Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 9 November 2021 (Historical perspective on proxy editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.



RfC: amending parts of WP:NCELECT

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Passed. There is consensus for this change, and some objection was due to confusion over whether this would proscribe the use of an adjective or noun (which is the problem that this solves). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums claims to contain guidelines as to how to title articles about such democratic exercises. However, it appears to be a guideline which is not in sync with practice and which sometimes even leads to results which are outright contrary to the WP:TITLE policy.

Thus, I propose that all relevant phrases of NCELECT be altered to reflect actual usage, i.e. elections should be at [Date] [location name or adjective] [election], with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy (notably WP:COMMONNAME). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (NCELECT)

  • @RandomCanadian: If that's the case, then yes, since that's what has been done locally for years without much trouble. Still, the formal text of the proposal is "that all relevant phrases of NCELECT be altered to reflect actual usage, i.e. elections should be at [Date] [location name or adjective] [election], with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy". Since I do not agree with it for the reasons exposed above and because it would leave the door too open to ambiguity, I keep my "oppose proposal as-is" !vote, favouring instead the incorporation of an additional clause (in a similar fashion as done "for elections to particular bodies or offices") which could be written as follows: "For elections in countries for which reliable sources prefer such format, default to the form "Date [country name] type election", as in: 2020 United States presidential election, 2019 United Kingdom general election, or 2020 New Brunswick general election". Impru20talk 14:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Impru20: it sounds like you're missing the "or adjective" part of "[date] [location name or adjective] [election]" (as you did in your initial comment). There's no ambiguity. It allows both "2019 United Kingdom general election" and "2017 French presidential election" as written, in contrast to the existing guideline (which prohibits the former). It is more explicit in this than your proposed text. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article names like "2019 United Kingdom general election" and "2020 United State presidential election" exist because it can be argued that using the adjectival form is problematic and an exception is made to the more natural article title form, which is the adjectival one. My issue with the proposal is that it gives equal weight to location and adjectival forms, whereas the latter should be preferred based on their naturalness. The risk is that we end up with worse article titles or time-wasting RMs because someone thinks it's better to call an article '2021 Germany federal election' and the proposed new wording of the guideline says this is fine. Number 57 16:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bilorv: I have missed nothing, I am explicitly against the proposed change as formulated. I am in favour of having the current scheme of using the adjective first as the default naming convention, but allowing the use of the location in specific cases where appropiate (which is what has been done in Wikipedia for years already). This is in contrast to the or proposal, which would basically allow for an indiscriminate use of either the location or the adjectival form in any case, even in elections of the same country (i.e. the proposal would technically allow for both a 2016 United States presidential election article and a 2020 American presidential election article to co-exist, with both being technically equally valid. It is a drastic example, but the point is made). My proposal would basically turn this unwritten convention into written policy, which would achieve the same as RandomCanadian's current proposal while being much more harmless. Impru20talk 17:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: I should have pinged you below; in any case see this for further explanation as to why I don't think your drastic example would happen under my proposal as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: The problem is that your wording leaves it just too open to interpretation and deviates from customary Wikipedia practice for many years. Your assurances do not matter, since you can just simply control the way other people would implement such naming convention under your proposal. Considering past precedence through Wikipedia on other NCs and MOS, it will get messy. I would rather prefer a straightforward solution that does not mean any drastic change to current policy. Impru20talk 06:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree, then, as I think the policy should not explicitly favour one form or the other (even if in practice one can expect that one or the other might be more frequent in some contexts), and also think that simply suggesting to follow the other criteria to fix any ambiguity as to which should be used will ensure that articles are overall at better, clearer titles (otherwise, as I also know from experience, people are going to argue "but the guideline favours adjectives" even in contexts where there is no reason to favour adjectives). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We've needed a general consistency here for a long time now, and the proposed pattern already agrees with most of our relevant articles. I detect some "United Kingdom" vs. "British" dispute in the background, and I don't think this RfC addresses it; it is better taken elsewhere. WP:COMMONNAME is already effectively our guide to whether in a particular case to use an adjective or noun form, though it would not hurt for the guideline to reiterate, something like "When choosing between a noun and adjective form, use the form most frequent in reliable, independent, English-language sources."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps on this topic, we should go via local consensus. I think there'd be opposition to 2024 American presidential election, for example. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay: What are you opposing? If we followed the guideline as written, it should be "American". Obviously, the guideline is not in sync with actual practice, hence why I am proposing it be amended so that both forms are allowable, with the decision of which one to use for a particular country or region being left to local consensus. i.e. my proposal is basically this, but copied to the other three similar sentences too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out, that if we attempt an across the board implementation (either option)? It might get messy. As for myself, I will abide but whatever this RFC's decision is. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay: The proposal isn't to make it a free for all; I explicitly wrote what is implied by usual policy, i.e. "with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy" - i.e. it shouldn't merely be an arbitrary choice, it would still need to follow the usual guidelines (including naturalness [so no "Germany elections"] and recognisability/precision [so no "American elections"]). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral. I'll abide by whatever the RFC decision is. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should go by local consensus at the country level, but not at the election level. If 51% of sources say "2016 United States presidental election" and 51% of sources say "2020 American presidental election", we shouldn't use different terms just because that's how the numbers played out; we should strive for consistency within a single class of elections. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: needs updating as it's out of line with current practice, and the proposal will cover essentially all current practice. Even the Sanmarinese example wouldn't actually need to be changed to match this new NCELECT, though it should be. — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, particularly to accurately document current practice and with the preference being left to other considerations of the article title policy. Levivich 23:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nomination makes cogent argument to have policy follow generally accepted practice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but allow redirects. At minimun, the proposal and guidance should prioritize country name over adjective, as not everyone may be familiar with the adjective or the adjective may either be over- or under- inclusive. --Enos733 (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A fair point, but note that this proposal still moves in the right direction - at least it allows the country name, while the current guidance suggests adjective-only. SnowFire (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. On Wikipedia we tend to go by actual cases rather than follow some philosophical "this is how it should be everywhere" principle. It would be wrong to call any UK-wide elections "British" because that word is ambiguous - it can mean "pertaining to the United Kingdom" or "pertaining to the island that contains most of England, Scotland and Wales, but certainly not Northern Ireland". But carrying that case over to everywhere leads to such absurdities as calling the recent election in Germany by a name that is hardly ever used in English. Let's just use the normal rules for article titles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Guidelines should follow usage, not the other way around. As a note, the change doesn't even forbid the adjectival form, so really can't see the issue with such a change at all - although, per others, certain flagrant examples like San Marino should probably be moved sooner rather than later. SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I see this as leading to titles that are stronger on the "naturalness" criterion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The current guideline fails Criteria #1 and #2 - and even without relevant policy, the San Marino example was extremely convincing when I first read it, and remains extremely convincing now. I'm not entirely certain we need any guideline to define this - I would think that we can come to reasonable titles on the basis of Criteria, perhaps with an explanatory essay pointing users in the right direction - but as we have one, the one we have might as well make sense. BilledMammal (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever the result may be, I think there must be redirects made to allow for both forms. Have one form be where the article actually resides, while have the redirect of the other form to allow people to search using either form and also for links to be made with either form used. --boldblazer 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Guidelines should allow actual usage to avoid confusion and ambiguity. Sam.gov (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There are many cases where the adjective isn't the WP:COMMONNAME; in some cases, the adjective isn't even WP:NATURAL. (Thinking here of US states in particular... I can't imagine many people go around using the word, say, "Massachusettsian.") Amending this policy helps to ensure that NCELECT doesn't end up at cross-purposes with broader naming guidelines. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But also recognize that plenty of exceptions will exist no matter what the documented "standard" way of naming election-related articles is. ―NK1406 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (NCELECT)

  • Whatever the exact shady origins of NCELECT, or the outcome of this discussion, formalising this aspect via a proper process is likely to reduce potential for misinterpretation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of this section is misleading – the proposal isn't to deprecate NCELECT, it's to amend it. Also, why wasn't this done on the guideline's talk page like usual attempts to amend guidelines? Number 57 08:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is not at NCELECT cause that page has limited traffic. Also because as far as I see there's been an editor who's been editing the guideline without obtaining previous consensus for it; specifically on this point (diff), and that same person has been enforcing the guideline they wrote themself as though it were force of law. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit was a simple correction, not a material change (as 'demonym' refers to the people of a country which wasn't appropriate for the guideline, although in practice, in most cases they are the same). And I am not the guideline's original author. Number 57 12:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Year Canadian federal elections & Year United States presidential elections. We also have Year United Kingdom general elections & Year Russian presidential elections. They're all Year location election form. GoodDay (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Acoording to the guideline as written, it's supposed to be Year [Adjectival form] election (so "2019 British general elections", because "British" is indeed the demonym for "United Kingdom"). The guideline making no exception for other overriding policy concerns (such as the well known WP:CRITERIA), so should be amended to cover at least that. In addition, the guideline as written does not reflect actual practice, as demonstrated by countless cases like the California elections RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amendment is required. PS - I'm trying to picture 2022 Oregonian gubernatorial election, 2022 Illinosian gubernatorial election, 2021 New Jerseyite gubernatorial election, 2023 Lousianian gubernatorial election, etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of TimedText Pages

Why are requests to delete TimedText pages, which are audio, considered at MFD rather than at FFD? I think I know the answer, which is because that is what the rules say. Why do the rules send deletion requests for TimedText to MFD, which is not otherwise a forum that concerns itself with files containing analog, audio, video, image, or other such information? Why not direct those requests to FFD? That isn't really a "good fit", but it is sort of "less bad fit" than MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: probably because they are relatively rare, I expect most TT deletions are speedy (G8 when the file is deleted), and the others are rather uncontested so they just lumped in to the "everything else" that went to MfD. Venue-wise, most FFD's are about copyright issues, which could pertain to TT's - but again it is rarely a concern. Aside, if we really wanted to move something out of MfD - I've always argued that Draft's would be the best (as their deletion arguments are almost always about content or content inclusion criteria - not about miscellaneous things). — xaosflux Talk 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I looked over the last 20000 page deletions. Of those, 27 were TimedText - all of which were G8. Additionally, Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/TimedText shows that there have only ever been 32 TT MFD's. — xaosflux Talk 11:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, TT is not audio - it is plain wikitext. — xaosflux Talk 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that either of these locations are completely bad, but I agree with Robert that these requests would ideally be handled at FFD, even though that means taking a little effort to update the rules (and probably Twinkle, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to moving these from MFD to FFD, but think that the overhead of even worrying about any of the mechanics is time best spent elsewhere. — xaosflux Talk 15:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with xasoflux; it's just not worth worrying about. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, if there have been only 32 deletion nominations for TimedText files since Day One, then it makes very very little difference where we delete them. Perhaps this is because everything having to do with TimedText files makes very little difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not worth spending much time on. I can only think of three reasons for deletion: there is no associated media file, the associated media file is being deleted, or the transcription is significantly wrong and no one is volunteering to fix it, which for most cases doesn't require much discussion: an admin can watch the media file with the timed text and decide if it should be deleted. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, deletion of media files, sound like images, belongs at FfD, primarily because complex copyright concerns are interwoven, like with image files. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It not being a big frequent issue is not a reason to not improve something. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Drafts

On the other hand, the deletion of drafts is a substantive matter. User:Xaosflux writes: 

Aside, if we really wanted to move something out of MfD - I've always argued that Draft's would be the best (as their deletion arguments are almost always about content or content inclusion criteria - not about miscellaneous things).

Where would we move deletion of drafts to? They should not be moved to AFD, because, although drafts are proposed articles, notability is the most common reason for deletion of articles, and notability is not a reason for the deletion of drafts. What forum is there to move deletion of drafts to? Should there be a WP:Drafts for Discussion forum to discuss deletion of drafts, that could also handle appeals of rejected drafts, or complicated issues about whether to accept drafts? If drafts are not miscellaneous, what are they? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: in my general opinion, miscellany is more about things that are ancillary to the project (mechanics, presentations, and niche things that never got their own home from VFD such as TimedText above) - while drafts are more aligned with the core mission of gathering/curating of knowledge. DfD could be the answer - there hasn't been enough push to bother before - but they are certainly a larger category than TT if we are looking at splitting something out of MfD. — xaosflux Talk 18:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been one of the regular participants at MFD for several years, and my unscientific estimate would be that most of the time it has slightly more "draft-like" stuff than anything else, and next to that is WikiProject-related stuff. An exception was that in 2019, it was mostly portals, until the portal deletions resulted in an ArbCom case that didn't settle anything. (ArbCom, reasonably, said that there should be a community discussion. Community discussion fizzled out because the community was too scattered even to have a focused discussion.) However, much of what goes to MFD is either drafts or draft-like stuff, such as draft articles in user space. So a lot of what gets discussed at MFD is proposed content. (And portals are also a device for presenting content.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can move it out, by getting rid of that process to delete drafts. After all, we already have broad allowance for what drafts are allowed to exist, even if they wouldn't have a hope of surviving an AfD (we just delete them after they've been inactive for six months), and we already handle the things that need to be deleted (copyright, BLP, illegal) through speedy deletion.
With that said, this is just brainstorming; I have minimal experience with MfD. BilledMammal (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts are frequently left to languish, which might be unfortunate but which is a fact of life, but when deletion is being discussed, I would prefer to see those discussions happen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. They should be deleted (or not, as the case might be) on the same grounds as any page that is already in the mainspace, and the most straightforward way to make sure that the same standards are being applied is to have the same process handling it. There has been a tendency among AFD and NPP regulars to sometimes reject drafts and new pages on notable subjects on grounds that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions rejects. I also wouldn't object if the preferred process looked like first moving the page to the mainspace and then immediately nominating it for deletion. Leaving that log entry in the mainspace might make it easier to trace histories later.
Also, once a page has survived AFD, it should not be in draftspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, once a page has survived AFD, it should not be in draftspace. Yes. This is something I strongly support making policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are really only 3 reasons why a draft should ever be deleted:
  1. The sole author requests it (G7)
  2. It is actively harmful to the project (e.g. attack pages (G10), copyright violations (G12), and similar)
  3. No human has touched them for 6 months (G13) - and I'm not fully convinced this isn't causing more harm than good in its present form.
For everything else, there needs to be a very good reason why it needs to be deleted before it is eligible for G13. Lack of notability and other reasons articles are commonly deleted at AfD are not examples of such reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether a page in the draft namespace is indeed a draft that could ever become an article. We do want to delete WP:NOTWEBHOST violations in any namespace, and draft namespace shouldn't be protected from that. (Howtos, manuals, gaming, various data dumps etc. should not be kept around based on what namespace they are in, but based on whether they have any conceivable use for the project). —Kusma (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. Any draft that violates any line at WP:NOT is welcome at MfD and is usually deleted there. The problem with most DraftSpace MfD nominations is that the nominator cites no WP:NOT violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Thryduulf. Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD. Mostly, I think it is due to enthusiastic Wikipedians trying to contribute, who don’t consider that raising unimportant issues on a formal deletion page creates more work than the original problem was worth. I.e busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with User:SmokeyJoe's statement that "Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD." It is true that many of the draft nominations at MFD are mistaken, but proper nominations at MFD of drafts that were being tendentiously resubmitted are not uncommon. User:Thryduulf, above, says that drafts should only be deleted for three reasons, one of which is things that are actively harmful. I will agree with those categories IF it is recognized that tendentious resubmission is harmful to the project because it is a burden to the volunteer reviewers, and is often self-serving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very few good draftspace nominations are made at MfD.
Maybe on average one per week. That is very small for arguing for a new XforDeletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sending all draftspace deletion to another forum would be good for mfd in removing much busywork from mfd. However, I predict that the new forum will be unattended. Most draftspace mfd nominations would have been appropriate for WP:N/N. Consider reviving that page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, there have been 71 AfDs for pages in the Draft namespace since its introduction in December 2013, out of about 175,000 AfDs total during that time (i.e. about 0.03%). Meanwhile, out of the 32,229 MfDs in history, there exist 5,656 for drafts. This works out to about sixty per month, or two per day. jp×g 04:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts and Notability

User:WhatamIdoing says that drafts should be discussed for deletion on the same basis as articles. At least, that is what I understand they are saying. The most common reason for deletion of articles is lack of notability (where lack of reliable sources is a failure to establish notability verifiably). Does User:WhatamIdoing really mean that drafts should be deleted if they fail to establish notability? If not, what do they mean? Please explain. I think that I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that drafts should be deleted (or merged) if the subject is not notable. Mind the gap between "the draft fails to establish the notability of the subject by citing a sufficient number of reliable sources" and "the subject is not notable". "Establishing" notability requires editors to invest a certain amount of time and effort in locating and citing reliable sources. Not being a notable subject is a problem that cannot be solved by any amount of effort expended by Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How much editor effort should go into deleting worthless hopeless drafts? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the least-effort deletion, then letting it rot in the draftspace until it is automatically deleted for inactivity is probably the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems kind of backwards to me. Usually, we determine "notability" by the presence of reliable sources; the point of a draft is that you haven't gone through the whole ordeal of writing a full article (e.g. finding sources). Say, for example, I write this big block of unformatted text, with no references, about some monk from the 1400s nobody's heard of (who has zero Google results). This would certainly be deleted as an article. But this is the point of having a draft: maybe I am waiting to get my hands on some obscure, out-of-print books (which far and away provide SIGCOV) to source it. If we're not going to allow for stuff like that, why have drafts at all? jp×g 21:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't depend on whether you've cited any sources. It depends on whether sources have been published in the real world. It's true that what you're talking about would probably get deleted, but this would constitute a mistake on our part. This is an expected mistake (because admins aren't omniscient), but it's still a mistake.
The Draft: namespace was started because people (WMF staff, not volunteers) thought it would make article creation better for newcomers. It didn't work (according to the same WMF staff members that proposed it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't think it affects any of your main points, the RFC for the creation of the Draft namespace was started by an editor who was not a WMF staff member and supported by various other regular editors. (As described in the RfC discussion, the concept had been discussed by WMF staff previously.) isaacl (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move pages

I would like to pay attention to the problem with the moving of articles. Don't move pages if you are not going to update name in the lead and infobox (if exist) and Wikidata page. Don't do chaos. How many times yet they will mve articles without updating leads, infoboxes and Wikidata pages? Eurohunter (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that you link the change of name in the lead leads to it having a different meaning in that context, so I will revert you. Rather than say "don't move pages" you should think about what you are doing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eurohunter:- Hello, what exactly is the policy concern here? Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PinkElixir: If above situation exist then it's problem with policy. Eurohunter (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Often, talk pages archives are also left out, to be discovered elsewhere years later. Then there are mass moves done by vandals or in good faith but without consensus, that are later reported and need fixing. My impression is that moving pages can be disruptive enough that it should only be technically available to users with a page mover right or administrators. This may however be impractical, as it would also result in many requests and likely cause backlogs... —PaleoNeonate – 14:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh. I think page moves should be an exception to WP:BOLD, because undoing is more hassle than a regular edit. Particularly if someone edits the redirect page, then you have to flag down an admin to do it. WP:MOVE says to "consider" initiating a Wikipedia:Requested moves "If you believe the move might be controversial" but there's no requirement and no sanction except getting yelled at if you don't. Disallowing WP:BOLD on moves would help with enforcing internal changes in page I guess because at least one other person would be looking at. But, I've been shot down on that, and I guess the community thinks that WP:BOLD page moves are OK. =/
Anyway, WP:MOVE does already say "Since the article name is reflected in the lead section, that section may need to be updated to be consistent with the new name". May need. There's no mention of the article text below that tho. A sentence could be added there about that. Note also the WP:MOVE says "This help page is a how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting". So technically you can ignore it and things your own way I guess, and your own way can including not bothering to change anything in the article. Herostratus (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical or specialized terms

Technical or specialized terms should be briefly explained in the body of the text as well as linked to a more complete article. Rationale - the general reader may need only a simple explanation of the term for general understanding, not the complete and lengthy explanation the article linked to the term provides. Wis2fan (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our existing guideline already appears to say what you want it to say (Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using {{Technical}} or {{Technical-statement}} for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence.). What change are you proposing? If you're asking us to parenthetically explain any term with which readers might be unfamiliar, I'd strongly oppose that; on a global project with readers of all ages and all levels of fluency in English, virtually every concept is going to be unfamiliar to someone. ‑ Iridescent 05:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wis2fan, there was a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 15#Technical language last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example, in the article Arminianism, I just added "(doctrine of salvation)” after the term "soteriology". Why should a general reader be forced to jump to that word's link (as I had to) when 3 words give a basic understanding? This problem is endemic in Wikipedia.Wis2fan (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"(doctrine of salvation)” as an explanation doesn't cut the mustard, as I was left nonplussed by that three word phrase and was obliged to click on the link to achieve understanding. So yes, I agree that while some terms may benefit from a brief explanation, it may not be ideal. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it's important to note that for users who have page previews turned on in their settings, hovering over a link shows a quick blurb of the page. In the Arminianism example, when I hover over the soteriology link, I see a quick 2-3 sentences without having to click and go to the page. Those 2-3 sentences are more helpful for me than the parenthetical "(doctrine of salvation)." To be clear, I don't have any problem with the parenthetical, but without the link there, too, the parenthetical would not be enough of an explanation to give me a general understanding. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 Phase 2

Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 is now beginning and will use the following timeline:

  • 10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
  • 10/31: The 30 day discussion period has begun (where we are)
  • 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
  • 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Updated: Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down

I have noticed a pattern, mostly among certain editors who have a great interest in working to keep WP:FRINGE viewpoints out of Wikipedia. This activity is supported by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and in the case of medical viewpoints, WP:MEDRS. I commend those who work to uphold these guidelines against those who would push fringe points of view.

Wikipedia determines what fringe views are by identifying ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing, mainstream views in a given field. Consensus among scholarly experts is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. For example, if an herbalist says that dandelions cure cancer, and cancer researchers and government health agencies determine that to be false, we go with what the researchers and agencies say, and the dandelion cure is determined to be fringe. This is all right and good.

A provocative and mostly appropriate, good, and correct essay listing what we have determined to be mainstream and fringe is User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. The essay has a great start:

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.

This Jimbo quote is a great summary of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. Unfortunately this essay has been abused tremendously by editors trying to turn WP:FRINGE on its head.

The problem that I have observed is that, using the dandelion example again, after we have determined that the dandelion cancer cure is a disproven fringe viewpoint, some editors begin to make edits in disregard to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV in order to make absolutely sure the article says dandelions are bad and you should never use them for anything, ever. For example, if a reliable mainstream source comes along that says dandelions are edible and contain Vitamin A and potassium, an editor may decide to delete those claims from the article to make absolutely sure that Wikipedia isn't one of those dirty fringe believers in the dandelion cancer cure. Editors begin to use the status of a viewpoint as mainstream or fringe as the basis for picking sources and facts to include in the article, rather than using mainstream sources and facts to determine what views are fringe. Standards are lowered for sources that say the subject is "bad", and sources that might even hint that there might be something good about the subject are held to the highest standards possible, or sometimes, simply removed because the article was "better before", with no intent to discuss. No doubt these editors have become weary from actual fringe editors out to push their crap. But weary doesn't justify this.

This kind of editing has been going on for some years. I have heard some say this attitude began en masse around 2012. Desire to eliminate fringe views has become the sole value of these editors. Articles that have fallen under their purview have lost information about history, culture, tradition, belief, preliminary research, and well-established scientific fact because of the single-minded focus on what they want readers to believe rather than what is verifiable, well-sourced, and encyclopedic. These editors are the quintissential example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, except that the point-of-view they are pushing is the opposite point of view of the WP:FRINGE. They edit on an ideological basis that is incompatible with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and even WP:FRINGE. They are here to WP:Right great wrongs.

I suspect WP:DUE can be clarified. I'm not certain exactly how it could be done, but one idea is a statement that our articles are based on what the mainstream, academic sources say, and not based on what we want our readers to leave the article believing, and certainly not based on some solidified concept of what things are true and what things are false. We are not the gatekeepers of information. We are not here to tell people what they should believe. We are here to select reliable mainstream sources, and describe what those sources say.

I am sorry if I have written in a repetitious or pedantic way, but because I am used to being misunderstood here, I'm trying to really make it clear where I stand when it comes to upholding Wikipedia policy. I, of course, have my own personal beliefs but when I edit Wikipedia, the only belief system I am here to uphold is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. MarshallKe (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a nugget of truth to this. Stepping away from the medical example and considering the political area, I have seen editors focused on making sure a certain point-of-view is maintained in article (particularly those areas that in the extreme political views, with the POV being maintained that is critical of these extreme positions. While this may be a valid position for some cases, the majority that I've seen end up with a situation described above, where the editors that are doing most of the editing want to maintain a specific POV, ignore potentially valid minority views, and often end up with editors cherry picking sources to support what they want to say but not the bulk of all sources that are indepth about the topic. I've spoken at depth about NOTNEWS and RECENTISM in this area, and a remedy I've talked about in alignment to the above is that UNDUE should also considered with a 10-year-view factor involved ; that is, when considering what material is to be included/exclude within UNDUE, we should discount recent sources and look to what long-term sources say as guidance, even if this means we then are omitting short term analysis of a topic and stick to objective facts only. --Masem (t) 20:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I definitely buy the idea that there are too-old sources and too-new sources. I have seen anti-fringe editors abuse this to an extreme, to the point where a two-year-old source is too new and a three-year-old source is too old. Fringe editors, on the other hand, are usually not that clever. MarshallKe (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of observations. Firstly, Wikipedia has nearly always developed better when considering concrete cases, rather than abstract principles, so which concrete case(s) are you talking about? And secondly, quoting Jimmy Wales usually detracts from the point being made, rather than supporting it. Jimmy may have (co-?)founded Wikipedia, but he has no greater knowledge of individual topics than anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes getting too specific and focusing on the individual trees distracts from the forest. Usually those who demand a list of specific examples are those who are poor at thinking in the abstract and are looking to nitpick the discussion to death. For this reason, I'm not going to compile a list. MarshallKe (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you don't want to provide evidence for what you say, and want to claim that people who ask for it are poor at thinking in the abstract, then don't and do. But don't be surprised if no action comes of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've only watched the mess from the sidelines and would need to spend time to find out where problems existed, but my read of the situation of covering the COVID-19 lab leak theory is such an area where there's a group of editors activity trying to press away fringe. Granted, that's made more difficult due to the MEDRS factor and our duty to make sure that (as current) the lab leak theory is correctly identified as not having credence by leading experts (WHO in this case), but there's factors around the history of the theory unrelated to the medical accuracy/correctness that are appropriate for an encyclopedia that have been pushed away due to the fact that included these points would appear to give weight to the theory (but again, that's my last read of the situation from the sidelines on boards like RS/N and BLP/N). I wouldn't use that as the case to discuss and figure out solutions due to how complicated it is, but it is an area that I think falls into what MarshallKe has identified where editors take a specific POV that seems to align with mainstream reliable sources and write exclusively towards that, anything else be damned. --Masem (t) 21:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, that's made more difficult due to the MEDRS factor... It's worth pointing out, the consensus decision was that disease/outbreak origins were not WP:BMI to which the stricter WP:MEDRS applied. However, sourcing has mostly been preferring (though not necessarily requiring) strong secondary academic sources to determine the mainstream view, the difference is the requirement to base info on these sources. As someone who has participated in these discussions and tried to help moderate and move past these disputes, I've seen two major (but related) contributing factors. One is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and the preemptive defensiveness of longer term editors who either got burned out by or are now expecting to see persistent fringe POV-pushing. Page protection and sanctions have helped, but it was bit too late to avoid reinforcing the defensive habits. The other I've recognized is how a discussion can be difficult to get back on track once there's concern about POV-pushing. An article edit with POV language (or Talk page source suggestion accusing WP:CABAL) can spiral a discussion and delay consensus, as the discussion focuses on the original proposal's POV instead of whatever WP:NPOV info might have been present. And that definitely fits the description above. It's definitely hard work to try and avoid that, and the contentiousness and burnout make it even harder. Not a very easy fix, that I can think of unfortunately. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that part of any of these issues (even looking below) is a battleground mentality that usually starts with newer editors or IPs that insist we must include the fringe view, which rubs experienced editors the wrong way and often leads to a "circling of the wagons" around the mainstream view or view set by reliable sources, which can then make it difficult to speak to intermediate points that are otherwise valid (in the case of the lab leak, how to discuss the nature of the lab leak theory and its impact on politics/etc. related to COVID). The resistance to discuss inclusion of fringe is a human nature thing in response to this type of push for inclusion, and while I fully agree we have to be wary when there is a push for inclusion of material, we can't let that get in the way of having good faith discussions from other editors looking for more moderate solutions. --Masem (t) 15:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, and I suppose that puts the issue less as one of WP:FRINGE, and more as one of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]. Personally, I think at least part of this is a result of even administration/arbitration being difficult, with admins and arbitrators not wanting to touch the topic with a 10-foot pole due to past socking, off-wiki canvassing, etc. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The COVID-19 lab leak case came to mind as I was reading MarshallKe's writings. I think I largely agree with what you said, and the atmosphere MarshallKe describes. To be clear, I reported several editors for sanctions in that topic area for problematic (in a pro-fringe manner) editing, and I don't personally believe in the theory, but it almost goes without saying that there should be an article on the issue. It took us until July 2021 and this AfD to affirm just that, never mind the content of such an article. While there is a need to ensure fringe editing is kept under control, I do think there have been cases of editors starting with that noble goal, but then editing in a manner that is itself in violation of policy, while using the cover of keeping out pro-fringe content. In some cases, actual reliable sources have been condemned in this goal; it's closer to POV editing than it is 'defending the encyclopaedia'. I don't know if there is a policy issue here, or if it's just a case of needing to enforce this better at ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've observed the atmosphere that MarshallKe is describing, casually in passing; enough so that I sympathize with the concern, but not recently enough or in articles I've engaged on that I could point to any specific example. And I agree with Phil Bridger that we would need specific examples to determine (a) that it is happening as described, (b) is an actual problem, (c) is affecting multiple articles/topic areas, and (d) can be addressed by changes in a particular policy or guideline. Schazjmd (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I accept that more could be done if I provided examples, but if I did, it would affect the behavior of the specific editors involved and for now, I want to give them enough rope so that when the time comes to put them up for sanction enforcement, I have a strong, extensive case to make. MarshallKe (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh...from your original post, I thought this was a well-intentioned attempt to clarify how the different policies and guidelines play together in the fringeish areas, and I thought the dandelion example was a good one. If this is about getting back at specific editors that you feel are Doing Wikipedia Wrong, I'm out. Schazjmd (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am one person any my thoughts about this community have been influenced by my specific experiences here. Of course specific editors do this more than others. It's not like, three, it's a bunch. And it's not everyone. If it was everyone it would be pointless to try to change anything. MarshallKe (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are minority views mentioned on Wikipedia that I believe are due, and it is frustrating to see other editors misuse policy to exclude their mention or diminish their importance. I perceive this to be a an important problem to fix. That said, there is a bigger problem: proponents of unambiguously fringe views are successfully promoting them all over the encyclopedia. I would strongly oppose any policy changes that help solve the first problem by weakening the tools needed to solve the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there is a bigger problem: proponents of unambiguously fringe views are successfully promoting them all over the encyclopedia. Is there really, Firefangledfeathers? I do humbly beg your pardon in pointing this out, but that sounds like a classic "bogeyman" type argument that has been used in the past over nonexistant/greatly exaggerated witches, communists, etc. I will grant you that that WAS once the case here, ~15 years ago; and there are still the junk/spam/promo articles that get published and not deleted, because nobody even sees them in the first place. But I wouldn't call that "successful" if no one even sees it. Nor would I call it a huge problem, just a very aggravating annoyance. But any mainstream, high traffic topic area nowadays, fringe material is just about never successfully added. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am both a greatly exaggerated witch and a greatly exaggerated communist, and if you persist in argument-by-comparison-to-historical-travesty I'll hex you and collectivize your capital. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see that User:MarshallKe has brought up a matter that has been troubling me for some time. There is a group of anti-fringe zealots who act as a tag team to remove any reference to supernatural matters on Wikipedia on the grounds of their opinion that the supernatural does not exist. I expect they would like to delete all articles on religion but find that to be a step too far at present. The supernatural is of importance in many topics like folklore, sociology, psychology, religion. The study of the supernatural is particular importance in the current culture of the world where many irrational beliefs exist, even in developed countries (need I say more). One article where I encountered the zealots was in Moberly–Jourdain incident where I added the now accepted rational explanation, which provoked a flurry of quibbles that I could not be bothered to respond to. My position on fringe material is that it may be included in Wikipedia if (a) it is notable and (b) it is clearly marked as fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

That one's a little tougher because there isn't exactly an authority like there is with scientific topics, because it's not something that can be studied by science. So, naturally, the ideologues turn to their ideology to determine what they think counts as a mainstream point of view and use bad sources like Skeptoid that are pure self-published speculation. Due weight does allow for "non-mainstream" points of view to be described in the article (ignoring that some of these topics have no mainstream points of view because reliable sources don't care about them and the average person isn't a devout adherent to pseudoskepticism), but these editors insist that they should not be described and use various forms of dishonest argumentation to argue for their disinclusion. MarshallKe (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy fringe views are to be excluded from Wikipedia unless they can be contextualized with a rational non-fringe source, and sometimes WP:PARITY means such sources are unusual. This is kind of basic NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that in many of these niche topics (and often in articles that are really obscure and don't get patrolled much) there are persistent editors who attempt to say in Wikipedia's voice that the fringe view is either the correct one, or even plausible - which we simply can't allow. I have had an article on one of UFOlogy's most notorious charlatans on my watchlist for probably ten years now, and there are regular efforts to suggest that his claims are true, despite there being physical evidence that they were fraudulent. Obviously there are going to be rare articles about incidents that are unexplained - but that is a long way from them being supernatural or the fringe explanations being the correct ones. This also applies to various pseudoscientific topics, for which we have the policy WP:PSCI, but many of the aforementioned artices don't really fit neatly into that drawer. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one's a little tougher because there isn't exactly an authority like there is with scientific topics, because it's not something that can be studied by science. I'd suggest these topics are in many cases tricky because the boundary around pseudo-science is fuzzy. Sometimes intentionally so, such as when adherents aim to give their view more credibility with the trappings of science (or suggest that their far-fringe views belong as part of a discussion of near-fringe). This breadth of fringe (from true pseudoscience and questionable science that WP shouldn't take seriously, through to alternate formulations that lack mainstream acceptance), and the difficulty of categorizing it correctly to discuss, is the issue I see more often. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is a general solution in the big fuzzy Wikipedia system on this complex topic. A few of the concepts that are somewhat hidden in wp:finge might help. One is that it is more applicable in areas where there are known objective realities rather than areas of opinion. Second, it focuses on areas where fringe information could genuinely mislead or do harm. So it is less likely to focus on attributed coverage that describes belief that spirits dwell in that sacred mountain than lots of (even attributed) coverage of beliefs that the Covid vaccines contain tracking chips and reprogram people's DNA. There are so many variables that I think that you really do need specific examples to discuss this. Maybe you can find some where there was a friendly debate where the key parties might welcom that discussion being used as an example. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of my argument is that Wikipedia generally shouldn't be dealing in what we think is "objective reality" or with what things we judge might be misleading, because when we do that, we've already presumed to know better than our sources. We have to minimize the circularity of "X claim is good because it comes from good source A, and source A is good because it claims X". It's the circular reasoning of a Biblical dogmatist who says God exists because God said so in the Bible. Our beliefs about what is true should never factor into it. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We exclude the vaccine microchip theory because the sources we've accepted as reliable say it's discredited, not because of our beliefs on the matter. We don't say the Earth is round because that's what we believe to be objective reality, we say the Earth is round because the sources we've accepted as reliable say it is. MarshallKe (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:TRUTHMATTERS, and reference to objective reality to determine whether claims are important, surprising or exceptional is a key part of evaluating reliability. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without a concrete example, it's hard to tell if you have a disagreement with the application of WP:PARITY, or if there's an actual circular WP:V issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think @MarshallKe: is right about this behavior, unfortunately. One recent example of this was a dispute I initiated. Here is the discussion. This statement was in Alternative Medicine:

This fact is often overlooked by media or intentionally kept hidden, with alternative practice being portrayed positively when compared to "big pharma".

So I started that discussion on the Talk Page which then led to an unofficial RfC right below it. You can see that what in the first discussion looked like a clear consensus that that statement was fine, by certain editors, once other, independent editors became involved in the RfC, it shifted the opposite way. But you can see in the first discussion the odd ways that editors (who should know better) were trying to justify this obviously problematic statement in Wikipedia's voice that the media is “intentionally hiding” something because one guy said that in the source. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reasonable summary of the situation. The first discussion, that allegedly looked like a clear consensus that that statement was fine, by certain editors, only contains two editors other than yourself. I'm one of them, and I only make a single comment in response to a ping, in which I specify that I don't have access to the source. I was certainly skeptical of the proposal, but that was because 1) no meaningful objection to the content was given, and 2) the proposed change was presented in a deceptive manner. This was entirely separate from any merits of the content itself, which I did not comment on at all. Sunrise (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been evident for a long time, I am glad you expressed it in a way that is clear and not emotive. Alternative medicine is the classic example. Many things in alt medicine are woo-woo, but some things are also legitimately studied and used by major university hospitals like Johns Hopkins, it's nuanced and complicated - Wikipedia by contrast is confident it is quackery, period. This is not to debate it here, but is one example where legitimate nuance and multi POV are not well represented. The sourcing can be cherry picked, and contrary things eliminated or not given much weight in order to maintain the central point of quackery. When you add nuance and other POV it opens the entire thing up to debate which is a lot of work and can actually lead to woo-woo leaking in, thus it's easier and safer to maintain a hard line position, for better and worse.- GreenC 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you suggesting that there be no debate whatsoever regarding content on Alternative Medicine topics? If not, then where would you draw the line? What you're saying sounds like something that could be interpreted to mean that all debate regarding nuance is harmful to the encyclopedia and gives license for editors to shut down any objection on those grounds. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm saying how some others approach it now how I see it myself. It's easier to maintain an article to say it's all quackery and hold that line then to introduce nuance. -- GreenC 18:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to @MarshallKe for raising this, and for their nuanced, considered tone. I share their concern, and for years I have despaired at how the zeal of a set of anti-fringe editors has gone way beyond upholding policy. There is far too little nuance in their work, far too much determination to label non-mainstream views as "quackery" or as "pseudoscience", and far too little understanding of provisionality of much science. I think in particular of some heated discussions over the years about alchemy, where there was a widespread failure to recognise the importance of alchemy as a pseudoscience.

I am not sure what can be done about that. There seems to be a cluster of editors in this area who don't do nuance, and they aren't going to change their worldview. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that a number of those articles are about things that have been proved to be "quackery" or "pseudoscience" (whichever epithet you prefer). There are, of course, a number that require - as you say - a more nuanced view, but ironically the topics that are most obviously not based on reality (perpetual motion machines, Flat earth theory, intelligent design and numerous alt-medicine topics) are the ones that cause the most friction, because there are many people out there that have absolute belief that they are genuine. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That covers quite a range. The first two are in objective areas which scientific consensus says are wrong. The third is pseudoscientific arguments for unprovable untestable religious explanations for reality that don't always conflict with established science. Alt-medicine is often baseless but not-disproven claims. Through a scientific lens, most religion is fringe, but we don't see a broad war against religion in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does cover a range, yes - but there's quite a range of fringe topics out there, I've only covered a few. Religious issues are of course not fringe, but intelligent design is pseudoscience - in fact it's probably the poster child for the term. As regards alt-medicine, I did say "numerous" not "all" because whilst WP:MINCHIN does apply to most of the topics, there certainly are alt-med topics that need that nuance that BHG was referring to - I suppose something like chiropractic would be an example there purely because of te extent to which it is established in the Western world. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll only comment that it's long been an important value of Wikipedia to not be a platform for the promotion of fringe views. It doesn't mean that they cannot be documented, this can be done through reliable sources that critically put them in perspective, when available (when not, it is often an indication that the notability criteria is not met). The original post seems more like a complaint that the policies are applied, rather than a specific proposal to improve policy. —PaleoNeonate – 23:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no problem with the way that Wikipedia deals with outright quackery; policy there is clear. The problem arises when zealots push the boundaries of their imagined remit to advance their own POV. Another case I came across was the BLP of Brian Martin (social scientist) (see its talk archives) where tag teams of zealots impose their views contrary to WP:BLP. This BLP is not of interest to many people (I only came across it when it came up for Academics AfD once), so a tag team of a few editors are able to exert a controlling influence over it, as they can on any article that is not of wide interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    From what I read, you were arguing for Martin's controversial views to be presented from his own POV and claims (WP:ABOUTSELF), when WP relies on reliable independent sources instead (not the claims of Martin, or of the editors). At least when reading the current article revision, it even appears somewhat promotional, especially the lead, although the body includes independent criticism. —PaleoNeonate – 05:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand why Brian Martin (social scientist) comes up so often you should read the talk page and its archives which go back a long way. Further discussion of the matter should take place there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I think you misinterpreted my question, which perhaps could have been better framed as, "Why does Brian Martin (and not, say, Brian Josephson or Gary Null or Deepak Chopra who have also been vocal in their disdain for Wikipedia's ways in these areas) always seem to come up as an exemplar in discussions like this where people are arguing that Wikipedia is dominated by pseudoskepticism?" If I didn't know any better, I would invent a conspiracy theory that Brian Martin was behind all this sturm and drang. :) jps (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That is a conspiracy theory. Maybe the Illuminati, Rosicrucians and Freemasons are also spamming this page. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe :) Of course, Wikipedia has had some instances where "spamming" by, shall we say, interested parties has happened. jps (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Martin is actually a really good example, both becuse it was tag teamed heavily, and because Brian Martin was vocal off-wiki in trying to document what he saw happening. (That said, what he documented was a mix of good points and ignorance of how Wikipedia worked). You have to go back to the beginning when Judith Wilyman (a student of Martin's) was awarded a PhD. Before that the article was essentially a standard glowing academic bio (which isn't good), but heavy editing turned it into a hit piece. It became a BLP nightmare, with guilt by association, false claims, cherry picking, and about everything you would fear. Whenever someone spoke out against the state they were accused of acting on behalf of Martin. Eventually an IP took the concerns to BLPN and then ANI, only to be shut down both times by one of the main authors of the article. The thing is, the IP was exactly right about the problems, but it was easy for anti-fringe voices to keep shutting them down. I want to be clear that I support a general anti-fringe viewpoint, but the problem caused by ignoring BLP in order to depict fringe actors in the worst light possible is serious and ongoing. - Bilby (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With such florid descriptions as "hit piece", "BLP nightmare", "everything you would fear", and "worst light possible", you'd think we were talking about, I don't know, labeling someone a criminal or something. Well, it seems that you've made up your mind as to who the real villains are. Is there a way to talk about Brian Martin without pandering and without slander? I should hope so, but you haven't exactly explained what is so absolutely horrible about Wikipedia's approach to the subject with this diatribe. It sounds very similar to the same-old/same-old from WP:PROFRINGE editors. Whether you intend this or not, that's the tradition to which you are adhering. jps (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or look at it another way - you haven't asked for diffs, you haven't looked at the text, but instead declared that this view appears to be "profringe". Therein lies the problem: so often when concerns are raised by editors on fringe subjects - genuine concerns - they are immediatly tarred with being profirnge, or anti-vax, or in this case that I've "decided who the real villans are", whatever that is intended to mean. Simply, the article was in a bad state, having been edited largely by an editor who was running two sock accounts in order to control the article content, and new editors or IPs who raised concerns tended to be dismissed by established editors who could write them off as Brian Martin supporters. In terms of issues with Wikipedia, the ease at which these concerns about a BLP could be shut down or ignored because they seemed to come from the wrong side was an issue, and it happens often. (For example, here). I guess there isn't much point continuing, though, so I'm going to let it be. I've had enough of this sort of response to last a very long time. - Bilby (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would personally love to see some diffs with examples of these issues, so I can use it in my personal editing to avoid these problems in the future. Hard to think about what to avoid when we speak in such general terms. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that you would ever create these sorts of problems. The main ANI discussion was started by SmithBlue, and a few days prior it had been raised at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive235#Brian_Martin BLPN] by an IP. The IP in both cases provided examples of issues. Nil Einne and Johnfos both agreed that there were issues, but no significant changes came from it. An IP who started the BLPN discussion listed the issues an ANI, but the ANI discussion was closed with no action, and the BLPN discussion died out and was archived. The thing was, the IP's concerns were valid and accurate, but they weren't properly addressed when raised. - Bilby (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit to being unimpressed with this. The IP's concern were, what, that Brian Martin is complaining about his biography not being sufficiently laudatory and, he adds, when he complains about it people are not necessarily receptive to his arguments? That's not really a basis on which to make any judgements for Wikipedia -- we stick to sources not complaints. And it isn't as though we haven't been listening to him and the others of his ilk who have been arguing about WP being a problem. The story, as I see it, is that Martin has approached this subject with a protestation, "I told you I am not an anti-vaxer!" Okay, but the article does not say he is an anti-vaxer. Etc. This isn't to say the article cannot be improved, but I just don't see this is WP's #1 horrible problem in BLPs. I don't even think it cracks the top 1000. jps (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if that is your reading, I'm not sure that you actually looked at the issues the IP raised. - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I looked at them closely and was even involved in the controversy. Perhaps you can elucidate a bit more what you find so clear about this subject. Because I don't see any analysis from you about any of this. jps (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is remarkably simple: the IP provides a clear list of problems with the article. Specific, line-by-line problems, which somehow you dismiss as Martin not feeling the article being "sufficiently laudatory". This is exactly theproblem being spoken of here: a clear, unambigouous list of issues being dismissed as just some fringe subject complaining. The reality is that the IPs list was remarkably accurate, but they weren't addressed, and instead were repeatedly dismissed without being examined. - Bilby (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that relevant discussion supports my point that particularly on BLPs, we have editors - and to a point of concern well-experienced editors - that seem extremely focused on making sure minor points of negative news related to fringe views of a BLP are incorporated in the article to make these articles read as scarlet letters or laundry lists of bad information, instead when we should be looking at big picture and what enduring coverage about a BLP gives us instead. If a BLP is routinely commented on as an anti-vaxxer promoter in the bulk of coverage about them, that's fine and including one or two notable comments they made or situations where anti-vax comes up is reasonable. But there are times (and here, the Martin article seems to serve as a good example) that editors are reaching for bits and pieces of criticism from disperse sources to try to come to a novel criticism of anti-vax support. This is absolutely not WP's place to do this when the criticism relate to fringe views is so thin, particularly on BLP. But because we have editors that are so strongly bent on making sure WP does not given any credibility to fringe views (which is a valid concern), we end up getting other parts of policies so perverted to have articles like Martin's which effectively start violating BLP and NPOV. FRINGE and these other policies have to work in balance, particularly are BLP is a legal-binding policy over FRINGE. --Masem (t) 15:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Snake and the Crab. "The anti-fringe they go too far when it comes to the ideas I like! But let them have at those problematic ideas that I know for a fact to be wrong." People will understandably feel attacked when their pet idea has WP:FRINGE applied to it. We all want the things we think are true to be so convincing that our idea is WP:MAINSTREAM... or as close to it as we can get. When this is not achieved, the complaint usually comes back that the editors have gone too far! I have talked to ufologists who balk at having their ideas treated similarly to global warming deniers who balk at having their ideas treated similar to creationists who balk at having their ideas treated similar to parapsychologists who balk at having their ideas treated similar to.... Not to say that there cannot be excesses, but often this is a matter of editorial consideration (WP:TONE, WP:MOS, WP:POSA, etc.) rather than a matter of WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV. YMMV! jps (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This hit the nail on the head exactly. It's much easier to criticize editors for being "too anti-fringe" when you think a viewpoint you consider not-all-that-fringe isn't getting enough attention. This is the heart of WP:DUE, and the very heart of most contentious disputes in this space. It will never be easy, and I have yet to see (here or anywhere) a proposal that would make it easier in any feasible way. It's hard, but as far as I can tell, anything that requires an understanding of the overall landscape of sourcing on a topic will always be hard. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is complicated with like a dozen policies and guidelines affecting it, and widely varying situations included. But perhaps there are few areas worth noting. WP:fringe is well written, including being necessarily nuanced, and necessarily not being super prescriptive. Some of the mis-actions discussed here where wp:fringe is invoked to justify them are actually not following wp:fringe. Perhaps more awareness of this in these debates can help. E.G. when a person claims that wp:fringe supports their action, ask them to get more specific on which part they are invoking. Second, putting a WP:Relevance magnifying glass to some of the situations might help. Editors normally do this naturally, but lack of significant recognition by Wikipedia makes that concept disappear in a dispute where wikilawyering has taken over. Let's say that there is a large wp:notable Holocaust denial group "xyz" The Holocaust article is about the Holocaust, it's not about the opinions of the xyz group. Such is one or two steps removed in relevance from the topic of the article. While such would not automatically preclude inclusion, it's a factor weighing in against it. It would have to meet a higher standard on "does this inform on the subject of the article?" question to get in. And "proven false" information is not informative on the topic. (a plausible minority theory might be) Quite likely the material might be suitable for the "xyz group" article but not the Holocaust article. Of course wp:fringe also applies, but this raises another possibility and says that "which article?" also matters.North8000 (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can be defined as a supporter of organized skepticism. Regarding this topic: when Wikipedia says something is fringe, it is right 99.9% of the time. What can be improved, though, is merely describing what those fringe ideas are, i.e. what the fringe theorists actually believe. Of course, Wikipedia should not endorse their beliefs, but merely make clear to the reader what they believe. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on the statement that WP is generally right more than 90% of the time when it calls something fringe, but I would not necessarily say it is accurate to the 99.9% level. There is enough editor-created bias - preconceived notions that a topic is fringe, and thus focusing (in a cherry-picking manner) sourcing that is based on those notions at the expense of other valid sourcing - that makes it difficult on topics that may not necessarily have the test of time or scientific/academic assurance that the idea is clearly fringe, pseudoscience, or otherwise not accepted. As an example, it took a few decades for the scientific community to absolutely agree that climate change was real (that is, nearly likely caused by humans and not the fluke temperature rise seen in Earth's geologic past). If it were the case that today we were starting to talk about climate change for the first time as a new theory that had gained popularity among leading scientists but with the same doubt that other scientists had when it was first proposed, WP should not treat those doubters as fringe because of the newness of the theory (a RECENTISM factor here). Obviously, with time, climate change has been deemed real, and now those few who doubt it are considered fringe viewed by the larger scientific community, and thus its reasonable to treat those views as fringe within WP. But, I could postulate that with attitudes of WP editors today, if we were at the hypothetical situation that climate change was first being introduced today, that there would be editors that would want to treat it as the accepted theory out of the gates, treat all scepticism as fringe, and write our articles with this bias in mind, since I would also expect mainstream sources to follow that same pattern.
A lot of this comes down to the trend of WP trying to follow the trend of accountability journalism in mass media (see eg this CRJ article about it). WP editors, as part of human nature, love to include material that blames a person or entity or topic; humans love to dish negative material. Targeting fringe views, particularly when this echoes some of the voices in the mass media or other RSes, is an extension of this. But as WP editors per NPOV, we have to be better than this, and write neutrally, impartially, and dispassionately, and that requires stepping away from preconceived notions and being open to other RSes (include valid RSOPINION sources) that may offer other views within the scope of UNDUE, with a helping of RECENTISM. Its the circling-the-wagon attitudes that work against this that come into play and maintain battleground behaviors when facing IP/new editors that insist certain fringe views be included, while other editors offer good faith intermediate solutions. All this is related to behavioral expectations, less anything that can be set in policy (short adding temporal factors to UNDUE, to give more weight to sources far-removed from events than short-term ones). --Masem (t) 16:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If climate change is the example, isn't this a topic area where Wikipedia has been soundly science-based, forever? I'm seeing a few vague worries that certain topics are improperly overly-treated as fringe. But tellingly, nobody seems to be able to point to any. It's probably time to apply Hitchen's razor. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to explain, climate change is an example that we can see in our lifetimes which started as a postulated theory that progressed over time to a scientifically accepted fact. It is not meant to be taken today as an area where we should allow challenging fringe views - though 100% we should fairly document what type of fringe and sceptic views there are of climate change w/o giving them weight of validity. --Masem (t) 17:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So where's the issue? If only 90% of articles have fringe correctly applied that implies 1-in-10 of the articles with nominally "fringe" content are treating it improperly: that'd be many hundreds of articles. I'm sure some exist, but nobody has produced even a single example. Hypotheses, about climate or anything else, are not "fringe" except perhaps when proponents start pushing hypotheses beyond what the evidence will bear (eating sugar causes dementia!), and the Galileo gambit is, yes, often produced in the all-too-familiar WP:PROFRINGE arguments entailed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to give away my age too much, but I recall being very young and understanding that global warming was a scientific fact. Do you have an approximate date when you think this transition may have occurred? Because it certainly was considered scientific fact well before Wikipedia existed -- although I know more than a few people who were not (and some who still are not) convinced that this is the current situation. To be a bit clearer, we knew that global warming was a fact before we knew that the Accelerating expansion of the universe was a fact. jps (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That Earth's average temperature was rising since the 19th century was well understood and taken as fact early on (that, there was absolutely evidence of), but I would argue from my take of the literature, while there was strong agreement in the scientific community this likely was due to humans, it was not as universal as it is today since there was still legitimate weight about the "natural warning cycle" theories. By 2010, that global warming is nearly completely tied to human activities within the 20th century had readily accepted by the whole of the scientific community as fact due to the amount of additional research put into understand it, and this is the point that we still have sceptics that doubt humans' role in global warming. --Masem (t) 18:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid of this. Your recollection/reading of the history with 2010 as the threshold does not conform to the way the history developed according to reliable sources we have on the subject. Perhaps you were/are confused because there was/is a coordinated disinformation campaign and emphasis on denial and increasingly threadbare "skepticism" financed by think tanks and the petroleum industry arguing fairly close to what you are arguing (and, really, continuing to pretend that there is no consensus on the subject). "The science is not settled" was the cry, but it very much was well before 2010. The argument that this is not the case is, I would say, actually a WP:FRINGE argument (irony of ironies) that caused a lot of grief here at Wikipedia to the tune of an arbcom case that I will not reference because it ended up treating the entire subject as though it were battle royale of some sort. In any case, you can read more about the history of what reliable sources had to say about human-caused global warming on Wikipedia where it shows that this was essentially an understood fact by climate scientists (who are the relevant experts) by the mid 1990s or so. Political movements were a bit slower, but that's not the subject of scientific consensus. Unless you were conversant with the climate science literature at that time (and I don't know how old you are), there really was not a transition in your lifetime of any sort that Wikipedia would have noticed. jps (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The timing I'm suggesting doesn't matter too much if I'm off that much, but its moreso simply the understanding that the way we (as a society) came to accept climate change was caused by humans was not a sudden change overnight, but took several years or decades of study to come to that conclusion. And you're probably right that I'm considering how the propagation to political bodies took rather than just in climate change circles. My point still comes down to that if we were in a situation today where there was a theory that may have widespread but not universal agreement by scientific or other relevant academic analysis because it is a rather novel concept, then we on WP should not be quick to necessarily support it as fact or dismiss contrary theories as fringe. Of course, there's also the need to balance with completely bad and potentially harmful information, such as all the fake COVID remedies out there which the bulk of the scientific community deem harmful if followed.--Masem (t) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is to say a topic like String theory should be treated differently to (say) Ear candling. Which it is. In the absence of examples I'm thinking this thread is demonstrating more that Wikipedia's fringe coverage is excellent and discriminating, rather than that there's a problem. On COVID too, Wikipedia has drawn plaudits for its robust approach to medical misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Core to what I'm trying to say is RECENTISM can be a problem when it comes to discriminating a "popular" view on a recent theory over a less popular view, with editors immediately classifying that latter view as fringe but without the benefit of time to be assured the "popular" view has the time and breadth of coverage to be accepted as the scientific/academic-accepted view. It takes time on the order of years (though as we progress technologically, that gets shorter) for a popular or commonly accepted theory to get put through all the scientific evaluations and understand to get to widely-accepted. (The whole nature of the scientific principle). Until that point we should be carry of dismissing side views as fringe. That doesn't mean we have to give any credence, but there is a problem with attitudes from WP editors that want to nail to the cross anything dealing with absolute quackery and true nonsense science which can leak to topics that are on that fringe. It is human nature to want to expose and harp on negative information, and that's too common on WP, but we're supposed to be objective and neutral here, and there's ways to handle fringe views in scientific areas where there is yet a clear dominating prevailing view without necessarily giving weight to those fringe views that otherwise haven't themselves been deemed quackery.
Now, when it comes to medical information per MEDRS, I agree we have to be more heavy handed to prevent bad information from causing problems with our readers. But again, using the discussions around the lab leak theory, the intensity that experienced editors get into this blind dislike for any dealing with fringe appeared to make it difficult to discuss other non-medical information factors related to the lab leak (the social/political history of the theory, etc.) It seems to have been resolved, but its was the battleground attitudes at the start that clearly were a problem, and why things like FRINGE and MEDRS are not absolutes; editors need to keep open minds for good faith efforts to find room for where appropriately sourced information from fringe and minority areas can fit into WP and not blindly fight against them. --Masem (t) 13:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

attitudes from WP editors that want to nail to the cross anything dealing with absolute quackery and true nonsense science Rather than being circumspect, why don't you come right out and make your accusations with diffs? If WP:AGF is to believed, I think almost every account that has been accused of this was actually trying to adhere to reliable sources and conform to the fringe guideline, for example, as best as possible. That this can feel to some proponents and their sympathizers as a "nail to the cross", I think this kind of rhetoric is just, again, over-the-top complaints and am unimpressed with the arguments to the contrary regardless of how many times they get repeated in similarly over-the-top manners. Where we agree is that WP:RECENTISM can be a problem. All else the same, Wikipedia prefers to sit and wait until reliable sources emerge. In some cases, the first reliable sources that emerge are from subject-matter experts who are speaking off the cuff. The complaint sometimes is, then, that Wikipedia certainly can't include that sort of rejoinder because BLP or BLOG or what have you which is exactly why things like WP:PARITY and WP:DUE exist. I can't tell you how many times a WP:REDFLAG claim is attempted to be included at Wikipedia which suffers from lack of independent notice. In those cases, the correct thing to do is to remove the claim entirely (and not just include it unadorned without any hint that there may be some issue with it). Wait it out to see if there are sources published that can properly contextualize something and be patient. There is WP:NODEADLINE. jps (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was my read of the way the lab leak theory issues (how they propagated to RS/N and AN/ANI) that there seemed to editors so intent not to give the lab leak theory any credence as to dismiss any discussion of the political and social history around the theory, or alternatives to how sources could be used beyond the scope of MEDRS (I am aware that there was significant discussion earlier about to what extent MEDRS was to cover biomedical information specifically in context of the lab leak theory, this in light of editors trying to push for WP to give the theory credence, but I'm referring to events after that point). And that's from an outside view, knowing editors got into battleground attitudes about this. I saw this same type of situation before that I was directly involved in, waaay back at the Gamergate controversy article, editors insistent the article could only be developed one way because they were facing numerous IPs trying to coerce the direction, but creating a battleground atmosphere that they would not listen to intermediate solutions. And this type of pattern - in where we have a contentious topic that often draws outside editors trying to force a change from how the topic is otherwise normally covered in the reliable sources leads to battleground and stonewalling behavior from established editors that refuse to want to change that, causing any good faith editors trying to find a middle ground to get caught in that - happens far too much particularly in the AP2 topic area over the last 2-3 years (based on what I see pass at BLP/N). I understand the need to keep articles from going off kilter with bad info from these outside editors, but stonewalling against any reasonable good faith efforts that improve the article under the scope of policy, under claims that this fighting away fringe views, is not helpful either. Its why I think others have identified this is less a policy issue and more a recognition that behaviors have to change in these discussions. --Masem (t) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the "lab leak theory" means a lot of different things. There is the question of "was there a bioweapon produced by the Chinese government that escaped the Wuhan lab?" All signs point to no on that one. This was, for better or worse, the primary political argument being leveled at one time. There are other "lab leak theories" that do not invoke this sort of conspiracy theory. I also recall your actions in the Gamergate controversy. I think you have fallen into the trap of what I fashion the "NPOV warrior". Part of the problem with WP:NPOV is that it can make some editors think that if they adhere to Wikipedia rules for long enough that suddenly their biases disappear. This is absolutely not the case. Your biases in Gamergate did bubble to the top and just because you had supports and detractors from both sides of the argument did not mean that you had achieved the NPOV middle. In fact, sometimes NPOV does not sit in the middle. jps (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the issue as I see it was that during the climate change battles of the late aughts, there were good faith editors who adopted an attitude very similar to what I see you adopting which is that the "jury is still out"! We didn't have quite as robust a diagnostic tool for dealing with this sort of advocacy at that time, and so these editorial positions arguably ended up ruining a topic area. Others might claim that it was personality driven, but I really think that if we are careful in following the souped-up WP:PAGs that Wikipedia has developed and adopted, we can avoid future calamity of that nature. The fact that we don't have an arbcom case over COVID-19 but instead a VP thread may be indicative of success in that matter. It certainly seems like a success to me. jps (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pendula swinging as they do, I can recall a time when scientists editing topics where they were experts would sigh and resign themselves to the fact that topics as mundane as the speed of light or radioactivity would have to accommodate the protestations of IP/new editors who were typically not only misinformed but convinced that they were correct! It took years of work by many in these areas to get to the point where the assumed approach that Wikipedia would take would not be armchair pontificating. Along the way, I have seen some people become more hardened to this point and others dance from one side to the other. As a general principle, Wikipedia's editorial approach is whatever the people who bother to/are allowed to show up say it is. This is bound to change with the years, evolving standards, changing conditions, but I am not convinced that we are at a point right now where the situation is such that it is closed shop in a problematic fashion (like what DMOZ, for example, ended up suffering from). Now, that is my bias, but it is one I cannot see my way out of because I remember what the alternative looked like back in 2004 to 2006. jps (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MarshallKe: I agree with the point you raise that information on WP should be based on WP:RS coverage rather than what some editors believe to be objectively "right" and "wrong." I'm not sure this is a problem with the language of WP:DUE, though. The very first sentence of WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It seems like the language of the policy is fairly clear that inclusion of information hinges on reliability. In other words, I agree with the problem you characterize but I wonder how much would actually change by rewording the policy itself. It (frustratingly so) seems like an editors' problem and not a policy wording one? Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comment above. Policy is sound: it is abuse by over-zealous editors that is the problem. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
And I think that the claimed evidence of instances of such "over-zealous editors" acting is tissue thin. The irony, of course, is that VP is not the place to go for issues with "over-zealous" editors? You think you found a live one? Go to WP:ANI, WP:AE, etc. But stop with this whining. jps (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit late to this discussion..and I apologise if anything I say has already been said, but I completely agree with MarshallKe, and I think the crux of the problem at hand can be boiled down to: Editors begin to use the status of a viewpoint as mainstream or fringe as the basis for picking sources and facts to include in the article, rather than using mainstream sources and facts to determine what views are fringe. That statement could not be more accurate, and I've seen this done here time and time again, more than I can count. Sadly, it could well be that there is nothing can be done about it, if there are enough of them to assert control, and they work as a coordinated team, which seem to be the case. All we could really do is continue with attempts to reason. The great irony is that this particular wing of editors display the exact same pattern of behaviour as their mortal foes, fringe pushers and religious fundamentalists. "Scepticism" is treated as though it were just another belief system, rather than a philosophy to be applied indiscriminately across the board; yet, any unsourced claim that gets printed in some pop-science sceptics handbook is automatically treated as gospel truth, because....it's written by one of the "righteous souls"? Come on, that ain't the way good sceptics operate, that is the way faithful adherents of religious dogma operate. Cheers, 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds WP:PROFRINGE. Any example of an article that's bad, in your view, because of what you say is happening? Alexbrn (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is similar to frivolous accusations of "pseudoskepticism", nothing more than an argument, —PaleoNeonate – 05:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know, authentic skeptics' associations are actually the only mainstream group which takes seriously the claims of cranks and quacks. Therein disbelief is not an assumption, but a result of carefully weighing the peer-reviewed evidence and sometimes of performing certain experiments (e.g. it is true that tin foil covering a DECT phone gets full of cracks, but that also applies to tin foil covering a banana or a toothbrush). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments in this thread are painting with too broad a brush and doing a disservice to some hard working and very competent editors. I've been very critical of aspects of WP:FRINGE at times, but have never faced an issue when willing to put a bit of effort into the content. fiveby(zero) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actual examples?

I've been on the lookout for spurious ("over-zealous") "anti-fringe" editing and recently noticed this.[1] This is exactly the kind of over-baked, more-rationalwiki-than-rationalwiki, take that Wikipedia should avoid. As it happens, the article in question on Vision therapy is typical of a problem fringe topic in that it mixes fringe and non-fringe views. This is I think more common than the "borderline case" scenario some posters seem to be invoking above. Wikipedia editors are expected to grapple with the sourcing for such topics and clarify for readers what's what, and sometimes this is hard. In general, the complainers in this thread seems not to recognize that getting this right is more subtle than a case of being "anti-fringe" or "pro-quackery". Alexbrn (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except that's someone with 71 edits who has edited on nothing else except that article and clearly has an axe to grind with the topic.
  • Having said that - the article needs serious work; whilst vision therapy regarding learning disability is pseudoscientific nonsense, orthoptics isn't, and behavioural vision therapy is something else completely. There should be 3 articles really - orthoptics (already exists), vision therapy (pseudoscience) and behavioural vision therapy, with dab page at the root. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bates method stuff makes a lot of this confusing as well. jps (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of drifting off-topic, this eye stuff is a terminological mine field, with some RS eliding topic definitions where others make distinctions. Whatever, Wikipedia doesn't just say all it's all bollocks (although some is - like the Bates stuff). This is an example of a tricky area (another might be the gut biome) where woo lives alongside legitimate science. If the complainants were right Wikipedia has some kind of over-skeptical fringe problem I'd expect that to be evidenced in such litmus test areas. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sounds plausible. Anything regarding diet and exercise is probably susceptible to woo getting mixed up in with legitimate science. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It is not an issue of being "overly-sceptical" or "too anti-fringe". This bloc of editors are only "sceptical" when it comes to the things they've personally decided are bogus, and their bogusness must be defended at all costs, with a hard unyielding line drawn in the sand: even to the point at which, if said idea starts to gain greater acceptance among mainstream scientists, those scientists are automatically and categorically written off as "fringe scientists", for no other reason than that they made a scientific enquiry into a topic that the WP bloc has already determined to be (by analogy) "heretical", especially if the results from said enquiries happen to go against the orthodox doctrine.
    I use church/religious terminology here as allegory; it is not meant to be polemic or inflammatory, only to demonstrate that the MO of this bloc is very nearly the same as that of church doctrinarians and dogmatists. It's not true scepticism, though. And as for "fringe", you (bloc of editors) beg the question of what is fringe? You've already decided what is fringe, and you determine which sources are acceptable based on which position they conclude with. So instead of "what is fringe is determined by reliable sources", instead you are determining what are reliable sources by whether or not they agree with the position you've taken. Which is circular, and runs afoul of WP policy. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    if said idea starts to gain greater acceptance among mainstream scientists, those scientists are automatically and categorically written off as "fringe scientists", for no other reason than that they made a scientific enquiry into a topic that the WP bloc has already determined to be (by analogy) "heretical", especially if the results from said enquiries happen to go against the orthodox doctrine.
    ....no, I have to disagree here. What makes fringe scientists "fringe" is that their ideas are not published in mainstream academic journals, referenced in secondary review articles favorably, or characterized as "mainstream" in the scientific press. It is these venues which collectively decide who is and is not "mainstream," not Wiki users. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Macon's "yes we are biased" essay was mentioned in the OP's post. It should be noted that it's a personal essay. Few editors directly post it and I personally find it too verbose for my taste (even if its overall message is true). I suppose that it could be considered an example of on-WP zealousness, but it's important to remember that it's mostly one person's condensed expression. Editors may also use user boxes on their user page that are assertive or even parodic. All that should be distinguished from actual policy pages and article content, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 14:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about these BLPviolatingconflictingedits. It's a damn blog, everyone knows it, but fights hard to keep it because of the magic words 'conspiracy theory'. fiveby(zero) 16:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [2][3]. fiveby(zero) 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think histrionic arguments like this says more about your problems with Wikipedia than it does about a problem with the way others are applying Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE guideline. jps (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did click on the link[4] and a characterisation of "an argument" is not a BLP violation. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a damn blog, everyone knows it -- quite the contrary, I don't think there's consensus at WP:RSN for this sentiment. You appear to be in the vast minority with that view, from my reading of the most recent RSN discussions. Which makes me more weary that this may be a WP:RGW anti-SBM sort of thing. It's not good wiki conduct to assert that "everyone knows X" when you are one of very few people actually saying X. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of my experience editing in fringe-area topics has been in fringe physics. My take-away impression would be that Wikipedia hasn't been zealous enough; cruft like "quantized inertia", "event symmetry", and "quantum psychology" floated around for years because they had footnotes and looked superficially respectable. E8 Theory was full of undue and unreliably-sourced detail, digital physics was a synthesis-fest, and EmDrive still looks pretty bad. More zeal, say I! XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a false comparison here. These physics articles, some of which I have edited myself, are mostly junk. They are too technical and insufficiently populist to interest the fringe tag team who do their damage elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    If we're talking about revising a guideline, then we need to consider all the areas that the change would affect. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that any suggestions for changing guidelines have yet emerged. I think that Wikipedia policy on fringe matters is basically OK; it is the tag-teaming behavior of some over-zealous editors in the area that is the problem. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The original post suggested (unspecifically) that WP:DUE could be "clarified". If editor behavior is the issue, then this would seem to be the wrong forum (and I've yet to see any evidence of behavior going beyond occasional prickliness). XOR'easter (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's another recent example: [5] This edit was discussed at the RS noticeboard, and Crossroads explained the problems with it there. It was eventually reverted, but it's clear from the discussion there that several editors were in favor of describing the journal this way—which has an Article Influence ranking at the 80th percentile. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having an 80th-percentile rating on some metric isn't inconsistent with having a bad reputation. For example, Scientific Reports has a reputation for wallowing in hot garbage, and on the "Article Influence" scale, it's at the 93rd percentile [6]. Quantitatively measuring the worth of a journal is, to put it mildly, an unsolved problem. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of "tag teaming" would need evidence. I'm often accused of that (and of being a sock of other editors in the fringe space) when my editing actions and/or arguments align with other fringe-savvy or WP:MEDRS-savvy editors. It's not that we're tag teaming in such situations though, tho'but, rather that we understand the WP:PAGs and pursue consensus-based editing rooted in them to maintain/improve article content. Editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team". That, I suspect, is what we are seeing here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the best example of this is the row over the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Not about how the theory should be covered in the article, but on whether we should even have an article about it at all. Not having an article about the theory would seem to be absurd, considering that it was being promoted by prominent politicians and received an enormous amount of media coverage even from the very beginning of the pandemic. But it was extraordinarily controversial, with the draft being deleted, and then the article being nominated for deletion. There was no reason to not have an article on the theory, but editors incorrectly cited WP:FRINGE as a rationale for not having one. Mlb96 (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the first nomination the argument instead seems to be that it was a POVFORK of a fringe position, which is a different (and valid) reason for deletion. Just saying a topic can't be covered because it's fringe would be a misunderstanding of the WP:PAGs and ignored by any competent closer. Ironically, there was tag teaming in that discussion - from "pro lab leak" activists coordinating on twitter. In time, as media coverage of the "lab leak" stuff burgeoned, it got split out of COVID-19 misinformation and a standalone article took. I'd say this is all a good example of Wikipedia following (rather than leading) the coverage, and of things working well! Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft was quite pro-fringe, so it naturally attracted opposition. And the lab leak idea didn't become mainstream right away, it was unambiguously fringe for over a year. Then later, when lab leak became palatable to non-virologists, there was a transition period where editors had to adjust from this idea being clearly fringe, to this idea no longer being fringe to non-virologists, and that is the cause of some of the tension from around this time. But COVID-19 lab leak theory was created on July 18, 2021, and has been published for many months now. Seems like this issue has reached a nice equilibrium, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, POVFORKs of previously existing articles that already covered the topic in ways that appeared DUE at the time. Other concerns were WP:NOT, WP:GEVAL, WP:NOTNEWS. —PaleoNeonate – 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also note that much of this was following from previous consensus that, due to a near complete lack of reliable coverage, most lab leak discussion was on the COVID-19 misinformation article, not the scientific investigations article. We followed the reliable sources at the time, and once the WHO weighed in that it was worthy of consideration (even if unlikely) is when the wheels began turning to add the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a group of half a dozen editors that, at least on the topic of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 have acted in the ways described by the OP here. However, in all truth, each and every time that I have discussed them in talk pages, without personal comments, they all have patiently responded, or at least acknowledged, my points of dissent. I can not tell if they work in tag teams because they all are fast editors with deep knowledge of wiki policies, and when a group of diligent good editors work on any page of course they would appear to work in coordination when they actually aren't. They may have excessively delayed the creation of the lab leak theory page, but in hindsight they did stick to principles consistently. In areas where they could have been suspiciously "gaming the system", I tried to challenge them individually in talk pages and their responses seemed reasonable and coming from an honest desire of improving the project (Two of them: Random Canadian and Hemiauchenia, were sometimes too grumpy or borderline rude; all the others responded with consistent civility. But even RC and H have a history of receiving barnstars and being well-received in some wikiprojects so who am I to judge their charisma/manners?). Are there lessons to be extracted from 2021 and the way the anti-fringe brigade works? I would suggest that we follow a simple procedure: to ask the anti-fringe editors to comment on whether they were too harsh on applying their methods. Its not an easy answer, its similar to a situation in which a SWAT team is asked on whether they should had compromised to the demands of terrorists or continue to hold a "no negotiation with terrorists" rule no matter what. Forich (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't edit that, but I call tell you that I'm harsh in respect to harsh people, and gentle in respect to gentle people. So, it all depends upon the attitude adopted by editors who challenge the status quo. When I see a gentle reply, I reply with well-meant advice and guidance. When I get a mean reply, I reply with formal (standard) warnings. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're at it, you really think that the material I just had to remove here was acceptable? More details here. I must be one of those editors who understands where promotion against the scientific consensus and common sense is being pushed, that it is unacceptable by policy, but who is indirectly accused above... —PaleoNeonate – 06:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assumption that Wikipedia must have an article on everything right now and if you put the brakes on it that is BAD BEHAVIOR does seem to be one position that some people take that certain people who work in areas relevant to WP:FRINGE take some issue with. But I think this is a feature rather than a bug. Remembering what it looks like when an "accept all comers" attitude prevails, I think we definitely need brakes applied. The solution of calm, rational discussion seems like one everyone can get behind. Which leaves us with a conclusion: there really isn't a problem with WP:FRINGE editors. There is the general issue with Wikipedia being crowdsourced and it never looks pretty to see how the sausage is made. jps (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Forich: I provided some thoughts in the above section. While I'm sure there's worthwhile self-reflection to be done, I think it might also be a bit counter-productive to focus entirely on such a contentious mix of in-process science, partisan politicization, and active disinformation and try to apply the lessons learned to more garden variety WP:FRINGE disputes without those confounding factors. Lessons to learn, I'm sure, I just worry being myopic about them could cause more problems than it solves. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "fringe" related examples I've seen have not been outright exclusion discussed above. They are mostly cases where unproven beliefs and implausible beliefs (e.g. pretty well anything religion or spirituality related, belief in Santa Claus and other legends, un-established theories, out-of-favor assertions, anything faith-based etc. etc.) where the value-laden "fringe" label is applied to justify turning the article or coverage into a bash-fest against the topic. Sometimes the bash fest is amplified by applying the "pseudoscience" label to where where there is no claim of being scientific. Most policies and core guidelines have the "general principle/guidance" sections and then sections that contain "operational mechanics". When wikilawyering takes over, the "general principle/guidance" sections are easily and always ignored and only the "operational mechanics" sections are invokable/invoked. While wp:fringe is well-written, it is mostly of the "general principle/guidance" and thus it's content is easily ignored/ ignore-able when it is is mis-used and the only thing left is the value-laden one-word epitaph "fringe" to use against their opponents. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakkster Man: I like that you brought WP:BATTLEGROUND. Some de facto factions were definitely formed, with few exceptions (e.g. you stayed neutral). Pro lab leak newcomers were invited to assume good faith on the anti-fringe editors and to respond to their revertions by trying to build consensus first at talk pages. In my view, an autopsy of those discusssions would reveal that the process of "building consensus" consisted of:
  1. anti-fringe editors would check out every once in a while whether any MEDRS mentioned the lab leak favorably
  2. failing to find MEDRS in step 1, they stablished that consensus was reached in that the lab leak was deemed fringe, and editor "consensus-building" could only transpire at the articles/section of misinformation
  3. pro lab leak editors who pointed at disagreements in the above steps were warned that insisting in editing beyond the allowed misinformation sections would be considered disruptive
  4. anti-fringe editors would rush to archive the talk pages to make the illusion of stability and control.
  5. edit warring erupted as a combination of conspiratorial editors trying to push their POV and legimitate editors trapped in the crossfire. Forich (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific "in-process" part of the problem that you also mention can be a good lesson. We need more tools as editors to be able to differentiate between consensus-among-scientists with low confidence because evidence is just being gathered vs consensus-among-scientists with high confidence because evidence was gathered and examined. In the first case, there ir room for a "the jury is still out" description, while in the second, the case is closed. Forich (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and we should not conflate between the lab leak being scientifically/medically WP:FRINGE and the lab leak being politically/mediatically WP:FRINGE. Discussions among scientists reached a high degree of consensus, while discussion among the general population didn't. And I don't mean just discussions among cranks and wackos, but being considered seriously by the Biden administration. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that hits most of the key points, namely that the WP:BESTSOURCES were treated as authoritative, as they should have been. The issue was that these best sources came to a too hasty conclusion, mostly through a reaction against actual conspiratorial thinking (in a way, our editing reaction was a microcosm of the greater world) but also an unseen at the time conflict of interest. I don't think the issue was so much calling the lab leak idea WP:FRINGE (which it was, and arguably still is in the WP:FRINGE/ALT sense), it was how we handled a topic of minority science coopted by politicians and conspiracy theorists in our goal not to further spread misinformation (a combination of WP:SCHOLARSHIP to cut above politics, not holding ourselves to a WP:DEADLINE, and trying to avoid WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OPINION as best we could). And broadly, I think we did pretty well. We didn't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know that The Lancet letter had an undisclosed COI and didn't put its primary author/organizer first in the author list, and following that bulk of data was definitely the right call. Did this push rational investigations into minor, less reliable journals (meaning WP editors couldn't find good, reliable sources describing the claims in a way we could cite without concern)? Possibly, but again I think it's a case where we have to defer to these highest quality sources for the mainstream interpretation.
I would also like to point out that, especially early on, there was a lot of off-wiki canvassing. Primarily from pro-leak advocates. That and the relative difficulty of administration (because those admins were also getting attacked for intervening) set the stage for either battleground behavior, or WP:TE/WP:DE/WP:GAMING (and editors attempting to prevent those problematic edits). And, the longer it went on, the less willing volunteers were to participate. There's only so many POV-pushing IP edits railing against a cabal before most rational editors abandon ship, and if admins can't keep up... well it's going to end up looking a lot like a battleground. Is there a solution for this? Not an easy one that I can think of.
Overall, I think we were at most a few months 'late' incorporating the lab leak beyond the misinformation article (and a sentence or two on the SARS-CoV-2 article). Meaning that we could have (but not necessarily should have) found neutral text, reliable sources, and notable examples to expand such coverage. And for something so contentious, I'm more apt to count that as a win. And an outlier in terms of what a 'typical' fringe issue looks like. With a little bit of luck, we won't have a similarly politicized fringe science topic for another decade. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Forich: Your recent proposal relating to DRASTIC findings reminds me of another confounding factor, and one that could be worth some thinking. Basically, 'open source' science and journalism is rarely considered reliable here, for good reason. Should our PAGs around 'citizen reporting' be reconsidered or updated? Or is this just a place we need to expect more tension going forward? My thought throughout has mostly been that if it weren't a fringe idea, it would get published in respected journals, rather than just mainstream media reporting on the claims. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of material on contentious areas with a strong eye on both NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM would help here. WRT to the lab leak theory, mainstream is fine to talk about the social and political aspects of how that progressed in society, but they shouldn't be the sources used to evaluate its veracity and we should wait (per these PAGs) for MEDRS compliant sources to speak towards that. There's some complexities there but that's the type of thing that happens too much is that a new "big" report from the media comes out and editors want to rush to include it but in reality it in the larger scheme of things its not really important in the enduring coverage of a topic. We don't have enough editors that think of topics at that scope. --Masem (t) 13:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an example: Mark Hyman (doctor) (Talk). The fact that he promotes a diet that some have labeled a "fad diet" apparently inspired fringe-phobic editors to seek out only critical sources of the diet (because, if it's fad, it's pseudoscientific, and that's bad!!). Selective sourcing and presentation of only criticism (in the negative sense, not the "film criticism" sense) led to obscuring the nuance actually present in reliable sources. I provided some diverse sources to the talk page, which improved the article a bit. Another example is Devra Davis (Talk), an article which admittedly previously suffered from promotional tone and problematic sourcing. A scientist who has been compared to a modern day Rachel Carson, was labeled a conspiracy theorist, and the article largely restructured to give undue emphasis to relatively recent events regarding wireless radiation and 5G, ignoring mainstream coverage dating back to the early 1990s. I believe some editors feel that if a topic is "fringe", that it must be pared with criticism, which leads to biased framing, and any positive presentation is often decried as "white washing" or "pro-fringe", as if they are smoldering cigarette butts in a dry California forest that must be swiftly stomped out. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do feel that if a topic is fringe, it must be paired with criticism (assuming we're not leaving it out entirely). I'd call it "the mainstream view", but it's not unreasonable to call it criticism. Is this not the way it should be? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is often warranted to mention the minority status of a subject, even in an article devoted to the subject (or proponent of the subject). And due criticism is warranted. But too many editors seem to act as if "fringe" means only criticism is allowed. Many also shoehorn the phrase "has been criticized", a subtle editorialism that might be technically true, but can lend itself to cherry-picking, weasel wording, or WP:SYNTH, and lead to framing issues (as I raised at Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)#Article biases). If critical views are themselves a minority when viewed within the whole of reliable literature (as may be the case with Devra Davis), even if the views are held by experts, more care is required than is often taken to ensure that is apparent who is doing the criticizing, and why. Sometimes it is acceptable to simply state that someone holds a minority belief without coddling the poor impressionable readers who might leave the article thinking creationism is (gasp!) NOT a pseudoscience. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot agree with MarshallKe's original post in general (in some cases, it's definitely a phenomenon), because I have primarily witnessed the opposite, mainly in articles about books. A little-known book written by a bigoted quack on conversion therapy may meet WP:NBOOK#1 based on one bestseller list appearance and one review in a reputable newspaper by a non-medical expert. This gives us very little scope to be able to clarify the essential context for WP:FRINGE that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH.
    I have seen this prove difficult in the case of a prolific editor later revealed as a sockpuppet who wrote almost exclusively on Christian anti-gay books, where reviews were mixed or overall negative, but did not make clear the scientific consensus on conversion therapy as a nonsense that doesn't work (on which there can be no "balancing" positive view). I have also seen this prove difficult when dealing with U.K. topics about transgender issues, where the mainstream media are increasingly mixing beliefs about transgender people (e.g. that they shouldn't be legally recognised or should be subject to discrimination) with misinformation about the topic (such as false medical claims about puberty blockers). We cannot condemn beliefs, however odious, as they are not a matter of "right" or "wrong". But the beliefs often imply, rely on or state things that are medically untrue, without correction in the British press. So presentation of the material is very difficult, and we are currently not making it sufficiently clear in our coverage what the facts are. — Bilorv (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed the same kind of thing happening with fringe science; sometimes a claim about a reactionless spacedrive or whatever will get a few credulous write-ups that don't bother to seek out an actual expert opinion. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before Covid I felt "OK fine let's have what the fringe think, wp:n can surely allow for something to be notable among a fringe, what does it hurt". Post Covid it "as long as it is not actually dangerous". Now I am leaning more and more towards No, we should not allow fringe nonsense. Yes, we should only allow a fringe topic if it is also called out, and there is actually an analysis of it by reputable sources. If it's people being upset their chosen cause is not treated seriously enough Vs people not being dead, sorry I side with the latter. If that means throwing the baby out with the bath water, fine.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don't think anyone in this discussion (though I could be wrong!) has complaint with this militia of "guerilla sceptic warriors" when it comes to things that might result in deaths...but on topics that have absolutely no bearing on the real world whatsoever (or if so, harmless). Like, for example, if Chinese folk want to organise their living space in such and such way because they think it helps increase good energy and flush out bad energy, why do they give a rat's ass? I can think of no reason whatsoever except maybe some of them are realtors and feng shui makes selling houses more difficult for them! But then going so far as to make a claim that such a thing is "scientifically testable" and has been debunked is ludicrous (but their pet sceptics' handbook say so therefore it must be true!). Now, relating to covid topics: misinformation about public health should be rigorously defended against. The circumstances surrounding the origin of the virus are not a matter of pubic health. This "guerilla squad" hath effectively banned any Wiki article from printing the facts that: there is a research lab in the same town that Covid19 first appeared in, that had been researching coronavirus mutations that could cause disease in humans, and that 2 months before the outbreak that lab did a mass purge of all their data relating to that subject. They think that that information should not be documented by us, and that no matter HOW many sources mention it or WHICH sources mention it, they need to be silenced because those facts "give undue suppory to a fringe theory", and, apparently, that means they must be suppressed until the end of time, even if the rest of the world decides it is not fringe. Wikisceptics always know best! (Disclaimer: I have no opinion one way or another about the lab leak hypothesis; I do NOT believe that any possible leaks were deliberate or that there was any nefarious conspiracy. If it happened, it were negligence, and any conspiracy went no farther beyond a coverup). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:100A:126F:9258:FBB8 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's The Harm? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be relevant to note here that there's currently a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents related to the conduct of the GSoW skeptic advocacy group, which bears rather heavily on the issues being discussed here. jp×g 03:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a current link? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I've not had enough coffee for that yet... Bakkster Man (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify at AFD (again)

I have published an RFC at the Articles for Deletion talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best practices for closing RMs

The closing instructions for RM discussions are not very clear on the scope of cleanup work expected, or the order in which things should be done. WP:RMCLOSE says "Clean up after the move by fixing all double redirects, fair use rationales of images included on the moved page, the page's category sort key, and the talk page archiving;" but it doesn't say what to do if part of the close involves changing the old page name's redirect target to a disambig page, which could leave a bunch of articles linking to the wrong place, a disambig page, instead of the intended article target as they did before.

@力: – not sure why, but he invited me to complain about him in WP space after I reverted his retargeting such a redirect and tried to discuss it with him. Rather than complain, I'm seeking comments. Seems to me that one should get the links fixed before retargeting the redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the quoted instruction shown above is merely the "nutshell summary" given forward to the actual instructions. The considerably more detailed clean up instructions begin at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Cleaning up after the move and consists of ten inclusive subsections including one which is dedicated to moves involving disambiguation pages. While it is all considered "post-move" clean up, it is expected to be accomplished as part of the closing process and includes the following stipulation: "you should not close any move if you are unwilling to do the necessary clean up tasks listed [in the ten inclusive subsections]." In my opinion, shortcomings are more related to editors failing the instructions than to instructions failing the editor.--John Cline (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This bit at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Fixing redirects remains unclear to me. If a redirect is retargeted, that breaks the links from all the articles previously linking through that redirect. Should a closer fix that? Or wait for it to be fixed before retargeting? It's not so clear what that section is saying, or whether it needs an example. Elsewhere it says to fix double redirects, but those do get automatically fixed by a bot pretty quickly, don't they? Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a title to point to a DAB (especially when a non-trivial portion of the incoming links are mis-targetted) doesn't break anything. And as I noted, these are generally "fixed" quickly; two of the voters at the RM were willing and able to fix all the links within 24 hours. If there's some policy that advises people not to close RMs unless they can personally and immediately use AWB or something similar to fix hundreds of disambiguation links, I am both unaware of it and would request wider community scrutiny of it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical example: I closed an RM on the page formerly at Rodrigo Vargas (footballer), which should be converted to a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Should I leave the redirect in place indefinitely, or point it to the DAB page so the incoming links will be detected and fixed? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for engaging. There are about 70 articles that link through Rodrigo Vargas (footballer), that would erroneously go to the disambig page instead if you retarget before fixing them. Exactly what I'm seeking advice on. "Indefinitely" seems like a pessimistic view of getting things in order here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's some automation in place that alerts people to fix this kind of transient brokenness (linking to the non-intended place), I'm not aware of it, but yes that could be a solution. Lacking that, my preference would be that the closer delay the retargeting until all the links are updated, e.g. by posting in the close that the people who asked for the move should work on that or seek help, and then do the retargeting. I'm not saying put it all on the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in an ideal world, the closer would do the clean up, and I usually endeavour to do so, but I don't think this is mandated. Not everyone has the tools or mass editing skills to be ablt to do that job. And, as power says above, targeting a diambig page on a temporary basis is not in itself an egregious problem. In fact, when I do such clean up I very often find that a good chunk of the links were wrong anyway. So if a close has been made, it should be effected including the retargeting, since delaying just causes confusion and risks the close becoming void. There is quite an active project dedicates to doing the clean up, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, they usually sort out issues withing a fairly short time frame. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that WP:RMCLOSE isn't a policy or guideline, and the requirements it lists are so nitpicking that I don't actually believe it documents a real consensus. It says that an editor should not close a requested move unless they are willing to check and fix category sort keys, update template sidebars and nav boxes to bypass redirects, check and fix any wikidata issues, and check and reconfigure talk page archiving. I've never done any of those things. When closing a requested move, you close the discussion and move the page. You look around for a bit to make sure nothing major has broken, and then you trust that just like every other part of the encyclopedia, someone with greater subject knowledge will be bold and fix the minor issues. Like any essay, the wording of RMCLOSE can be worked out on the talk page, but if we're looking for project-wide consensus I doubt that there would be support for more than "do the move and then do your best to fix any major issues you notice". — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fair. And I didn't ask about policy or guideline, just wondering what best practices are. To me, it seems best to not retarget a redirect that's in use, but rather to do things in order, but 力 feels it's better to go ahead and retarget, leaving all those links in the state that I refer to as "broken", and count on them getting fixed before long. Maybe that works quicker than I thought. When I've closed such things, or requested such moves, I did the fixing, or asked others to help, before doing the retargeting. So, since 力 asked me to come here when he shut me out of his talk page, I thought I'd seek advice on what's thought to be "best", and we'll both hear it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no point in having two people have an Argument Clinic on my talk page when we can have a useful discussion in project-space instead. Regarding Rodrigo Vargas (footballer), after 3 days of nothing happening, I changed the link last night and within 12 hours basically all the links were fixed. I intend to keep allowing the gnomes to fix these links when I close RMs. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSTYLE - Actions vs beliefs or identity

I suggest adding something similar to the following to WP:BLPSTYLE (the Tone section of the WP:BLP policy). Alternatively it may belong somewhere in the manual of style.

When controversial positions are reported by reliable sources about a person, it is usually better to describe known actions, rather than attempting to assess or describe one's personal beliefs, motive or identity. Instead of asserting in Wikipedia's voice that someone believes something, describing facts like that someone published material promoting a particular idea or position, is more accurate. The exception is when someone explicitly asserts their beliefs as such, or when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation.

A common example I can think of: in the case of someone promoting climate change denial talking points, writing just that, is better than: "is a climate change denier" (identity), or "believes that ..." (assuming that editors or Wikipedia can read minds). A previous version of my suggestion had "other than religious affiliation or gender identity", but it may be implied and unnecessary... It's even possible that my proposal is too obvious, but I tend to see a lot of "<foo> believes that" in biographies.

Here's an example where an uncontroversial assertion that agrees with the scientific consensus was presented as someone's belief (but WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL already cover this particular case). The above is for when claims are really controversial. A better example is Ann Coulter where experts disagree between what is manipulative propaganda and personal belief (and where the author sometimes asserted it was also belief).

Other examples: promoting racism, racialism or pseudoscience, rather than being a pseudoscientist, a racist, "believes that other races are inferior", etc. This is similar to WP:ATTRIBUTE but for cases where facts are widely reported about and need no third-party attribution, but self-attribution (but is not necessary WP:ABOUTSELF).

For widely reported descriptions, like "far-right", the part "when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation" may fit. In any case, input and/or variants welcome. It's also possible that this is redundant to other part of the policy, and that minor modifications like links would be enough. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems plausible. But can you give examples of where such guidance was needed? Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coulter is an example above, another that immediately comes to mind is Alex Jones, but it's valid for BLPs in general. What is promoted is obvious, but personal convictions are unclear, except when sources really make it clear. Quoting Guy Macon at the talk page: "Q: Isn't Jones just an actor playing a role without actually believing all of that?" Since editors obviously cannot know, except when sources explicitly report about beliefs, it's best to report about the actions and what is being promoted instead... —PaleoNeonate – 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to drift off topic here..wasn't Alex Jones caught on the record once admitting that he just makes up the things he says and that it's not true? I thought he did, anyway.. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D54B:F70E:14CC:5F15 (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Ngo is a type of article that in the past would have likely needed this type of advice (those presently appears to follow the above). Ngo's frequently labeled in the present with various far-right-leaning labels, but Ngo's definitely a situation where its better to explain as close we objectively can what he had done, and try to avoid any subjective labels on those actions. But this type of advice is generally true for anyone that is in that far/alt right area that mainstream media nearly always treats with distain. This type of advice is related to NOTNEWS/RECENTISM (we should be focusing only on factual/objective details we know happened in the short term) as well as WP:LABEL facets. We get editors that want to latch onto WP:SPADE, but BLP demands a higher degree of neutrality and impartiality that the media gives to these figures nowadays. --Masem (t) 14:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So a specific example is where Alex Jones has "Jones believes that global warming is a hoax...", that should be rephrased to state who said so, instead of just citing a source that says so? Do such changes currently get resisted, so we need some policy help? Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Jones has basically said that global warming is a hoax, that's a factually assertion. What would be a subjective statement is that he is a climate change denier from that fact, which would require attribution and sourcing. Further, a common issue in this area is "cherry picking" of sources, where editors can find one or two sources that support this subjective claim but when looking at all sources appropriate to the topic and specific aspect of the topic, these represent a minority or limited view of those sources. For example, I'm pretty confident that attributing "conspiracy theorist" to Alex Jones is not an issue of cherry picking since he's readily known for that. But taking Andy Ngo's case, the times I've seen it come up, there's lots of labels that I've seen editors want to use, but they aren't as commonly used as editors may think, and many times are just cherry picked sources, which is something we should be avoiding with labeling. --Masem (t) 18:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the point was that the fact that he said such a thing doesn't imply that he believes it. Wouldn't it be better to quote him than to attribute a belief? Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably depends exactly what we're given in sources (whether he's quoted or paraphrased), and often it would be better to quote directly if we can. What is key is that we as WP editor cannot take a statement "Alex Jones said 'Global warming is a hoax!'" to jump to the conclusion "Alex Jones is a climate change denier." We can let third-parties make that jump though that should require attribution, of course. --Masem (t) 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I like the proposal. I do think there is a tendency to assert that someone is X (even when X is not necessarily controversial) without connecting it to a specific action or including the phrase "is known as" (or similar). --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that needs to be included in this discussion is WP:No original research. For an article to state (in WP’s voice) that an action implies a belief, and that this belief deserves a particular label, we need sources that directly connect all these dots. This is why in-text attribution is so important. It lets the reader know who is saying what, and that WE are not the ones drawing the conclusion that the BLP subjects actions = some labeled belief. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that OR is relevant. A difference with ATTRIBUTE here is that this doesn't propose attributing facts reported by sources as being the opinions of other people, but to avoid attributing to the person (subject of the BLP) things that are not known by reading the sources (<foo> believes <idea> vs <foo> promoted <idea>, <foo> is a <description> vs <foo> is a member of <org>, promotes <idea>, etc). Per my original proposal, it may indeed already be partly redundant and perhaps could be shorter, or just a clarification made elsewhere, so thanks for the input. —PaleoNeonate – 23:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this proposal at least with respect to the very first sentence of articles. I've always felt that it violated the spirit of BLP, if not the letter, to refer to someone as a "conspiracy theorist" or "white nationalist" or "climate change denier" in the first sentence of their article, which is otherwise only used for nationality and occupation. Unless they self-identify with these labels, they should not be included in the first sentence. Mlb96 (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This concern appears to be distinct to my proposal, but relevant would be formulations like "notable for promoting conspiracy theories" vs "a conspiracy theorist". —PaleoNeonate – 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that whether such labels are appropriate for the lead depends on if they are relevant to why the person is notable. A politician with some fringe views probably shouldn't be labeled a conspiracy theorist in the lead, but a media host who makes a career primarily out of promoting conspiracy theories could reasonably be given the label in the lead. I agree that this line of discussion is somewhat of a tangent to the original proposal, but it is worth discussing. Context is definitely important in these situations, and clarifying the distinction between actions/stated beliefs and inferred beliefs is important. ―NK1406 15:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone promotes conspiracy theories for a living, shouldn't that be included where any other occupation would be? It might not apply in many cases, but it's a possibility we shouldn't rule out. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A conspiracy theorist is not a profession or vocation, and should not be in the lede sentence or phrase, but if they are primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist, then that should be in following sentences or phrasing. Eg to borrow some of the current language (its not perfect) "Alex Jones is an American radio show host, prominently known for being a conspiracy theorist." is far better than "Alex Jones is an American radio show host and conspiracy theorist." as we are not implying in the former that the "conspiracy theorist" is a job in any way shape or form. Of course, this with specific with Jones where if you read about him in any source, you cannot but stumble over him being a conspiracy theorist. What we often have a problem with is when we get a cherry-picked label being pushed that far into the lead (again, Andy Ngo is one I've seen have happen like that). We are often far too quick to drop these "scarlet letters" on BLPs when we should really be asked "is a threshold of critical sourcing reached to actually include" (as in the case of Jones). --Masem (t) 16:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we imply that "conspiracy theorist" is a job? People work damn hard at it, and they make money. Maybe it's a side gig most of the time and typically not first-sentence material, but I don't see why we should exclude it from opening lines in principle. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is still a highly subjective term outside of certain exceptional cases (like Jones), unlike professions and vocations which are highly objective. If we are writing neutrality, impartially and dispassionately, we should try to avoid any subjective aspects in the lede sentence to get the tone correct to start, and given that the standard form for nearly all bios and BLPs is "x is a (nationality) (professions/vocations)" we absolutely should avoid any subjective aspects here. --Masem (t) 16:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "subjective" in the case of a person who has (objectively) spread conspiracy theories. Your formulation could lead us to have ridiculous article openings (e.g. "David Icke is a goalkeeper ..." which was seriously proposed in some forum as I recall). Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"David Icke is an author and public speaker, and a former footballer and sports broadcaster. He is prominently known for being a conspiracy theorist..." Easy. --Masem (t) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the prominent thing un-prominently is self-evidently a contortion. Luckily Wikipedia doesn't do that, but instead tends to track the less coy ways of serious publications.[7] Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP is purposely supposed to be "better" at neutrality than mainstream media. There is zero requirement to put the reason for a topic's notability in the first sentence, as long as it is covered somewhere in the lede at some point, while staying neutral, impartial, and dispassionate about a topic is required by NPOV policy. --Masem (t) 18:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the most prominent (and in Icke's case definitional) thing first is just good writing, as well as being NPOV in giving most weight to what is most weighty, through prominence. Lesser stuff comes later. You are promoting an odd inversion of policy-based established practice, and odd insipid writing to boot. Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No policy requires the most prominent thing about a person (or topic) to be written about it first. None. The only thing where prominence about a topic is important is to make sure that it is clearly states at some point within the lede. Policy does require that topics be presented in a neutral tone, so this does require starting from objective, definition-al material about a person before moving into the more contentious, subjective aspects, even if those aspects are the most prominent aspect about that person. That's just how one keeps a neutral tone to an article, consistent with MOS:FIRSTBIO and nearly every other bio article on WP. --Masem (t) 13:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of a bio should state the main reason why the person is notable. No policy requires us to write insipid, wonky prose and down-play reality. NPOV means reflecting the weight of things in sources proportionately, and not according to some idiosyncratic invented mantra that arbitrarily labels some objective facts as "subjective". Starting with the "most prominent" aspect of a subject and proceeding in course to lesser details is the natural order of good-quality written English. Sometimes distasteful things are definitional to the point where they even make it into the article title: e.g. Mark Steele (conspiracy theorist). Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is more than just maintaining a balance of what reliable sources cover (as UNDUE is but just one part of that policy). It is also about tone and style to keep the coverage neutral, to keep wikivoice out of stating contentious aspects as facts, and other factors. We are not here to create "hit pieces" on people that the media routinely cover in a negative fashion (which coming out the door with contentious labels immediately sets the stage for), but that doesn't mean we whitewash away that criticism, either. Nearly every article I've seen where editors have pushed negative labels and other coverage first and foremost over fundamental definitions and objective statements can be fixed without losing any information or sourcing by simple reorganization of material in the lede which improves the tone and neutrality of Wikivoice - typically with the prominent criticism/labels entering by the second sentence of the lede, at times as a second phrase in the first sentence. It's very easy to want to fall into the practice of adopting the same approach the media does in labeling these people first and foremost and treating lesser aspects as more trivial factors, but we are not doing the same function as the media, as we are an educational work, not a news-reporting work, and need to be better in maintaining our neutrality for that end. This has gotten far too lost in the last several years due to the fact that as a whole, we've been fighting issues from IP/new editors that do want to whitewash away negative material from articles like this (which we need to of course prevent), but the reaction of making this articles even more of hit pieces or scarlet letters about these people is not the right approach, but instead to make the tone more appropriate to an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat: the first sentence of a bio should state the main reason why the person is notable. You seem to have some meaning of neutral in mind which is different from that of NPOV. "Neutral" does not mean wet, but means cleaving to decent sources. I agree Wikipedia should not use contentious labels in Wikipedia's voice but nobody seriously contends that (e.g.) Icke isn't a conspiracy theorist, now do they. It's just reality. Wikipedia is not an "educational work". You seem to have some very odd ideas about the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading one line of MOS:FIRSTBIO out of context, considering that the previous line specifically says to avoid subjective and contentious terms, and that it further ends that this information can be spread out over the entire lede. And no, I'm pointing out that NPOV has multiple facets; one facet is bein neutral to how we represent sources, but another facet is neutral of how we write and treat subjects as a reference/educational work. Its why per YESPOV contentious terms are given attribution and not as fact, for example. This is all part of the first thing in BLP, WP:BLPSTYLE, which is too often ignored because editors are all too happy to follow newspapers/medias lead in freely reporting negative aspects without due consideration of tone and impartialness as a reference work. --Masem (t) 14:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of a bio should state the main reason why the person is notable. Yes, avoid contentious labels or subjective stuff ("is the most evil man in Britain"). But the fact he is a conspiracy theorist is an objective fact and not contentious (or, do you think that fact is seriously contestable?). Icke is not just referred to as a conspiracist in (respectable mainstream) press, but also in scholarly works to set the context.[8] You would have us create some kind of milquetoast opening out-of-sync with relevant, competently-written writings on the subject. I am glad you have at least half rowed-back from thinking Wikipedia is an educational work! Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And my proposal is not about avoiding to specify in the lead what someone is notable for, or avoiding "conspiracy theorist" if reliable sources also use that, although I might still prefer "notable for promoting conspiracy theories" (or best known for, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 12:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To meander from the lively discussion above, I like the concept of the proposal and would like to build on it. In my opinion the second sentence is somewhat redundant as published material by the subject falls under explicitly-asserted beliefs, which are mentioned in the third sentence. I feel that the third sentence could be revised somehow too, but I couldn't come up with another wording that I really liked. My one concern with the third sentence of the proposal as it is right now is that it labels explicit reports from reliable sources and explicitly asserted beliefs as exceptions. I know that is not the intention of the proposal but I would also want to ensure that it is not misread. ―NK1406 21:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is an excellent proposal. The last exception sentence might need a tweak to say reporting on specific facts regarding the individual, not reporting on specific opinions.North8000 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a good proposal. This would bring things more in alignment with how we use ABOUTSELF. Per ABOUTSELF we don't take the claims to be factual (Mr Patel is for equal rights, vs Mr Patel says he is for equal rights). What Mr Patel actually thinks in his head is speculation. What he has stated is proof that he made the claim. I think sometimes we should be careful when sources take a gray area claim and turn it into black or white. Someone who has opposed lots of climate change legislation is likely to be labeled a denier or similar but may be motivated only by the belief that the specific laws are bad laws (fail on a cost benefit basis, are actually pork barrel bills or other reasons). So it's best to use the narrowest descriptor of what they oppose/promote. In this case, "has opposed climate change legislation" vs "has opposed climate change". Regardless, I think this is a good idea. Springee (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting to this and at the same time about the last part "when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation". It's possible that "beliefs" or "convictions" be better than "motives". As you noted, "What he has stated is proof that he made the claim" and "we don't take the claims to be factual". These are indeed relevant to ABOUTSELF especially if controversial or self-serving. This extends the idea to independent sources because it's also possible for editors to report as one's beliefs things that sources don't necessarily report that way. If most reliable sources do, then it may still be adequate to report the way they do (per NPOV the article should reflect them). But if they only report on actions, like the promotion of misinformation for instance, we shouldn't editorially extend it to belief/conviction (only claims). My proposal is not to always attribute (existing policy like ATTRIBUTE and GEVAL already explains when it should be). Or to avoid using "promotes climate change denial" if that's what reliable sources say. I agree with you if sources only report on legal policy work that doesn't involve questioning the gravity of the situation (it's of course challenging to approach the problem). —PaleoNeonate – 12:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that this discussion (a) is taking place here and not the Talk page of the policy page that is being discussed (b) without even a note on that Talk page pointing to this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it's my omission and I just posted a notice there about this discussion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal makes sense. Maybe it can be made a little more succinct. Pretty sure I would support this. Just only... for ledes, if the person has a quote in the text like "The white race is superior to others", could we (in the lede) describe him as a white supremacist, on sky-is-blue grounds? Maybe? But that might be a slippery slope... what statements, actually, would be enough to do that? Would "I believe in White Power" be enough? Would "Europeans are responsible for almost all good innovations, just saying"? So maybe not mention this... Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While a primary quote could be used as an example, it would most likely have been reported by a secondary source to be considered DUE for inclusion, as well as to provide some analysis, then the article would generally describe the person or their actions in the way those sources do (I suppose that some editors would otherwise also complain about original research done with primary sources)... —PaleoNeonate – 10:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this proposal would be a meaningful improvement. We already have consensus establishing, say, that contentious labels are inappropriate (i.e. WP:BLPRACIST and MOS:TERRORIST); I think that imputing beliefs to a person is similarly inadvisable, and for similar reasons. Of course, there are obvious exceptions. I think that, per WP:ABOUTSELF, we can accept something like "Jones is Catholic" cited to a passage in Jones' autobiography saying "I've been a Catholic all my life". But "Jones is a denier of the divinity of Gautama Buddha" is probably a little iffy (even if, by definition, being Catholic means you do not believe that). jp×g 19:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is where "The exception is when someone explicitly asserts their beliefs as such, or when reliable sources report explicitly about motives or affiliation." or similar wording would apply, —PaleoNeonate – 10:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about it a bit more, I think a good reason for making this change is the hairy situation of statements-about-belief for which the person can invalidate them by saying otherwise. That is to say, if our article says "Jones believes the Louvre is run by space aliens", Jones can simply say "I don't believe that the Louvre is run by space aliens anymore", putting us in a tight spot where we must either crap on WP:RS or knowingly make false claims. Contrariwise, if we say that "Jones said in 2017 that he believed the Louvre was run by space aliens", well, that's a factual thing that really happened, and maybe we can even add "In 2021, Jones said that he no longer believed that", but at no point must we impute beliefs to him or make claims about what is going on in his brain. I vaguely remember a mind-numbing saga (or perhaps several sagas) in which some BLP subject was described as being a member/adherent of some religious/political/etc group, showed up to their article to say that they no longer believed that, and was given the demand that they get a newspaper to publish a story saying that their beliefs had changed. If I recall correctly, their opinion of this was that Wikipedia was completely bonkers, and in this case I would have to concur. jp×g 11:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The addition When controversial positions are reported... is good, but without the third sentence The exception is when someone explicitly asserts their beliefs... --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Questions and Comments

I have a few questions and comments about the Speedy Keep disposition on Articles for Deletion. Most of the times that I see it in an AFD, it is, in my opinion, misused. It is often used with a statement of a form such as "No policy-based reason for deletion has been given". That seems close to SK1, but SK1 is: "The nominator … fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection". The guideline further says: "Also be aware that the speedy keep criteria, particularly the first three, are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion".

So my first question is: Who can close a deletion discussion as a Speedy Keep? Is this limited to administrators, or is this an area where a non-admin close and a Bad non-admin close are possible? So my second question is: Is there a mechanism for speedy attention to a Speedy Keep request? I understand that tagging for Speedy Deletion populates a category that administrators work regularly, which is what makes them speedy. Or is the Speedy Keep just another !vote?

A non-question is whether a Speedy Keep can be appealed to Deletion Review. (Of course it can, just like a regular Keep or a Speedy Delete.) Is a Relist the action that overturns an improper Speedy Keep?

So this is partly a complaint that Speedy Keep is often misused, possibly due to misunderstanding of what Speedy Keep 1 really says, but the guideline is clear enough. Any unclear guideline will be misread, and any clear guideline will be misread.

Am I correct in assuming that, on a regular close (that is, after seven days), a closer should treat a flawed Speedy Keep as a poorly argued Keep? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly when closing RfDs, "speedy" is treated as a synonym of "strong" when speedy action was not taken (for whatever reason). Regarding admins, I think a non-admin speedy keep is going to be appropriate in some circumstances - for example NAC as SK5 and SK6 should always be uncontroverisal, as would a speedy keep following several established editors recommending it. In contrast, I'd advise against an NAC SK2c when the previous discussion was closed by a non-admin. Thryduulf (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a non-problem. Yes, some editors use "speedy" as a synonym for "strong", but this is generally obvious, and certainly not a reason to discount their vote for disagreeing on the exact parameters of what qualifies as speedy. Honestly, looking at that Wikipedia:Speedy keep page, I think the "What is not a speedy-keep" section should probably be removed or reworded as overly nitpicky. If someone cites WP:SNOW / WP:NOTBURO and says "speedy keep", their meaning is perfectly clear. If there's a technically accurate deletion rationale that evades the usual Speedy Keep clauses, but is just obviously wrong (nom'ing a plainly notable article), then emphasizing that an early close should happen by saying "Speedy Keep" sounds perfectly fine to me and useful information to would-be closers. But maybe a discussion for the talk page of that policy. SnowFire (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four points:
    1. With regards to the DRV question, relisting is clearly the normal overturn outcome: if the discussion was incorrectly speedied, then it typically didn't have enough discussion for the DRV process to support another outcome.
    2. With regards to the complaint, I'm entirely in favour of fast AfD outcomes in many cases that don't fit SK1-6, so while I think trying to raise consciousness about what the SK guidelines actually say, I'm doubtful about tightening guidance. Example: fast closes are reasonably common where the nominator claims non-notability but has obviously not followed WP:BEFORE and brief research yields very many plausible-looking references. We have a good-enough working understanding of what constitutes "egregious failure of nom to follow BEFORE" on AfD, but I don't have a bullet-proof definition of this class that could be added to our guidelines (cf. Mkativerata's fears from 2014 about an overinclusive clause on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 4#Failure to follow WP:BEFORE).
    3. With regards to NACs, I don't see why clear SK1-6 cases should not be closed by non-admins, but it might be worth adding guidance about closing speedies to say that non-admins should avoid speedying for the other rationales, and perhaps that closers should indicate whether speedies actually fit one of the numbered criterion if they make an expedited close.
    4. I agree with SnowFire that the general use of SK in !votes to indicate impatience with a nom is not problematic, although misrepresenting what SK1-6 say is problematic, is good to note in close statements, and could be grounds for overturn at DRV if the misunderstanding shapes the outcome. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is primarily about deletion and so it's not sensible to bring other issues there. A prominent example currently is the featured article Armament of the Iowa-class battleship. If you look at its talk page, it appears that it was threatened with FAR for over 18 months and that it was sent to AfD as a way of putting this off. AfD didn't seem the right process for such a weighty topic and so I called for a SK. The result may well be some sort of split/merge but such restructuring is best handled at the article(s) by interested editors and projects. That's what the WP:MERGE and WP:RFC processes are for. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep is pretty bite-y, and rarely helpful when the nominator hasn't withdrawn, but there's no point making a rule against it because it's inherent in the nature of speedy closes that they're all, always, invoking IAR.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline on adding subproposals to long, contentious ANI threads?

Oh, does anyone think of the poor admin that will have to unravel this mess!

Hi! Recently there has been an insanely long ANI thread on WP:ARS, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic. My issue is that editors have added a large number of proposals to topic ban certain users within this thread, which has made it continue on and on and on and will create a massive load of work for administrators to tackle. I tried to close one such sub-thread as I was not entirely aware of WP:BADNAC, but thought it useful since no fresh opinions were being given, more than enough evidence had been given, and any further contributions would just be a WP:BATTLEGROUND (or something similar to my recently-written essay WP:KEEPTALKING). Is there some possible guideline that could be made such that this doesn't happen in the future (as much)? The thread devolved from:

  • There are issues with ARS that require the community to reappraise its role ->
  • There are issues with ARS that require the community to reappraise its role as well as editors within ARS being highly problematic ->
  • This discussion on ARS should probably happen elsewhere, and sanctions against some editors should be considered -> (no action taken on this) ->
  • Subdiscussions on tbans against 3 users that have very long debates, as well as 3 separate subdiscussions where editors attempted to close the discussion and move the whole thing to Arbcom.

In essence, a complete mess that reminds me of the Gordian Knot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's unclear exactly what the concern is here; the three concrete proposals which emerged from that discussion seem to contradict the notion that no action will be taken on point #2 or that the thread will be difficult to close. A lot of people have a lot to say about ARS and there's nothing wrong with that. Why not split the proposals into their own section(s) if length is a concern?
I disagree with the idea of shutting down !voting after just one day while !votes are still coming in. –dlthewave ☎ 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My perspective is that the tbans against 3 editors is not really addressing the concerns that ARS gives a wrong idea about what AfD is and facilitates canvassing, so once the tbans are/are not handed out there are in my opinion three posibilites:
  • No further action is taken towards resolving the issues with ARS as a whole (unlikely).
  • A separate discussion is started on the issues with ARS as a whole (which then seems counter-intuitive to me to have the tban sections within the "ARS is problematic" thread and then a separate thread on how to make ARS less problematic).
  • Both the discussion on fixing the issues with ARS as well as the tbans happen in the same massive thread (terrible for mobile reading, maybe accessibility, tons of scrolling up and down).
However, if it is the general opinion that my concerns are not as big an issue or won't happen to other threads in the future then I don't mind that being the case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a forum already with too much DRAMA, creating guidelines for how sections may be created just seems like an opportunity for compounding DRAMA when (inevitably) it's done wrong by wound-up participants. Yes, that ARS thread is a hot mess but - that's WP:ANI folks! Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do threads at ANI get to hefty lengths? Yep, sometimes they do. Do they get a bunch of people flying off in different directions? Yep, sometimes they do. Do they devolve into a lot of shouting? Sometimes, sure. That is, as Alexbrn accurately states, the nature of ANI. I've followed it on and off for many years now, and when things get too complex, I tune it out ... and so can anyone else. In the times I do, I'm sure that people carry on without my personal thumb on the scales.

    But that being said ... when we're talking about debates that can lead to anything from temporary tbans to permanent community bans from using Wikipedia, we'd be very poorly served by any "reform" that would stifle or truncate debate. Ravenswing 15:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some questions. Could there be any value in discussions above X size being move to a subpage? Would there need to be some pointer from ANI itself about any proposed sanctions so that people who tune out a generalized discussion but want to weigh in if discussion moves to a proposal could know? There have been a couple recent attempts to provide more structure to ANI reports, would that help at all? (At least on this last one my answer is no but I still think the question may be worth discussing). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and we've done that quite a few times, such as here, here and here. And on one occasion I know of, we've had sub-subpages, too. I see it as established custom and practice.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @S Marshall I agree it was custom and practice at one time. However, I think it telling that the most recent example you have there is from 2010 and in a casual search the most recent example I can find is 2012. That suggests that this has gone out of style and is no longer custom and practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Barkeep49 I did create one for the AN in 2016, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT, which the community accepted.—S Marshall T/C 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough but that is a single example from 5 years ago. I think my underlying question remains: should this be a regular part of our practice? I think you and I agree the answer is yes. In 2021 alone I can think of probably 8-10 discussions on AN/ANI which would have benefitted from subpages rather than the zero we've had. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. I think some of the impetus for using subpages, historically, was to manage edit conflicts, and software improvements have helped with that part of it. I also think concern exists that once you bring discussion to a subpage, you stop attracting uninvolved people.—S Marshall T/C 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You also stop attracting uninvolved editors once the section gets larger than the planet Jupiter, because no one is going to bother to wade through that. Being worried that moving a massive section to a subpage will discourage uninvolved editors from participating is like being worried that dumping a bag of salt in the ocean will make the water too salty to drink. Mlb96 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advised (two or three times) that an RFC on shutting down ARS, be brought to Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) (since it's been 2 years this month, the last time it had), but nobody would take it up. Since then, the focus has shifted from ARS itself, to at least 4 members of it. IMHO, that long discussion at WP:ANI, should be closed - except for the sections concerning the individual editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Instead of more rules and guidelines that half the people who post on here won't read- what about setting up some "clerks" sort of like at ArbCom who are responsible for formatting/organizing threads on there? There are quite a few of us who read/monitor the board anyway and will go through and close threads when they are finished- why not formalize that a bit? I wouldn't mind going through and slapping some organization on those longer threads, and I'm sure a few other people would volunteer as well. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on any other issue here, I personally believe adding ANI clerks would generally be a bad idea. I was an ArbCom clerk for almost five years – ArbCom clerks function effectively because of ArbCom's unique institutional role. What might be interesting if there was a norm for administrators to stay uninvolved (don't comment on a thread) in order to help neutrally moderate/structure them if need be. But don't use the word clerk, or appoint a standing panel, I think. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate the sentiment, and have acted this way once or twice myself, I would suggest we use a different word than UNINVOLVED because an editor can comment on an AN/ANI thread and remain uninvolved at least in terms of that policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see what you mean about Arbcom being unique, and maybe clerk is the wrong word- but I think the admins have quite a bit to do already, and we do not have enough of them to go around, but interested (nosey? and yes- I'm talking about myself) editors with time on there hands are in large supply- thats why I suggested some of us take up the organization tasks. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If a person is trusted enough to refactor things on ANI they are probably already an admin -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Disagree. For example- those of us who volunteer on the WP:DRN most of us are not admins- but I believe we have proven ourselves trustworthy and capable. There is a large subsection who are capable and trustworthy- but have very little interest in the process that currently is the adminship gauntlet. There are quite a few editors who would be happy to help, are capable of helping, and do not have the admin cap. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support some sort of remedy - I think something should definitely be done in this department. "Walls of text" threads on ANI make it so that people vote/comment on first impressions without reading through the evidence. In the past, this has opened the door for liars and tag-teams to game the system, thanks in no small part to bandwagon voting and the TL;DR effect. I'm surprised this problem hasn't been a bigger focus (although I imagine some users like the system the way it is for the wrong reasons). In certain situations, if you are in a super-long ANI conflict with another user and that user outnumbers you, it doesn't matter what the evidence is or whose in the right, you're pretty much screwed if you don't start eating crow. Darkknight2149 18:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally: I'm not sure if this is a hot take, but I also don't think contentious WP:ANI threads should be determined by voting or "consensus", but by evaluation of the evidence alone. Easier said than done, I know. Darkknight2149 18:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, but if we don't agree on why we want to introduce a new rule, then perhaps there is no reason to introduce a new rule at all (per WP:CREEP and other accessibility concerns). Your contention, if I understand correctly, is that long walls of texts favor the drafter, while I contend that long walls of text are detrimental to the drafter. It can't be both: so the policy status quo should be given the benefit of the doubt. JBchrch talk 20:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point of contention is that long walls of text make it easier for dishonest users and tag-teamers to game the system, and it contributes to the TL;DR effect and "snowball" voting where people who can't be bothered to read through the evidence and navigate through everything automatically side with the user with the most supporters. At a certain point, it can become less about who is disruptive and more about who has the most supporters or who is the most charismatic liar. That's not how ANI should work. Darkknight2149 02:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not an administrator, so feel free to take my opinions about how the administrators' noticeboard should be run with a grain of salt. It has always seemed strange to me how quickly discussions on AN/I will be closed and actions taken, even in very complicated situations. Of course, a lot of discussions are pretty straightforward (a sock/SPA is blocked, an inappropriate draft is deleted, editors are given warnings to stop doing something or other). But some of them are huge labyrinths: sometimes there will be a dozen parties to a dispute, each of them writing several paragraphs, each of them with a dozen diffs! Sometimes a thread will balloon out to a hundred kilobytes or more. In these cases, people tend to get very angry. I think part of this is because it's often unclear how long the discussion will go before closure -- so taking a day to sleep on it and write something more thoughtful may just mean you're too late to have any impact at all. This has certainly happened to me, where I came up with some brilliant and elegant way to solve a dispute amicably... then went to propose it and found that a few hours earlier the thread had been closed and both users defenestrated. And if it is stressful and confusing for uninvolved bystanders making comments, how much worse must it be for the targets of these threads!
In light of this, there are probably some things that can be done to make the process more reasonable. I don't know exactly what these would be (and invite others to come up with something), but off the top of my head, it might be prudent to move longer threads to a separate noticeboard, where there was a minimum amount of time they were guaranteed to be open for (say, a week, or two weeks). Maybe this could be determined by how many editors posted in the thread, how many words were posted in the thread, how many subsections it had, et cetera. Who knows. Or maybe there could be a process for electing to move it: some predefined number of editors in the thread could indicate to extend, and it would automatically be taken to the slower board. Frankly, I think any AN/I thread with an "arbitrary break" subsection is of a vastly different character than threads about "this guy keeps adding 'baba booey' to articles about train stations" type stuff. jp×g 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to echo some of my own comments at that thread, it is a near-perfect example of an issue that clearly is not going to be resolved at ANI and should go to arbcom instead, where there are, thankfully, word limits. I don't see a need for any new rules, an out-of-control discussion like that is evidence that the committee should take a case if one is submitted. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox I've always seen the two of us as having fairly similar philosophies on the kinds of cases ArbCom should and shouldn't take. I agree with your point that we've reached a point where there are some number of conflicts that ArbCom would accept a case request for which never reach our venue for consideration. However, a sprawling thread alone is not an indication we shouldn't accept a case or that the community can no longer handle it. If it were, we'd have both voted to accept our most recent case request but in the end we both declined, though admittedly I seem to have been a bit more "enthusiastic" in my decline than you. I think just because more cases could be accepted doesn't mean the community is wrong to say "we prefer to do this at AN/ANI instead" as there are pluses and minuses to that kind of decision making too. I will be curious to see how candidates at this year's ACE think about their standards for cases. I do think the community would do well to consider what kinds of issues, beyond ethno/political disputes and examinations of admins, ArbCom is well suited for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to suggest that the thread was the only piece of evidence, rather it is one of many pieces. If this does come to the committee I would probably be obligated to recuse myself anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think rather than trying to reform ANI, it'd be better to just create an alternative forum and see if people will use that forum instead. It's a wiki: be bold and crowdsource it. Levivich 03:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I dream of a Wikipedia where ANI is used as a noticeboard to bring urgent incidents to administrators' attention, and all the ancillary functions it's gathered over the years are handled by processes actually designed for them. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "urgent" and "chronic" should be handled on two separate pages instead of the same page. The chronic stuff should have subpages; the urgent stuff doesn't need it. Mark AN/I historical just because that dog deserves to be shot, and create AN/Chronic and AN/Urgent. Levivich 19:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me four years of editing to even discover non-admins were allowed to post on any of the ANs! I like the idea of separating "urgent" and "chronic", or whatever terminology is chosen, as the I suspect a junior editor peaking in to an report incident would be very hesitant right now. Cavalryman (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Comments on the ARS Mess

I have a few comments on what can be done to avoid something like the current Article Rescue Squad trainwreck.

First, word limits at WP:ANI are in order. An editor who presents a very lengthy complaint at WP:ANI with a great deal of evidence probably should provide a summary and put the bulk of the evidence on a user page. In that case, only a few editors reading the thread at WP:ANI will choose to read the evidence pages. The fact that large portions were collapsed is an indication that the posts were too length. I am not suggesting subpages of ANI, but that editors who have lengthy issues provide user subpages.

Second, should ArbCom occasionally take on a dispute simply because the volume of evidence is too large for the community to consider as a community? The purpose of ArbCom is to consider disputes that the community cannot resolve. This has normally meant disputes where the community is divided, splintered, or polarized, but maybe both the community and ArbCom should recognize that some disputes involve too much evidence for a community process.

Third, after one day of posts that could hardly be considered discussion, I made the mistake of suggesting that the pseudo-discussion would go on for one or two weeks if it wasn't closed. The pseudo-discussion has gone on for about ten days and has resulted in one topic-ban and a trainwreck. The usual Wikipedia examples of trainwrecks has to do with deletion discussions. This has been a trainwreck about a meta-deletion discussion, a discussion about editors who oppose deletion. My mistake was in even suggesting that the discussion be closed, because it resulted in a good-faith but misguided attempt to close, following my good-faith but misguided suggestion of closure. I said that there were three-and-one-half possible actions. One-and-one-half would have been to close then, which was tried and failed, or to close with no consensus after one or two weeks, which is where we are. I think that there is agreement that another MFD is a wrong answer.

Fourth, this dispute still should, in my opinion, go to ArbCom, but that isn't the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a smart post. I think there is definitely a threshold at which any given ANI thread becomes an unreadable disaster, and this noticeably affects the quality of discourse: sometimes the same point will be raised in multiple places, and the same conversation about that point will occur multiple times because the thread is just too damn big for anyone to scroll through. Other times, someone will raise a point that never gets addressed because it's lost in the sea of repetition. It seems like some limitation on verbosity (at least for people who aren't subjects or complainants) might be in order; my main concern is that this may be impossibly difficult to implement without a large amount of clerking, automation, or structured threads (a la Arbcom, where each party has their own subection). jp×g 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think moving lengthy evidence to a separate page would further incentivise people to not read it (which is part of the problem with "walls of text" threads to begin with), so I don't see that as a viable solution. However, you do make sound points.
"Second, should ArbCom occasionally take on a dispute simply because the volume of evidence is too large for the community to consider as a community?" is also reasonable. The point of ArbCom is to solve disputes that the community can't, and if the length of certain threads is hindering the community's ability to actually solve disputes and stop disruption (whether it's because of people not wanting to read everything, closing administrators being overly general because of the length of the thread, "snowball" / first impression votes, tag-teaming, or anything in-between), then I can see the logic behind getting the Supreme Court involved. That being said, it would be ideal to exhaust every potential suggestion or remedy first before jumping to the last resort.
I'll also add that I don't think ANI should be determined by pure consensus and voting, but by evaluation of the evidence alone. User input can inform that, but popularity contests shouldn't be the determining factor. That being said, I am aware that implementing a remedy for this would be extremely difficult, especially since the current system already assumes that everyone's input at ANI is based on evaluations of the evidence (that a lot of people won't read in bloated threads).
Lastly, on the topic of deletion discussions, I think something needs to be done about the general non-constructive WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset between many "deletionists" and "inclusionists". For example, Andrew Davidson's topic ban yesterday was well-earned (I agreed with everything but the prod ban), but I recognised a few self-professed "deletionists" there that are honestly just as bad as Andrew in some respects. But alas, that problem won't be solved here. Darkknight2149 22:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: This big ARS thread that seems to have triggered a shorter but still sizable thread here, and is held as an example of how ANI is broken, started by rehashing some of the old arguments, then coming to the same conclusion we've come to in the past -- that there's not going to be consensus that the nature of ARS is a bad thing, and that we should look at specific problematic members in particular. Then, importantly, it yielded concrete proposals to do just that. The outcome is one indefinite tban, one 6-month tban, and one warning. In other words, despite generating a lot of text, some of it chaotic, it's not evidence that there's something that needs fixing. To me it's evidence that sometimes these things just have to get long and messy in order to get anything done. As long as we have experienced and competent users like Wugapodes to thoughtfully consider it all, assessing consensus and making hard decisions, it can still work. I'm mildly-to-moderately skeptical of most of the interventions floated in this thread, but since I'm challenging the premise, I'm going to take a pass on getting into specifics. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1. There was a similar discussion last week at WT:AN. Levivich 02:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long ANI threads may be a necessary evil. Since commenting on editor conduct is prohibited in most places in Wikipedia, grievances can build up over the course of months or years. So ANI becomes one of the only places where editor conduct can be discussed. Such discussion is arguably cathartic for the parties involved, especially if legitimately aggrieved editors achieve some kind of resolution to their frustrations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have an ARS discussion every 6-8 months, and because up until now the community has taken no action, evidence has built up. Further, it is usually a different filer every time and often someone not involved in previous discussions. I agree with the above, long threads are sometimes a necessary evil, in this instance it was very ably closed. I suspect elements will be brought back to ANI within 12 months, and potentially a similar mountain of evidence will be presented again. At least ARBCOM have given every indication that they will accept the case in the future. Cavalryman (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

My initial suggestion was to have ARS shut down, at Village Pump (proposals), fwiw. Nobody took me up on that (it was attempted before 2 years ago), so I see now that attempts are being made to change its focus. Wish 'no' editors had been t-banned, but that's not what happened. FWIW, I been in many Afds & MfDs & never once (to my memory) felt any hostility in those discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References in languages other than English

When references are in languages other than English are they supposed to be delineated as such somewhere within the cite web/cite book/etc? I tried to find the answer somewhere around here but couldn't find it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard citation templates should have a |language= parameter you can use to denote the native language the article is in. --Masem (t) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but where is the guideline or policy page/section/paragraph that speaks to that? I always thought that if references were in a language other than English the editor was supposed to put Dutch or French or whatever in the cite but I can't find the policy/guideline that says so. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not actually see a place in policy where this is required, but I think its established unwritten practice to always provide it. The citation templates instruct this but those aren't policy. --Masem (t) 16:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am asking is that I am dealing with an editor whose references are almost exclusively in languages other than English (Dutch, German, maybe even Italian plus a sprinkling of others) so I wanted to explain it to them why telling readers that the reference is in another language other than English (since this is the en.wikipedia) is a good idea. I like the concept of "good practice"/commonly-accepted norm and there is that parameter... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But please don't make a big deal of this. Most of the time it is better that editors should follow the usual wiki practise of fix things themselves rather than demanding that someone else should do it. It is much better to have a reference that isn't formatted completely to your liking than no reference at all. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not making a Big Deal at all, not Demanding at all ok? I am always thinking of making it easy for readers to verify information for themselves, so, they should know that a citation is in a language other than English (Dutch/French/German/etc) Moving forward this enthusiastic editor that I seem to now be mentoring should at least know about the language parameter so they can utilize it. For WP:V purposes. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink, the problem with this is that the actual rule is: make up a citation formatting style, and use it consistently throughout that article. If editors choose to use a citation formatting style that omits language information, then, um, well... they're following the rules.
What you can do is point out the existence of this parameter (assuming the article is using WP:CS1 citation templates) and ask whether they'd like (you) to add that for all the citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

with regard to adminship

Today a prerequisite to adminship is having a Wikipedia account. That is not enough. Today an anonymous user, can become a sysop. So, the only information that we have about this sysop, is his nickname. We do not know nothing about his real name, his e-mail, his profession, his education. When a user is granted the status of administrator, this information should be public. ShlomoKatzav (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins often have to block truly problematic people (real-life problematic, I mean): as an admin, I wouldn't have been comfortable doing this when my personal identifying information was made public here. Getting stalked onwiki (as happens to many admins) is annoying, but getting stalked in real life is much much worse. Your demands would quickly remove many of the current admins, especially those willing to act against some of our more notorious long-term abusers. Apart from that, I have to wonder: why is someone who hasn't made a single mainspace edit (and just one content-related edit in general) in the six years they have been here, suddenly interested in the admin prerequisites? Fram (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fram
Thanks for your reply.
To some extent I do agree with you.
Shlomo.
ShlomoKatzav (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ShlomoKatzav: So, the only information that we have about this sysop, is his nickname.. Incorrect, we have over ten thousand prior edits, over a year of demonstrated behaviour, competencies, weaknesses, feats and flaws, we know what is most critical - how they are as an editor. Knowing their name, email, profession - what would they serve me? Not at all. We will continue to judge admin candidates by the only thing that matters...their actions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nosebagbear
Thanks for the message.
Generally, I accept the your vision.
ShlomoKatzav (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ShlomoKatzav: Why would someone's real name, email, profession or education be relevant to their status as administrator? Would knowing someone's email address have any impact at all on whether a person should hold administrator rights? The only thing that matters is their contributions to the project and a demonstrated understanding of policy. Requiring admins to post their personal information publicly would just result in them being harassed with no benefit. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, talk
Got your post, and I understand your standing.
ShlomoKatzav (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this point is particularly important. Some children have made good admins, and I've seen some of the dumbest and immature behaviour ever from people who at least claim to be middle-aged people in very senior jobs (and are now indefinitely blocked from the site). Profession and education do not tell you that somebody will be productive on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that an admin told you that he is male, his name is Jonathan Smith, and that he lives in New York City. He also gives you information about his education. How much of this is actually true? You can tell based on his edit times that he appears to live close to NYC's time zone, but have 0 data beyond that. 2A03:C5C0:207E:35AE:1A50:8111:CC34:8B49 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The right to anonymity is one of the very few actual rights that Wikipedians have. If that was taken away I'd predict a mass departure of many regular editors, myself included. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

query on accounts noted as former admin

I notice that the report of a contributions analysis tool producing the result: "Is administrator? ✗ (former admin)". Is that standard practice at our sister sites, or here? ~ cygnis insignis 11:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: I'm not sure what proposed policies or guidelines, or changes to such, you are trying discuss? Those tools sound like off-wiki things that wouldn't really be subject to these, the presentation of such is up to the tool maintainer. "Former admin" status is generally publicly available via the rights logs (though it may be difficult to programmatically query for older accounts that had their rights managed with legacy processes). — xaosflux Talk 14:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Pardon the misplaced post, it was just the query and nothing else. ~ cygnis insignis 14:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"standard practice" in the sense that you were surprised it was specifically noted? Enterprisey (talk!) 10:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROXYING (banning policy): Clarification needed

A recent AN discussion led to the following conclusion:

[T]here is a wide disagreement as to how WP:PROXYING should be interpreted in the context of reviewing, posting and taking responsibility for content from a banned user.

The current wording of the policy section is as follows:

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.[1] See also the policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.

The two highlighted parts are currently ambiguous.

  • The wording "at the direction of" led to arguments: Does it require an explicit request from the banned user? Does it perhaps even require (mis)use of an authority to direct, e.g. from employer to employee?
  • The wording "independent reasons" led to arguments: Does "interest in improving (or maintaining) the encyclopedia" satisfy the criterion? Does it require re-writing instead of copying large amounts of text?

In a nutshell: What do we want to forbid, what do we want to allow? How can we describe this more clearly? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel#Meatpuppets. See also: Wikipedia:Tag team
  • If the community has banned someone,"taking over" the banned user's behavior is an insult to the community. Enabling a banned user's behavior by copying their proposed contributions to Wikipedia circumvents our appeal processes. It encourages problematic behavior instead of enforcing a clear, red line in the way the ban was intended for. Proxying allows toxic or persistently problematic individuals to participate in a community they are no longer welcome in, and to potentially cause distress to the members we intended to protect using the ban. Replace "at the direction of" by "on behalf of", and remove the entire "unless" condition. Only the usual exceptions to bans in general (WP:BANEX) apply. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the first few sentences are sound, but there have to be exceptions. Sometimes a banned editor has removed a BLP violation. If an editor blindly reverts a bunch of proxy edits, or perhaps just reverts on principle, and someone else comes along and sees that said revert reinstated a BLP violation, they should be free to restore to a version without that violation, even if a banned editor authored it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always taken "at the direction of" to mean something more akin to sockpuppetting, but with another person's account. It's fairly common for editors to reinstate the work of banned users and take responsibility for the inclusion. That's how PROXY even currently discusses such edits, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.", as you note above. I've found the need of some editors to remove every single contribution a banned editor has ever made to Wikipedia actually damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole, especially if the reason for being banned has nothing to do with making bad article content. Since our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, not to hold grudges against other editors and to try and remove their every contribution. I think improving Wikipedia comes first and if your action is going to go against that, then your action is wrong. Hence why we only permanently ban people once they have proven that their ongoing involvement in the future is going to be more detrimental than beneficial to the task of improving Wikipedia. SilverserenC 20:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case anyone else is interested in how WP:PROXYING evolved... here's what I can piece together from archives + page history: This is an old pre-2006 wording that was a fair bit clearer (Because we discourage people from using Wikipedia to interact with banned users, it is likewise inappropriate to post comments and discussion on behalf of banned users. Such activity is sometimes called "proxying". As people respond to such material, this will inevitably draw in the banned user, and again may tempt them to subvert their ban. Our aim is to make it as easy as possible for banned users to leave Wikipedia with their dignity intact, whether permanently, or for the duration of their ban. Offering to proxy is likewise inappropriate.). It was boldly changed by UninvitedCompany as part of a broader rewrite of the page here, but the substantive meaning seems to have remained unaltered: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying." ...
    This diff is what changed the "on behalf of" prose to "at the direction of". The text has remained more or less the same to date. It's proposed here that this wording change be reversed, but it doesn't seem UC's change in wording actually meant to cause a change in meaning, nor can I find any consensus to scrap this principle. Honestly, I'm doubtful those making the claim in the AN discussion truly believed there was a distinction either. What we saw is not really a new concept; established editors end up at AN and various methods (including, as seen here, casting doubt upon the formulation of policy prose) are used to suggest there was never any mistake made. I'm not sure there's really a policy dispute here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree with your interpretation of history. There was a brief discussion in 2020 on what "at the direction of" should mean and the general consensus of the two commenting administrators was that PROXYING does not prevent good faith improvements to Wikipedia. No Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay, or best practice prohibits good faith improvements to Wikipedia by persons in good standing. There was a longer discussion in 2018 on what proxying meant, and the general consensus was to leave it to a case-by-case decision given the need to weigh benefit to the encyclopedia against deterrence; that's not even my summation of consensus, it was articulated on the talk page again 5 months later. There was further discussion in 2014 where the consensus (among editors who are not currently indefinitely blocked) was again that this is a nuanced situation that goes beyond a simple yes-or-no, bright-line rule. Whatever teh revision history, it is objectively false that editors invented this interpretation de novo at AN. This interpration of policy has been discussed and reaffirmed over multiple years. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I was discussing specifically the "at the direction of" part in my response. This interpration of policy has been discussed and reaffirmed over multiple years. As far as I can see, neither of the two discussions you link any editor disagreeing with the conventional idea of 'directed', as was done in the AN discussion (see the sub-thread where I asked an editor to expand on their definition). I am under the impression that was invented de novo at AN. In the discussions you link, I can see a consensus that enforcement should be handled on a case-by-case basis by admins, which is a sound principle and true of any policy, but I wasn't making a point against that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I linked four discussions and one of them had the section title ""at the direction of a banned or blocked editor"". — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not roleplay schoolyard cops. There's no policy saying that you must swear fealty to the community, and the reasons for a ban are so myriad that in many cases making edits for a banned user may not be enabling them at all. As a concrete example, I supported a CBAN for LouisAlain because of his behavior and recurring civility concerns; unless the "proxying" going on is another editor posting rants and insults on enWiki for him, then there's no "enabling" going on in my view. This is why I find the routine PROXYING debate so tiring: those who want a strict interpretation claim to speak for the community when justifying their concerns despite the opinions and motivations of each community member being diverse and sometimes contradictory (see Condorcet paradox). Not everyone wants a bright red line in all cases, and in many ban discussions there are people who oppose or support lesser sanctions. These community members and their views do not suddenly become worthless or unimportant just because they are in the minority, and uncritically declaring that all bans are a bright red line is an insult to the community who discussed nuanced options and rationales that informed the contours of a specific ban. In my experience the bulk of disruption caused by "proxying" for banned editors is caused by mass reverts and sprawling drama-board discussions which waste our time on sophistry about crime and punishment. We have policies for dealing with disruptive editing, and if an editor is making problematic edits I don't care where the inspiration to make them comes from. If an edit does not improve the encyclopedia, revert it. If an editor routinely makes edits that harm the encyclopedia, impose sanctions necessary to stop the disruption. That is the core underlying WP:IAR and all our other policies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't just crime and punishment philosophy. Often it takes more than one error to be sanctioned. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_with_348k+_edits_blocked_for_copyvio where the editor had 13 copyvio warnings before the indef. If we let some comparably established editor proxy for them and take on their edits, presumably said editor gets another 13 copyvio warnings before a block, rinse and repeat for another proxy? Same with Louis; he wasn't sanctioned for one error. If an editor proxied for LA, how many errors would it take until they earned the same sanctions?
    Re enabling the banned editor: I've usually seen proxying accompanied with socking (this is the first time I've seen a sandbox on another project be used for this purpose). Giving an editor a reason to stick around and sock is enabling them IMO. FWIW I've opined against hard-line G5 deletion before, and probably restored a sock edit before (with reason), so it's not like I believe in draconian no-exceptions BMB/G5/etc enforcement, but one-off case-by-case judgements are rather different to an editor providing a permanent editing platform to a banned user (via email, sandbox on another project, or otherwise). It seems too much like WP:GAMING to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't just crime and punishment philosophy. Rhetorically, you seem to be making a point about crime and punishment philosophy. By harping on the number of mistakes it takes to sanction someone, I assume you think the number is too high and that we ought to be lower. "how many errors would it take until they earned the same sanctions?" is obviously impossible to answer, so I interpret it as a rhetorical question meant to suggest that you think the number should be lower than the example of 13 that you gave. Whatever number you think it should be, your belief about what is and is not a proper threshold for sanctions is quite obviously crime and punishment philosophy. Our policies at WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:NOTPUNITIVE have taken sides on that question, and while we may wish it otherwise, the predominant philosophy is to discuss first and only impose sanctions as a last resort.
    So to your actual point about compounding issues, you don't actually give any related examples. While the 13 copyvio warnings incident is extreme, do you seriously believe that if a similar deWiki-sandbox situation occured that an editor introducing copyvio material they suggested would get 13 warnings? At AN people were calling for blocks after the first incident invovling Gerda, and the supposed content issues were related to notability and reliability of citations which we give warnings for like they're candy. given how contentious a topic this is, the idea that no one would do anything until 13 warnings were given seems unlikely and unsupported by precedent. An AN discussion in 2018 documents how an editor had talk page access revoked without warning for using it to make edit requests during a block even while administrators were acting on those edit requests. It didn't take 13 warnings and tons of mistakes, it took no warnings and no apparent mistakes. A few months ago I successfully lobbied for an administrator to be topic banned for a single COI concern; it didn't take multiple incidents. We can trade successes and failures back and forth all day, but I don't see any reason to believe editors who take responsibility for edits suggested by a blocked editor will face anything except additional scrutiny.
    Giving an editor a reason to stick around and sock is enabling them IMO. If an editor is socking, then they aren't making edit requests. Why would someone go through the trouble of making edit requests when they could just make edits directly? That makes no sense; if anything responding to edit requests reduces the potential for socking not enable it. this is the first time I've seen a sandbox on another project be used for this purpose...one-off case-by-case judgements are rather different to an editor providing a permanent editing platform to a banned user Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but this seems to be a contradiction. You point out that the inciting incident is the only time you've seen a case like this, but then try to generalize it in order to justify not subjecting it to the typical case-by-case review. That simply doesn't work. How are we to figure out when a situation meets your proposed standard? Presumably a case-by-case judgment. What does it mean to "provid[e] a permanent editing platform to a banned user"? Unless we're taking a wide interpretation of "providing", the German Wikipedia was already there; Gerda didn't create it. Even if we widen it to encompass soliciting edit requests, we quickly run into the same problem as UPE: how would we ever know? What if edit requests came by a means other than a WMF wiki? Your proposed standard is largely unenforceable. Absent the most bone-headed of banned editors, we would never know that an editor is responding to edit requests. We'd still wind up relying on our usual disruptive editing and sock/meatpuppet policies anyway. The only difference is that we would have less transparency. Ironically that lack of transparency means that the situation you envision---where a proxying editor compounds the problem by getting a ton of warnings before getting blocked---becomes more likely because of the reduced ability to scrutinize.
    The reason I complain about having these abstract conversations about crime and punishment is that it is a complex topic that evades simple solutions and bright line rules. Designing a policy that creates particular behavioral incentives in order to achieve a particular outcome is hard and only gets harder when there are mutually incompatible beliefs in what the ultimate goals are. Reactionary solutions are short sighted and in the long-term ultimately liable to counterproductive results because their reliance on amorphous sentiment undermines long-term strategic planning. It is easier by far to focus on responding to concrete behaviors rather than evaluating abstract motivations and incentives. In our case we already have a well-developed system for responding to disruptive editing that we will have to fall back on anyway except in the most blatant of situations. Rather than wasting time developing a system that will be useless in most cases (and likely make itself useless by incentivizing communication systems that we cannot monitor) we should avoid the question entirely and rely on what we already have: an editor is responsible for their edits and will be sanctioned for disruption regardless of the inspiration for their editing behavior. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your discussion about "abstract phlosophy" here and at AN is hard to follow. What we recently saw on display at AN was discussion about: known edits and facts, application of policy, and emotions about a User. Whatever is meant by "abstract philosphy", it can't remotely encompass that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much agree with Wugapodes above. The current formulation of the policy is exactly right, as it allows editors in good standing to use copyleft material from anywhere on the internet to better the project at their own discretion and under their own judgment, and of course taking full responsibility for said content, while preventing efforts by banned users to simply direct others to make edits on their behalf. Of course, it's a nuanced situation and you have to critically evaluate what the material is, but it's really quite sad that editors above would choose to chop off their noses to spite their faces, by banning something which can improve the encyclopedia and our readers' experience.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an insoluble problem. Content is good but our only defense is WP:DENY. It takes dedication to get banned—only driven people repeat problems sufficiently often to get a ban and of course many of them strive to continue regardless. Encouraging them spits in the face of those who endured the problems. There is no deadline and it's better to follow DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't understand what "at the direction of" is supposed to mean if it's not considered synonymous with "on behalf of". What is an example of this? Many editors have been banned/blocked for proxying after introducing edits at the request of LTA users; what factors made those cases different from others that escaped sanction? JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh hi Silver Seren. Huh. Well, what would be a case of of somebody doing something "at the direction" of another where its not an "explicit request"? Something like "Sure would be nice if somebody added X material to Y article, wink wink"?
    As to "Not everyone wants a bright red line in all cases", well, meet Herostratus. "There's no policy saying that you must swear fealty to the community" -- well of course not. It's assumed. As to "I think improving Wikipedia comes first" well I mean you think wrong. In real life if you get banned from the bar you don't get to hang around outside and talk to people inside and get drinks passed to you. If you get fired you don't get to use the cafeteria anymore. See fruit of the poisonous tree. You know why they have that rule? Because if you don't the whole process gets corrupted, falls apart, and the concept that "if you do illegal things it won't benefit you" is thrown away. That is how the real world works. It has to. Banning is a key tool to keeping the Wikipedia reasonably orderly and asshole-free. That's super important. Let's not risk weakening it.
    "It's fairly common for editors to reinstate the work of banned users and take responsibility for the inclusion". Just... wow. If that is true and these people are getting away with it then common practice is way way too liberal. And you want to loosen it more????
    So on the merits of the question. Of course "at the direction" does not mean "on the orders of". That would be an idiosyncratic reading of the phrase indeed, and sounds like somebody is trying to just get around the rule. There's always people like that. Just ignore those people. So leave that part alone. (If we must add an Wikipedia:Asshole John rule, I suppose you could change ""at the direction" to ""at the direction or suggestion, whether overt or implied, and not requiring a relationship of formal authority" if that would help, which, maybe, altho it makes the rule harder to read and understand.
    If it was me I'd change "unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" to "even if they are able to show..." Banned users should go away, period. They shouldn't be interacting with Wikipedia editors unless it's to discuss the weather. Editors should ignore them. How are these people even communiating with Wikipedia editors. Sockpuppets? Email? Facebook? Editors should ignore.
    I have seen this a lot of thinking over the years, and...
    I want to be super careful and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but, I mean we all have be stand and be honest, that is how we learn and grow, and the Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, and it's important to get this right.
    So, let's consider two people, one is of the mind "I want the toy now so I'm going to take it" and the other is of the mind "I want the toy now, and if I don't take it, I don't get the toy now. But it will be more fun around here overall, for me and my playmates, and overall we'll have more toys"... It's OK to think the first way! It's fine! But over time we want to grow into the second.
    Well, similarly, you can have "I want this good content now and I'm going to get it regardless of other considerations" and you can have "I want this good content, and if I reject it, I don't get the good content. But it will be more fun and functional here and less plagued by assholes overall, and better for me and my colleagues. And eventually we'll have more editors staying around and we'll get more good content."
    You hate to use terms like advanced and less-advanced cognition (altho as an objective fact that is an actual thing). I keep in mind Howard Gartner's (true!) theory of multiple intelligences. It's OK not to have top-level thinking in everything. There are things that aren't in my intellectual wheelhouse and I stay away. This particular question may not be in everyone's wheelhouse. It's functional and growthful to consider one's limitations. Maybe "If you can't see the forest for the trees, maybe going into forestry in not your best path" would be a kinder way to put this if you prefer.
    I ignore rules a lot, but key rules you just can't. I'm not on board with some of our copyright rules, but I follow then strictly because they are considered real important... RS, BLP, NPOV, banned-means-banned... they have to be followed strictly even if you don't agree. Otherwise it all starts to go cattywampus.
    If people are interpreting "independent reasons" to mean "I feel like it, and uh yo it's uh improving the project, that's it, improving the project" then we need to change one word. TL;DR: Change "unless" to "even if", and no other change to the existing text probably. That solves the argument, and in favor of the Wikipedia. Just enforce rigorously. Rigorously.
    We've lost good editors who just can't get with the copyrights rule. You'd hate to see it over this stuff, but if it has to be it has to be, as the Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons. Herostratus (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I'm going to throw this as-yet unwikified section rewrite out there because it's what I think makes sense, and on the off-chance enough people agree, it may be a simpler approach than a close reading of wikihistory and language:

When the community bans or blocks an editor, it has made a decision to exclude that user's views and contributions from the project. Sometimes another editor might want to use material written by the banned/blocked, edit on their behalf, or otherwise act as their proxy. Such actions should be taken with extreme caution.

An editor in good standing may make changes or include material suggested or prepared by a banned/blocked editor only if the editor in good standing carefully evaluates the content and takes full responsibility for any and all violations of policies and guidelines. Users who knowingly proxy for a banned/blocked editor are likely to be sanctioned themselves if the proxied content violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Take extra care when using material written by a user who was blocked or banned for systematic content issues, such as copyright violations, original research, or failing to edit from a neutral point of view. As with any use of other people's writing, attribution is required.

In any case, the community may come to a consensus to prohibit proxying by a particular user or proxying for a particular user. Proxying for users who have been globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation is never allowed.

New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.[12] See also the policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.

Basically, urging extreme caution, add that consensus/exceptions apply, adding an exception for global bans, and retaining the final paragraph. If this is a totally unhelpful non-starter, please say so and I'll hat it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a helpful suggestion and accurately describes the current practice. I think it would be an improvement over the current text. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts:
    1. This is only a disputed issue for articles. For unblock requests, there are very established processes that should be used instead; and for commentary about the weather, Wikipedia policy discussions, etc. PROXYING for a banned user should very clearly not be allowed.
    2. There may be a copyright issue with one person presenting another person's work as their own.
    3. I don't see any issues with proxying for small changes to articles.
    User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this suggestion would clarify things a lot more than the current text does. At the same time, if an editor in good standing is regularly just instating content on request from a banned editor, then there really isn't a ban anymore... Additionally, the scrutiny that would normally be applied to edits from the banned editor wouldn't exist, since we wouldn't know it was coming from them. And what do we do about the banned editor? By soliciting other editors to edit for them, they are trying to circumvent their ban, which is very clearly prohibited in our policy: The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. Such behavior should lead to stronger ban conditions, but if we explicitly condone proxying then how can we justify further sanctions or graduation to a global ban (or even the initial ban in the first place, which is specifically supposed to apply to good and bad edits...)? JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
then there really isn't a ban anymore this seems to assume that there are more than a tiny handful of cases when an editor in good standing would be willing to risk their reputation for a banned user. Context is really important. If someone is blocked because they just can't stop edit warring but their article work is good, proxying is a way to get the good without dealing with the bad. If someone is excellent at finding sources but loses their cool in content disputes, having someone who can add the source without getting into the dispute could be beneficial. But sure, there are lots of times when it wouldn't be desirable. The vast majority of the time, they just wouldn't find a proxy; for those who do, I think this language leaves room for the various exceptions/contexts. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like Rhododendrites' suggested wording. In my view, one thing that always needs to be considered (and this should possibly be mentioned explicitly somewhere) is why someone was banned, and proxying should never be permitted to act as a workaround for that. For example, if someone is blocked or banned because they cannot edit neutrally regarding, say, French people, then we should not be accepting content they write regarding French people, directly or indirectly. If the sanction was for being unable or unwilling to distinguish reliable and unreliable sources, then any user proxying for them should include an analysis somewhere (ideally on the talk page, given they should be posting there to provide the necessary attribution anyway) of every source in the material to show it's reliable. In all cases other than very obvious, unquestionable improvements (e.g. spelling and typo fixes, syntax correction, and similar) the proxying editor must be able to demonstrate that not only are they willing to take responsibility for the accuracy, etc. of the content they have actually taken steps to verify it's suitability for Wikipedia - yes this is going to be a lot of effort, but that's the point. If someone has been banned for content-related reasons then we cannot trust them to get things right without actively verifying it for ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes "good standing"? And if this change accurately represents current practice then we need to drastically alter or delete WP:BMB since that section is very clear about edits from banned users. You also haven't addressed whether proxy-soliciting constitute ban evasion, particularly in the cases of users who were banned for intractable issues in their contributions. If the banning community or admin thought such problems could be solved by, e.g., leaving content in draftspace until an "editor in good standing" could come by and review it, then that should have been spelled out in the sanction, not left for friends of the banned user to implement without discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since I don't feel like this introduces major changes rather than clarifies what the consensus of the community/common practice is, and absent any objections that can't be addressed via tweaks, I've gone ahead and boldly updated WP:PROXYING with the above text. Feel free to update (or revert if you think this is a net negative). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted for now, but the text would be agreeable to me, as it is clearly an improvement compared to today's unclear language, provides reasoning and words of caution and leaves open a path to restrict proxying further in specific cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think intentional copy-paste proxying should ever be allowed under any circumstances. As I said in the previous discussion, since banning is our ultimate remedy for people who repeatedly violate our policies, circumventing it effectively undermines all of our policies. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and the like are non-negotiable; if someone was banned for violating them, and they believe they can now follow them, then the appropriate thing to do is to convince enough people of that to get unbanned. A single editor taking responsibility for the edits being copy-pasted in is insufficient because, in practice, that allows any individual editor to overturn a ban (in theory the editor doing the copy-pasted could face sanctions, yes; but the previous discussion shows how obviously impossible that is, since they will otherwise be "in good standing" - unless they proxy for the same person repeatedly, all errors in their copy-pasted material will be one-offs and not part of a pattern, making sanctions nearly impossible.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...what? This entirely changes the meaning of WP:PROXYING, from "you can't proxy" to "you can proxy, if you're careful". If the justification for this about-face is that it's "common practice", you'll need to a) give some actual evidence of this and b) explain why written policy has said the opposite of "common practice" for well over a decade. Otherwise, this should be put to a proper RfC, not decided in a side-discussion of a side-discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe: it's not an about-face. Only a couple people seem to have interpreted the current wording of WP:PROXYING as "you can't proxy [full stop]" because that ignores that the great big "unless" that immediate follows in the very same sentence. As much as a couple people may be stating unequivocally what the language after "unless" absolutely means, those unequivocal definitions have varied considerably and in some contradictory ways. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The current text:
    Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor [...]
    Your proposed version:
    An editor in good standing may make changes or include material suggested or prepared by a banned/blocked editor [...]
    Come on, you can see as well as anyone that these two statements do not say the same thing, regardless of what qualifications and clarifications follow. I understand that you think your modification is more in line with the interpretations in that particular AN thread, but the whole reason we have written policies is so we're not relying on the whims of randomly selected, small groups of editors in individual discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, if you remove those partial sentences from their actual context, then they disagree with each other. Is your objection the orientation/valence of "ok if" rather than "bad unless"? I think that's a fine change to the wording above, but the actual meaning (the range of what is/isn't allowed) would remain the same. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to note that I would probably support a blanket prohibition on proxying for banned editors (outside of e.g. copying unblock requests and the like) if it were proposed. This is an effort to reduce ambiguity with the current wording, and minimize the only-ban-people-without-friends effect that ambiguous policy results in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point missed

  • The issue here was not the wording of proxy. Pretty much everyone agreed that the policy covered the situation they just disagreed on the interpretation - either the editor (Gerda) was proxying directly in violation of the policy, or they were performing allowed behaviour on behalf of a banned editor as covered by the policy and taking ownership of the content. The problem was that regardless of where on the scale the community stood, what got lost was that we had an editor who was copying and pasting content verbatim that continued the same editorial problems that got the banned editor (Alain) banned in the first place. And because the proxy editor was in good standing, no one wanted to sanction them. The reason for PROXY existing was lost in arguments over what part of it applied. The issue isnt the wording of proxy as is, its the lack of willingness to enforce its primary reason for existance: not to have the same problem re-occur that a banned editor caused. It doesnt need any rewording, what it needs is a one-line addition that reinforces the point of the policy - along the lines "proxy editors, if their editing is found to contain the same issues that caused the original editor to be banned, will recieve the same preventative sanction." This would both discourage the cut and paste proxying, as well as making it clearer that if you are going to make edits on behalf of someone else, you had better be damn sure they are not problematic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that WP:PROXYING is not that ambiguous, but that it suited some editors to temporarily read it ambiguously, so that they didn't have to apply it to someone they liked. If this happened recently, some of those editors would feel compelled to spew yet more torrents of convoluted verbiage to avoid acknowledging that fact. That would make it a bad time to discuss making changes to a key policy that has been stable and applied almost completely without controversy for years. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree entirely with the above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fine point. Policy talk related to ANI disputes is messy business, and often impossible for the reasons you're describing. Maybe someone will make a note, wait a while, and bring it up again in a couple months once we've all moved on. It's possible. But it's IMO more likely the next time there will be any interest in discussing it will be the next time it's controversial. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I guess I won't complain about highlighting one's own point with a new subsection when I've made my own blatantly WP:NOTARBITRARY break above. As this isn't an extension of the ANI thread but focusing on part of it, I'll disagree that the point has been missed. Just adding this sentence doesn't change the fact that we have wildly differing interpretations of everything after the "unless" in the current wording. We have some editors who are drawing a bright line to say no proxying is allowed, and others arguing it's more or less allowed for any reason as long as the unblocked editor takes responsibility. Saying "and that means you'll get sanctioned if there are problems" is fine (it's in the version I suggested, more or less), but the rest of the lack of clarity remains. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recent case involving Gerda was not only proxying, but cross-Wiki proxying. My take on it is this, a CBAN is exactly that, a ban. That means that CBANned editor doesn't get to edit, and especially not by the back door or via a Trojan Horse of another editor using other language Wikipedias. Doing so, apart from that issue, raises issues of copyright, as material copied from one wiki to another, still needs to be properly attributed. That the material created was good is immaterial, I would remind everyone that there is WP:NORUSH to get the material on Wikipedia. If we go without it for a few month, years or decades, so what? Maybe the guideline needs to be expanded to explicitly forbid cross-wiki proxying. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Only in death does duty end that the point is to spare the community from continuing to face the problems that led to the banning. I don't think anyone's argued for restricting all copying of edits from banned users. However if the reasons for banning are related to the edits, the copier needs to help resolve the issue. If the editor was banned for being argumentative, contentious, and unwilling to work towards consensus, the copier needs to show greater receptiveness to feedback. If the editor was banned for failing to provide adequate sources, the copier needs to find suitable sources for the copied edits. In short, editors should be trying to fix up the gaps that the banned user wasn't able to. isaacl (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has not changed since I wrote those words is that occasionally there is a pattern where a well-respected contributor disagrees with a decision to ban (or topic ban or otherwise limit participation by) some individual, and then the well-respected contributor makes edits on behalf of, at the direction of, inspired by, or in cooperation with the banned individual. This is an example of editing to prove a point. It is disrespectful of the community. It is frustrating to deal with because it weakens the already tenuous mechanisms in place for ban enforcement. For those reasons an unusually strong policy was thought to be appropriate in the early days. I believe a strong policy remains appropriate now. UninvitedCompany 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CASE Study

Questions/issues arising from the discussion in the recent case:

1) Evidence: The evidence for proxying was largely the acts of the editor (holding open a sandbox for the banned user to edit and copying the banned user's edits into main Wikipedia), as well as the acts the banned user. Some seemed to want to argue, we can't rely nor even discuss those acts, we must hold the User only to confession and admission. That does not make sense (common or policy wise). (In the end it looked like the editor admitted that yes it was done to assist the banned editor, but that was already evident by the acts).
2) Don't talk about proxying: Some seemed to insist it was some kind terrible thing for the OP to open a discussion about proxying, and then that no one should discuss proxying in the discussion. That also made no sense.
3) You can only talk about bad edits: Some seemed to insist, although you can't talk about proxying, it's ok to talk about other policy problems with edits. But proxying policy seems clear that you talk about bad edits at the same time you talk about proxying, indeed all are part of a proxing inquiry.
4) Independent Reason/Dependent Reason: So, the banned user has a reason, which if the usual verities hold is likely to be "it improves Wikipedia" (it seems unlikely that the reason would be "it damages Wikipedia" and have it go anywhere). So, the proxy editor's reason is also, "it improves Wikipedia". That reasoning seems dependent, not independent. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1054402054"