Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alicianpig (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 6 July 2011 (→‎Moving on ....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


The whole system is unfair and biased

It seems to me that, while wikipedia is presented as the encycleopedia that anyone can edit, this is very misleading. It seems a lot more like an encycleopaedia which only experienced, well connected people who know all the tricks to keep their articles on and delete other people's can edit. And also, the rules are supposed to be all community driven and democratic, but democracy doesn't work when most people are wrong about something. It is the more experienced editors who know how to change things on wikipedia, and these are the people who the unfair, biased, current system benefits. I keep hearing the saying 'When in Rome, Do as the Romans'. I prefer the saying 'Be in the world, but not of the world'. Just because most people are wrong, that doesn't mean I should be wrong as well. It also seems that people on here enjoy deleting people's articles for fun, however much they may make excuss about 'official wikipedia rules'. so I think the whole sysem needs sorting out, but the chances are this will never happen, because of who gets to make the decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicianpig (talk • contribs) 12:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To address your concerns: many people also think the policy "system needs sorting out" and it can happen, but will likely need years, unless new rules are imposed by top management (revolution is often faster then evolution). Wikipedia has already improved, from pure mobocracy towards the "Rule of law" where WP:CONSENSUS now states that an agreement of many people cannot override long-term policies. A united group of rumor mongers cannot decree that gossip, or crude jokes, will be allowed in celebrity articles, so there are limits which prevent "most people" from doing what they want. However, the Rule of Law works better with strict, but fair enforcement of sanctions for rule breakers ("outlaws"), and unfortunately, Wikipedia has limited polices about "fairness" where even the articles omit major concepts of fairness, such as no article in 10 years for "Proportional punishment" but only for "Mandatory sentencing". Meanwhile, the WP:Article_Incubator gives people more chances to create articles that can survive deletion. However, beware that you might want Wikipedia to be more fair than any nation on Earth. More below. -Wikid77 06:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This desk is "to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines." Why did you post the above rant here? ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm really tired of seeing new editors attacked and belittled for not knowing all the rules. This includes the removal of the editor's comments above by TreasuryTag [1] ([2]) after I restored them once before. [3] [4] While I have to assume Bob House 884 just didn't know any better because he is a fairly new editor, TreasuryTag is not a new editor. In the case of TreasuryTag's removal of this editor's comments, this has got to be one of the most blatent disregards for WP:AGF and WP:BITE that I've seen. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never questioned Alicianpig's good faith. I said that they posted their rant on the wrong noticeboard, because it is clearly not a proposed new policy or a discussion of existing policies. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it expresses a viewpoint about the way policies ("rules") are applied on WP. Many threads on this page are far more off-topic than this.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say, I removed the comment initially because it seemed plainly outside the scope of the board and didn't seem likely to attract any constructive comment. Perhaps hatting would have been a better idea. Slightly ironically it seems that the cause of Alicianpig's stress is the impending deletion of an article called 'Whinge wars' Bob House 884 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Directed at the OP) Instead of making vague generalizations, can you give specific examples of what you're referring to? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the OP may be making a reference to Wikipedians' general scepticism of the WP:BROTHER excuse! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that might explain things; however, I do see Alicianpig was given a dose of good faith there, which is, after all, what we're supposed to do around here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Tempest in a tea pot, really, hatting would be likely been better. We should go have a refreshing beverage. But am I correct that implying another editor is a troll in an edit summary could be interpreted as a personal attack? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the first time. [5] This also begs the question if TreasuryTag wasn't simply trying to revert my restoration of Alicianpig's comments here because I had warned them for canvassing [6] here on VPP for this section above. Sigh. WP:POINT, anyone? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TreasuryTag you did question Alicianpig's good faith, by calling them a troll in an edit summary. GB fan (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know the particulars here, but Wikipedia is a vicious place for new editors. Imagine a world with zillions of imperfectly written rules where everything done violates a literal broad interpration of them, and where every person (including social misfits) is given a badge and a gun. That is the WP world to a new editor. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. TheParasite (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that North8000 (talk · contribs) and TheParasite (talk · contribs) are the same person [7] – ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the "badge and a gun", wouldn't that be real life? –MuZemike 08:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as an occasional but serious editor, still a newbie in many ways, I have to say that I do not have a problem with understanding and following the rules once they are pointed out to me (which sometimes had to happen repeatedly.) I find the experienced and active editors to be friendly and helpful without exception. I do get irritated with editors who persist, sometimes in very mischievous ways which stay within the "rules", to push their (obviously) biased PoV. I have to work hard at disciplining myself not to retaliate in kind, and I think I have mostly been successful. I love what Wikipedia is doing, and I am pleased and proud to have played a small part in it. pietopper (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the "particulars" in which why the complainant is here, I need to repeat that Wikipedia is not the place to post stuff that is completely unverifiable or otherwise madeup; see Wikipedia:Verifiability for details. This is an encyclopedia which relies on information that is verified by reliable, independent sources and that are neutral. If the complainant cannot understand those very basic things, then there is not much we can do to help. –MuZemike 08:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course Wikipedia isn't the place for unverifiable material, but we still shouldn't bite and bash a newbie over the head when they attempt to express their frustration with the general unfriendliness of the system. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Alicianpig - it's amazing that 'the free encyclopedia' can have such a vicious hierarchy which seems to take great pleasure from removing posts from new editors. How is Wikipedia supposed to encourage more people to start editing, when anyone who accidentally violates the smallest, most inane rule is slapped with an angry notice and sees their article/post deleted? I once referenced an online news story about an event which happened in July 2008. In the article, I accidentally wrote that it happened in 2007. Clearly a typo - but what does the editor at the top of the food chain do? Instead of correcting the obvious, one-character error, he/she decides to delete my article. This is exactly the sort of thing the 'important' people endorse - they assume they have some sort of power and decide to use it to make the whole experience difficult for new editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R013 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, there are differences between your case and Alicianpig's above – you were writing about stuff that were more viable, as opposed to something that was completely unverifiable or otherwise madeup. Second, it is not your article – once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and can be edited at will by others, within common sense and basic policies, of course. Moreover, I highly doubt an administrator deleted the article in question because of one minor typo. –MuZemike 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It seems a lot more like an encycleopaedia which only experienced, well connected people who know all the tricks to keep their articles on and delete other people's can edit."

    In some way this is true. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place where everybody can write whatever he or she wants to. In order for this to work, there have to be some rules, otherwise everybody would just make what he or she wanted to and no encyclopedia would be built.

    Also, I think that I am also still a relatively new editor (I started editing in mid 2010). And I have made some mistakes since then. At the beginning, I really had no idea, where to look for anything I wanted to know (rules or policies for example). My experience is, it requires some time to be able to become a "well working editor". You can't expect to simply jump in and know all the nos and goes of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes in good faith. I have also made a number of mistakes since I began editing here. I think you simply have to take Wikipedia a bit serious and you should always try to improve your knowledge of the working of Wikipedia. If you don't know how something works, don't just give up. If you really can't make sense of something yourself, you can always ask at WP:Help desk. Don't be afraid to ask question you think might sound silly, simply bring up what you have problems with, and try to behave as intended (eg try to avoid coming into the NOs part of Wikipea, such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). For example, Wikipedia is not a democracy. And if there is anything you need help with, you can always ask me on my talk page. I simply try to be a helpful part of this community and while there are editors who bite other people or might seem unfriendly, there are also a lot of welcoming people on Wikipedia. I hope I am one of them. Cheers. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of Wikipedians have problems with the hierarchy, bureaucracy and sometimes difficult to understand, or to access, rules that WP operates on. Sometimes this results in inequity or BITEyness and sometimes we all want to complain about it, but this thread does not contain any actionable proposal. Have a cup of tea and visit the help desk if you need help. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit was simultaneous with the closing) Us who have have been down in the rabbit hole in the Wikipedia alternate universe for some time should realize that newcomers sometimes may have a better perspective than we have. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only suggestion I have is mandatory retirement of VIP editors after so many years, maybe the memory of being a newbie will stay with them the second time around.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for some massive change

I was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who seemed to agree with me about the unfairness of the current wikipedia system with regards to the treatment of new editors. I think that if so many people disagree with the way more experienced editors aggressively treat newer ones, maybe it is time for this to be changed. Please leave your opinions about this below (Alicianpig (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Agree that change is needed

I'm not entirely sure this is relevant. However, deleting it would go entirely against what I'm trying to say. (even though your post was actually pointless, thanks for giving me an oppurtunity to make this point)(Alicianpig (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that change would be good. I have had similar problems with creating articles, so I just don't write new articles anymore. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerogarden and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamison_Parker. I think that some of us forget that this is a volunteer project and seem to have a bit of an attack-dog/guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality. There seems to be lots of inaccurate, uninformed accusation slinging, too. I don't think these things are productive. I don't have any particularly good suggestions, but here is some evidence in support of Alicianpig's comments. --Jp07 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that change is needed, but I think you should specify what you mean. Over the years, I have seen many problems, which have been spoken about by many others. In particular: (a) Wikipedia is really an insider's game, and without connections or a thorough understanding of Wikipedia procedure, new contributors get slammed. (b) Wikipedia is best at textbook-type topics, but it gets weak in many areas. (c) the public expects Wikipedia to have coverage of virtually everything, and yet deletionists are very quick to remove many topics which would be fine to remain as stubs. (d) Wikipedia is not user friendly. (e) Wikipedia does not have a good way to deal with COI. It's absurd that major organizations, public figures, companies, or individuals are virtually barred from having meaningful information about themselves. There should be very simple how-to type guidelines for ~100 different kinds of articles, with tips and suggestions on how to get started. Then, if a newbie messes up, there should be friendly (not bitchy) newbie-style guidelines to refer them to. Wxidea (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, wp:coi is well written and allows them to do this. But wp:coi is usually misquoted, especially by the bullies....they say that having such a relationship with a company IS a wp:coi, which is absolutely wrong, and absolutely not what the guideline says. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that we delete new contributor's articles way too quickly. The notability requirement is one problem. If they want to write an article of interest only to a few people, I don't see the problem. Disk space is cheap. And if it's poorly written or not long enough, does this matter, if few people will ever read it ? I'd say we should improve such articles and/or mentor the newcomers to do so, rather than just delete them. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree.  The deletion of articles is a sore spot, I continue to be puzzled as to why there is such a strong deletionist bias among the admins, the only explanation I have is that they have so many articles to delete all of the time that they become insensitive to the amount of work they are destroying.  One of the issues here is there is a difference between deleted articles with minor technical deficiencies that when deleted should be archived, and articles that really should be taken offline.  Radio Sandwell is a perfect example, it just needs one good source from a local newspaper, but now that it is hidden from the sight of regular users, only admins can really do anything about improving the article.  So at AfD we need to be differentiating between taking material out of mainspace and archiving it, and removing objectional material from mainspace.  Another example of an article that should be available in an archive is Kippax Uniting Church.  I think this would also help a lot of editors who put their work in here, knowing that they could still find their old work in an archive of deleted articles.

    Beyond that, the problem with deletion continues to be the creation of articles that need to be deleted.  I think we need to require sources before an article can be created, one for identifiability of the article name, and one for content.  Also, the creator needs to place a rationale for creation to start the talk page.  Another reasonable idea that was proposed was to require that a red link to the article exist before the article could be created. Yet another idea would be to start the article on the talk page, and it would require a second editor to actually create the article itself.  Maybe it would make sense to start all articles in the incubator.  Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles goes in the right direction.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with [User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]]'s comments that deletionist-prone editors and admins "have so many articles to delete all of the time that they become insensitive to the amount of work they are destroying." It's great that they weed out so much spam, but many newbies put a lot of work into trying to be encyclopedic, and rather then be helpful, I have seen too many examples of editors bullying new authors with wikipedia regulations, snotty attitude, or just plowing through an AfD. I am sure the deletionists mean well on some level, but it burns new contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. But even Unscintillating's comments are limited only to well-intentioned but rough "enforcers" are just a part of the problem. There are also bullies roaming WP, using wikilawyering instead of fists. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a mean place for new editors due to a combination of factors. Agree that a large amount of changes are needed with respect to this. That doesn't define what the changes are, but the strategic decision can come first. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in principle that change is needed. Wikipedia is currently at risk of coming to comprise an underclass of content creators effectively ruled by a supervisory class that uses mechanisms of content destruction to extract labor from the underclass on pain of having the fruits of their voluntary labors needlessly lost. There are counter-trends to the factors that create this risk, but it is in no way clear that they are presently on track to overcome it. This needs to change. How to change it is, as North8000 notes, another exercise. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that change is needed. In my first efforts, in 2007, I was bitten twice in the same Wikiproject. Now I'd know how to deal with these cases. More generally, instead of the current "welcome" message, which links to reams of policies and guidelines, newcomers need: simple explanations of the main policies, e.g. 2-3 sentences each; links to the relevant noticeboards for the occasional more complex cases; and advice and tools that can make newcomers productive quickly. At User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors I have a draft on these lines, and hope some editors will comment at User_talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that change is needed

"Change" is an attractive, but utterly meaningless term. Everyone can say "oh yes change is good" but what change? How can we avoid biting new editors and deleting their articles when a good number of those articles violate core Wikipedia tenets? Should we throw out notability requirements and let anyone post anything? Should we throw out Verifiability requirements, or allow only one self-published source to suffice for an article? Without doing both of those things the fact of the matter is a good chunk of new articles will be summarily deleted. I am all for changes but there are no CORE POLICY issues here. Except maybe us being less tolerant of incivility everywhere and much more liberal with indef. bans for incivility and personal attacks. now THAT is change I can support. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good start would be to adopt a policy of innocent- or good faith-until-proven-guilty. I do not write new articles anymore because I know that I will inevitably be accosted for something, and it really requires full-time defense of the article to prevent speedy deletion. As a volunteer who has other things going on in his life, I don't have time to sit at my computer for several days straight writing a magnum opus and defending an article that was meant to be a donation of my time. Excellent writing takes a great deal of time, and I think it's silly to expect such devotion from unpaid workers.
Perhaps establishing stronger checks and balances would be effective. It might be a good idea to require someone with established authority (I'm not familiar with the authority structure) to nominate articles for speedy deletion. When the average joe editor with a Napoleon complex attacks a newbie editor, that newbie is not going to contribute anymore, even though they could become a valuable asset to the project. I think speedy deletion nominations should come only from those with a demonstrated track record of civility. Other editors should have a separate space where they can submit concerns for senior editors to review and decide whether or not the topic of deletion should even be brought up. A separate locale will prevent hostilities between the concerned and those who are working on the article as the writers will not be notified of concerns that do not necessitate deletion.
In corporate life, hostile managers do not run effective workplaces. Managers must be assertive, but civil. Think of it that way. --Jp07 (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an article requires aggressive defense against a CSD deletion then it is most likely (but not certain, admins make mistakes like any other human being) that the article meets at least one criterion for speedy deletion. There's a reason that the criteria are very specific and all grounds for immediate deletion without any prior steps: namely that they are articles that have no chance of being salvaged or are actively damaging to our reputation (attack pages, nonsense, pure vandalism, ect). Speedy deletion is not the problem. The problem is the article. I think that the combination of speedy deletion, the AfD system and Deletion Review do form adequate checks and balances. The only way it could be improved is mandatory notification of article creators of speedy deletion. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it hard to reply to this because I'm not familiar with any of your acronyms, which -- pardon my frankness -- I think is another problem that we run into in engaging in conversations about change. Although we are all Wikipedia editors, some of us have a great deal of experience, whereas others of us do not. And I think you could edit Wikipedia throughout your lifetime and still not learn all of the jargon and acronyms. So, Thing #1: I think it is best to avoid jargon and to spell out acronyms.
Thing #2: I agree with you on this: attack pages, nonsense, vandalism, etc. should all be quickly removed from the wiki because these compromise credibility, and they also may have legal ramifications. I do not, however, believe that articles that do not conform to every facet of Wikipedia style and those that are stubs should be instant targets for persecution. Reference Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamison_Parker. Although this topic is notable and the article is still around today, other editors seemed more interested in deleting the article because they were not personally familiar with the band and because of coincidences that inspired elaborate theories on Wikipedia abuse. I think this is a pretty clear demonstration of what I'm talking about. If these editors had taken the time to investigate a little bit, they would have realized that the topic was, in fact, notable, and that I was a new editor. The article was not my best piece of writing, but it was not horrible, either, and my demonstrated mastery of the English language was perfectly fine (despite inappropriate comments to the contrary).
This is a relatively commonplace occurrence for editors who write new articles, particularly when those editors are new to Wikipedia. This will not lead to repeat customers.--Jp07 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear. For the record CSD means "Criteria for speedy deletion" and AfD means "Articles for Deletion" Deletion Review is often abbreviated DRV. I think the largest problem is the perception that Articles for deletion is seen as "OMG they're going to get rid of it, when in reality it is a discussion forum. To me an Articles for Deletion nomination means "hey guys, I think that this article might not meet notability/verifiability/other requirements, can I get some input? It's not a bad thing, certainly, and as many articles get saved from deletion as get deleted. Perhaps the best solution would be to follow Redirects for Discussion and call it "Articles for Discussion" not "deletion". HominidMachinae (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other

Right yeah 'change' - are you actually suggesting something? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about changing the rules so that it is not so easy to delete other people's articles and so the rules are less complicated (as this gives an advantage to experienced people who learn them). However, I'm interested to hear what other, possibly more experienced editors, have to say about this issue. Thanks for asking, I didn't make it very clear to start with. (Alicianpig (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm inclined to think that your experience at wikipedia might be better if you didn't upload obvious copyright violations (File:Vishling.jpg), didn't make personal attacks [8], and didn't write insulting things on people's own personal pages [9] and maybe didnt ask other people to come and sabotage wikipedia on an off-site website [10]. All of these things are real world rules - they're easy enough to stick to with a healthy dose of common sense. People might be more inclined to help you out if you stuck to the more obvious stuff like that - you can then try to get to grips with the more complicated ideas which are specific to wikipedia like WP:Notability (which is why your article got deleted) and WP:Verifiability. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing to do with the system or policy, just a need for consideration for inexperienced users.--Charles (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The OP appears to be unfamiliar with WP:BITE. --Jayron32 17:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to me or to Alicianpig? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not you. --Jayron32 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. so it's bad doing that stuff, but it's ok to do vicious, underhand stuff as long as it fits in with the ridiculous rules on this website. It's ok to repeatedly come up with different excuses to delete someones website. It's ok to call someone a sockpuppeteer and a troll. It's ok to accuse them of breaking copyright laws with a photo they NEVER ACTUALLY ENDED UP PUTTING IN THEIR ARTICLE. I think I'm starting to get the idea. If you're an experienced editor who knows the tricks of the trade, sure, it's fine to do bad stuff, go ahead, as long as you keep within your own stupid rules. But a new editor doing what's necessary to fight his own against repeated harassment and aggression? Who could think such a ridiculous thing?.(Alicianpig (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Are you, Alicianpig, asking for help or are you just here to express anger because you didn't get your way? --Jayron32 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both, and more. Not just on a personal level, I do think that there needs to be a certain amount of help and protection for newcomers. However, I am also expressing a certain amount of anger about how I have been treated by certain editors so far, both with regards to my Whinge Wars article, and also to my suggestions of change. Thanks for asking. (Alicianpig (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The main reason for your concern seems to be the deletion of your article Whinge wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whinge wars. I see there is also an attempt to recruit people to keep the article at http://whingewars.weebly.com/news-and-updates.html. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. In [11] (admin only diff of deleted page) you wrote:
"This is not a made up game
Due to the current small scale of this game, there is no information available other than the source website. However, this does not necessarily mean it is made up, just that it has little online presence. As it is not a commercially available or predominantly online game, the internet does not have much information about it. This is why it is necessary for the information to be published on wikipedia, so the information is accessible online somewhere other than the actual website. It is a mistake to say that there is no online information about it, because this article IS the online information. If wikipedia only contains information which is available elsewhere, there is very little point in it existing"
Regardless of how new editors are treated, the above is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. The article would also have been deleted if it had been written by an experienced editor knowing all the rules. Nobody would be able to satisfy Wikipedia's source requirements if the only source in existence is the subjects own website. Wikipedia is exactly for containing information which is available elsewhere in reliable sources, but collected here in a free encyclopedic format. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. You will not get this fundamental principle changed. And there are millions of selfpublished websites. Wikipedia is not the place to duplicate the Internet or advertise almost unknown subjects which "need" a Wikipedia presence to become better known. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PrimeHunter here. I thought several other editors made this clear several threads above. Wikipedia is not intended as a substitute for the rest of the Internet, but rather it is a complement. This all concerns an article you created that was doing to be deleted regardless of how lax we would have been with the guidelines we have. Once again, it is (or was) not your article; once you hit that "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and can be edited at will, within common sense and the basic rules we have. That is one of the most basic aspects of a wiki-editing environment (its communal nature), and editors who cannot understand that will likely not get along well here.

As far as the perceived harassment is concerned, we have several people who are trying to help you and trying to guide you in the correct direction, but, from what I have seen so far, you have not tried to follow our guidance. If you feel you have a problem with being harassed, then I suggest that you step back a bit and try to put things in perspective.

That being said, when I started here some 3 years ago, to me, it seemed like common sense that we try and build up articles whose content is verifiable, and that not everything under the sun is going to be included; otherwise, Wikipedia ceases to be what its primary purpose is – which is an encyclopedia. –MuZemike 21:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to say. If the old rules are wrong, however 'fundamental' they may be, surely they need changing. Nothing is really ever going to be changed if no one is willing to do anything more than modify the most minute rules. (Alicianpig (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I tend to agree with all of this (and the reason that it's being brought up, because the user "lost" at AFD, certainly doesn't help), except... NPP'ers and vandal patrollers still seem to get overzealous or burnt out from time to time. More importantly, I think that many of us who have been around for a while have become somewhat "ossified" in our thinking, which is exemplified by your closing comment MuZemike. I find the whole "Wikipedia is too big!" thinking to be unproductive, and I suspect that it's more of a reflection of some user's need for control rather then anything that is really related to the encyclopedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself wondering why it is people seem to have already forgotten about the results from Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion (related Signpost article)? --Tothwolf (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can (seem to?) be an extremely bitey place, even for an intelligent person. My first 'comeback' edits disappeared insanely quickly, because I was unfamiliar with the rules (obviously! How many people, in all seriousness, are going to read the whole rule book before making a one-sentence or two-sentence edit?) If I had not been me, I might have just never come back, instead of trying to find out what happened and where I went wrong. And we really do need to remember that some newbies can be real youngsters, and what seems mightily important to them may be complete crap to the rest of us - but it doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to turn into really useful members of the community, given the right nurturing. Imagine if the newbie you'd just given a severe bite to turned out to be a very bright 10 year old kid with a load of potential, who spent the next week crying themselves to sleep every night. Hmmmm. I'll bet Einstein himself could have looked pretty trollish as a kid. We really mustn't assume that all our newbies are adults, and likely to respond and react and interact in an adult manner. And DO remember - we have some exceptional young-teen editors on-site; they have to start somewhere! Yes, some people are just trolls. But some really do just need a bit more guidance than others, and could turn out good - instead of just walking away whimpering, or biting back.
Always remember, in your interactions with someone who just doesn't seem to 'get it', that this could be a kid you're talking to. They're not going to 'get it' like a 17+-year-old will! And they may not even know what some of the words and phrases you're using even mean! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't get what is so "ossifying" about requiring that content be verified by stuff that is reliable rather than from some "Joe Schmoe forumite" or "I heard it somewhere" source. Moreover, I'm not suggesting that "Wikipedia is too big", as we're already at over 3.5 million articles and increasing daily – including topics from Abraham Lincoln to Toilet paper orientation. However, there is a threshold for what we include and don't include, and that one most basic policy is one of our gauges of that. –MuZemike 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: why don't we try and make sure that our rules and guidelines are written in a vocabulary that our younger editors can actually understand without having to have a dictionary on-hand while they read them? Young !=stupid. But it can very reasonably = reduced vocabulary. So, with rules and guidelines, the first one to follow is WP:KISS. This might not only solve quite a few problems, but actually encourage and retain the next generation of Wikipedians. If we can't make our rules easy to understand, then the fault lies with us, not with them. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that we WANT or NEED "young" editors? If you dont have the vocabulary to comprehend our !rules to the point that you can make a contribution (it need not be perfect, just not vandalism or incomprehensible, we are a work in progress and someone will come along and refine your grammar or fix your infobox formatting, etc). Yes young!=stupid, but it can equal immature. Just as you we make you wait until you are 18 to vote because you need some knowledge of the greater world before voting, regardless of IQ or educational attainment. You can graduate college at 14, but you still can not smoke, drink, drive, vote, or serve in our military. Intelligence does not mean you have the social skills and ability to contribute, we should not make it EASIER and dumb down our Wikipedia policies for younger people. We are not desperate for newbies. Simple English exists.Camelbinky (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Massive change? Sure. Anomie⚔ 03:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real proposal - project

Re-wording templates, rules, all-sorts.

Suggest adding a "The Simplest Explanation" sentence to the top of each rule page.

Example:

  • NPOV = "Don't take sides. Anyone reading what you've written shouldn't be able to guess which side you're on."
    • (I boldly did that one)

Simple stuff. Who do we have who's creative enough and interested enough to make this work? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a very good idea. (Alicianpig (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ahhh, good! I've done two 'simple explanation' things - can you go check them out, please? They're at WP:NPOV and WP:V. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems to me to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If people are unable to read the guidelines as they are written, they are not going to be able to contribute writing of the quality required for an encyclopedia. The "nutshell" versions are concise and clear, and I don't see a need for two one-sentence summaries of the policies. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things people can do that don't involve writing high-quality prose, but still require understanding the policies. For example, Alicianpig does not appear to have understood that merely uploading a copyrighted picture to Wikipedia is itself a serious copyright violation, even if s/he never linked the picture into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who fall foul of the rules, either because they don't even know what they are, that the rules exist, etc., are our target-audience for the policy pages. In order to be able to understand what the policies actually mean, so that we can make sure they don't continue to fall foul of them, there has to be a dead-simple explanation which that target audience can understand. As we're for the main part likely to be talking about newbies, and often young newbies, it's therefore our responsibility to make sure that there's a jargon-free, readily-understandable 'simple concept' thing right near the top of the page. There's almost always a way of describing a concept so that a 12-year-old can at least understand what we mean by what we're saying; and if we write the entire page in language which is hard for them to understand, from start to finish, then we can hardly blame them for our failure to make it clear to them. It may be one's view that 12-year-olds shouldn't be trying to edit Wikipedia in the first place, or that 12-year-olds should come to us ready-equipped with an internal WikiJargon dictionary - but that's not what happens in real life. The target audience for policy pages is going to be precisely those people who don't yet know the rules or understand the jargon. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have a very good point. There was a previous small scale study on the readability of user warnings which was covered in the May 16, 2011 Signpost. It might not be a bad idea at all to see a larger study done for all of our guidelines and policies. I seem to remember there also being a bot-generated list of the most frequently cited policies and guidelines but I can't find it now. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tothwolf, as and when you can find it, could you please let me have a list of those? If we can improve the understandability of the first thing people see in all the guidelines they get pointed to, that would be a great start :o) Anything we can do which makes the basic concepts really easy to grab will reduce the necessity for subsequent re-explanations, and ultimately potentially save everyone a lot of time and heartache. This is the idea. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've spent hours looking for it and I cannot find it now. I even checked under Wikipedia:Database reports and it isn't there either. In order to generate a new report for the various guidelines and policies the bot or process will also need to resolve any incoming redirects (mainly shortcut links) for each of the guideline and policy pages too. It would probably be best generated by someone using the toolserver. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template, please?

Can someone do this? I feel that the 'simplest explanation' thing should be in a box right under 'this page in a nutshell'. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we're going to have a "In a nutshell" box with a once-sentence summary of the policy, and then below that there will be another box with a one-sentence summary of the policy for people who lack reading comprehension? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the point, quite. We need to make sure that whatever summary we have can be understood by pretty much anyone capable of clicking on the link to the page they've been directed to. I'm really hoping that we can get this done - even if people don't yet have the ability to understand the in-depth explanations - or even the 'in a nutshell' explanation (because some of those aren't 'simple'!) they really have to be able to understand the purpose of the rule at an elementary level. We can't just throw people in at the deep end of vocabulary, particularly if they're new - and those are exactly the type of people who'll be being directed to those pages. Anything we can do to recude biteyness has to be a good thing, on the whole. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does your suggested one-sentence summary do that is different from the one-sentence summary in the "Nutshell" box? Can you give me an example of a "Nutshell" box that uses difficult language? Can you explain why you feel that it wouldn't be better to just rewrite the "Nutshell" box to use simpler language? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting the 'nutshell' box is certainly an alternative way to go about this. My suggestion - of really dead-simple wording - will get the idea across to absolutely everybody, including the 12-year-old who wants to put something in about thier favourite place / game / whatever. If they can't understand what we mean, and make mistakes because of that, then that's our fault, not theirs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia about 12-year-olds' favorite comic book characters. We don't need to cater to people who can't read. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" isn't that easy for a youngster to 'get'. "don't take sides!" they understand from very early on! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think I understand what you're trying to say. You're not concerned about the vocabulary, really. You're actually concerned with people not understanding the purpose of the policies. Is this correct? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that at least the basics of each rule, the why and the how, must be able to be understood by the person we've just directed to the page, whoever they are. It seems unfair to expect people to abide by rules which we can't make really clear for them, and all of us should be able to word things in a way in which people don't have to be totally fluent in the jargon to understand. I hope this is clear :o) So, a summary which a 12-year-old can understand will help them not to fall foul of the rule. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed "Innocent until proven guilty" from wp:Assume good faith because that is not what AGF means. This a serious danger when you try to explain policies in 6 year old language. Take for example your "don't pick sides", that is not what the actual policy says. For example we write the moon landing happened and only provide a small section about the people who say it didn't. If we didn't pick sides we would have to treat them as equal, but as the undue weight section explains we don't do that. "don't pick sides" completely ignores that section of the policy and would therefore actually cause new editors to misunderstand the policy. Yoenit (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of 12 years olds won't understand most of the concepts anyway, not matter how simplistically you break down the content. I understand where you are coming from, Pesky, but I think it is a mistake to equate a lack of clarity (or failure to understand) the policies with the choice of language. Talking simplistically doesn't often have the effect that is expected. The policy pages are primarily there to record, in detail, the established policy of Wikipedia. Making them understandable is probably best done as a separate "project" - perhaps a collection of pages expressing the policies in various simple and effective ways that can be used to link new users lacking comprehension.
Although, at the end of the day, no matter how simple or clear you make something there are still many people for whom it will not "click"--Errant (chat!) 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to get all the small details into a 'The simplest explanation sentence. You just have to get the general point across. for example 'don't take sides' doesn't give you an exact, detailed explanation of NPOV, but it gets the general sentiment across. (Alicianpig (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is that it doesn't really. Such an explanation is useful advice for an editor, of course, but isn't really the NPOV policy --Errant (chat!) 12:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Mesoderm already pointed out, that's what we have {{nutshell}} for. I think most of them are written pretty reasonably, but if there is room for improvement, then changes are welcome, though care should be taken per Yoenit's points above. It is understood that there is often initial confusion, and that's what we have WP:BITE for. Otherwise, if someone really doesn't have enough competency in the English language to grasp the meaning of the policies (whether it is because they are 10 years old or speak English non-natively, or have a learning disability or etc.), then maybe the Simple English Wikipedia is the place for them. —Akrabbimtalk 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that gets even the beginning of the idea across has to be better than something which people shy away from. Sometimes you have to do a minor 'not-quite-accurate' version of something, just to give people a foothold on the thing. See Lying_to_children; that explains it pretty well.
I should probably point out here that I'm actually a trained & qualified instructor myself, and have been since (eeek!) 1977! I've taught all ages, and obviously don't teach beginners and advanced students the same way. Beginners progress to more advanced knowledge, and more advanced explanations, as they go along. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't the nutshells on each policy page for the purposes of what these summaries are? And we have WP:5P which is a great summary of most existing policies and covers the "problem" (if there is one) that is attempted to be solved here. I see no problem. I see a terrible solution creating problems. For clarification I think some here dont seem to understand that our policies are not prescriptive of future action, they are descriptive of our past consensus and actions. Policies are written codifications of how we have decided in the past on how things should be done, they are not laws we must conform to and frequently are overruled in individual cases. They are guides that show "this is how we made decisions before, use this to guide you in future similar issues/problems/cases". WP:IAR. Too many here seem to think to be a good editor you have to know the policies. All you need to know is "do no harm". Mistakes will be made. Someone will download a copyright picture. OMG! The world wont end. It will be deleted. If the editor learns his mistake he/she can go on and be a great contributor. If not- oh well, banned or blocked or loses interest. There is no problem here. Please stop making policies more bureaucratic and cluttered over a non-issue.Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Nutshells are too complicated, re-write the "in a nutshell" section. but we are a grown-up encyclopedia not one for kids. That means we get into areas and issues that require complex policy to deal with. Some policies are easy to break down to a very simple sentence (WP:V "do not say anything you cannot prove" WP:RS "only use sources that you can trust to tell the truth") others are definitely not. The above example of WP:NPOV for instance is a great example. "don't take sides" isn't accurate, as has been pointed out. The simplest any explanation could be would be something like "keep the same ratio in our articles as the sources do. If a viewpoint is the majority, say so. If it is a significant minority, add it but keep the section small. If a viewpoint is a small minority, it is best left out unless the article is about that viewpoint specifically" HominidMachinae (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not trying to make any policy "more bureaucratic", and I'm not suggesting that we become a kids' encyclopedia. All I'm suggesting is that the first thing that a newbie sees, when they are directed to a policy page, is something that is universally understandable. It's not only 'kids' who can have problems with in-depth, complicated ideas expressed in vocabulary which is sometimes (often?) more complex than it needs to be. The NPOV suggestions was not just "don't take sides"; it's "Don't take sides, explain the sides, fairly". Of course that's not a stand-alone thing - but it gives everyone a foothold on the ladder. Someone - I forget who - once said "The mark of a good teacher is that they can explain the lesson to everyone." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-aggressive usernames

Tangent topic to: #The whole system is unfair and biased. -Wikid77 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no offense or bad faith assumed for any of the editors mentioned but I have to make this observation. Whinge wars was proposed and then nominated for deletion by an editor with the username "Steamroller Assault". I can't help but wonder what newbies think when they are warned/blocked by an admin named "Smashville" or even reverted by a bot called "Smackbot". I'll state again that I have no problem with any of these policy compliant usernames but I can see how some newbies might feel that they have been "steamrolled" "smashed" and "smacked". This was actually an issue in Snotty Wong's RFA. (another 100% policy compliant username). My advise to anybody with a username that suggests aggression is to take their usernames into consideration if they do anything, such as NPP/RC patrol, AFD nomming etc. which brings them into close contact with newbies. IMHO you have to be just a little more civil then the rest of us. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar could be said of many of the edit summaries used too. Even the default Twinkle summaries can sometimes look a little "bitey". --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But then what about someone like me, whose username contains more than enough letters to spell the word 'rage'? Or someone whose username contains the word 'wolf'? I think that going too far down this line would get a little silly... ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i am only a gurch i don't mean to hurt anyone Gurch (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think 'animally' names are OK. But then I like animals :o) And I'm a WikiWolfcub. A good point about trying to ensure that people don't appear to be approaching potentially bitey areas with a name which suggests that they take pleasure in inflicting pain or oppression ... maybe those with 'bitey' names need to take care to be even more un-bitey in their style? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there, Ron Ritzman et al. I invite you to look at my edit history, which has spanned about three and a half years here. My sincere hope is that new users look at my often personalized advice or reasoning before leaping to my signature. For the record, I briefly engaged Alicianpig (a username for whom I hope no kosher Wikipedians are offended) on the (now deleted) talk page of Whinge wars. I am interested that he/she is now looking into Wikipedia policy, but it seems that interest has only been piqued now that the article promoting the game he/she invented has been deleted. Much good-faith advice was given on that talk page, but I believe it was deliberately ignored because the advice did not fit with that particular user's intent, which was to promote and legitimatize his/her invention. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes good outcomes spring from unlikely sources. Anything that piques someone's interest in getting into the policy stuff has to be good - my 'comeback' started just the same way, but at a slightly different level (verifiability vs. truth, WP:NOR stuff). And if the result of it all is that we can do anything which makes policy clearer, that's a major net gain, and reduces the need for experienced editors to spend time on personalised explanations :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. However, I was of course only responding to statements of general advice that specifically used me in an ill-informed manner. To respond to the issue of "simplest explanation", my feeling is that in whatever form or placement it takes on the policy page, it is unlikely to be read by your target audience. Direct contact with the editor who can't, won't or hasn't yet read that page is still the best option. Remember: this entire proposal began not with an editor who couldn't comprehend the "in a nutshell" template; it began with an editor who was unwilling to accept, after many instances of simple personalized guidance, that Wikipedia is simply not the place for him/her to promote a made-up game. In a nutshell: I feel a solution is being proposed here for which no problem previously existed. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All games are made up. (Alicianpig (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

True, but the reason that Steamroller mentions it here is that we have a guideline wp:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which is almost always shortened to wp:MADEUP. A wikilink would have been nice, but if you just ignore the word it does not change his argument. Yoenit (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on ....

More about: #The whole system is unfair and biased. -Wikid77 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've moved on from that now. Let's not step backwards. Put down the swords and pick up the ploughshares, guys :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody plese explain to me what we solved in this entire discussion?--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a conflict of interest with me, the system is unfair sometimes and it can be bias. And from what I see, absolutly nothing has been solved. I hate to drag on something that someone out of nowhere said to be moved on, but this is something that really needs fixing, especially for newbies.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that was brought up where something was wrong or some sort of improvement was desirable. Dmcq (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the title of the disscussion.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. I could state Obama likes green cheese just as easily. It hasn't been backed up. Somebody wrote stuff about a non-notable topic and it was removed then they started complaining and insulting people despite the help they were given. If they had read WP:5P they would have known better. They don't need to read any of the policies. It says it all there. This is an encyclopaedia. Articles need to have some notability. What you write should be backed up by reliable sources and you shouldn't soapbox. Don't break the law about copyrights. You need to try and be civil to other editors and work with them. Just try and improve the encyclopaedia. Follow those and one won't have much bother doing things. Have I missed anything? Dmcq (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not about the user that posted it but about the post itself. As I said before the system can be a bit unfair and bias sometimes so we need improvment on this, and from what I can see, absolutly nothing has been improved from this disscussion.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing has been improved from this discussion" because there was no real problem described that needed improving. The original poster felt that the system was unfair and biased because subjects on Wikipedia need to be notable, verifiable and backed by reliable sources; and that user felt Wikipedia should abandon those tenets and be a repository for everything regardless of significance. If you (GoldenGlory84) could describe some way that the system is unfair and how it could be improved--instead of just stating that it is so--then perhaps there could be some meaningful discussion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We did achieve something - an amendment to the nutshell box on WP:V. I'm hoping to get some similar minor improvements on understandability on some others, too; so not a total loss. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere close to what the OP had in mind, but agreed that simple, accurate language is an improvement. Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Steamroller Assault) The newbies is one example. If they post an article it's immediatly deleted, and if a user does not know the policy and he/she commits a bad edit, he/she is warned and eventully blocked. There needs to be a different and better way to deal with clueless newbies. As for being bias, the more experianced editors are ussaly put into consideration more and consulted more than the newbies, this esspecialy apllies with administators. No editor is over another editor regardless of what extra "buttons" thay have. And to call my statement unmeaningfull is another example of slight unfairness, anybody's statement should be put into consideration even if it is meaningless. This can also go with the IP users as well. Now if this statement is still considered unmeaningfull, then you need not reply at all.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is nominated for deletion, be it speedy, proposed deletion or deletion discussion, it's standard to notify the original poster as to why it was nominated. There are procedures set in place to contest all three tiers of deletion, as well as deletion review; which are described in those notifications. Except for the most egregious edits, editors are given multiple warnings before being blocked, all of which include advice on how editors should modify their behavior and/or discuss the problem at hand. Do you have a suggestion on how that system could be improved for new editors? I'm not sure what extra consideration more experienced editors are given if they create articles that qualify for speedy deletion or engage in behavior that eventually gets them blocked. As for "anybody's statement should be put into consideration even if it is meaningless", meaningless statements carry zero weight, so I'm not sure why they warrant consideration. Your statement was not meaningless, but it did need some clarification. Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion on how that system could improve for new editors?

Possibly by teaching them better at the rules of wikipedia and creating an article. Just like TheParasite said earliar, For a newbie, it's bassicly like giving them a badge and a gun and sending them out in a perfect world of written laws. When I was a newbie(and I still considerably am) It was like that.

meningless statements carry zero weight

Not unless there completly meaningless, such as "this proposal is stupid".--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no statement is totally 'meaningless' unless it's complete gibberish. Mighty oaks from little acorns grow, and all that. Anything we can do, collectively, to make the rules and policies more easy to understand without reams and reams of reading has always got to be helpful; so any ideas on how to make these things more like 'plain every-day English' will always be worth looking at. Wikipedia can feel ike an incredibly bitey place for newcomers - simply having a well-meant edit immediately reverted can feel like a real slap in the face. It happened to me on my comeback, after nearly five years away, and I felt quite squashed. It took me a while to 'get' the truth vs. verifiability thing, and the 'no original research' thing (but I think I have got it now!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested before, we could make the over all definition of the rules more simpler to understand.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you here! I shall continue to work on it - and take heart, others are working towards the same goal. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of this sounds like a good idea. However, I think that the actual rules need to be simpler, not just the way they are written. (Alicianpig (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

New essay: WP:BOMB

I have written a new essay related to the recent RfC and arbitration request on campaign for "santorum" neologism:

Editors are cordially invited to review or improve the essay, leave comments on its talk page, etc. Cheers, --JN466 15:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider moving this "essay" out of the project space? At a quick skim it reads like a soapbox oratory about the controversy and the related issues around it. It reads like a semi veiled attack on Crit and an attempt to lay precedent tracks. Minimize the origination issue, generalize the comments (not only about online campaigns, specific examples from the issue, etc.) then I could see it being a valid guidance document. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to imagine how anyone who wasn't active in the dispute would connect this essay with Cirt or any other user. I therefore think it unreasonable to interpret it as an attack on anyone.
The two primary reasons that we userify essays is that the editor doesn't want anyone else to make changes to it, and that the essay directly contradicts the community's view. I think that the general theme (i.e., don't abuse Wikipedia for your outside political campaigns) is widely supported by the community, and JN doesn't seem to mind others improving it. Therefore it is not appropriate to userify the essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who looked at the history would be able to tell exactly who is at issue, connecting it to Crit requires about 10 seconds of work. I agree this doesn't belong in project space as written--it looks to be a thinly veiled personal attack. I assume it wasn't intended as such, but intent doesn't really matter here. As such, I'm not real thrilled with it in userspace either. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'd be fine with just describing the effect and issue. Even with a simple note where the term was first coined. But the fairly long list of the "bad things" done by one user is what makes it seem like an attack. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the essay would be fine if it were genericized to remove all references to specific examples, that is remove all of the "santorum" stuff from it, and just leave it generic. --Jayron32 20:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the essay was in project space, I decided to be bold and cut out a bunch of details. Most obviously, the author has little awareness of how pagerank is actually computed - internal links in a domain are not taken into account (or are only a small factor). Thus the complaints about creating inbound links with templates and DYK nominations are not only speculative, but actually wrong, and in my opinion impugn the assumption of good faith we should have towards the editors who worked on the variety of articles related to Santorum (who was after all a prospective presidential candidate), and the generally useful templates that were spun out of that article. A page should be judged on its own merits, not the supposed motivations of its original author. Dcoetzee 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's unwise to base essays like this on single events. This one in particular seems too focused on the details of what happened in the one case rather than the general issue.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me suspiciously like an example of what it is talking about. At the very least references to the specific example should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This point (using single events to make decisions about how the community governs itself) is part of what I was talking about on WP:VPM yesterday before Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) started haranguing me about it, for whatever reason. Bad things happen occasionally (vandalism, hoaxes, advocacy, whatever...), and we should deal with that when it does occur. If there is something that we can do to enable volunteers to better combat the occurrence of those bad things (like the NPP, for example) then that's a good thing. However, trying to prevent those kinds of bad things is usually worse then the problem. In this instance, for example, it appears that the intent of the essay was to somehow prevent people from linking to the type of article represented by the santorum article (see the original Guidance section). Understandable, but misplaced, and that advice tends to contradict other widely accepted guidance (Wikipedia:Linking). My point is: let's not allow ourselves to become overzealous trying to prevent problems.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's has been discussed a few times, but never implemented, is to add nofollow to nav template links. That would take navigation templates out of the page rank equation altogether. Lots of people are saying that our internal dofollow links push our page ranks up. That's legitimate, but arguably less so with nav templates adding a couple of hundred extra links in one fell swoop. --JN466 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is... that's all external to the site. Look, I'm not making light of your concern with page ranks and how SEO issues relate to our internal practices, but... I mean, that's not something that is really in our control, and I'm not sure that we should try to throw monkey wrenches into the way that Google (or Bing, Yahoo, etc...) operate based on our necessarily imperfect view of the way that they operate. If there's a problem with our content, then our content should be talked about and changed to address those concerns. Trying to keep people from seeing it doesn't seem particularly constructive, to me. Besides, all of the stuff about what affects page rankings in Google or any other search engine are just guesses... they're well informed guesses, but they're still guesses. More seriously, the manner in which Google and other search engines operates can change at any time, without notice. Relying on "nofollow" or similar mechanisms for issues such as this risks the possibility of Google and other search engines choosing to ignore all of our robots guidance, which is trivial for them to do. If that happens, what would we do then?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. On the other hand, once people generally wisen up to the fact that they can make their articles rise up the Google ranks by throwing in a couple of fat navigation templates, everyone will want to have some on their article, whether useful to the reader or not. You may argue that promoting our page rank promotes the project -- in which case let's all create nav templates for our favourite topics! -- but I'm doubtful whether that's best for a harmonious editing environment. Someone will create navigation templates for Republican scandals and Liberal columnists, another one for Democrat scandals and Conservative columnists, and so forth; you get my drift. Making nav templates nofollow would remove the incentive, and the potential for strife, and level the playing field. Articles would earn their page rank with their content, rather than nav templates. --JN466 00:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, keep in mind that there are good reasons to add navboxes to articles which are completely unrelated to any potential SEO effects (which, I still feel that the potential effects of our internal links on page ranking are speculative). See: Wikipedia:A navbox on every page, for example. Not everything occurring on Wikipedia is going to be related to partisan politics, even on partisan political pages. Some of us are actually concerned with improving the quality of our coverage. :)
    Taking your arguments on directly though (we obviously see this through slightly different paradigms, which is fine): should a "harmonious editing environment" trump potentially helpful content creation? If content can only come about though conflict... I mean, that kinda sucks (I'm awfully averse to conflict, personally), but in the end so what? After all of the arguing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, we do typically end up with good content. There may be some bent feelings as well, but over the long term... i mean, content is king, in my view.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been googling about for a bit and everything I find says that internal links do matter, a lot. See [13][14] for example. Frankly, I need to think about this for a while, because I'd never really given it a lot of thought. Cheers, --JN466 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to get the "last word" in here, or anything like that, but... if I concede the point that internal links matter (even if they matter significantly), my main point is much wider then that, you know? I'm trying not to be dismissive of your concern, not only because I don't want to dismiss anyone's concern, but also because I think that it's something that we can legitimately take into consideration in certain circumstances. My main issue is using that single concern to make content decisions on is not something that is good for the encyclopedia in the long term.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I need to think about it. I came to the topic through the santorum thing, but that's obviously only one aspect of the issue, alongside many others. --JN466 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I agree that this essay would be better off without such pointed reference to Cirt, such as the list of his actions and link to the (declined) arbitration case filed against him. This appears to not just assume bad faith on his part, but also codify it into policy in a way that I'm not comfortable with until his actions are more thoroughly investigated and evaluated by the community. I'd also suggest that the guidance section be expanded/rewritten to give an editor guidance in how to write about a Googlebomb and expand its coverage fairly, rather than a warning that to expand coverage of a Googlebomb topic will be seen prima facie as bad faith. (Probably not how this section was intended, but it's how it's coming across to me at the moment.) I do think this is a topic worth talking about in policy terms, though, so thanks for tackling it. Khazar (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's appreciated. As originally written, I actually tried to just describe the actions that caused concern this time round in the essay -- because these are the sorts of actions that would likely cause similar concerns in the future, if another editor were to engage them -- and to do so without imputing intent, because intent is a matter of perception. I may have my perception, which may differ fundamentally from that of the next person, and both my and others' perception may change in the light of new evidence. So, as an essay, the text should not interpret actions that have actually occurred one way or another. But it is legitimate to address how things might be perceived, both within the community, and by our readership and critics outside the community, and to get editors to think about that. I think we all agree that we neither want to be cheered by supporters of a campaign we cover, nor castigated by those opposing it. I'm happy for others to take the lead in developing the essay further; please remove what you think is too specific, and translate the scenario that occurred into more appropriate and generic language. --JN466 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I've rewritten the essay in line with comments above: [15]. Further input welcome. Cheers, --JN466 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, the real question I think we should get at is: is there any upper limit to the number of links in a navbox? As said in WP:A navbox on every page, navboxes can go up to hundreds of links - which is to say, hundreds of inbound links to each article on the list. To facilitate that, navboxes have an exemption from the prohibition on content hiding which applies to nearly every other type of content, including potentially offensive images. Maybe we should have a fixed maximum size above which you should make a category rather than a template, and stop using show/hide to shoehorn unreasonably large numbers of them into articles. I've mentioned this idea just now on the essay talk page. Wnt (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I've nominated the essay for deletion.Hobit (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing‎, for the record. Prioryman (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD resulted in no consensus to delete on 1 July 2011, from the 7-day debate, after the essay was rewritten with more NPOV-neutral balanced views. WP:BOMB follows more generalized advice to avoid WP:UNDUE details in navboxes, or extra spinoff articles, in article sets where details would exceed the notability as covered in major WP:RS sources. -Wikid77 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let Google do Google's job

It's markedly not our job to fix Google's ranking of pages and topics. Googles algorithm is proprietary and very confidential. Nearly everything circulating about it is highly speculative and likely wrong. We should not try to second-guess them and to orient our policy to do what we think would change their results to what we think they should be. It's in Google's interest to provide their users with the best results. Unlike us, they have the know-how to achieve this. Let them do their job (being a useful search engine), and let us do our job (building a great encyclopedia). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the general policy concept to "avoid undue spinoff articles" can be discussed without talk of Google's proprietary page-ranking algorithms: if a spinoff page does not exist, it cannot be ranked; hence no talk of how it gets ranked. However, it should be noted that a heading, "==Actress WXYZ67 is a burnout failure==" might appear as a quoted subpage link in newer search-engine results; hence, regardless of page-rank, a WP ==header== can appear as a prominent search-result. People should be aware of that, so that any policy decisions can be made about headers, if needed. -Wikid77 23:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only repeat my main point. It's not our job to speculate how and why our content will be presented by outside publishers and search engines. That should not influence our policy in any significant way. Our job is to build the best possible encyclopedia. We provide knowledge. We don't hide it away because it offends some parties, or might topple regimes, or improve or hurt someone's business, or will (or will not) be presented by a search engine or a social network site or a re-publisher, in a certain way. All the world's knowledge, for everybody, free. That's the mission. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should users be allowed to remove current block notices?

WP:BLANKING has seen a change recently to include active block notices on the list of items that can't be removed by users from their talk pages. (Recently as in a couple months ago, but without recent discussion.)
For reference, there is now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Change to WP:BLANKING, but I'd like the discussion to take place here on the Village Pump so that it receives input from a wider audience.
Thanks ahead of time for any input you have on the subject. --Onorem♠Dil 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • My own opinion hasn't changed since last June..."I also don't think current block notices need to be shown. The block notice is there for the benefit of the person being blocked. If they've seen it and want to remove it, I see no reason to revert them. Unblock requests, ban notices, sockpuppet tags...those are there for the benefit of the people who may be dealing with an ongoing issue." --Onorem♠Dil 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal (My rationale is the same at WT:UP#Change to WP:BLANKING) Why must we force a user to keep a scarlet letter on their talk page when this notice in regards to a user's block automatically appears at the top of the talk page to inform other editors when it is being edited? Declined unblock requests are necessary while a user is blocked, but a notice for the user letting them know they have been blocked should not be forced onto the talk page when a user has read it (hence the blanking). These notices are only posted for the blocked user's notification, not other editors who happen upon the talk page. The last time I checked, block notices don't say "Hey all editors who come to this user's talk page: he or she has been blocked! FYI." It tells how long an editor has been blocked and why so that they can appropriately appeal by posting an unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't allow removal of block notices. If users wish to not have block notices on their talk page, they need to not behave in manners which get themselves blocked. --Jayron32 23:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the purpose of the notice in this situation? I wish people would not behave in manners that get them blocked. That would be great. What exactly is the benefit of forcing the notice? It's a good thing that nobody ever gets blocked for good faith reasons...or doesn't take the time to reflect on their edits until after they are blocked. Those scarlet letters will surely fix everything. --Onorem♠Dil 03:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't allow removal of block notices, Per Jayron. Also this was decided a few months ago, and if I remeber correctly, it leaned heavily towards disallowing removal. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since most of the block notices don't say "This must remain until the block has expired", it is kind of open for people to think they can remove it, since we typically let people modify their Talk page however they wish. Maybe it would be useful to modify the Templates. -- Avanu (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't allow removal - allows users to game the system. Also, this is helpful if a user is trying to get a hold of a blocked user and doesn't realize they're blocked. --Rschen7754 00:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when you edit the talk page of a blocked user, you get a message "This user is currently blocked", so you will necessarily realize that they're blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not allow removal by user but there can be a note in the request unblock info that the blocked user can ask for the notice to be removed, and if an established editor thought that it was desirable, that third party could remove the notice. There would be no need for any bureaucracy (i.e. do not require a discussion with the blocking admin), but someone other than the blocked user should think that removal would help the encyclopedia. If it is a short block, the time will soon elapse and removal would be pointless fiddling. If it is a long block, there is a reasonable likelihood that someone will visit the talk page (without necessarily wanting to leave a message), and it is helpful for the situation to be apparent. The recent change to WP:BLANKING simply clarifies what the old wording implied (obviously an active block is a sanction). Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, you know, we can just allow removal of block notices since nothing is gained from forcing a user to keep it on their talk page. Is it that big of a deal that an uninvolved user would have to approve of a removal of the notice? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal (possibly with exceptions in circumstances which it's really necessary.) Because theres something inherently unpleasant about a community which insists on forcing everyone we've ever kicked out on wearing a dunce's hat in perpetuity and I'm not convinced theres any adequate reason to do so. I think this applies especially in cases of controversial blocks and blocks of established users, where enforcing block notices through edit warring is likely only to create ill will and the appearance of grave dancing. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the arguments against are more applicable to expired blocks and warnings than to active blocks. It's very easy to tell if a user is currently blocked (if you don't know - click 'edit' on their user page or talk page), but it's more difficult to tell if they've previously been blocked (which requires accessing their block log - which isn't built in to the standard skin) or have recieved a final warning for something (which means going through the archives or edit history). Bob House 884 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know whether we're talking about removal of the notice during the period of the block, or after the block has been lifted. Different contributors, above, seem to be talking about one or other of these. Clearly they're not the same. The policy, as I recall it, deals only with notices during the period of the block. So. Are we talking about "dunces hat in perpetuity" or merely keeping the notice in place whilst the block is in place? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:BLANKING has seen a change recently to include active block notices on the list of items that can't be removed by users from their talk pages" (emphasis mine). I've taken that to be the scope of the discussion. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my comment was based on the block notice covering an active block. That is, you get blocked, you get notified by the blocking admin. Don't remove that notification until the block expires or is lifted. After the block expires/is lifted, you can do whatever you want. --Jayron32 02:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about my change to the "Sanctions that are currently in effect" item. The edit introduced "notification of a currently active block" as an item that may not be removed by the user. Almost everyone agrees that a user may remove notices of expired or revoked blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal. Why not? What good will removing it do them anyways? What good does the template serve to those other than them? If they continue to vandalize after the block and require another block, the blocking admin will be able to see past blocks in the block interface, and if they ever apply for rights the admin there will obviously take a gander and their block log. This is a solution searching for a problem... Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal. Admins should use some method of keeping track of who's been blocked (such as the logs) which is not possible for the user to change. The mere fact the talk page can be played around with is why it shouldn't be relied on at all. The user page should be to communicate with the user, not to signal admins, not to be a Scarlet Letter. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not allow removal While it may be the habit of some users who don't review things properly to just glance at the block log and pass judgement, a proper block notice (and any relevant discussions/information which indicate a more complete rationale for the block, including diffs) should be retained for the purpose of assessing whether a block is warranted, justified, and/or necessary. We have limited resources and if an admin or other users have already gone to the trouble of providing a rationale (be it for the user, for other admins, or for the community as a whole), it's not so that it can just be removed and then some admin can come along and then miss something crucial to the block. A block log is limited in the information it provides (more often limited to a general scope of the issue). We've already had one situation where an IP was causing trouble and pointing out how susceptible the system is to abuse and misuse of this kind; it was an embarrassment to pretty much all admins that the Community needed to invoke a site ban in that case in order to address the issue. We don't need more of the same for some misguided and unjustified belief that it is some scarlet letter; if we were forcing users to retain it after the block is expired, that may warrant such a belief, but the reasons are pretty clear cut for keeping it in view while the block is in force. I certainly will not support a view that encourages a deliberate and/or persistent gaming of the system. Note: this does not prevent users who are gravedancing to be dealt with appropriately, but this is different to providing information regarding why an user was blocked, or what other pattern of behavior or incidents exist in a particular case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instruction creep. We don't need special rules for this. The only type of situation where enforcing block notices to stay on the page is really worth the trouble is while a blocked user is seeking an unblock; if he prefers to just wait it out and move on there is no reason why anybody else should ever need to care about the notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q. Would it be possible to modify the code to allow for something like a red notice at the top of the page that shows the log entry of the latest block? It's a quick solution that would be quite helpful to admins who might not have caught on to the block due to any blanking or a tedious, indirect back-and-forth on the talk page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a notice is already displayed when editing the page, and someone could write a script if someone wanted it shown at the top the page when simply viewing it. –xenotalk 17:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal. The blocking information is available anyway to anyone who tries to contact the user. The rationale behind enforcing the notice is not clear, as it suggests that editors are encouraged to restore removed notices, which is a sure way of creating problems and tension for everyone concerned. Established practise per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments is that if a user removes a notice, then it is clear they are aware of the notice - job done, no further action needed. The reason we established that practise, is because restoring notices leads to edit wars and conflict, and is inclined to push a frustrated user into a nasty corner. If someone has a temporary block it is because we wish them to return. They may not return if we push them too far at a low moment in their Wikipedia career. Blocked users are not evil - they are just people who may have erred in some way, and some previously blocked editors have gone on to become admins. SilkTork *Tea time 10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal - I see no reason that block notices need to remain on a talk page. If anyone is interested in when someone was blocked, it is there forever in the block log. If they are interested in more than the information in the block log, all the information is avalaible in the history. I do think it is appropriate to leave the block notice on the page if the editor is asking for an early unblock. Then it is pertinent to an ongoing discussion and should remain otherwise they acknowledge they have read it and it has done it job and can be removed. GB fan (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal, nothing is gained by edit warring to keep them. If you want to outlaw something, better outlaw edit warring on other people's talk pages by re-adding warnings or block templates. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow removal, If you've been blocked, your block notice needs to remain in place so administrators (and other editors) can get the context of why your editing privileges have been suspended. Even if the editor acknowledge their mistakes and elect to sit the duration of the block, they probably recieved warnings prior to the block reminding them of what the community saw wrong with their actions. Once the sanction is no longer in effect, the editor is perfectly free to remove the block notice. In response to the arguments about remaining for an early appeal, it's nearly impossible to know if and when a user might early appeal their restriction. Is it reasonable to expect a restricted editor to restore the block notice before they make their early appeal? In response to the "Scarlet Letter" arguments: This is not a permanant branding, this is like anklet based house-arrest. After the period of the sanction is complete, the editor is perfectly free to return to the anonymous mass of the community. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow removal. There are numerous reasons why it is convenient, if not 100% essential, for a block-notice to remain visible to all on the page of an editor while they are blocked. On the other hand, there are no reasons why removing it is a good idea. Therefore, the balance has to tip towards disallowing such behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not allow removal per above comments. I'm also not sure this is the appropriate venue to be rehashing a discussion that very recently had clear support somewhere else. In any case, I see plenty of reasons that active block notices are useful for others (transparency, context on the reason for the block, context for unblocking admins on unblock requests, etc), and the only major argument I'm seeing against that is "why not?". I've seen users try and remove previous unblock requests prior to requesting an unblock, which could "game the system" by tricking the unblock admin into thinking there was no previous context. I've also seen users remove active block notices, only to have others add content to their talk page, unaware the user couldn't participate. I've also been in situations where active block notices would have been useful to me, personally. Furthermore, my experience has been that this is currently the community's thought on this issue, as I've seen it pointed out to blocked users repeatedly, and our policy page should describe that, not prescribe a new rule by which we expect it to change.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I might unwatch this page for the duration of the discussion so I don't end up responding so often that I appear to be badgering...so this will hopefully be my last comment here. I don't think it's inappropriate to request discussion on the page designed to give the community a place to discuss changes to policies and guidelines. 27-17 or so in a !vote 8 months ago isn't so recent that I think it's inappropriate to discuss again, especially when it's a change to a practice that's been discussed many times and enforced in a different way for years and when the previous discussion didn't actually lead to the change. I agree that unblock requests shouldn't be removable while a user is blocked. (unless maybe if it's indef and they just want to blank their page completely) That's not part of this discussion. If users are adding content to blocked users talk pages, they should hopefully notice the big red 'this user is blocked' edit notice and realize they can't participate. Can you give a specific example of a situation where the block notice would have been useful? When I'm dealing with a specific user, it's probably unlikely that I wouldn't check their talk page history, make an edit to their talk page, or check their recent contributions...all things that would pretty quickly indicate their current editing status. If I understood what purpose past shaming the blocked user these notices were supposed to have, I'd likely change my stance. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • re: "I've seen users try and remove previous unblock requests prior to requesting an unblock, which could "game the system" by tricking the unblock admin into thinking there was no previous context." Any admin who looks only at a blocked user's talk page without looking at contributions before reviewing an unblock request is not competent and should be desysopped. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow removal If you're blocked and it's not overturned or amended later, then it's proooobably your fault. And as we're all adults here (wait, lol), I'm sure we can all live with a little notice or two. It's not shameful, that's just psychological. Removing would make it more of a hassle to determine if a user is blocked. For example, if I want to ask a user for immediate help with an article when they've actually been blocked for a week, I'd like to know that before going ahead and asking them, because they won't be able to do anything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually very simple to see whether or not a user is blocked - just open the edit screen for their talk page. And depending on the situation, the user may keep an eye on their talk page for the duration of the block, and be able to answer you there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal - Blocking isn't a scarlett letter. Leaving the notice there is in no way preventive, it's punitive. Removal of the notice has been OK and standard for some years, and admins reviewing blocks have long had to (and expected to) go check the old talk page versions if there were any removals. It's not that hard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal otherwise Wikipedia would be in breach of the license that applies to the addition of the notice. This license allows any one to modify the text and warns if you don't like people changing it don't put it there. However since it is intended as a communication to the blocked user, the blocked user should at least read it before removing. Once they have read it the blocked user can safely remove the notice. Others who care if the person is blocked will see the notice when they edit the talk page. Side effects on twinkle are the twinkle users problem, and the twinkler should use another method to edit if there is an issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal Users should continue to be allowed to remove all template trash from their talk page. The wp:own problem should most definitively not be expanded onto user pages. There is no need to troll and stalk (former) editors. It has nothing to do with the project. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal - user talk pages are for communication between a user and the rest of the project. Once the communication (notification of a block) has been received and read, the user should be free to remove or (at the end of the block) archive it. The matter of recording the present or past existence of a block is dealt with by block logs. Editors and admins wishing to see the history of an editor's block log or the history of that editor's talk page should consult the block log and page history. User talk pages are not the correct place to look for a record of such things and moving in that direction encourages admins and editors to be lazy and not look in the right place (i.e. the block log and page history). The matter of notices placed on a blocked user's user page is a bit more tricky, but that isn't being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal as doing otherwise may encourage pointless revert wars in a user's own edit space. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As in, allow vandalism because that might also lead to revert wars? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism? I don't think so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but I don't get this. Kralizec! (talk · contribs) appears to be reasoning that we should allow pointless, unconstructive edits in order to prevent edit-warring over them. That's ridiculous. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 08:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if removal is allowed, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Block_log_annotation may be of interest. Rd232 public talk 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal - this template is for the blocked user; the actual information is in the user's block log, which the user can't remove (nor can any other user, unless using WP:REVDEL). Very frequently, if a user has ever been blocked before, the previous blocks are as necessary for an admin reviewing the block as is the current block reason; and we definitely don't want to tell a user to never remove the block notices! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood. This discussion is about removal of current block notices meaning the block is still active. Once the block expires they are free to remove the notice at any time. TMCk (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misread this argument which you are dismissing offhand. They're saying a) that the block warning is for the benefit of the blocked user, whilst the block log is the official record of blocks and b) that it's arbitrary to force users to display active blocks but not inactive ones as any sort of due diligence which must occasionally be done requires consideration of both. Theres no element of 'misunderstanding' in this, they're just pointing out hipocrisy in the 'do not allow' camp. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't allow removal.Users could be unwillingly engage in editing by proxy while not being aware that an editor is currently blocked. TMCk (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone asks on their user talk page for an edit to be made, the obvious question (why can't they make the edit themselves) should be answered by looking at their block log. Editors shouldn't need a block notice on a user's talk page to tell them of this. They should learn to consult the block log instead. Carcharoth (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can only think of two possible reasons why any user would do an edit requested on the talk page of the requesting user:
        1. The request comes as part of an on-going discussion between theusers in question. In this case, should the requesting user get blocked, the other user would probably know about it.
        2. The requesting user is blocked, and has a request whgich is urgent enough to override the rule against proxying. Note that this clearly is a possibility - I once did such a thing, although I don't want to state the reason for this publicly.
      • עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal – Unlike unblock requests, if they wish to remove block notices from their userpages, that is not going to deny users quick information on the status of the user as removing an unblock request would (as one can see the block rationale while looking at the blocked user's contributions). –MuZemike 04:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow You can always see the block log. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 13:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow removal - It makes it easier as an administrator if I can see the reason for the initial block when trying to determine whether or not to honor an unblock request. Often the block template has more information than what is in the block log. Sure, I can and do look into the history of the talk page if the block template is missing, but that takes extra time to look up and it's possible to miss it. I don't see that a block template is any more of a "scarlet letter" than the pink box you already get when editing the talk page. If leaving the block template doesn't do extra harm, and it's helpful to admins, I believe it shouldn't be allowed to be removed while the block is in effect, the same way we don't allow editors to remove declined unblock requests or ban notices (which again are no less "scarlet letters" than the block template). Keep in mind I refer to active blocks, editors should always be allowed to remove block templates for expired blocks. -- Atama頭 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how can you confirm that the block message is, in fact, the original one left by the blocking admin, without looking into the history? It's quite simple for a blocked user to replace the block template with a different one, and if the blocked user knows what (s)he's doing, he/she can use this to trick an admin into acepting the request. The real methods to know the background is to look at the revisions of the talk page leading up to the block, the diff of the revision where the block message was added, the block log entry, and communication with the blocking admin. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same argument can be made for declined unblock templates and ban templates, so should we allow editors to delete them as well? I'd say no. Any editor can make up bogus info on their talk page to trick an admin into unblocking them, but often that leads to a discrepancy which does nothing but raise suspicion and prompt the admin to look deeper into the editor's actions. When that reveals that an editor has been refactoring their talk page to fake their innocence, that would backfire and if I was the reviewing administrator I'd probably extend the block duration (if it wasn't indefinite) and almost surely revoke talk page access. -- Atama頭 22:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, block messages are easier to find in the page history, as they are frequently added by semi-automated tools which leave appropriate summaies automaticly - not to mention the fact that they are left by the blocking admin around the block time, and both of these can be found easily in the block log. Secondly, the poiint is that the block message isn't the best of evidence for the block reason - the block log is better; responded unblock requests are the best evidence for the reason for their own rejection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a complete no-brainer to me. If we disallow removal, then we'd need to create a new process for block notice removal requests. Who wants to help police the WP:TPBNRRN (Talk Page Block Notice Removal Request Noticeboard)? Actually, this being Wikipedia, we'd probably find a group of people who're anxious to take time off from writing an encyclopaedia so as to run the process, but it strikes me as a whole lot simpler just to allow removal as we've always done.—S Marshall T/C 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enforce with software, the block notice, however it is implemented, should not be removable.  It is pointless to enforce this with admin or editor effort.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use common sense when deciding whether or not to allow the notice to be removed. If the user is removing the block notice in good faith, let them do it. WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow I don't think I've seen a single real reason these should be required to remain during the blocked period. Anyone engaging with the editor will see they are blocked, and can look back to see why. The only possibly valid reasons of having any policy here are those of being aware of bad behavior after the block has ended. There might be something to that in that vandalism right after a block can be grounds for a new block and someone mentioned being able to see that there's been a final warning. But keeping it up after the block is not being discussed here, and that would need a much broader policy discussion. If we're not requiring it after, there's no reason to keep it during. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 15:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal–Since these discussions are decided upon based upon the quality of the arguments and not on number of !votes I'd like to ask those that want to stop the removal to come up with one good reason why it benefits the ability of editors to create a better encyclopedia if editors are not allowed to remove the block template? If there isnt a good answer, and I havent seen one yet by any of those !voting here, then allowing for its removal should be allowed. A blocked user is blocked, they can not edit articles, it has achieved its purpose. A block or ban is NOT a scarlet-letter or informational for the Community-at-large as "badges of dishonor". Talk pages are not to be used to ruin the reputation of editors, mistakes are made, emotions get out of control, things happen. And yes vendetta's occur and editors get blocked for 24 hours because an admin has a bug up his arse, basically "shit happens". Who cares?! If someone is blocked, and it's not you, then it is none of your business why or when or how long they will be "out". Keep to yourself, keep the drama low, and stop with the instruction creep that is intended only to shame someone, and is in fact against the very ethos of our policies and has nothing to do with our purpose- to write an encyclopedia, not to create a society. Based on arguments, not !votes, in my opinion this discussion was decided long ago.Camelbinky (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow removal Removing it doesn't change anything. Neither does edit-warring it back in, which I am ashamed to say I have seen admins do from time to time. Policy has been long established that users may not remove declined unblock requests, as those are needed as reference for admins reviewing any subsequent request. That makes sense and should stay as it is. The block notice itself is not needed once it has been read by the blocked user, therefore they should be allowed to remove it the same as any other talk page notice. Forcing them to keep it up is pointless and demeaning, whether they deserved to be blocked or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:BEFORE obligatory?

There's currently a bit of a general ongoing debacle about whether or not WP:BEFORE is required, ie. whether nominating an article for deletion without having made the slightest effort to check out potential sources permissible [16] and I'd be interested in some input on this? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would like to know the status of WP:BEFORE. Is an editor required to do an in-depth investigation of an article's notability before CSD or AfDing it? What if the article is one sentence long, has no assertion of notability and zero references, such as this article? Basket of Puppies 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't interpret BEFORE as asking people to do in-depth research. In many (most?) cases simply Google-News or Google-Books searching the article title will suggest whether or not it's likely that sources exist: hardly arduous! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I'd say required but you need not spend more than a couple of minutes. If you are sending articles to AfD where lots of good sources come up at the top of a Gnews or book search, you should be chided vigorously. If you do it regularly, you are wasting other people's time and should likely be banned from XfD until you agree to actually follow WP:BEFORE. Heck, I feel strongly !voters should do a web search before they !vote. I know I've missed obvious sources (and more commonly claimed sources were reliable that aren't if you look more closely) a number of times. It's embarrassing. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd be happy with 20 seconds in most cases. It's when I do the most cursory scan of Google Books and find twenty times the references needed to satisfy the GNG that I start getting irritable. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't have to" is exactly what WP:BURDEN says. Without a source readers cannot determine fact from hoax which is why contested and unsourced material can be immediately removed. Statements written without sources are just as likely to need to be re-written to comply with sources found - that's a lot of work, and it is why the burden to write from sourced material belongs on the author, not the editor. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Why does no one read all of WP:BURDEN? "How quickly [the removal of unsourced material] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." And WP:BURDEN has to be read in conjunction with WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM; both are part of policy. Yes, we want article creators and contributors to provide sources for the content they add. We also want article editors and deletion nominators to take the time and exercise due diligence to consider whether content can be fixed rather than just removed. Again, "I don't have to" is not itself a reason for not doing that, because we don't do or not do anything here simply because it is prohibited or required. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not required, but encouraged I've been on both sides of the debate on this one. On the one hand, I'll be looking through an article and notice how glaringly below standards it is, try to improve it, draw attention to it (by tagging with the appropriate improvement templates), and wait for someone to try to improve it. I consider that a "Due Diligence" in the fact that I tried improvement, people who are in that article's space were alerted of it's deficincies. Yet when it gets put up for discussion there's suddenly editors and IP addresses crawling out of the woodwork claiming that it can be improved and they will. In some cases it's blatantly obvious when even BEFORE won't help the article. In other cases having BEFORE applied has raised the article above my criticisim threshold. It really comes down to, I as an editor have my little niche where I am somewhat of a subject matter expert. I don't claim to hold any specialized information for other criteria, yet if articles are not improved when issues are pointed out, it shows me that there is little interest in the subject. Hasteur (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional but certainly should be done for courtesy towards others and to avoid cluttering AFD. The problem if it was made mandatory is that, if a topic does have sources (through Google, lets assume) but finding the sources using traditional search methods is difficult if not impossible, and I, the AFD nominator, did that and found no sources and thus AFD'd the article, someone will certainly game the mandatory nature and accuse me of "no, you didn't search *this* way to find these article...". Of if the sources are only in print journals, and me, without access to academic catalogs, determines there are no online sources, again, someone will complain "Well, you only had to go to your May issue of this journal to see it..." That said, even if optional, if an editor continually and regularly nominates articles without BEFORE and these have sources that are easily found by an obvious search, then there's a behavioral issue to take into account. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be the point to nominating an article for deletion unless one has determined to one's satisfaction that the article should be deleted? I think it should be a serious consideration taken upon oneself to nominate an article for deletion. One should only do so if one has thoroughly examined the topic of the article, and one should pay attention to and participate in the WP:AFD process. One should be prepared to change one's mind if other editors present arguments and present sources showing that the article should not be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of experience? Lack of clarity about what's required? (We do occasionally encounter people who believe that 100% of unref'd articles must be deleted.) Lack of understanding the subject (without realizing it)? Not every nom at AFD has the intelligence and experience that this group of editors does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, but highly recommended, especially when running through a whole list of items someone else is going to have to check after you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional in regards to having go through the whole regime. Good practice to go through some of the points, though. I'm not a "deletionist" but somedays there seems to be a lot of stubby or inconsequential material out there, and the loss of some of that would be no big deal. To take the checking of sources, to put the burden absolutely on the reviewer (to give the nominator a neutral name) is unfair. It says in the guidance on writing your first article "Gather references both to use as source(s) of the information you will include and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." Even if sources do exist, that does not make something notable of itself - I could scour the archives of my local newspaper and pull together enough mentions of the village hall, or even the corner shop but they would still not be a notable subject for an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional but recommended. Certainly it makes things go more smoothly if the nominator searches, but our verifiability policy says that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and I would add that this implies also someone wanting to keep material that is disputed. An article that's AfD'd for lack of sourcing is, essentially, disputed material, and a !voter wishing to keep it has the final responsibility to provide evidence supporting that material. That said, I agree with many of the points Masem makes above. An editor who habitually refuses to perform good-faith checks before nominating would bear speaking to, if only for the sake of our collegial editing atmosphere; however, codifying BEFORE as a requirement will, I suspect, lead to assumptions of bad faith against AfD nominators, with !voters suggesting that if only the nominator had put forth effort of level X rather than a clearly-unsuitable level Y, we wouldn't be here, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's make new bullet points and bold mark the first statement. BEFORE has been optional for years, etc. It's nice to do a cursory glance for refs but let's face it, sometimes we don't need to or sometimes people mess up and don't when they should. Let's use common sense. Killiondude (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, BUT... BEFORE is part of a procedure, not a policy. Following it keeps you from embarrassing yourself and accidentally wasting the community's time with inappropriate nominations. Transparently following it—say, starting your nom with a description of your search strategy for sources—tells the community not only that this AFD is highly likely to be a legitimate candidate for deletion, but also that you are the sort of desirable, respectful, competent editor who takes reasonable efforts to avoid wasting everyone else's time. People who follow it get respect (and high rates of deletions); people who don't get disrespect (and, unfortunately, occasionally thoughtless "keep" !votes from people who have decided they're incompetent/jerks/etc). I wouldn't require it as a bureaucratic procedure, partly because some people are so familiar with a given subject area that they already know the state of sources. On the other hand, I personally don't believe I've ever nominated even one article without at least a quick trip to my favorite web search engine, and I can't imagine nomming multiple similar articles without doing my homework. But—your reputation, your nomination, your choice. If you like having your noms responded to with statements like "As anybody can see from the following basic web search results, there are at least hundreds of sources..." then I'm okay with that. I don't think that we have such a huge problem with this that we really need to put up a bureaucratic obstacle to AFDs when so many of them are actually valid (and when the others can be dealt with effectively case by case). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Required If you don't have time to do the research, then don't do the AfD per WP:DEADLINE. It's not like somebody else can't get to it who has the time, and the 'pedia won't explode if an article isn't nominated for deletion this very minute. Not to mention that any claim of non-notability has to be backed up by something. "I've never heard of it" is no better a reason to delete, than "I've heard of it" is a valid reason to keep. How does anyone make a claim that there is no coverage without looking outside of WP? Nominators should do their own homework. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and contested potential misinformation should be deleted immediately, regardless of WP:DEADLINE. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Required modulo IAR, i.e. optional if you know what you're doing. So if you skip a reference check in a fit of exhaustion or pique, okay, things happen, nobody should burn you at the stake. But if you routinely skip reference checks or think that "good faith effort" means you don't have to do it and anybody calling you out for failing to do it is violating AGF, then you should be brought up short. To put it in the clearest possible terms, every time you make an AfD nomination that results in a keep because of references that were easily found, you have imposed needless busywork on other volunteers that achieves nothing more than to keep you from damaging the encyclopedia with your laziness. Doing so as an occasional accident is just the cost of human effort. Doing so as a matter of course is inappropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I do not support "procedural keep, WP:BEFORE not followed" becoming the new WP:ILIKEIT at AfD. The question of anyone ignoring BEFORE is a matter of broad patterns of editor behavior, as in Basket of Puppies's fairly exemplary case, not something that should be routinely brought up in individual deletion debates. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be required for those that nominate many articles for AFD. Say over 10 nominations the nominator should have learned to do the before part to stop time wasting. For people new at this we can give them some more leaneancy in not following the recommendation. It should apply to people like Basket of Puppies for AFD. For A7 nominations the article can speak for itself. But for anything that is old, say over 3 months the nominator should check history and online references. We do get a fair amount of embarrassment through foolish nominations for deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional. If people want to suddenly make it obligatory they can throw a community-wide RfC, which I would be happy to comment on. Short of that, I'm not accepting its presence on a general community page as evidence it's a required read. I mean, Joseph Reagle can be found on internal pages too, and his book is shite. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Required to some extent (but a guideline, not policy) as I have been saying for years. Anyone can make mistakes, and the way of preventing mistakes is to go carefully. I this very month myself nominated an article for deletion that I should not have nominated, because I thought it so obvious that I did not search; fortunately others found the necessary references. There needs to be established procedure, because if in spite of all I have ever said I can let myself fall into this temptation, and use it unwisely, others can also, and so they do. The real question is a little more difficult: how thorough a search is necessary. The prescriptions in WP:BEFORE are considerably more stringent than is usually necessary or possible, and a full search in the sense I as a librarian consider a full search, will be rarely appropriate. In the exceptional case, the group at AfD can do it better than a single nominator. But a preliminary search to avoid discarding material careless and thoughtlessly, should be required. After all, the fewer articles we send unnecessarily for deletion, the more time for properly discussing the truly problematic and difficult-to-diecide deletions, and defintively getting rid of what we must get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hell no can you say instruction creep? --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, nobody is going to be blocking and banning people over BEFORE (well, if someone does I expect the community to overturn such action), but as others have said above it really ought to be a required checklist that you go through prior to nominating an article at AFD. This is one of those things that's not really policy, but it's certainly good procedure. We wouldn't be here (and at AN/I) if User:Basket of Puppies wasn't in the process of embarrassing himself and causing all sorts of unnecessary drama by following BEFORE.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the essence of WP:BEFORE is necessary in order to avoid deleting articles that shouldn't be deleted, and wasting the community's time. Taking articles to AFD which could easily be sourced with a couple of minutes effort of Google searching could legitimately be seen as acting in bad faith. We all make mistakes but editors who make no effort to follow WP:BEFORE should expect to be criticized for it. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional — 1., The burden of proof is on the article—not the nominator. Someone nominating an article for deletion should never have to be well-versed in the topic. 2. A requirement to "google for sources" would be unenforceable. 3. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. 4. Our policies are implicitly optional, especially so in this case. --slakr\ talk / 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the burden of proof is on the nominator. "No adequate reason for deletion" is a keep. Under existing policy, a non-consensus is a keep. The need to show something notable is on the article is a prima facia case for non-notability is given, , but that's only part of the reasons for deletion. Why should someone be able to delete articles by saying merely "non-notable" without some reason, like lack of findable references. Otherwise it's "i don;tlike it." DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • required but not as policy, written policies are things we require all editors to follow, we should keep them pared down to the essentials. Procedures and unwritten rules are the lessons people learn as they become experienced editors, we need to make sure they are well documented and we need to communicate them clearly otherwise we risk the community becoming closed and unwelcoming to new editors. ϢereSpielChequers 08:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guideline WP:BEFORE seems to have guideline status per WP:GUIDES, "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Editors who flout this guideline can expect to have it held against them on occasions such as RfA — TenPoundHammer is a good example. In extreme cases, more serious sanctions may apply —TTN is an example. Note also that WP:BEFORE contains many steps and is not just a matter of searching for sources. These steps include sensible behaviour like reading the talk page to see what discussions are already underway and to check for previous AFDs. The problem now is that Twinkle makes it too easy to start an XfD without doing any of those things. Twinkle should be modified to give the nominator a reminder, just as article creators are now prompted to think about sourcing or whether the article has been previously deleted. Warden (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guideline as pointed out by Colonel Warden. I tend to agree with DGG and Jim Miller that we can't completely ignore best practices established by hard-fought consensus; we'd be left with anarchy (or reboot). BusterD (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly encouraged but not guideline/policy yet. I would expect to see a cleaner version first. On the other hand, nominator saying that WP:BEFORE is not needed is just lazy and against AGF. I expect someone nominating an article to be sure that their nomination is necessary, not TWINKLE-stamping articles. On that regard, I would not mind TWINKLE including a reminder about BEFORE. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on enforcement The method of enforcement that has always been suggested is by reject those AfDs that show no evidence of following the elements of BEFORE, without prejudice to their reinstatement. I do not think anyone is suggesting anything more drastic. (except perhaps that someone who insists on frequently repeated nominations without any trace of BEFORE, might be considered disruptive, but this has already been the case in certain extreme circumstances). DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - worst example of WP:CREEP imaginable - effectively this gives a licence for wikilawering and will severely discourage good faith nominations of inapproprate, unreferenced or damaging articles because of the implicit threat of punishment if one makes a mistake - which could be as simple as mis-spelling a Google search.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encouraged and comment - perhaps a statement about whether an AfD nominator took steps to find or verify sources (or whatever) can be included in the Template. Something the Nominator can then attest to, like:
"Before nominating this article for deletion, I took the following steps to ensure this nomination was fully warranted: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (list of various actions taken)."
This would allow other editors to quickly see what steps have already been taken, quite a timesaver. If this is found to be blank, then it is a clear indication it was not followed at all. -- Avanu (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly recommended (but not policy-force) – The community's time is a valuable resource, and before a deletion discussion is started, we need to explore other options before going to that. In general, the first steps are to see what can be done locally before moving up to higher community input, i.e. a deletion discussion. Applying WP:BEFORE is basically "doing one's homework" before going the deletion route. That being said, there are going to be cases in which requesting deletion may be the only viable and reasonable option (the term "polishing a turd" comes to mind) for a variety of reasons; that is where IAR comes into play. –MuZemike 18:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its policy. That page is a Wikipedia policy page isn't it? They need to start enforcing it though. Stop people from using bots to automatically nominating a hundred biography articles at a time, knowing they couldn't have possibly have looked over each one themselves. And I haven't seen this in awhile, but I previously went through a rather large number of articles people said there were no sources for, and clicked Google News Archive search at the top, and got ample results proving they were. Dream Focus 20:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's policy. The policy doesn't say that someone making a wrong nomination must face "punishment" on the first try, but it should be clear that he has done something the wrong way. Like everything else, it's when it becomes a routine occurrence that it becomes a problem, and eventually, one way or another, he has to be convinced to do the right thing. Bogus AfDs don't just waste one person's time, but many. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BURDEN trumps WP:BEFORE Big but - this project is a (hopefully) collegial community effort. It is courteous, polite, and expected for users to help other users. WP:V is a stricter requirement, and that requirement is not on the person nominating for deletion. Most AfD are short articles and deleting them should be no more dramatic than removing a paragraph or two of recently added but unsourced material to a longer established article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Optional- making it obligatory would open the door to "Speedy keep- nominator hasn't explicitly stated how they followed WP:BEFORE" kinds of bullshit. There's already way too much wikilawyering and attacks on nominators at AfD; we do not need a vehicle for more. As Schmucky says, WP:BURDEN is more important and I oppose any attempt to water it down with artificial roadblocks and obstructionist pettifogging like this. WP:BEFORE is best practice and good advice, but failing to follow it should not be a dealbreaker. Reyk YO! 01:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this 'optional' business is that it leads to desperately POINTy behaviour; I currently feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall in trying to fathom out why editors deliberately choose not to do WP:BEFORE checks, optional or otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 11:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this issue is really a behavioral one that people want addressed, not a process one. There are editors that I am sure AFD articles all the time without BEFORE, but are well versed in an area, and which results in a closure that is appropriate due to lack of sources, or the discovery of difficult-to-find sources that would not likely be discovered from BEFORE - in otherwords, a completely fair result. These are not the editors that are the issue. It is the ones that nominate for deletion and more often than not, their noms are found as "keep" because sources were readily found. When this happens so many times with an editor, we should be seeking to get this editor to understand what AFD really is, and be prepared to take steps (such as banning him or her from making AFD nominations) if their behavior does not improve. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional. Making it mandatory can only lead to arguments in AfDs about whether procedure has been followed, where the issue should be article content. This whole debate seems to be based on a dubious premise: that it is better to have an unsourced article that 'might' meet notability requirements in article space than no article at all. This attitude might have made sense in the early days of Wikipedia, but the project is now sufficiently mature that we need to emphasise quality more, and put the onus on the article creator to follow 'good practice', and ensure it is fit for inclusion in article space in the first place. If the creator of an article cannot be bothered to make the effort to establish notability, why should others have to do the work for them? Yes, it is 'good practice' to think before starting an AfD, and to do a little checking where practical, but making WP:BEFORE mandatory is effectively licensing laziness by article creators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, essentially mimicing AndyTheGrump. The important thing to do is to follow WP:V before creating an article: "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There shouldn't be a question of whether the article could be sourced: if it isn't sourced, or is sourced solely on primary sources, it violates WP:V. That's the article creator's problem, not the nominator's. Many of these protestations of "But I could find a million sources with a Google search!" neglect to note that frequently many or all of those results are completely unsuitable for being the basis of an article.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important, but can't be treated as mandatory because it would be unenforceable. Finding sources is an art, not an exact science, and can require specialized knowledge or access. Therefore, people should not be taking articles to AfD without going through some sort of effort to ascertain that the articles are truly deserving of deletion, but that does not mean that nominators can be castigated for failing to do the kind of insightful research needed to find non-obvious sources. As others have noted, the WP:BURDEN for doing thorough research falls on the article creator or defender. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be obligatory. The number of times nominations are done without checking for sources or considering alternatives to deletion is staggering, and complying with WP:BEFORE would stop many poorly-considered nominations from happening. WP:BEFORE is generally expected other than among lazy deletionists (just because article creators are often lazy it does not mean one should ape them). Fences&Windows 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, but strongly encouraged. AndyTheGrump is correct on all points. I see no point in making BEFORE mandatory, and I fear the results of doing so. Editors have varying skills and access to potential sources. We will not be able to distinguish someone who made a good faith effort to find sources that do exist and failed from one who did not even try. Warden's notion of supplying encouragement via twinkle is a fine idea, and we should pursue that. If we are to pursue a mechanism to curb the problem of unsourced articles, my suggestion would be to enforce the policy that articles require reliable sources even at their creation. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to use Twinkle, and I'm not sure what its purpose is. My impression is that its some sort of timesaver, but I also see people complain about it making certain things easier than they ought to be. If Wikipedia is too hard to use that you need a bunch of javascript or whatever Twinkle is in order to work it, maybe Wikipedia needs to be reworked. -- Avanu (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a tool, and like any tool, it can be used or abused. I don't mind editing in vim, but scripts are very useful and darn tasty, too. If twinkle disappeared, I'd wind up writing my own stuff to replace it, and if we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we should make things easy to use. The PROD is well done, you choose a menu selection and it prompts for rationale, which I believe is optional. My feeling is that if we dangle a rational text area in front of a user, they are more likely to use it than if they have to manually edit the raw wikiness. You should try it out, you might like it. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'vim' just an expression meaning that you're editing in Wikipedia directly? -- Avanu (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vim (text editor) is an old text editor. All you need to know about it is that it is obviously inferior to any form of Emacs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every sane editor knows that Emacs is the devil because it includes everything and the kitchen sink. Real techies use pico or nano Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, that is a blasphemy of the Church of Emacs and will be cast down to the hedonites by St. Ignucius. –MuZemike 18:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: Hasteur, GraemeLeggett, Andy, and SchmuckyTheCat express it well here. Editors ought to perform their due diligence, of course, but there is no reason to make this mandatory. I must insert here the page is called "articles for deletion" and not "subjects for deletion" for a reason: If an article could be notable but is in such terrible shape that it needs to be, for all intents and purposes, totally rewritten, than that article is indeed a good candidate for AfD, because the problems can't be fixed with "normal editing" within the reasonable meaning of "Before nominating" number 10. SchmuckyTheCat expressed it perfectly: WP:BURDEN trumps WP:BEFORE. Neutralitytalk 00:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Required  If random AfDs were good for the encyclopedia, we'd have a bot making more of them.  No, the force of reason applies, a drive-by AfD nomination fails the test of reason, i.e., it is not reasonable.  There is also the problem of enforcement—systems require feedback.  Are there metrics that exist to score the WP:BEFORE quality of an AfD nomination?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Required: I don't see any good reason why you would want to delete a page without ensuring (to the best of your ability) that the page should be deleted. It wastes community time. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indirectly mandatory. WP:BEFORE is effectively a summary of many other policies and guidelines, including the alternatives to deletion section of the Deletion policy and the try to fix problems section of the Editing policy.

    Willfully not following WP:BEFORE can be seen as disruptive. While a first time offense can result in the swift application of a {{Trout}}, intentionally and repeatedly not following WP:BEFORE can and has resulted in sanctions and blocks, by either the community or ArbCom. More than once when an editor not following WP:BEFORE has ended up in front of ArbCom, they have been admonished or sanctioned for not following best practices. In effect, not following WP:BEFORE is akin to going swimming at a lake or beach where "Swim at your own risk" signs have been prominently posted. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get rid of the tools I think WP:BEFORE should be at the very least habitual procedure prior to deletion. That said, I think deletion has become a lot easier than finding sources due to the tools. Without the tools like TW, dealing with the AFD template, notifying interested editors like the article creator, creating the deletion page, and transcluding the template on the log was a bit of a hassle. Sourcing an article was as hard if not easier than nominating for deletion. In our attempt to make the process easier, we've made the jump to the button easier. While I don't actually suggest getting rid of the tools, perhaps there needs to be some kind of reminder that just because the tools makes nominating for deletion easier doesnt mean that the decision should be made lightly. Perhaps a Wikipedia-wide "no automated tools day"?--v/r - TP 16:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack it with an axe As long as wp:BEFORE is a wall of text full of bullshit you can't expect anybody to follow it. Honestly, when is the last time you checked "what links here" before an AFD nomination? Oh, and don't forget you should know notability, reliable sources, what Wikipedia is not. WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB and WP:CLN before nominating anything (Yet the editor who started the article is under no obligation to do likewise!). Cut it down to the essence: 1) do a simple google search for sources if notability is in question, 2) check for recent AFDs and you have something useful, but the current wp:BEFORE is practically useless. Yoenit (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it should be mandatory in its wording and intent but it should not be enforced by speedy closure or sanctioning the violating editor except in the most repeatred and egregious cases. That makes it in practice optional. It's like listing an AfD on the daily page. It is required for a valid discussion but if the nominator fails to so so for whatever reason someone else will do it for you. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional but strongly recommended per User:WhatamIdoing. Not following WP:BEFORE does not invalidate an AFD, and an article may be deletable even if alternate outcomes haven't been considered. However, even though BEFORE isn't required directly, the nominator has a clear responsibility to avoid silly and disruptive AFDs, whether it is from malice (in which case it can be handled as vandalism) or ignorance (which is not vandalism, but may be disruptive all the same). If an editor can't be bothered to consider alternatives, and rushes ahead with a silly and avoidable AFD nomination, he has only himself to blame. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - If we do require WP:BEFORE, what do we do if this requirement is not followed? Does the AfD follow its normal, ~7 day, course? Is it shut down immediately? Is the editor warned or get a certain number of 'strikes'? What happens if the nominator is just genuinely bad at finding references? I think it's important when creating a rule/law/policy/guideline to consider how it will be enforced and how the resources required to enforce compare to the resources currently in use to deal with the issue (assuming there is one). Also, are we sure that there's a problem to be solved or are we creating policy to make a point? Personally, I think that everyone should be checking but I'm not sure that requiring people to is worth the resources required to enforce such a policy (having editors patrol AfDs for nominations that have no proof that any reference searches have been made). OlYellerTalktome 17:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer, well okay, my answer. If a given user doesn't follow WP:BEFORE and it's really obvious (book or news search turns up good sources on the first page) we ask the user if they did follow WP:BEFORE and if they didn't we point it out to them. If they say they did, we point out how to better find sources. If a given user continues to nominate articles without following WP:BEFORE we warn them and if it continues we start a discussion at WP:AN to ban them from XfD for a month or two. I'm not asking that we beat the heck out of people. I'm saying we _should_ expect people to look for sources before filing an XfD. People will make mistakes, that's not a problem. Newbies won't do it, and that's fixable. But the fundemental idea is folks _should_ be doing this so as not to waste other's time.Hobit (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although it isn't the intention, what this will mean is that you will get people patroling AfD trying to get people who nominate articles (or possibly even vote for deletion), whether good faith or not, blocked. This will not improve the quality or depth of debate or the overall quality articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we have someone very frequently nomming notable articles, and that person refuses to make even a small effort to see whether the subject is notable before wasting the community's time on the nomination—or someone systematically nomming our quarter-million {{unref}}-tagged articles to make a WP:POINT or to use AFD as a lever to motivate article clean up—then blocking might be an appropriate way for the community to protect itself from disruption. In routine cases, I don't think that blocking over a couple of failed nominations is at all likely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither handcuffs, nor an excuse - Is it absolutely mandatory to follow WP:BEFORE for every single article? No. Some articles clearly don't belong. That said, if you're throwing up CSD:A7 templates on half a dozen articles in 10 minutes and you justify yourself by saying WP:BEFORE is optional, then you're an asshat and you need to be slapped. If you're nomming articles for deletion after looking at the first page of a google search, especially if the article is on a foreign subject whose notability will likely not be apparent through an english search, then you're an asshat who needs to be slapped. We have wikiprojects and polyglottal editors to take care of these things. If you can't determine a subject's notability, then slap a category on the article and let someone else figure it out. Similarly, the lack of sources on a brand new article is not indicative of non-notability. Give it time. Add it to an "unsourced new articles" queue in your userspace and check back in a week. There's no rush. No prize for nomming the most articles except the Asshat Cup and the aforementioned slap. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, there are people who have a history of wasting other users' time with nominations they clearly haven't researched at all. For those people, WP:BEFORE is mandatory. There are also users who consistently show good judgment, and for those users, WP:BEFORE is optional or in some cases totally unnecessary. The problem with this discussion is that users who don't show good judgment are never conscious of their own unwisdom or immaturity. My advice is, if you don't get "delete" outcomes from at least 80% of your AfD nominations, then you aren't yet ready to disregard WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guideline best sums up where it is. The people who've cited WP:BURDEN above as a counterpoint to WP:BEFORE have failed to understand either. WP:BURDEN makes it easy to remove a particular claim, as it should be. WP:BEFORE makes it hard to remove an entire article, again, as it should be. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional, but some of it is common sense - The real problem here here are users, particularly the ones of an WP:ARS bent, who use WP:BEFORE like a cudgel in XfDs to berate the nominator or those who may !vote delete. Some even use it to try to call for speedy keeps. That is the junk that needs to stop. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existing Policy

The essence of WP:BEFORE already is policy. ' WP:Deletion Policy#Alternatives to deletion is policy, and includes the statement "the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Adding references is improving the article. WP:BEFORE can be regarded as an expansion and a explanation of the practical meaning of this, just as WP:RS is an expansion and a explanation of the practical meaning of WP:V. Just as we need WP:RS, so we need WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the difference that WP:RS is (a) actively linked to from WP:V and (b) has been actively and explicitly described as a policy or guideline. Your similes don't mesh. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If BEFORE is mandatory policy then you've declared unsourced stubs immune to WP:V. There is no objection to removing unsourced paragraphs from established articles, but once you remove all the unsourced content from a stub the article is blanked - deleted. BEFORE values process and deliberate publication of unsourced potential misinformation to a world wide audience over our readers trust. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I do not think any one is suggesting that BEFORE be mandatory policy, rather that at least the basic elements of it be a required procedural guideline. The reason it is unsuitable as policy is the same reason WP:RS is unsuitable as policy: it involves too many exceptions and special cases, and needs to be applied with judgement, not blindly, As for the technique of deleting an article by the gradual removal of content without any attempt to improve it or source it, I've said what I think elsewhere often enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article didn't have a source I'd say delete it regardless of BEFORE. It says things that most readers could not and would not be able to source. Slightly changing the information, or leaving it without the sourced information, could be lethal as it may look like a designer drug analogue. That's why it's not the job of those proposing deletion to provide sources. After several years all the unsourced BLP, spam, hoaxes, and other crap I've seen laying around WP while AfD dawdles on a resolution have pushed me almost to the point of thinking lack of sourcing should be a CSD criteria all by itself.
BTW, I didn't say gradual removal, I said stubs. There isn't enough material to gradually remove it. The equivalent material in an established article would be reverted without question but a user writing a new article with the same material gets a week on AfD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Well, then you might like to actually go read the content policies. There are only four types of statements that actually require sources: contentious matter about BLPs, direct quotations, stuff that's been WP:CHALLENGEd, and stuff that you think is actually, in practice, WP:LIKELY to be challenged. Nothing in that four-sentence stub is about BLPs, none of it is a direct quotation, none of it has been challenged, and none of it seems to me like anyone is likely to bother challenging it. In the absence of these four conditions, citations are (very) nice, but not actually required. Unreferenced articles are not prohibited. (Bad idea, yes. Prohibited, no.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't think anyone is suggesting WP:BEFORE is mandatory policy, you should probably read the section above this one. You know, all the people declaring in bold "IT'S POLICY". Things like that are a slight hint. Suggesting that what renders something unsuitable to be considered policy is exceptions and loopholes is to make the common mistake of thinking that policy = law. Policy is a guide to best practise, and there being situations where what is normally best practise doesn't apply is about as surprising as the Pontiff being head of the Church of Rome. Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nullity: if you're not going to enforce it, it does not exist. we now have the spectacle of mass deletions of synagogues, since mass deletion of BLP's was withing admin "discretion". this speedy, prod, AfD article by the score and ticking time bomb, is not a productive quality improvement process: better to institute teams. how long will it be, until the article count starts declining? by increasing the scrap rate do you increase quality? the sanction should be mandatory civility transplant, i.e. mandatory civility programmed instruction, with a passing grade. i note DGG, that noone is listening to you. i nominate DGG to be instructor: he has ways of making you civil. Slowking4 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you rewrite that and post it in the English language please? If nobody is listening to DGG it seems rather silly to put him in a role which would require people to actually pay attention to and agree with his comments. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in English, if you want an ambiguity in it clarified then I'd suggest a polite note to Slowking on his talkpage rather than such hyperbole. As for your suggestion that nobody listens to DGG, I'm sure you are aware that DGG is highly respected (except perhaps by some of the most hardline deletionists). I for one certainly pay attention to his views, usually agree with him and especially in this case "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Of course there some exceptions to that such as G3 and G10, nobody is arguing that badfaith contributions be given the same courtesy as goodfaith ones. But we are here to write an encyclopaedia not to delete it, and it is important that editors treat deletion as a last resort rather than a first recourse. Sometimes I see "editors" whose contributions include whole screens of prods, speedy tags and the notifications thereof with out even the barest attempt to wikify, categorise or even fix typos in those articles, or even in the intervening articles they have come across in their patrolling. In some cases the tags are so close together they can't have had the time to check if the article has just been vandalised let alone make a serious attempt to source it. In the very worst cases I've come across taggers whose prods assert an attempt to source articles even though a Google search will easily find sources. Of course an editor who sources lots of articles may still on the odd occasion miss an obvious source, but there is a humongous difference between an isolated mistake by an editor who clearly does try to improve articles, and a tagger who makes multiple such mistakes or even the badfaith one of claiming they've looked for sources when they haven't. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhm, WereSpielChequers, before you accuse me of hyperbole and saying nobody listens to DGG, note that my comment was simply a reply to SlowKing's statement, on this issue, that "i note DGG, that noone is listening to you". If you have a problem with that statement I would suggest upbraiding him rather than me. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • i will gladly take the moniker hyperbole-king: (noone). but, look at his talkpage, the disregard for his reason dosen't inspire confidence; he has a balanced approach to deletion which falls on deaf ears. i agree with WereSpielChequers, it's the abusive deletions that are objectionable. hope you enjoyed the circularity: an upward spiral of listening to DGG, beats a downward spiral of deletion drama. Slowking4 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He/she means that since we don't enforce WP:BEFORE, it has no effect, i.e., it is a "legal invalidity"; and that we are now at a rate of deletion that he/she wonders when the deletion rate will exceed the creation rate of new articles; and that the deletion process would be better as a quality improvement process if replaced with quality teams; and that since we work without quality standards, we don't actually know that deleting articles increases the quality of the encyclopedia.  Also, that we should respect DGG and give him/her a title of teacher.  Also that civility should be given metrics and thereby enforced, so that editors that use words such as some of those in the previous comment would get low marks, negative feedback, and maybe sent to the DGG school for civility.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
chapeau, better than i could have said. in addition, mass deletion is systematic abuse of the deletion process which includes before, deserving of sanction. DGG was beginning to undo deletions without a reason; mass deletions deserve the same undoing. it is also unprofessional, (beneath a minimum standard of conduct).
online training is well established, with grades and tracking. therefore: suggest, enforce training in required subjects: human resource management, library science, quality control. a higher standard of behavior.
i see above and it's widely held that unreferenced articles should be deleted: "That's why it's not the job of those proposing deletion to provide sources." but i agree with DGG, the proper response to an unsourced article is to source it, not delete it. the sourcing policy was overdue, but incomplete without a plan to implement it on all the existing articles. the sooner we stop the wiki drama, and build the teams to work the backlog, the sooner we will have a better quality wiki. Slowking4 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DGG - again, he's shown that he's a wise Jedi master. WP:BEFORE is a guideline, but based on the cited policy. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Required or at least strongly encouraged. People put a lot of work into contributing articles, and rather than discourage them with AFD, it should be required to check up on the article a little more, and see if it is really should be. It should not be easier to delete a page than to add it. Wxidea (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps steps prior to AfD should be stressed, eg tagging with template:notability and template:unreferenced to give an opportunity for someone else to fix the issue. Then if noone comes out of the woodwork, or if attempts to fix the issue are still not up to scratch, take it to AfD. Some of the drama of AfD is that once the nomination is seen a whole slew of defenders turn up who hadn't been aware of the problem with the article in the first place. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encouraged or required - much of WP:BEFORE is duplicated by the editing policy, and a good-faith effort to follow WP:BEFORE would dramatically reduce the amount of fixable nominations, which would free up AFD for more truly liminal cases. On the other hand, if the nominator is not familiar with the subject or the potential sources usable, even if they applied BEFORE, some fixable nominations would still get through. --Malkinann (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment

As I'm sure we'd like to come to some sort of consensus, I picked a article from the back of the New Page Patrol Backlog, The Black Book (TV programme) and applied the criteria to it. I put my statement evaluating the criteria on the talk page. What would have taken me perhaps 5 minutes took 30 to do. Obviously some things are a judgement call, but if we're going to put full force behind WP:BEFORE, let's go through the motions of applying the criteria without needing to do it to see if this is really a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another take in the same direction.  This is based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia):

WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE quality analysis

  • Number of words in nomination: 3
  • Nominator's constructive edits on the Article page: none
  • Nominator's constructive edits on Discussion page: none
  • Point  1: not scored
  • Point  2: Fail. Note that nominator has stated in archives at WP:ANI that the articles were read.  So the score here reflects not the action but the failure to report the action.
  • Point  3: not scored. Nominator has not indicated that the talk page has been read, but the talk page has no discussion.
  • Point  4: Fail. Requires objective evidence, such as a search algorithm that can be repeated by other editors, and analysis of likely offline sources such as reliable local newspapers in libraries.
  • Point 5a: Fail. Nominator has not refuted the possibility of a redirect.
  • Point 5b: Fail. Nominator has not refuted the possibility of a merge.
  • Point  6: Fail. No tags.
  • Point  7: Fail. No evidence that nominator has checked "What links here".
  • Point  8: not scored.
  • Point  9: Fail. Nominator has not disclosed in the AfD the relevance of WP:COI, given that he/she is reported to be a rabbi of a different Jewish denomination.
  • Point 10: not scored (Duplicative)
  • Point 11: not scored
  • Point 12: not scored, Template:Not Ballot, no evidence that this was or was not done.
  • Point 13: not applicable
  • Incubation: Fail, Nominator has not refuted the possibility of incubation.
  • Other Wiki Project: Pass was no need to mention other Wiki projects
  • Check for Deadlinks: not scored, no evidence that these were checked, and no evidence that they were not checked.
  • Has the nomination prevented "duplication of effort": Fail
  • Nomination is inoculated "from being labeled as spurious or thoughtless": Fail

Unscintillating (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes; I find analysis based on a single example interpreted and selected by somebody with a clearly biased opinion on the subject to be simply de rigueur for accuracy. Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent about 8 man-hours today in researching the topic and improving the article.  Given that a redirect does not require an AfD discussion, my analysis here is that there was never a possibility that this material was subject to deletion.  A plausible argument could be made to create a List of Jewish congregations in Portsmouth, with this material merged there, but the place for this conversation is on the talk page of Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia).  Note that the nominator is now pursuing a deletion review which by coincidence happens to be about Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 28.

Possible improvements:

  • Point 4, expand to include Gnews and Gscholar.
  • Point 5, expand to include Delete, and restore redirect
  • New points: how long did it take to prepare the AfD nomination, and how long has the nominator been working on the article.

Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do these fit in the above?

I realize that nomination is only 1/2 of deletion but where would the following fit in. Based on a quick guess from going through random articles, I'm guessing that there are about 1,000,000 stub and short articles on cities, towns, provinces, obscure species species of plants and animals where the ability to meet wp:notability is presumed and probable, but it has not been established in the article. And most of these articles would have no "defender". Something to protect them from mass mindless AFD nomination would be good. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They would survive AFD so not sure why your suggesting or what the point would be If you nominated lots they would end up being speedy kept and you'd get lots of comments about WP:before. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they would survive a challenge. Notability has never required that an article contain even one citation. We only require that WP:Independent sources have been WP:Published on the subject.
We don't have an actual problem with people trying to delete these articles, so we don't really need something to protect them. If we develop this problem, then we have mechanisms in place to handle it. Among our "defenses" are deletion sorting (which calls articles to the attention of people who are interested in, and usually familiar with notability standards for, a general subject) and blocking editors for disruptive nominations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I wonder if some brave soul might summarize the above discussion to the optional or required nature of WP:BEFORE? Basket of Puppies 04:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUNS#Guidelines

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms contains the project's guidelines, a certain portion of which appears to depart significantly from the spirit if not the wording of our core content policies. Namely, Wikipedia:GUNS#Criminal use says:

The inclusion criteria of "legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage" or "if [the gun's] notoriety greatly increased" strike me as completely arbitrary demands, which are --in actual practice-- being placed on the inclusion of any bit of information into any gun article.

And to top it off, there is the barefaced WP:NPOV quote, which actually prohibits precisely the kinds of arbitrary demands the WP:GUNS guideline makes, since WP:UNDUE works both ways: "treat[ing] each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" means that notable and verifiable information should be included, just that it should be represented according to its relative importance and notability.

I'd like to put this up for debate with neutral, uninvolved editors (ie. not at WT:GUNS). Is such an arbitrary threshold compatible with the spirit and aims of Wikipedia? --87.78.52.92 (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All inclusion criteria everywhere on wikipedia are arbitrary. If we didn't create inclusion criteria there would be an influx of all kids of trivial information into articles. To me this inclusion criteria is reasonable. It lays out criteria where the criminals can be mentioned and excludes those that the information would be trivial. As with all rules on Wikipedia this one can be ignored if ignoring it will make the encyclopedia better. This would need to be considered on a case by case basis and the place to discuss thos exceptions would be on the individual article talk pages. Just because some piece of information is verifiable about a subject, that does not mean that the information belongs in a specific article. It could be verifiable that a criminal used a particular weapon in the commission of a crime. That fact probably should be mentioned in the criminal/crime's article but it doesn't necessarily belong in the article about the gun itself. GB fan (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some piece of information is verifiable about a subject, that does not mean that the information belongs in a specific article. -- When a piece of information does not meet the criteria of "legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage" or "if [the gun's] notoriety greatly increased" does not mean that the information does not belong in the article, either.
criteria where the criminals can be mentioned and excludes those that the information would be trivial -- I do have one specific example which imho defies your logic. The Red Army Faction's logo contained a depiction of the Heckler & Koch MP5 ([17], [18], [19]). This is not "trivia" by any stretch of the imagination, and it should be perfectly fine to briefly mention it in the gun article, not just in the Red Army Faction article. WP:GUNS members however adamantly refuse to let this bit of info into the article, referring to their arbitrary Criminal use guideline ("arbitrary" as in departing significantly from our core content policies).
Wrt IAR: It appears WP:GUNS is ignoring our core content policies, arguably without a plausible justification. --87.78.52.92 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the information about the red army faction would be a good addition to the MP5 article. There is no way to add all the different items that could go into an article into an inclusion criteria. Trivial information should not be in the article. GB fan (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to add all the different items that could go into an article into an inclusion criteria. -- Then they shouldn't attempt to do it in the first place, as the outcome is condemned from the get-go to be unacceptably narrow.
Trivial information should not be in the article. -- Agreed, so what speaks against saying just that in the WP:GUNS guideline, rather than formulating some arbitrary standards? Almost all contested cases should be decided on a case-by-case anyway. --87.78.52.92 (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of policies and guidelines in all of Wikipedia have all the different possibilities included in them and there is no way to do that. Based on that should we trash all policies and guidelines and discuss each case individually? I would say no, better to cover the majority of the situations and then discuss those that come up less frequently. If something starts coming up frequently then discuss it and add it to the appropriate page. GB fan (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of policies and guidelines in all of Wikipedia have all the different possibilities included in them and there is no way to do that. -- You're now arguing against yourself. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where am I arguing against myself? GB fan (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of policies and guidelines in all of Wikipedia have all the different possibilities included in them and there is no way to do that. -- How is that an argument for keeping a bit of a guideline that does try to do just that? It's an argument for saying something as specific as "No trivia". --84.44.182.35 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it appears you don't quite understand what the Criminal use portion of the GUNS guidelines does: It does not "cover the majority of the situations". What it does is specifying rare cases (laws being passed as a result of the respective criminal use etc.) and then it says that everything that fails that very narrow threshold does not belong in a gun article. Just saying "No trivia", without defining some arbitrary and very narrow inclusion criteria would be the way to go. Accordingly, project-wide guidelines also don't specify "this or that belongs and everything else doesn't". Because it would be madness. And it is.
The RAF logo/MP5 situation proves that very clearly imho. I personally think it is notable enough to include in the article, yet it doesn't meet the GUNS guideline, and that's how the bit's inclusion was rejected by GUNS members. So yeah, in that sense, the Criminal use section does indeed "cover the majority of the situations" -- but from the point of view of someone who wants to exclude notable bits like in my example situation. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, WikiProject 'guidelines' are useful but non-binding. WP:IAR aside, they cannot trump WP:NOTE and WP:V etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur, but that didn't keep WP:GUNS members from barring the above-mentioned piece of info from the article. The most ardent opponent of the info's inclusion has since been banned as a rabid anti-semite, among other things, and in the case I discuss above, I got the feeling that the wikiproject is dominated by right-leaning individuals who are particularly opposed to that bit being mentioned in the gun article since it would in their perception "sully" the gun article by mentioning a left-wing terrorist use. (As you can see, I'm having a hard time staying calm about this issue, whence why I opted to bring this up here instead of WT:GUNS.) --87.78.52.92 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP guidelines are somewhere between weak to non-existent regarding relevance and significance for inclusion of material into articles. (only a weak bit bit is available under wp:undue) Some of the projects try to make up for this by making their own rules, some of which go too far and/or arbitrary. I've seen this under other topics. In then end they have to be considered to be non-binding.

The solution is to make up some general guidelines regarding relevance and significance for inclusion into articles, only to be brought into play where there is some question or dispute beyond meeting the guideline.North8000 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they have to be considered to be non-binding -- I agree. But tell that to the members of WP:GUNS. --87.78.52.92 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While project-based guidelines are non-binding they have been formulated by editors versed in these subjects to help explain how the policies and general guidelines of wikipedia can/should be applied to the topics the projects cover. In that respect the Guns exmaple above is a parallel to the WP:Aviation guideline on inclusion of aircraft incidents on articles about specific aircraft types. Personally the guideline makes a lot of sense and I don't see how it deviates from the general content guidelines. Without knowing a particular dispute it is hard to give an opinion as to whether the GUNS guideline is failing in purpose or being wrongly applied. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is here from 2008. I must be missing something because the only edit that I see adding it comes from User:Everyme with the edit summary, "re-adding RAF notice. removal will lead to an RfC, and to arbitration if need be. POV OWNership will not be tolerated." I didn't see where it was added before nor other edits to the article by that user...maybe I missed them. The block log of the presenter is telling. Regardless, I see no recent attempt to open the issue on the article talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that used to be me. There is another discussion, where admin User:John tried to reason with these folks but subsequently gave up as well. This is not about the specific example though. The Criminal use criteria just strike me as unacceptable. I take it you don't care about that though. Ah well, next. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the 2008 discussion, the Guns guidelines is barely used but the core policy of UNDUE is. The way I am see this now is as retreading an old content dispute, with no actual attempt at discussion either at WP:Firearms or the article talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the older discussion. This board probably isn't the right venue for this thread. That said, I haven't seen any difficulties regarding the Criminal use guideline from WP:GUNS. This complaint seems isolated.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having real trouble understanding what the problem is. (Maybe that is the problem...) I'd say delete the RAF logo ref too; it's trivial. It's only a logo, so calling it "use" is a bit of a stretch; it doesn't even rise to "use" in an actual film or TV project. Does every photo of a firearm qualify as "use", then? Does a photo of Dillinger with a S&W qualify as "use" (absent evidence he ever fired it)? That can be taken to absurd lengths, & I daresay you'll get trvial cruft from editors wanting to promote their favorite guy or favorite gun. Let's not. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The RAF logo is the single most notable depiction of the MP5 of all times. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I'm sure you'll be able to produce a solid WP:Independent source that directly says that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to play that old game with me, you're gonna have to play it properly.
I do not want to include that bit ("most notable depiction") in the article, so your request of a source must be a red herring; or you didn't properly read my posts.
What I do have several reliable sources for (see my posts above) is what I actually want to include in the article: The simple mention that MP5 was depicted in the RAF logo.
The obviously true fact that the RAF logo is the most notable depiction of the MP5 is something I'm merely employing as a valid argument in this discussion between Wikipedians. And if you sincerely doubt that the RAF logo is the most notable depiction of the MP5, I dare you to find a more notable one. Gotta love amateur Wikilawyers. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute involving a single article, not a policy question. I recommend that the OP follow the recommendations at WP:Dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. I just stumbled upon the GUNS guideline via that article. It was the occasion, not the reason. The "Criminal use" portion of the guideline with its arbitrary inclusion threshold is unacceptable regardless of my own involvement. To dismiss that fact on the grounds of my initial motivation is ludicrous. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You freely admit that this is an issue you've wanted to have resolved this way for some years, and is specific to one article (not the project's content guideline). You took it straight to a noticeboard without notifying the article talk page, the project in question, attempting to re-add the edit, or anything else. Your behavior here obviously calls your motivations into question.
As is noted above, the guideline / threshold is similar to that in other areas (aviation accidents and aircraft type articles, etc). It's not in violation of general Wikipedia policy. It's been in place for some years. It's not a monolithic block on any such inclusion, and specific exceptions could be argued on article talk pages, to local consensuses.
You have a clear agenda here and you're attacking this like it's a legal problem. You need to argue your case on the article talk page. This is the wrong venue and the wrong approach. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried the article talk page, as well as WT:GUNS, to no avail (several years back). I simply decided on this fine day to post here and gather opinions of uninvolved editors because I just happened to remember that guideline today, for no particular reason.
The thing is that I see not a single convincing argument by those who would leave the Criminal use portion of the GUNS guidelines as it currently is. I swear that I am actually open to any such arguments and reasonings, and also that gauging whether there are such arguments and reasonings was my sole agenda in starting this thread. --84.44.182.35 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I understand the issues here entirely, but I tagged the section with {{WikiProject style advice}}, to clarify that it's not a site-wide "Guideline", in the usual Wikipedia sense of the word. Mlm42 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have to say I see what they are trying to do here. If it were not for a guideline like this then gun articles would become POV battlegrounds as one side tries to put every time someone is killed by a gun into the gun's article and the gun manufacturer's article and everywhere else they could. The other side would want NO information that guns are ever used in crime on Wikipedia. I see the existing suggestion as an extension of WP:UNDUE. Sometimes a gun is notable for how it is used. The fact Dirty Harry carried a .44 magnum is notable, often-talked-about, ect. The fact that Machinegun Kelly got his name for his use of a Browning Automatic Rifle is notable. The fact that babyface Nelson used one as well is not. If a gun is widely vilified (the TEK-9, the MAC-10 and -11) for its criminal use that is notable. Trivia should be rooted out whenever found. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I agree with you, just like I agree with the flight folks that an encyclopedia article doesn't contain a laundry list of every single minor incident that has ever happened at an airport.
But this is still a single-article content dispute, and this page still isn't an appropriate forum for dispute resolution. The OP needs to go to WP:Dispute resolution, not ask on a new page every couple of months for years, until you get the answer you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might have responded to my debunking of your arguments above, rather than repeating them. --84.44.231.244 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read through about half of this, so this might have already been said, but 84.44.182.35 is blowing up a content dispute from one article into a crusade against the guideline itself. Frankly, that's inappropriate. I take issue with 84.44.182.35's tone as well. This isn't the proper place for this, the proper place for this is the talk page of the game, where normal consensus practice applies. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pease see my reply to Georgewilliamherbert. See also my comments here, which have not been addressed at all.
Like I said, it is outright ludicrous to ignore this problem simply because I was foolish enough to use that specific article situation (which I don't actually care about any more, and haven't for years) as an excellent example case which illustrates how that guideline can be misused.
What you guys are saying here amounts to the advice to be more dishonest in the future, rather than innocuously making a case for what should be an uncontroversial discussion about a section of a project guideline that is simply not compatible with sitewide policy (which is not "just my perception", but demonstrated by the fact that no other part of any guideline or policy even remotely resembles the basic logical setup of WP:GUNS#Criminal use).
Also, it is just as ludicrous to ignore this problem because you don't like my tone. Please feel free to ask me to change the tone, and I'll try my best, but please don't respond by declaring everything I say inapplicable nonsense. --87.79.225.139 (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is not advice to "be more dishonest." You may disagree with their guidelines, but they appear to be reasonable to me. I agree with HominidMachinae's interpretation of the guideline and why it was implemented.
Second, if you attempt to solve a problem by taking an offensive tone, you're not going to get far.
Finally, if you are User:Everyme, why are you not using that account? I see Xavexgoem unblocked the account in April (though not why). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the password anymore, nor any interest in resuming editing as a registered user.
this is not advice to "be more dishonest." -- You sure about that? People berate me basically for bringing up the specific example where I originally encountered WP:GUNS and their guidelines. I did so because I saw no reason not to. In hindsight, I should have kept my mouth shut about that part of the story.
Also, please don't quote WP:CIVIL to me. I already apologized if anyone took offence at my tone. Nevertheless, it is true that it is ludicrous to ignore the problem because someone doesn't like my tone. Like I said, ask me to change my tone, and I will do my best to oblige, but don't dismiss the problem I'm bringing up by pointing to my tone.
The one true statement in HominidMachinae's reasoning is that Trivia should be rooted out whenever found. The thing is that WP:GUNS already does have a section dedicated to Pop culture (ie. trivia). There is zero valid need for an additional guideline specifically for trivia as related to criminal use, especially one that deals with the problem the way WP:GUNS#Criminal use does. I'm yet to hear a single example of any part of any other guideline or policy resembling WP:GUNS#Criminal use, or a truly vindicating reasoning for why it is necessary or useful beyond anything a simple and straightforward guideline section on trivia is for.
You may disagree with their guidelines, but they appear to be reasonable to me -- I have shown how they are not reasonable. I have shown it through arguments, all of which have been simply ignored (sorry for the link, but it applies). --84.44.230.33 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown your opinion that they are not reasonable to you. Your opinion is not fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages for files on Commons

Is there a prohibition on creating talk pages on en: for files that are hosted at Commons? And is there a reason to tag such talk pages with Wikiproject banners? I would think not, but I can't find clear language on this anywhere. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would say that should be up to the WikiProject if they want to tag them or not. If the image is used on Wikipedia and has a Wikipedia file location (eventhough the file might be in Commons) then there are reasons why having it linked to a project are useful. For example:
  1. In the case of Featured media, it doesn't matter if its featured in WP or in Commons, its still featured media.
  2. It allows the projects to be notified of files if they are submitted for deletion, disussion, etc. be article alert bot. Otherwise the project has to watch all the for deletion pages and know that file is associated to the project.
  3. It allows the projects some idea of what images might be related to them and the articles in their scope
  4. It allows the projects to add categories and other items that may potentially be missing from the file.
These are just some I do it but there are others as well. --Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: #2, if the file is on Commons, then its possible deletion from there would not register on a talk page hosted on en:wiki. Re: #4, I'm pretty sure we don't use en:wiki categories for Commons files, particularly not since Commons has categories and they can just be linked to en:wiki articles or article categories by adding Template:Commons category.

But regardless, if there's not an established consensus against them, I'll just ignore them; I was looking for a reason to delete them. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re #2 - I'm not sure if User:CommonsNotificationBot currently adds a notice to an en.wp talk page, but it would make sense. Rd232 public talk 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from User:CommonsNotificationBot, it only places deletion notices on the talk pages of articles that use Commons files, Wikipedia:Commons Deletions, or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous); never on file talk pages. postdlf (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against them afaik, but not all WikiProjects will tag them. One reason I do like tagging (at least some of them) is for tracking FP/FS/etc. for a WikiProject. This is useful for example in a portal's (e.g., Portal:Barack Obama) "Recognized content" section, which is often updated by bot and thus will only track the talk pages with a WikiProject tag on it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin I don't delete them when a file moves to commons, as otherwise the information on them would be lost. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging files with banners, regardless of their location, is the easiest way for projects to know what resources are available to them. It causes no harm but is tremendously useful, assuming of course that the files have names that lend themselves to quick and easy identification (another issue altogether). Tag baby tag! Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should WikiProjects have a maximum size

Time and time again I have been drawn into conversations about the size of WikiProject United States I want to have a discussion about how big a project should be.

Should WikiProject's have a maximum size or scope? Should they be limited by the members in the project or have their scope dictated to them by others outside the project? and if the decision is that a project should not exceed a certain size, what if anything should be done, to reduce it? --Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the purported benefits of imposing limitations? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None as far as I can tell but I have repeatedly been badgered by editors (non members of the project BTW) who feel that the scope of WikiProject United States is too wide with too many articles and they want me and the other project members to redefine the scope of the project to be less broad. I was hoping to gather comments on others feelings on wether a projects size should be limited. Personally I think it should be up to the members of the project to decide their scope and size. --Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think project size should be a matter of policy, but common sense definitely should come into play. WikiProjects seem to work best when they unite people with common interests and complementary knowledge, and when there are enough participants to have frequent enough interaction to keep everyone engaged. A project can be "too small" if there's not enough interaction for the participants to stay engaged. On the other hand, the scope of a project is "too large" when its scope is such that there's not enough commonality of interests and knowledge to make it function smoothly. IMO, if you define the United States WikiProject to include all topics related in some way to the United States (government, history, law, individual states, territories, TV, military history, medal of honor winners, comics, museums, etc.), you lose the glue that holds a WikiProject together because you lose the commonality of interests. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Direct them to the fact that there are also dozens of daughter projects for Wikiproject United States, and that this sort of heirarchy (where large subjects are under the remit of one project, and subprojects exist to deal with various aspects of the large subject). It isn't as though WPUS directly oversees every single article under every single topic which could conceivably be connected to the United States. There's lots of subprojects that do the hard work on most of the individual articles. Once you "parcel off" all of the articles which are dealt with by other projects in conjunction with WPUS, the number of articles which are uniquely and solely under its remit doesn't seem all that large. I don't see any problems at all in this regard. --Jayron32 03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And many articles that may be tagged for WP:USA likely are primarily handled by entirely unrelated projects - i.e.: Many sports articles may be tagged as belonging to a national project, but often are not handled there, but at the sport specific project. Also, at 102,000 articles, the American Wikiproject is actually smaller, relative to population, than the Canadian at 76,000 articles. Resolute 03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, storage seems to be no problem for Wikipedia, but lots of people complain about things taking up too much space; this seems to be a frequent justification for really snarky speedy deletes. Is Wikipedia's storage space virtually unlimited, as it would seem to appear? If not, could someone provide some links/information to show the storage capacity? I think this information should be made available (if it's not already) and it should also become more visible. Otherwise, when you tell someone their article isn't worth the seemingly unlimited space, people are going to take it as a big insult, and they're still not going to understand the concept of storage budgeting (I don't). This is generally speaking -- I'm not limiting these comments to WikiProject size.--Jp07 (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar sense than with content forks, the best approach may be to let the wikiproject grow, and if it gets too large, begin to create task forces for specific subtopics. In other cases, a certain group of articles with an overlapping project may be left to the other project, and the wikiproject tag may be simply removed: for example, most comics and videogames are from the US, so it may not be needed to include them within the WP:USA, even if the projects are not subprojects in a conceptual way.

In other cases, as in countries with few editors around, the best approach is the opposite, to group all articles within their single country wikiproject. Is there's a problem with an article of a comic book from Argentina, an Argentine editor, living in Argentina, with knowledge of Argentina or whatever would be more likely to be able to help than the average editor of wikiproject comics.

The hierarchy of categories must be precise, but the hierarchy of wikiprojects should be pragmatic and empirical. Cambalachero (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those that have commented and may still be watching I agree with Cambalachero. I have also stated multiple times in multiple venues that I agree that we cannot and should not try to create a super project thats all inclusive of all things US. I also do not intend to force projects to fall under WPUS. I do think that WPUS is a good place to help support projects that are struggling or have gone completely inactive and is a good pivot point for things like the Newsletter, portal management, Collaborations and the Noticeboard. In regards to Jayrons comments I agree with him too, IMO there is no need however to add a banner to an article of a project that doesn't do anything (and I mean no offense by that at all). Some projects are very very active and do a lot of great work (US Roads, MILHIST, California, etc), others don't do much at all. Many of them have members who do a lot of article work but there is very little activity or coordination from the project itself. Thats partly were I think WPUS can help. In addition to managing and collaborating on articles at the National level, there is need for a general US related project to help maintain the articles on those projects that are struggling like is being done with US Government and others. These projects still exist, they still continue to collaborate and work on articles, they just get a little extra help from WPUS. The thing to remember is that the articles are whats important, not the project. --Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get any further, please note the following important definition:

WikiProject == group of editors who work together.

WikiProject is not a bunch of pages, a set of categories, a subject, or a list of articles that those editors are interested in. A WikiProject is a group of editors.

This question, therefore, translates as "Should the community tell a group of editors who work together that they may not work together on more than a set number of articles?"

The answer, BTW, is in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide: "members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project....if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that sentence seems to be in direct conflict with wp:CONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Yoenit (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Consensus does not permit you to tell a group of editors that they are not permitted to WP:VOLUNTEER to work on an article, or that they may not be automatically notified of AFDs about it, or any number of other things. That's WP:OWNership, not "consensus". "The two of us agree that you're not allowed to play in our article" is not a valid consensus on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't have a problem with Kumioko's tagging or anything, my comment was about the wording of that guideline in general. I can think of various hypotetical examples where wikiproject tags may be BLP violations, spam or otherwise completely unsuited. I have yet to see any of this happen in practice and if it does IAR will trump all, but I don't like having rules which can easily be abused. Yoenit (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLP violations have been claimed before and rejected. Johnny Weir is a good example of that; an editor demanded the removal of WP:WikiProject LGBT studies's banner because Johnny Weir refuses to publicly declare his sexual orientation. It was the editor's position that the editors at WPLGBT were not permitted to support any BLP unless the subject had verifiably declared that he was gay, because saying that the article was "of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies" (actual text on the banner) amounted to a declaration that the subject was gay.
The claim was roundly rejected, in multiple discussions on the article's talk page, at administrative noticeboards (the determined editor ended up blocked for edit warring and BLP-violating insulting speech about the subject), and at WT:COUNCIL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is contradicted by WP:IAR, which says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If Kumioko feels that tagging certain articles with the WPUS tag helps coordinate the efforts of his taskforce better; that is if he feels that such taggings allow people who wish to pitch in and help improve an article find articles in their interest area which they can fix, then why, exactly, should he be forced to stop tagging article talk pages merely because he has reached a magic number of tags for a particular project? This is not a rhetorical question. It is one which needs to be answered: What does the presence of the tag on the article's talk page do to make the article text worse? --Jayron32 20:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPUS is really not that large when you compare it to WikiProject Biography... 930,000 pages! -Mabeenot (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that WPUS is around 100,000 articles. Is that about right? --Kleinzach 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we limit our editors from collaborating in anyway? As noted on the Council-guide bot alerts notifications for deletion, RfC, disputed etc.. will be seen thus participated in by many projects and more editors. All this is a plus. Founding principle #4 say - creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment. Jimbo has stated in the past - Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community'. So lets let our editors decide what they would like to collaborate on and in what way. Moxy (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this question about wikiprojects in general, or about WP:USA in particular? If it is the later, discuss it at the project talk page, and if the inclusion of the banners does not have internal consensus, then they may be removed Cambalachero (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has come up repeatedly, but WP:USA seems to be the poster child this year. The problem normally arises from one of two misunderstandings:
  1. The editor believes that WikiProjects shouldn't have overlapping scopes, e.g., that there must be some clear demarcation that separates "WikiProject First aid" from WikiProject Medicine, because the sky will fall if two completely separate groups of editors want to work on the same kinds of articles. (It is good and desirable for such groups to merge, but the fact is that we can't force them to be friends any more than you can force all the cliques at your local high school to merge.)
  2. The editor has confused the way we organize content into categories with the way we organize editors into teams. These people complain whenever a group named WikiProject X wants to support articles that aren't in a category tree under Category:X, or otherwise having some obvious relationship to the subject X. For example: These editors want to remove WP:LGBT's tag from Eleanor Roosevelt or Johnny Weir because the individuals aren't proven to be gay.
This round appears to be primarily the first. The editor seems to believe that WP:USA must limit the articles it is interested in to avoid trespassing on the articles he believes should be "belong" to other WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it's for WP:USA to decide on its organization, I'd have thought it was something of a non-issue because users can re-structure/re-scale their projects by working in taskforces. --Kleinzach 15:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. WPUS has 102, 000 items but only about 45000 are articles. The rest are files, categories, templates and other things. The task force issue is an excellent point Kleinzach. Although they are not task forces per say many of the subprojects that are supported by WPUS (and even WPUS itself) have their own members that work primarily on that projects content and not necessarily anywhere else. Most of the members of the project(s) would fall into this actually. There are only a couple of us that I know of that actively edit and maintain content within the entire project and as far as I know I am the primary one. Most the rest work on the item that interests them and that is perfectly fine. --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may see an underlying issue: some editors believe that wikiprojects "own" articles; that they can decide how articles should be structured or styled, with no regard to wider consensus or even policy. Nothing could be further from the truth Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also seen this and it aggrivates me to no ends and I could offer several WikiProjects and associated policies as examples. In this particular case though the comments are more related towards the scope of the project and "how big" we intend to let it get. Admittedly, the project may become quite big like WPMILHIST but nothing near Biography with its million articles (WPUS only has 61000 articles currently with 104, 000 pieces of content including templates, categories, etc). --Kumioko (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like others have said, there's no set limit on a Wikiproject, nor should there be a hard rule. However, common sense must apply. If we had a "Wikiproject Earth," you could concievably tag every article on Wikipedia, because it was all "discovered" on Earth. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin edits

Hello every body, wikipedia has a big problem wich is the decreasing of edits (precisely articles) of users who have sysop rights. what are the reasons ? جمال الحجيلان (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. What evidence do you have that this "problem" exists
  2. What is special about administrators (which I take to be what you mean by people with sysop rights) editing articles, as opposed to non-admins? As far as I'm aware, admins have no special powers, skills or experience differentiating them from the mass of (at least, experienced) editors. We can charitably assume admins are busy with mops & buckets whilst the rest of us spend a higher proportion of our time editing articles. Why is this a problem? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if admins edited articles more, I suppose, but to ensure that we need to do one of two things to reduce the amount of time admins spend doing admin tasks:
  1. Make a significant number of new admins, probably something on the order of doubling or even tripling. I don't hang out at RfA, but I doubt that there are that many people qualified to be an admin who aren't (and who wan't to be).
  2. Alter human nature so that people do not behave so as to require admin intervention.
Since neither seems to be feasible, I'd recommend not worrying about it. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 21:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are volunteers and can chose to edit, or to perform admin jobs or both. So if they are happy it is not a problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for image filter referendum

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own account.

Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials, voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at m:Image filter referendum shortly.

For the coordinating committee,
Philippe
Cbrown1023
Risker
Mardetanha
PeterSymonds
Robert Harris

Cross posted by -- DQ (t) (e) 21:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of file size/storage concerns?

Could someone please explain to me why file size/storage seems to be a frequent topic of conversation? As far as I can tell, it seems that Wikipedia's storage is practically unlimited; I'm sure it has its limits, but could someone please provide some information on this that will help me to understand the need for frugality, if, indeed, it is necessary? Finite numbers would be great. Thanks.--Jp07 (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the concern is mainly the size of each article being displayed, as just too, too much text and data, especially when viewed on a handheld device/cellphone. There is no concern having more than 4 million articles: Wikimedia Commons has 10 million images/audios. However, there are many size issues to consider (such as the size of images on a page). For each large article, there are obviously huge areas of text: those bottom navboxes (often more than 9 boxes of "creeping linkerism"), or hundreds of sources (even on major articles which have "90" subarticles to cite sources), or a list of "Further reading" with "40" books. For example, the popular huge article "United States" (viewed 45,240 times per day, ~2000 times per hour in June 2011) has 17 bottom navboxes, totalling hundreds of rare wikilinks. Plus, the U.S. article has 217(!) footnotes, when almost every phrase of text is verifiably covered within thousands of other articles about U.S. topics (which cite those sources). So, 45,000 people a day are spammed with those 17 navboxes and 217 references, as if it were a stand-alone printed volume about the U.S. rather being than a wikilinked page, with thousands of articles to clarify all the extraneous details. For those reasons, where common sense fails, then guidelines can be written to curb the gargantuan techno-data, and then reduce a highly popular article to a condensed, but broad, summary of the topic, knowing other less-viewed articles can prove sources and display 64-question navboxes about every known aspect of minutia for a popular sub-topic. Without rules to limit all the overkill of techno-data, an article such as "U.S." takes about 30 seconds to fully format and display all the tedious stuff which only 1-in-500 readers would bother to read. Then, get this, many articles are reformatted for most of the readers, to apply preferences settings for the display of the text and images. That is probably a major reason people often see, during busy hours, "WP:Wikimedia Foundation error" as the servers are overloaded in displaying tedious gobs of "tramp data" which is of little value to the readers. Stats show that most readers view a page for only 1 minute, then move on to other pages: hence, an article should show the key concepts in the top paragraphs, with well-chosen images to convey the subject fast. All of these issues are reasons to set guidelines to limit the data displayed to readers, especially when trying to view pages on small handheld devices. Hence, there is the Mobile Wikipedia to display articles for those users. Editors using handheld devices report that editing is very difficult, so they wait until using a laptop or desktop PC. The whole situation is an optimization task: where operation can be radically streamlined, once the customer "needs" are monitored as a major focus. A computer system can run "10x times faster" by optimizing out all the unneeded pork in each area. That is a simplified view of the size issues. -Wikid77 09:02, 2 July 2011, revised 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP in a user page

What's the policy on unsourced BLPs in User space? User:Marc26 has been there since March without sources. Is it acceptable to let it sit there without sourcing? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the WP:BLPPROD page does not say application is limited to article space, I guess you could try that. Otherwise I think the only option is WP:MFD. Monty845 23:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're surely in the need of a policy forbidding vanity users from duplicating their deleted bios to user space. --damiens.rf 01:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mark Batson exists in article space. This looks like a userspace draft from a user who doesn't know how to use subpages. The only question here is why all the later edits to this userpage come from User:Branddevo? It's possible that Marc26 forgot his password or something and had to create a new account. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've welcomed the user and asked him what the deal is? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read User talk:Marc26 you'd probably have a good enough idea. It's an article under development. Shame about the lack of AGF in this thread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I fail to assume good faith? I knew that it was a page under development, but it's still a BLP without any sourcing, which, to me, is a violation of WP:BLP. That's why I asked here, instead of raising any kind of concerns on the User's Talk page. If I were told that it would be okay to have an unsourced BLP in user space, then I would not have pushed the issue. I waited for more opinions after I got the first one from Monty845 to see what others said before I went further. I'm bending backwards to assume good faith, something that Tagishisimon seems to have forgotten how to do. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If such a page bothers you in the future, just add {{NOINDEX}} or {{BLP}} at the top. OK.... moving on. -- Avanu (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist and Lutheran churches are the same?

I've noticed that apparently Methodist churches are now to be put in the category for Lutheran churches... Being Jewish I must admit I'm not always up-to-date on the very multitude of different Christian denominations, but I must say I see this as being quite peculiar and think the community as a whole may want to discuss and possibly override the decision reached in a smaller venue. From what I was able to research quickly in the last 10 mins since discovering this anomaly Ive found that while several Methodist and Lutheran organizations have decided to recognize each other's communions etc, I have found that they are still separate and more importantly have different histories. Methodists are a branch broken from Episcopalian/Anglicanism and Lutherans are directly broken from Roman Catholicism (Martin Luther and his 99 theses). I see that they are not combined in form and that several of their joint "declarations" of working together are also joint declarations of working together signed by Catholics and Episcopalians/Anglicans. Nobody would say Episcopalians and Catholics have given up their independence. And I think putting Methodist Churches in the Lutheran category would create a problem with ex-Methodist Churches that are now historical sites, labelling them as Lutheran could be insulting and inflammatory. I dont know the reasoning behind "Methodists are Lutherans" but if there is a good reason how is it possibly in the best interest of Wikipedia to categorize Methodist churches as Lutheran churches?Camelbinky (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that's inaccurate and less-than-specific. I didn't look it up to see how they are organized, but if they are declared one and the same, I think that's a problem.
I will do a little research on the topic, too, and get back with you.--Jp07 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Methodists aren't Lutherans; they're totally separate, with different governance, theology and so on. Heck, even Lutherans aren't Lutherans -- compare the ELCA to the much more conservative Missouri Synod branch. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this it's only a "communion" and "not merger" ; it's only in the U.S. and not globally; it's specifically the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Methodists not the whole of "lutheranism" and the whole of "methodism"; the Lutherans have the same relationship with "The Episcopal Church, the Moravian Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reformed Church in America and United Church of Christ." So all-in-all putting them into the same category in this way is...well, incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been a typo on a bot's command, someone put Lutheran instead of Methodist and to my knowledge all have been manually reverted and the category bot's task page has been corrected. Whew! Crises averted! Nothing to see here. :P Camelbinky (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion process broken

At 10.15 pm last night (local time), after I'd gone to bed, a note was placed on my talk page, saying that Voiceprint Records had been nominated for speedy deletion. At 5.18 this morning, while I was till asleep, the article, which I created, was deleted, giving me no time to contest the deletion or improve the article, which I originally created. We're not talking about blatant nonsense or spam, nor personal abuse or other such inappropriate content, so there was no need for such haste.

What can we do, to prevent such a thing happening again? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted page (obviously) but if it met a speedy-deletion criterion, then (a) you shouldn't have made it, and (b) it should have been deleted. If it didn't meet any criteria, then you should take this up with the admin concerned, or go to WP:REFUND or initiate a WP:DRV. I don't see any systemic problem here. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 10:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(In most cases) "speedy deletion" is supposed to be, well, speedy. (F4 and F11 are supposed to have a 7-day wait, and one of the subpoints of F7 has a 2-day wait.) Although the article has been around for 3 years, it apparently never has had a claim of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was tagged for notability in January 2011. "What can we do, to prevent such a thing happening again?" would probably be: make the notability of the subject much more evident in the article when it has been pointed out that the notability of the subject is unclear. Fram (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I intend to contest the deletion on the grounds that it did not meet those criteria; and have already asked the admin to undelete the page. However, my point here is not about that specific article; it is that while I was rightly and courteously notified of the SD proposal and invited to contest it; I was then then denied the opportunity to do so due to the timing. Furthermore, while I'm a seasoned editor and so unlikely to leave Wikipedia due to the resultant irritation, or the time wasted resolving the matter, it's the kind of thing which may have exactly that effect on newly-recruited editors, who we need to keep. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cache of the article. I really don't think that's A7 or Speedy Deletion material at all. A Prod I could understand, though I would go with a normal AfD route myself, but definitely not Speedy. SilverserenC 10:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While it is technically true that the article doesn't make a clear claim of notability, for an article like this that the author had obviously spent some time on (it had inline references, an infobox, etc.), I think that giving some extra time to fix things up is just common courtesy. Deleting through Prod wouldn't have hurt the encyclopedia.--Danaman5 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the case of a New Page slipping through and getting deleted. This is an article that was originally created in 2005, a "major" expandsion (to include the info box) in 2008, includes a third party source (though how much about this company is in there, its impossible for me to tell) and tagged for improvement for the last 6 months. That is not saying that a CSD is the right solution, and perhaps not even PROD. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article, I would urge the creator (and everyone else willing to work on it) to improve the evidence of notability, as it may otherwise well be deleted soon via ProD or AfD anyway. Fram (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD would be fine. Prod would not be appropriate at this point, given that we have quite a lengthy discussion here where the article creator is contesting deletion. :) (This is to express no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted; I have not yet looked at it. It is only a procedural comment.) LadyofShalott 18:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, it was PRODed, with a very non-AGF rationale. I` objected, of course. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the article was tagged for speedy, there was no assertion of notability in the article. There's _still_ no assertion of notability in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fram. I will attend to that as soon as I have a spare moment. meanwhile, I should like to return everyone's attention to my comment on the process, rather than the specifics of the individual article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article didn't qualify for speedy deletion, but speedy deletion in itself should not wait for the article creator or other editors to provide input (otherwise there is not much speedy about it anymore). The process is correct, but whether the application in this instance was justified is debatable. Fram (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The process might not have worked in this instance but overall the process works. Any process will have glitches where it fails but as long as the substantial majority of the time the process works, the process is not broken. The CSD process works almost all the time, but once in a while an article gets deleted that shouldn't. Those failures do not indicate that the process as a whole is broken. GB fan (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We all know that mistakes are sometimes made in interpreting the speedy deletion criteria. All that has been presented here is one such error, not evidence of a systemic failure of the entire speedy deletion process. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the overall process works that well. I've seen a number of articles both tagged and deleted that did not meet the criteria. Let me give you a recent example:
A brand-new account (very probably an employee) created an article on a major healthcare organization. It said, among other things, that its original location was the local jail, that the organization included five full hospitals and multiple clinics, and had some moderately interesting historical achievements (oh, the first medical facility ever created in that location, and the first place to do some particular, highly specialized surgery in the region, and things like that. I didn't read it very closely). The only "citation" in the first draft was a link to the org's website.
Naturally, it was tagged as "unambiguous spam" ninety seconds after the page was created.
Now I ask you: What's the odds that the largest healthcare organization over multiple counties, with five hospitals, is a non-notable WP:ORGanization? We could probably demonstrate notability for each and every hospital separately. Hospitals are in the newspaper all the time.
And is there really anything "unambiguously spammy" about saying that the organization has five hospitals or that it was the first place to do some particular surgery? (Note that the article didn't say things like "Have your surgery with us!" or "The best hospitals in the region!" It was all plain description of positive or neutral facts. We might fault it for failing to mention any complaints or lawsuits in the first draft, but that's really about it.)
Now I don't really care one way or the other about this particular article, because hospital articles generally bore me, but it plainly didn't fit the criteria, and I believe that our policies clearly indicate that WP:Deletion is not clean up, so I (=a person who had never edited the article) removed the CSD tag and explained why, and what needed to be done to improve it.
It got deleted anyway. The admin decided that even though it had been contested by an independent editor, who said it did not appear to be spam, that it was still somehow "unambiguous" spam. Something I thought was not at all spammy was, in the opinion of the admin, so obviously spammy that no one could possibly think it was anything except complete spam.
I started a discussion at WT:CSD#Procedure_for_contested_speedies because part of the problem is that the procedures given assume that since the NPPers (a group that contains an unfortunate number of inexperienced people) never, ever misunderstand the criteria, then nobody except the page creator would ever object to CSDs. I believe that we have a rough consensus to update the procedures to cleanly differentiate between "author objects" and "somebody else objects", and to normally treat an objection from other editors like we treat a contested prod. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have always read it that way, but clarification couldn't hurt. Monty845 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a broader issue that we may want to consider, the application of speedy deletion A criteria to articles that are months or years old. All of the A criteria except 5 and possibly 2, are primarily aimed at the deletion of new articles that are so deficient that they are hopelessly far from meeting the article guidelines and should therefor be deleted rather then saved or even given time for improvement. Perhaps we should prohibit the use of A criteria speedy deletion on any article more then x months old (1, 3, or 6?). Note, I think G criteria should always apply regardless of age. (except G11) Monty845 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're all rather missing the point of my original post: Notification after bedtime, deletion in the middle of the night. (Notwithstanding that SD wasn't appropriate in this case; and other issues with SD as raised above.) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Mistakes happen, mistakes get corrected. Perfection is not possible. --Jayron32 17:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since en.wiki has editors from all over the world, there's no such thing as bedtime or the middle of the night. 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs)
Funny; I have both. As, I suspect, do editors all over the world. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about missing the point. So your assertion is that we should somehow incorporate the "bedtime" of the article's author into the CSD process? — Satori Son 13:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, then, your complaint has no merit. If we don't know what someone's "bedtime" is, we cannot determine when to wait. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not come here to complain, and I am not asking that anyone's bedtime be taken into account. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised this involved the A7 criterion. It has historically been the most heavily debated one out of all the other speedy rules -- over what exactly is sufficient to "indicate why its subject is important or significant". Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is hardcore deletionists like User:TenPoundHammer who abuse the CSD process, and admins like User:Malik Shabazz who enable those like him by deleting their nominations without question. We need to keep pushing back against such abuse. Fences&Windows 20:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, "speedy" means "let's see if it's uncontested." NOT urgent. If there are people who can't understand that, or pretend that they don't and run counter to the above, then, unfortunately, we need to write something to keep them from going against this spirit. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. In reality, "speedy" usually means "delete this as soon as possible". Of course, there is a difference between attack pages, copyvios and hoaxes on one side,and many other speedy deletion categories on the other side, in that the first three are truly urgent to avoid damage, and the others are only urgent to avoid things like being cached by Google and thus encouraging users to create pages, even if they know they will get speedied. The sooner A7, G11, and so on are deleted, the more discouraging this is for spammers and the like to create pages. If your page is deleted after 5 minutes, so that it hasn't been indexed by Google, you haven't had the chance to show it to your friends at school, ..., you will be less motivated to try this again. While we don't want to demotivate potentially good contributors, we certainly do want to demotivate spammers, vandals, pranksters, ... Fram (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I should have been clearer. I meant with with respect to situations like this one. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Even in situations like this one, if someone adds a speedy template with the idea "let's see if it is uncontested", they should have used ProD or AfD instead. With speedy, you have to be convinced that it is uncontroversial. Fram (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate issues here. First, if you put work into an article and don't want to see your work lost then you have a responsibility to monitor it for cleanup tags. This is not a place where you get to write whatever you want and expect other people to fix the problems when you get bored, though it may appear that way at times. Second, when someone isn't responsible enough to take care of cleanup tags then it doesn't mean that people can be just as irresponsible by taking a lazy approach to dealing with the problem, e.g. deleting the article with no discussion. The system should work as long as at least one side follows the rules, but it will start to break down if people take the attitude they don't have to since not everyone does.
That being said, I agree with Fences that abuse of CSD should be monitored and checks should be in place to stop repeat abuse. I also think cleanup tags would work better if each article had someone who is making sure issues get fixed. In other words there should be monitoring and checks in place for serial "crufters". So while the saying the system is "broken" is a bit strong, I think the example the OP gave shows that it might pay to think of ways to lubricate it a bit better.--RDBury (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me the bigger issue at stake here is that of defining notability. What is notable to you might be completely and utterly meaningless to me. For example, I am very interested in making sure each Medal of Honor recipient has an article, others think this is a waste and spend their time creating articles for international Footbal(soccer) players which I care nothing about. The end state is, that notability is subjective to the reader and that, I would argue, is something that is very difficult to address. --Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formalizing a WP:BUDDY plan for editing

I think the long-term solution is to move WP into a "buddy system" (WP:BUDDY) like with SCUBA divers who should never dive alone, so when it comes to new articles, then the buddies also can watch for speedies, or help improve articles, when others are on wikibreak or sleeping (see topic: "#Speedy deletion process broken"). Almost everyone on Earth sleeps at night, and so "night owls" are the rare exception, although many thousands of people work the graveyard shift. I'm advocating that WP be turned into "87" welcoming teams for new users, and now for new articles, where a welcoming team could be a buddy system for new articles, although any 2 or more people could use a buddy system. I cannot emphasize the number of times I have tried to collaborate with other editors, to establish a background for creating new articles, and I was accused of nefarious collusion, topic-banned 3 months ("92 days") for WP:CANVASing (because I notified 2 pro-article editors but only 1 anti-article), and recently smeared as being the "ringleader" of other editors whom I had contacted for advice. However, use of buddy-system groups (called "collaboration") is the logical future of WP, with more WikiProjects (as in WP:GOCE), and an editor can be in many buddy-system groups. Hence, we need WP:BUDDY, and few could claim "ringleader" when a person is following the tactics of WP:BUDDY to save articles from speedy or stop the WP:AfD rush-to-delete SNOW actions. Enough said: I think this is obvious to most. --Wikid77 11:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Your whole reference to night owls and the graveyard shift seems to be utterly unrelated to your proposal, so that part only helps to confuse me. But even ignoring that, I don't see what you hope to achieve by this. You are basically advocating tagteaming and an institutionalized version of canvassing, with a "you scratch mine and I'll scratch yours mentality". If you want to save articles from speedy or AfD, write better articles, wich clearly meet WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the concern is about how we're treating new article writers, and their article writing is not directly within an established editor's locus of control. I think this buddy system is a good idea... I'm not sure how practical it is -- perhaps creating a Wikiproject would be the best fit for this, and I think we need to start thinking about how many articles we want to buddy with a new writer on. I think if the standard becomes anything beyond three articles, we will quickly find ourselves spread very thin. I think that any attempt to increase positive interactions would benefit Wikipedia because we tend to be prone to hostilities.--Jp07 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those quick replies, which help show that there are potentials for abusing the concept, as with several editors from one corporation trying to promote their company and product lines. Look at the knol pages, of Google Knol, to see how many thousands (millions) of knol pages were just various forms of adverts for products which have been considered valid pages there. We want to allow users to work together without encouraging a tag-team mentality which could force decisions by majority rule, so I think a guideline is needed to note the differences. Because almost everyone is asleep at night, people should not expect anyone else in their region to save their articles overnight: a need for 24-hour coverage must be noted. -Wikid77 13:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amend WP:NFCC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This isn't going anywhere. Other means to improve notification are being discussed elsewhere. Rd232 public talk 09:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose amending WP:NFCC. Current policy:

Enforcement

"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added."

Add as an additional sentence at the end of this part of the policy: A file may not be removed for failing NFCC unless there has been prior notice of the issue on the relevant article talk page for 7 days. An exception to this is replacement of a file with an appropriate free equivalent.

I think the reasons for this proposal should be fairly obvious to anyone who's followed recent debates about NFCC, including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011. (And to anticipate one complaint: no, this isn't about one user, since others often do similar things and broadly support that user's approach, though somehow discussion often ends up being about this one user. And for those who might nonetheless insist on saying it is about this one user: the community's serial inability to decide what to do about him clearly suggests looking at the big picture.) Bottom line: there is nothing so urgent about NFCC enforcement that notification cannot be made. Requiring prior notification should also somewhat reduce the evident community tensions on this subject. Rd232 public talk 12:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, under this proposed new text, I could not immediately remove a non-free file from an article that I believed was not necessary for that article (NFCC 8)? Or immediately remove non-free images from disambiguation pages or userspace (NFCC9)? Or an agency photo (NFCC 2)? I could go on. Absolutely not for the proposed new text. I'm not even sure the community has the remit to make such a change, as this may impinge on the Foundation's licensing policy. CIreland (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BURO and the legal implications of our copyright policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 12:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a good idea, but it might be an overly idealistic approach to dealing with copyright issues. I think when it comes to this legal issue, CYA is the best policy... and doing so quickly is usually a good idea.--Jp07 (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since restoration of a removed (not deleted) image can be done by any editor, there is zero need to have any requirement preceeding its removal. Deletion, on the other hand, is appropriately given 7 days to be challenged/corrected before its removal. So this is unnecessary. Mind you, like all major changes one might do in text, such should be discussed on talk pages per all other standard policies, there's no reason to single out NFCC as a special case. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Foundation Resolution regarding this exists for 4 years (of which 3 years unchanged), this policy is very clear what needs to be there, there have been notifications, there have been discussions, images have been tagged, pages have been tagged, uploaders' talkpages have been tagged, nothing has happened, and still, on a regular basis users (even very, very established) users misuse non-free material, sometimes knowingly. Enough notification given, though I can live with a 'try to repair/write the rationale first before considering removal', images on display for which there is not a rationale written on the image description page, all can be removed upon detection, and though I think that giving a notification is a noble idea, it should certainly not be a requirement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, I realize you are already opposing but I just want to drive this point home since your oppose only addresses a narrow aspect of the proposal. The proposed change is not just about NFCC 10c but an image failing any of the criteria except NFCC 1 would require a notification and 7 day delay. CIreland (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, while I could consider the idea of leaving images for 7 days if the images only fail #10c and not other parts of the policy (though, I think that there has been enough notification), my answer does concern everything. If images fail NFCC, they should be removed from display, there has been enough time for editors to know that WP:NFCC is also part of our policies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Completely contrary to the BRD cycle as well as the NFCC. What you are proposing would also mean that, for example, if a non-free image was added to a BLP, even one receiving a lot of edits, we would have to wait 7 days before removing it. I really don't think this idea has been thought out. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think what Rd232 was trying to get at was that an image failing WP:NFCC #10c (ONLY) will not be removed, instead a 7 day waiting period initiated by notification to the article's talk page will be used. There's a number of issues with even that stance. (1) We've tried this before, with a bot making notifications to article talk pages, and adding warnings to image description pages. As Dirk notes above, this failed. The problems do not get fixed. (2) This places an effectively impossible burden on 10c enforcers; Place a notice, then come back in a week. Seems simple, right? Wrong. How do you come back in a week? Do you record all your 10c warnings somewhere? Ok, let's say you do. Then what? You come back, but then you have to check the article talk page to see if there's been any response there. Then you have to check the image description page, its history and its talk page, and see if there's been any traffic in the last week. You also have to see if editors made any changes to the article where the image is hosted to see if they've made any changes to the image's use on the page. This effectively places the burden complying with 10c squarely on the shoulders of those trying to enforce the policy. Net result; 10c becomes unenforceable. Yeah, 10c enforcement causes some people to get upset about it. That happens with anything where people bump into a wall that undoes the work they've done. No, the proper response "get it right, here's how, or don't add it". Much simpler and easier to follow. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammersoft, if there is not a rationale after a week, whether or not there is a discussion about it, or the image was in the meantime removed, then editors still had 1 week to actually write the rationale (or repair it, for the cases where the rationale got broken in process). Notification, and if there is no rationale after a week it goes. You don't have to research why it does not have a rationale (except maybe if the rationale was there, but got vandalised inbetween - but that goes into the group of 'somewhat obvious broken rationales'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is, it is exceptionally hard to manage 10c if notifications are required prior to removal, and such difficulties are thereby placed squarely on the shoulders of those seeking to enforce the policy, rather than those who seek to use NFCC material. That goes directly against policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It of course gives more work, whether it becomes extremely difficult to handle - if a bot would properly keep the categorisation of the talkpages in place it might even help in finding the pages that need to be looked at that might even become easier. The bigger point is: it has been tried, it did not work, and also this is just going to have a marginal effect in others doing the work for us. The only thing is that people see the tags, and notice that afterwards their images get deleted, and hence, the tagger gets all the blame for the removal etc. etc. Where did I see this happening before ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, of course. For every normal edit on this project that is a matter of normal editorial judgment, from the most trivial to the most fundamental one, we have WP:BOLD. But for an edit that is not just a matter of individual judgment but a matter mandated by policy, we are going to introduce new rules making such an edit artificially difficult? That's absurd. Instead, how about the reverse? Nobody should be allowed to add any non-free image to an article, without first posting a notification on the talk page first and allowing for discussion? Now, that would actually be in keeping with NFC principles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a number of difficulties with the proposal as worded, as have been noted. On the other hand, there is a particular area where I think there sometimes can be an issue, and does deserve to be looked into. That is if an image is tagged only on its file-page for a deletion process like WP:FFD or {{dfu}}, with no indication made where it is actually used. I think there is a strong case that for those circumstances, it might be appropriate to require that some sign of impending potential deletion is indicated either on the article page or the article's talk page, so people who have those pages but not the file page on their watchlist have the chance to be alerted. I think it might be sensible to write that in as a requirement; there is of course already a standard template to achieve this for the FfD case.
As for Delta, I'm encouraged that he has recently started applying his celebrated lightning-speed editing skills to the identification of rationales pointing to dab pages, and now appears to be quietly updating them to point to the correct pages. I think that is the right thing to do, even if there is an imaginable outside possibility of a use picking up a rationale for the wrong page. The broader issue, I think, is to recognise that it is not enough just to be right about NFCC position in a particular case. If someone is taking on to be the human face of Wikipedia policy, we need them to act like an ambassador for that policy and for WP itself -- helpful, positive, encouraging, responsive, assuming good faith or an honest mistake (no matter how unlikely), and generally doing everything they can to preserve the collegiality of Wikipedia as a good place where people will want to edit and contribute. A little sugar in the proceedings can make a huge difference -- even something just like having a second alternate standard edit summary for second removals, to give the appearance of being a bit more responsive. A little more visible caring that it's about more than just being right would, IMO, go a long way to reducing the temperature, and towards making everybody's life more pleasant. Jheald (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Future and others. The Δ problem is a matter of user conduct, not a widespread issue that mandates weakening a policy over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; at least until such a time as WP:OR and WP:V etc. are updated to say "unsourced, contentious or original material may not be removed from an article unless there has been a prior notification on the talk page for at least 7 days". Ahem. ;) --Errant (chat!) 15:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unnecessary restrictions; the majority of users do not have problems with calmly resolving issues regarding non-free images; the few that do should be dealt with elsewhere, e.g., RfC/U or arbitration. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - yes, I'm primarily thinking of 10c (though there are also issues of interpretation with other criteria), and if agreement for the amendment were limited to 10c that would be better than nothing. Citing WP:BRD, as someone did, is a bit disengenuous when you take into account that NFCC has its own 3RR exemption; removal wins, and debate is not required (never mind notification). The Foundation resolution is alluded to - well it makes no mention of timescale, so it's up to en.wp to set its own, in the interests of preserving community sanity. As to Hammersoft's point about the difficulty of tracking notifications: as I said before, easy solution: just borrow the WP:PROD tracking technology. I reckon that shouldn't take a competent template coder more than an hour to copy and adapt. Also I have to return to a theme begun a couple of days ago: mild abuse of fair use is much less of a problem than uploading images with false licenses. It's a lot harder to do anything about that, but in terms of damaging the interests of rights-holders and of WP content re-users (and perhaps also the risk of WMF being sued), that is the elephant in the room. For some reason, the community prefers to spend its time arguing about how exactly to catch the mouse. Rd232 public talk 18:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strictly speaking, the Foundation resolution is of very limited relevance to 10c. As Kat Walsh clarified for the Foundation in August 2007 [20] what the Foundation requires is that a rationale for using any NFC image must *exist*; it is an en-wiki implementation choice to require that it must be *written down*. ("... if en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to set policy that way.") That's not to say that a written-down rationale isn't a very sensible thing to seek; but it is an en-wiki stipulation, for en-wiki to manage, rather than a requirement that the Foundation has demanded. Jheald (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that Jheald identifies the issue exactly right in the first paragraph of his comment. I, too, would like to see 10c-related notification at the articles where the file is used. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Lots of sensible points made before this to which I can add nothing. Regarding Jheald's point endorsed by Tryptofish, this surely sounds like a job for a bot. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 5 July 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safeguards for Wikipedia editors

Hello. I would like to relate to you all an unfortunate incident that occurred in my native Albania. I was at a cafe talking to a friend about how I started on Wikipedia a few weeks ago. Our conversation was overheard by a group of teenagers behind us, and the next thing I knew I was being choked and dragged from my chair by one teenager while being kicked and punched by his friends. What little I remember of the attack was that my attackers were calling me a communist and anarchist for using Wikipedia and that I should be hanged with all the other wiki leakers out there. I blacked out from the assault and now have my jaw wired shut and two broken ribs to show for my association with Wikipedia.

I was wondering what may have prompted this attack and if it is common in the english speaking world to be beaten in public for being associated with Wikipedia. Are there any safeguards I can take? Thank you for your time and I apologise if I am posting this in the wrong place. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. Brad Wingo (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wiki brah? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed partial solution to NFCC enforcement

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request exemption of restrictions ΔT The only constant 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=438041327"