Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

New proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

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

« Archives, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements

We have many stand-alone and embedded lists of political campaign endorsements (see for example, Category:2020 United States presidential election endorsements). The inclusion criteria of these lists are frequently debated, and the lists themselves subject to frequent additions based on unclear language published only on social media. This RfC attempts to create baseline inclusion criteria for such lists, which can be built upon as needed on article talk pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The scope of this RfC is on lists of endorsements of political campaigns, whether stand-alone or part of another article. It does not apply to endorsements discussed outside of lists.

There are three proposals for inclusion criteria, which should be evaluated separately (one does not depend on the others). (If you would like to add to this list, please start a separate thread rather than add to this one).

1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people or organizations.

Note on #1: Whether or not it is necessary for the person to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level

2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.

Note on #2: This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example.

3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

Note on #3: Expressions of support, use of particular hashtags, comments about donating to a campaign, and other forms of praise of a candidate is often included as an "endorsement". Support of this criterion would require the endorsement be explicit. In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof. Other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (for example, "I am campaigning for Candidate X" or "I am backing Candidate X").

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 1: Endorsements should be by notable people or organizations

• Support as per WP:LISTPEOPLE, et al. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support, ditto. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: this prevents laundry lists of non-notable people. I think whether or not this exempts certain people without their own articles, such as state-level legislators (currently the case on this article), should be determined on a per-article basis. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Helps prevent trivia lists and reduces potential BLP problems from ambiguous listings. Potential to override on a case-by-case basis if coverage under criterion #2 below is very strong, such as might occur with an unusual endorsement (cross-party, for example). --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per common sense: there should be no policy in which I can tweet out an endorsement of Vermin Supreme and be added to a list of endorsements. Both because who cares and for the respect of privacy of non-notable individuals. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, I have to disagree with this, though I support the sentiment. Vermin may be satirical, but so was George Carlin. Your background is as irrelevant as your given sex, taken without context. Intellectual communities, when not subject to obvious detailed public scrutiny, such as Wikipedia, often thrive on humour. Have you not allowed The Cabal to affect you here on Wikipedia? It's really down to notability and verifability. Vermin himself may or not be notable enough for this sort of thing, but when a personality like this is notable, they must be respected, or bias is institutionalised. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, dash of RFC, a sprinkling of neutrality, there. ~ R.T.G 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @RTG: I'll have you know that I don't even know what a mop is and can only make messes. But to my point, perhaps you misunderstand? Vermin Supreme is undeniably notable, however I am definitely not. If Vermin Supreme tweeted out an endorsement of me, that could be included in my list of endorsements because he is notable. If I tweet out an endorsement of Vermin Supreme, that should not be added to his list of endorsements. Essentially, while there is some wiggle room over whether twitter is a reliable source, that an endorsement is sourced is not sufficient for the endorsement to be included. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I thought you must be somehow trying to reject Supremes authority... Well I would point that point out if it is brought up. ~ R.T.G 12:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - a la LISTN, but I'm happy for additions from those without articles (most likely state/province level politician endorsements) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This aligns well with existing policy, and the type of information that an encyclopedia should include (WP:NOTEVERYTHING).- MrX 🖋 12:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - as above. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support but the usual wording for lists of people, is "have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one", and remember that every member of a state or national legislature is presumed to be entitled to a Wikipedia article, whether or not it has been written ,and this is among the strongest of our presumed notabilities--Icannot recall a single exception in the last 10 years. ; this also applies generally to mayors of cites with population > 100,000 or perhaps > 5000 ) , and members of city councils of the largest cities. This will include a very large proportion of the people who tend to be listed DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support under WP:CSC (first criterion, "Every entry meets the notability criteria") combined with the generally accepted rule of thumb that notability is not inherited. There are simply too many endorsements otherwise. — Newslinger talk 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per our various criteria for lists. If our contributors weren't so lazy, they'd develop prose within paragraphs. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - As stayed by others above, this fits with multiple existing policies and guidelines Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 2 in altenative That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I should think this is sine qua non, so long as the caveat stated by DGG is heeded. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I support adding all three of these proposals to a rule, though I consider this the least important one - if an reliable source reports someone supports, say, Jacinda Ardern, the person supporting will very likely be notable anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 08:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I just want to point out the oppose discussions alone are based on false premises - if the New York Times covers someone endorsing a particular candidate, that coverage would also likely count towards WP:GNG for the endorser, and that person would almost certainly be notable in that instance (WP:NOT aside. Furthermore, an anonymous op-ed should not be included unless it's the op ed of a specific reliable organisation - if my local paper ran an anonymous op ed, say for and against a candidate, that shouldn't be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, provided option 2 passes. I understand the thinking behind this proposal and why it has received so much support, but consider this in the context where the "independent reliable sources" requirement passes. This criterion would be used to argue that an endorsement that has received substantial coverage but which is from someone not otherwise considered notable should not be listed; I don't agree with that. We should report any endorsement that has received significant secondary coverage, and should not second-guess sources by saying "sure, the NYT covered this endorsement, but they were wrong to do so because this guy isn't notable." If criterion 2 fails I would reluctantly support this as necessary, but I think relying on our own judgment of whether a endorser is notable is a mistake (and if we rely on secondary sources, then this is made entirely redundant by criterion 2.)--Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant and secondly some people may have notable endorsements despite not having notability themselves. For example, if the writer of the anonymous op-ed criticizing the Trump administration decided to endorse a Democratic primary candidate that would be immediately notable and worthy of inclusion, but since the character of the anonymous author of the op-ed isn't notable him or herself it wouldn't be included if this criteria is passed. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support duh! Would (oldosfan) 02:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - notability is not a sufficient criterion that their political opinion is in any way relevant. Adding the stated political opinions of every notable person is unlikely to be useful to the reader - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with what you're saying, but not your bolded bit. It is not sufficient on its own, which is why we have the other criteria proposed here. They aren't intended as alternatives and certainly aren't mutually exclusive. By supporting 2 and not 1, the implication is that we would allow, say, a random person-on-the-street/local business owner/non-notable influencer whose meme gets covered in a reliable source, etc. It is not sufficient on its own, but it is, I would say, an important part. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is Wikipedia, so I think you'd need a stopwatch to time the delay before opinions from tens or hundreds of vapid celebrities cited to a tweet are added to articles - because that's what it says - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're arguing, but I'll just make one more try at presentation here and will leave it at this:

If you want lists full of endorsement tweets from notable people, support 1 and oppose 2.

If you want lists full of endorsements by the guy who owns the local bakery, the county comptroller, and the non-notable social media influencer who has a meme today (which do sometimes get picked up in RSes), oppose 1 and support 2.

If you want lists with endorsements by notable people if they're covered in reliable sources, support 1 and 2. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 & 2 in altenative As stated in the discussion, i believe exceptions should be made for when a notable individual endorses a candidate regardless of media coverage, as well as exceptions for when mainstream media covers the endorsements of non-notable individuals! (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 1

• I Support 1 & 2 in thee alternative. That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required, if either is satisfied, the endorsement can be (not must be) listed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I just want to co-sign what DESiegel said, i believe that if a person who has their own Wikipedia page (say a youtuber) endorses a candidate on their social media, even if no other independent media reports on that endorsement, i think it would only make sense to have that endorsement be listed! On the other hand, say a regional publication lists the endorsement of a bunch of local politicians for a candidate, so long as it is a reliable source, i say we should include these endorsements as well! (0u0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just going on record to be clear that I would strongly oppose the above, which would allow inclusion of citations to tweets/social media/personal blogs and would allow the inclusion of non-notable people contra WP:LISTPEOPLE, as long as we don't have them together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I want to disagree heavily with the above reasons. i believe that it is important that Wikipedia recognize an endorsement from what it already considers a notable individual--especially if that notable individual is a member of an independent media outlet (such as The Majority Report) which competes with establishment media--because establishment media would have a direct interest in not reporting on such an endorsement.PB The other half of that, listing non notable individuals when they are reported from reliable sources, is important because it can better give readers a sense of the political situation in that area. For example, if CNN reports a list of endorsements for Beto by local Iowa elected officials, it would give readers a better sense in this case of how the Iowa Primary would go, or why it did go the way it went. Another example is that Rick Santorum had only two new Hampshire state reps endorse him, and lost that primary. Hope i have cleared up my reasoning here! (0w0✿) ~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 2: Endorsements should be covered by independent reliable sources

• Support - For reasons of WP:WEIGHT as well as RS. Self-published sources can be reliable for someone's own opinion, but the ephemeral sentiments expressed in a Tweet are far from a formal endorsement in most cases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Weak-ish) support I don't think Wikipedia should be engaging in the WP:OR-like behaviour of trawling social media sites to compile lists of people who have tweeted in favour of a candidate. If an endorsement is notable as an endorsement, then it will receive decent secondary source coverage. I say "weak-ish" because I fear this will be difficult to police. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the general rule. This is what we want for most content anyway, and we should not be in business of interpreting statements drawn from original research. If #1 and #3 are both clearly satisfied, then maybe an exception could be made, but those cases will typically draw third-party coverage anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Let me preface this by saying that of course having a reliable source for every endorsement would be ideal. However, there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media. This is especially true for non-politicians, such as many of the individuals who have endorsed Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, and others via tweets and social media. It is also worth noting that many of these independent sources are actually based on tweets themselves. Elon Musk is a prime example; he made a three-word tweet, and it was instantly picked up by myriad media sources. Also, per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field ... This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. As for the five criteria listed, as far as I'm concerned, none of them are violated by citing tweets that are published by the individuals themselves when they are explicitly endorsements. I agree that sometimes, tweets that are not explicit expressions of support slip in, but these non-endorsements can easily be removed by any editor. I myself have done this extensively on this article for the past few months. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The idea that there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media strikes me as a highly problematic reason to include something. Inclusion of, well, anything on Wikipedia should be because it's important enough for independent sources to cover it. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. (For context, a difference of opinion between Bobbychan193 and me on this point at endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries‎‎ is what led me down a path searching for past discussions, to try to find precedent for a clear inclusion criteria). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements. What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it? I disagree with this sentiment. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. This is not what I am saying. Again, the whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements, and I don't see why we can't do that if an individual tweets out an endorsement. (Other users have mentioned other reasons on that talk page. Some examples: Given the sheer volume of potential endorsements, not every single expression of support is going to be reported on, so it's inevitable that tweets will sometimes be the only place they will be mentioned and a celebrity's personal account tweeting in support has been used frequently as a source for endorsement and it is often without another citation. When they specifically say they support the candidate, it's an endorsement. If not, then remove most of Bernie Sanders' endorsements. The criteria in 2016 was explicit support and/or the campaign hashtag. Just pointing out arguments that other editors have laid out.) Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

"What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it?" Yes. That's how Wikipedia works. We report what reliable sources say. What makes any event more important than another? Because a reliable source talks about it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Those were rhetorical questions. My point was that all endorsements are categorically equal. An endorsement isn't "less of an endorsement" just because the media doesn't pick up on it. Think about it, if person A and person B both endorse candidate C, but the media only reports endorsement A, endorsement B is still categorically an endorsement. Sure, some people, like Elon Musk, might be more "important" than others, and that's part of why there are media sources reporting on these endorsements (other reasons: money/clickbait, bandwagon reporting, etc.). But other endorsements wouldn't be considered "lesser" endorsements just because the media doesn't report them. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, all endorsements are not categorically equal, just as all information is not categorically of equal value on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate container of all facts. We are selective. We are an encyclopaedia. We decide what information merits inclusion with reference to reliable, secondary sources. If you went to an AfD and said an article should be included without secondary source reporting, no-one would listen to you. If some political scandal could only be sourced to some private tweets and wasn't covered by secondary source reporting, we wouldn't add it to an election article. Why should endorsements be treated differently from other facts on Wikipedia? Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

When I said "categorically", I meant by definition. An endorsement is by definition an endorsement. Reflexive property. It doesn't matter whether a news source reports on it. An unreported endorsement is still by definition an endorsement. (Also see WP:DUCK) Sure, you can argue that unreported endorsements shouldn't be included, but they are still endorsements by definition. In my view, given the other two criteria (notability and explicitness), we would be selective, and the lists would not be an indiscriminate container of all facts. Why should we cast aside all unreported endorsements? Why shouldn't we make these lists more complete? Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLP as potentially controversial information about a living person. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral/Oppose, per Criterion 1, it should be clear this refers to standalone information, and not information itself. ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• this refers to standalone information, and not information itself - Hmm. I don't intend to respond to all the opposers here, but I can't make heads or tails of that this means. Would you mind rewording? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• We have many stand-alone and embedded lists of political campaign endorsements, This RfC attempts to create baseline inclusion criteria for such lists. As to my words, the key is it should be clear this refers to standalone, as even short lists within independent articles, I imagine, will be regularly challenged by invoking this guideline. Maybe I should have said Conditional and demanded that "standalone" be made clear. Or maybe it should pass and wait and see if further clarification is required to avoid creep. I'll keep my eye on it, but I'm flying by this instant, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 19:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying. I did intend this to apply to lists of endorsements in both stand-alone and embedded lists, but not article prose. If people would support for one but not the other, that seems like a reasonable distinction to make, which could be factored in at closing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• You're right, my comment didn't make sense. You did say "embedded". I'm just going to strike from any input here for the moment. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out the error. ~ R.T.G 00:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for organizations specifically for media outlets. I'm unsure whether this is the case in the United States, but in the UK and Australia at least it is routine for newspapers to officially endorse a party in elections via an editorial (see here for examples). These are going to be more significant than any endorsement by an individual, but they're rarely going to be covered in an independent RS. Partly because they all come out at the end of the campaign, partly because no one likes writing about the competition unless they've done something embarrassing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have seen independent reporting of newspaper endorsements. That said, you raise an interesting point. I was presuming that, say, The Times saying who it supported in an editorial would count under this rule. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad this was raised, but I don't think it's as much of an issue as you'd think. Just looking at the most recent UK general election, it's easy to find coverage of the other papers' endorsements in the Press Gazette, the i and the Guardian. I'm not sure the benefits of such an exception would outweigh the risks of permitting indiscriminate listings of newspapers and blogs. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a sensible limit to avoid sprawling lists of unimportant endorsements. For example, a minor comedian tweeting that he likes Tulsi, should not make the list unless an reliable independent publication takes notice. I also endorse RaiderAspect's exception for media outlets, provided that they are notable media outlets.- MrX 🖋 13:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support for individuals and organizations, but not on media outlets - If no RS reports on the endorsement, I think it's unlikely it will be very noteworthy. With the ample coverage of modern campaigns, it seems quite likely that nearly all endorsements of any significance at all will have some coverage in RS. For media outlets (i.e., editorials), I view the editorial itself as the RS for its own opinion. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Go back to basics. The notability criteria apply to the content of the endorsement; it needs to be covered by reliable, independent third parties. Notable people say all kinds of things, but we don't add it to an article unless it is reported in a reliable, independent source. The notability and reliable sourcing criteria don't change just because someone endorses a politician. If they posted on their personal website that they encouraged people to check out the Chicken Kiev at Notable Restaurant, we wouldn't be putting that in the article about the restaurant. Risker (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The recent Canadian election featured several candidates and even a major political party claiming endorsements that hadn't actually been given, misquoting notable people to imply that an endorsement had been given, and so on. I have no doubt it is already happening in the US election. We should not rely on any source that hasn't been fact-checked by a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking. Risker (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. If significant, non-independent sources such as op-eds and media outlet endorsements will definitely be mentioned by other independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 00:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Since many social media users can delete or hide prior posts, we ought not even consider that as a potential source on themselves. Published records are in the hands of consumers (like libraries). Chris Troutman (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - If no reliable sources think an endorsement is worth mentioning, why should Wikipedia? Doing so gives the endorsement (and perhaps the endorsee) UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 2 in alternative That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support for individuals and organizations, but not on media outlets: For the former, of course; the latter is a simple distinction: media outlets are, by and of themselves, the reliable source for the endorsement. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely. All endorsements need to be covered by reliable sources independent either the person or organisation making the endorsement. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support. This should be the only criteria, just like anything else. I would go so far as to say that I'm unsure whether this RFC is necessary on this point, since WP:RS / WP:V already applies and is not subject to consensus; an endorsement is a statement about a third party (and therefore never covered by WP:SPS or WP:ABOUTSELF.) Such statements always require a high-quality reliable secondary source, without exception. --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per Aquillion, this is the correct criterion - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 2

• I guess to clarify my stance, my main issue with this is that we shouldn't exclude an endorsement just because a media source didn't report it. Like, if a notable individual has clearly endorsed a candidate (based on our criteria #3) and the media didn't report it, it's still an endorsement. It just doesn't make sense to me to exclude such endorsements. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  The endorsement is only notable if it is covered by reliable, independent sources. Notability applies to the content of the edit, not the person who said whatever was said. Risker (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  actually, notability only applies to teh existanc or non-existanced of an articel it never applies to selection of article content, and the policy says this explicitly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well then obviously I said it wrong. An endorsement by Cousin Becky in the family newsletter should not make it into our article. An endorsement by Senator Foghorn, reported in the New York Times, probably should. Notable person (i.e., someone who has WP article about them) publicly endorsing the candidate as reported in well-regarded reliable source should be the boundary. Risker (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That is cleaer yes. Several people inn the discussion have been speaking about the "notability of the endorsement" which is just not how notability works. Perhaps that was intended only as shorthand, but "notability" is a term of art here on Wikipedia, and it is better not to muddy it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That siad, the above is clearer but I disagree with it. If anyone's endorsement is reported by the NY Times, then it should be liated, whether the person has an article or not. And If SAenator Foghorn endor5ses Joe Blow for Gov, that is worth listing even if it is done in a tweet, and not reported in the media. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah see, this is where actual practice disagrees. We decide what to include in articles on a daily basis by looking at whether or not the proposed content is "notable". We might very well be able to find reliable sources that say Notable Cousin Becky has a wart on her elbow, but we're not going to include it unless her claim to notability is that she has a wart on her elbow. And I do disagree with you that Notable Senator putting out a tweet endorsing Candidate A should make the list. It should only make the list when an independent third party thinks the endorsement is significant enough to report it. It's okay for us not to agree about this, but I want to make it clear that I don't think any endorsement that is not independently reported should be included; otherwise, it's just an advert. Risker (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Would some of the proponents of this be willing to sandbox versions of the articles in Category:2016 United States presidential election endorsements so we can see just what effect this might have? I worry that the US media's tendency to ignore third-party candidates might result in unbalanced articles, where Democratic and Republican candidates have many more "minor" endorsements listed. Anomie⚔ 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If you look at the history of Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries you can see where I removed everything that was sourced only to social media. Another run-through would be required to remove those just sourced to the candidate/campaign's website, but it's an approximation. I tend to wince a little when I read "balance" in this sort of context, though. Isn't a balance achieved by throwing out the extent to which subjects receive secondary source coverage a definition of false balance? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I'm particularly interested in a comparison of the resulting states of different parties' articles than in one major party's. Anomie⚔ 12:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I Support 1 & 2 in the alternative. That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required, if either is satisfied, the endorsement can be (not must be) listed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Criterion 3: Endorsements should be unequivocal and explicit

• Support - I was surprised to see how many "endorsements" we include are actually just people using a particular hashtag, expressing positive feelings about a candidate, saying they've donated, talking about going to a fundraiser, etc. This also gets at the problem of using only social media as sources. Something published in a reliable independent source would be less likely to pick something like that up and call it an endorsement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe As per basic principles, if we're claiming X backs Y, we need a source showing that X backs Y and merely expressing positive feelings or attending an event shouldn't cut it. That said, I am wary about requiring specific language, like expecting the word "endorsement". Different countries, even those notionally speaking the same language, use different words and phrases. There is a particular culture of endorsement in the US and we shouldn't be applying how endorsements are done in the US and the language used around them to other countries. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Preferably, but this is the weakest of the three suggested criteria. If there is a consensus of independent reliable sources under criterion #2 above that X has made an endorsement, then we should follow their lead rather than trying to interpret primary-source material. --RL0919 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Donating to a campaign, using particular hashtags, and/or attending any candidate event are not enough to be considered endorsements in isolation. This is because 1. Any individual can donate to multiple candidates or attend the events of multiple candidates (Example: Jack Dorsey donated to both Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard) 2. Hashtags, such as #YangGang, could be interpreted as a way to boost the visibility of a tweet, or attract attention from people who search said hashtag. I think that minor variations of "I endorse xyz", such as "I support xyz", "I am campaigning for xyz", or "I am voting for xyz", are explicit enough to be considered support. (Example: again, Elon Musk's tweet. If myriad independent sources consider this an endorsement, then I don't see any reason we as editors can't similarly interpret other tweets. Why should we wait for a media source to essentially do the same thing?) I agree that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, especially for tweets that may be slightly more ambiguous than your standard "I support xyz". Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer 2. If a reliable independent source calls it an endorsement, we should list it as an endorsement regardless of whether an editor thinks it's equivocal. Obviously we should prefer unequivocal and explicit endorsements, but I'd prefer following RSs over our own judgment on what that constitutes. In the absence of 2, I'd support this, but am otherwise neutral on it. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes and RL0919: I agree with both of you. I added this as separate from #2 for two reasons. First, in case #2 doesn't pass. Second, because there's still the question of interpreting the language of reliable sources. If a reliable source says that someone attended a fundraiser, tweeted in support of, used a particular hashtag, praised, etc., do we interpret that as an endorsement, or does the RS need to call it an endorsement? There are some other terms which, to me, are quite close in meaning or allow easy inference like "backed," "declared full support for," "campaigned for," etc. but there, too, I think it's tricky. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Somewhat support - most of the examples should be gone, but I don't think it needs to be as ironclad as "I endorse X for president" etc. On a distinct tack, if a RS says it's an endorsement and it isn't blatantly vague, then that should also suffice. However some filtering is clearly needed - a positive statement doth not an endorsement make Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's unfortunate that this has to be documented, but it's surprising what some editors consider endorsements. An endorsement should include the word endorse, or a synonym like support, recommend, back, approve, etc. If a reasonable person questions whether something is an endorsement, then it should not be considered such. Vague comments, shout outs, donations, attending events, and the like should not be interpreted as endorsements. WP:V is the underlying policy. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Agree wholly with MrX. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the nuances of the English language, there are many things that sound supportive that aren't endorsements. Let us stick to the explicit and if necessary go behind the RS (who have their own agendas) to look at the statement and see if it really is an endorsement. I agree with Ched that we should not have such lists of endorsements, but am also dubious that they could be stamped out if we wanted to.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support under WP:V. I agree with MrX here: we cannot extrapolate a claim that is stronger than what is presented in the underlying source. — Newslinger talk 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Turning a “statement of support” into a full blown “endorsement” would violate WP:NOR. So requiring that the endorsement be explicit makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. "Endorsement" is loaded language if it were used to describe mere passing statements of support. feminist (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support this definitely seems justified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely agree. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per my logic to criterion 1 (and I strenuously urge the support !votes to step back and consider the implications of having this pass alongside criterion 2) - yes, this proposal sounds appealing, but this is not a call we should be making ourselves. The call on whether a particular statement counts as an "endorsement" is entirely based on how reliable sources characterize it, and should never depend on editors adjudicating whether the statement is "unequivocal and explicit." If this passes, I foresee people saying things like "yes, the NYT, LA Times, etc. describes this as an endorsement, but I personally think their wording was ambiguous, so we can't include it because the RFC required that it be unequivocal or explicit." If WP:RSes say it's an endorsement, then it's an endorsement and ought to be listed. Fullstop. (EDIT: Unless this is interpreted to mean just "the endorsement must be described as such by reliable sources", but that's not how I read it now.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Aquillion: the wording of the proposal (well, specifically, the "Note on #3" just below the bolded bit) says 'In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof' - I suspect the interpretation of this along the lines of what you describe is uncontroversial, given WP:V and the support for #2 above. I worded it to talk about the endorsement itself, too, because going into this RfC we're still using Tweets, etc. as sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of criterion 3

• Please give an example of an equivocal or inexplicit endorsement, and why that disqualifies the notability assumed by Criterion 1. ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Examples

"Let's win the era! @PeteButtigieg has me excited about the next generation of American government" "I have listened with an open heart and an open mind and time after time, the individual who has continually impressed me with his consistent, thoughtful, and error-free presentation of our values and needs in this country is @PeteButtigieg. He has risen to the top" "Go #PETE !!⁦@PeteForUSA2020 @PeteButtigieg" "@PeteButtigieg i think you have a shot at uniting this country again. i am a big fan and am sending you all my support. if there is anything i can ever do for you pls let me know" "Same" (responding to the one above) "Buona settimana!!! HAVE A GREAT WEEK!!! Feliz semana! 👊🏻👊🏻👊🏻 @PeteButtigieg #mayorpete #petebuttigieg #accettomiracoli #aceptomilagros #buonacattivasorte #buenamalasuerte #tzn2020" "This guy is so smart and on point and he wore the 🇺🇸 uniform. Good luck @PeteButtigieg - you are what this country needs." "A candidate for #President that speaks, genuinely, of #unity, #prayer and #reflection. I'm all over that, thanks #PeteButtigieg #PeteForAmerica @PeteButtigieg" "Still believe Mayor Pete is our best candidate for the presidency. His unique combination of qualifications is unbeatable. All our candidates are talented and good, but Mayor Pete stands out. He will be a great president. And we desperately need greatness in the Oval Office" "Please RT. Only 174 $1 donations by midnight to reach goal for @TulsiGabbard !pic.twitter.com/KTOCZp0NNR" “Oh noooooo, @KamalaHarris guess what?! @TulsiGabbard has your number. She is by far the better candidate. Go Tulsi" "A Joe Biden/Kamela Harris ticket or a Kamala Harris/Joe Biden ticket would please me greatly!" "GHosts for @BetoORourke fundraiser tomorrow evening in NYC:" "Bernie @SenSanders or @elizabethforma (Elizabeth Warren) would be two people I would LOVE to see in the White House, as both of them would be capable and ready to fix the damage caused by the @GOP and the Trumpino crime family" "God I wish we weren't a sexist hellscape so she'd get the nomination" "Increasingly all-in for Elizabeth Warren, gotta say" "Here's one very good reason to be for Elizabeth Warren. Wall Street is terrified of her" "Greatest Of All Time! #GOAT twitter.com/ewarren/status/1179851099978846209 …" "Russell Brand will be joining me in Los Angeles on Sept. 15" "We need an uprising of consciousness #Marianne2020.com #JoinTheEvolution #WagePeace A #President who leads with #Love & #Intelligence ." "I was there at his launch party in SF!" "Andrew is actually the "not stuck in the past and open to new good ideas guy"" "read up on @AndrewYang. he's the only young candidate addressing issues that nobody else is. his politics are actually good (more than just giving every american $1,000/month), and he has a fun and transparent personality. I uhhhh, i think we ✈️ #YangGang 2020" "It takes an amazing amount of strength to be this vulnerable in public. This display of emotion makes me admire @AndrewYang even more..." "I've actually donated for the first time ever. New podcast with @AndrewYangVFA is up! Check it out on offthepillpodcast! #yanggang" "LFG!!!!! #YANGYANG" "Thanks man. Best of luck future Mr President!" "Yanggang"

• The above are all currently in the endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I had removed them and they were restored. Ran out of steam at the end (there are a lot of refs, and I only searched for twitter). This omits the somewhat clearer but still uncertain "I would vote for this person", "I support this person", "I donated to this person", and so on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, I was the one who restored them. It was 50KB worth of removals and certainly a bold edit by size alone, so I reverted them (temporarily) based on WP:BRD. I view this RfC as the "Discuss" phase, and if there is strong community consensus to remove tweets as sources, then I do not oppose the re-removal of these entries. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• My first impression of this is that it lacks a third party reliable source stating that each detail is individually notable beyond the fact of endorsement.
• The endorsement is possibly notable, but saying yah boo fifty seven ways until Sunday about it is not notable at all. Oh how I love thee is notable, that they do. Oh let me count the ways is a bit wandering, unless you can establish the particular commenters way-counting as notable. ~ R.T.G 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

OR is often bent to provide or enhance simple academic study. This seems to be a deep research of trivial twittes to highlight faces in a crowd who went woop at a certain time, and it may prove harmful to living persons. I mean, apply these precedents to the Trump endorsement page on Wikipedia and see what you get. Bending OR is for like, simple but important primary resources directly relevant to a subject. Endorsements should be directly relevant or presented as a number. People can be notable, but when you cross that notability over to something they aren't notable for, they can mislead you, and if we follow misleading resources, we mislead people, and we don't want to obstruct peoples right to disappear. None of these twittes are authorative. Collectively, they have an individual value, but if we record that value today with a fact checked number, there is no need to save the woops for playback tomorrow. Show me a Trump doing something cruel and unusual, and I'll show you a Democrat playing the other side to prove a bet that the people cannot be trusted. I mean, its my bet, and he's proved it so hard we might not recover... I've defended Trump loads of times for the purpose of revealing the other side, but I've never endorsed him. He's not my president. I'm not even American. ~ R.T.G 07:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarify that: OR is often bent to connect resources. To make lists, for instance. To provide "See also" sections. To clarify points. This above list however, is like listing woops, to an extent.. And it's not just the trivial nature of the individual items, it's the hotbed of emotion around ongoing events, ~ R.T.G 18:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oops didn't reply to the second part of your comment. Although I'm not sure what you mean by why that disqualifies the notability assumed by Criterion 1. It has nothing to do with the notability of the people speaking. It has to do with WP:OR, relying on Wikipedians to interpret someone's words to be an "endorsement". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Replied above upon the examples, thanks. ~ R.T.G 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

General discussion: inclusion criteria for political endorsement lists

• Personally I'm against ANY list of political support or endorsements in any way shape or form. It's one thing to say "Senator X supported Candidate Y in the past election" in a prose article. To my mind said "lists" or categories of "support political anything" goes against what our project is supposed to stand for and be. It's far too easy to put "list 1" which supports candidate A in a more front and center position than "list 2" which supports candidate B. IMO, there's far too much political POV pushing going on throughout wiki as it is - these "lists" simply add to that, and I can NOT support such things. — Ched (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, this RfC isn't about the validity of the lists. Whether we should have them at all may be worth discussing, but at the moment we have oodles of such lists, so let's at least create some baseline rules. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The sheer number of these lists suggests there's consensus for their existence. I agree with Ched that I'm not sure how useful they are, but I think getting consensus for their exclusion would be an uphill battle that would cause more problems than it's worth. Many of these are suitable as standalone lists per WP:LISTN (FiveThirtyEight for example keeps a running list and ranking of primary endorsements), so if we prohibit inclusion in articles they will and (and maybe should) be spun out. Those that can't will probably be included in the relevant article because the community doesn't agree, and we'll just wind up back where we started or worse: fighting edit wars over stupid stuff and blocking people who could otherwise be useful contributors to politics articles. For better or worse, I think it's best to let the lists be and figure out how to curate them to minimize the negative aspects of such lists. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The US has a particular system of political parties and endorsements that doesn't always translate to other countries. I note that on UK endorsement lists for general elections, we don't cover members of a party endorsing that party, as that goes without saying in a UK context. (If a Conservative MP endorsed anyone other than Johnson in a general election, they'd be out of the party very quickly.) In comparison, intra-party endorsements dominate US endorsement lists. Likewise, when considering recent referendums, we didn't include every single SNP politician as endorsing Scottish independence: we just included the party as a whole doing so. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just to note 2 things: 1. My comment above is in no way a reflection of or on Rhododendrites who I've seen around and I think they do excellent work. (I even appreciate this particular RfC/proposal) 2. I'm aware of the many lists out there - that doesn't mean I think they belong; hence my statement. I also fully aware that there's not going to be any removal of said lists. While I don't usually stick my nose into any of the political stuff - I am aware of it. I just don't care for how our project deals with it. — Ched (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• It will go against WP:BLPSPS to use those social media posts outside the article for the publisher of the media posts themselves. It will also go against articles 6 and 7 of WP:DIRECTORY. Hmm.. WP:NOTEVERYTHING? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I mentioned this elsewhere, but per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field ... This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. Endorsements are definitely considered part of "their activities". Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I also have misgivings about such lists for the reasons given above (they do belong in sections of the relevant election's article, but I believe that LISTN should apply for standalone lists). If we do decide to have them, I support all three criteria, with the assumption that criterion #3 will be played by ear as necessary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• These lists are obviously political campaigning and so should all be deleted per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, &c. People's opinions on such matters can change and so they seem too ephemeral to be maintained in a timeless, encyclopedic fashion. Also, in the US, where money talks, celebrity endorsements may be bought. For example, I often see George Clooney promoting Nespresso or Harvey Keitel promoting insurance but don't think we should make lists of such. Only in the rare cases, where the endorsement becomes a cultural icon, should we create a page for it; for example the George Foreman Grill. Andrew D. (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If you're proposing deletion of all endorsement lists, this is probably not the right place to do so. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I feel that a lot of the people who have !voted support on all three criterion need to stop and think about what they're saying. Do we actually want criterion 1 and 3 to be applied on top of the WP:RS requirement? My feeling is that the only thing we should care about is whether an endorsement has coverage in reliable sources (and is referred to as an endorsement in them); I'm extremely skeptical of the way the wording of the other two criterion would seem to encourage or even require editors to substitute their own judgment for that of the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Count me as not a fan of these lists in general, but under the assumption that there will be such lists, I support all three criteria to at least whittle down more superfluous items. But I have a question about withdrawn endorsements or endorsements of multiple candidates. If someone endorsed a candidate and subsequently pulls it, does it appear as an endorsement (withdrawn) or is it wiped. Or if say Carolyn Maloney who endorsed Gillibrand, decides to go with Warren, does it appear for both? Or do you footnote the Warren endorsement that it came after Gillibrand dropped out? Would a withdrawal of an endorsement meet the same criteria? Maybe I’m just adding an issue outside the scope.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 00:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• I was in the original discussion about listing campaign endorsements (it was either 2004 or 2008), & at the time only newspaper endorsements were included, since traditionally the editorial staff of newspapers would endorse one or more candidates, & this would often give candidates an advantage. So there was a historical rationale for this. While it can be argued to include influential people or groups in this list (e.g., politicians with a national profile, groups like EMILY's List, or the NRA) because they have influence on voting, I can't think of a reason to extend coverage of endorsements beyond these sources. Honestly, capturing support comments from social media is original research; to use it to reflect any sort of strength of support (either in that social media community or society in general) requires expert knowledge to filter out the bots, spammers, & other bad-faith agents that have been proven to be out there. -- llywrch (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to distinguish move and cascade-protect lock colors

Current move (proposed/old version here)

Current cascade

Following the previous thread here on this topic, most of the padlock colors were changed to match with WMF logo colors. Most of the changes were perfectly fine, but I didn't notice until recently that because of the new changes, the padlocks for move and cascading protection look almost the same color-wise, which can be confusing. I propose that:

1. The cascade protection padlock be changed to the current color of the move protection padlock (i.e. WMF Green30)
2. The move protection padlock be reverted to its original color

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Go back to the old color per proposer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support'. Green and blue are generally unfamiliar as representing negatives like "locked" or "not allowed". Green means go doesn't it. ~ R.T.G 04:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change the interface-protect lock color to a redder color

In the interest of getting all the bike shed color proposals out of the way as soon as possible, I also propose that the color of the interface-protect padlock be changed to WMF Red30 (#b32424  ), as it's more in keeping with the historical permanent protection color of red and goes along with the spirit of the RfC mentioned above. The current color is #aa4400  . —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Per Yair rand's request, I have created a comparison image visible on the right. Changing the interface lock results in little-to-no visible change. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Please make sure to take colorblind users into account when selecting colors for these icons. --Yair rand (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support colourblind support ~ R.T.G 04:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indifferent – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Straw poll: clear out the accumulated cruft in the sandbox subpages

Over time, Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has accumulated a number of subpages and redirects that appear to be the result of various sandbox experiments. I propose deleting most of them all and making a fresh start. If there is consensus for deletion, I will post MfDs to make it official, but there is no point doing that if the consensus here is to keep them all.

If any of them have content worth keeping I propose moving that content to a single page.

Here is a complete list of sandbox subpages and redirects.

I suggest a Keep, Delete, Move, Redirect or Blank comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Straw Poll

All (comment here for delete all, keep all, etc.) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all I thought the sandbox was periodically purged, anyway. Also, I'm not sure why you've included many examples above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't the sandbox. It is subpages to the sandbox. I listed as many subpages as there are are to consider deleting. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I'd say history merge or delete all as necessary, and then disable future creation of subpages in the sandbox, or if that's not possible have a bot automatically delete them after a while. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Sandbox/ is a list of subpages. History merging might be possible, but there is more than one page history to merge over and some have WP:PARALLELHISTORIES issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Sounds like more work than it's worth. Strong keep on history fragments though per WP:FENCE and meta:Keep history. The archives do not have the same provenience. Wikipedia:Historical archive/Earliest sandbox history contains history discovered in a 2003 database dump so history merging it into the sandbox would mix history natively created and retained by the software and those which were recovered post hoc. Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive was moved in response to the 2008 deletion disaster as a means of history control. The fact that it is separate is useful historical information that would be lost in a merge. Graham87 would probably be able to tell you more. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep all, more or less per Wugapodes. If a page only contains problematic content in all of its revisions, delete it, otherwise let it be. Also, all of the various sandbox history fragments have their own story attached to them and should be kept as is to preserve them. Graham87 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association

• Delete obvious leftover redirect from creating a page in the sandbox. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – deletion would break many many links, for a start. Graham87 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Word Association/Archive 2

• Delete obvious leftover redirect from creating a page in the sandbox. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Reverse Radial Ultra Cross

• Delete Obvious leftover redirect from creating a page in the sandbox. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Word before last

• Delete Obvious leftover redirect from creating a page in the sandbox. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/This isn't against guidelines and it will be deleted, but the sandbox is for experimentation

• Delete The page title actually says it is expected that this will be deleted, but is has hung around for six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• This one just got deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This talk page to a nonexistent page is another obvious leftover from creating a page in the sandbox. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• This one just got deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This talk page to a nonexistent page is another obvious leftover from creating a page in the sandbox. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• This one just got deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Archive

• Neutral For some reason, this talk page to a nonexistent page contains a history fragment. This might be a good place to merge the other history fragments if merging to the sandbox history is not feasible. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Earliest sandbox history

• Merge history and delete Yet another place where a fragment of the sandbox's editing history is. Do we really need three? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Related issue. The sandbox gets a lot of edits and the history is quite large (727,150 edit total, 2,872 in the last 30 days). Would it make sense to set up a history page the years 2000 to 2005, another for 2005 to 2010, etc.? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete upon inactive: Suggest Deleting everything that has not received an edit within the past month, on a rolling basis, conducted by a bot. Also, add a prominent note that content will likely be purged after a month; I don't think you want to say 'unless edited' because that will bring out the people who will drop by to edit occassionally just to keep content from disappearing - maybe. This would allow people to work in sandbox and migrate content to another space as they get done with experimentation. It would also highlight those sandbox pages that contain content that people find value in tinkering with, which might in the longer term lead to one or more specialized sandboxes for particular functions - but that wouldn't be an intended outcome, just a potential one. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person: proposal - Let's not insult the natives (BLP)

Proposal: remove the string native_name - the name of a parameter - from appearing in the rendered version of the Template:infobox person. The content of the parameter, i.e. the person's name in his/her local script and/or language, would still appear in the rendered version of the template.

Example: (as of 03:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)) of the problem: top of infobox of Seham Sergiwa; سهام سرقيوة is described to the reader as "native name". This proposal would instead give the appearance of the top of the infobox of Abdalla Hamdok (as of 03:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)).

Original proposal: This was proposed (by me) a few hours ago at Template_talk:Infobox_person#Let's_not_insult_the_natives_(BLP). I pointed out that the string native_name does not appear in the rendered version of Template:infobox officeholder, and it would be more respectful for it to be absent from Infobox person too, when rendered. (I'm not proposing to change it as a parameter name, where its role is more clearly technical; an editor has to cope with technical aspects of editing, while a reader is not required to understand these.)

Reason: European colonial domination of much of the world over several centuries has resulted in certain words sounding derogatory, especially if used generically without checking context; "native" in certain contexts has this problem, especially when applied to living people in former colonies. See ell.stackexchange question 6881 for example: I think what the writer of that definition was trying to say was that the word "native" as a stand-alone noun to mean a person from a non-Western culture with a low level of technology is now considered offensive. (Jay May 28 '13 at 12:40) ... Native is taken as offensive when applied to non-Europeans, for sound historical reasons. (StoneyB May 28 '13 at 12:49) ... Where I see the offensive nature is when you say simply "Jack is a native", meaning "a primitive, uncivilized person". (Jay May 30 '13 at 15:31) In our situation, "native" is strictly speaking an adjective, but I still think that the risk of misinterpretation, especially in the context of WP:BLP, is a bit too high to take.

Technical side: Example details of how to enact this suggestion technically are given at Template_talk:Infobox_person#Let's_not_insult_the_natives_(BLP).

Why here: The response over at Template_talk:infobox person was to raise this question here in the wider en.WP community, since the expression "native name" occurs quite a bit in en.Wikipedia, and since I didn't give a citation for the risk of the expression being interpreted as pejorative. I'm not proposing a blanket ban on the expression - just a removal of the term from the Infobox person template, where the removal would be easy and convenient and would improve the look of the rendered infobox (though maybe some other situations could be fixed too). Boud (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's such a big deal, and I'd rather not have to go through this euphemism treadmill. Having said that, if this gains consensus I wouldn't be too terribly opposed to it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing to replace the string by a euphemism; I'm proposing to remove the string from appearing in the rendered infobox. We don't have name appearing at the top of the infobox, and we don't have Article: appearing at the top of every Wikipedia article. Boud (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• I really don't see the case for removal. Native name here clearly means the name of a person in their native language when it differs from modern English/Latinized version. If you want to interpret this in a different way, that's on you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Mmnm, not usually a fan of "political correctness", but here OP makes a good point. Altho its true that "native" is technically value-neutral, it *is* offensive to some. That is what matters. Even supposing that these people are snowflakes (I'm not saying that they are), it's reasonable to not offend people when it can be avoided. Support. Herostratus (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• A hypothetical willful misinterpretation of the word "native" in this context doesn't seem to be worth catering to. But I don't oppose the change itself, just the reason given. Template:Infobox officeholder as shown in this example seems to have a good style. Anomie⚔ 12:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support to make |native_name= at {{infobox person}} render at the top under the name, the way |native_name= renders at {{infobox officeholder}} (example, example) and |local_name= renders at {{infobox islands}} (example), rather than having it render as the identified "native_name" field under the photograph, that way it does now (example). It looks much better the way the officeholder and islands infoboxes have it, rather than the way the person infobox has it now. – Levivich 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, simply because it has a more streamlined look.--Auric talk 20:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There's no need to concern ourselves with the precise meaning of "native", because this is an obvious improvement anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I've no opinion on whether 'native' is offensive or not: it just looks better on the rendered page without the label. Neiltonks (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Editors may be interested in this discussion on infobox organization about updating the native name parameter. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support with revision & commentary—First suggested revision is to have an indication of what language the non-English name is in; not sure what would fit best as a parenthetical after the name would be a distraction and a mouseover might not fit the display standards for Wikipedia as user-readable content ... might be best as a parenthetical on the line following the non-english name as "(Non-english name in <language>)". Second suggestion has to do with multiple non-English language renderings. I'm not at all familiar with how people are referred to in other languages, but someone like Stephen King or Albert Einstein might be transliterated into multiple non-English scripts due to their world-wide prominance. One way to deal with this is via WikiData, where the titles of articles across the Wikimedia spectrum appear. In the case of Albert Einstein, dozens of non-English Wikipedia articles exist, many using "Albert Einstein" as the title, several not → Albert Einstein (Q937). A more radical notion: rather than the parameter "native_name", support "<2-letter_language_code>_name" across all 2-letter language codes and include a "display" or "suppress-display" parameter where particular fields can be chosen for display or suppression from display as selected. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Additional comment in re Roman script non-English—Extending the use of Albert Einstein as an example, he was born in Germany, and his German article is titled de:Albert Einstein, which, according to the e\English article is pronounced, maybe, a bit differently in German. Should 'native name' be used to add "Albert Einstein" to this article's infobox, and how do we manage same glyphform with differing vocalization? Just extending the thinking a bit. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Gosha Kutsenko

Hello https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gosha_Kutsenko&diff=885956883&oldid=855597368 We need to return information about "Myrotvorets"

This information is not propaganda. Returning information will make the pack more informative--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see no reason why this argument is on this page. Should be on the article talk page, or possibly discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, if that is a live project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Shut down Article Rescue Squadron

In principle, the WP:ARS is a good idea, but in practice it has become an unruly mob run by personalities who seem to relish in WP:CANVASSing AfD to try to avoid the discussions that keep Wikipedia quality control running. I am amazed by this. What do you all think? Should this group be shut down? Reorganized? jps (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you stay in one area and stop forum shopping all over the place?! You just started this at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Neutrality_check. Also created a deletion discussion for it [1] days ago that ended in a snow keep. Dream Focus 14:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It was not closed as "snow keep", though. The result, which I find quite questionable since it was only open for several hours was "Cosensus (sic) to Keep and that MfD is not the right solution for the issues raised; no need to prolong." If MfD is not the right solution, why would it be inappropriate to find another venue in search of the right solution? –dlthewave ☎ 22:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a big problem here. We probably need to shut down your baby. Or maybe we could just topic ban you, User:Andrew Davidson and User:Lightburst from ARC? Might that help things? jps (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been broad community support for ARS since it started. Your personal disputes with a couple people are disruptive. Your escalations are disruptive. -- GreenC 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a very skewed perception of the history. There may have been community support back in the bad old days when Wikipedia was "rudimentary, and frequently wrong" (to quote Paul Freedman), then a bunch of ARS members got site-banned (or TBANned and left the project), with it now functioning as little more than a place for like-minded editors to get together and talk shit about people they don't like, and occasionally overrule legitimate delete/merge/improvement discussions. Nowadays, the appearance of broad community support (as seen below) is mainly rooted in a misunderstanding of what ARS's activities usually amount to -- the fact that almost all of the current "oppose" !votes are based on the assumption that ARS's main activity is improving articles that are nominated for deletion in the hopes that those articles won't be deleted bears this out. I plan on doing a broad survey of AFDs listed at ARS over the last 21 months or so (since I discovered it) and see how many articles were actually improved to the point that they merited inclusion in the encyclopedia vs. how many articles were "rescued" with ARS members making minimal effort to improve the article but showing up to !vote at the AFD anyway. (And how many times AFDs listed there saw an influx of disruptive comments from ARS members, irrespective of whether the articles wound up being kept or not -- the fact that Andrew Davidson's comments in this discussion and yours in this one failed to prevent either from ending in consensus in delete doesn't mean that both weren't disruptive/misleading/inflammatory.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing will come of this thread. It comes up at least once a year and goes something like this:

"can we do something about this page that seems to only serve to canvass keep !votes"

"the general idea of the project is positive, collaborating to find sources and improve articles to save them from deletion"

"but they usually just show up to support keeping, without finding new sources or improving articles. also, the notices are often non-neutral"

"they should be neutral. please work on that, ARS."

"ok"

The problem has never been the idea of ARS, which is why all attempts to shut it down have failed. The problem is when particular users treat it as a keep canvassing club. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is people make accusations without checking the actual edit records. There are things that get listed by a regular member that have no one else show up to comment on such as Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#List_of_dimensions_of_the_Discworld. I couldn't find any sources so I didn't participate in that one. Also currently on the list Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#His_Dark_Materials which I did find sources for, listed them there, and stated why it should be kept. No one just shows up and says keep every time, they only do it if they believe there are sources to prove it meets the notability guidelines or its a valid list article. Dream Focus 16:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That there have been instances where members have found sources or have not shown up just to !vote isn't much of a counter-argument (to the extent I was even presenting an argument). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment jps has engaged in extremely disruptive editing (edit warring) on the ARS. Then engaged in forum shopping, and attempted to delete the project with an MfD. All the while ජපස refused to discuss anything on the talk page and blanked requests to come to discussion. I finally reported the editor for edit warring this morning. My hope is that the editor will drop the stick and we can all go back to working on the project. This is like Wack-A-Mole. We think the disruptions have ended but they have only moved to another section of the project. Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment- Yes, the ARS is a canvassing club and always has been. No, the community hasn't got the spine or the stomach to do anything about it. Never have, never will. Reyk _YO! 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with the sentiment that ARS often functions as a canvassing board. Regardless of intent, it is quite common for a nomination to result in a number of "keep" !votes with no effort made to improve the article. I believe that greater oversight is the solution, with guidelines written by the community instead of project regulars. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I actually disagree that the primary problem with ARS is its essentially being a canvassing board. There are too few members left who haven't been site-banned or essentially forced off the project for them to actually swing the tables on most AFDs. The problem is that every time someone brings up how inappropriate some of the group's behaviour is, they start hounding and attacking that person all across the site, and by always moving in a group they make it near-impossible for ANI or the other relevant fora to deal with their disruptive battleground behaviour (I guess whenever they are brought to ANI the vast swath of "average" Wikipedians' eyes glaze over because they think it's an "inclusionists vs. deletionists" dispute -- I know I did until 21 months ago). Thing is, the community seems to be unwilling to shut down a WikiProject because the majority of its members are extremely tendentious, prone to not only attacking anyone who disagrees with personally but also violating Wikipedia copyright policy left, right, and center. So there isn't really anything that can be done. The disruption that has been going on at Talk:Mottainai since roughly February 2018 is one example, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88 is probably the most blatant recent example. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this will be a very popular opinion, but I think we should reform ARS to be a beneficial part of the project by listing articles that have survived an AfD discussion since sources have been demonstrated in the discussion, but still need WP:HEY/proper cleanup in order to be a sufficient encyclopaedia article, thereby shifting the project's focus from "saving" articles at AfD to providing effective cleanup on articles which have survived AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I am fully in agreement. From my experience, the Rescue Squaddies I've encountered are extremely disruptive, entirely discourteous and bring zero benefit to the project. I am very active in a very small and narrow area of Wikipedia - that of AfDs for companies/organizations. The problem of the Rescue Squaddies is twofold. The first (as has been pointed out above) is that it really is a cavassing club. I see the same editors follow each other around and !vote to Keep articles often with similar reasoning. It is meat-puppetry, plain and simple. Also, an analysis of their !voting patterns and their stats will support this view. Secondly, this type of block !voting works most times. It is very frustrating to see closing admins ignore well-reasoned analysis of (for example) why various sources fail the criteria for establishing notability and instead lend weight to the Rescue Squaddies commenting in unison that all the sources are good. Many AfD's are closed based entirely on their participation. I've also seen the hounding and vilification an admin when they correctly and properly evaluated the reasoning and deleted the article even though the Keep !votes outnumbered the Delete !votes. I can provide links if anybody is interested but I won't until asked. In summary, while I have no doubt that the Rescue Squad was set up with honorable intentions, it is time to recognize that it is now a rallying and canvassing board to "Keep at all costs" and ignore our policies and guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Highking, the removal of any walled garden is never to be pitied. ——SN54129 14:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the 20 or so times it's been nominated for deletion and kept every time, but it's worth exploring whether some of the active members of the project have the right motives (i.e. "oppose all deletion of any content ever for any reason" is not a rational approach to building an encyclopedia). In principle, attracting more eyes to deletion discussions is a good thing, because deletion is disruptive and should be a last resort limited to topics entirely unfit for the encyclopedia, and too often AfD is being used to force article improvements contrary to WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NODEADLINE. If ARS results in some of those inappropriately nominated articles being saved from deletion then it's a net positive. Or to put it a different way, the editors crying that ARS participants "never improve articles" should consider dropping this crusade and improving the articles themselves.

Now, if the Article Rescue Squadron is being abused to sway consensus on project-side content discussions, such as Hijiri's SPI MFD, it's being used against its purpose and against WP:CANVASS, and the editors involved should face sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support albeit pointless. I agree that ARS is well-intentioned as a concept, but that the execution of it falls short. However whether it should be shut down or not, how would one "shut it down"? It doesn't need to exist as a concrete entity, it's simply a mindset shared between a few like-minded editors and perhaps a listing of targets. "Shut it down" and it would only re-appear. Off-wiki if needs be.

Maybe the solution is to engage more with it, and to "rescue" based on improvement, rather than weight of numbers? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I actually very much support SportingFlyer's proposal (assuming actually shutting the project down is off the table as Andy above seems to believe it to be), and I suspect if it were presented appropriately most of the community would support it. Every defense I've seen of ARS in the past has taken some form of "The ARS does good work fixing articles" -- non-members who are not especially involved seem to generally believe this to be the case, but even members frequently present this as being the case, apparently knowing that it's the only reason the rest of the community tolerates ARS. But this argument isn't borne out by the behaviour of many of ARS's members, who seem to be more interested in !voting down AFDs, regardless of whether the articles are improved. (Occasionally they show up after the AFDs to shut down redirect/merge proposals,[2] and even rewriting/formatting/compromise proposals,[3] apparently for no reason other than revenge against "deletionists".) Some recent listings have indeed been rescued as a result of delete !votes being retracted or ceasing following a series of edits by some members of ARS rewriting the articles during the AFDs. The ARS members in question have my gratitude and admiration for this, but such instances appear to be outnumbered overwhelmingly by cases where a discussion ended in "no consensus" and no ARS member ever touched the article itself either during or after the listing. All of these problems would be solved, or at least ameliorated, if the rules were rewritten so that either (a) only articles that had been nominated for AFD but with the AFD being closed with some non-deletion result could be listed there or (b) for every X articles listed during AFD discussions Y articles that have been AFDed in the past but not deleted need to be listed and noticeably improved by the members of the project. It would also discourage instances like those linked above where ARS members undermine attempts to improve articles after the fact if they were given explicit encouragement to support such efforts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We just had an AFD for the project close days ago. [4] So why is this being brought up yet again here by the same person who started that deletion nomination? I think the other place was the correct venue for such things, not here. Also note that on the Rescue List right now are two things that were put there by two different regulars that no one but them showed up to vote KEEP at. [5] [6]. Look through archives and this happens many times in the past as well. So obviously we don't all rush over and say KEEP no matter what. That is not a problem. Dream Focus 15:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CLOSEAFD: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. These AfD discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, the quality of the arguments presented matter the most. I think editors get confused with which discussions canvassing has the most impact for. If we were lets say talking about a huge discussion with multiple editors taking a # vote (RfA is a good example), then it would matter much more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent point Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The question to be asked is what is best for the project. All one needs to do is look in the archives: our last archive 12 deleted articles out of 31 to see how difficult it is to save an article - most of the articles had zero participation from ARS members. Additionally there are about 3 editors who follow the ARS and obstinately !vote Delete on nearly every article listed on ARS. Also as every editor knows, an article can be sent to AfD over and over and over again. Yet a recreated article brings editors shouting SALT. This proposal to scrap the whole project in in bad faith and comes from a tendentious and difficult editor who has an extensive block history for: socking, edit warring, disruptive editing, personal attacks, redirecting articles without consensus, etc. I am also not surprised to see the High King here. The High King is smarting over the fact that I spotted them placing an AfD on an article just hours after that article survived AfD. In any event this is a bad faith nomination by a tendentious editor with a long history of disruption on the project. The only question about anything related to the encyclopedia should be: What is best for the project? Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Response This perfectly highlights the problems. Let's break down Lightburst's reaction. First, Lightburst creates a strawman argument saying I am "smarting" over being caught re-nominating an article at AfD. Entirely fabricated view. This is the AfD and I clearly acknowledged that it had only just survived AfD and I provided my reasoning for resubmitting it. It also highlights the meat-puppetery of the Rescue Squaddies as can be seen at that AfD. All three ignore the nomination requesting production of references. The allegations that I have a history of socking, edit warring, disrputive editing, etc are no surprise but not the full picture. If anyone cares to check my block log, the last time I've been "in trouble" so to speak was in 2010. That's 9 years ago and was solely in a single topic area - the "British Isles". I haven't been near that since. But hey, why let facts get in the way of smearing another editor, eh? Not just me either - this is part and parcel of the normal everyday tactics from certain members of the Rescue Squad. Attack everything, especially other editors, but when that doesn't work, attack the policies/guidelines and even the closing admin if results don't go their way. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The block log he linked to is the guy who started this bit, he then talking about you after that. You link to something that was not tagged in the Rescue Article List. At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hammerax_(2nd_nomination) you accuse the ARS of always showing up and voting keep but that was not mentioned at the Rescue Squadron's list either. Just one member who had been in the previous AFD that ended days before did comment, and then another regular member happened to show up. Dream Focus 17:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies if you thought I was referring to you as the one who has a history of socking, edit warring, disrputive editing etc. I thought it was clear I was referring to the OP, User:JPS and I linked to the extensive block log. However you are what we refer to as a deletionist. You almost never !vote keep. Out of 439 !votes at AfD you !voted to keep 28 times. So I am sure it is inconvienient when editors show up to attempt to improve one of your articles targeted for deletion. I think we can all agree it is easier to delete than improve. The OP is also a deletionist - only came across two article worthy of Keeping. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is a great example of the toxic paranoid nonsense that seems the sole domain of ARS members (which is not to say all ARS members). The scourge of "deletionist" bogeymen who mindlessly !vote delete contrary to policy! Quick, poison the well! The reality, of course, is that HighKing's !votes are out of line with consensus an incredibly low 4.8% of the time. That's the only thing that matters. Just like HK shouldn't care that you're inclined to only get involved at XfD when it's something you think is worth keeping. You, however, miss the mark more than four times as often. People have different kinds of engagement at XfD. Some people only get involved when there are particularly egregious issues in play. Some people only bother with promotional articles. Some people focus on particular topics. Some try to resolve contentious disputes. Some people only bother if they can justify keeping it. These are all perfectly fine as long as we're acting in good faith. Trying to undermine what people say because they're "deletionists" is not doing that. Canvassing is not doing that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Toxic is a bit harsh. We have an attack on the project several times a year and the attack is from deletionists. You cannot blame the sheep for being weary of a wolf. And even paranoid people can have actual antagonists. It is very easy to be on the "winning side" in an AfD. One can assess the majority opinion and vote the majority. The ARS members usually come to an article after a concerted effort to delete, and !votes have been cast. In any event this is about what is best for the project. And your opinion is clearly stated. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support - I think I've opposed this in the past (or maybe abstained) because the central thrust of the oppose arguments is a sensible one: the original idea of the project is not a problem. And I agree with that. Every time we do this, people argue that it's a good project with a good aim, acknowledging that it's often used problematically but that the answer is to set stricter rules or enforce those rules or sanction the problematic editors. But none of that ever happens, and it's still a keep-canvass-club.

It's the exception, rather than the rule, that participants make nontrivial improvements to an article, finding new good sources to keep it based on our guidelines.

Sometimes a user does improve the article (kudos to them, truly), and then uses ARS to canvass keep votes with a "I've improved the article/added a source" notice (again, not what it's for).

Notices are often non-neutral or make no effort to argue why it should be kept, sometimes just making a joke about the subject (because adding something to the list just implies "go keep this").

The people who use the project most operate according to unwritten rules, and those rules are by now well known. Regardless of what it says on the tin, the descriptions of ARS are not what the project is. This isn't a referendum on whether the ARS is a good idea, it's about whether the way it's actually used is beneficial to the project. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Reminds me of some of the arguments against WP:Esperanza before it got decentralized and shut down. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (not that it would do much good) While I'm annoyed that whenever I see the usual suspects swoop into an AfD, one can count on the place being peppered with vague "meets GNG" and superficial Google Book title searches... - being personally annoyed should not be a factor here; and as stated, we are after the good of the project. So here's what I see as the actual damage done by this tag-team: they tend to water down the consensus-building in AfDs by piling on with weak Keep arguments. Raw biomass does tell in closing, however much an experienced closer might intend to weigh quality; a finding of "no consensus" is always easier to make than a "delete" that will clearly tick off several !voters. And "no consensus", after all, is a Win: article not deleted. Whether that's a conscious tactic (I suspect so) or an "innocent" outcome of the totally-not-a-canvassing-board list - it's deleterious to article quality. - However, seeing that this is always the same core of half a dozen editors with a few satellites, I don't see how this behaviour would stop if the ARS page went away. Nothing is preventing them from achieving the same effect by just keeping an eye on each other's contribution lists. It's a personal behavioural issue, exploiting a weakness of the consensus process to force a specific philosophy, too subtle for outright sanctioning. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The contributions to the improvement of articles is considerable and demonstrable. There is no merit to the alleged abuse. Indeed, User:HighKing never misses an opportunity to bring up the same arguments whenever and wherever the opportunity is remotely available. He doesn't like the outcome of his stupidly nominated AFDs. He doesn't like when articles and references are improved, and WP:Hey happens. He continues to ignore WP:Before. Repetition of those repeatedly rejected arguments does not undo the WP:Disruptive nature of these efforts. Nor does it make them more worthwhile or credible. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

*Reluctant, but full, support. In theory, the ARS should be a useful place to improve articles. In practice, the ARS has become a place for people to canvas votes that automatically, and uncritically, vote keep at deletion discussions without any work, forethought, or intention to actually rescue the articles they claim to want to. As a concept, we should have a working ARS. As it works in practice, it needs to be shut down. --Jayron32 18:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please back up the accusation with some diffs of ARS members votes that automatically, and uncritically, vote keep. Anyone can go through the archives or the present ARS page. You should be able to support these wild claims with diffs. As a member of ARS I have nominated many articles that not one single member !voted on. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am not a member of ARS, but I have to agree. Most of the people here supporting are not providing backup to their claims nor are they citing policies and guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Change to Weak oppose. The chart below provided by SportingFlyer is a good analysis, and has provided me enough evidence to change my vote here. I still think there is too much uncritical voting going on to my liking, but that chart shows that, on the balance, most articles brought to the ARS have attracted some positive editing, which is enough for me. However, I would like to encourage a culture change at ARS that, perhaps, ARS members should refrain from voting on any article brought to ARS, and should instead only improve articles with perhaps a brief note on the AFD regarding improvements they have made. If the organization were used exclusively for editing articles, and avoided issuing opinions in AFD discussions at all it would go a long way towards ameliorating many people's concerns. --Jayron32 18:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Jayron32 Thanks for reconsidering. Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as it improves articles and thus helps readers. If a few barely notable subjects are kept which otherwise wouldn't be, that's not much of a problem; certainly not enough bathwater to justify throwing out the baby. Jonathunder (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good grief, what has it come to when editors trying to preserve content is seen as a problem? If ARS is a "canvassing club" by nature, then so is WP:DELSORT, WP:AALERTS, and indeed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log. If individual editors are using it to canvas, that should be dealt with individually. But I think AfD closers are more than capable of sifting out unsubstantiated arguments on either side. – Joe (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't intend to respond to all the opposers here (it's likely a futile exercise, after all), but I find it particularly disheartening to see an arb drop a drive-by straw man into a discussion. Nobody has argued anything like "editors trying to preserve content is a problem". I don't actually expect this to pass, but mainly because of people doing what you're doing -- looking at the purpose of ARS, saying "it looks great!" and moving on. That was my perspective at one point, too. ARS is not a problematic canvassing club by nature. It is a problematic canvassing club by nurture, per what I wrote above. It's a good idea executed in a way that far too often gets away from its intended purpose. If delsort and article alerts got to that point, we could discuss how to remedy it, but it's extremely unlikely because the reason those processes are great is that they're all about attracting participation based on knowledge of the subject/sourcing, not based entirely on their likelihood to !vote a particular way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Please don't just assume that I'm arguing from a position of ignorance. I've participated in and closed several thousand AfDs. I know what the ARS is and I don't see a systemic problem with it. I didn't see the point in making an extended argument, but I'll happily elaborate if you want.

AfD has several layers of notifications that in my opinion balance out nicely. The template notifies editors watching the article; delsort and WikiProject article alerts notifies other subject-matter experts; the standard logs tend to bring people who are inclined to delete unless they're convinced otherwise; ARS brings people who are inclined to keep if they can. None of these are canvassing. They're appropriate notifications to potentially interested editors. In the case of ARS, it's notifying editors interested in preserving content, which is a Good Thing explicitly favoured in both the deletion and editing policies. All listing there says is "can you save this?" not "back me up no matter what".

Yes, there AfD regulars who always vote the same way and that can be frustrating if you're trying to make a reasoned opposing argument. But tough: suck it up, make a better argument, and trust the closer to recognise the "usual faces" on both sides. Deleting other people's work is not easy by design. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

All listing there says is "can you save this?" not "back me up no matter what". Have you read the listings there? They have all the rhetorical flourish of a battlecry. User:Dream Focus: Find people who ignore the facts and keep spreading rumors about it, and ban them from Wikipedia until they stop their relentless slanderous lies., User:Lightburst: 7th nomination. Apparently the dissenting voices must be scrubbed from the internet. Can we save the minority voices? Should we? Or must we all speak with one voice? Perhaps we can demonstrate the usefulness of WP:LISTN by organizing the dissenters?.... jps (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention peevish edit summaries such as dissenting voices have been scrubbed[7], which misrepresent both the discussion and the close. Reyk _YO! 11:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reyk, I already know about how you feel about me based on your recent personal attack. The AfD that summary is about is accurately described as dissenting voices. However the other side called them cranks, crackpots, deniers, wall of shame and worse. In light of that "dissenting voices" is a rather tame description. Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The OP doesn't provide any evidence and the supporters don't seem to have either. What we just seem to have are groundless personal attacks, aspersions and falsehoods. So, there's no case to answer. A couple of points while I'm here though:

1. The ARS has a huge nominal membership which has accumulated over the years – over 400. It would be good if more of these were to participate at AfD so that the few die-hards don't have to try to cover everything. This is a general problem with AfD and other patrolling activities – the number of active volunteers is dwindling and so the remainder get over-stretched and fractious. And it doesn't then help if attacks of this sort are made. I'd quite like to be focussing on other activities like editathons, the six millionth article and many topics of interest. So, I am combing through the ARS membership list to establish who is still active and may then send them out a newsletter, as is done for the New Page Patrol or AfC projects, which have similar issues of overstretch.
2. For a fresh example of an article being rescued, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard (unit). Initially, a long list of editors said that there was nothing to be found; that the topic was probably a hoax. I wasn't convinced and spent some time digging into it. I found sources that other editors had missed and got the article back on track. Another editor has picked up the baton and continued to improve the article and so we have a good consensus now that it should be kept rather than deleted. Now, the key point here is that this work isn't easy. Few editors are capable of performing such work to a level of WP:HEY. Uncle G is a good example but he likes to do his own thing and doesn't tend to edit much now. If the nay-sayers think they can do better, then they should try it.

Andrew D. (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that I am listed as a "member" of the ARS, althoguh i ahve not been active in their internal discussions. But I have, from time to time, used the ARS list of 'threatened" articles to select ones to try to source and 'escue" and successfully doing so has been among my prouder and more rewarding contributions here. My "rescue" efforts have normally taken the form of finding and adding good sources, although sometimes also of debating the value of sources already found, or the meaning of specialized notability guidelines. I have certainly not engaged in 'tag-teaming" nor have I observed such behavior from the ARS, although it may have occurred. I am thinking of such articles as Tolu Ajayi, Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action, The Narrative (band) , and 500 Miles High, all of which i was involved in sourcing while at AfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have taken a number of articles that were proposed for deletion on to be WP:DYKs on the main page. This is part of what you now want to destroy.

Can you say, "Vendetta"? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I prefer to plough my own furrow and so occasionally see an article that looks like it's going to be deleted but can find sources myself to stop that happening, or, probably just as often, I look for sources but can't find them and say so. Others prefer to collaborate on such things. I think that the supporters above are only seeing the small minority of cases where people may have given rather dodgy "keep" opinions, rather than the majority where the sourcing of articles has been improved without any fuss. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Question - Can someone help me to see where I'm going wrong here? I'm taking up a lot of space in this thread, admittedly, but I feel like I agree with the underlying reasons given by several of the opposers here (and although I find ARS folks frustrating at times, I do value a lot of the work the users do). So please help me to understand. As per WP:CAN, "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". It therefore seems important to distinguish posts which seek to improve an article and find sourcing from posts which simply influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Nobody will dispute that when someone improves an article and finds sources that it is a very positive thing for Wikipedia. And I won't dispute that has happened via ARS (just like the same happens through the various other mechanisms we have to advertise deletion discussions). My question is about when that's not what it's used for -- what its purposefunction is influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. There are two scenarios that seem to me most fraught:

(1) Regarding the person posting to ARS: Cases where someone posts about a discussion to ARS just to turn the tide of an AfD. Maybe the person has added sources themselves and thinks it should be kept, maybe they think the people !voting delete are wrong, maybe they just like it, etc. Regardless of the reason, the function is to influence the outcome by attracting people who will agree with you (or, at minimum, certainly won't disagree with you). Is ARS exempted from this kind of canvassing? Is there some way that it is not canvassing? Is it sufficient to issue a catch-all "no, I want them to improve the article, and it's not my fault if they just show up to !vote keep"?

(2) Regarding those responding to posts at ARS: The more complicated one, and complementary to the first scenario. Given that the audience at ARS are people who are likely to !vote keep and will almost never !vote delete, if you learn of a discussion through ARS without the crucial step of finding additional sources or improving the article, and just show up to !vote keep, that would be considered canvassing on basically any other forum on Wikipedia where people are likely to !vote a particular way. Am I wrong? Maybe an easy provision to avoid the problematic responses would just be to make explicit somewhere that if you learn of a discussion through ARS (and we'll take you on good faith as to whether you did or not), you should only act on it if you're going to participate in the rescue beyond !voting keep.

What am I missing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I try to improve articles to the extent I can. I can't make sources up.

Sometimes I vote. Sometimes I don't.

Posting on ARS invites others (sometimes with better access to relevant sources than I me) to help improve the article. I've seen it happen. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. And sometimes they put the sources into the AFD discussion (See WP:Before), but don't bother putting them into the article. I wish they would follow through. But I can't control how editors (they are a cantankerous herd of cats) choose to respond.

In some respects, the Modest proposal of mandating contributions by a particular set of voters at AFD sounds like a Poll tax. Or Voter Identification laws. Clearly not neutral; clearly set up to disadvantage those who want to keep an article.

If we are going to condition participation in AFD discussions, what rules should be imposed on those who seek deletion? WP:Sauce. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This is all well and good indeed, but when it's about finding sources and putting them in the AfD and/or in the article, that's uncontroversial. Where I'm unclear is about those cases when people don't bother with the sources/improvement and instead just !vote keep. It seems often that it's a matter of dispute whether the sources are sufficient to keep, or when someone feels strongly that an article should be kept due to sourcing that's been found, and ARS is a venue where one is most likely to find people to fall on the keep side of those disputes (i.e. cases when posting to ARS isn't about improving the article or improving sourcing, but about supporting the idea that the sourcing is good enough). Regarding rules about those who seek deletion, I'm having trouble thinking of an equivalent on the "other side". Feel free to suggest something? We should impose the same canvassing rules on everyone. The question here is about the extent to which there should be an exception to those rules. There's obviously broad support for advertising articles to people with subject-based interests, but there's no other venue where the common interest is a particular outcome independent of subject. There is no deletion equivalent to ARS (nor should there be). Outside of ARS, everyone follows the same rules for canvassing, and if there's a venue where that's not true, I'd appreciate learning of it so I can make the same arguments there. We do have the language of the deletion policy and WP:BEFORE, in terms of conditions put on those seeking deletion, but this is all about canvassing, and I don't think there's an equivalent worth talking about. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ARS posts should be worded neutrally, and if they aren't that should be fixed. Usually IME they are. There is nothign stopping a person who tends to favor deletion from reading the ARS lists, going to the AfD pages, and posting in favor of deletion. Therefore, i don't see ARS posts as canvassing at all. They are either calls to help find and add sources to an article, or to evaluate the sources already there and give an opinion on whether they are sufficient. Both are perfectly acceptable. A call to "vote keep on XYZ, you don't need to know why" would be improper, but I trust ARS isn't doing anything of that sort. Any specific person doing that can and should be warned and eventually sanctioned. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ARS posts should be worded neutrally, and if they aren't that should be fixed. How do you propose one goes about doing that? The wagon circling prevents any attempt to fix that. I think the problem here is that the ARS group refuses to take onboard any criticism. The concept in and of itself is not problematic. It's the way this particular group operates that has become the issue. jps (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – I periodically check in on the article rescue squadron, and I'm consistently impressed by the good work they do improving articles. I've popped into a number of deletion discussions where the article has greatly expanded since the discussion began. Clearly a positive to Wikipedia and not seeing any diffs to prove otherwise.Patiodweller (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised in the past to no avail. Several recent dicussions [8] [9] (a proposal to amend the project "guidelines" and a concern about inappropriately-worded entries) show project members unwilling to accept or address valid concerns about their own conduct. Even in this discussion, language alluding to "attacks on the project" and something about wolves and sheep show a battleground mentality among participants. –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Needs more evidence, oppose till then - for what is a fairly aggressive argument, which would also have to be coupled with significant accusations at a number of users of canvassing (at best, unintentional poor canvassing) I need a significant amount of evidence for this. A review of the last 10-20 AfDs where at least one active ARS editor was involved: did the threatened article get improved, or did a number of editors get summoned, drop keep (!(?))votes and leave? Evidence requirements have not been met by those advocating change. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think asking editors to always contribute to an article when commenting to keep an article if they learned about the discussion via the rescue squad is essentially a disincentive for people to use the rescue squad's resources. While I'm sure some of those calling for its disbandment wouldn't mind, I don't think is fair to the squad to allow it to continue yet constrain it in that way. Personally I think since the decision to delete or keep should be made based on the suitability of any uncovered sources, or the potential of there being sources not yet found, the question of who brought forth the evidence is in theory of a lesser concern. This is where in the past I'd talk about English Wikipedia discussions being straw polls in reality, but knowing some people will pull out examples where this didn't happen, I'll just say that many discussion closures are influenced by numbers. We need to have more closures not worry as much about numbers and be based on the sources. isaacl (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I like the idea of a group of editors bringing scrutiny to deletion discussions that are slipping under the radar. I've seen a bunch of deletion discussions where there are only about two delete !votes, so if those two people have an agenda (and they sometimes do) then there's a problem. I like the idea of a noticeboard specifically for that situation. I won't cast a !vote here because I can't speak to whether ARS is serving that function, or if it's just a place to go when you feel like The Cabal has it in for you. But I like the idea, and think the idea is useful. ApLundell (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Huh. I see that on the talk page, there's two discussions about whether or not it's ok to ignore the anti-canvassing rules and have non-neutral posts on their noticeboard, and they've apparently come to the conclusion that it's fine. Lovely. Perhaps instead of deleting a potentially useful noticeboard, individual users could be TBANed? ApLundell (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose partly due to WP:Forumshop. It seems a little silly to be discussing this just days after the ARS page was unanimously kept during a miscellany for deletion discussion. I do disagree that ARS members engage in canvassing, but this isn't really even the time to talk about it. This was already dealt with in detail during the deletion discussion a few days ago, and we ought to wait at least another year for consensus to potentially change before we re-litigate this. Worldlywise (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how that argument makes sense. Not only did that MFD see hardly anything discussed in detail, but deleting the "Rescue List" and shutting down the project are different issues. Several editors have historically opposed deletion of the RL on procedural grounds that the project would need to be formally shut down first ("putting the cart before the horse", so to speak), so having this discussion now makes perfect sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support
  1. The XfD was ruled not to be the correct forum. It was closed, not as "Keep", but as the wrong place.
  2. I recall only one instance where ARS involvement ended up in improvement of the article, and many where ARS involvement lead to a "Keep" result in spite of no actual arguments against deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Deleting ARS seems like something that should be listed at PEREN. I personably disagree with some of their stated goals, but there is no harm of the project as given as long as they are engaging in the "R" part of their name, rescuing articles from deletion. What normally becomes the problem is specific editor behavior, which generally includes canvassing to try to get !votes at the AFD, rather than actually working on the article to improve it. Certainly not all members of ARS do that, so you target the bad applies, not the entire barrel here. --Masem (t) 07:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

How does one target the bad apples when it looks like there are now at least four who seem to act in consort? The adage is, after all, one bad apple spoils the bunch. What do you suggest? Some sort of omnibus WP:AN thread? A WP:RfC at WP:ARS? A request for arbitration? There doesn't seem to be precedent for dealing with an entrenched group like this who produces evidence in this very section about how they coordinate attacks on their enemies. jps (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You collect evidence that show the select few routinely using CANVASSing and gaming the system, and present that as ANI or the like to seek action. I would have to search but I'm pretty sure that ARS has been warned broadly about CANVAS but even if not , that's a PAG that all WP editors should be aware of. --Masem (t) 15:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It seems like there is a problem with certain members ignoring the project's code of conduct and the instructions listed at the top of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, not the project as a whole. Since those editors have been ignoring efforts to actually enforce those guidelines (per dlthewave's comments above), it seems like it's more time for an ArbCom case to be opened against those editors than yet another easily canvassed community discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know much about the ARS but I think the OP's attack is at best the pot calling the kettle black. The OP seems to be a strong supporter of WP:FTN which I think does what they say ARS does and far worse, see WP:FTN#Articles on scientists from the list. That noticeboard has long discussions about articles and go off to delete them without bothering to put any notice on the talk page and seem to think that is a good idea bucause having editors from fringe article involved would promote drama. At least the ARS board mainly seems to be links to deletion article without much discussion. Because of that FTN experience I am thinking of having an RfC here to make giving notice of discussions about articles on noticeboards but I wouldn't include the short notices like I see at ARS and I think in general noticeboards are okay that way though I'd be asking for it to be a general guideline. Dmcq (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed. In the AfD in question, there were about 13 FTN regulars who came to that discussion and voted as a block. This made a big difference to the outcome and that's why the page was deleted this time rather than being kept, as it had been many times before. The AfD was planned and coordinated at FTN where the nominator admitted that "I should have added a mention that I had left an announcement on this noticeboard at the AFD". FTN exhibits the behaviour which WP:CANVASS discourages: "campaigning ... vote-stacking ... forum-shopping". And notice that this very discussion is now being canvassed at FTN. It's a shameless pot of sauce! Andrew D. (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why not just take the contested article to WP:DRV for a second closer's opinion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion is still ongoing and it seems best to do one thing at a time, rather than shopping the issue to numerous forums as the OP has done. See also the discussion below where false claims are made that the ARS makes frivolous appeals at DRV. We don't do that. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Question @Lightburst: et. al.: can you tell me what an inappropriate notice would be for ARS? I think the notice that set off this discussion was clearly inappropriate, and I still can't quite wrap my head around why there was so much resistance to just rewording it. It sounds like many ARS regulars would like it if the project had more contributors, but hostile comments like this one are the sorts of things that make people want to steer clear of a project. I don't understand why participants in the project wouldn't want to be more accommodating. Nblund ^talk 19:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• The general rule on such pages is that you don't mess with other editors' comments and formal nominations. Per WP:TPOC, "The basic rule ... is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..." This is necessary so that we don't have chaos in which it is not clear who said what. For example, Nblund created the AfD nomination in question. I considered their nomination to be biased, disruptive and erroneous, misrepresenting the facts of the matter and our policies and restarting a discussion which had been had numerous times before without any new evidence. But I didn't try to alter, amend or suppress Nblund's nomination because that would be out of order. Instead, I started my own entry in which I responded to the nomination – point and counterpoint. That's the way we do things and the same applies to ARS entries. They are not meant to be extended discussions but if you have some point to make, you can append it as an indented observation. But you don't get to change the OP's initial entry, especially if you're involved as a rival nominator. This is elementary wikiquette. Andrew D. (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose disbanding, support renaming or otherwise addressing problems. Almost everyone seems to agree with an "Article Rescue Squadron" in principle; some disagree with the way ARS operates in practice, and some of those editors think disbanding ARS is the only solution. The question, it seems to me, isn't "Should we have an ARS?" but rather "Is ARS being disruptive?". I personally don't think so, but here are two examples of something I think is a problem:
  • Gage Creed was nominated for AfD. It ended up at DRV and the DRV close said ... it will be in order for any editor to begin a fresh AfD about this Stephen King character at any time, including immediately after this close ... as an alternative to re-running the whole process, editors may wish to consider discussing the possible merge/redirect targets on the talk page and reaching a consensus there (maybe proceeding to RfC if that discussion stalls or becomes entrenched). So I started a merge proposal at Talk:Pet Sematary#Gage Creed merge proposal. Here's how some oppose !voters commented at the merge discussion:
    • This is like a Stephen King story: the discussion that will not die and keeps resurrecting to enthrall and torment its victims. It's time to put it to sleep – "no fair, no fair, no fair..." ... The key policy here is WP:NOTPAPER and we're proving it by starting numerous additional pages for these discussions.
    • ... this nomination is a blatant failure of WP:DELAFD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:JDL. This is the second time after an AfD that this article has been nominated to try and achieve a new outcome. It’s just ridiculous at this point. It’s obvious the article needs improvement. So rather than constantly trying to delete the article in hopes of a new result, might I suggest assisting in bettering the article?
    • ... That you couldn't get the article deleted (twice) within the last two weeks should govern the outcome here.
  • Tantive IV's AfD was closed with the closer writing The result was no consensus. That is, no consensus between merge and keep. Nobody agrees with deletion. Whether this content should be merged is perhaps better further explored on the article talk page than in an IVth nomination. Piotrus started the merge discussion at Talk:Tantive IV#Notability and merge. Here is how some oppose !voters commented at the merge discussion:
    • That discussion established that there was no consensus for merger let alone deletion of anything. WP:FICTION is an essay which also lacks consensus. Persisting with this is disruptive per WP:FORUMSHOP; WP:DELAFD; WP:STICK, &c. The nominator appears to be here to promote the interests of Wookiepedia – a commercial website which exists to sell advertising and make profits for its shareholders.
    • We've already been through this in the AFD, no sense repeating it here. There is no consensus to delete/merge this article.
    • Please refer to the AFD. There is not a consensus.
    • New forum, new form; old story. Old wine in new bottles. Same result.
  • In both cases, ARS members !voted keep in the AfDs, the AfDs closed with no consensus, with the closers explicitly suggesting a merge discussion, a merge discussion is started, and basically the same ARS members show up at the merge discussion accusing the nominators of being disruptive for starting the merge discussion. In my opinion, making an unfounded accusation of disruption, is itself disruptive.
  • Still, I don't think disbanding ARS is the answer. I think one of the problems is in the name and the mindset. If you're "rescuing" an article, who are you rescuing it from? The evil AfD nominator? That, right there, begins the battleground mentality. When you say your mission is to rescue the articles that are falling through the cracks at AfD, you're presupposing that AfD !voters basically can't be trusted to determine which articles should be deleted, and so they need the watchful supervision of ARS. Again, it's a premise that leads to battleground mentality. So I would rename it to the "Article Improvement Squad", and keep in mind that, sometimes, improving the encyclopedia means deleting an article. Sometimes, it means merging two articles. Sometimes, it means finding more sources and expanding an existing article. All of those methods (and more) can improve the encyclopedia, and the point of AfD and merger and other such discussions isn't to "rescue" or save an article from evil or incompetent deletionists, but rather to get together and discuss how to best improve the encyclopedia. It seems too often that too many ARS members show up to discussions ready to do battle, quick to sling accusations of disruption and ALLCAPSPOLICY violations, etc. I hope they'll consider a change in mentality and approach, because at bottom, like others, I think the principle is a great (and necessary) cause, even if the way it's practiced could use some rescue improvement. – Levivich 19:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's already a separate Articles for Improvement project – see WP:AFI. I get the impression that it is fizzling out as it hasn't had a nomination since August. That's probably because one of its main coordinators – Northamerica1000 – has been busy trying to rescue lots of portals, instead. Why is he having to do that? It's because yet another set of "improvers" are trying hard to delete them all... Andrew D. (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nobody is trying to delete all portals. Characterizing a group of editors that way is just casting aspersions and "othering". More battleground mentality. – Levivich 07:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• There was a recent proposal to delete portal space right here at the Village Pump – see WP:ENDPORTALS2. This followed a similar proposal in 2018 – WP:ENDPORTALS – which specifically stated that "This would include the deletion of all portal pages". Levivich didn't attend the first proposal; presumably because they only started editing in 2018. In the second recent proposal, Levivich's position was that "I support deleting almost all portals, too...". Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The above is yet more flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation by Andrew Davidson. The quote provided includes no diff, as he clearly hopes no one will click the archive link he provides and Ctrl+F the quote. The actual diff is here, and expresses support for a proposal to delete most portals (original proposal here: These eight mainpage-linked portals [...] should be kept). Levivich even explicitly distinguished between what he supported and what Andrew misquotes him as supporting in the exact same comment, saying he supported removing the portal namespace, which actually isn't the same thing as deleting all portals. Note also Andrew's repeatedly putting words in my mouth and accusing me of lying a bit further down this page.[10][11] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The main point here is that the fuss about portals seems to have distracted Northamerica1000 from Articles for Improvement. There is now a large crowd assembling at arbcom but I find that NA1000 is mostly on leave now for the rest of the month. Hijiri88 is indisposed for a week too and so this should be a general cue to adjourn for Thanksgiving, Black Friday, Cyber Monday, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Many WikiProjects fall short of their goals and ideals. So does this entire encyclopedia. I can think of egregious examples of ARS involvement (e.g. [12] springs to mind), but I can also think of examples of articles I have personally rescued at AfD that probably should have been deleted (e.g. Milwaukee Mandolin Orchestra, as if Milwaukee wasn't bad enough without adding a herd of mandolins). Yes, members have provably engaged in conflict and poor behavior. They have also been blocked and warned, just like other editors who engage in conflict and poor behavior. Of course it would be great if editors could just, you know, improve articles and convince AfD participants that way. Improvement without aggression would be more pleasant for other editors, certainly. But not everyone is capable of improving articles in that way, and some editors need more reinforcement from others as they do their work. In short, while some ARS activities may offer good reasons to laugh and say "Ok boomer", that's true of a lot of Wikipedia editing, and it's not enough reason to shut down a well-intentioned WikiProject. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Indignant Flamingo: Yes, I too have rescued articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matsuya (department store) and sympathize with the stated goals of ARS, but in reality 90% of what they do is not improving articles to rescue them from deletion but rather whinging about "deletionists" (see here for the most recent example -- four ARS members show up to an MFD, not of an article to be rescued but of an attack page, and manage to warp an unambiguous consensus for deletion into "no consensus", simply because they don't like the editor the page was attacking) and preventing each other from being "blocked and warned". Ctrl+F this discussion for not supported by evidence and More false claims, two deliberately misleading and inflammatory statements that the editor who made them has refused to retract, and then check the last time that editor was blocked -- six years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you pinged me: I think that MfD is a bit petty, particularly given that one of the !voting editors was previously the recipient of generosity from admins who blocked their AfD socks and warned them about socking but didn't file an SPI. I also think that your ability to contribute with specialized language and cultural knowledge is important to the project, and that the encyclopedia will survive even if Randy in Boise gets his way sometimes. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

...not if Randy in Boise follows to constructive editors around constantly and makes editing the encyclopedia miserable for them. I see no reason to believe the same thing won't happen (hasn't happened?) to everyone else who gets the Big Four angry. Yeah, I change careers shortly after my first interaction with ARS and so was busy in real life for like a year (then got a new and better but busier job), but the only two editors who ever temporarily forced me off the project before 2018 were this stalker and [[Special:Contributions/WPPilot|this litigious problem] -- I'm not saying any one of the Big Four as as bad as JoshuSasori or WPPilot by themselves, but it's still shocking to me that all of them have avoided being site-banned thus far. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't find any records of Deep voice privilege being placed in the Article Rescue Squadron's rescue list. [13] [14] [15]. So the "egregious example of ARS involvement" that springs to your mind is alas incorrect. Dream Focus 01:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Probably a consequence of me thinking that ARS members participating at AfD to rescue articles is ARS involvement. I can see why you'd want to say it isn't, though. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Just because a single ARS member shows up doesn't mean it has anything to do with the Wikiproject at all. Dream Focus 02:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

ARS - Thinking outside the box

If the problem isn’t the goal of ARS, but how it functions... then perhaps we need to change how it functions. Here is an idea: When an article is up for deletion, and an ARS member feels that there is potential for “rescuing” it...

1. the rescue squad issues an “ADOPTED” notification (NOT a “keep” or “delete” !vote) at the AFD stating that they think it can be brought up to standard.
2. the AFD is closed with “ADOPTED” (NOT “keep” or “delete”)
3. the “rescue squad” will then have a set amount of time to improve the article.
4. at the end of the time allotted, if there has been improvement, great... but if there has been no improvement, a second AFD discussion can be held, and closers will be told to give that lack of improvement negative weight in determining whether keep or delete.

I think this (or something like this) would preserve the positive goal of ARS, while also making ARS accountable for performing its positive function as well. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as wrongheaded. Deletion is not clean up; either a topic is notable or it is not. No amount of cleanup can make something pass the WP:GNG so unless the idea is to give the ARS more time to find sources (which is what anyone should be doing during an AfD) this isn't going to fix anything. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Meh... clean up can help demonstrate that an article topic meets GNG. You have to find sources... AND add them to the article with some context (to show that they are relevant). Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:N Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal, but support the meaning behind it. AfDs should not be used as cleanup, but if a cleanup happens because ARS comes in with decent sources during the AfD and saves it, then WP is better for it. I think pausing the AfD itself is counterproductive as there is already a deadline by simply having an AfD in the first place. Add the sources to the discussion to support GNG, then add them to the article if the consensus is they make the topic meet GNG (or an SNG if applicable). I feel that there will be more WP:EFFORT-based Keeps even if the sources and content added to the article don't meet GNG. (This comment after a deletion comes to mind, which led to this deletion review. Maybe a limited occurrence, but it was based off an AfD where no extra sources were added by Keep !voters at the time.) Yosemiter (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Note that that AFD was not tagged for Rescue, just one regular editor in the ARS happened to go there on his own and didn't tag it asking for help. I don't recognize the names of the others who said it should be kept. So this has nothing to do with the ARS. Dream Focus 02:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Never said it was tagged. I am also not opposed to ARS. Just pointing out something that I have seen in general when it comes to claims of WP:EFFORT and it is just the most recent one like that. Yosemiter (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Yosemiter: That is disingenuous. I went to that AfD on my own and I evaluated the article per WP:NEXIST. I then subsequently produced those multiple RS in the deletion review. You were just of a mind to delete and rejected the reliable sources. That fact that I did not insert them in the article is not what is required when !voting in an AfD and by deletion review the article was deleted. Reasonable editors can disagree about notability but there were four editors arguing for keeping and four arguing for deletion. Clearly that is why I took it to deletion review. But yes, it has nothing to do with ARS. Here is the exact entry with the sources. So diminishing my WP:EFFORT is the height of hyperbole other sources also exist. Waco Tribune Herald, Dallas Morning News, Big 12 Sixth Man of the Year, Red Cup News, NBC Sports Lightburst (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support This proposal would force the ARS to put their money where their mouth is. A lot of the "oppose" !votes above are based on the assumption that ARS does good work rescuing articles by improving them, but I am not seeing it on anything approaching the rate at which they show up and disrupt otherwise civil AFD discussions with personal attacks and aspersions against the nominators (and other random parties) and bogus "I found all these GBooks hits and I assume they include significant coverage, hence notable" !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

In particular, points 3 and 4 would prevent frivolous shit-posting about any AFD (nominator) that this or that ARS member doesn't like, by saying that the more articles that are "adopted" the more work ARS members actually have to do and discouraging the listing of articles that have no chance. They would also help prevent cases where articles that should have no chance are kept by default because a few ARS !votes swung a consensus to delete over to "no consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support something that might make ARS productive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Anyone can post they need more time and ask the AFD to be relisted. You can also ask for an article to be moved to draft space to work on. So this is a rather pointless thing and not really enforceable anyway. Dream Focus 09:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This sounds like the Incubator which was a failure. Draft space is a similar idea and that's not working either. I occasionally try userfication and that's useful in cases where the history is important. The trouble with all these ideas is that creating content is hard work and most editors would rather goof off to discussion pages like this where they can pontificate at length without the inconvenient requirement for citations to support their opinions. Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the sheer rate at which AfDs are placed makes this unworkable. Today by 9am central time there are already there are 56 articles nominated for deletion and 101 were listed yesterday. The ARS chooses maybe one article from those 157 articles. We can evaluate the references and article quality, or add references, or determine of they exist. In regard to the chart SportingFlyer made, I thank him for doing so. In my opinion it does not highlight any issues. Certainly no mass canvassing efforts. In addition I have asked the editors at deletion review to move articles to draft space and was soundly rejected or ignored...SportingFlyer you were in that review and I got nothing but crickets from you at the suggestion that I would take the article and improve it and submit it - so we will never know if it could be saved. In another situation, after the ARS spent major energy improving the article - maybe more than any other effort we have made, the AfD ended in deletion. I asked to allow a draft and the involved administrator said I will not have this article "linger" in draft space. As I pointed out above, there are those on the board who have a fundamental belief that articles must be deleted. From the chart that SportingFlyer displayed one could see I was rather upset that many articles got zero participation from ARS. You can see in my ARS summaries. "Bye Bye Bombshell" and "Canadian Business College Another one bites the dust." Also it is interesting that I see SportingFlyer is still lamenting the keep of Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident It was a major overhaul which anyone can see...and a Keep at AfD. Sportingflyer appealed and got the close overturned and had the article relisted for more AfD time only to get another strong keep. (this was wasted community time)...and he is still grinding about it? We do our best here. We might save 5-10 articles out of 500. We are building an encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ARS evidence

I've gone through and looked at the last 20 articles listed at ARS. There's a couple articles which were clearly improved to notability, a couple articles which were straight up canvassing, a couple articles where a reference or two was added during the AfD. I cannot view deleted articles, so no notes on those - feel free to update or add to this table. I have tried to note my own biases when making the table because apparently I've !voted in a lot of those same discussions.

Article	result	notes by SportingFlyer and other administrators	notes by Lightburst (ARS member)
Marina Quays	merge	WP:HEY, but sources were still merged.	One ARS member did a large amount of improvement. A total of 2 ARS members !voted merge. No other ARS members !voted. The other editors who turned up thought that another article had room, and so the article was merged.
Find My	keep	11 sources added by Newslinger during AfD.	Three ARS members !voted at AfD. Two brought sources and one brought facts. None edited the article.
List of dimensions of the Discworld	delete	no improvements made after nomination.	Only one ARS member turned up, !voted keep, however not entirely honest to say no-improvements. That ARS member listed sources in the AfD to back up the !vote. No other ARS members !voted.
Standard (unit)	keep		Three ARS members made additions to the article, and only those three members !voted in the AfD. 17 editors debated that AfD
List of crimes involving a silicone mask	keep	no improvement during the AfD, 3 keep votes from ARS members out of 8, other votes 2 delete, 1 merge, 2 keeps (one weak).	You should realize this list was started by an ARS member and specifically to link to a Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident which was improved by the ARS.
Bombshell (Transformers)	delete	No edits during AFD period; only one ARS !voter at AfD, which was only !keep vote.	No amount of energy could save this one. An ARS member listed this and !voted keep, but no other ARS members turned up and none !voted, it was doomed.
US Airways Flight 741 stowaway incident	delete		Listed by ARS member. Also improved by that same editor. Yet the effort of one ARS member could not overcome the subject's WP:NOTNEWS WP:MILL. Other ARS members saw the weakness and made no effort to save the article or !vote.
Kate Marie Byrnes	keep	I nominated this after seeing it at NPP - I still do not believe she is notable, but I respect consensus. Some improvement of the article after AfD nom.	Article was greatly expanded and improved by two ARS members during the AfD. No other ARS members !voted other than the two who improved the article. There were 14 participants at the AfD
List of comic science fiction	no consensus	references were added during AfD discussion	4 ARS members involved: One ARS member contributed to the article - two brought sources to the AfD and a fourth evaluated the list. So only 4 ARS members participated in the AfD, and there were 16 total participants
The Spurs	keep	improved during AFD, topic was a band who charted in a Canadian country music chart and so should in theory pass WP:NMUSIC but sourcing is scarce even with the improvement.	One ARS member improved the article a great deal of WP:HEY, but it was a hard one. Another ARS member struck their keep !vote, and then later !voted "Keep for now."
Simon Grindrod	delete	no edits after AFD nomination	None of the ARS participated in the AfD. None !voted.
Millie (short story)	keep	no improvement to article, article remains under-sourced and it's not clear it's notable.	Only one ARS member turned up to !vote on this one. That member brought sources to the AfD. No other members !voted.
Canadian Business College	delete	237 bytes added incl 1 reference	One ARS member did a significant amount of work on the article. That member was the only ARS member to !vote. No other ARS members turned up to work on the article or !vote.
Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident	keep	article improved during AfD and DRV - I took this to DRV, it stayed a keep after the relist - I maintain this still fails notnews/wasn't a notable crime, but again, consensus.	Article was WP:HEY by ARS members, it was a strong keep at both closings and a very good example of ARS work. SportingFlyer was unhappy with the Keep close so took this to DRV and had the AfD result overturned. The article was relisted and was reaffirmed as a Keep
Tantive IV	no consensus	ended as no consensus between keep and merge, ARS members all voted keep, only a couple other keep voters, some improvement at AfD.	Only three ARS members added to the article during AFD a fourth evaluated the article and all four !voted to keep. There were 13 participants on the AfD 6 keep, 5 merge one redirect and perhaps one delete from the nominator
Ryan O'Donohue	keep	some improvement though looking through the sources this person is still not clearly notable.	Article was nominated by a now blocked editor who targeted voice actors - off and on Wikipedia. The article was improved by three ARS members and !voted on by those same three ARS members. No other ARS members !voted. The AfD was very well attended with 16 participants: there were 9 keep !votes and 7 delete !votes
List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia	delete	one ARS member did one semiautomated edit.	!voted on only by only two ARS members and one brought sources to the AfD. 14 participants at the AfD, could have gone either way - entirely based on opinion. In this case more editors favored deletion.
Gage Creed (character)	no consensus	very small improvement during AfD, currently undergoing a merge discussion.	Improved by three ARS members. One brought evidence to the AfD. I count only one AfD !vote from an ARS member. And that one !vote was cancelled out by an ARS antagonist. After the close at AfD an editor took this to DRV where SportingFlyer wanted the keep result overturned. No-consensus at DRV the keep was upheld and then another editor decided it should be merged, so another effort was made to merge. There SportingFlyer provided strong support for a merge. It seems locked in no-consensus, perhaps we can expect another AfD?
Birds Barbershop	keep	references added during AfD, interestingly all or almost all voters at the AfD were ARS. Unclear whether WP:NCORP is satisfied.	3 ARS members !voted. One ARS member improved the article during AfD and added sources, the other two brought sources to the AfD. No other ARS members !voted
Pedestrian etiquette	delete	one improving edit by an ARS member	2 ARS members came to the AfD. One brought sources and !voted. The other only commented without !voting.
Ellen Bryan Moore	no consensus	some minor additions to the text but not from ARS members - how I feel about this one is clear from my comments at the AfD.	2 ARS members !voted on the AfD. One ARS member improved the article.

SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Cage Creed illustrates a fundamental problem with process, quite outside WP:ARS. This article went through 2 deletion discussions within two weeks, which were closed as keep due to "No consensus", and now has a merge proposal. These serial nominations are a mockery of the process, and a waste of valuable editor time. There is no respect for the results of these discussions. The article did not become less notable in the interim. As far as I can see, the only regular ARS participant in this was User:Andrew Davidson in first PROD, who provided an extensive and heavily researched defense of the notability of the subject, and who established that WP:Before was ignored by the nominator.7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) (modified 13:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC))

(edit conflict) The above is fairly typical of Thirteen's misrepresentation, apparently the result of either (a) an attempt to game the system by clouding the discussion or (b) severe competence issues. Anyone can look at the discussion and see it closed as "No consensus", not as "Keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, nothing in Andrew's AFD comment indicated he had done any research -- he did the same thing he always does, which is copy-paste a bunch of titles from a GBooks search, with no effort to find out what was in those books that could be used to build an article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 You have no way of knowing what User:Andrew Davidson did. His entry contradicts your misrepresentation. In any event, Google books is listed at the top of the AFD nomination (it still exists, as does Davidson's comments), and WP:Before is MANDATORY, not discretionary or optional. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is not strictly mandatory. This has been discussed several times in the past. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_88#Is_WP:BEFORE_obligatory? and Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_71#Give WP:BEFORE some teeth. Consensus has been that it's good practice but not obligatory, and the reason is that it is frequently used, not to improve the quality of AfDs, but to heap abuse and contempt on the heads of nominators. Reyk _YO! 14:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you choose to engage in bad practice, it ill behooves you to complain when someone points out that fact. This is a matter of fact, not "abuse." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that WP:BEFORE is not mandatory. Reyk _YO! 14:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this as I would prefer people comment on the table above, but a quick look at the DRV log here shows the continued discussion was specifically endorsed by the DRV closer. SportingFlyer T·C 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Reyk Thank you for agreeing that WP:BEFORE is good practice and the preferred modus operandi. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Thank you for your table. Would you please add Standard (unit) (AfD) (diff) which KEEP results were resolved while you were working on the list. It seems more consistent if you add the notes. StrayBolt (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment WP:KETTLE This is what actual canvasing looks like. Here the OP and other editors discuss the article which started this whole drama. One editor claims I couldn't find any past AfDs on this, so I went ahead and opened a deletion discussion for the page. FYI there were seven previous AfDs on this article. Perhaps count how many editors participating there subsequently came to sink the AfD. Compare that with the ARS efforts. I posted the article which brought very few participants, but also brought the three editors who routinely vote delete on many ARS posts. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  The main purpose of ARS is to keep articles. The fringe theory noticeboard has no such common goal for articles and you'll see votes in both directions (coming here from that noticeboard because someone linked to this discussion). --mfb (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I knew nobody would be bothered to count so I did. I Matched the participants on that fringe theory discussion to the AfD.

Every participant on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. 12 participants, 9 delete !votes, 1 keep and 2 abstain.

• Hob Gadling Delete
• Alexbrn Delete and Salt
• Littleolive Delete
• mikeu Delete
• Nblund Delete
• Agricolae Delete
• ApLundell Delete
• Dmcq Keep
• XOR'easter Delete
• Guy Macon No participation on the AfD
• jps Delete
• Roxy, the dog. Esq. No Participation on the AfD

This clearly looks like a canvass based on the likeminded editors called to the AfD.

From the ARS list I count four editors !voting keep and 2 !voting delete. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You forgot my delete comment, but most people were in favor of deletion independent of where they came from. I count 36 to 14 at the AfD, so if we exclude people who are active on the fringe theory noticeboard that still leaves 26 to 13. You need to find the opposite case. A majority wants to keep it but a small group largely argues in a different direction. --mfb (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. As presented, this list just shows that some WP:FT/N regulars are usefully WP:CLUEful. Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Also correlation ≠ causation. I was led to the AfD in question not by FT/N but when it popped up on the that other notorious canvas board, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. Unsurprisingly, many of those who follow DS/S also know a bad article when they see one. Agricolae (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Causation is more often than not literally impossible to prove, so we rely on the next best option, correlation, which is still very useful for understanding phenomenon particularly when the pattern holds over time. -- GreenC 07:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Like Agricolae, I also came to that AfD via [[Deletion sorting. I do not read FT/N regularly or often; I don't have it watchlisted. I post there occasionally when I see, via some other avenue, an item that seems pertinent. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

How does a list of !votes on one AfD represent a pattern holding over time? My !vote on this particular AfD is in no way best explained by the fact that after I !voted I then made a comment on FT/N, particularly given my voting record on other AfDs, the vast majority of which have been neither preceded nor followed by any interaction with FT/N whatsoever. I struggle to recall more than one instance over the past years in which I !voted on an AfD I first became aware of via FT/N, so my !vote over this single AfD is not really indicative of much of anything, let alone correlating with a pattern that holds over time. Agricolae (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

fwiw --mikeu ^talk 11:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think that discussion should have relevance here as it involves one disputed AfD among lots of others that closed without incident. As I stated above, the process works by strength of arguments and not by votes. The ARS in that case failed to convince the closing admin with their arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• To your point about strength of arguments...the word Bullshit is used over and over. Other arguments, crank, crackpot etc. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I can't say it works all the time like it is supposed to and that is a reason why we have WP:DRV. What bothers me though, is that this discussion is turning into one about accusations of WP:CANVASSING. This is a behavior issue that really should be addressed somewhere else if you are looking for resolution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Understood. I am going to excuse myself, I am not doing any encyclopedia building in here. Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that as your points are valid regarding the ARS being kept. Discussions sometimes go off track in general for a lot of editors so I wouldn't worry about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• So it was clearly not my intent to have the evidence table just randomly edited by ARS members - I was specifically looking for administrators to independently check to see if the deleted articles were WP:HEY as a result of the ARS. However Lightburst went ahead and added their own commentary to the table. Since the purpose of the table was to help users coming to the topic look at the data and try to draw conclusions for themselves based on the data, the fact the table is now presenting one side of the argument is concerning. I've segregated their responses off into another column as opposed to deleting the responses entirely in order to avoid a conflict. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So, you have a theory (ARS is HEY), you can't prove it exactly, but hint that it exists and try to rope in an admin to go along with you on it. Meanwhile you make a table with a "comment" section containing errors of omission, personal opinions and biases - and when someone tries to correct it you call them out for being biased, ironically. Stick with mathematical measurements and percentages and leave your opinions out of it, otherwise your not presenting data but an argument for a position. -- GreenC 07:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems awfully close to WP:ASPERSIONS. Several users above wanted evidence, so I provided the last 20 ARS in tabular form, and as neutrally as possible, calling out my own biases in the process. I did not try to "rope any administrators in" but instead requested any interested administrators to look at the history of deleted articles, as I cannot do so. I would love if you called out any errors of admission or opinions/biases not presented in the table. I do not think it is a stretch to segregate the comments added by a noted member of the ARS project from someone trying to present the information neutrally. For instance, on the Gage Creed AfD, only one ARS member contributed to the nomination during the time in which it was nominated, not three (though some have contributed post-AfD.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer:. I did not expect criticism for doing exactly as you asked regarding the chart. I cannot view deleted articles, so no notes on those - feel free to update or add to this table. I went through each AfD and the articles that and updated the chart because I thought you were requesting that. I see you separated out my comments - perhaps in hopes of diminishing them. However you are welcome to fact check. Sometimes members only post the reliable sources they find in the AfD so while it is factually accurate to say "no improvement during the AfD" it leaves the impression that a member just cast a lazy !vote, and that is not the case. I do not think that was your intent. carry on. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. I see you changed the chart headings as well, to make it look like I was posting in a spot meant for administrators to update your notes section. Tsk Tsk SportingFlyer. ...the record persists. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone can hat all of the ARS-unrelated discussion here? Back to the table, it doesn't make sense to base any decision on the most recent cases, during a time of heightened scrutiny (there have been some discussions extending before this thread opened). Any evaluation should really be based on a random sample over the last few years. Maybe the first/last X number from each of the most recent archives. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  Click the archives on the side of the current list. Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_18 you can click on the red links and see how many times one person posted there, even a regular member like myself or Andrew, and no one else showed up to say KEEP. No one goes unless they believe it should be kept. Nothing changes, its always like that. Cherry picking for random examples won't really prove anything. Dream Focus 20:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus: but that's the part I don't understand. If ARS's canvassing is so spectacularly unsuccessful, why don't you stop it? By stop it, I don't mean stop leaving notices. I mean stop leaving non neutral notices i.e. do stuff the way the rest of the encyclopaedia works. As I've said elsewhere there may be some concerns that will always arise given the nature of ARS. And maybe you aren't intentionally trying to canvass. But you give the impression by persistently refusing to require neutral notices and I still have no idea why. By following the norms we allow follow elsewhere, you will significantly reduce the concerns about ARS, while making your work no harder. In fact it may be easier since editors will be less concerned about what goes in ARS so may be more willing to join. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  LOL Take a look at WP:RSN for example, people there notify sources with heading of "Holy shitballs", the "fuck no" list, "comedy gold" and various other "neutral" opinions about why entire domains should be deleted from Wikipedia. Find any board where deletion discussions happen and you will find behavior that is pushy, uncivil ("don't need your shitty sources at all"), opinionated, biased, and insular among a core group of like-minded people. We all aspire to be be better, and ARS imo does way better than most deletion boards. The deletionists are way more numerous, powerful and problematic than the 1% of AfD articles ARS gets involved with. -- GreenC 14:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The actual issue is member behavior

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

---

There are four to five habitual members of the WP:ARS who seem to have fallen into an inveterate WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. They claim, rightly or wrongly, that they are besieged by the deletionists and that this justifies their tactics. The goal of these members seem to be to prevent as many deletions of content as possible and any action that can thward a delete outcome is one worth taking. This is the culture that I would like to see change.

I'm just spitballing here: Maybe a way to dislodge this and remove the conflict would be to standardize ARS article listings so that non-neutral commentary is judiciously avoided. To enforce this might take an arbitration ruling in favor of discretionary sanctions, however, so that people who see these problems can report them to, say, WP:AE. Another might be to spin off the ARS list entirely and form a new noticeboard outside of WP:ARS space with something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noticeboard where some of the WP:OWN issues that seem to be in place could be avoided.

jps (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the actual issue is your behavior. Your inability to AGF and your incivility. The block log is evidence of your inability to work with others. You refactored or deleted my listing four times. But first you attempted to delete the project with an MfD and then went to two other forums - still not coming to the talk page. You have no credibility based on your actions . Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Thank you for the suggestions, see [16] above, I think they could have applicability in another noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment Really, User:Jayron32. Thanks for changing your vote.

However, if I come upon this from ARS and as a member, I am to have my ability to vote at AFDs limited? YGBSM.

But if we put similar limitations on the really problematical notice boards and their participants, e.g., Fringe theories noted above, I might think this a great idea.

In fact, we should start by proposing its deletion, so that we can then transgress to your Modest proposal in that context. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, we want people to improve articles. That is the goal of ARS. An article is not improved by overwhelming deletion discussions with votes. It is improved by editing the article to make it comply with WP:42 and other policies/guidelines for having an article at Wikipedia. Ultimately, the vote is unimportant. What is important is 1) if an article belongs at Wikipedia, it gets to stay and 2) If an article doesn't belong at Wikipedia, it gets deleted. If an article meets minimum standards for inclusion, it should be kept even if members of the ARS don't vote. If the article doesn't meet minimum standards for inclusion, it shouldn't be kept, even if ARS members do vote. The problem is that the votes influence the discussion in ways that keep articles where the subject doesn't merit one. If instead they focused on editing the article until it becomes blatantly obvious the article shouldn't be deleted, we would all win. If there's no possible way to make it that good, then why are we trying to save it? --Jayron32 18:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no empirical evidence to support the accusations or the conclusions.

Articles shouuld stand or fall based on their content, their sources, their potential content and their potential sources. See WP:Before. It is not what is in the article; it is what the article may become. It is not just about the votes, but editor opinions have weight. And AFD closers need to be educated to that standard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly correct on the point "in the article; it is what the article may become." Which is why I would invite people to improve articles, not tank votes. --Jayron32 19:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not just about the votes, but editor opinions have weight. And AFD closers need to be educated to that standard. Then ... maybe cut it out with the frivolous DRVs every time an AFD closer doesn't simply rely on a vote tally but actually weighs arguments according to policy? The problem with ARS is not only the canvassing (as virtually everyone who recognizes that there is a problem seems to agree) but that every time the canvassing doesn't work ARS either moans about it on their own noticeboard or opens a DRV to moan about it there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• In the table above, it appears that only one of those cases was taken to DRV and that wasn't by an ARS member; it was by SportingFlyer, who wanted to delete the article in question. In that case, I didn't attend the original AfD nor did I attend the DRV. I did comment when the AfD was relisted after the DRV because the matter had been escalated with a specific request for more input. If the ARS were a canvassing club, as claimed, then why didn't I attend in the first two discussions? Hijiri88's aspersions and insinuations are not supported by evidence and the evidence that we do have contradicts them. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: My comment was alluding to the tendency among ARS members to DRV any AFD discussion that ends in a redirect or delete consensus without an overwhelming majority in favour of deletion, despite WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. This does not apply to any of the above results, as the closest one that ended in deletion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia, where it was a 5-10 majority in favour of deletion. Examples of what I am talking about are here (advertised on ARS here) and here (advertised on ARS here). Now, can you or anyone else present evidence that ARS routinely doesn't file frivolous DRVs when an AFD doesn't go their way and they think they can appeal to a !vote count as supporting a "keep" or "no consensus" result? None of the above-linked AFDs provide such evidence, and all the other first seven redlinked entries on Archive 17 that didn't have a frivolous DRV also had an overwhelming majority of delete !votes. (The closest I could find was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities with the most high-rise buildings, with a 2-1 majority favouring deletion.) Do you want me to go through the entire list? Or are you going to retract your baseless aspersions and insinuations about me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• More false claims. For example, the DRV for JK!_Studios was clearly not frivolous as there was a significant procedural issue and the closer stated that "In this DRV, opinions are about 2:1 in favor of having another administrator re-close the discussion because of concerns that the closer was involved in the AfD discussion." And notice that while Hijiri88 posted 5 times in that DRV, I did not post in either the AfD nor the DRV. Another pot of sauce. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm... I never said you specifically had been involved in either one, or that I had not? And yeah, when an admin closes an AFD against a substantial minority or majority !vote going the other way it's gonna cause hurt feelings even on the part of non-ARS editors whose !votes hadn't been tendentious auto-keeps.

Anyway, I went through the last 30 red-linked articles on the list (the currently live list, plus archives 17 and 18): 7 had had less than 2/3 majorities in favour of deletion, and of those 7, 2 (linked above) were DRVed by ARS members. (Of the other 23, I didn't count precise data, but if I recall correctly 2 had exactly 2:1 majorities in favour of deletion, and the others were all well over 70%.) Auld and Livix were followed by interrogation on the closing admins' talk pages[17][18] that insisted a close !vote-count merited a "no consensus" close (the latter even featured an explicit statement at ARS that closers should be counting !votes); that leaves 3/7 (List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia, Battle bag and Nikita Denise) where a less than 2/3 majority !vote ending in deletion didn't lead to some form of tendentious complaining by ARS members.

So, yeah, it seems pretty obvious that ARS supports the idea that AFDs should be about voting and not about discussion and consensus-building, since most of the time there isn't an overwhelming majority in favour of deletion and the discussion ends in deletion anyway, someone at ARS will start dogging the closing admin and/or complaining at ARS that AFD should be about counting votes.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See also here, where every single member of ARS's "Big Four" is insisting that a no-consensus close is the same as a "consensus to keep" close (something one had already claimed at ARS) and that subsequent merge discussions should be shut down. (Note also that said Big Four also all showed up at the AFD, where they accounted for 4/6 of the "keep" !votes -- without their involvement there would have already been a clear consensus to redirect/merge.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I concur. ARS is a nice idea. The problem is the behavior of some of its members. Solution is IMHO a selective topic ban for several editors (from deprodding/voting; they could improve article and comment at AFD noting they have done so, without a right to vote). That would solve such issues. Please ping me if there is a proposal about topic bans or such, I can collect some evidence to present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Such a topic ban for the chief miscreants sounds like a good way to head off future trouble. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Alexbrn: Okay, so how do you propose achieving said topic bans? I've seen multiple attempts (each) on at least three of the Big Four, all of which failed, at least in part, as a result of the other ARS members showing up and derailing the discussion... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Start a proposal on WP:AN (after this discussion closes). Use lots and lots of diffs demonstrating the problematic actions that each useraccount has taken. Explain clearly why a topic ban for each would benefit the project. jps (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:OLIVEBRANCH, etc. I am giving you an opportunity to open up here. -- GreenC 14:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just being obnoxious. Reyk _YO! 15:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Pickled cheese on a pizza stick! What a surreal discussion. A more realistic assessment of the ARS would likely conclude the only problem with them is there aren't enough active members. Sadly, it's too rare we find skilled editors with the heroic, resolute temperament of folk like the Colonel, Dream, 7&6=thirteen, Lightburst & GreenC. It's understandable that some AfD nominators don't like the ARS demonstrating that they've been making blatantly inaccurate statements about the articles they try to destroy. Yet there's a simple solution to that. The less cautious noms can just cease putting up articles for deletion, or at least they could start carefully complying with WP:Before. As for the wider problem of too few active ARS editors to block more than a fraction of the unwarranted deletion attempts, I'd suggest in the first instance restoring the {{Rescue}} template, and then approaching the various local Wikimedia to see if they'll support ARS editor recruitment events. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Really, can't we have a discussion?

I think User:Lightburst here has given us a good insight into the mindset of some of the ARS afficionados. Look, I get it. The goal is to preserve what can be preserved. Laudable and admirable. And, actually, I don't mind the canvassing so much as long as it occurs in the right fashion. "Let's all get together and improve an article" is a great way to canvass. I have nothing but praise for that approach. What is problematic is the refusal to suffer fools gladly. What I cannot understand is the outright hostility to people who are also trying to improve Wikipedia but have an approach that is rather more of, "let's not put out on the internet every goddamn flight-of-fancy we've got until we're damnsure there is content that is not suffering from the problems that some content in Wikipedia suffers". Yeah, "work in progress" is fine-and-all but sometimes pulling the plug is the right thing to do or whatever.

These two groups are going to be at odds with each other, but they don't have to be at each other's throats. The only way this is going to happen is if the ARS people let others in to fix issues as they arise. Non-neutral postings, requests for work to be done before piling on, avoiding disaparaging remarks? All these seem reasonable. Yet they are met with a barrage of tu quoque, sturm und drang, carrying on. Just look at this thread. We've, for better or worse, fermented a group of half a dozen editors who are outright hostile to any criticism whatsoever. This simply does not bode well.

There must be ways for us to dislodge this problem. Because it's not going to go away just by closing no consensus and waiting for the next brush fire.

jps (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Waiting for the next brush fire... Indeed. This from the the editor who spent three days starting fires all over the project. On Wikipedia you are your record of edits and yours edits show that you enjoy fighting, bickering and causing drama. We have all basically wasted three days putting out the fires you started. I encourage you to look at your actions and see how they were unhelpful. Your actions were rightly viewed as attacks because you refused to come to discussion and instead started drama everywhere: lecturing rather than discussing. It is quite difficult to see you as helpful. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:OLIVEBRANCH, etc. I am giving you an opportunity to open up here. jps (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"The problem is that certain type of editors may not want any olive branches and such as they believe they did nothing wrong, and see it all as your fault, for attacking their righteous, pure and innocent behavior. How dare you, eh? More seriously, what I am reading here from people replying to you, after you accused them of misbhehavior, does indeed suggest that the mini-essay of mine I've linked before is relevant, sadly :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the suicide disclaimer debate

I took a look at the debate. Shouldn't we be helping a lot more people if we put in a suicide banner? Regardless if they are wikipedians or not— Preceding unsigned comment added by New340 (talk • contribs)

New340 It would help a lot of people to put many different kinds of messages in Wikipedia articles; drug addiction help, anti-suicide messages, domestic violence help, and so on. Where do we draw the line as to what messages are appropriate for a project that is supposed to be an encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

When it turns in don't try this at home. It will work until it starts getting unneeded, as in its obvious. Another thing, most people who visit Wikipedia don't go on the projects, they just look at the articles so it would be test of we add them.

As the person who started the original discussions and was dissatisfied with the actual solution that was implemented, although my personal views are that they should have added a Suicide Disclaimer telling those are suicidal to get help, the hatnote they have now may be the best solution for most wikipedians. If you look at the original discussion and look at Steven Crossin’s conclusion of the debate, this is what he says:

”I then refer to the alternate compromise proposal, to link to Suicide prevention in the hatnote, which was suggested by Doc James and supported by some of the editors that were opposed to the crisis hotline proposal, and also by editors that overall supported a change and commented in this discussion later. While this may not be a perfect solution, it has the most agreement out of all options in this discussion.“

Thus, I feel like we should not have a Version 2.0 of this discussion until a few years time when circumstances change, as if we discuss this again after the debate that literally took place just 5 months ago, nothing will come out of it. The majority of the people had already decided this. Neon 11:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Require Fringe theories Wikiproject to post notifications in any AFD they ask their members to go to

At Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard they post messages asking their members to comment at AFDs, but don't post a message in any of those AFDs to inform anyone this has happened. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Craig_Loehle for an example. They have an article alert list but it doesn't include this AFD or various others. Should the Wikiproject not have a proper deletion list like others do, and be required to post a notification in the AFDs they link to on their project page? Dream Focus 19:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support See my post above regarding just one AfD where the members were canvassed. Lightburst (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dream focus points out a post on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard which is blatant canvassing from User:jps. jps lists an AfD and asks for comment from the likeminded participants. verbatim: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Loehle Please comment. jps (talk) Here is another example of canvassing the like-minded participants of the Fringe project. Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And here is a discussion in which Lightburst and Dream Attack vehemently defend blatant canvassing when it's committed by Lightburst. ApLundell (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

My first comment in that discussion was "No one has the right to erase someone's message. The message seems neutral to me." That has nothing to do with this discussion, did yo mean to post it in the section above? Dream Focus 01:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant to post it exactly where I posted it. It provides context. ApLundell (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Um, you guys know that isn't a Wikiproject, right? It's just another noticeboard like WP:AN and WP:MCQ. It doesn't have members, and it isn't coordinating anything. It's just a place where anyone can post problems for discussion. Posting notices on open noticeboards is not canvassing, because these are not Wikiprojects. --Jayron32 19:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Pretty clear from my above post that it is being used to canvass. See my post above Lightburst (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is this supposed to be a WP:POINTY proposal? WP:FTN is a widely watched community noticeboard. I'm not sure how you can plausibly argue that posting there is canvassing whilst posting a AFD at an inclusionist wiki-project is perfectly fine. Nblund ^talk 19:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard vs. project is arbitrary wikilawyering. The effect is the same. Noticeboards can be just as clubby as any other regularly visited forum. When those forums are active in AfDs there should be rules in place to avoid abuse. -- GreenC 20:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nblund The noticeboard is called "fringe theory" and it is a defacto canvass since the group does not direct participants to !vote on non-fringe theory articles. In regard to the above mentioned List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - it is clear that you canvassed the participants, and feigned ignorance about previous AfDs on the list. And then of the 12 participants involved in discussion about the AfD you posted on the fringe noticeboard - all but 3 participants came to !vote delete. It is also improper that deletion discussion was taking place on the fringe noticeboard rather than the AfD: The only member to !vote keep mentioned that fact. Might I ask that you discuss at the deletion discussion rather than reinforcing your clique mentality here. Dmcq (talk) The request of Dmcq was dismissed. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "feign" anything. The prior deletion discussions were under a different title. I just missed them. The accusation of canvassing is too silly to debate. You didn't really answer my question.

• Nblund apologies for the accusation about feigning ignorance. The article had another title in previous AfDs as you have said. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: noticeboards are dedicated to Wikipedia policies that everyone should adhere to - it's not canvassing to bring in editors who are interested in NPOV issues to an NPOV discussion, but it might be canvassing to bring in editors with a specific viewpoint. More importantly, "widely watched" noticeboards are less vulnerable to bad behavior because they're more public. At best, you're arguing that ARS and FRN are exactly the same, so then why are you insisting that posting a message at one venue is canvassing while the other is perfectly fine? Nblund ^talk 20:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - as Jayron has stated this is not a Wikiproject and doing something like this amounts to WP:CREEP. As I have said above... we have WP:DRV in place, if you question the rationale of the closing admin for said AfD then it can always be contested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment User:Nblund You have committed the Fallacy of composition. WP:ARS is not monolithic. For example, User:Hijirii88 is a regular there, and has (for at least 21 months) been an agent provocateur if not an outright project saboteur, for many years. And he is a deletionist by his actions and his postings. You can see his posts written above. I am not maligning him, but his presence belies both your analysis and your conclusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you call that user a "saboteur" seems to imply that they don't share the goals of the project. I'm not arguing that posting at ARS is canvassing per se, but I'm struggling to see how anyone could say adding a notice at ARS is fine while FRN isn't.Nblund ^talk 20:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be a fair statement that he and I are not sympatico. I would say we disagree on most everything; and we no longer interact. Of course, that is not required that we agree. He is as entitled to his opinion as I. My only point is that WP:ARS is open to anyone, and some of us want to build articles and keep them; and some of us don't and want to delete them. I would say our goals are in disharmony. I can't answer as to why any of this happens, but I know it exists.

You pays your money; you takes your chance. I will continue to WP:AGF. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Are there any instances where an AfD notice has been placed at WP:FTN that did not involve a subject that was clearly a fringe theory? BD2412 T 20:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure. All the time. It's common for articles about practitioners of fringe science to show up on FTN. Typically once a quack realizes that Wikipedia won't function as free advertising, they try to quietly get their article deleted, so as to not scare away their suckers customers. ApLundell (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- this is a retaliatory proposal aimed at spiting jps. We shouldn't indulge this. Reyk _YO! 21:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. I thought it was Wikiproject, but they claim its a noticeboard, but it looks the same and is basically the same as far I can tell, and Wikiprojects do all post a notice in AFDs when they list something. If a lot of people are seeing something listed somewhere and going to vote there because of it, then it should be revealed otherwise its stealth canvassing. Dream Focus 21:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - It is actually quite rare for an editor to leave a notice about an AfD at FT/N... the purpose of FT/N is article clean up and advice as it relates to fringe theories (assessing sources, examining UNDUE complaints, etc), and notices are an alert that an examination and clean up is needed. In other words, the notices are usually posted well BEFORE any AfD is contemplated. Yes, sometimes nomination for deletion is the end result of a notice at FT/N... but usually this is well AFTER attempts to bring the article into line with policy have taken place. In fact, I would say that most of the time, “sent to AfD” is the last comment in a long discussion about the article’s content and sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem to be the case on the page now. I see plenty of cases where there is no discussion at all, just one editor posting a link to an AFD. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#The_Holy_Quran_and_Science_Conference Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Lipid_therapy Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Deletion_discussion_and_content_issues_on_Ritual_Violence Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Craig_Loehle That's fine but you should reveal in the AFD that they were mentioned there, just like Wikiprojects do. Dream Focus 22:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  I have to agree, as I can see no reason why we would treat this notice differently from a WikiProject notice. It seems like a harmless addition. BD2412 T 22:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a bad-faith proposal by Dream Focus, whose own behavior could use some scrutiny. However, if this is discussion is closed, it should not poison the well against a more serious proposal by other users. User:@Dmcq: recently voiced concerns and I think he or she was considering proposing something along these lines. ApLundell (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• MISLABELED PROPOSAL: The heading says "Fringe theories Wikiproject" and mentions "members" but the actual question is about Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. At least one comment above says "I can see no reason why we would treat this notice differently from a WikiProject notice" but wikiprojects and noticeboards have quite different rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose notification requirement for fringe theories noticeboard or for all noticeboards. Neutral on notification requirement for any wikiproject. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support but for noticeboards in generalOppose Posting neutral AfD notices is covered by WP:CANVASS. What I'd like to see I've covered in the next section #Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page. Dmcq (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC) My original comments follow.... This should be a general thing on noticeboards not just the Fringe Theories one. I wish the problem had not been raised this way by Dream Focus. They made it quite clear they would consider it as attacking them personally if this was specific to them rather than something which is generally done and I think that is a fairly reasonable request. As far as I can see people do typically leave a note if they go for any sort of discussion on a noticeboard about an article rather than a quick request to talk there or some query on a point of policy that applies generally. That is not in WP:Noticeboards but it can be put in as documenting current best practice. Dmcq (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with this, and would consider it a convenience to editors who might want to know that appropriate noticeboards have been pinged without having to check them manually. BD2412 T 00:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to automate this in some way? I don't see why anyone cares what those little "notes" are on the AfDs, but if it makes people happy and it doesn't require difficulty on the editor's part I doubt anyone would really mind. Seems like a technical request, perhaps. jps (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
      • They care because they want a procedural "gotcha" to invalidate deletion discussions. ApLundell (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Yikes! Well, I'll assume that's not the underlying rationale. If the process were automated, then everyone wins except for those who are acting in bad faith, I guess. jps (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
          • You're right, of course. ApLundell (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Grr it is any possible extended discussions on a noticeboard about an article I'd want a note for at the article page. You don't know how a discussion will end up never mind thet thy'll go off to try and AfD it. Personally I don't have a problem with neutral requests for editors to come to the talk page for an article. See the third paragraph in the introduction to Wikipedia:External discussion for something like what I'd want. The number of things wrong with how this proposal is phrased here is why I was spending some time before bringing it up. Dmcq (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask to close the discussion then? I definitely think you are in a better place to pose it. jps (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I definitly support the idea of closing and starting from scratch with less battleground and better idea of the actual mechanics of what is really wanted. I have to go away for some hours now though and that can be an age on this noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to just start the same discussion over again because some don't like me or just misread my intentions. Many would then just have to waste time repeating themselves. Dream Focus 01:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• No need so long as the notice is neutrally worded, it isn't canvassing to post a message to a relevant noticeboard informing users there of another discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Posting a (neutral) notification to a noticeboard is best practice for widening consensus, and is the opposite of canvassing, per WP:APPNOTE. The proposal seems confused about the difference between WikiProjects and noticeboards. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  Look at Category:Wikipedia_noticeboards. This noticeboard is not like the others, it is instead like a Wikiproject. Perhaps it should be renamed as such to avoid confusion to what it really is. Dream Focus 04:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yup, it's a noticeboard unlike (say) WP:ARS. So we call it what it is. WP:FT/N is a noticeboard hung off a WP:PAG, (WP:FRINGE) in the same way that WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN are noticeboards hung off WP:PAGs. While it is within the universe of WP:SKEP, if you want the talk page for that WikiProject (a treat if you've not found it yet!) then go to WT:SKEPTIC. Alexbrn (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• A neutral notice at WP:FRINGEN is the opposite of canvassing. In fact, I'd support a WP:DELSORT for fringe stuff if that doesn't already exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm vaguely puzzled that a WP:DELSORT apparently doesn't exist already. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

    For some reason, this feels like deja vu . (I still say a dedicated DELSORT list is the way to go, for what it's worth). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It is counterproductive to try to metastasize the discussion from the AfD to wherever else on Wikipedia someone happens to mention it. I would also support DELSORT. Agricolae (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Actual wikiprojects use bots to generate lists of deletion discussions their members may be interested in. Notifications are not posted anywhere about that. A possibility may be a canvassing noticeboard for topics which attract unbalanced discussions. I don't know, but there is definitely a stack of bots going around listing everything topic related you can think of, deletion discussions, new articles, new uploads, article promotions/demotions and discussions about that, RFCs, anything. ~ R.T.G 03:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Idea!: Another alternative is to pull canvassing apart. Don't check if people are canvassing about discussions, but have an official canvassing body which examines, for instance, deletion discussions, canvasses all of the site areas and even editors of significant interest, such that if anyone canvassed, it wouldn't even matter! ~ R.T.G 03:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page

In WP:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors the first problem listed is "Off-wiki discussions. Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust." Editors who are interested in an article will typically watch the article. However if a discussion about the article takes place on a noticeboad without a notice being left at the article talk page something happens rather like what the policy says. And it most certainly has raised suspicion and mistrust in me! Editors may come to decisions about the article without having the benefit of interested people who probably know more about the topic. This can become very like secret canvassing in some cases.

I know this is typically done in many cases and for WP:ORN and WP:BLPN there are even stronger requirements, but I think it would be right to standardize this as best practice in WP:Noticeboards and those noticeboards which typically talk about article content.

This would not include neutral notifications about discussions elsewhere or quick questions which are more about an application of a policy or guideline - though if such a discussion got extended it would be more likely to come under this guideance. We've got to trust neutral notices on noticeboard to come to a relevant discussion as not canvassing! Typically notifications appear within a discussion saying something like "We don't seem to agree on this so I've raised this question at WP:XYZ#Question about...". Or it might be a separate section outlining a more major concern and saying which noticeboard they are raising the matter with. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is just mistaken. Discussion on a community noticeboard is not "rather like" secret off-wiki communication. This proposal looks simply unworkable. If somebody mentions (say) five articles as examples of something during a noticeboard discussion, would they be obliged to visit each of those articles' Talk pages to leave a notice? Imagine the bloat. Imagine the processology and complaints from disgruntled AfD participants if some notifications were missed. The only way something like this could work would be if every participant in an AfD was required to disclose how they became aware of that AfD - but this has its own problems and my guess for the percentage chance of the community approving this is about 0%. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who said telling editors on an article talk page about a discussion on a noticeboard might needlessy escalate to WP:DRAMA aren't you? Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how that's relevant to my point but Yes, that's one factor to take into account. Minimizing dramah is a good thing. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And you don't think that is '"rather like" secret off-wiki communication? And may generate suspicion and mistrust? Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmcq: I think the issue here might be that you don't understand (or want) WP:Consensus. Having more eyes, especially the fresh ones of experienced and wise Wikipedians, is a good thing as it helps maximize consensus. Noticeboards play a key role in resolving issues and keeping and raising quality across the encyclopedia. Secret email exchanges do not build WP:Consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps wise and experienced editors would be better off hearing from people who have worked on an article and don't have to be protected from 'dramah'? And we wouldn't then have wise and experienced but ignorant editors setting off as a group to give their !vote and prejudice any others coming along by stacking the start of a discussion? Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of a paranoid WP:BATTLEGROUND frame of reference. If a discussion is "stacked" with wise opinions that's surely good. Again, it's about building consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well it certainly helps with consensus! But I see something more akin to social bubble and groupthink, I don't think that is what the WP:Consensus policy wants. Dmcq (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That is because you are giving this a paranoid WP:BATTLEGROUND framing. If you want to make a case that any particular group brings a damaging groupthink you need some actual, you know, evidence. So far the only thing that comes close that I've seen is the WP:ARS, as the long running drama around it demonstrates. In my experience forums come under attack (WT:MED gets this too) when they successfully maintain the WP:PAGs against bad content. So far as I can see, this is all blowback from an obviously bad article (List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming) having been deleted. But this was an in fact an example of where WP:FT/N was helpful in building consensus to a good end result. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I was specifically asked to make it general and not be picky, and I agree with that. A guideline that works in general is what is wanted. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

But "works" to what end. So far no problem has been demonstrated. You are asserting problems but I shall apply Hitchen's razor for the time being. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

As WP:CONSENSUS says "does not generate suspicion and mistrust". I think that's a nice way of putting it without prejudice for whether any particular decision was a good one or not. Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a phrase used about off-wiki communication, and is irrelevant. Back to to the point, you have produced ZERO evidence of any problem. Evidence would take the form of pointing to specific diffs, a specific AfD, or specifying something that actually happened. Without evidence of a problem this is just navel gazing. If you're saying _you_ are full of mistrust I'd suggest taking a look at WP:AGF. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll just point at the discussion here and ask editors if they are happy with articles they contribute to being discussed at length away from the talk page by people who don't want them informed about the discussion. No need for me to get involved in the minutae of particular cases or point to anywhere in particular. You can try justifying the practice more if you like! Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: "I will ask editors if they are happy with articles they contribute to being discussed at length away from the talk page by people who don't want them informed about the discussion" I will ask Dmcq why they want a calm reasoned discussion about accupuncture or Donald Trump to be flooded with comments by the same people who are being disruptive on the article talk page (see? two can play that game). There comes a time when the adults who are interested in fringe theories in general need to be able to calmly discuss the latest disruption at creationism without inviting a horde of creationists to join it and disrupt the noticeboard the same way they disrupted the article talk page. Some of them will find it anyway and push their POV, but do we really need to invite all of them? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See the second point at WP:CONSENSUS#Pitfalls and errors "Canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry. Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable." I think you're just digging an even deeper hole, but pray continue. Dmcq (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Getting fresh eyes from a community noticeboard is not biasing a discussion. The fact that you keep twisting the prohibitions about bad things (puppetry, secret comms) to seem as though they apply to what is actually recommended best practice, is just daft. Per WP:APPNOTE, a neutral notice on a noticeboard is explicitly not canvassing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about for instance notes starting a discussion about changing an article without leaving a note at the article talk page. WP:APPNOTE describes leaving a note on an article talk page as an appropriate notification of a discussion. I wish to have some of those appropriate notifications described as 'good practice' rather than as 'an editor may want to draw a wider range'. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree that when an article is the SUBJECT of a noticeboard discussion, good practice is to leave a note on the article’s talk page pointing to the noticeboard discussion. That said, I don’t think leaving a note should be required. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

What would you think would be a good reason not to leave a notice on an article talk page if the article is the subject of a discussion on a noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Example: Something like "I came across article X, is this topic in scope for this noticeboard?" - why notify the article itself (especially if the answer is "no"). Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Another example... the noticeboard is discussing an issue with article A, and in the process discusses how the issue is dealt with at article B... no need to leave a note at article B. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The first would comes under "quick questions which are more about an application of a policy or guideline" and in the second article B would not be the subject of the discussion if it is just showing how something is done elsewhere. It would start being a subject if people then started saying they thought article B was wrong and should be changed. I guess there would be some problems with phrasing things well but that's always the case with guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think the other way should be a policy: It would be very rare that it is appropriate to start a discussion at a noticeboard UNLESS extensive discussion had already occurred on the article talk page. At no time should ANY dispute be a surprise by the time it gets to the noticeboard stage. The noticeboards are for handling situations where the talk page discussion has broken down, and should never be the first recourse in solving problems. People who would be interested in a noticeboard discussion on a disputed article should already have the opportunity to be aware of the dispute. --Jayron32 13:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think though a note should be left on an article page when it does go to a noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say yes... but it does not need to be anything formal. A comment along the lines of “This needs a wider audience to resolve, I have opened a discussion at WP:Xx/N (link)” is fine. The point is to let people know where the discussion is taking place (and for future reference where it took place). Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that's all I want and it is mostly done. I think it needs to be documented as good practice, some people think it is a bad idea as can be seen earlier in this discussion. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that letting people know things is best practice. I can't imagine a situation where we would want to make such discussions a secret, or surprise people with them. --Jayron32 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• All of the above said... best practice (“should”) is not the same as mandated practice (“must”). I have always been opposed to creating “rules” that a lot of people won’t follow (because they find the rule too cumbersome or simply can’t be bothered). While I would support language ENCOURAGING editors to leave notices, I would not support language saying that they MUST do so. Phrasing it as a “must” creates unwanted drama (I can easily see the wikilawyers arguing that a noticeboard discussion is “improper” and that an obvious consensus can be ignored, simply because someone neglected to leave a note). Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of a guideline rather than policy, perhaps in the WP:TALK page? That might mean someone being snarky about it not happening somewhere but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Repeatedly and deliberately failing to follow it though could be counted as a user behavior problem. After all there are new users all the time for instance so the obvious thing then is for someone else to put in a notice and tell them doing that is the polite thing. Dmcq (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

As long as it is phrased as encouragement (best practice) and not as a “must do” requirement, I am on board. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Right now there is no tool available to easily post a notification of an article being discussed in WP:space on an article's talkpage (unlike, for example, the way the AfD tool handles appropriate notifications). If such a tool existed, I would certainly use it. It would also help with AN/ANI notices if they could automatically inform users too. As usual, I think a lot of these sorts of cultural changes can happen if you make it easier to follow the norms through software development than to go about the old-fashioned clunky way. Just a thought. jps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A tool to make it easy would be great. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be much of a problem to people but I do agree a tool or template that made it easier would be nice. Not much point though having such a tool unless there is a guideline saying something like that shoud be done. What would be lovely I think is some template like {alert page|article}} at the discussion that would be processed as a subst and put a note into the discussion saying 'article' had been alerted to the discussion, and would put a note at the end of the talk page of the article giving the page and section where the alert page template was used. Dmcq (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not much point though having such a tool unless there is a guideline saying something like that shoud be done. I think you aren't correct about that. Rules on Wikipedia are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive. In other words, if it becomes habit then someday people write it into policy with a "everyone does it this way" note. Take the AfD notifications. Right now, it's not required that people notify the initial contributor of the AfD, but the tools do that automatically when you list an article. No one cares that this is the situation, but it certainly has increased the number of initial contributors who are notified because it is bundled in with the TW AfD tool. jps (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I rather think you will find that the Twinkle tool to nominate a page for deletion was set up after the manual procedure in WP:AfD was documented and acknowledged as best practice. Currently as far as I can see the practice of putting a notice on an article talk page about a discussion elsewhere to change it is pretty much what is normally done, but it is not documented. I don't think it is very sensible to go and ask for a tool to do that be made and put in Twinkle until the practice is documented and acknowledged as good practice. Feel free to try setting up a tool but having it as a prerequisite seems unecessary in this case. It would be nice but people manage very well currently without one. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I checked, and it wasn't. While it was required to post a notice to the article itself as well as to the listing, there was no requirement to inform the article creator (there still isn't, actually). jps (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't asking that the creator of an article be explicitly informed, where did you get that from? I was asking for a notice to be put on the article page if a discussion is liable to change it - just like AfD does. If the creator is still interested they'll still have it on their watchlist, if not then they won't. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You missed my point. The point is that the tool for AfD automatically notifies the creator of the article you bring to AfD even though there is no explicit requirement that a nominator do so. Likewise, a tool could be developed which would place talkpage notification for articles being discussed at a noticeboard even if no new policy is invented. jps (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:AfD says "After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors". For an AfD the creator probably would be a very interested editor. So notifying the creator is an implied best practice and wasn't brought in by the tool. For most notifications though just sticking a short note on the talk page is enough and it is all that is currently normally done. The creator will have it on their watchlist if they are interested and many wouldn't want to be pinged as well. Having a tool would be nice but I would like community agreement that doing something like that is standard practice. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was "brought in by the tool". I'm saying the tool does this even though there is no rule that requires it. The wording suggests that one should do it, but recommendations are not sanctionable rules, for example. The worry I have with instruction creep is bringing in Wikipedia's law enforcement regimes. I don't think anyone should deserve a sanction for failing to notify an article talkpage. Neither do I think anyone should face a sanction for notifying an article talkpage. jps (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You know things like that are not sanctionable in themselves, it is only a pattern of behavior deliberatly and repeatedly avoiding telling people about discussions where they should obviously be informed which would attract any attention beyond a request to do it in future. Is it really more important to avoid creep than to have a guideline to point at if for instance editors repeatedly and quite obstinately refuse to post a notice on article talk pages even when discussing things like nominating them for deletion? Dmcq (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It depends on how the proposed addition was worded. If worded as encouragement, then there is no problem... if worded as requirement then yes, it becomes instruction creep and is worse than leaving things as they are (because wikilawyers will cause endless disruption by complaining that it wasn’t followed.) Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be phrased as 'best practice', a standard notification which is not just allowed but encouraged in WP:CANVASS. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"* Comment Would probably support some wording like "If you start a section, consider leaving a notice on the Talk page of any article(s) which it discusses." Editors are then prompted to consider whether that would be a good course of action (or not). Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is completely counterproductive. If an extensive discussion about improving a page is taking place anywhere other than that page's Talk page, the system is not working correctly, and it should not be encouraged by trying to attract even more editors to that other place away from the Talk page that exists precisely for this purpose. Agricolae (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So you'd stop noticeboards having discussions about articles? I don't think is going to fly at all. And how does one cope with a discussion spanning say two articles or on a project page about articles in its purview? It is better to try and have discussions about an article on its talk page but this reason for opposition is just unreasonable. I also note you recently raised a point at a noticeboard about Most royal candidate theory which resulted in an extended discussion and didn't even bother putting a note on the article talk page never mind encouraging editors to go there for the discussion. That isn't exactly walking the walk. Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I agree it won't fly, since strawmen don't have wings. I would discourage noticeboards from having extensive discussions about improving a page without discussion on the relevant Talk page, but editors can decide for themselves when notifying a Talk page about discussion somewhere else is appropriate and helpful versus when it just encourages discussion to leave its appropriate venue. (I originally added something questioning your own integrity, as recompense for your questioning mine, but that would have been just as inappropriate.) Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So you now say your 'Oppose This is completely counterproductive.' was based on a strawman, and you say it was inappropriate of me to point out that you didn't do what you said in your strawman? Well I'll follow some advice from Thomas Jefferson which somehow isn't in Wikiquote. Okay. The problem with 'helpful' in what you say is that it leaves a big hole for people's own POV to stop them informing editors who are obviously interested in and have contributed to an article. That is helpful though in nudging me into thinking WP:Canvassing probably is the best place for it. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It is in Wikiquote, once under him and once in a page about the letter with his advice. I am chastised. Dmcq (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So you now say your 'Oppose This is completely counterproductive.' was based on a strawman. WTF? Do you even know what a strawman is? I say nothing of the sort, and you should know better. The place where editors who are obviously interested in and have contributed to an article can most conveniently see and participate in a discussion about that article is on that article's Talk page, not wherever else you want to send them to talk about it, where the discussion and any issues raised will be buried in an archive within weeks of it ending. Off with your forum shopping, then. Agricolae (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of difficulty with understanding what you're saying, would this be about right: Any talk about changing an article should be on its talk page. Such discussions elsewhere say on a noticeboard are iffy but you will sometimes start such discussions yourself. However it would be counterproductive to infom editors of the article by putting a note on the article talk page. The reason is that any such a note might bring them to the discussion elsewhere and that would be against the aim of having all the talk on the article talk page. However if there is some good reason to bring people interested in the article into the discussion about the article then perhaps a note could be left. Is that a reasonable summary? Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Of course not and you know it. Again. And your argument is that any time a page is mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, the goal is to try to relocate all discussion of the page to that other location, because heaven forbid talk about a page should happen on it's Talk page. See, it's not that hard to do what you are doing, present a ridiculous and deceptive rendering of the other person's position, but it is rather pointless if you are interested in a serious discussion - oh, I see where the problem lies. Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not telepathic. What exactly is wrong with what I said? And I agree that your description of what I said is ridiculous and deceptive. Now I will explain why. I have answered above and made even more clear below in the section 'appropriate notification' where I give some proposed wording that it would cover when the discussion might result in changes to the article. People do this quite routinely and I'm not asking for anything strange. That is not the same as 'if a page is mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia'. And I never said anything about relocating all discussion to another place. And it was you not me who said all talk about a page should happen on its talk page. Now try saying what was wrong with my understanding of what you said rather than just repeating that I know it. Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW when you say things like I'm forum shopping or lack of integrity could you substantiate them please. I'm no saint but not knowing the particulars doesn't help with improvement. My talk page is the appropriate place for complaints like that but a quick note elsewhere won't worry me. Dmcq (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The forum shopping is right up above, where after first arguing ad nauseum on FT/N, and then again here, you say you are thinking WP:Canvassing probably is the best place for it. As to questioning your integrity, I decided I wouldn't stoop to your level, and I still won't. You call me a hypocrite here, but if I have any comments about your character I really should raise them on your Talk page? Rather inconsistent and self-serving, but discussing where best to attack other editors' character would be straying excessively from the topic. Agricolae (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to come to this place because of objections to having what I proposed being done without it being recognized as standard practice. As requested I never once in this discussion mentioned the noticeboard. I don't believe that is forum shopping. I am sorry to have said that "you don't walk the walk" as it is quite obvious I still do not understand your position properly about having discussions on an article talk page, why didn't you just post a neutral note on the noticeboard directing people to the article talk page if you thought it so important to not discuss elsewhere? And I give you full permission to stoop to my level on any page you desire as it is hard for me to fix a problem without knowing what it is. Dmcq (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This supposedly important 'gotcha' you think you have dug out of my edit history: for whatever reason - me explaining my position badly, you predisposed to read into it something else than it is, just two minds that work in different ways, or whatever - the necessary nuance to understand what I am saying seems to escape you, rending the whole discussion pointless. Agricolae (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone else could come along and put what you say it in more easily understood terms as I'm damned if I can make head or tail of your position yet you seem to feel very strongly about it. Dmcq (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Or alternatively, it would be nice if the person I was trying to communicate my position to wasn't seemingly being deliberately obtuse for the sake of scoring cheap debating points, because I can't make heads or tails out of what is so damned hard to understand about 'Extensive discussion of changes to a page are usually best held on that page's Talk page and not redirected to other parts of Wikipedia. Doing so seems counterproductive.' Do I have to define the long words? How about if I do it with single-syllable words, would that help: When more-than-brief talk takes place to change a page, most of the time the best place for it to take place is on the Talk page of the page that is to be changed, and if one thinks that long talk of a page at F T N should not go on (as I know you do), a note put on the Talk page will just serve to move more talk from that best place to the wrong place, and the talk in the wrong place will grow (plus this grown body of text that bears on the page change will not be saved at the Talk page where most might look for it in years to come, but will be hard to find in the depths of the large F T N file dumps), and this is not what we would want, I think. Is that better or do I still need to explain the meaning of the individual words? It may be that a 'nice' outcome is not in the cards for either of us. Agricolae (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, so basically you oppose telling editors of an article about a discussion elsewhere on changing the article and your reason is that one shouldn't normally have discussions elsewhere and people editing the article might contribute to the discussion and one wouldn't be easily able to find what they said in the future in the talk page archive. I hope I have summarized right this time and you don't get het up and start calling me names again. I'm afraid I still don't understand given your views why you start discussions elsewhere rather than leaving a note pointing to an article page so I guess I'm still missing something. You do alsorealize a note on the talk page would actually allow people to actually find the discussion in the future? Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's see . . . for individual Talk pages, the statistical mode is probably for them to have just one page (that is not very long). FT/N has a 67 page archive, so you do realize it is easier to glance at a short page than to pour through however many times your search term has been mentioned in 67 pages of archive, don't you? But that is really a secondary consideration - at its core, I oppose trying to encourage discussion to go other places. Full stop. As to the rest, go back and read what I wrote. Note in particular my use of words like 'usually' and 'most of the time' (not always) and 'extensive' and 'long' (not absolutely any) and 'best' (not must) and 'seems' (not is) and 'encourage' (not force). These did not just slip in when I wasn't looking. They were put there intentionally, all to convey the same thing, the exact thing you are missing every time you proudly parade out some post you dug out of my edit history as if it had any significance at all. What you are missing is nuance. I have stated my position so many different ways that if you still don't get it, you either aren't trying or you are trying too hard to make it something different. Agricolae (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Well you're definitely an oppose and I suppose others can judge for themselves the merits of your ideas. Dmcq (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought that was evident from me saying Oppose at the start, but I'm glad that finally got clarified for you. Agricolae (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, from what I've seen on BLPN, although the instructions say to do it, it isn't always followed and unlike say at ANI, there's generally no real complaint when it isn't. We do get a bunch of SPAs and or just randoms and some of these are reasonable stuff, so IMO it's far more difficult to try and enforce than say ANI. Sometimes another editor will complete the requirements, but often not. I can understand there are plenty of cases where it seems pointless e.g. consider WP:BLPN#Alfred E SMith IV. I use to follow BLPN a lot and then stopped and came back to it more maybe 2 years ago. I don't believe we suggested notification in the past or at least not in such a regimented way.

  I bring this up because IMO something which has changed for the worse which I'm now also very guilty of is we tend to discuss the issue on the noticeboard even if it only concerns on article so can easily take place on an article talk page. While it's sometimes useful to discuss stuff on the noticeboard even if it only concerns a single article, especially when someone is mostly making more general suggestions on editing etc, I think we often create a lot of split and confusing discussions by doing it when it's mostly on content issues. Worse of course, is that later editors may not easily come across the discussion even if they search the archives of the article talk page. (In fact our current notification requirements don't really help for that even when followed.) I discourage editors discussing article content on editor talk pages too much for the same reason, and wonder if we should refocus BLPN for notification and centralised discussion affecting multiple articles, as IMO it was often in the past. IMO in that case it's less important that people are informed although I would still encourage it.

  I know this came about in part from FTN, if that board is far more focused on notification and centralised discussion, maybe this is one reason why notification is less important there although again I'd still encourage it.

  One area I would support mandatory notification is for RfCs and XfDs. While they are not votes, since the number of participants does affect things, I think for transparency and canvassing perception reasons, there should always be notification on the discussion when it was mentioned elsewhere, even if it was the hopefully neutral notification that is required.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  Considering some of the concerns expressed in earlier discussions, I should clarify although I support mandatory notifications in RfCs and XfDs etc when they are mentioned in a noticeboard, I am opposed to any attempts to use failure to notify to invalidate that discussion. By mandatory, my main goal is that if someone does not notify, they can be asked to do so in the future and can't just say "well it's not mandatory so I won't". While such rules-lawyering is discouraged, unfortunately it does happen. Theoretically, this means someone could be blocked for WP:disruptive editing if they refuse to, but I find it hard to believe is likely to happen. After all, with mandatory notification for AN//I, when people make mistakes, someone else generally corrects it and the editor who made the mistake is told of the requirements and most accept and try to follow in the future. Maybe it has happened, but I'm not aware of any discussion at one of the ANs about someone persistently refusing to notify. (These closest I can think of is someone persistently refusing to sign.) It's somewhat true that failure to notify at one of the AN's has different consequences in that it can not so much invalidate the discussion, but at least require it be reopened if someone is sanctioned but has something to say and didn't because they weren't aware of the discussion and whatever they say may change people's minds. But then again, this could arise even with notification if the person is away. (Less so now with the 24 hour requirement maybe.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If such a rule is created, I would like to recommend that the text of the rule specifically and clearly state that it's purely behavioral and should not be used to devalue or discard anyone's opinion. Deletion discussions can be contentious enough already. It would not be an improvement to add a new flavor of of rules-lawyering. ApLundell (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is a behavioral guideline, you want to start reiteratiung that within such a guideline? I'm told it is creep to say giving out such notices is good practice, We're supposed to describe best practice in guidelines and doing this would help greatly with a number of problems even currently being debated here. Yes it is possible that it might get used in rules lawyering if a case of canvassing is particularly bad or it is repeatedly done. What are we supposed to do in such cases? Wiki lawyers already argue that they are fine having nice cosy in-group meetings because this is not written down anywhere. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Appropriate notifications

WP:CANVASS should list some notifications as best practice to send, as well as its current 'An editor who may wish to draw a wider audience...' for the appropriate notifications it lists. Dmcq (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Changed to definitive RfC and reworded slightly. The main impetus is to help support what WP:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors says. The discussion above #Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page shows I think there are real problems which might "generate suspicion and mistrust". Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Notifying users when there is a discussion about them has become obvious best practice but I don't know where or if that is written down anywhere, Also putting a note in a discussion when a question is put to a noticeboard has become fairly standard practice and is required on some noticeboards. I think WP:CANVASS is the right place for such notifications as not informing obviously interested and easily contacted parties can be considered as biasing a discussion.

I propose to add the following to WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification to document notifications which should normally be done:

At the beginning put:

It is best practice to have a message left about a discussion at:

• The talk page of a user mentioned if there is a behavior concern.
• The talk page of one or more named aricles which might be affected.
• A relevant project page, noticeboard or other Wikipedia page if it might affect their remit.
• Another discussion if it follows closely from the other discussion.

Neutral notifications are not counted as discussions nor are straightforward questions which don't extend further.

This would be followed by the current text

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the requirement to notify users; there's a big box at the top of pages like WP:ANI that states, and I quote, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." It's in red. The word "must" is underlined. Short of broadcasting the requirement directly into people's brains using the secret government chip we've all been implanted with, I'm not sure what else should be done to let people know of such a requirement. --Jayron32 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I know about that box - was putting that box there based on a policy or guideline? If so I think the business here about articles and other transparency should probably go in the same place. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It was based upon being a thing we should always do.--Jayron32 04:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Would't it be wonderful (or dull!) if we all agreed on things that we should always do! Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• !votes from discussions As far as I can see there is myself, @Blueboar, Nil Einne, and Jayron32: supporting, and @Alexbrn, Guy Macon, jps, and Agricolae: opposing in the discussion above. I'd like a few more contributing to get a wide consensus so I'm making this an RfC. Are you in favor of being able to have a quiet discussion about changing an article free from the drama of having editors from an article being discussed, or do you think it is good practice to involved them in all such discussions to avoid canvassing type problems? Dmcq (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Or to state it in an equally 'neutral' manner, would you insist that discussion to change a page be intentionally diverted away from the Talk page so that it metastasizes to anywhere else on Wikipedia that the page has been mentioned, or would you prefer discussion remain focused on the Talk page of the article it concerns. Or, and here is a novel thought - we actually state it neutrally rather than only pretending to: Do you think that notification on a Talk page when that article page is being discussed in other fora be made preferred practice, or do you oppose making that policy? That is neutrally stating the question. Agricolae (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Discssions about improving articles do occur on noticeboards, and often for very good reason. As far as I can make out you want to deprecate the current practice of leaving a note on an article talk page and only leave one if editors at a discussion think there is a good reason to invite editors of an article. I think it would be better you raise a proposal to that effect rather than just implementing it personally as what you say is not common practice on most noticeboards. That would give you a good opportunity too to show why there would be no consensus or canvassing issues with what you say. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  And as far as I can make out, you are utterly incapable of neutrally summarizing the position of anyone with whom you disagree. It is just one absurd strawman after another. The only question that remains is whether you aren't even trying, or if you are trying hard not to. Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Well lets see if some more more editors can come along and give their opinion on the matter. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• PLEASE - comment on the proposal, not other editors. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, generally on WP:CREEP and WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY grounds. Whether something is canvassing or not has at least as much to do with exact wording and with personal rationale for exactly which pages were picked/excluded, as it has to do with which pages actually were notified. Furthermore, I strenuously object to the wikiproject-related language in here. Wikiprojects have no "remit". They are not stand-alone organizations, they do not have any authority, they are not walled gardens. They are simply pages at which editors with common interests assemble some resources; the primary purpose of wikiprojects is article assessment and peer review. The abuse of them as "canvassing farms" – places to gin up support for (or opposition to) this proposal or that among editors that one hopes will be like-minded has already gone too far for too long. The idea of enshrining this anti-WP:CONSENSUS lobbying and wikipolitical activism as something explicitly sanctioned by policy is not going to fly. Sometimes it is useful to notify a wikiproject's talk page of a discussion that seems like it's within the declared scope of the project, and this is generally when expert or at least topically knowledgable input is needed. And sometimes wikiprojects on "side B" of an issue need to be notified if someone has been lobbying projects on "side A" already, to ensure that a WP:FALSECONSENSUS doesn't result. But broadly and generally, no. If we really notified wikiprojects of every relevant discussion, every wikiproject's talk page would be a firehose of nothing but thread pointers, few of them ever neutral. WP:WATCHLISTs exist for a reason. WP:RFCs and the WP:FRS exist for a reason. When it comes to important matters that will affect many articles, WP:VPPOL (or WP:VPPRO, depending on the nature of the discussion) and WP:CENT exist for a reason. Aside from the wikiprojects stuff: There is no need to codify "canvassing exceptions" for notice to the talk pages of clearly affected users or articles; that's standard practice and we already know it is not canvassing. Nor do we need to mention noticeboards. Noticeboards are not internal-discussion "link farms"; they are for dispute resolution between small subsets of editors. So, most discussions should never be "advertised" at them. And "Another discussion if it follows closely from the other discussion"? That's backwards. If, say, an RfC opened last week leads to a new discussion this week, the new discussion does not need to be notified of the old one. And if the old one is actually old, it needs no notice of the new one, though people are free to make one. If it's not really old, then the new discussion should probably be closed and redirected back to the original, unresolved one, per WP:MULTI and WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I quite explicitly said it was not about notifying about every mention, only discussions about changing named pages. And I haven't the foggiest how informing editors who watch a page about discussions which may result in changes to it can be counted as canvassing! The notifications mentioned are the commonsense ones! The bureaucracy is needed because as you say and I believe some places have become anti-consensus lobby groups and don't do them. The effect of this RfC would be to say to them that if they start discussing changing a page they should put a notification on the associated talk page. No it won't get rid of the lobby groups - but it will expose them to some light. They probably were set up for a good reason originally and still do some good - exposure to outsiders would help reduce the groupthink that infests such places and led to them becoming anti-consensus lobby groups. Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The business about direct follow-on discussions is to help deal with forum shopping. At the moment we can complain about forum shopping - but editors who have just yesterday discussed the business should be notified if the discussion then moves elsewhere. Complaining that something is forum shopping is not enough to tell interested editors what is happening. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW this would not affect boards where just a neutral notification is placed like the various RfC or AfD lists. They might be used to canvass editors but the problem of forming like-minded in-groups is far less when there is no discussion on the board. Dmcq (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with SMcCandlish that it just is not needed, per WP:CREEP and the like. The existing guidance about canvassing is sufficient to delineate the difference between canvassing and appropriate notification, and that's what we need. We don't need to put unavoidably incomplete lists of examples on top of it, and there are always going to be cases where it will come down to common sense. Users who cannot figure it out probably shouldn't be here. By the way, I came to this RfC from the message at WT:CANVASS, which I think was a reasonable way to notify interested editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I can see this RfC is starting to lose. So you came here via a short notice at WP:CANVASS which is the talk page of the page for which a change is proposed. That is exactly what this proposal describes as best practice and you say is a reasonable way to notify interested readers. There are noticeboards which engage in dscussions like this and where they quite adamantly refuse to give such a notice as standard and in fact hardly ever do. And we have discussions on this page about boards having such discussions and the effects being described as bad. But you say trying to do something which migh ameliorate the effect is creep? That what they do is fine by you? That you would have been quite happy if no note like that had been placed in WT:CANVASS and the same for for other pages you are interested in? Is CREEP really a good and sufficient reason for not trying to fix such boards instead of editors just uselessly complaining at them without any clear backup in a policy or guideline? Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to see evidence that such possible misunderstandings of appropriate notifications are a genuine and pervasive problem, as opposed to clueless comments or comments made in bad faith that are readily dismissed. For example, are editors getting blocked for making appropriate notifications? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. SMcCandlish and Tryptofish put it well. This is WP:CREEP and it is entirely unclear what actual problem it would solve. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I know your noticeboard has to deal with a lot of crap, and that's probably why you and a few others from there are opposing this proposal, in fact I see only one who isn't from there. But so do lots of other places dealing with China or Israel or Donald Trump or lots of other subjects. But your lot have gone rogue, the guideline is fine but they go far beyond it and seem to think Wikipedia should only have true things rather than being an encyclopeaedia of notable topics. I believe if they followed the norms in the rest of Wikipedia it would curb the in-group mentality characterized by talk of being adults and not having the children disrupt your conversations and having jokes disparaging the topics and the actions of going off as large group to tidy up or delete topics and practically ignoring the editors there and listing lots of policies against them without saying in what way they actually violate a policy or guideline. Saying creep is just a way of dismissing any idea of reforming the noticeboard and denying the problem. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the thing. No actual evidence of any problem has been presented, just vague grumbling which seemed rooted in upset about the consensus at this AfD. Alexbrn (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't expect you to disagree with all the other people who came along with you to that or see a problem with what you do there or elsewhere. I am pointing out what you do and WP:CONSENSUS says about off-wiki conversations " Consensus is reached through on-wiki discussion or by editing. Discussions elsewhere are not taken into account. In some cases, such off-wiki communication may generate suspicion and mistrust." I consider it wiki-lawyering to say that what is done at that noticeboard is fine and dandy because it is on-wiki even if the people there are very opposed to putting a notice onto an article's talk page about a discussion about changing an article the editors there are working on. Dmcq (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on a community noticeboard is not (and is not like) "off-wiki communication". Still no evidence of a problem has been presented. Evidence would take the form of specifying an instance where something problematic happened, with some supporting diffs. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

And you don't thingk the next point in WP:CONSENSUS is applicable either "Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter"? Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Give file movers the "suppressredirect" tool when moving files

I think that all file movers should be given the "suppressredirect" when moving files for the following reasons:

• It is useful to instantly suppress a redirect when moving a file that shadows another file that is on Commons (WP:FNC#9)
• It is useful to suppress a redirect when moving a file under WP:FNC#8
• It is useful to suppress a redirect when moving a file that has a misleading name (WP:FNC#3)

It is the filemover's responsibility to make changes to the filename on articles that use a file that had its redirect suppressed to avoid any broken file links. Most of the file redirects are orphaned so it shouldn't be a problem to suppress them but it should be done only when it is required. Filemovers should not have suppressredirect for any other namespace other than the filespace if they are not an extended mover or an administrator. The suppressredirect tool should not be used for any other purpose other than the three purposes stated above. An alternative plan could be for suppressredirect to only work when the file is orphaned and to make it compulsory to leave a redirect if the file is being used. The suppressredirect tool is already available for filemovers at Commons. I don't expect this proposal to succeed but I thought it would be useful to have a discussion about this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Votes

• Support for the reasons stated. In the cases above, leaving a redirect behind defeats the purpose of the move, so a filemover cannot perform the task, and an admin is required. As noted, the ability is already available to file movers on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Bundle - I use suppressredirect (as a page mover) when acting move requests here: Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. Could we also have a help page that clearly explains when a redirect should and should not be suppressed? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Part of the rationale on Commons was that Commons didn't have any page mover, and so had no user group whatsoever that has suppress redirect unbundled from the sysop toolkit. But having said that, it makes no sense that file movers should have to apply for page mover in order to suppress redirects on files, when page mover doesn't have anything to do with files. It appears to be an unintentional interaction between these two rights based on the happenstance of how we unbundled the individual bits. GMG^talk 21:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• I posted a while ago at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#File redirect suppression about the fact that, when moving a page, a note is shown that says file movers (who are also page movers) should suppress redirects by default if the file isn't heavily used. Strongly oppose until the guidance that is shown at Mediawiki:movepagetext follows the policy that the community has established; we shouldn't grant file movers this ability without making it clear when redirects should be suppressed. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712: What about Mediawiki:Movepagetext is wrong? Looking at it now it seems to say that redirect suppression should only be done according to policy. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

    @Wugapodes: the relevant part is only shown in the file namespace - use "view source" DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

    @DannyS712: Didn't know it did that! On the one hand, given that filemovers have been doing that already, I'd say suppressing redirects in that case is already de facto policy. On the other, I think it's worth making explicit when redirects should be suppressed (Even if there are ultimately IAR cases). Probably worth just adding it to WP:PMRC as #10 and having the MediaWiki page point to it without changing the guidance. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

    I went ahead and added it as PMRC#10. Will probably get reverted, but the discrepancy between PMRC and MW:movepagetext will be resolved one way or another. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support It's annoying to end up creating redirects whose titles were just errors. It's clear that file movers don't always remember (or can be bothered) to ask for them to be deleted. However, it must be made very clear when to suppress redirects, as per the comment above. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Is this happening sufficiently to bother? Our FM's can just have PMover access added which includes this permission, no? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Great idea. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: (or anyone else) why are file mover and page mover separate anyway? Wug·a·po·des​ 23:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Wugapodes: They grew from separate batches of users that were looking to get things done, both were spin-offs from the admin toolkit. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• If it (hypothetically) takes 45 seconds for a sysop at PERM to grant page mover to a file mover (being generous), then all they need to do is save 45 seconds worth of work and it's a net positive. That's a pretty low bar. GMG^talk 23:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons listed only. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Bundle File movers should just get all the things page movers get. Looking at Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Table I think it will give file movers the ability to move category pages, move subpages, suppress redirects, and override the title blacklist. Those all seem useful for file movers and I don't really see why these perms are separate other than as a historical artifact. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes: if we want to go this way, just rename "page movers" back to "Extended Movers", give them movefile, deprecate filemover and move all the users to extendedmover. Creating duplicate user groups with the same bundle of permissions isn't a good idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Or without needing any programming changes, just add all the members to eachothers groups. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'd prefer recreating extended mover and deprecating file mover, but I guess either would be fine. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  "page mover" is just local branding for "extendedmover" , just FYI. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support File titles don't seem to be as controversial as article titles. As the permission already implies a level of trust, providing the additional option seems appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, I can see no great reason to keep these separate. BD2412 T 05:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Unless I'm very much mistaken, we can't do this without also granting them suppressredirect for non-files, too. At that point, bundling makes more sense. —Cryptic 06:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per OP and also support consolidating page mover and file mover into one rights group. - MrX 🖋 01:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but only with an increase in filemover scrutiny/vetting. This has come up before and the proposal was defeated, because the bar is much lower for filemover than for pagemover. If you make these permissions essentially equivalent (and there's no magic sauce that limits a filemover's newly-granted redirect suppression ability to only work on files), then the criteria for getting the filemover bit have to go up to match the clue and trust levels we expect of pagemovers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is either creating doomed-to-be-left-unenforced social rules (if you try to set policy to restrict file-movers who aren't page movers from suppressing redirects from non-files), or extending the file mover user group too far outside of its intended scope (if you don't). Neutral on bundling file mover and page mover into one group. (Neutral on a hypothetical technical restriction of the right to only apply to file pages, which I don't think is possible) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Some statistics:

• There are 297 page movers
• There are 405 file movers
• There are 75 users that are both page movers and file movers

Users:

User breakdown

User Group(s) !dea4u filemover 117Avenue filemover 1989 filemover 1997kB extendedmover 72 extendedmover 97198 extendedmover A1Cafel extendedmover & filemover A7x filemover AKS.9955 extendedmover ANGELUS filemover Abryn filemover Adam Cuerden filemover Adam9007 extendedmover Adamstom.97 extendedmover & filemover AddWittyNameHere extendedmover Addihockey10 filemover Aditya Kabir filemover Adrignola filemover Ahecht extendedmover Ahunt extendedmover Alan filemover Alan Liefting filemover Aldnonymous filemover & extendedmover Alex 21 extendedmover & filemover AlexCovarrubias filemover Allanon filemover Alpha Quadrant filemover Alt.Donald Albury extendedmover Altairisfar filemover Ammarpad extendedmover Andrew Davidson extendedmover & filemover Andrewmc123 filemover Andy M. Wang extendedmover Another Believer extendedmover & filemover Anotherclown filemover AntiCompositeNumber filemover & extendedmover Antiquary filemover Anupam extendedmover ArielGold filemover Armbrust filemover AroundTheGlobe filemover Asav filemover Atlantic306 extendedmover Atsme extendedmover Aunva6 extendedmover AussieLegend filemover Avanu filemover Avenue X at Cicero filemover Avicennasis extendedmover & filemover Az1568 extendedmover BB-PB filemover BaldBoris filemover Balph Eubank filemover Banej filemover Barrylb filemover Baseball Bugs extendedmover Bedford filemover BeenAroundAWhile filemover Benlisquare filemover Benstown filemover Beyond My Ken extendedmover & filemover Bhall87 filemover BilCat extendedmover Bill william compton filemover Binksternet filemover Bluebolt94 filemover Bluerasberry filemover Bmusician filemover Bobby131313 filemover Boleyn extendedmover Bonadea extendedmover Bovineboy2008 extendedmover & filemover Brackenheim filemover BrandonBigheart filemover Breawycker filemover Bri extendedmover Brianboulton filemover Britishfinance extendedmover Brojam extendedmover & filemover Brycehughes extendedmover Bsherr extendedmover Buaidh extendedmover Buidhe filemover CAPTAIN MEDUSA extendedmover & filemover CAPTAIN RAJU extendedmover CASSIOPEIA extendedmover CBM filemover CTF83! filemover Cabayi extendedmover Calidum extendedmover Cameron11598 extendedmover Captain Assassin! filemover & extendedmover Carrite extendedmover Cavarrone filemover Celia Homeford extendedmover Chhandama extendedmover ChocolateTrain extendedmover Chowbok filemover Chris troutman extendedmover Church filemover Cinosaur filemover Cloudbound filemover Coekon filemover Coffeeandcrumbs extendedmover Colin filemover Colonel Warden filemover Contains Mild Peril filemover CookieMonster755 extendedmover Coolguy22468 filemover Corkythehornetfan filemover & extendedmover CorporateM filemover Courcelles is travelling filemover Cplakidas filemover CptViraj filemover Cptnono filemover Crosstemplejay extendedmover Crow extendedmover Cube00 filemover Cwmhiraeth extendedmover Cymru.lass extendedmover DBigXray filemover & extendedmover DGG (NYPL) filemover DGGnyc extendedmover Damien Linnane filemover Damirgraffiti filemover Dan Koehl extendedmover & filemover Dane extendedmover Daniel Simanek filemover Danlaycock filemover DannyS712 extendedmover & filemover Danski454 extendedmover Darkwarriorblake filemover Dave1185 filemover Davey2010 filemover Dawnseeker2000 filemover Daylen filemover Dee03 extendedmover Deisenbe extendedmover Denniss filemover DerBorg filemover Dewelar extendedmover Dipankan001 filemover Dirtlawyer1 filemover Disavian filemover Dismas filemover Dom497 filemover Domdeparis extendedmover Double sharp filemover Dough4872 filemover Dr.K. filemover DragonZero filemover Dreamy Jazz extendedmover Drewmutt extendedmover Drkay extendedmover & filemover Dssis1 filemover Dwaipayanc filemover Dwergenpaartje extendedmover EatsShootsAndLeaves filemover Ebe123 filemover Ebonelm extendedmover EchetusXe filemover Ecpiandy filemover Eddie891 extendedmover Eeekster filemover EggOfReason extendedmover Elahrairah (usurped 2) filemover Elmidae extendedmover Elysia (Wiki Ed) extendedmover Emir of Wikipedia extendedmover Emufarmers filemover Epicgenius filemover & extendedmover Ergo Sum extendedmover Erik filemover & extendedmover Esmost filemover Esrever filemover EuroCarGT extendedmover & filemover Eurodyne filemover Evertype filemover Faizanalivarya filemover Faizhaider filemover Fallschirmjäger filemover Fasach Nua filemover Favre1fan93 extendedmover & filemover Felipe Menegaz filemover Feminist extendedmover Fitindia extendedmover & filemover FleetCommand filemover FlightTime filemover & extendedmover FlightTime Phone filemover & extendedmover Floydian filemover FocalPoint filemover Fowler&fowler filemover Frap filemover Fredddie extendedmover & filemover FriendlyRiverOtter filemover Frosty extendedmover FunkMonk extendedmover & filemover GDuwen filemover GSS extendedmover User Group(s) GTBacchus filemover GabeMc filemover GabrielF filemover Garam extendedmover Gderrin extendedmover GenQuest extendedmover GeoffreyT2000 extendedmover & filemover Georgejdorner extendedmover Gerda Arendt filemover Ghostwheel filemover Giants2008 filemover Ginger Warrior filemover Glane23 filemover Gobonobo filemover Godot13 filemover Godsy filemover & extendedmover GreenMeansGo extendedmover & filemover Grey Wanderer filemover Guanaco extendedmover & filemover Guy Macon filemover Gwillhickers extendedmover & filemover Gyrobo filemover Hack extendedmover Hallows AG filemover Harrison49 filemover Hawkeye7 filemover & extendedmover Headbomb filemover & extendedmover Hohenloh filemover Home Lander extendedmover Hoverfish filemover Huldra extendedmover Hylian Auree filemover I dream of horses extendedmover IHelpWhenICan filemover IJA filemover IJBall extendedmover IM3847 extendedmover IVORK extendedmover IZAK filemover Ian (Wiki Ed) extendedmover Iazyges extendedmover Ibrahim.ID filemover Iffy extendedmover Ihardlythinkso extendedmover IllaZilla filemover Illegitimate Barrister filemover Imzadi1979 filemover & extendedmover In actu extendedmover & filemover In ictu oculi extendedmover Indy beetle extendedmover InfamousPrince filemover Inks.LWC filemover Innotata filemover Insertcleverphrasehere extendedmover Interchange88 filemover InverseHypercube filemover Isarra extendedmover & filemover Iveagh Gardens extendedmover JFG extendedmover & filemover Jacklee filemover Jaguar filemover Jake Brockman extendedmover JalenFolf extendedmover Jami (Wiki Ed) filemover Jamietw filemover Janweh64 extendedmover Jappalang filemover Jasper the Friendly Punk filemover Jbhunley extendedmover Jcc extendedmover Jeff G. filemover Jenniferjuniper extendedmover Jenova20 filemover Jerm extendedmover Jevansen extendedmover Jianhui67 filemover Jionpedia filemover Jjron filemover Jmajeremy filemover Joe Gazz84 filemover Joeyconnick extendedmover John Cline extendedmover & filemover JohnnyMrNinja filemover Johnsmith2116 extendedmover Jon Kolbert filemover & extendedmover Jsayre64 filemover Jtalledo filemover Juhachi filemover Jupitus Smart extendedmover Jweiss11 filemover K.e.coffman extendedmover KCVelaga extendedmover KGRAMR filemover KGirlTrucker81 extendedmover KSFT extendedmover Kailash29792 filemover Kaini filemover Kaldari filemover Karthikndr filemover Kartoffel07 filemover Kashmiri filemover & extendedmover Kelly filemover KellyDoyle extendedmover Keraunoscopia filemover Kevin W. filemover Kges1901 extendedmover Kguirnela filemover Kintetsubuffalo filemover Klortho filemover Koavf extendedmover & filemover Kostas20142 extendedmover KylieTastic filemover L293D extendedmover L3X1 extendedmover La Pianista filemover Lachlan Foley filemover Lambiam extendedmover Lapablo extendedmover Launchballer extendedmover LeoFrank extendedmover Let There Be Sunshine filemover Levdr1lp filemover LightandDark2000 extendedmover Ligulem filemover Lil-unique1 filemover Lingzhi2 extendedmover & filemover Livelikemusic filemover LlamaAl filemover LlywelynII extendedmover Locke Cole filemover Logan filemover Lopifalko extendedmover Lordtobi extendedmover & filemover Lugnuts extendedmover LukeSurl filemover Lx 121 filemover Lyndaship extendedmover M.Mario filemover M.O.X filemover MC10 filemover MJL extendedmover MONGO filemover MPJ-DK extendedmover MRD2014 extendedmover MRSC filemover Mabdul filemover MacMed filemover Magiciandude extendedmover Magister Scienta filemover Magog the Ogre 2 filemover Mahahahaneapneap filemover Maky filemover Malpass93 filemover MaranoFan filemover Marcocapelle extendedmover Marek69 filemover Mareklug filemover MargaretRDonald extendedmover Mark Schierbecker filemover & extendedmover Markussep extendedmover Markvs88 filemover Mathglot extendedmover MatthewHoobin filemover Matthiaspaul extendedmover Mayur filemover Mdann52 extendedmover MichaelMaggs filemover Mifter Public filemover Mika1h filemover MikeAllen filemover Moe Epsilon filemover Moheen filemover Mono filemover Montanabw extendedmover & filemover Morgankevinj filemover Morning Sunshine filemover Moxy extendedmover Mr. Gustafson filemover Mr. Smart LION extendedmover & filemover MrX filemover & extendedmover Mrschimpf filemover Music1201 extendedmover Mxn filemover My name is not dave extendedmover N124BC filemover Nableezy extendedmover NahidSultan filemover Nahnah4 filemover Naraht extendedmover Narky Blert extendedmover Narutolovehinata5 extendedmover Natureium extendedmover Nbound filemover NealeFamily extendedmover Nemesis63 filemover Neutralhomer extendedmover & filemover Newslinger extendedmover Niceguyedc extendedmover Nick Number filemover NickW557 filemover User Group(s) Nightfury extendedmover Nihlus extendedmover Nikthestunned filemover Nirinsanity filemover No such user extendedmover Nohomersryan extendedmover Nomader extendedmover & filemover Noq extendedmover NortyNort filemover Nsaum75 filemover Nurg extendedmover O'Dea filemover Oculi extendedmover Omni Flames extendedmover & filemover Onel5969 extendedmover Orionist filemover PC78 extendedmover Paine Ellsworth filemover & extendedmover Paintspot extendedmover PaleoNeonate extendedmover Path slopu extendedmover Patient Zero extendedmover Peter coxhead extendedmover Petrb filemover Pharaoh of the Wizards filemover Pharmboy filemover & extendedmover PhilipTerryGraham filemover Phyo WP extendedmover Piandcompany filemover Piotrus filemover Pkbwcgs filemover Pmlineditor filemover Pointillist filemover Polo filemover Polyamorph extendedmover Pongr filemover Power~enwiki extendedmover Pratyya Ghosh filemover Praxidicae extendedmover Pru.mitchell extendedmover Pudeo extendedmover Pvmoutside extendedmover QEDK extendedmover QuasyBoy filemover Quentin X filemover Quoth-22 filemover Qwerty Binary filemover RGloucester extendedmover RP88 filemover Racconish filemover RadioKAOS filemover Raintheone filemover Ramaksoud2000 filemover Raymie filemover Razr Nation filemover Rcsprinter123 filemover Rebbing extendedmover Red Slash extendedmover Redtigerxyz filemover Redux filemover Rhododendrites extendedmover Rich Farmbrough filemover Rikster2 extendedmover RileyBugz extendedmover RingtailedFox filemover Rjensen filemover Rob (Wiki Ed) filemover Robert McClenon extendedmover Robert Skyhawk filemover Robertgombos extendedmover Rockfang filemover Rosguill extendedmover RoslynSKP filemover Ruby2010 filemover Rusted AutoParts extendedmover Ryan (Wiki Ed) extendedmover Ryk72 extendedmover Ryoga Godai filemover Ryūkotsusei filemover S.A. Julio extendedmover SMasters filemover SMcCandlish filemover & extendedmover SS49 extendedmover STATicVapor filemover Sai Raghavendra Puranam filemover Salavat filemover Salvidrim! extendedmover Sam Sailor filemover & extendedmover SamHolt6 extendedmover Samee extendedmover Samuel Wiki filemover SandyGeorgia filemover Sanskari filemover Satellizer filemover & extendedmover Sawol extendedmover Sceptre extendedmover Scope creep extendedmover Sd2315g86435sdsdg filemover Secret of success filemover Seppi333 extendedmover Serial Number 54129 extendedmover Seth Whales extendedmover Shellacked! extendedmover Shhhnotsoloud extendedmover Shrike extendedmover SimmeD filemover Simplexity22 extendedmover Sitush extendedmover & filemover SkyWarrior extendedmover Smallman12q filemover Smmurphy extendedmover Snarfa filemover Soetermans extendedmover Some Gadget Geek extendedmover SounderBruce extendedmover Soundvisions1 filemover Souravmohanty2005 filemover Spesh531 filemover Spidey104 filemover Sreejithk2000 filemover Srnec extendedmover Ss112 extendedmover & filemover SshibumXZ extendedmover St170e extendedmover StAnselm filemover Status filemover Steel1943 extendedmover & filemover Steel1943 (tester) extendedmover Stefan2 filemover & extendedmover Steinsplitter filemover Steven (Editor) extendedmover Steven Crossin extendedmover & filemover StraussInTheHouse extendedmover & filemover Sturmvogel 66 extendedmover Störm extendedmover Sumanch filemover Sumsum2010 filemover Sundostund filemover SuperHamster filemover Sven Manguard filemover TAnthony filemover & extendedmover TBallioni extendedmover TCN7JM filemover TRLIJC19 filemover TaerkastUA extendedmover Takamaxa filemover Taketa extendedmover & filemover Targaryen filemover Tbhotch filemover & extendedmover TeamGale filemover Ted87 filemover TenPoundHammer extendedmover The Duke of Nonsense filemover & extendedmover The Herald filemover The Mad Monarchist extendedmover & filemover The Rambling Man extendedmover The Writer 2.0 filemover The-Pope extendedmover TheGeneralUser filemover TheKaphox filemover ThePromenader extendedmover TheSandBot extendedmover Thecurran filemover Thelmadatter filemover Themeparkgc filemover Thomas.W extendedmover Tim Pierce filemover Tim1357 filemover Timmyshin extendedmover Tofutwitch11 filemover Tom.Reding extendedmover Tomcat7 filemover TonyTheTiger filemover Torchiest filemover Tothwolf filemover Train2104 filemover & extendedmover Traveler100 filemover Trevj filemover Trialpears extendedmover TriiipleThreat extendedmover & filemover UY Scuti extendedmover Ukexpat filemover & extendedmover UnitedStatesian extendedmover Usernamekiran extendedmover Uzume extendedmover Vaselineeeeeeee extendedmover Vensatry filemover Vermont extendedmover Vibhijain filemover Vincent60030 extendedmover Vinegarymass911 extendedmover Viridiscalculus filemover Voceditenore filemover Waddie96 extendedmover Waggie extendedmover Wario-Man filemover & extendedmover We hope filemover Wesley Wolf filemover & extendedmover WheresTristan filemover White Shadows filemover User Group(s) Widefox extendedmover Wiki ian filemover WikiLeon filemover Wikidas filemover Wikipedical extendedmover William Avery extendedmover Winged Blades of Godric extendedmover World filemover Worldbruce extendedmover Wugapodes extendedmover X201 filemover Yann filemover You've gone incognito filemover ZI Jony extendedmover Zach Vega filemover & extendedmover Zackmann08 extendedmover & filemover Zanhe extendedmover Zeeyanwiki filemover ZjarriRrethues filemover ZooPro filemover Zozo2kx filemover Zppix extendedmover Zundark filemover Zyxw extendedmover ~riley filemover Δ filemover ☈ filemover & extendedmover とある白い猫 filemover

RfC on shortening officeholder infoboxes by collapsing sections

The discussion maybe be found here as to whether we should modify the template to allow sections to be collapsed to reduce the length of some infoboxes. Ergo Sum 02:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of the closed discussion template on the Village Pump and lengthy discussions

It's popular isn't it? When an inexperienced editor is templated, they feel like an admin has come along and told them they can't have a discussion. When experienced editors use it, nothing but trouble ensues.

Using the closed discussion template, as a tool of discussion, when a discussion has not been had, is "offensive" in every sense of the word. It equates a soft deletion of the conversation. You cannot delete anothers comments unless they are purposely offensive, advertising, blatantly disregard to the site etc.

Even snowballs should not be templated. There is no need to silence anybody who isn't being disruptive. We do not need offensive tools for discussion.

I propose:

1. A time limit on any part of any discussion before the template can be used.
2. Don't even template snowballs. Are you afraid of something? Are you okay with a battleground mentality?
3. Exempt admins from the limit to prevent disruption.
4. Create in-discussion templates, like  Done, but to signify you believe the discussion is over. In a good faith atmosphere, these templates would begin to gather weight in their visibility. When scanning a lengthy discussion, more use of in-discussion templates would help you examine and join an already lengthy discussion. Post these templates at the top of VP pages for awareness and use.
5. Placeholder for suggestions

~ R.T.G 04:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

What you can do is just continue the discussion under the closed section. Then people will see it is new and can continue discussion. An alternative is to revert the close of the discussion. However I would strongly recommend that you check out why the discussion was closed before reverting or contesting the close. WP:BRD will apply to this process too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand the situation. I'm opposing it. Such use of the template is purely disruptive, and offensive in the battleground genre. It's a fairly standard suggestion, ~ R.T.G 10:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

On the use of deprecated sources

There has been a long-brewing war over what to do with deprecated sources at Wikipedia. Several ANI threads have been spent, lots of accusations of bad-faith have been leveled at both sides of the dispute, and it's clear we need some clarification on how to handle the situation in general. I'd like to have a clean discussion on what to do going forward on these matters. I definitely do not think we need to have any discussion here on what has happened earlier, on individual user behavior, and on personal attacks, which is where most of these discussions have gone. I'd like to set this up as a "proposal and support/oppose" format. Users should feel free to add their own proposals to the list if they are significantly different than other proposals, and we can use the proposals with the most support as guidance for clarifying Wikipedia policy on these matters. I'll get the ball rolling with a proposal of my own, with no prejudice against others creating their own proposals.

Proposal 1: Deprecated sources should be handled as follows

Text which is cited to deprecated sources should be not usually be treated differently than unsourced text. What that means for how to deal with them is as follows:

• No distinction is made in policy between adding a source new or keeping an existing source. For the purpose of policy, adding a source which is deprecated is treated exactly the same as keeping an existing source after it is deprecated, and WP:BURDEN applies equally in both cases. No person may be required to provide a source in the place of deprecated source; if a person wishes a new source to be added, it is the burden of that person to provide their own source.
• Deprecated sources can be removed, with an edit summary "removing deprecated source".
• If a deprecated sources is to be used or kept, as an exception (either IAR or because a specific exception is noted in the relevant discussion that deprecated the source), then WP:BURDEN applies to the person who wants to use or keep the deprecated source, and they should start a talk page discussion explaining their desire for the exception. Consensus is required to use or retain the deprecated source, for the specific use, and if the addition or retention of the deprecated source is contested, it is to be removed unless and until consensus explicitly allows for its use.
• Any text that is only sourced to a deprecated source is treated as though it had no source to begin with.
• Removal of deprecated sources should not be done with fully automated tools/bots.
• The person who finds a deprecated source being used in the article has several options for how to deal with the text that was cited to the source. No preference is given to ANY of these options, and no accusations of misbehavior or bad faith should be leveled against anyone who does any of the following responses.
  1. Remove the source and leave the text. The information that was formerly cited to a deprecated source just does not have that source anymore; the rest of the text is left unchanged.
  2. Tag the deprecated source with the {{better source}} tag and leave it in the article.
  3. Replace the deprecated source with a better source.
  4. Remove the deprecated source and add a {{cn}} tag.
  5. Remove the deprecated source along with the text it is citing.
• The guidance for when to tag, and when to remove text, is already given in existing policy, and text which has a deprecated source is treated no differently from any uncited text otherwise, that includes policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:BLP, WP:BURDEN and the like.
• The fact that an editor has taken any one of the above actions does not preclude later editors from taking other ones; for example if one editor removes a bit of text along with the source, another editor may add it back with an appropriate source. Or, for example, if one editor tags the deprecated source with the {{better source}} tag, another editor may remove it entirely. Normal proscriptions against edit warring exist for disputes over removal/retention. WP:BRD should be used, and when there is a dispute, the disputed text and source are to remain removed unless consensus exists to return it, just as with any disputed text that has no source.

Support/oppose on Proposal 1

• Support as proposer. --Jayron32 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support with changeOppose I believe proposal 3 is much more in line with what I'd like. If a deprecated source is found to be reliable for a particular citation there should be a way of marking it as such - e.g. to link to a talk page discussion where there was a consensus saying it was okay for the purpose. This is to stop people just removing things that others think are fine. Dmcq (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I can add nothing really to the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposal 1 - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Opposed - there is no such thing as a “non-source”... just limits to a source’s use. While deprecated sources are GENERALLY not reliable, there are SPECIFIC circumstances where they are. As an example, the RFC that deprecated the Daily Mail noted that it was reliable in the past, and so historical usage might be an exception. Hell, even Mein Kamph is reliable in very limited situations. If nothing else, deprecated sources are reliable for direct quotes taken from the source (ie when used as a primary source). Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but should be summarized more effectively.

Unless special circumstances applies (such as WP:ABOUTSELF), a statement backed by a deprecated source should be treated as no different than a statement backed with no source.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tentative support - I think this proposal is thorough, well-written, and well thought out. The only reason I hesitate to fully embrace it is because there are some scenarios where a 'bad' source might be acceptable. For example, there is some debate about whether a Daily Mail article is valid as a source for a topic closely related to the Daily Mail (e.g. "XXX is the new chief editor of the DM"). Michepman (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support if and only if editors who find untagged text cited to deprecated sources are not allowed to remove the source or the text themselves solely on the ground that the source is deprecated (1 or 5 in the list above). No objections to 2, 3 or 4 on the list as these either improve the encyclopedia, or give other editors the chance to improve the encyclopedia before removal. Text cited to deprecated sources is NOT unsourced and shouldn't be treated as such. Iffy★Chat -- 18:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - (5) is, in my opinion, just leaves the current problem present so we still end up with the same edit wars as we have been seeing on this subject. I think we need a solution that gives a strong preference to content staying on Wikipedia at least for a time when the only problem with it is a previously non-deprecated source becoming deprecated. I do not like givining editors authority to do mass deletions of content (which is the current modus operandi of some editors) that other users have taken time to craft when the content was not originally problematic. (1) is _effectively_ the same as (5) since an editor can simply remove the citation, then come back a day or two later and remove the content for having no citation. For the same reason as I dislike (5), I dislike (1). We should not be deleting content without strong reasons, and using a previously fine source that has since been deprecated is not a legitimate reason for summary deletion of content. I have created Proposal 3 to try to address these issues.
• Support, although I feel automated removal should be allowed when there's pre-existing consensus for it. This is in-line with the current meaning of depreciation and would fit our normal editing procedures. Individual removals can be tweaked by people who are watching the article (eg. by replacing the content using a better source, if it was removed); if there are not enough people watching the article who care, it is better to err on the side of caution and stick with removal of content with an unreliable source anyway, since articles without many people watching them can become dumping-grounds for nonsense if we're not careful. --Aquillion (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose of no benefit to the readers of the encyclopedia, in many cases useful material is being completely lost or incorrectly modified during mass rapid edit sprees. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This gist of this seems to be that statements supported by deprecated sources are worse than having no source at all. Maybe true sometimes, but I suspect that if I were to make a large number of edits removing uncited material I would be quickly told to slow down, use some judgement, and engage on the talk page despite WP:BURDEN. Also, the best place to determine if use of a deprecated source is appropriate is on the talk page, knowing and having the option to change the cited material, not a generalized RFC.—eric 19:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I would suggest three changes, however:

1. Introduction of a new tag: {{deprecated kept}}, where the rationale for keeping a deprecated source can be documented.
2. Allowing for a source to be kept without TP discussion if an editor reviewed it, tagged it and provided a Policy-based justification within the tag for keeping it.
3. Guiding editors toward deletion + tagging instead of just deletion, and towards {{deprecated inline}} instead of {{cn}}. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support in general. Obviously there should never be any bar to simply replacing a poor source with a better one, whether or not the poorer source is deprecated. Even if this has consensus it would not change my current practice of tagging rather than removing in the first instance if the content is probably encyclopaedic and unlikely to be controversial. It would allow for bot removal at some later date, which is an interesting idea. Guy (help!) 01:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Proposal 1

• I suggest the discussion should happen at the WP:RSN - we've already seen editors declare that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page means they can keep a deprecated source, and then it goes to the RSN and their sourcing is rapidly shown to be terrible, e.g. this discussion. To overcome a broad general consensus achieved at RFC, we need an equivalently general countervailing level of consensus - e.g., four people on a talk page shouldn't be able to override two RFCs deprecating the Daily Mail. But that's a minor modification, and broadly it's a good proposal - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I left a notice at WP:RSN for the discussion to happen here. I wanted to have it here to specifically avoid issues with "local consensus" matters; this is a page with a broader reach than RSN, and is better as a "neutral ground" where the discussion would not be colored or influenced by existing discussions at RSN. That is why I considered this venue the best option. --Jayron32 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the discussion on the deprecated source usage specifically; I think the article talk page is the best place to house it because it should be in close proximity to where the source is being used; that way people who are unaware of the discussion can find it easier. I would not be averse to leaving a notice at WP:RSN pointing to the discussion, but a specific usage of a specific source SHOULD be discussed on the article talk page (different from the use of a source in general) RSN should be used for notifications rather than for discussions in those instances. --Jayron32 19:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussion, with notification to RSN, works for me 100%. And yes, this is the very best place for broad general consensus on this issue - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Blueboar's objection seems covered by the provisions to allow deprecated sources by consensus - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Blueboar:: (edit conflict) I believe you may have missed some of the text in the proposal; your specific objection to it has already been addressed in the bullet point that begins with the text "If a deprecated sources is to be used or kept..." The proposal already assumes that even deprecated sources will have appropriate uses, and allows for such use. Can you please elaborate where you think that bullet point is lacking in addressing uses you may have in mind? --Jayron32 20:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• On the bot restriction - if this includes AWB, then the proposal would discriminate against editors with physical disabilities. e.g., for JzG, AWB is needed for an accessibility issue related to physical disability, per [19]: I use AWB, largely because the regex makes it vastly easier but also because I have C7 radiculopathy and it maximises the ability to work by keyboard rather than mouse. This strikes me as 100% a reason to use a given tool for editing - and, of course, an editor using AWB accepts all responsiblity for every click of the "save" button in any case - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: AWB is generally considered a semi-automated tool. As long as you personally review and accept responsibility for every edit, and don't edit like a mindless 'save' machine, you're in the clear. WP:MEATBOT and WP:AWBRULES still applies, of course. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

My only concern would not be for the use of tools such as AWB per se but on the writing of routines and bots for the blind removal of sources. If AWB is being used in a way that makes it clear the user is considering each usage, and responding accordingly, that's fine. If they are just blindly setting up a routine to mass remove all uses, that's a problem. It's the automated nature of removing sources without considering each use, and the use of tools to do it so rapidly that quality control cannot be checked, that is the issue. Otherwise, I would think there wouldn't be a problem. --Jayron32 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would tweak the "fully automated" bit to add "without prior consensus." There are cases where fully-automated removal might be required (especially in the case of spam or if a WP:COI editor was adding an unusable source they have a COI with everywhere or something of that nature), and I'm concerned that this could be used to argue that a consensus at eg. WP:RSN can't allow such edits based on the consensus for this proposal being broader and prohibiting it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Jayron32, would it be within the scope of this proposal to add a section about how new deprecated sources should be agreed upon? (E.g. should it be here, at the Village Pump, or on an article talk?) The reason I ask is because I saw an issue on WP:ANI the other day where there was a debate about whether Mail on Sunday was deprecated as it is an offshoot of The Daily Mail Michepman (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Would that be covered by the case-by-case exception mechanism, or are you after something broader? - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a bit worried about fleshy bots going around deleting stuff based on this, I'd like to make certain editors at an article got a decent chance to do any work needed first. A bot could go around and put a note on the talk page and give some decent timeout for them to mark the use as okay or replace before open season was declared. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Many deprecated sources are used on thousands or even tens of thousands of pages at the time of depreciation, partially because depreciation is an extreme step reserved for cases where a source that is clearly generally unreliable is being used constantly and widely in an unworkable manner. It is simply unreasonable to expect a discussion to occur before every single removal, or to give that sort of chance on so many pages when the usages are often obviously and clearly against the broader consensus - even a bot like you describe would often be tagging simply unworkable numbers of pages. And, after all, the nature of Wikipedia means that even if they go for completely removing the cited text, anyone watching the page can immediately restore it with a better source anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you're objecting to. Bots are quite good at going around the whole of Wikipedia marking things, surely it is a good idea for them to mark deprecated sources as deprecated? And if they can do that they can for instance put a time on and if that time is expired put a tag on showing no-one has attempted to fix the problem in a reasonable time? And then wikignomes can look around for those tags if they want to and do what they think is fit knowing that the normal editors haven't bothered to deal with the problem.. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm also a bit worried about this opposition to "give that sort of chance on so many pages when the usages are often obviously and clearly against the broader consensus". I believe we should treat the editors of articles with more respect and this is very much against WP:5P4 "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" and especially against 'Be open and welcoming to newcomers'. If there is a decent time interval like a month for holidays before the dogs are let loose then a large proportion will have the assurance that editors at the article have not shown enough love for the cite and it can be open season. I would support something like this for all dated article warnings. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Think of it more as "we have 23,000 references that look like they're to a source readers can trust, but actually it's the Daily Mail." Keeping the little blue number when it's deceptive to the reader is bad. Taking out bad sources we literally can't trust does not in any way imply bad faith in the editor who put them there - but they're still bad sources that should be removed forthwith - there is no reason to deliberately leave a bad source in. There is especially no reason to make an assumption of WP:OWNership of the bad source, such that it has the privilege of staying in a month, when a merely "generally unreliable" source wouldn't get that privilege. Bad sourcing is as un-WP:OWNed and editable as any other edit covered in the edit notice - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You can't automatically remove all the dependent text using a bot. But you can mark all the citations as deprecated. And that is far better than just removing the citation because it shows the status of the reason for the text. What I'm suggesting would cut down the work involved in checking the citations - the text may have another citation, and editor there may give a good reason why the citation is okay in that context, any number of things. What is the sense in trying to do all that oneself if editors on the articles can do it? And involving editors is a good thing, ignoring them is bad. Dmcq (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing I've said there implies using a bot, and nothing in your proposal implies using a bot - "fleshy bot" appears to be a term for removals you don't like - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• It should be clarified that the rule would only apply when the source has been disallowed for the specific usage in question. The word "deprecation" gets thrown around a lot as if it has some sort of meaning, but I'm unaware of any formal policy or guideline that defines the term; the exact restriction is written in the closing of each source's RfC and common practices are outlined at the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources information page. Usually the source will be disallowed for statements of fact but may be acceptable for attributed opinions and WP:ABOUTSELF. –dlthewave ☎ 13:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Might I make a suggestion, if there is a concern about people not being given enough time. We only do this to source over (say) six months old, when there has been plenty of time to find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We still get a flood of incoming Daily Mail and Sun cites in new and recent articles. I would recommend against a requirement to keep these around for six months, rather than just removing them, pointing out that these sources are deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Six months does seem too long to me, I'd say one month in case an interested editor is on holiday, and the cite should be marked as deprecated as soon as possible. However I think it very important to allow editors at an article time to fix problems themselves to encourage participation in Wikipedia rather than have editors with no interest except cleaning Wikipedia come along and blast at the article without anything more than a templated comment. It shows disrespect. Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It has the danger of being bitey, but I've found it works quite well if I link them to WP:RSP - so they know there's a reason. (Also, TV editors are delighted to find that Digital Spy has been considered actually quite a good source for TV stuff.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why Remove the source and leave the text is on the list of possible, generally acceptable courses of action (and in the first position, at that). I would expect that in pretty much any circumstance, it would be better to replace a deprecated source with one of our famous {{cn}} tags than just to leave the text there. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• I could probably be talked into supporting 1 - 4. 5 is a tough one for me though. — Ched (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• The reason for leaving the text should be stated on the talk page, and the Cn tag should have Reason=See item xxx on talk page. This would avoid the need to search for (sometimes fruitlessly) a replacement for a good source which has simply disappeared from the interweb, and would tend to reduce instances where the substituted source is on topic but does not address the specific text adequately. Downsize43 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• I like François Robere's suggestions, though he may mean {{deprecated inline}} :-) - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Corrected, thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - create a “Deprecated sources review board”

When an editor comes upon a deprecated source, and can not quickly find a better source to replace it... the editor can submit the source (and context) for review by the board. The board will review, discuss, and determine whether the source is used appropriately (given the context), or not. Review will last for a limited time (say one week... but I am flexible on this). And will recommend an appropriate action (remove the source, remove the source and material, etc.)

Please share your thoughts Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• This seems entirely compatible with Proposal 1, as a place for removals that have been disputed to go. If you mean keeping the source in until a consensus is reached, this just creates a non-scaling bureaucratic blockage on removal of statements sourced solely to known-bad sources. Remember, we're talking about statements attributed solely to a source that we know we can't and don't trust - removal then review before putting back, per Proposal 1, seems obviously the correct treatment for claims with that little support - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

actually, yeah, oppose as redundant - this is called WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• We have that already. This is called WP:RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Don't see why you can't just go to WP:RSN anyway if you're worried. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would be redundant with WP:RSN. Unless the intent is to make bringing such sources to RSN mandatory, which, as noted above and below, is absurd when we're talking about tens of thousands of sources and completely contradicts our normal editing policies. Why would preemptive discussion (which isn't even required for normal edits) be required in a case where it's even more obvious that the source is generally unusable and there's an existing RFC to that effect? If someone watching a page objects to the removal of a source, they can raise that issue in response to its removal as usual and can take it to RFC themselves; this is the same way we handle everything else. --Aquillion (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok... call this a subcommittee of RSN... The idea is that this new “review board“ would consist of editors who SPECIALIZE in dealing with deprecated sources... editors who would follow and be familiar with the various RFCs that resulted in deprecation, and (most importantly) the carve-outs and exceptions that have been made in those RFCs. The review board could thus review the context under discussion, and QUICKLY reach a consensus on whether a deprecated source was used appropriately (or not) and recommend an action. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • No special editorial powers should be given to anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - We already have RSN and, per Headbomb, we shouldn't be creating a "board" with special powers. Many uses are uncontroversial and require no discussion; otherwise we can use our normal editorial process of discussing at article talk and escalating to RSN if needed. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Another level of bureaucracy never solves anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have this at WP:RSN. Guy (help!) 00:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

1. A bot automatically marks all deprecated sources as {{better source}} (with a note/timestamp in the template that this was a deprecation removal, so we can track it).
2. 6 months after deprecation a bot updates all instances of {{better source}} to {{cn}} (with a note/timestamp in the template that this was a deprecation removal, so we can track it).
3. 12 months after deprecation editors are free to remove content that is only supported by a {{cn}} with the appropriate tracking note in it. This can be done without discussion and with a an edit reason of "Unreliable Source" or "Deprecation Cleanup".
4. During those 12 months, an editor may replace the source with a better source.
5. During those 12 months, an editor may remove the content for normal editing reasons other than "Unreliable Sources" (e.g., if the content doesn't fit within the article, or the article is being rewritten in a way that doesn't include the content).
6. During those 12 months, concensus on the talk page for the article can agree on removing the content.
7. During those 12 months, concensus on the talk page for the article can agree to re-add the original source because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
8. During those 12 months, reverts without discussion and only citing a reason of "Unreliable Source" would be treated as vandalism (same as deleting any other content without discussion or valid reason).
9. From the time of deprecation, no new content can be added that references a deprecated source without prior talk page discussion and concensus.
10. From the time of deprecation up to 12 months after deprecation, if content referencing a deprecated source is removed by vandalism (see above), it can be re-added as part of normal vandalism reversion process (this is not considered adding new content).
11. After the 12 month window, a deprecated source effectively becomes a blacklisted source by nature of the ban on adding new content, and the fact that all old content should have been removed by now outside of limited WP:CONTEXTMATTERS cases.

Support/Oppose on Proposal 3

• Support as proposer. Micah71381 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the above strategy aligns with the connotative meaning of deprecated, and doesn't result in deprecated just being another word for blacklisted. It also gives very clear guidelines for what is acceptable editor behavior so there should be minimal edit warring outside of outright vandalism (which Wikipedia already has ways of dealing with). The fixed timelines make it so everyone has plenty of time to address the issues, and changes do not come as a surprise to any users.

The 6/12 month timelines could be adjusted if that is desired. I don't personally believe that deprecated sources are so intrinsictly bad for Wikipedia that they need to be immediately removed (that is what blacklisted sources are for) and I think that the editing process should tend to favor the assumption that other editors are acting in good faith and the content that was added is generally reasonable. I also think that bot-like deleting of content other users took time and energy to add to the site is very hostile, especially to newbies, and should be avoided/limited/telegraphed as much as possible. Deletion of content added by others should generally be a last resort, and we should strive to always give the author plenty of opportunity to improve before we delete their work so we can be a welcoming community to new editors. Micah71381 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• SupportOppose It gives users time to find better sources. However I missed the part about vandalism, I support the autobot part, but not restrictions on human users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Bit long winded and the time period is long but overall yes I can stand firmly behind this. Deprecated definitely desn't mean fire and brimstone should immediately be rained down on all uses. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This literally gives deprecated sources more protection than merely bad sources. And new links to deprecated sources are added all the time - there's really no justification for protecting those known-bad additions for six to twelve months - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per David Gerard, and invalid RFC in that this seeks to undermine WP:RS and WP:BLP. This is patiently absurd and would defeat the purpose of deprecation, which is to allow generally unreliable sources to be rapidly removed in large amounts without individual discussion when they've been used extensively; in practice this proposal amounts to eliminating deprecation entirely; it is not to provide special protection for such sources, which this proposal suggests. There are, in many cases, thousands or tens of thousands of uses for deprecated sources, and the idea that we could wait six or even twelve months before doing anything systematic about them after a broad RFC on the source is unworkable. I would even go so far as to question the validity of this RFC, since it effectively seeks to overturn every RFC that has ever deprecated a source by redefining "deprecated" to the point of uselessness and seems, in practice, unlikely to get anywhere near the response that the RFCs it is undermining had. Unreliable sources should be fixed (including by removal, if necessary) on sight. Always, without exception. The nature of the fix requires some sensitivity to individual situations, but waiting six to twelve months to fix a glaring problem after an RFC clearly decided that it needed to be fixed is absurd. Note that regardless of the outcome of this RFC, WP:RS will always allow editors to remove unreliable sources on sight with an edit reason of "unreliable source" - no consensus here can change that. Even a consensus on the talk page for WP:RS cannot allow the continued usage of a definitely reliable source. We can disagree over whether a source is usable in a particular context, or how to handle it if it is, but once it's established that a particular usage of a source is not reliable W:RS always means users removing it with a reason of "unreliable source" are correct to do so. The waiting period for this RFC cannot be enforced; anyone who removed a definitely unreliable source would be correct to do so, and anyone persistently restoring it in the face of a clear consensus declaring it unreliable in that context would still get blocked. EDIT: Note that this proposal also contravenes WP:BLP in that it doesn't make an exception for unreliable sources used to source negative claims about a living person; we are required to remove those on sight, and, again, this invalid RFC cannot change that because the core principle of BLP is not subject to consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support seems like the least bad option. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support this would protect material being summarily removed for which other sources (once checked) can be used. It would also reduce the risk of good faith editors not understanding why sources are being removed with misleading summaries, the tag will give them time to understand the true meaning of deprecation in the Wikipedia sense, which in actuality is very different from the kind of wholesale bans we've seen being implemented. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose #5 alone is a dealbreaker. If a shit source is used, people should be entirely free to remove said shit source, alongside the shittely sourced content. Just like everywhere else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aquillion's (core policies) argument.—eric 20:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because of A/ its incompatibility with core policy, B/ its complexity, in turning what is usually a simple discussion on a talk page into multiple steps and C/ an attempt to replace human judgment with automated tools in an area where judgment and nuances are essential. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would prevent valid removals of BLP violations and other problematic content drawn from terrible sources. Guy (help!) 00:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Incompatible with core policy and goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is (or should be). Alexbrn (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Proposal 3

• Good sources don't get a twelve-month protection from removal. Why should known-bad sources? - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Good, reliable sources don’t NEED a “pause before removal”, because no one is likely to remove them. Unreliable sources don’t need a “pause before removal”, because we agree as a community that they are not appropriate. Deprecated sources DO need a “pause before removal” because they are neither fish nor fowl... They are neither reliable nor unreliable. It depends on context. The pause is to examine that context, and to determine if that context is one of the limited situations where the use of the deprecated source is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Content can be removed for normal content removal reasons, just not for "Unreliable Source" during the window. This effectively treats the source as "fine for now, will become blacklisted eventually". There is no additional protection given to the content or the source beyond the protection from being removed as "unreliable source" (which a good source would also have). If the content is inappropriate for the article, if it is vandalism, if it violates other policies, etc it can still be removed per normal Wikipedia editing policies. Basically, treat the source as "fine" for pre-existing content during the transitionary period, but with a warning to users that the source is going to become blacklisted after a time and they should take measures to address the situation if they want the content to remain. Micah71381 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Not long ago, someone removed one of these so-called "known bad" sources and modified content, replacing the "known bad" source with a "not-known bad source". Thing was, the so-called "known bad" source was absolutely 100% accurate, and the replacement was wrong, and factual inaccuracies were literally added to Wikipedia. This is why we can't get even close to automating this process, particularly when the use of these sources is contextual and even per DEPS, agreed reliable in some circumstances. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• But I can currently remove any source I feel is unreliable with "unreliable source", with the content cited to it if I don't think finding a source for that content is likely to happen. I can even do so on a dozen articles or a hundred articles, if I want to be fairly WP:BOLD about it or am extremely confident that the source is unreliable, without any discussion or RFC of any sort in advance. This proposal would redefine "deprecation" to give such sources special protection for months on end, which is extremely misleading - I would still be able to mass-remove sources that haven't been discussed, but sources that the community has agreed are severely unreliable in all cases would be specially protected? Absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

And new links to deprecated sources are added all the time - there's really no justification for protecting those known-bad additions

• User:David Gerard Per (9) in the above list, new content from a deprecated source is disallowed, effectively treated like a blacklisted source where only WP:CONTEXT can override it. During the transitionary period, any new additions would be treated as though they came from a blacklisted source, so there would be no protection for them like there would be for pre-existing sources. Micah71381 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• As I mentioned in my response, I feel that this proposal is invalid (as in, it cannot be implemented even if it obtains consensus here.) It would redefinine "depreiated" in a way that would effectively overturn every RFC that has ever used the term, and I would even argue that it wouldn't apply to any future RFCs that use the term unless they specifically incorporate its text in the RFC proposal, since its meaning is idiosyncratic to the point of meaningless. "We want to deprecate this source" does not mean "we want to provide special protections for existing usages of this source", and, therefore, any RFC that decides on deprecation would override this RFC unless the response here is extremely high (as most of the RFCs this seeks to undermine were.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Aquillion In your opinion, what is the difference between deprecated and blacklisted? When you say, "Unreliable sources should be fixed (including by removal, if necessary) on sight. Always, without exception." that makes me think of how blacklisted sites should be handled. To me, the difference between deprecated and blacklisted is that deprecated sources in existing articles (prior to the deprecation) are not in need of speedy deletion/removal, while blacklisted sources should be purged with prejudice from Wikipedia. Micah71381 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Blacklisting a source adds an edit filter to prevent people from using it, and requires that it be removed as soon as possible. Deprecation merely establishes a consensus that it can be removed on sight, raising the burden of anyone who wants to object to a removal by requiring that they answer the consensus in the RFC. Note, even without formal deprecation, and even without any existing discussion, any unreliable source can be removed on sight with an edit reason of "unreliable source" - in fact, WP:RS establishes this (and that will remain true, for all unreliable sources, regardless of the outcome of this RFC and regardless of deprecation, since WP:RS is not subject to consensus.) Deprecation just speeds up this process by avoiding the need to discuss the source every time someone objects to a removal and therefore making it easier to rapidly remove it from many articles at once (since if you do so before it's deprecated, you'll have to answer each objection individually, and may face trouble if your decision that it was unreliable turns out to be sufficiently contentious.) But "remove unreliable sources on sight", with a reason of "unreliable source", is the default - and appropriate behavior required by WP:RS, with the caveats just being disagreement over whether a source is reliable in that context and whether to remove / replace. It is not something an RFC is required for, and certainly not something this RFC could restrict. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Aquillion This quote of yours, "we could wait six or even twelve months before doing anything systematic about them", makes me think that perhaps you have misunderstood this proposal slightly. During the 6-12 months, you can take action to address the issue of sourcing. The only thing you cannot do is remove the source/content for the reason of "Unreliable Source". As soon as the deprecation occurs the source will be marked as {{better source}}, potentially by a bot, so there would be an even more immediate and systemic action taken than the current procedure. Along with that, any editor may freely replace the source with a more reliable source without discussion. The content itself is also not protected other removal reasons due to "Unreliable Source", so there are still a number of reasons you can remove a source from an article during this transitionar period. Micah71381 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The only thing you cannot do is remove the source/content for the reason of "Unreliable Source". Incorrect. WP:RS is core policy and not subject to consensus; therefore, you can always remove an unreliable source on sight with the reason of "unreliable source", no matter what, without exception, and will always be able to do so regardless of the outcome of this RFC. This policy cannot and will not change that; if people believe incorrectly believe that it would have such an effect, it should be hatted immediately. There is room to debate what sources are reliable and how to handle unreliable ones, but if anyone contributing to this RFC thinks that it will delay the removal of a source that an RFC has found to be unreliable in a particular usage from situations where it is being misused, they need to back down immediately. That directly contradicts the requirements of WP:RS and is therefore not possible - unreliable sources are always at least potentially subject to immediate removal. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nitpick, but an important one I think for this particular conversation: WP:RS is a Guideline, not a Policy. WP:VERIFY is the policy that underpins WP:RS.

I'd support users being able to use deprecated sources provided they mark the use as such and it gives their justification. Normal talk page discussions can deal with anything beyond that. Not that it is blacklisted like spam. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

We can add a "none grandfather" clause that says this only applies to cites 12 months old, after this new proposal comes into effect. Any source added after this date is still subject to summery removal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• How do you tell the age of a given source in an article? It's considerable faff with the history. The proposal throws up gratuitous roadblocks, and still specially-protects the worst sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not say it was easy, but I thought this was a bot? Would it not be possible to have that bot only mark cites added before a certain date?Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, this proposal cannot "come into effect" as written. WP:RS always allows the immediate removal of an unreliable source, fullstop, and is not subject to consensus. There is room to disagree over whether sources are unreliable and how to use them, but "we have agreed that this source is unreliable in this context, but people are not allowed to remove it for the next twelve months" contravenes core policy and is therefore unenforceable regardless of the outcome of this RFC. It is flatly not acceptable, under WP:RS, to say "this source is not reliable, but we are going to use it here for twelve months anyway." --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Again I think this is just about an automatic bot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Deeper Problems: Deletion of arbitrary content citing "Unreliable Source"

Reading over this discussion, I think we may actually have a deeper seated problem than deprecation. Above User:Aquillion says, "But I can currently remove any source I feel is unreliable with "unreliable source" with the content cited to it if I don't think finding a source for that content is likely to happen" and this seems to mirror the behavior that some editors exhibit. My understanding of reliable sources (following the ethos of WP:DONTREVERT) is that individual editors do not get to assert that some particular source is unreliable and delete content just because they think it is unreliable. There is a process for getting a source marked as unreliable both for a single page/citation (talk page), or more broadly (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). Am I misunderstanding policy here and anyone can delete anything citing "Unreliable Source" and that is acceptable behavior of an editor? I have been operating under the understanding that the first step if you believe a source is unreliable and it isn't listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is to either replace the source with a more reliable one, or bring it up on the talk page and engage with other editors to either find a better source, or remove the content if the talk page consensus is that the source is unreliable.

Throughout the Wikipedia editor behavioral guideline pages it repeatedly talks about how we should be WP:BOLD but also prefer to to add content rather than remove content. This feels like a situation where if someone added something and the only issue an individual editor has with it is reliability (meaning one editor thinks the source is reliable, and one thinks it is unreliable), then we should default to siding with the party who wants to add content, rather than siding with the party who delete content.

You profoundly misunderstand policy, yes. WP:RS requires that all sources be reliable; therefore, removing a source with a reason of "unreliable source" is always valid in the same way that eg. removing uncited material or unencyclopedic content or things that plainly violate WP:TONE is always valid. Individual cases can be more complex and require more discussion; particularly in contentious cases it might be worthwhile to have discussions in advance to establish a consensus on how a source can and can't be used (or if it is usable at all outside of the highly-restrictive usage that allows almost anything, eg. WP:ABOUTSELF.) And certainly if there are substantial objections, anyone making mass edits to remove a source should slow down and go to WP:RSN to obtain a consensus before continuing (deprecation, of course, is such a consensus.) There's no strict default on who to side with in such a dispute for most situations - once there's disagreement it becomes necessary to talk things out; but note that in WP:BLP situations policy unambiguously sides with people removing the source. In other situations, deprecation is a way to settle those disputes by allowing a source to be rapidly removed with objections directed back to the RFC; without deprecation, you can absolutely remove sources (and even boldly remove it on multiple articles), but must stop and answer individual objections or stop and hold a centralized RFC if it's clear that there's substantial disagreement. The idea that sources would be presumed reliable (ie. removing them is not permissible without established consensus) is absurd and goes against Wikipedia's standard editing policies - WP:BOLD absolutely allows removal (if anything it slightly favors removal, especially of recent material, since adding an unreliable source without estrablishing its reliability in advance is itself bold. And of course, as mentioned, in WP:BLP situations you are required to remove unreliable sources on sight, and restoring them is not permissible without a clear consensus supporting restoration.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

So (lets give you are scenario) someone (using a deprecated or dare I say it even banned source) uploads say "Slaves in the south were happy being slaves" that should stay because it is sourced? Or "NASA never landed on the moon" or "Kennedy was killed by Tuffty club assassins to demonstration how dangerous roads are"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Great examples Slatersteven. I think what I would like to see in such a situation is at least a claim made by the person removing the content that the information is likely untrue. Part of the problem I'm witnessing both in the issues that lead to this thread and throughout other parts of Wikipedia is that editors are just saying "Unreliable Source" and deleting content without trying to find an alternative source, and for content that is largely undisputed. As an example, if you have 100 unreliable (but not deprecated/blacklisted) sources that all say that X happened, and 0 reliable sources that say otherwise, and little to no reason to believe that the data is incorrect, I think we should err on the side "keep the content". Of course, such a strategy applied without thought has its own set of problems such as people creating 100s of unreliable sources to make some claim no one would report contrary to (e.g., celebrity X was an extra in movie Y, no one will report that celebrity X was not an extra in movie Y). Regardless of which side we land on on this issue, editor judgement needs to play a larger role than is being employed currently.
• TL;DR: I think the root problem that people are frustrated with is that some editors do not appear (not implying bad faith) to be applying judgement to their editorial strategy. They appear (not implying bad faith) to be doggedly adhering to policy/guidelines without regard to context. This thread, I believe, is essentially other editors trying to formalize a set of rules that will protect Wikipedia from such edits, but in reality I think the core problem is that context and judgement are either not being used or there is disagreement on context and judgement (likely), and disputing context/judgement is really hard and will very often result in an edit war. I don't think I have a good solution for how to deal with editors who don't apply judgement/context, and even less of a solution for dealing with editors who disagree on context/judgement. I don't think any proposed solutions to the problem, including the status quo, will actually resolve this core problem. This problem is particularly bad since a WP:DISRUPTive editor (not implying anyone here is disruptive) can lean on the fuzziness of context/judgement to WP:GAME. Micah Zoltu (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Which I agree with, because everyone things their loony theory is logical, factual and not disproved (often because RS cannot be bothered to even look at it). Moreover this also reds a bit ORy, "well I think this sounds reasonable, so lets keep it". NO, our cornerstones are verifiable in reliable sources, not logic or reason or persuasive argument (I have recently seen a block for just this sort of argument). Also we do have wp:undue, if no one who is significant gives a damn why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Existing methods work quite well on loony theories. The problems arise when there is genuine disagreement between responsible editor on wha controversial matter, because the general (and appropriate) way of conducting an argument on disputed content is to attack the reliability of the sourcing. Any attempt to set up a complicated procedure here will provide more opportunities for those WPedians who are in the majority here to decrease the amount of coverage of other views or even remove them entirely. (I almost always agree myself with the majority position here in most such questions, but the proper way of explaining it is to give every view a proportionate coverage, not try to decrease it by focussing on deprecating every source used while ignoring the possible dubiousness of some of thes ources that agree with the majority.) NPOV requires active measures to counter the inevitable tendency to want content to support what one thinks ought to be the case. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Suggest a two-step process to avoid excess abruptness. First, tag content {{better source needed}} to give heads up on problematic source. In a few weeks, remove bad source, change tag to {{citation needed}}. In a few weeks more, if no better citation given, then delete content. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is the same as Proposal 3 above I believe, just with shorter time frames. If you agree with that, I would encourage you to express your support above with a caveat that the timeframes should be shorter. I would personally be fine with shorter time frames.

• Point is, content is not the same as source. If the claim that the Pope is Catholic is cited to an unreliable source, does it ever make sense to remove both source and claim? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reading back over Proposal 3, I think I poorly phrased the last step in the process. My intent with the last step in the process is that any content referencing a deprecated source would be "open season" by editors for removal with prejudice. This wouldn't override Wikipedia policy by demanding that the sky is blue is deleted because no one updated the source to a non-deprecated source, it would just move the onus from the person removing the content to strongly back up their claim (which would be the operating procedure during the 12 month window) to the person wanting to retain it to strongly back up their claim. The purpose of Proposal 3 is give people time to fix pages they care about before editors come in and do mass deletions with minimal editorial research. Micah Zoltu (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

More html

Make it so that trusted users can insert raw html into Wikipedia. (enable $vgRawHtml)

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

For what purpose? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Things like embedding maps, adding more programming languages for bot development, etc.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 20:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems problematic in a working Wiki. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be problematic? It could be a user right. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikitext should be editable by others. There would need to be a concrete proposal relating to improving a specific article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@E Super Maker: This would require the same trust level as interface administrators. That group currently has only 12 users, for good reasons. Any HTML would be a burden on those users to maintain, so it would have to be really important. Many pages already contain embedded maps; click on the globe icon next to the coordinates on the upper-right corner of, e.g. Death Valley. See WP:WMA. What do you mean by programming languages for bot development? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a horrid idea per mw:$wgRawHtml and mw:Cross-site scripting. It will open up a massive security vulnerability. If the existing, allowed HTML tags are not enough, you should seriously reconsider the approach you're taking. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

<blink>Please, no.</blink>. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

<marquee>Oppose.</marquee> SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure those both don't work because browsers dropped support for them, not because they are arbitrary HTML. Arbitrary HTML that doesn't work includes <a> and <img>. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

That was my point :D SportingFlyer T·C 13:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Mixing encoding formats creates complex and sometimes impossible to resolve ambiguities. We already mix percent-encoding, HTML encoding and wikitext encoding in URLs (potentially all three in the same URL) in violation of RFC 3986, it's crazy. -- GreenC 16:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There's so many things I could do if I could insert my own html into Wikipedia pages! Even without Javascript I could do marvels with css. Fiendishly rubs hands together with glee. 😈 H̷̨̺͎̖͈̺̦̳͉͕̲̓̈̕͜è̶̡̠̤̫̭͖̗̗̐̀͗͂͌́́͗ ̴̜̼̖̻̲̃̑̏̽̑͠c̵̩͕̭͓̥̯͉͉̪̖̈́̽̾̉͝͝õ̷̧͓͍̺̱̋̑͜m̶̦̅ẻ̵̖̓́̉͊͐̇͜s̸̪͒̂̚ ̴̛͇̜͙͙̤̣̰͎̪͔͈̻͓̟̩̏͒̐̒͂͘͜͠ͅ ¹ ǝǝɥ ǝǝɥ ǝH So yes my full support (no not really) 12 is quite enough people with that right. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

¹ disrupting text format esacaped. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmcq: You can add CSS, with some minimal constraints. See WP:TemplateStyles. --Yair rand (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, looks enough for me to put in a css game without risking getting blocked :-) Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

<blinquee>Please no.</blinquee> - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, how about it be an ability for template administrators? E Super Maker (😲 shout) 20:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@E Super Maker: Are you familiar with Cross-site scripting? How many editors, exactly, do you want to have full control of your account, or do all the privacy-violating stuff here, or, if your browser isn't quite up to date, install malware on your computer? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow, in the above post it states that only template administrators would have this ability. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 21:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it is too easy for someone malicious to set up underhanded Javascript. Many people will have heard of the International Obfuscated C Code Contest, but much more worrying are the entries in the Underhanded C Contest. Though I guess even straightforward links make it easy enough to delude lots of readers and get their details. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

“Notes” Section revamp.

What I’ve noticed in some articles in Wikipedia is that the ‘Notes’ section usually has information that should be present in “References” instead. I believe it’s time we should revamp the meaning of the notes section in Wikipedia. These are my proposals:

We should use the Notes section in articles to let the readers know about something that otherwise wouldn’t be suitable in hatnotes, such as “This article uses both the GMT timezone in some sections and the EST time zones in others where it is suitable” etc. Although this is present in some articles, surprisingly quite a lot of articles don’t do this.

As a result of that (and bear in mind what I am about to say it is only to see the views of those that will partake in the debate on the following point I’ll be raising), we should also move the Notes section near the top of the page so the reader is aware of any information contained in the Notes section before reading the article. Neon 12:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A move like that disrupts both the format and the flow of the articles. Notes are important clarification or direction, but they are a sideshow to the main subject, and are relegated near the bottom for a reason. I do not think we should mess with a machine that works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)