Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try the one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

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

« Archives, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

MOS:FLAG

This MOS guideline says that As a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Like all guidelines, there are exceptions, but the arguments usually begin when those exceptions try and get defined. My question is, what are the logical exceptions to this guideline? And how can the guideline be amended to either define these exceptions or at least remove the ambiguity of the phrase as a rule of thumb, to cut down on the exceptions being abused.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the policy should be stripped right back down and started again. There are times - say, in sports, or music, but particularly after natural disasters - when having both [[[country name]]] and [[[national flag]]] would help give the article an extra depth and helpful content. Readers who may be scanning the article or just want a quick jist of information (or, more importantly of course, those who may not speak or read particularly good English), would fine national flags more helpful. doktorb _words^deeds 17:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Readers who scan was part of the MOS and removed as being baseless Gnevin (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Another part of MOSFLAG has been a slow-burning issue on lists of supercentenarians and other longevity claims as well, on whether or not to stick flags next to peoples names. MOSFLAG advises against it, but has the same defect as this section; a couple of us were thinking about starting an RfC, and it may be a good idea to do that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If we start with the fact that some country/organization flags are copyrighted (obviously not all) and thus are non-free uses, then already widespread suggests to use flag icons as much as possible conflicts with the free mission policy. Also consider that the average reader is not going to be intimately familiar with the bulk of the national flags out there (if anything, most will likely recognize their country's flag and its neighbors, but likely little else), it is simply extraneous decoration when plaintext is much more understandable. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And it tends to lead to totally unnecessary nationalist disputes: For someone from Wales, use the Union Jack (British flag) or the Welsh flag? Or both? (Similarly for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.) This is a contentious matter for a number of British editors who are prepared to go through the entire encyclopedia changing lots of flags one way or the other, depending on whether they are happy with living in the United Kingdom or would rather have it fall apart. There are plenty of other corner cases such as Tibet.

An editor once added the modern Serbian flag (Republic of Serbia) to the biography of a guy who was born in the Principality of Serbia, which became the Kingdom of Serbia, became part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which in turn became the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which then fell apart into several states including the Republic of Serbia. Should we add all those flags? Only the first? Only the last? The first and the last? What's the point of this silly exercise anyway?

Similarly: Do we really want 4-6 flags (Württemberg, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, United States) in the infobox of Albert Einstein? At some point he was stateless. What's the flag for that? Hans Adler 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points, though it would depend on context, I think. As noted above, in a sporting environment, the flag is most often used to denote the country a player represents. So, for the Welsh athlete above, in soccer/football, they would be considered a Welsh International, with that flag, while an Olympic athlete would be considered to be representing the United Kingdom, with the appropriate flag. In a normal, every day context, I certainly see how your Einstein example argues against such usage. Resolute 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the addition of flags into any infobox, I don't think they add anything to the articles and despite MOSFLAG they are purely decorative and they are wide open to abuse as pointed out above by Adler Mo ainm~Talk 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I also am not a fan of them, finding them distracting or just plain pointless. The names of countries are normally far more recognisable than tiny versions of their flags anyway. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are distracting, which leads to my question as to what are the exceptions to the guideline. As it is worded now, it leads to a tremendous amount of ambiguity, and as the flags are virtually striking to look at, they tend to get overused and abused quite often. A simple definition of what the exceptions are, should clear this up.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The English language publisher, magazine, network, and licensor fields of {{Infobox animanga}} are one common exception, in part because editors have not agree to a new standard on how to present the information without the flags or if the fields should be removed altogether in place of sourced prose. —Farix (t | c) 01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording proposal Flag icons should only be inserted in the rare cases where they convey information that cannot be conveyed in text. They are disfavored and should, in most cases, be removed. Flag icons are visually distracting and lead to unnecessary disputes over issues tangential to the articles and lists to which the icons are affixed. David in DC (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a great way to word the guideline, and I would be in favor of that.JOJ ^Hutton 14:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a great start but must be given wider coverage. I would like to ensure that sports events and (most) list articles are (largely) protected from any changes doktorb _words^deeds 14:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, this is exactly the type of place where this rewrite and consensus above says we should remove them. They add nothing but noise to busy tables in the first place. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. See no reason that sports events or anything to do with sports should be exempt. What does United States say that United States does not? I can understand certain lists in an infobox, but only where the flags make the subject more clear,such as in military battle articles. As per this example:Normandy landings under Leaders and Commanders.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling me that a group of....three people will, in this section, completely rewrite the MOS on flag icons just like that? No sign-posting, no consensus, no wider comment across the project, nothing, just this one bit? I would like you to go to the FIFA World Cup articles and try removing the national flags, or the lists of Academy Award winners and try it there. doktorb _words^deeds 17:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the Village Pump. This is where policy and guideline issues are suppose to be discussed. This discussion is open and public. Anyone can participate. Most policies and guidelines decisions are usually determined by a small consensus of editors. A lot of people watch this page, so its fair to say that if anyone wanted to participate they are welcome to, but if they do not wish to, you can't make them.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed text. I can really do without long, tedious discussions with nationalists who insist that Wales is a "sovereign" "nation" in the sense of MOSICON and that town twinning of course falls under the exception for sports in WP:MOSICON, as happened at WT:Manual of Style (icons)/Archive 8#Town-twinning and flags. (Anyway, these flags are currently drawing a lot of attention to the very, very minor aspect of town twinning in many city articles, and they are discouraging editors from reformatting the bullet lists as proper text -- something that the MOS otherwise recommends.) Hans Adler 17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the diff/diffs to show where the nationalists insist that Wales is a "sovereign" "nation" at WT:Manual of Style (icons)/Archive 8#Town-twinning and flags. I couldn't find it. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, you are right! I misremembered and overstated this part. Several editors claimed that the UK is no longer fully sovereign and therefore the clear-cut rule to use only flags of sovereign states isn't so clear-cut anymore, so that we might arguably have to used the European flag instead of the Union Jack, and since we are not doing this we might just as well use the four subnational flags of the UK. I have struck "sovereign" and added "in the sense of MOSICON" in my above post. Thanks for alerting me to my mistake. Hans Adler 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Hans. I appreciate your honesty and that you took the time and trouble to check. Daicaregos (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have signposted this discussion on the talk page of the MOS:FLAG, to at least get some coverage, and I would hope that everyone involved here would know of some specific editors who should be made aware of any significant changes being made without their knowledge. It cannot be just - it may be "the way things are done", but that's the excuse MPs made over the expenses scandal - that one person can change an entire MOS on a whim. This whole thing needs a FULL process - draft wording, amendments, discussion, vote, the lot. doktorb _words^deeds 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A case where flags are useful is in topics where we have many countries, and many people that represent one of all the countries. For example, {{Infobox military conflict}} (with combatants and commanders) or {{Infobox international football competition}} (with national teams and specific players) MBelgrano (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Military conflict makes sense, but not the international competition. There is nothing that Canada says that Canada does not. Yet in a military conflict infobox, there are usually lists of commanders and the flags are used to differentiate which country the commanders come from, usually in lieu of the country name.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean other than lists of competitors representing different nations. Which is exactly the same situation but without bloodshed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one flag in an infobox indicating the country involved is helpful in quick identification and not obtrusive. MOS:FLAG is too extreme IMHO and should be toned down. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, the whole point of the infobox is to get a summery of the most important information quickly. And in a number of areas, the most important information involves a country. Flags help with that goal, and are not nearly as obtrusive as some would have you believe. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am still not convinced what a flag adds to an infobox. As stated above what does United States say that United States does not? Also just to be pedantic Hans the UK doesn't have 4 sub national flags it has 3 as Northern Ireland do not have a flag. Mo ainm~Talk 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that symbols are understood by people generally far faster than words are and are often more universal? Of course not everyone knows every countries flag but I would suggest they know a great many, more than just theirs and their neighbours as is suggested above. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not saying that they aren't/haven't been overused, but they can be a very useful shorthand. Daicaregos (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They do exactly what the guideline says they do. They draw undue attention to that part of the infobox. Without the flags, the reader gets the same information.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And sometimes, often even, that attention isn't undue. Sometimes the reader should be drawn to that part of the infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Doktorb amendment to Wording Proposal Wording proposal "Flag icons should only be inserted in those rare cases where they convey additional or complimentary information in addition to the that cannot be conveyed in text. They are disfavored in navigation boxes and should, in most cases, be subject to discussion on their use on an case-by-case basis rather than simply removed. Flag icons can be accepted as alternatives to bullet points, and draw readers attention to specific content, acting too as a shorthand tool. Flag icons are visually distracting and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used or used counter to WP:POINT over issues tangential to the articles and lists to which the icons are affixed. doktorb _words^deeds 18:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That is much better wording in my opinion. I agree over using them is bad, but there are a number of cases where they are quite useful. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I know they look nice, and there are a few exceptions, which is why that part of the guideline was worded in that way. Hard to justify using them when the country name is listed right next to the flag. The reader gets the information without the flag just as well without the flag. In the case of using them in military battle info boxes, the flag seems to be used in lieu of the country name, and is an example of where using only the country name would overwhelm the info box. In most international sports events, their is usually a list of countries within the text of the article, that use the flags. That is where they are appropriate, but not in the infobox. Even when the flag appears to be indicating the host country or the winner of the event. Just stating the country name does the trick.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Same as with the commanders, the infobox list people as well as countries, and it is important to know which country do they represent. In this case, "[flag] Name" is shorter and clearer than "Name (country name)" MBelgrano (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of an article in which are referring to? Because I'm not quite sure what you are trying to convey.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a perfect way of wording it. It lines out the reasons to make exceptions, rather than simply listing a few cases. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a fan of this version as it doesn't define anything. It still leaves open the ambiguity of their use and misuse, and basically allowing people to coninue to use any reason for having them in the info box, akin to I think their pretty, so they should stay.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Whereas you would prescribe "They don't look pretty at all, they should go". I concede that my amendment leaves the door far wider open than the original, but it does so for two good reasons. Firstly, we as a community of Wikipedians should not be making the place less appealing for casual editors to join in (so looking like we ban everything is not very attractive), and secondly there are better ways to make each segment of Wikipedia "work" than drawing up one-size-fits-all-rules. I will be happy to allow a "ban" on flag icons where they do not transmit anything else other than colour and shape from the screen. However, let's say the specific use of them on national disaster articles; it is now fairly common consensus that there is an "international reaction" section, which included national flags. They do so, I think, so people can guage which countries have expressed help or an opinion and which have not, acting as a summary and as an alternative visual design. They can be used constructively if used well, and that means one-size-fits-all policies might not be suitable here. doktorb _words^deeds 20:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually they look very stunning and very pretty. All that I was looking for was some sort of clarification on when they should be used and not used and whether or not some specific examples could be placed in the guideline. Obviously there appears to be unanimous support for military battle info boxes. There is some support for international competitions, which if not abused, I may be able to support. But many articles don't need to say United Kingdom or United States, when Great Britain or United States does the job in the info box, without giving undue prominence to one part of the info box than another.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Annika Sörenstam is an example of why they should not be used in infobox, two flags that just cause confusion. Is she Swedish or American? Is it being used for her birthplace against MOSFLAG is it her sporting nationality? Mo ainm~Talk 21:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  Its an example of a bad use but not a reason why they shouldn't be used. It's very simple to fix this issue as was done on hockey articles. You change the field in the infobox to be "National Team" or something along those lines instead of nationality. That way its very clear cut what it means. -DJSasso (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried but some people like their pretty flags. Mo ainm~Talk 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what useful information is conveyed by the many flag icons here? It's this sort of list I had in mind when I made my proposal. I think there's way too much wiggle room in the amended proposal. But I'm persuadable. Maybe I'm just too close to the matter. Just about everything in the longevity suite of articles on the wiki is bathed in vitriol and the assumption of bad faith. Fresh eyes would help. David in DC (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with David what use is served with the flagicons on that page? And their are many more like that. Mo ainm~Talk 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also going to stress that flag icons are a biased aspect for first-world countries. I would suspect most readers can id the flags of US, Canada, most Western Europe countries, Russia, China, Japan, and Australia with little problem, but as soon as you get to South or Central America, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of Oceania, most people will scratch their heads. Flag icons do not help identify the bulk of the world's countries over plain text, and simply weigh down most tables where they are used (excluding, of course, country articles). If flag recognition was more universal, I'd be all for these, but it is certainly not. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that flag icons in infoboxes should be more or less out unless there is a rare instance when the flag may convey information where the text may become obtrusive (the examples being given of listing battlefield commanders in battles might be one example). If there is any issue as to their meaning (does the flag represent citizenship?, country of birth?, country where they were employed?), then I find them obfuscating, and should not be used. Just my two bits. As for the bits about the World Cup, there may be some international tournaments were text in a bracket might be less preferred to a flag (especially when individual names are being given, as in Olympic events), but otherwise they are confusing. My two bits. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There has been some recent discussion at WT:MOSFLAG about a re-write of that guideline, and I'm glad to see a discussion here on the Village Pump instead of the repetitive bickering by the same crowd on that talk page. As someone who does a lot of maintenance work for WP:WikiProject Flag Template, I have seen many, many, applications of flag icons, covering a wide range on the spectrum from useful to stupid. My opinion can be stated as simple as:

Flag icons can be a useful navigation aid for browsing large lists or tables of items that each have a strong association with their respective nations, and especially when multiple items are associated with each nation. However, when used to identify singular items, such as individual infobox fields, they draw undue weight to that item and should therefore be removed. Flag icons are never appropriate inline with prose text, and should be used only with vertically-aligned tables or lists, if at all.

I think that statement actually describes current consensus reasonably well. Some examples:

Effective usage

• 2010 FIFA World Cup — makes it easier to find the results of a specific team out of the complete set of results
• Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race — makes it easier to find the times of multiple riders from the same country
• World War I — provides an effective way to associate the names in the "Commanders and Leaders" section of the infobox, and the numbers in the "Strength" section with the nations identified in the "Belligerents" section. Other techniques would not accomplish the same function within the space constraints of the infobox.

Semi-effective usage

• International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya — each country is listed once, and in alphabetical order, so flag icons don't improve the browsing experience significantly. Also, there is often a tendency to attach something to every item in those types of lists, so you see editors frequently putting logos etc. into non-national list entries that don't have flags.
• London#Twin cities — this is a fairly large list of twin cities (as far as these sections usually go), but the icons don't help identify the country easily. In fact, this list is awkward because the country name is omitted completely.

Ineffective usage

• Boston Herald — why is an icon necessary to highlight the "Headquarters" field in the infobox?
• National Hockey League — do the pair of flags say anything that "Canada" and "United States" don't already say? And to make matters worse, a screen reader would say "Canada Canada" because of the use of {{flagicon|Canada}} Canada}} instead of {{flag|Canada}} or just Canada
• Template:Central banks of the European Union — unnecessary decoration in the title bar of a navbox. Put an image inside the navbox (with the image= parameter) if it is directly relevant, or leave it out altogether.

Downright silly

• Miss America 1922 — because of the style used on international articles such as Miss Universe 2010, you have state flags being used on articles such as Miss America 2010, and this results in municipal flags used on the 1922 article.
• List of sovereign states in 1143 — because articles such as List of sovereign states in the 2000s use flags for contemporary nations, you have this attempt to find something to put in front of each medieval nation

I don't think we should ban flag icons outright; they serve a purpose similar to the increase/decease icons used in company articles like Ford Motor Company, or like the route diagram icons used in articles such as {{Eurostar}}. It's the over use of flag icons we're trying to contain, and I'd prefer to see a succinct guideline that addresses that problem, not an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on the cases above (even if they have consensus on the articles themselves), save for WWI, as the WWI shows the one place where flag icons make sense - they abbreviate names of countries to a visual image (and can be graceful alt-test degrades to abbreviations) where space is limited and including the full country name would bulk that up too much. Every other case, the flag icon is immediately duplicative of the country name it is next to, and/or there are no space limitations where the country name could not be spelled out. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point, but I find the icons help in sections such as 2010 FIFA World Cup#Round of 16 and below, where the team names appear in two columns with several lines of text between each match entry. It's easier to find Brazil's results, for example, with a visual scan for the flag instead of the text only. For lists where the entries are vertically adjacent, methods such as sortable tables could be used to assist the reader in finding all entries for a given country. (This would be my suggestion on List of living supercentenarians, to address User:David in DC's comments above.) But I am certainly convinced of the non-value (indeed, negative value) of singular flags icons for the nationality field in a biographical infobox, the location_country field of {{Infobox company}}, or the origin field of {{Infobox musical artist}}, to cite several existing areas of flag icon "abuse". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Most modern browsers have a search feature, so if you're browsing for your specific team, that makes it easy. While I can understand the flags making it easy for some people to find info, text is universal. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I use a "modern browser", but many times I casually read Wikipedia articles using only a mouse that has a scroll wheel. In that mode, I don't want to type anything, just click and scroll. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to mo ainm: Yes, a few - List of the oldest verified people, List of the verified oldest men, List of the verified oldest women, List of oldest people in the world, List of oldest people by year of birth, List of oldest people by nation, List of oldest living people by nation, List of people with the longest marriages, List of oldest twins (PRODAfDpending closed as "Keep"), List of oldest dogs, List of verified supercentenarians who died before 1980, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1980s, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1990s, List of Japanese supercentenarians (flags by Japanese prefecture), List of Swiss supercentenarians (flags by Swiss canton). My listing is representative, but by no means comprehensive. David in DC (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And we have a few people fighting tooth and nail about those, among other equally silly MoS non-issues (primarily involving WP:MOSBOLD). A clearer proposal, like MOSBOLD, would make it far easier to simply be done with it. I like some of the wording above, and I also think that Masem pretty well summed it up; within certain military articles, the flags can be a useful shorthand, but elsewhere they're redundant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The only test people need to apply when tweaking MOSFlag wording is to think of a situation where it's not clear in text alone if 'Ireland' refers to Ireland or Ireland. If it stands up in that case, it's fine for all. If it doesn't, prepare for a lot of butthurt and unresolved ANI reports. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS FLAG Wording Revised

I think that after reading some of the most recent comments, the meaning of my question may have gotten lost. My question was what were the exceptions to MOS:FLAG in the info boxes and how can we reword the guideline to make the exceptions more clear. There were two good proposals introduced above. The second, brought forward by Doktorb, was a reworded proposal of the earlier proposal. Given that there seems to be 100% support for Template:Infobox military conflict as an exception and there appears to be near 100% support for Template:Infobox international football competition and other like minded international competions such as the Olympic Games, those should be given as examples to the guideline. So I took the original wording of the guideline and merged it with a reworded version of Doktorb's wording and then added a few example exceptions, to come up with this:

Generally, flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey additional or complimentary information in addition to the text. They are disfavored in navigation boxes and should, in most cases, be subject to discussion on their use on an case-by-case basis rather than simply inserted. Flag icons can be accepted as alternatives to bullet points within the text of the article, in order to draw readers attention to specific content, acting too as a shorthand tool. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used or used counter to WP:POINT issues tangential to the articles and lists to which the icons are affixed.

Acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games.

Does anyone have a problem with these exceptions? Hopefully this will make it more clear as to what articles are acceptable exceptions to the guideline and should cut down on some edit warring. They should not ever be used in biography infoboxes such as Annika Sörenstam, and the guideline already says that are forbidden in those situations.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would go further and say that flag icons should not be used except in certain circumstances which are listed above. IMO generally is to open.Mo ainm~Talk 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; remove the "generally". That's the kind of vagueness that will lead to endless wikilawyering; as both David in DC and I will tell you, in the area where we've been dealing with this (longevity), there's plenty of that already. The whole purpose here is to remove any ambiguity, not reword it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I change it from As a rule of thumb to generally hoping to at least give some sort of definition but to appease those who don't like the one size fist all type of guidelines, but I agree that generally will still bring about some arguments as to the meaning. I think that there still is a good definition without theword generally, so it can be removed altogether.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with "generally". And may I first of all apologise for what now looks like a bit of a dummy-spit earlier on, for we are now having the kind of discussion I thought would not occur initially. doktorb _words^deeds 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read through this debate, I agree: strike the "generally" from your proposal, and I'd Support it. Much clearer & more concise. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool with that.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have less issue with the "generally" (it doesn't hurt to restate that guidelines aren't hard-and-fast rules) and am a little wary of over-legislating exceptions (that's what leads to wikilawyering more than anything else). For the navbox passage, the bit about a case-by-case basis should say added or removed, not just added, lest an editor who use this as justification to remove them when a discussion to include them has already occurred. In short, the decision should be local to the navbox talk page. oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think over-legislating exceptions is a big problem because that leads to wikilawyering. It does bear repeating that a guideline is just that, a guideline, so no matter what is said on the page, it can (and will) likely be ignored in cases where people consider the use to help the wiki. So I believe repeating the word generally or rule of thumb is very important to get that across to people that think that when it says you shouldn't do something on a guideline that it doesn't mean its a hard and fast rule. Personally I think doktorb's wording above is the best of the three so far. Gets across the spirit of the guideline without over legislating. Guidelines need to be flexible. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not limit this to infoboxes. It's a huge problem on longevity lists and tables, and I promise, if the rewording seems to be only about infoboxes, it will not help in the area BNL and I are working on. I understand that the original proposal was about infoboxes, but I hope my non-exhaustive list of lists above provides impetus to make MOSFLAG about more than infoboxes. I agree with the war-related and sports-related exceptions, btw. One whole problem with the longevity suite of articles is the treatment of longevity qua contest, complete with title-holders, record-breakers, incumbents and all of the language associated with competition, as if old folks are pitted against one another in a tournament whose crowning "achievement" is staving off death longer than one another.

Also, please look at the lists and tell me if you think I'm off my rocker to be concerned about this. Maybe I'm too close to it. If so, please pick up the nearest trout and use it for the purpose trout were invented. David in DC (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit intrigued by the idea that flagicons are distracting - are we catering for readers with sight issues? If so, fair enough, but otherwise, it seems ridiculous. I don't really like flagicons and I think they're generally overused, but they're not by any stretch distracting to the eye. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Distraction, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some may be able to look beyond the fact that this color is glaring up at them and just daring them not to look at that part of the info box, but most people, I imagine, can not. Even so, distraction in itself would not be a reasom for simply keeping them out of info boxes. There is the fact that they give undue prominence to a single portion of the info box and the information that they convey could be easily done with words, not pictures.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can point to a few different places off the top of my head where these are problems in longevity lists; I'd be more than happy to. Also, though I'm well aware that we shouldn't worry about performance, having giant amounts of flag icons severely slows the loading time; it's not just my computer, it's all the ones I've been using. There's nothing it communicates more effectively than having the text, except it takes up a lot more space and presents periodic nationalist problems. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

←I disagree with that wording. The problem isn't "icons in infoboxes"; the problem is singular flag icons that draw undue weight to individual fields in infoboxes. (And by "singular", I'd also include a pair used for dual-nationality, for example.) As a counter-argument, I'd point out the example of {{Infobox language}}, where lists of nations are commonly listed with icons (e.g. Portuguese language, French language, etc. — you may have to toggle the hide/show link). And the {{Infobox military conflict}} usage (except in silly cases) seems to be acceptable. I repeat my suggestion from the previous section:

Flag icons can be a useful navigation aid for browsing large lists or tables of items that each have a strong association with their respective nations, and especially when multiple items are associated with each nation. However, when used to identify singular items, such as individual infobox fields, they draw undue weight to that item and should therefore be removed. Flag icons are never appropriate inline with prose text, and should be used only with vertically-aligned tables or lists, if at all.

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with those who question the use of the word "generally", since it is a guideline, it is not so big a deal (can guidelines exist without exception?) That being said, I approve. I think a short list of the more common exceptions are good (even if it needs to be expended on from here). The examples might lead to a little wikilawyering, but I think more than that, the examples serve as a guideline that helps to guide consensus among the more logical editors. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the wording in most cases, but there should be important exceptions e.g. battle infoboxes to indicate the country of origin of the commanders and also infoboxes about major geographical features or other fixed objects where the flag indicates the country in which the object is located, when it is IMHO useful to be able to quickly identify that a mountain or river or dam is in Germany and not Austria etc. Location is a major field, if not the major field for fixed objects and hence often included in the first sentence: "XXX is a mountain in Switzerland". --Bermicourt (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"When used to identify singular items... they draw undue weight to that item..." - even if one accepts the idea that a small flag draws the bewildered reader's wandering eye like a magnet, why is the weight drawn to that item undue? Many people (not I, particularly) would argue that a sportsperson's nationality is one of the most important elements in an infobox. And so what if they look at that first? Does it mean that they won't look at the other fields? Does it mean that reading the article becomes troublesome because of that glaring flag? If so, then it follows that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere. A lot of this stuff seems a bit arbitrary on the account of a few editors, and is verging on a big fuss over nothing. Endless flags in lists (like the longevity lists) and multiple repeated flags in tables and infoboxes should be removed. Flags in prose are an abomination. But a single flag in an infobox is a long way from being a serious problem. Also, it's a mystery to me how the battle infobox flags are deemed OK, when, just like any other infobox, they could be easily replaced by the name of the country. The arguments for removing flags from infoboxes are instantly defeated when one allows them in certain cases, quite against the arguments made for removing them in other cases. Suddenly 8-10 or more flags in a battle infobox aren't distracting and don't draw undue weight to those fields?

Furthermore, how on earth does this "visual distraction" square with the phrase: Flag icons can be accepted as alternatives to bullet points within the text of the article, in order to draw readers attention to specific content, acting too as a shorthand tool.? Why are these "bullet points" permitted to "draw undue weight" and be a big distraction, glaring up at them, daring them not to look at the rest of the article? Why is nationality in an infobox not "specific content"? These arguments are full of holes. I think guidelines should be aimed at discouraging or banning multiple flagicon use without stressing over single flagicon use, which in most cases, only amounts to one per article, and over which almost nobody outside this debate makes any fuss. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors have made the reader who scan, quicker to recognised argument. Can anyone actually prove this? Gnevin (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't. But I do know that, for me, it distracts. And it imparts no additional information. David in DC (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Although this began as just a question of use in the info boxes, a few others have voiced concerns over other uses, (ie: Navboxes, lists, prose.) All of which are legitimate concerns and should be discussed and addressed. For the time being, however, there has been enough time for anyone who may have wanted to comment here, to do so. The changes that seem to already have support should be made, and if those wishing to to add or subtract from that, or begin discussing other uses of MOS:FLAG, are free to do so, if they so desire.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that enough people here agree with you, so this piece of rubbish can pass, and that you don't need to answer any of the objections I made. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it appeared that you made what looked less like objections, than suggestions that no one else appeared to jump on with you, although no one seemed to disagree with any of them either. If there are additions or subtractions to what you would like to discuss, then please state them civilly and clearly please.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not suggesting I'd be uncivil. I think the last paragraph of my large post contains several objections, not least to the glaring contradiction regarding the visual distraction element of the flagicon, vis-a-vis the "drawing readers attention to specific content" element. Anyone wishing to object to the guideline could drive a bus through that argument, regardless of the flag's position in the article. I'd also point out that the visual distraction argument is baseless outside this discussion. Where is the wider objection to infobox flags? The "readers who scan" argument was dismissed as baseless in a very similar way, I imagine because it suits the majority of participants in this discussion.

With regard to the actual wording of the proposed guideline, does it actually matter since a guideline can be ignored if a local consensus dictates? Or am I wrong in that? To allow exceptions such as the battle infobox clearly allows for argument in the future when someone (or a group of editors) decides that their case should also be an exception. Either the flags are distracting or they aren't - yet this proposed guideline dictates that they're 'sometimes distracting'. If you want this thing to have any teeth at all, it needs to be tightened up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the wording either. The sensible and restrained use of flags in infoboxes and elsewhere should be permitted. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's better than stupid and unrestrained use! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: scanning—International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya shows the effectiveness of flags for scanning and finding particular countries, at least for me personally. I suspect that we could go into "a strong association with their respective nations" a bit more clearly. Rather than just cases where one nation has multiple instances, flags are also useful when states are the relevant actors or when individuals, teams, or organizations are acting on behalf of their nation (such as in the Olympics). We could counterbalance text on this usefulness with text saying highlighting national origins in other cases (such as List_of_Nobel_Laureates_in_Physics) may be inappropriate.--Carwil (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That article doesn't even have an infobox. How is that relevant to this proposal?--JOJ ^Hutton 03:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the Libya example, but I do like Carwil's suggested wording "individuals, teams, or organizations are acting on behalf of their nation" as a supplement to "Examples of acceptable exceptions..."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference between additional information and complimentary information as used in the new wording?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be a difference, I'll revise the wording to make it more concise.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of flags in longevity lists

It's hard to argue against sensibility or restraint. I seek advice about whether the use of flag icons is sensible or restrained in these (and many other similar) longevity-related lists: List of the oldest verified people, List of the verified oldest men, List of the verified oldest women, List of oldest people in the world, List of oldest people by year of birth, List of oldest people by nation, List of oldest living people by nation, List of people with the longest marriages, List of oldest twins, List of oldest dogs, List of verified supercentenarians who died before 1980, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1980s, List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1990s, List of Japanese supercentenarians (flags by Japanese prefecture), List of Swiss supercentenarians (flags by Swiss canton).

In case it's not apparant, I explicitly disclose that I don't think so. David in DC (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree with that - there's nothing sensible or restrained about this flag usage. This is the kind of thing that should be concentrated on. I've argued for removal of flags in similar cases, and found that the majority of people agree. A single flag in a sportsperson's infobox is not in the same league. Let's deal with the gross overusage. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's been a recent ArbCom case about the longevity suite of articles. The World's Oldest People WikiProject has been advised to seek guidance from uninvolved, seasoned editors. These flag icons have been a very contentious issue. Fresh eyes, whether they belong to editors who agree or disagree with me are sorely needed. If BNL or I start deleting these flag icons, it would be nice to have some previously uninvolved eyes watching, to provide reality-checks when sparks start to fly. They will. David in DC (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me know where and when and I'd be happy to argue for the flagicons' removal, as I have no previous involvement with those articles. Those other editors here that are against flagicon proliferation would do well to join in too - that way something concrete can hopefully be achieved at article level or WikiProject level, rather than the kind of guideline talking shop that we see here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gettin' typer's cramp working on just one page. I agree with BB that we should take a break from arguing theory and work together where we have consensus to make a concrete improvement. Do we have consensus? If so, please find a page and dig in. David in DC (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying let's abandon debate and all those on one side (i.e. who don't like flags) should now attack pages they don't approve. Is that really how Wikipedia is meant to work? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, Bermicourt has made a very valid point since policy has not been changed YET through a formal consensus process, not through discussions. First, I'm a recent longevity editor so I'm quite interested in any discussions about longevity. So that's how I just came across here and see this discussion going on for days. Personally, I actually have no problems removing flags from lists that David in DC have listed above; after all, as many have stated, since the country name is mentioned next to the flag icon, it becomes redundant.

I just think that we should be assuming good faith by some previous longevity editors that they probably just wanted to indicate country of birth or country of death for an entry on the list, so some young editors just wanted to put a flag icon there. They probably would have liked to limit country to the icon only, rather than text as well, but they may have been restricted to following this guideline: accompanying flags with country names. As mentioned by someone else, flag icons are unfortunately not universal and not many of us would recognize flags from 3rd-nation countries. So I do support the removal of flag icons from most lists on Wikipedia. I only ask that the guideline be changed via consensus so I can defend the removal of flag icons to the other editors -- just linking them to this ongoing discussion does no good. Regards, CalvinTy 12:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@Bermi: No, I'm saying that, as to many of the longevity lists and bios, especially those restricted to living people, WP:FLAGBIO needs no updating to justify the removal of the indiscriminate use of flag icons. And that, further, working together on a project that already has the current guideline and consensus on its side would be a good way to build, rather than just assume, good faith. (I note that CT agrees that the icons should go, he just thinks policy needs updating first, so he's on more solid ground when advocating their removal.) Please see also my comments on the recent edit history of the List of living supercentenarians, here. David in DC (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about what we are actually defining here - a policy we can agree on, or a policy to suit or prejudices. The removal of flag icons from the majority of articles, which seems to be the mood music here, would render many completely text-based, less visually appealing and importantly less likely to involve readers and editors into exploring other parts of the project. List articles are problematic /anyway/ regardless of whether they include icons. It is common practice in media to attach national flags to country names, which is the basis for including them here in most cases I would imagine. doktorb _words^deeds 04:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Longevity list proposal

I've made a proposal here. Please join the discussion. David in DC (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Prior disclosure of information vs outing

If an individual who has engaged in long term sockpuppetry and harassment of other editors previously disclosed their name under one of their early accounts, would it be safe as far as WP:OUTING goes to discuss and link to this information for the purposes of a WP:LTA entry? WP:OUTING states: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." so it would seem to be ok, but I'd like to make certain. In the specific case I'm working through, it was also possible to verify their name against several static IPs that they edited with which were owned by this individual's former employer. This individual would often switch between editing with an account and editing with these IPs and then back to an account while edit warring. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be okay; we do similar things for WP:LOBU. You might think about whether WP:Don't be evil applies for posting real names.

Also, I wonder if WP:ABUSE might consider contacting the employer, rather than the ISP—not to get the person in trouble, but to report the fact of long-term abuse emanating from the corporate network, and suggest that it might be time to consider for a security audit, and possibly to turn off their users' ability to edit Wikipedia (e.g., causing the proxy server to drop any URLs that contain both wikipedia.org and ?action=submit; this would let people read Wikipedia, but not edit pages). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He has long since vacated those particular IPs and that company no longer exists (however it all fits the same geolocation pattern). The past account with which he disclosed his name he last used in Aug 2008 with one more edit in Jan 2009. His next account he created in June 2008 which was used along with tons of throw-away socks and IPs until that account was indef'd. I've linked this guy to tons of IPs and accounts. He tends to drop an account after getting sanctioned, but always returns to his previous patterns after awhile. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Null edit to make disparaging comments

I feel this is completely inappropriate, especially since the editor does not seem interested in having any kind of normal communication. However the editor appears brand new, so maybe I am over reacting. Would anyone like to let them know that that is not nice? Or at least point me to a more appropriate board? Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that this is not at all the right board, but it seemed to trivial for AIV or ANI or any of that. Beach drifter (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Wikiquette alerts would be the usual place for this sort of thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I was suppressed the disruptive edit summaries from the George R. R. Martin article. –MuZemike 21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

<pedant>That's a dummy edit. Null edits don't leave an edit summary.</pedant>--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhg, I had always thought they were called null edits but then finally found WP:Dummy. Beach drifter (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Coloring of navigation boxes

I would appreciate any comments at Template talk:Omaha#Orange. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Meta-Verifiability

Historical topics are, in their own way, somewhat similar to our Verifiability policy. When historians say something, they say so (or should say so) based on primary sources, such as documents, government or institution records, press of the time, personal mails or memoirs, laws or decrees, quotes, etc. Of course, the interpretation of primary sources is not lineal, and historians may sometimes disagree in some things (primary sources may be incomplete, inaccurate, contradictory with other sources, taken out of context, extrapolated beyond what they can actually verify, biased, or even forged); but in the end, all of them must cite their sources.

But sometimes, a history book may say something and do not cite any source for that. It may be a divulgative work rather than the result of an actual historical research, the historian may have focused his work at some other details, or may use an argument from authority ("this is so, because I say so"), an appeal to tradition ("this is so, because it has always been assumed to be so"), or may also use Ad hominem ("X was said by Y, Y is of questionable reputation, therefore X must be false"), an appeal to novelty ("this has always been assumed to be so, therefore it must be incorrect") or other logical fallacies.

My question is, if we have a reliable source that says X and cites sources to justify X, and another reliable source that says Y and doesn't cite anything to justify Y, should we describe a dispute between X and Y, or just mention X? Cambalachero (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It likely depends on the perception of being an expert in the field between X and Y. If X is an expert, and Y is a nobody, then yes, that point is trivial. If X and Y are both regarded as equals, then both viewpoints should be discussed neutrally. -MASEM (t) 23:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific situation you have in mind, or is this just general? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What to do when one editor says his source is an expert, and the other guy's expert is "fringe"? This, by the way, appears to be the rule and not the exception in some areas. Collect (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the answer to your question is "yes." That is, sometimes the text of the article should describe the discrepancy (not "dispute") between X and Y, sometimes the text should mention X but a footnote should describe what the other source says, and sometimes the article should just mention X. It depends on the nature of the topic that the sources disagree on, as well as the credibility of the two sources. --Orlady (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a question on any specific topic. The problem is that the historiography of Argentina is a bit particular: when it was first written in the late XIX century, it worked upon a number of postulations, taken as truth "as is", and in the XX century it gets divided into those who repeat the original postulations, by tradition, and historians that find many primary sources that contest those initial postulations. For example, one of those postulations was that the people involved in the historical period that made Argentina independent from Spain were separatist from the very begining. New evidence points that they initially wanted to replace the absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy, but remaining Spanish, and that the idea of independence grew with time and influenced by the ongoing developments. So, we have: a mainstream idea, based in tradition, and a "revisionist" idea, based on specific primary sources cited by the authors, which also have academic recognitions (not an easy case of expert vs. perfect stranger, and yes, I have read many authors from both sides). If I chose by the evidence each one gives to justify their claims, as I was reviewing the verifiability of a wikipedia article, I would go for the modern view, but the other is still traditional and mainstream, so I can't simply put it aside either Cambalachero (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly you can't be the first to note the discrepency between the two schools of thought in Argentinian history. Likely, some reliable scholar has stated the discrepency between the two schools, and has explained the source of the discrepency, exactly like you have above. What is wrong with citing that scholar in attempting to show the situation as it exists? --Jayron32 04:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Outing issue

Hi guys, just a quick query, not related to any issue I'm involved in or anything, just something I've been pondering really - I've had a read of WP:OUTING and WP:COI, and am still unsure, so here goes. Imagine I stumble across an article on an obscure Polish sculptor called Gucktar Wfrankovic, and in the edit history find GWfrank27 (talk · contribs) has been editing. COI alarm bells are obviously ringing - but would it be considered outing to say to the editor in question "I know you're Wfrankovic"? Would it be considered outing to ask the editor in question "Are you Wfrankovic?" Or would I have to wait for Wfrankovic to identify himself before raising COI concerns? Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not outing to ask whether he is Wfrankovic and its not outing to point out the similarity between his username and the article's subject. It's also not outing if you can find someplace where an article's subject publicly associates himself with a particular Wikipedia username and then point out the COI. Whether you should go ahead and raise questions of COI in this case can only be answered by you, since each case is different. Some users just choose usernames based off of their interests (which they are likely to then edit), but for biographies it is usually pretty likely that some sort of COI is involved. Even if the editor isn't the articles subject, the editor may still be closely related (a publicist, for example). Besides the COI connection you should also look at the article's quality. Articles written from a promotional angle need cleaned up or deleted regardless of who writes them. ThemFromSpace 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, many thanks, you've cleared it up for me. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Signatures

I would like to propose an amendment to the signatures guideline that relaxes the rules on transclusion of signatures. There are three reasons given against this in the guideline (slightly summarised).

1. Signature templates are vandalism targets
2. Bots archiving talk pages don't recognise them as signatures
3. When the signature is amended every page it appears on must be re-cached

I propose that reasons 1 and 3 be addressed by forbidding any amendment to the template after it is first used and requiring that the template page must be permanently protected by an administrator before its first use. The user is, of course, free to create a new template at a later date but all existing signatures up to that time remain locked. I am not sure what the issue with bots is. If it is that they require a time/date stamp then a requirement to include five (non-transcluded) tildes in the sig should solve that.

The advantage of transclusion is that complicated signatures with lots of mark-up do not clutter talk pages. Mine for instance, makes a complete mess of the page in edit view when I have made multiple posts to a thread but it is only 13 characters of visible text. Even so, I can't manage to work in a link to my talk page. SpinningSpark 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think an additional problem is that 120 templates of any description on a long talk page is going to cause server kitty issues... - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that likely to happen? I'm not imaging large numbers of editors to take this up. SpinningSpark 20:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Of couse, this specific page, at the moment I write this, has 187 signatures (188 with my own) Cambalachero (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I can easily imagine WP:AN or WP:ANI coming to a crawl.
Personally, I don't like this, in small part because I see no reason to allow it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad Idea ^_TM ΔT ^{_{The only constant}} 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is no impending need for this. If you care to create a cute signature which is short on code and long on personality, fine (as most of us here have). But there's absolutely no good reason I can see to change the current rules, except "I want to do it". I would oppose any such change. This would open the backdoor to rediculously and convoluted signature codes, and serves no greater purpose towards building the encyclopedia. --Jayron32 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• The solution to the problem with your signature is pretty obvious, and requires no action by anyone but you. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Should passing WP:RFA be a prerequisite for being granted CU or OS rights ?

The question has been raised occasionally, and as of now it's not a requirement, but recent events brought this back on the table, and subsequent discussion indicate that a clarification on the issue would be desirable. The question of this RFC is: Should adminship, obtained via WP:RFA, be a requirement for being granted checkuser or oversight rights by the arbitration committee ? This excludes CU/OS rights acquired through arbcom elections (this would have to be considered in another RFC). Cenarium (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Actually, let's make this much simpler:

1. Is adminship a pre-requisite for appointment to advanced permissions?

2. If adminship is not a pre-requisite for appointment to advanced permissions, how shall non-admin functionaries be given the ability to view deleted revisions?

• a) adding the necessary permissions to checkuser and oversight bundles
• b) creating a new userright that includes the viewdeleted permissions
  

Risker (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that we leave question 2. for later as it would be a valid question in either case since 1. should exclude arbs. Cenarium (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, election to adminship or the Arbitration Committee should be a requirement for access to CU/OS access and the functionaries list—rather than allowing the ArbCom to appoint anyone it chooses—for two reasons: (1) the fewer eyes are on a candidate, the greater the chance of an error being made; and (2) the tools should be handed out only if needed, and an editor who isn't an active admin working in areas where they're useful, or isn't member of the ArbCom, has no need for them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Adminship is not an election, or so we keep being told. More particularly, there is nothing in the RFA process that vets users as potential checkusers or oversighters. Do I take it from your comments that you have no objections to having the toolkit realigned so that there is no barrier to non-admin arbitrators? Risker (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please leave the toolkit for anther RFC, it's not urgent in any case and risks conflating the issues. Cenarium (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Risker, I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it. We've never had a non-admin elected to ArbCom. If we do, the community would be saying it had no objections to that person being given CU/OS access too (Foundation rules permitting). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to Cenarium on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard, since the community hadn't explicitly been asked if it was okay to change the toolkits, we'd have to go through this then. Better to discuss this once and get it over with. Risker (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See cmt above, it's better to clarify the policy issue first. The technical issue remains in either case. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note about the RfC bot: I believe it posts everything before the first signature, so anything after that won't be part of the RfC. I've therefore moved Risker's comment into the next section. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No it's not okay, and I have reverted you. I agree there is value in having an RFC about this, but it is very disrespectful to the community to force them to have to revisit issues over and over. Risker (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's a bot issue. The RfC will be posted elsewhere as the post before the first signature. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved Risker's cmt because I don't see how it makes things simpler to have three questions instead of one, not mention what 'advanced permission' means, or 'functionaries', 'view-deleted', etc. Cenarium (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because it would be best to discuss it once, rather than two or three times? Could we move this to a separate page? The village pump's purpose should typically be to point to (or transclude) the relevant discussion, not to house it entirely. –xeno^talk 02:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No, there are level headed, thoughtful, experienced users that I'd be more than willing to trust with advanced permissions that simply won't run through RfA. He might kill me for using him as an example, but I think of Chzz in these situations. Chzz is a highly dedicated and competent user, AfC would probably disintegrate into mush without him, he runs several smaller operations which most people will never see but which do a lot of good for the project, and he'll just about help anyone with anything if you ask him too. In short, he's an ideal wikipedian. He, however, is too afraid of the monster that RfA has become to go through it. Wikipedia shouldn't prevent good, talented people from acquiring advanced permissions just because they don't feel a desire to run through hell week. Being a checkuser is more about technical knowledge than it is about being able to protect pages. Serving on a committee to investigate abuse is more about trusting the committee members than it is about blocking. Admin and AUSC or CU are totally different things. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• No While RfA is certainly one vetting option, ArbCom is entirely capable and willing to vet non-administrator candidates for the advanced tools, provide the vetted candidates for a period of community feedback as long as an RfA, and select only candidates who have a level of community support consistent with the gravity of the permissions being delegated. Likewise, there are plenty of Admin functions which are unnecessary for an AUSC community member, and might even bias their objectivity, leading to the perception that the insiders are policing their own. There is no particular reason why Checkuser, for example, which has nothing to do with edits, should be handed exclusively to the same people who have been chosen for their willingness to hand out blocks, protect pages, and delete articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• And how would arbcom alone be able to vet candidates equally well as all the community plus arbcom ? The more eyes, the better. Moreover, the community participation in the AUSC and CU/OS appointments process is marginal, there's been only a few comments by candidates, see below for statistics. Also, AUSC doesn't 'police' admins, it 'polices' CU/OS, AUSC members themselves have CU/OS, and furthermore every arb has CU/OS rights, so the insiders are in any case choosing their own policers, and policing their own. Cenarium (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• The community is no less able to vet candidates for advanced priveleges simply because we hold the discussion at a page without the prefix Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/. For the most recent appointment process, we accepted comments from the community of any form, transmitted by any method - editors could have even lined up along Support/Oppose lines if they wanted to. If you have suggestions on how to increase community participation with a view to providing additional meaningful feedback about the candidates, do not hesitate to let us know. –xeno^talk 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's a progress that you make the suggestion. I recognize that there is a social argument for not requiring admin rights. The problem with the appointment is that arbs would still make the final decision. Users aren't inclined to participate because their participation has no clear weight on the final decision. A possibility would be to have a confirmation vote, i.e. users need a majority of support to be confirmed as candidate, but the comparative results between confirmed candidates doesn't bind in any way the final appointments by arbcom. This incitement would provide for more participation, and therefore scrutiny, comments. Regarding AUSC, I think they should be elected during the arbcom elections. Cenarium (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well that's just it - arbitrators will always be making the final decision on CU/OS, per Foundation-wide policy. I would not be happy to learn that a significant number of people are withholding relevant comments on the candidates because they think their comments will be ignored or not have a meaningful impact on the result: this is simply not the case. –xeno^talk 02:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• The WMF policy allows for community selection if desired, but I don't think it's best. I think the community should participate more, the current practice marginalizes the community participation. What do you think of a confirmation vote ? Arbcom would still make the final appointments, but it would entice for more community participation. Cenarium (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Votes" traditionally have not provided meaningful feedback to either the candidate or the committee, but I'd like to explore these ideas separately ahead of the next appointment process - especially if significant numbers of editors feel the current process marginalizes community participation (of this, I am not convinced) –xeno^talk 03:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, because also passing RFA provides greater scrutiny and feedback. RFAs have revealed evidence of sockpuppetry, copyright violation, and other difficultly identifiable inappropriate behavior. Checkusers and oversighers have had their rights stripped by arbcom because of sockpuppetry and other inappropriate behavior, all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that the granting of CU/OS is made with the highest possible standards. CU/OS work is also similar to admin work, just more sensitive, how a user uses admin tools can help in determining if the user would use CU/OS well. You become trusted when you're scrutinized enough and nothing is found that can make you untrustworthy. CU/OS is so highly sensitive that it requires a high level of trust, so we should ensure that candidates are scrutinized enough. RFA is an imperfect process, but it helps in providing scrutiny, the AUSC or CU/OS appointment process alone is not sufficient, as currently practiced it doesn't invite much community participation, RFA has been consulted 4 times more than the AUSC appointments page during the community consultation period [1][2]. Of course plenty of non-admins are trustworthy, but we shouldn't think that the AUSC or CU/OS appointment process are in any way less daunting than RFA, arbs ask you private questions, you need to identify to the WMF which is a significant step, people can ask questions and comment on you in public. There are also practical reasons, in order to perform their work efficiently, oversighters need to be able to delete pages. Cenarium (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm, everyone who has had checkuser or oversight permissions removed was an administrator. Risker (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, what this shows is that even with all the scrutiny that RFA provides then that Arbcom and other users provide, we still have issues. So we need to use the highest reasonable standards, which includes requiring RFA. Cenarium (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest it reflects more on the fact that being an administrator and being a good checkuser/oversighter are not related issues. Risker (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone finds evidence that the user has sockpuppets, then it doesn't matter that he's a CU/OS or admin, he should have all rights removed. Cenarium (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Cenarium, I believe you are doing a disservice to the few users who have had the checkuser/oversight permissions removed on this project. I've been involved in all of these removals, I think, and I don't recall any that involved sockpuppetry. I believe you are thinking about another project. Risker (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That was an example of difficultly identifiable behavioral issue, not implying anything. To clarify, of course the rights are different, but all require common standards. Greater scrutiny can provide for more likelihood to detect difficultly identifiable behavior (such as sockpuppetry, copyvios, etc), and even if the appointment process were improved considerably, the appointment process + RFA would be better. Cenarium (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There's so much wrong with this that I'm not sure where to start. The economic concepts of diminishing returns and opportunity cost are relevant here. More and more hoops to jump through will not necessarily produce better appointments, and could even make them worse by limiting the pool of potential candidates. I would also say that CU and OS, which require users to reveal their real-world identities and provide for easy removal of privileges, already provide a superior process to RFA. Good + bad != better. And I'll stop there because otherwise I'll go all TLDR. --RL0919 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No. Requiring admin status to get other rights is the exact opposite of the direction we should be going. We already have too many responsibilities bundled into a single status that supposedly is "no big deal". Many voters in ArbCom elections already exercise an implicit requirement of adminship for ArbCom membership (sometimes explicit, as shown in some voter guides), and now we're talking about effectively imposing this as a requirement for Audit Subcommittee appointment. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. A stable long-term governance structure requires separation of the various responsibilities and authorities involved, so that there are some checks and balances. We should be demanding that ArbCom and AUSC members give up their admin bits (if they possess them when appointed) to eliminate the blatant opportunities for bias and conflict of interest that exist in wearing multiple hats. Now I'm not expecting that anytime soon, but at the very least we can avoid throwing even more weight into the admin role and not make it a mandatory gateway to other rights. If greater community scrutiny is desired for CU and OS permissions, then we should address that directly by altering the processes for those appointments, although frankly I'm not seeing the pressing need for that. --RL0919 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed, administrator has never been a requirement for advanced privileges and I don't see why we should start making it one now. I actually tried to give up my administrative rights at one point, but they are currently required for my duties as a bureaucrat due to objections raised to a simple technical change. I think what some administrators are forgetting is that not everyone wants to be an administrator; and further, that not everyone wants to be an administrator forever. This does not make them untrustworthy people. The fact that it is currently a technical requirement for the proper functioning of other privileges should be remedied. –xeno^talk 01:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Sensitive tools require very trustworthy people. Such 'powers' incentivize faking identities; people have subtle personality issues. We need many eyes to help spot early warnings. I do like the separation of powers idea. I'm primarily concerned with there being a stringent vetting process; if there were a separate process with participation and standards higher than RFA, that might be OK. However, requiring existing adminship is a great way to increase scrutiny, so everyone can see how they act with admin tools. IMO "So-and-so can't pass RFA but should get more-sensitive-than-adminship powers" argument is weak: if the community doesn't trust someone with adminship than why give them greater powers? While ArbCom might have better judgment than the broader community sometimes, going against the community's wishes itself is a bad idea. ArbCom would have to put in an incredible amount of work to equal the number of eyes something like WP:RFA provides. Quarl ^(talk) 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No This is most definitely a social issue, as has been pointed out by Arbitration Committee members, and just illustrates the division of opinion between administrators and non-administrators. As Risker pointed out in the other discussion, all of the users who have said yes so far are administrators themselves. I remember past discussions of this nature, such as the perennially shot down VandelFighter user right of being able to block users and not having to be an administrator. In those discussions, the majority of the opposition came from admins, because the passing of such would strip down the abilities that admins had to themselves and, thus, would bring them closer to the rest of the editors on Wikipedia. I am in full support of any divestiture of user rights so that they have to be individually applied for and are not a part of the admin package. It makes it so that there aren't so much different levels of users as there are users that work in specific fields and are trusted with the user right(s) that apply to those fields. Such a system would make much more sense and would be more appropriate, since it would make it so users didn't have rights that they never use, they would only have ones that they specifically applied for because they wished to use it in their everyday activities. It would help in the trust category because it's easier to show that a user is trustworthy for this certain right than for a user having to prove they are trustworthy for the smorgasbord of, mostly unused, user rights that admins currently have. Silverseren^C 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No - (edit conflict) a consensus view is that RfA is for use of admin tools. Hence is not just about "is this user trustworthy?" Wikipedia should be a level playing field whereever possible. Restricting roles to admins is not conducive to this pathway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  I would amplify this by saying that RFA does not prove trustworthiness. Never has and never could under anything like the current process. What RFA shows is that a significant portion of the community is already willing to trust the successful candidate, which is entirely different from showing them to be trustworthy. Trustworthiness is best proven by giving someone a role, and then closely watching what they do with it, with the option to take the role away if it doesn't work out. In this regard the process for CU and OS is far superior to RFA. --RL0919 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  Personally, I think the current RfA system has nothing to do with trust and instead has to do with how many users like the applying editor verses how many dislike them. This is why users that are active in contentious areas (and act perfectly well there) are rarely accepted as administrators, because the opposition in those contentious areas oppose their application. Silverseren^C 04:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No Adminship comprises a different set of rights than CU/OS and should be judged independently. As it's quite rare for non-admins to be granted CU/OS rights, this is not a major problem. I think ArbCom is competent enough to decide who should be given CU/OS permissions and who should not. And if we trust someone with CU/OS but not sysop, then there is a serious trust problem going on in the community. I think Risker's question, "If adminship is not a pre-requisite for appointment to advanced permissions, how shall non-admin functionaries be given the ability to view deleted revisions?", is more relevant. We could, of course, simply use the researcher flag for non-admins who will need to see deleted revisions, or just add viewdeleted to OS. Either makes sense to me and should not be a big deal. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  Co-opting "researcher" is not really a viable option as it does not contain 'deletedtext'. Adding the viewdeleted bits to oversight was the most sensible solution, and as such this is what was requested. –xeno^talk 03:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• No. Per longstanding policy, adminship is not a big deal.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If only said longstanding policy were more commonly adopted... Sven Manguard Wha? 06:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• No. ArbCom is trustworthy enough to hand out and remove tools from people as necessary. No need to turn these permissions into the clusterfuck that RFA has become (for the record I am an administrator). --Jayron32 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The unasked question is this: Does the Arbcom have the authority to make changes in the way that permissions are granted without any prior discussion with the community. I believe it does not or should not. This RfC should have occurred prior to the request for this change, and the Arbcom should practice transparency whenever confidentiality is not required.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Very strenuously no for reasons laid out at the "subsequent discussion" link. This has little to do w/ Arbcom's trustworthiness and everything to do with preventing further spread of "adminship" as a social super-user rather than a technical position. It does not suit WP:RFA to be turned into a catch all filter for every advanced permission on the wiki. Protonk (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• No. Could not have said it better than Protonk. --Pgallert (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• No, precisely per Protonk. I'll repeat Protonk's last sentence for emphasis: It does not suit RFA to be turned into a catch-all filter for every advanced permission on the wiki.—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• No, but...' Adminship should not be a prerequisite, though a non-admin functionary seems only marginally more useful than a chocolate teapot to me. What should be a prerequisite is some form of community scrutiny—be it RfA, an ArbCom election or some other vote or !vote. Inevitably, in an appointments process like the one used for AUSC (while light on drama, which was pleasant), the only people who comment are those who have strong opinions and I think the holders of permissions considered "higher" than adminship should be subject to the kind of scrutiny admins get at RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• No as far as prescriptive policy is concerned.
  I agree that all user groups should generally be self-sufficient. For that reason alone I support changing the user group setup to make this a reality.
  We can still discuss which usergroups are considered as social prerequisites before (s)elections. In my opinion, Bureaucrats and AUSC members do not need to be admin, while Arbcom members, CheckUsers, and Oversighters should be admins. However, I see no reason to actually codify a prescriptive policy: Consensus can change anyhow till the next (s)election, and since we will always get an implicit consensus if a non-admin is (s)elected for any advanced permission we do not need to decide this now. Any editor can still maintain their personal set of requirements and test in the (s)election whether consensus is on their side. In the selection that prompted this RfC, I explicitly considered and approved the non-admin candidate, presuming that the community would welcome the diversity in that auditory role (Boy was I wrong). If consensus in the feedback was with me, well, then there you have it.
  To give us the freedom and flexibility to actually focus on actual suitability of a candidate, without worrying about technical framework issues or predetermined requirements (this ad-hoc culture used to be a strength of Wikipedia), we need to change our user group setup accordingly. Amalthea 09:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)