, before reading anyone's comments (or at least not many) would be somewhat similar to Boing!, Mccapra et al as the most logical interpretation, and the interpretation which best fits with wikipedia etc. Reading the discussion my view hasn't changed, in fact it's re-enforce by Iridescent's view that that this is somewhat akin to how it was intended when developed. And as with many others, I have not yet seen any reason to change this. I've long railed against attempts to make wikipedia function too much like a court of law given the fundamentally different effects and roles in society. We should carefully consider the principles they apply, and why they apply them, but we shouldn't completely ape them. As others have said the proposal would seem to disallow checkuser evidence in arbcom cases for example. And likely plenty of other things which happen on occasion. Note that for those that say none of that is the case here, I have 2 points. The first more minor one is that of it's impossible for us to know unless someone explicitly confirms it since that's the nature of something secret. The second more important one is that this has been explicitly presented as a general clarification, intended to affect the ongoing case which inspired it, but by no means exclusive to it and so it's moot. If a more specific proposed policy change is made e.g. that requires all on-wiki evidence consider is made public, we could consider that. You could also make specific proposals about what should happen in the Fram case if you want. But while this may be a discussion and not a vote, I think it's clear we're not going to come to a consensus on any such ideas from this specific discussion given the way it was designed and worded and the nature of RfCs involving many editors.Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent, Headbomb, Boing!, Wugapodes, GoldenRing, and others. There is a distinct and important difference between full disclosure of all evidence and providing enough information to meaningfully defend oneself against accusation. I find the arguments that (some) legal systems provide persons accused of heinous crimes more access to evidence to be hyperbolic and uncompelling; the consequences here are, at most, the loss of editing privileges, not deprivation of life or liberty. Further, this is precisely why we elect trusted representatives to handle cases like these. Either we trust ArbCom or we don't. CThomas3 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Iridescent. While a ban should be justified based on publicly available evidence, before that point both public and non-public evidence should be reviewed. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 07:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Third option: Exceptional circumstances (ARBPOL Private Hearings)
Restricted to exceptional circumstances such as off-wiki actions, law enforcement matters, on-wiki content subject to oversight such as threats and personal info. Per Iridescent's comments, private hearings were intended to cover things like disputes spilling into real-world actions and violent criminals and genuine lunatics. I trust the Arbs if they state this is about something such as violent threats or offwiki actions. However as I understand it the material currently at issue consists substantially or entirely of routine, publicly visible, on-wiki diffs. Secret evidence and secret hearings are not appropriate for content disputes and content-policy-enforcement disputes. The accused cannot be given a "reasonable [and effective] opportunity to respond" to editing disputes and policy disputes without showing them the diffs so they can explain their policy arguments for those edits, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not. If the accused gets to see those diffs then there's no point in trying to keep those diffs secret with a private hearing. I believe I see 4 acceptable outcomes here:
Arbcom states that this involves oversighted threats/personal-info, off-wiki activities, or some similar category which is an established justification for secret evidence and a private hearing.
A finding of wrongdoing and sanction based solely on publicly evidence in a public hearing. "Secret evidence" is irrelevant if it's not used against anyone.
A finding of no wrongdoing and lifting the ban. "Secret evidence" is irrelevant if it's not used against anyone.
If the Foundation is unwilling to accept a cooperative resolution then that is not Arbcom's problem to address. Intrusion of the Foundation into content disputes and issuing content-dispute-based-bans is problem to be resolved between the Foundation and the Community. If that is the case then I'll happily open an RFC for the community to resolve the problem from our end, substantially eliminating the Foundation's ability to impose these sorts of bans in the future. The proposal would be to delete any links to Trust&Safety from EnWiki, to delete any pages belonging-to or about T&S on EnWiki, delete any mention of T&S on EnWiki, and that Arbcom can of course forward cases to T&S after after reviewing them as appropriate for T&S to handle. Fram will still be banned, but Trust&Safety will no longer be engaging in such bans if no one can find T&S to submit complaints in the first place. Alsee (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar I don't think that's a good metaphor, and it would probably generate pointless squabbling over the metaphor itself. I would suggest "vanishing" as a better metaphor. We don't need to restrict or alter T&S, we can just make routine edits to our pages and leave them sitting at empty desks.
I would think this would have exactly the reverse of the intended effect. What you'd be creating in effect is a two-tier system of insiders who are aware of how to look up T&S's contact details on Meta, and less-involved editors who don't know where to find them or aren't aware of their existence. It would tilt the scales even more than they're already tilted in favor of those who are part of organized canvassing groups who can find friendly insiders to lobby T&S on their behalf, and "those who are part of organized canvassing groups who can find friendly insiders to lobby T&S on their behalf" is the reason this discussion is happening in the first place. ‑ Iridescent19:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (ARBPOL Private Hearings)
This Fram case is not intended to set precedent, but rather to break the deadlock that we were in last month. I (and I believe other arbs) fully intend to move forward with discussions on how to handle such issues once the case is finished. I appreciate that this process will not be perfect, but we are trying to find a solution that works. WormTT(talk) 21:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are affording Fram less rights than those allowed to rapists and child abusers. I do not, and will not accept that under any circumstancesl. I frankly dont care what you will/may be doing in the future. My only goal in the above is to gauge if the community agrees with you that ARBCOM can act that way towards editors, or that the provisions of ARBPOL do not allow, even in private hearings, evidence to be deliberately kept from the accused and thus depriving them of a reasonable opportunity to respond to said evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If convicted, rapists and child abusers would be imprisoned for many years. That is why they get the rights afforded by law. It is not reasonable to compare that situation with who gets to access a website. It is reasonable to think about whether an accused should be given the opportunity to identify their accuser, but not by comparison with rapists and child abusers. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This goes back to my point below: Even in cases where there isn't much at risk the basic protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard are basic (though these need not always be prior to action being taken). For instance, the ability to buy alcohol in city limits (Wisconsin v. Constantineau) or having your frozen chickens destroyed (North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago) or being dismissed by your university (Board Of Curators Of University Of Missouri v. Horowitz) or being fired by your public employer (Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill). There are, of course, many exceptions to this rule in the law (e.g., Board of Regents v. Roth) but we're not talking about the law here, we're talking about what we're prepared to tolerate as a body of editors. Do we genuinely think that the arbitration policy ever meant that the Committee could sanction somebody without giving that person notice of what they did and an opportunity to tell his or her side of the story? The common practice of holding cases in abeyance when editors disappear during a controversy says that the Committee has never been authorized to do this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intent isn’t meaningful here. We’ve seen that the Committee follows its own precedents, no matter how nonbinding they’re intended to be. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't especially concern me that Fram (or any Wikipedian) would have fewer rights than an accused criminal, as the consequences are much different. Nobody is going to prison no matter what ARBCOM or the WMF decide. However, the ability to know what you are accused of is pretty fundamental to any legitimate system of justice.--Mojo Hand(talk)21:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest it only concerns me in the abstract in that I just cant imagine the intent of that section of ARBPOL was to allow for secret evidence to be used against editors. Not publically disclosed is one thing, keeping evidence from the accused completely is an entirely different level. The point of the examples above is that even in those extreme situations involving abhorrent acts, we still hold to the fundamental principle that people have a right to know what they are accused of, so they can defend themselves (even when hopelessly and obviously guilty). Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the examples above is that even in those extreme situations involving abhorrent acts, we still hold to the fundamental principle that people have a right to know what they are accused of, so they can defend themselves (even when hopelessly and obviously guilty). It’s worth noting that the problem mentioned above—that the reason we’re super protective of those accused of serious crimes is partly because of the serious penalties involved (life, liberty, perhaps property). In cases where what’s at risk is “less” (e.g., reputation) it’s not abnormal to have fewer procedural rights. But even in those low-risk cases, you get notice of what you’re accused of and a right to be heard. This is actually a really common problem that the law has dealt with for several decades, especially in decidedly “not a court” contexts (like hiring/firing decisions, arbitration, and administrative agencies). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confidential private evidence will be used in harassment and other serious cases, that's not what's on the table here. The decision we have is whether to accept ArbCom dealing with such cases (in a way they/we will try to formulate and improve going forwards), or dig in with a "no compromise" attitude and see WMF/T&S take over. That's surely what we'll get if we reject the ability of ArbCom to keep private evidence confidential. Is that what we want? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a definitive statement from ArbCom on what will or will not be able to see (within the limits of the NDA). If he is not to be shown evidence, then I will support this fully. As with a previous discussion (concerning whether there are accusations of off-Wiki behaviour by Fram), ArbCom should not just accept the conditions imposed by T&S without clarifying with them what the limitations are. I hope there is a two-way dialogue going on with T&S about the evidence, what can be clarified, etc, at which these points can be raised and answers or clarification provided. If not, then I want a statement from ArbCom explaining why there isn't. SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of this is to clarify the communities expections of the implementation of ARBPOL. If the community thinks that 'yes, evidence must be disclosed in private hearings to the accused' then ARBCOM's discussion with T&S is quite clear - if you want us to look at evidence, we will show it to the accused. The WMF either agrees or refuses, simplifies the decision tree immensely. The point is that ARBCOM are representatives of the community and must abide by ARBPOL. If the WMF find ARBPOL is insufficient for their needs, then thats an entirely different discussion. Currently WTT has confirmed they are unable to share evidence with Fram. There may be future conversations that allow some evidence to be shown to them, all of it, or none. That should not be ARBCOM's decision to make behind closed doors with the WMF. ARBCOM should have a clear direction from the community as to how accused editors are treated. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one reason why there are lawyers. In civil cases there is often evidence that cannot be shared with a party, but it can be shared with that party's lawyer who is under strict obligations to maintain confidence and to act in a fiduciary capacity for the party. (Such evidence is marked Confidential AEO - Attorney's Eyes Only) If WMF wants to have secret evidence, they need to appoint a group of trusted users who can view that evidence, and let the accused choose one of those people to act as an advocate. I see no other way to achieve both confidentiality and fairness. JehochmanTalk22:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure seems like support/oppose are reversed here. "Support" is typically an affirmation/"yes" of the question under discussion. The question is "Does the wording regarding private hearings allow..." but people supporting seem to be saying it does not allow... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note that, quote, "The very worst members of society - rapists, murderers and child abusers are still told who has accused them, of what, when, how etc. They are often denied the opportunity to confront their accusers directly, but they are still provided all the available information on those accusations in order to defend themselves." is not entirely accurate. And I'm not talking about the stupendously rare case of the anonymous witness. I'm talking about pre-trial activities. The defendant is entitled to be presented with the evidence that is entered at trial, and to confront the witnesses who testify against him. The defendant does not get access to all documents generated by the prosecution or law enforcement. If the goal of Arbcom were to parallel common law standards, they would be asked to provide the defense only with evidence that is either the potential basis for a verdict, or is exculpatory in light of the previous. They would not be asked to provide the defense with literally everything. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some prosecutors do in fact allow defense attorneys to view the file, talk freely to the witnesses, etc. Personally I consider this a best practice. What is there to hide?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that in terms of real life stuff, most of the time. Incidentally, I have been trying to find articles about the practice - I could have sworn it had a name, but can't find it now. Anyway, in the case of ArbCom, I think what is worth hiding is the identity of a witness who decides they would rather their testimony go unused than be at risk of further harassment. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly misleading. If the prosecution is in possession of evidence that would help the defense they are required to disclose it, or if the defends thinks it may help them. A number of rape cases in the UK have spectacularly collapsed because the CPS didn't hand over evidence. The standard is not if the prosecution is going to use it, or if the prosecution thinks it's exculpatory or not. That's not their decision - although functionally if you are unaware of evidence and it's not been disclosed by the other side, you are unlikely to request it. It's also completely irrelevant in this case as arbcom have already confirmed they are reviewing the evidence as part of their deliberations, The accused knows it exists, so it should be provided to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, it gets rather complicated, and it depends on where you are. I am mostly familiar with the Brady disclosure, but regardless I tried to keep it brief since I was only trying to make the point that in the real world the prosecutor doesn't just hand over the entire case file. Regardless, what I had in mind was, we mere peasants don't know what it is that ArbCom is reviewing, what secret information they are considering, and what they intend to provide as their reason for whatever decision they make, and therefore shouldn't jump to declarations that everything should be turned over. Obviously, "we are banning you for your harassing behavior toward User:[REDACTED] as evidenced in [REDACTED DIFFS]." or the like would make it impossible for anyone to mount a defense. Same goes for "we are banning you for the bad stuff you said offwiki at [WEBSITE REDACTED]." However, there's a lot of stuff I could see them not revealing, and be completely okay with. For instance, discussions among staffers, or between staffers and witnesses, might not all require disclosure, ethically speaking, where they only contain arguments and not evidence. Nor does the identity of whoever provided evidence necessarily need to be disclosed along with the evidence itself, especially if that person is not actually a witness providing testimony. This may be the case if the evidence is a list of diffs of alleged harassment. The real life parallel to that is the prosecution often being able to keep it a secret who actually pointed investigators at a suspect, since what matters is often what was found and not who noticed it first. This leaves the unfortunate possibility of ArbCom technically being able to hide evidence of selective prosecution. That is, even if ArbCom decides to be open about why someone is banned, they could in theory publicly state that someone is banned for reason X, but in reality that was a pretext and everyone is actually pissed at the defendant for secret reason Y, and the case would not have even happened otherwise. Personally, I'm not worried about that possibility, mostly because ArbCom is accountable through reelection. Though I also respect that reasonable editors could disagree with that sentiment. There is also the possibility that a particularly vindictive user or busybody is the one making secret reports as a campaign of revenge, even though the wrongdoing is very real, resulting in people on only one side of an issue being held accountable. I'm not worried about that possibility due to really the Wikipedia Community's general tendency, very much unlike real life, to equally investigate everyone involved in a dispute. I understand that not every reasonable person will be so reassured, but anyway, this is why I would be okay with ArbCom not revealing everything. However, I do think it would be good for them to at least give some guidelines on what they intend to share with the accused and the community in cases like this, assuming such guidelines are not simply imposed onto them. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think...perhaps premature, yes, but perhaps also still concerning. At the very least, I would say that if Fram does not have the ability to see and respond to that evidence, it should not be considered at all. It is quite fundamental to be able to see and respond to evidence which will be used against one. ArbCom can still hold the case on the basis of input from the community, and of course that input could well mirror the areas of concern brought up in the secret report. (I certainly hope anyone presenting case evidence understands that Fram will get to respond to that, and I damn sure hope that statement is true!). But I certainly never want to see the situation arise that we'd say "Well, we're banning you, but we won't tell you why or give you a chance to even respond." I know a lot of modern websites do operate that way, and I think it's a terrible practice that we should very much not emulate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that the effect of supporting this will not be to give Fram full access to the private evidence in his case, because we are contractually prohibited from giving it to him. What it will do is stop ArbCom from having a case, sinking the only compromise solution we have yet found to this deadlock between enwiki and the WMF. I don't think we are breaching ARBPOL: we are making every effort to give Fram a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about him in what is a complex and exceptional circumstance. This is a process we have had to put together quickly, with little precedent and no time to consult the community on alternative formats. As WTT has said, it won't be the template for how private cases will or should look in the future. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. Maybe people think that if they can get the Arbcom case closed down on a technicality, then Fram will be unbanned forthwith? I highly doubt that. The WMF would simply uphold their own ban in that situation. The best way to get closure on this (bearing in mind that such closure might simply be Arbcom an upholding or extension of the original ban) is to allow this case to proceed and reach a conclusion and the only way that WMF has permitted Arbcom to do that, is with redacted evidence and in camera. — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Joe Roe: "what it will do is stop ArbCom from having a case, sinking the only compromise solution we have yet found to this deadlock between enwiki and the WMF" .. No, it does not stop that. You can have a case on the publicly available material, having an open evidence section where people can post evidence that they find and that they are willing to share, and then giving Fram (and others) to rebut the evidence. The evidence that is NOT being presented to the accused party is simply not admissible. You've seen the response of the community when the WMF banned a user on completely secret information, do you think that the community will respond differently to ArbCom if they would say 'Yeah, we've seen the evidence that you cannot see, and we keep the current ban in place'? The community will see that either as if you are meekly following WMF, or that you are doing the same thing as WMF.
It may be the only option that you see here, but yeah, it may be what WMF's T&S' has turned the situation into. 70 pages of inadmissible evidence, and you now are collecting more of it. --Dirk BeetstraTC08:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a compromise solution. The board statement said We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. (highlighting added) If we choose to ignore the T&S document, then we are failing to honour the compromise. What we are trying to do is find a solution where they community (especially Fram) can see the reasons for our decision, whatever that might be, whilst respecting the compromise and doing our best to protect individuals. There's a lot of balls to juggle here, we are attempting to find the least worst solution. WormTT(talk) 10:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much of a compromise if it's imposed on you with no negotiation in good faith. Definitely not a solution either. As to the interpretation of the board statement, that is ridiculous. By expanding the inquiry beyond the T&S document you're already violating that statement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, we didn't accept the idea of simply reviewing their document and marking it with pass/fail. Holding a private case, in the manner we are is the compromise. I sincerely doubt the WMF is happy with the solution either. WormTT(talk) 11:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In fact, I'm gonna come back to this again because I cannot comprehend how you can interpret that statement as requiring you to use the T&S document as the basis of your final decision, rather than as a preliminary investigative tool. Let's unpack that very quotation you gave: First, We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. This means that ArbCom can review the T&S ban. Review, at least in the adjudicative frame of reference in which we're working, means to determine whether it was proper. "Support" itself has meaning, but that meaning is not "require" or "mandate". More on this last point later. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. This is nothing binding on the Committee itself; indeed, it merely indicates that T&S is to work with ArbCom, presumably to the extent ArbCom requests their input. The other interpretation is that ArbCom and T&S are to work as "partners", which would be improper and a further intrusion upon the community independence that the Board claims to honor. So that reading can be thrown right out. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. Let's start with the first two words: "We encourage". This is not a mandate, not a requirement, and not even particularly an aspirational statement. It's merely a suggestion, and taken in line with the previous sentence, which is unpacked to mean that T&S will be at ArbCom's disposal, makes clear that the intention is for ArbCom to not feel as though they cannot use the tools provided. The rest of the sentence, actually, if taken in the mandatory reading you seem to be implying, indicates that the only things ArbCom may review are the length and scope of the ban (i.e., whether 1 year is enough and whether just English Wikipedia is enough). Of course, continuing with your "compromise" analysis, the indications are clearly that the Board has already violated that compromise. They state that materials will be released to the Committee, which indicates that what can be released will be released. Instead, you have received a redacted document. There is no legal obligation for that redaction. In fact, the Privacy Policy makes clear (1) that it controls and (2) that information may be provided to community members as necessary for them to complete their tasks. Because it is necessary for you to receive that information in order to carry out your duties, you should have received an unredacted document. But WMF have failed to live up to this imposed "compromise". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"You can have a case on the publicly available material, having an open evidence section where people can post evidence that they find and that they are willing to share, and then giving Fram (and others) to rebut the evidence": No, we already know that dealing with alleged harassment cases wholly in public is not acceptable to WMF, and there's a strong desire to improve the way we handle harassment (which we have handled badly, historically). Rejecting ArbCom's ability to keep confidential information confidential will simply eliminate the community's ability to deal with such cases and hand it back to WMF. And no, it seems pretty clear to me that a public-only Fram case will not be allowed to override the current Fram sanction - ArbCom now has the power to re-judge the case based on the submitted private evidence, but not to disallow that evidence. This escalating "no compromise" attitude I'm increasingly seeing will surely result in the worst possible outcome for us all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom now has the power to re-judge the case based on the submitted private evidence, but not to disallow that evidence. Where in the world are you getting that from? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's my reading of the wording of the compromise statement, and subsequent comments from Jimmy, the board, and ArbCom. Should ArbCom disallow the redacted 70 pages of evidence provided by T&S and hold a case based solely on public evidence (or on anything else), WMF will not accept the outcome sure as eggs is eggs. If you think I'm wrong, wait and see. And we've already had two Arbs effectively telling us that breaching the compromise with the WMF would kill the case. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is my reading of the replies from WMF as well, and the main reason that I have not asked my bit back. I don't feel that the community will agree with non-transparency, and I have to see whether another part of the community (and WMF) will agree with a fully transparent case and/or an unban of Fram. It was a difficult situation that WMF had to handle before the start of the ban, but I am afraid that the way that it was implemented was so utterly opaque that it is now FUBAR. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This interpretation would not force ArbCom to choose between releasing all the evidence and not having a case. Instead, ArbCom could, if it wished, continue having a case, and not release all the evidence, but use only in making and choosing a proposed decision the part of the evidence that has been made public. Regardless, this is specifically about the Fram case, which I consider irrelevant to this RFC. — Rastus Vernon (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra and Rastus Vernon: How would that possibly work? Are we supposed to forget that we've all already read the T&S document? Remember that ArbCom is made of human beings, not evidence-processing algorithms. – Joe (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptionalism query - some above in the comments and some in the opposes, seem to argue that as the only compromise found between us and the WMF, this setup has to be tolerated for at least this case, even if it would not normally be. I'd like to ask whether they think that exceptionalism is permissible (morally and policy-wise), given a lack of any exception in ARBPOL or even an RfC to accept an abnormal case (which wouldn't normally override ABRPOL). I certainly see the arguments that if the case collapses, the WMF intervenes again and the nightmare is back. God I see it. Against that is a strong Fiat justitia ruat caelum attitude. I'm unsure how I feel and hope for some moral-based arguments. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nosebagbear hits this on the nose. (pun intended) While we are somewhat outside of the realm of precedent, we are not outside the scope of policy. I'm conflicted, in that I would not hold that exceptionalism is permissible, but also want this to be an opportunity to show that community processes are better (that is to say, more just) than T&S. WTT's interpretation may be taking a pragmatic solution, but using the T&S document as anything other than a signpost for where to dig in a real, transparent investigation which includes such basics as notification of all evidence and the right to respond smacks of exactly the same problems we had with T&S. This would seem to be a situation where there is a choice between doing what is right, and what is (comparatively) easy (not to imply that this situation is easy for any members of ARBCOM, as it clearly isn't). The question is, what do we do if, as Boing! expects, the WMF will not accept the outcome should ARBCOM disallow the T&S document as anything other than a fact-finding tool. LetUsNotLoseHearT15:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The community could first work out what procedures it wants to adopt for handling anonymous complaints. This would mean leaving the current situation in abeyance until the appropriate policy and procedure changes have been made, though. The question is which is considered to be more urgent: providing a resolution sooner through an interim process, or getting a consensus agreement on a new process. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear and Winged Blades of Godric: ARBPOL allows us to hold private cases. Apart from the stipulation that parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond, there is no other guidance in policy as to their format. This means that we fall back on the provision of ARBPOL that "the Committee may create or modify its procedures, provided they are consistent with its scope." When WTT and I have said that this case is exceptional, what we mean is that while ArbCom technically can invent a procedure for private harassment cases on its own initiative, we don't want to do that: the issue is too important and complicated and needs to be put to the wider community. But we didn't have time to organise that before taking the Fram case, so we are making it up as we go along, trying to keep it as close to a "normal" case as possible, with no intention of creating precedent. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, that fall-back-provision is a valid technical defense. ARBPOL allows you to modify your procedures at your own whims as much as the ToU (legally) facilitates WMF to evict Fram/you/me from their sites in a moment's notice w/o any minimal reasoning.
At any case, I have a fair expectation that you will (at-least try to) do your job with utmost fairness and competence despite the fracas, this has been. Let's see. ∯WBGconverse10:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe and Winged Blades of Godric: - a couple of issues though, a) we have users above saying the setup isn't sufficient to meet reasonable, but needs to be done here (exact words vary, but it's a significant theme), it's not "reasonable as external pressure allows", reasonableness should be the same for all, b) if a protocol is generally too complicated for ARBCOM to create (or too in conflict with community norms), why is it permissable to do so for a single case at all? Is it fair for one individual to get the short stick? Those are the questions in play. On a personal front, I think I'd have more respect for those that handled the issue by openly arguing that yes, Fram is going to be hard done by, the process will be poorer than it should be, and his defence must be hindered...but...here's why that should be tolerated. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me that the community has a simple choice. Accept this framework as the only approach available. Wait for the inevitable "time served" compromise decision by Arbcom in a few weeks or continue to dispute, debate and haggle and end up with a "time expired" decision in 10 1/2 months. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out above, ArbCom doesn’t do state decisis—its decisions and interpretations are not binding on subsequent cases. In any event, I don’t see what’s being done here as enacting a binding interpretation of the arbitration policy, but making clear the community’s understanding of that policy. The Committee may do with that what they wish, but they would be ill advised to ignore just how disappointed people are (cheerleaders excepted). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except ARBCOM usually does follow its precedents, even if it doesn't specifically refer to them. As such, there's a reticence by many to let it make that first step in case it becomes a cast Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{[ec}} In other words, "we" (i.e. a few vocal editors) were very disappointed that the WMF refused to let us know who made the complaint(s) so we could lynch them (as well as the person we think most is most likely to have done so), and having gotten the ArbCom to take a look the same "we" are now even more disappointed that we still don't get to know if we've lynched the right person and if there is anybody else who needs lynching. Speaking for myself, it is not the arbitration committee whose actions disappoint me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, or any other member of Arbom, can you please clarify the broad nature of the "secret evidence" are involved? My impression is that it is substantially or entirely a collection of ordinary publicly-visible diffs. Is this correct? Or does the evidence include things like off-wiki activities or on-wiki edits that were oversighted-for-good-cause? Or to phrase my question another way, if the case had been filed with Arbcom in the first place, without passing through the Foundations hands, would there have been any well-established well-accepted reason that you couldn't have handled it as a standard public-process Arbcom case? Alsee (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee, I'm not going to go into details of what the T&S document includes, there is so much speculation and concern that anything I say will be over-analysed and quite probably misinterpreted. So, I'm going to focus on your alternate question. If the case had be brought in public, I expect we could have tried to handle it in public (with some private evidence). However, that does not necessarily make it the "right" forum for the case, per the Roger Davies quote Unlike real life situations, anyone can turn up and comment at an arbitration case. This produces an atmosphere totally unlike any real world situation. In some instances, it's called transparency; in sensitive issues, it's simply horrifically invasive. It is impossible to discuss private stuff publicly, no matter how cautiously, without the dots getting joined up or speculation/allegations running riot.
If the case had been made to us in private directly by the individuals, I think there is a reasonable possibility would have considered a private case as private hearings have occurred in the past. However, I don't know how we would have handled it as we have less institutional memory on the committee from those times. The answer, however, is moot - because that's not what happened, the issues were not brought to us, they were brought to T&S. WormTT(talk) 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the rubric for this RfC says This is not intended to add, remove, change/alter the wording of ARBPOL, only answer the question 'Does the wording regarding private hearings support that evidence to be used against an editor should be disclosed to that editor in order that they can respond.' From some of the discussion it feels as though we have moved away from considering what the current words in the policy mean, and onto whether we think we would be better to have different words in the policy. I expect that if there is no consensus that the current wording means what SUPPORT !voters think it should mean, we’ll be coming onto that next. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC seems based on a false dichotomy
The two alternatives it proposes are either supporting disclosure of all evidence, or supporting withholding of relevant evidence from the parties. I see comments in both the Support and Oppose sections that seem to be reaching for a middle ground. I'm going to try to develop a middle ground in this comment. But I do think legitimate the concern that the plan proposed for the case at hand (on its talk pages) may not fully satisfy the requirements of WP:ARBPOL, in that ArbCom does not seem to have ruled out the use of evidence that the parties cannot respond to when making their decision.
In a normal public case, people put a lot of information on the Evidence page, some portion of that is used to make Findings of Fact, and the Findings of Fact and the Principles are used to justify the Remedies. For a private case, I think we need that same chain of logic to exist. To satisfy the requirement that "the parties [...] be given a reasonable opportunity to respond", I think ArbCom would need to consider the Findings of Fact that they'd want to make based on the private Evidence submitted and identify the subset of that Evidence actually needed to support those Findings. The subset need not include things like the source of any of the pieces of evidence or the original complaints that led to the seeking of evidence if those things aren't relevant to the Findings. On the other hand, the subset should include any evidence that might serve to counter the Findings. They'd then present the subset of Evidence (but not necessarily the Findings) to the parties for comment. The commentary period should allow for back-and-forth discussion, such as the parties requesting additional context on some part of the evidence.
Particularly relevant to the case at hand, if for some reason they cannot present some piece of Evidence to the parties, they must not use that evidence to support any Finding. Instead they'd need to find other evidence to support the finding, or drop the potential finding. Yes, that will be a significant restriction in the case at hand since one entity was apparently allowed to submit far more than the usual 1000 words (or else they used a huge font for those 70 pages) and insists that none of it can be shared with the parties, but I think it's probably unavoidable if we want to maintain the legitimacy of the process. Similarly, if the parties state that they'd need more context on some evidence to adequately respond and ArbCom is not able/willing to supply that context, ArbCom should consider whether that brings the questioned evidence itself under the same cloud.
ArbCom would then need to reconsider only the presented Evidence plus the parties' comments to determine whether the Findings of Fact are still warranted and whether any additional Findings are appropriate. If they want to bring in any Evidence not in the original subset, they'd need to present that new evidence to the parties for comment and repeat the process. This iteration may take some time and should be expected when planning the process.
With this model we would need to trust that ArbCom won't become too tied to a provisional Finding that they accept it without sufficient Evidence remaining in the "admitted" subset or discount the parties' comments that might counter the Finding, that they'd be careful not to consider "unadmitted" evidence when reevaluating their Findings, and that they would themselves consider whether WP:BOOMERANG or the like might apply since the community can't do it for them.
IMO (and getting somewhat away from the topic of the RFC), ideally when they post the decision they should include the relevant subset of Evidence as well (possibly by writing it into each Finding). Also ideally, they should post a Proposed Decision for public review and comment rather than skipping directly to the Final Decision stage; while the final decision rests with ArbCom, the public comment stage could be useful to identify missing links in their posted reasoning. They might even run a hybrid private/public case, by preparing the "subset of Evidence" as described above but then posting it publicly on the Evidence page and proceeding from there as a public case. Anomie⚔23:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the conclusion of this analysis. Arb com can consider private evidence that they cannot share with the community as background, and they can base their decision on material not shared with the community--but they cannot base a decision of material they cannot share with the accused. Evidence can be prejudiced or erroneous, and how can this be determined unless it can be challenged? The WMF has the power to force on us what rules it chooses, but that does not mean we have to co-operate with them when they are doing something outrageously unjust.
Even the English Tudor period trials for treason that found the parties guilty 99% of the time, presented them with the evidence. And there was an appeal (to the monarch, and it sometimes worked). DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this same (headline) point on the talk page of the case, it was roundly ignored. I'm not sure I can be bothered to provide evidence, but if I do it will be public. At the moment I would be concerned to do this, in case there was an inappropriate reaction of "Oh noes! U broke the rulez!" All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
RFC Colourized table headings on sports pages
There has been a discussion recently at the WikiProject Football talk page about whether or not to include colourized headings in all the tables related to association football pages, particularly in the sports team by seasons pages. This is an issue that is not only related to football pages but across all sports pages on Wikipedia. The largest discussion is whether pages need to be branded in team colours. At best it is partisan flag waving, editors want to included because WP:ILIKEIT. At worst it is distracting and unnecessary and could violate WP:COLOURS, WP:CONTRAST, among others. I appreciate any further comments on this matter as it does seem to be a larger issue. Notably corporate pages, political pages, etc., are not branded in their tables. Again, this is an issue that seems solely related to sports pages. Appreciate further thoughts! Krazytea(talk)19:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ice Hockey decided to move to colour borders for the team table heading rows instead of changing the background and foreground colours. Some people like the cleaner look; some people prefer the previous look. Generally though it was agreed to do this to facilitate accessibility. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a practical way to meet the colour contrast requirements while using team colours as an accent to the table. If by policy you are asking if there's an English Wikipedia-wide consensus that team tables should use colour borders, no discussion has been held to establish such consensus. Generally a more typical approach would be for editors interested in topic area X to voluntarily adopt conventions they think are useful from other topic areas. Personally I think it would be rather difficult to try to get agreement across all sports at once; there would be too many participants, and inevitably the discussion would turn acrimonious (there is a significant number of editors who don't place a high priority on accessibility guidelines). isaacl (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists
When can WP apply labels/categorize BLP/groups in a factual tone
This is related somewhat to the discussion in the immediate section but something of longer-term interest to me. Generally, per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, when we have reliable sources that use negative labels on people (that are considered public figures) or groups, it is generally appropriate to include that label in the article with in-line attribution. These labels range from things like "alt-right" to "white supremacist" to "climate change deniers" and so on. However, there are cases of people or groups where there is clearly enough high quality RSes that use that label to a point where from WP's standpoint it might as well be stated factually in Wikivoice, not requiring inline attribution though still needing sourcing.
The problem that I see is that editors frequently do not readily demonstrate the widespread use of a label before using that label as factual in Wikivoice. I would like to suggest that we have some set of guidelines, not hard rules but principles to base consensus discussion on, for when sourcing is sufficiently widespread to use labels factually on persons or groups. I don't know where this advice would immediately fit in a policy or guideline page, so I'm bringing it up here for discussion.
The way I see it, some of the key principles for when we can say a label can be used factually is:
The person or group in question is readily covered by reliable sources. A person may be notable but if all the coverage of that person is in 5-6 sources, sufficient for notability, we don't have a good enough media sample size to say a label in a factual manner.
The coverage should be from a wide range of high quality reliable sources, avoiding op-eds. If we have papers ranging from the NYTimes, the BBC, the Washington Post, the Guardian, CNN, etc. all applying a label to a person or group, that's a wide breadth of usage to show that the label is reflecting many different media voices. To contrast that, there are probably several people that have labels applied to them repeated by Fox News, but few other sources; that's not sufficient for using the label factually. And of course, we want to avoid low-but-usable quality RSes here as the demonstration.
The coverage should be over a broad period of time, at least 6 months. We don't want people or groups, suddenly thrust in the spotlight, to have labels applied to them in a factual tone, per RECENTISM. This prevents minor spats than end up resolving or become non-essential in a few weeks to using the label. But if that label is used over several years by different sources, then that shows it has the longevity to be important for encyclopedic coverage, then it can be used factually.
Editors should not have to be cherry picking sources to show the label applies. It is not expected that every mention of the person or group in the media will include the label in question, but it should be used with some reasonable frequency to know its common enough. If I can dig up only, say, 3-5 articles where the label is used for a person, but that person is otherwise the center of 1000s of articles, then we should not be using that label factually. In essential, this is a question of how UNDUE is the label's application. If its used frequently, then UNDUE is met.
Failing to make all of these points, the label can still be considered usable but should always be used with inline attribution (that is, using inline attribution for a label should be considered the default) However, in considering the last point, editors should also consider the UNDUE nature if it is not used that frequently.
If the label is shown to be used sufficiently to be treated factually, it should not be required to include all the sources that use it, but editors should select the best 2-3 representative pieces that address it (eg if you have a NYTimes piece using it, that would be one of those sources to cite). Ideally, determinations would be made on talk pages by showing the collection of sources, and archived, so that if a new editor comes along to dispute the factual presentation of the label, they can be pointed at the analysis in talk page archives.
This also would apply to categorization that uses labels. People nor groups should be categorized by these labels unless we know we can apply the label factually. If we are using inline attribution for the label in the appropriate article, then they should not at all be categorized in this manner, since we're not factually stating they are of that label. (Categories lack the ability to attribute, so this is where we have to be careful).
Of course, these are not all the considerations (for example, if the person or group self-identifies by the label, there's little question that that's a fact we can use), and its not meant to be prescriptive, but instead draw some lines that should be easily demonstrated and serve as points of reference in future debates. There might be other considerations or factors I've not considered, which also is what I would like to see further discussion on, in addition to, if this is reasonable language to include, where should it be included. --Masem (t) 17:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the right honourable gentleman is referring to is his continued war against anything he doesn't like, despite input from other editors against this. He also fails to at least have a basic understanding of the term 'fan art' anyway. We go through this charade every few months before he disappears for a while. Jeni(talk)23:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Whether the image is "fan art", whatever you mean by that, is normally irrelevant, and there is no rule against using "unofficial" or editor-made images. The listed exceptions have to do with circumstances where there is literally an official, correct version of an image, as with a logo. Whether the art is "not very good" is a subjective matter, and you'd have to look for consensus. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The images in question seem to be photographs of trains and technical drawings of train liveries. I would not describe them as "fan art"; their purpose is to explain real-life subjects more precisely and concisely than words could. There has been discussion about how best to photograph a train – some angles may be more artistic but less encyclopaedic – but I'm not sure that it needs a WP-wide policy debate. Certes (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the train livery images to be fan art, Fan art usually are drawings drawn from scratch whereas these are from templates (the train template is the same in all images so clearly wasn't done from scratch although the livery on them were),
IMHO I would consider the images to be of use and help to our readers and I believe these images achieve more than just actual photographs,
The images at British Rail Class 158#Liveries are not fan art and provide useful information. Arguably more effectively than most photographs for that specific purpose. They are very adequate quality technical illustrations, well suited to their function. I cannot comment on other possible cases I have not seen. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those are quality technical drawings; assuming that they are accurate, they’re more clear and useful than photographs would be. Which is always the whole point of using illustrations... OP is mistaken on all counts, including what “fan art” means. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are very well done, freely licensed, and in my view very much contribute educational content to the article. I would not at all consider them to be "fan art", and would support retaining them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the images at British Rail Class 158#Liveries are of high quality and should remain in the article unless someone points out some gross inaccuracies. There were said to be more examples of this controversial "fan art", could someone involved list some (or all) of these other examples? I do not like to judge the entire issue based solely on one example. --Hecato (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, X201. I feel the same about these images as I do about the images in British Rail Class 158#Liveries. They are useful, sufficiently professional and of sufficiently high quality. They should remain in their respective articles. I also do not consider them to be "fan art", which (so far) appears to be just a buzzword used by the topic starter in place of real criticism. --Hecato (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I heard the term "fan art," I immediately assumed someone had drawn pictures of say fictional characters for use in the encyclopaedia, which I would be against for illustrative purposes. I am not at all concerned about the train drawings, nor do I consider them "fan art." SportingFlyerT·C06:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see little difference between badly-drawn irrelevant pictures of trains and badly-drawn irrelevant pictures of (say) "Hermione from Harry Potter". Neither has any place in a professional work. Tony May (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony May, we are not a professional work, but a volunteer-written encyclopedia. You are free to volunteer to contribute better images, but these appear relevant and certainly better than nothing. Unlike fan art (which involves interpretation), they also appear to be a faithful representation of the way these trains look. If they are not, please state exactly in which way they are wrong so they can be improved. —Kusma (t·c) 09:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your considered response Kusma - but the problem here in part is that there are better images. The drawings lack appropriate logos, and I cannot confirm their accuracy - it is likely that the author misses underframe detail, but he might also get the major dimensions wrong. Without a reliable technical drawing to compare them against, it's not that they are inaccurate, it's that we don't know and can't know how accurate they may or may not be. Tony May (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that underframe detail, exact structural dimensions etc really matters for images that are intended to show liveries. The one ground I could see as applying to user-generated art is if there was concern that original research applied, as has been the case with some depictions of ancient flags/insignia. Is it your contention that those liveries are basically drawn from the imagination of the creator? If not, I cannot see the issue in this specific instance. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument boils down to "I don't like them and I don't trust them." For the first part of that, no one agrees with you so let's move on. For the second part, if you think they are inaccurate you would help your case by proving it, rather than speculating on what might be wrong with the images. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:
User-created images are fully acceptable on en.wiki and commons. We expect in so much as possible that users uploading their own work release them as a free license unless for some reason the material requires a copyright. (for example, if uploading a photograph of a public statue that is in a place where Freedom of Panorama does not exist, we expect the photo to be freely licensed, but noting the copyrighted statue keeps it non-free).
Most of the time, we expect these images to support the topic, and not just "I'm an artist, look at my work!". So in something like OS-tan and furry fandom we have user "fan art" but presented as illustrative of the topic, and not in a manner meant to further the exposure of the artist. Other examples include recreation of graphs from sources that provide data, illustrations that mimic but do not directly copy the aspects of copyright illustrations, and so forth.
Now all that said, I see the article in question involves the liveries on British trains. That may be a problem in terms of being a free work, because of the very low threshold of originality for copyright in the UK. The shape and function of the train cannot be copyrighted, but the paint job can. Photos of trains from askew are fine, because the livery becomes de minimus to illustrating the trains, but the user-made images may be questionable. I don't know if this aspect has been discussed before. (Those images would be fine on en.wiki under one of our PD tags here, because in the US they are too simple for copyright). --Masem (t) 16:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure 'fan art' is the most useful descriptor here, but I do share some reservations for these images' usage. For one thing, I have to say that by the standards of illustration, these are not great. Viewed at full-resolution they're rather low-quality, with jagged, aliased lines everywhere. If you're going to make these sorts of diagrams, they really should be vector-based SVGs, or at least much cleaner rasters. Secondly, there's an obvious verification issue here—a reader has no clue whether or not these liveries are actually accurate, and I have no way of checking it (even comparing to images isn't a great option, because there's plenty of room—in the creation of these images as well as trying to check them against the real thing—for real-world factors like distortion to crop in and make these not very accurate as technical diagrams.) Finally there's the copyright issue—these are being uploaded to commons under free licenses when they are using logos (claimed under fair use, as here, which is a gross misunderstanding of Commons and copyright) and when the liveries themselves could meet the threshold of originality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk12:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look at File:Class 158 in the Transport for Wales livery.png. For one thing, this is a really basic colour scheme; I don't see how this could be a copyrightable subject (except by the person who drew the image of course). Moreover, the uploader says that there weren't any visible logos in the picture from which this was created — is it possible that there is no logo on some of these coaches in real life? If so, the absence of a logo is not fundamentally a problem. As long as this image is reasonably close to the actual coaches' paint schemes, there's no reason to object to it, and the same is true of all other images of this sort if we ignore copyright concerns. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And per Masem's comment, the problem with fan art is when people upload their own artwork for the sake of glorifying themselves, or when they upload stuff that's pretty grossly out of scope, e.g. "My impressionist painting of a sunset.jpg". Also, demanding that all the little underframe details doesn't really make sense; the focus is the paint scheme, and getting the underframe details precisely right is no more important than getting tons of islands' borders perfectly right in a national map, e.g. File:Philippine provinces by income classification.PNG. At worst, little detail errors are grounds for improving the image or replacing it with a better image, not grounds for replacing it with no image. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly on this point. As long as user-made images are not purposely mis-detailing critical features, these types of "errors" can be routinely ignored. For example, I can see the case where a user provides a simplified drawing to help expedite explanations (such as File:Notre-Dame de Paris composite transverse section.svg used to help describe the parts of the cathedral that are important to under the Notre Dame fire). The drawing may not be perfectly accurate CAD, but its good enough that I know exactly what's being talked about and can recognize the various parts in real life photos of the cathedral. --Masem (t) 02:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As yet another point of reference, at one point we lacked a free picture of Kim Jong-un (but since then he traveled and later met with Trump which generated tons of images). In the past, "fan art" was considered a suitable replacement as long as it 1) wasn't crappy and 2) was not meant to be overly artist. See for example this archived thread. --Masem (t) 02:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just to push back a bit, all the material in the Wikipedia is suppose to be ref'd. "This drawing is what I personally believe the entity looks like" is kind of similar to "this writing is what I personally believe the entity did", n'est-ce pas? You'd prefer something from a publication where the drawing went thru a fact-checker who compared it to photos in a book (or whatever, depending on what the publication's fact-checking procedure is). So User:Tony May makes a very valid point. (Use of "fan art", which is unnecessarily abrasive and also misleading, doesn't help him make his point. But not expressing yourself ideally, and being wrong, are two different things.)
I mean, where is the proof that the image is correct? "It just is, I saw it myself with my own eyes" is not sufficient ref for text, why should it be for images. If the artist is using a source, why not use that source directly? It's OK if the artist is working from a text description (e.g., making an image from the text "The flag of Libya is a green rectangle, ratio 3:2, precise shade #008000" or whatever), or from another image that shows what the drawing shows but not as clearly or prettily.(We sometimes do this for pictures of people's pudendums and so on, and other cases where a schematic or drawing elides distracting details.) But you need a source. If there's a source, the person ought to be able to point us to it, and Bob's your uncle. If the artist doesn't have a source that she can show us, tho... that's a problem.
the train livery example needs a ref(s). At the end of the section or whatever. We're not in the business of "This is what it looks like. Trust us." The reader needs to be able to satisfy herself that it's correct. Unref'd material that is challenged -- as seems the case here -- on almost any basis is not usually kept. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unreasonable that if someone is making an image that is representative of something else and that the image is meant to be close to the real thing, that they provide the necessary references to back that up on the File: page, per WP:V. At the same time, there may be some things so "obvious" that there's no need to evoke WP:V. That should be a consensus of discussion to make that determination. --Masem (t) 03:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a solvable problem, as commons has photos of actual examples of each and every one of these liveries. A lot of photos. Some people really like their trains: Commons:Category:British Rail Class 158. If anyone asks why have technical drawings if we have real photos, my personal answer would be that it's really hard to convince the train cars to stack themselves so perfectly for comparison, but that should be a matter for consensus at article talk page anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even call those original research. I would just say it is obvious that neither of them is an attempt to faithfully represent the article's subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christiaan Tonnis may be a nice guy and all, but his thing is not producing faithful-to-life illustrations; he's trying to capture "psychological knowledge" and represent the person's emotions. In general, portraits are very different from images of manufactured objects: if you get a few of the details wrong the person might not be recognisable, and if you just leave out the little details the person looks unrealistic, but with the manufactured object it just looks like a simplification. A better comparison might be the use of a simplified person and simplified animal, e.g. File:Apatosaurus scale mmartyniuk wiki.png. Were these dinosaurs really smooth and rounded, did Brontosaurus parvus really have a sharp vertical spot at the base of its neck (under the "m" in "20 m"), and are all humans a bit shorter than 2m? No, probably no, and no. We continue using this illustration because a simplification is perfectly fine here, and the person isn't intended to represent a specific individual like the Burroughs images are. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We look very deeply into human faces. There is no room for error. Images that are non-photographic that are notable can be used even though they've taken liberties with appearance and especially if they've stood the test of time. But hand-drawn imagery of faces that are of no particular notability and especially if recently produced are unacceptable. They are too interpretive and we know nothing about the context of the interpretation. Gertrude Stein was painted by several notable artists and we correctly include images of those paintings in that article. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will again point to the various user-made drawings of Kim Jong-un discussed here as examples of acceptable, not-artsy representations of a living person in lieu of a photograph that were all considered acceptable. in constrast with the example from the Tonnis image above. Yes, there's a small amount of creativity (line weight, medium, etc.) but each of those focused on accurately showing Jong-un to a point that if you saw a photo of Jong-un, you would likely recognize him from the drawing. Where there is a question of artistic liberty being used, that's a matter for consensus to determine if there is too much, but I would not be against guidance that says "user-made images should avoid taking excessive creative liberties and should strive to be more visually accurate. user-made images are not meant to be showing off your art skills but for illustrated encyclopedic topics". --Masem (t) 14:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everything that goes into mainspace is some form of "original research" by editors in terms of how we interpret a reliable source and summarize it. This is however an acceptable form of original research as long as we don't interpret or synthesize beyond that. Similarly, a drawing that is a sufficiently close approximation to a real-world image, such as those Kim Jong-un, are also acceptable "original research" because there is no attempt to interpret or synthesis the image. Contrast that to the Tonnis image described above, which is absolutely interpretive of the real person. That is unacceptable original research. --Masem (t) 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if there is no attempt to interpret the image because such interpretation is unavoidable. Your argument should be that even photography is interpretive. While this is true, photography is a world apart from drawing. Except in the case of a manipulated photograph there is a rational relationship between the subject photographed and the image produced. A camera functions identically no matter what it is photographing. A camera is a mechanical device. There is an element of rationality versus irrationality that distinguishes a photograph from a drawing. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For en.wiki, that does not matter. Yes, a camera makes a "slavish copy" so that it should still be accurate of the original object photographed with no new interpretations/copyright, but the same can be done by a non-photographic work too. As long as the drawer has made something that is sufficient accurate and does not add excessive artistic interpretations, we can use that, period. The objections raised would eliminate far too much free imagery on WP and commons. --Masem (t) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The objections raised would eliminate far too much free imagery on WP". Can you link to some examples in article space, especially ones involving the human face? Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do we implement as a solution to Tony May being regularly disruptive and doing his best to drive other editors off the project? He's scored one already, it appears he's after another. Edit-warring against others (and there's no support for this on the project talk page) to repeatedly remove images with summaries like "tidying up" and "fan art" is unacceptably dismissive of the work of other editors, even if it's no clear breach of CIVIL. This is a nett negative here and we'd be much better without it. I'd support formal TBANs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removing an arbitrator
Does the community have the ability to remove an arbitrator from his position before an arbitrator is up for reelection? If not, then perhaps it should have that ability. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask them nicely to resign or you can petition the other arbitrators to remove them.
Mandatory recall for arbitrators is probably not a good idea for the same reasons that mandatory community recall processes for administrators, checkusers, oversighters, and stewards do not exist: they will have to make decisions that are not always popular. That's why we have ArbCom: to make decisions that the community can't. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought oversighters did a great deal that annoyed more than a couple of people (notwithstanding their creepy-ass logo) Nosebagbear (talk)
Are you meaning merely removing the arbitrator from Arbcom, without anything else necessarily happening? If an arbitrator got into a mess and did things that deserved a community ban, presumably the arbitrator would be removed from the committee if the ban ended up happening; it would be bizarre (and not particularly likely) if a community-banned user continued functioning on the committee. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve talked about this before, and the best way to do it currently is to organize a petition to amend the arbitration policy (all you need is 100 signatures) to trigger a referendum on the amendment. The amendment could be “Effective immediately, [Arbitrator X] is removed from the Arbitration Committee. Attempts to reappoint [Arbitrator X] by any means will result in the immediate and automatic removal of [Arbitrator X] from the Arbitration Committee.” The second sentence is in case it’s expected Jimbo Wales would try to overturn the dismissal for any reason and reappoint the arbitrator. Alternatively, you could get an amendment going for a recall procedure, which would be better policy than a one-off removal, though of course there are those who think recall referenda are themselves a terrible idea. But as long as the community is free to make amendments to the Arbitration Policy, we are free to use an amendment to remove an arbitrator that the rest of the Committee refuses to expel. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style - a contradiction in the use of Capital_letters
The Manual of Style seems to contradict itself in MOS:THECAPS, something which needs changing. It states the following: In English-language titles, every word is capitalized, except for articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions. First and last words within a title, including a subtitle, are capitalized regardless of grammatical use. This is known as title case. Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language. This is not applied to Wikipedia's own articles, which are given in sentence case: capitalize the first letter, and proper names (e.g., List of selection theorems, Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez administration).
It's the case that the Engineering / naval conventions of using caps for titles is not covered by Wiki guidelines, and of course it should be. Yet song titles are. At the very least engineering design titles should be allowed to be capitalized.
Look here at List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy you can see the thinking behind how the USN defines designators for vessels of this type. It is consistent. First (the useage), second (the qualifier), third (a further method of subdivision). Example PHM, Patrol Missile Hydrofoil. You can see the applied logic through all the designators listed, and they are in caps.
The guidelines state that you can use title case for titles of works (e.g. books, musical compositions), not titles of WP articles on random things, which use sentence case, not title case. I would argue that there are other things too that classify as works, for example engineering classes and types, and bespoke metal fabrications (are works too) they are the same status in the real world as a book. They have titles, they have names.
How can there be an objection to using caps for classes of ships or engineered products when there is a project page entitled Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters? the very title of the policy itself contradicts its own content. How can Motor torpedo boat PT-109 be correct when it is a particular of Motor Torpedo Boat.
The project is in English. We need to conform to the English language, and not the other way round. If this Under My Thumb can be an exception then so should drawing / engineering titles. Which are of course works.
English is a weird language... the “acknowledged rules of the English language” are often self-contradictory. Also, there is often debate about what the rules actually are. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider a designations like "Patrol Missile Hydrofoil" as a title. It is more a proper noun, which is covered under different MOS rules and allows for it to be fully titled when speaking about the classification. Titles more refer to the title of a book, movie, article, etc. and not designations as titles. --Masem (t) 14:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many misconceptions about what a proper noun/name is, including a false view of equivalence between capitalisation (a matter of orthography) and what is a proper noun (a matter of onomastics and grammar). A proper noun is not descriptive yet such a designation is. Consequently, asserting that this disignation is a "title" actually has more merit than asserting it is a "proper name". My version of Fowler (2nd Ed, 1990 reprint) refers to capitalisation of titles in such a way as to make them separate from proper nouns (section on capitalisation). This type of military double-back speak (Boat, Patrol, Torpedo) is a designation format (complete with the capitalisation of which the military is fond). It is used in equipment tables and like for everything from the common nail upward (nail, bullet-head, 10 ga, 2 in long, wire, plated). While a "designation" may be considered a synonym of "title", it is not a "title" in the same sense of the guidance on titles of works. Further, if it were the title, it would (probably) be written by the designation, Boat, Patrol, Torpedo, and not Patrol Torpedo Boat, since the latter may be common usage but is unlikely the formal designation. The OP's proposition only has any chance of being compelling if it is used as the title of a work and I am not yet seeing any evidence that would support the arguement being made that it is. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft of partial/temporary office actions consultation now live
Hello all,
Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.
This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September (the exact launch date will take into account the completion status of the Fram case). Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.
For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.
Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.
This "draft consultation" asserts partial Foundation bans "are final and non-negotiable." Did the Fram fiasco teach them anything at all? Jonathunder (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a repetition of the current policy. They've not changed anything. From the look of things this is requesting input on what the consultation will look like. What I find funny is that WMF is letting this be done in-house rather than hiring professionals to figure out how the community feels about this. Makes me wonder how any of the data resulting from this will be used, if at all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think that's an argument that'll go anywhere. WMF can make whatever bad policies they want that they'll follow. Whether we respect them or consider them binding upon us is a different matter entirely. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: This RfC was closed on 17 April 2019, and reopened after editors suggested the same at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Further discussion of recent RfC on organisation vs organization. Lourdes 07:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Should all Wikipedia categories which use the word "organisation"/"organization" as part of a descriptive name per WP:NDESC be standardized to use the "Z" spelling, i.e. "organization" rather than "organisation"?
wikipedia.org without having to use the Wikipedia email interface.
Comment: The RfC statement is not neutral and brief as it's advocating for a certain interpretation of WP:ARBPOL. @Only in death: you should move the paragraphs starting with 
I'm not sure I can be bothered to provide evidence, but if I do it will be public. At the moment I would be concerned to do this, in case there was an inappropriate reaction of "Oh noes! U broke the rulez!" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC).
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48