Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patiodweller (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 19 November 2019 (→Shut down Article Rescue Squadron). 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 
Shortcuts

New proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:


RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements

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

Links to some past discussions

Discussions are sprawling across many articles and project pages. This list isn't intended to be exhaustive -- just those which were easily findable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1: Endorsements should be by notable people or organizations

  • Actually, I have to disagree with this, though I support the sentiment. Vermin may be satirical, but so was George Carlin. Your background is as irrelevant as your given sex, taken without context. Intellectual communities, when not subject to obvious detailed public scrutiny, such as Wikipedia, often thrive on humour. Have you not allowed The Cabal to affect you here on Wikipedia? It's really down to notability and verifability. Vermin himself may or not be notable enough for this sort of thing, but when a personality like this is notable, they must be respected, or bias is institutionalised. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, dash of RFC, a sprinkling of neutrality, there. ~ R.T.G 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RTG: I'll have you know that I don't even know what a mop is and can only make messes. But to my point, perhaps you misunderstand? Vermin Supreme is undeniably notable, however I am definitely not. If Vermin Supreme tweeted out an endorsement of me, that could be included in my list of endorsements because he is notable. If I tweet out an endorsement of Vermin Supreme, that should not be added to his list of endorsements. Essentially, while there is some wiggle room over whether twitter is a reliable source, that an endorsement is sourced is not sufficient for the endorsement to be included. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ~ R.T.G 18:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a la LISTN, but I'm happy for additions from those without articles (most likely state/province level politician endorsements) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This aligns well with existing policy, and the type of information that an encyclopedia should include (WP:NOTEVERYTHING).- MrX 🖋 12:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as above. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but the usual wording for lists of people, is "have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one", and remember that every member of a state or national legislature is presumed to be entitled to a Wikipedia article, whether or not it has been written ,and this is among the strongest of our presumed notabilities--Icannot recall a single exception in the last 10 years. ; this also applies generally to mayors of cites with population > 100,000 or perhaps > 5000 ) , and members of city councils of the largest cities. This will include a very large proportion of the people who tend to be listed DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support under WP:CSC (first criterion, "Every entry meets the notability criteria") combined with the generally accepted rule of thumb that notability is not inherited. There are simply too many endorsements otherwise. — Newslinger talk 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per our various criteria for lists. If our contributors weren't so lazy, they'd develop prose within paragraphs. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As stayed by others above, this fits with multiple existing policies and guidelines Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 & 2 in altenative That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I should think this is sine qua non, so long as the caveat stated by DGG is heeded. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support adding all three of these proposals to a rule, though I consider this the least important one - if an reliable source reports someone supports, say, Jacinda Ardern, the person supporting will very likely be notable anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 08:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, provided option 2 passes. I understand the thinking behind this proposal and why it has received so much support, but consider this in the context where the "independent reliable sources" requirement passes. This criterion would be used to argue that an endorsement that has received substantial coverage but which is from someone not otherwise considered notable should not be listed; I don't agree with that. We should report any endorsement that has received significant secondary coverage, and should not second-guess sources by saying "sure, the NYT covered this endorsement, but they were wrong to do so because this guy isn't notable." If criterion 2 fails I would reluctantly support this as necessary, but I think relying on our own judgment of whether a endorser is notable is a mistake (and if we rely on secondary sources, then this is made entirely redundant by criterion 2.)--Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of criterion 1

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

Criterion 2: Endorsements should be covered by independent reliable sources

  • Support - For reasons of WP:WEIGHT as well as RS. Self-published sources can be reliable for someone's own opinion, but the ephemeral sentiments expressed in a Tweet are far from a formal endorsement in most cases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak-ish) support I don't think Wikipedia should be engaging in the WP:OR-like behaviour of trawling social media sites to compile lists of people who have tweeted in favour of a candidate. If an endorsement is notable as an endorsement, then it will receive decent secondary source coverage. I say "weak-ish" because I fear this will be difficult to police. Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the general rule. This is what we want for most content anyway, and we should not be in business of interpreting statements drawn from original research. If #1 and #3 are both clearly satisfied, then maybe an exception could be made, but those cases will typically draw third-party coverage anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let me preface this by saying that of course having a reliable source for every endorsement would be ideal. However, there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media. This is especially true for non-politicians, such as many of the individuals who have endorsed Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, and others via tweets and social media. It is also worth noting that many of these independent sources are actually based on tweets themselves. Elon Musk is a prime example; he made a three-word tweet, and it was instantly picked up by myriad media sources. Also, per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field ... This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. As for the five criteria listed, as far as I'm concerned, none of them are violated by citing tweets that are published by the individuals themselves when they are explicitly endorsements. I agree that sometimes, tweets that are not explicit expressions of support slip in, but these non-endorsements can easily be removed by any editor. I myself have done this extensively on this article for the past few months. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that there are many individuals who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but are often not notable enough to have their tweets and political sentiments covered by the media strikes me as a highly problematic reason to include something. Inclusion of, well, anything on Wikipedia should be because it's important enough for independent sources to cover it. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. (For context, a difference of opinion between Bobbychan193 and me on this point at endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries‎‎ is what led me down a path searching for past discussions, to try to find precedent for a clear inclusion criteria). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements. What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it? I disagree with this sentiment. It's not the case that once a person becomes notable, whatever they say is worth including in the encyclopedia. This is not what I am saying. Again, the whole point of endorsement lists is to list out endorsements, and I don't see why we can't do that if an individual tweets out an endorsement. (Other users have mentioned other reasons on that talk page. Some examples: Given the sheer volume of potential endorsements, not every single expression of support is going to be reported on, so it's inevitable that tweets will sometimes be the only place they will be mentioned and a celebrity's personal account tweeting in support has been used frequently as a source for endorsement and it is often without another citation. When they specifically say they support the candidate, it's an endorsement. If not, then remove most of Bernie Sanders' endorsements. The criteria in 2016 was explicit support and/or the campaign hashtag. Just pointing out arguments that other editors have laid out.) Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"What makes one endorsement more important than another? Only if the media reports it?" Yes. That's how Wikipedia works. We report what reliable sources say. What makes any event more important than another? Because a reliable source talks about it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those were rhetorical questions. My point was that all endorsements are categorically equal. An endorsement isn't "less of an endorsement" just because the media doesn't pick up on it. Think about it, if person A and person B both endorse candidate C, but the media only reports endorsement A, endorsement B is still categorically an endorsement. Sure, some people, like Elon Musk, might be more "important" than others, and that's part of why there are media sources reporting on these endorsements (other reasons: money/clickbait, bandwagon reporting, etc.). But other endorsements wouldn't be considered "lesser" endorsements just because the media doesn't report them. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, all endorsements are not categorically equal, just as all information is not categorically of equal value on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate container of all facts. We are selective. We are an encyclopaedia. We decide what information merits inclusion with reference to reliable, secondary sources. If you went to an AfD and said an article should be included without secondary source reporting, no-one would listen to you. If some political scandal could only be sourced to some private tweets and wasn't covered by secondary source reporting, we wouldn't add it to an election article. Why should endorsements be treated differently from other facts on Wikipedia? Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "categorically", I meant by definition. An endorsement is by definition an endorsement. Reflexive property. It doesn't matter whether a news source reports on it. An unreported endorsement is still by definition an endorsement. (Also see WP:DUCK) Sure, you can argue that unreported endorsements shouldn't be included, but they are still endorsements by definition. In my view, given the other two criteria (notability and explicitness), we would be selective, and the lists would not be an indiscriminate container of all facts. Why should we cast aside all unreported endorsements? Why shouldn't we make these lists more complete? Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • this refers to standalone information, and not information itself - Hmm. I don't intend to respond to all the opposers here, but I can't make heads or tails of that this means. Would you mind rewording? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have many stand-alone and embedded lists of political campaign endorsements, This RfC attempts to create baseline inclusion criteria for such lists. As to my words, the key is it should be clear this refers to standalone, as even short lists within independent articles, I imagine, will be regularly challenged by invoking this guideline. Maybe I should have said Conditional and demanded that "standalone" be made clear. Or maybe it should pass and wait and see if further clarification is required to avoid creep. I'll keep my eye on it, but I'm flying by this instant, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 19:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying. I did intend this to apply to lists of endorsements in both stand-alone and embedded lists, but not article prose. If people would support for one but not the other, that seems like a reasonable distinction to make, which could be factored in at closing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, my comment didn't make sense. You did say "embedded". I'm just going to strike from any input here for the moment. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out the error. ~ R.T.G 00:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for organizations specifically for media outlets. I'm unsure whether this is the case in the United States, but in the UK and Australia at least it is routine for newspapers to officially endorse a party in elections via an editorial (see here for examples). These are going to be more significant than any endorsement by an individual, but they're rarely going to be covered in an independent RS. Partly because they all come out at the end of the campaign, partly because no one likes writing about the competition unless they've done something embarrassing. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen independent reporting of newspaper endorsements. That said, you raise an interesting point. I was presuming that, say, The Times saying who it supported in an editorial would count under this rule. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this was raised, but I don't think it's as much of an issue as you'd think. Just looking at the most recent UK general election, it's easy to find coverage of the other papers' endorsements in the Press Gazette, the i and the Guardian. I'm not sure the benefits of such an exception would outweigh the risks of permitting indiscriminate listings of newspapers and blogs. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a sensible limit to avoid sprawling lists of unimportant endorsements. For example, a minor comedian tweeting that he likes Tulsi, should not make the list unless an reliable independent publication takes notice. I also endorse RaiderAspect's exception for media outlets, provided that they are notable media outlets.- MrX 🖋 13:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for individuals and organizations, but not on media outlets - If no RS reports on the endorsement, I think it's unlikely it will be very noteworthy. With the ample coverage of modern campaigns, it seems quite likely that nearly all endorsements of any significance at all will have some coverage in RS. For media outlets (i.e., editorials), I view the editorial itself as the RS for its own opinion. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Go back to basics. The notability criteria apply to the content of the endorsement; it needs to be covered by reliable, independent third parties. Notable people say all kinds of things, but we don't add it to an article unless it is reported in a reliable, independent source. The notability and reliable sourcing criteria don't change just because someone endorses a politician. If they posted on their personal website that they encouraged people to check out the Chicken Kiev at Notable Restaurant, we wouldn't be putting that in the article about the restaurant. Risker (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The recent Canadian election featured several candidates and even a major political party claiming endorsements that hadn't actually been given, misquoting notable people to imply that an endorsement had been given, and so on. I have no doubt it is already happening in the US election. We should not rely on any source that hasn't been fact-checked by a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking. Risker (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If significant, non-independent sources such as op-eds and media outlet endorsements will definitely be mentioned by other independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 00:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Since many social media users can delete or hide prior posts, we ought not even consider that as a potential source on themselves. Published records are in the hands of consumers (like libraries). Chris Troutman (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If no reliable sources think an endorsement is worth mentioning, why should Wikipedia? Doing so gives the endorsement (and perhaps the endorsee) UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 & 2 in alternative That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for individuals and organizations, but not on media outlets: For the former, of course; the latter is a simple distinction: media outlets are, by and of themselves, the reliable source for the endorsement. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely. All endorsements need to be covered by reliable sources independent either the person or organisation making the endorsement. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This should be the only criteria, just like anything else. I would go so far as to say that I'm unsure whether this RFC is necessary on this point, since WP:RS / WP:V already applies and is not subject to consensus; an endorsement is a statement about a third party (and therefore never covered by WP:SPS or WP:ABOUTSELF.) Such statements always require a high-quality reliable secondary source, without exception. --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of criterion 2

  • I guess to clarify my stance, my main issue with this is that we shouldn't exclude an endorsement just because a media source didn't report it. Like, if a notable individual has clearly endorsed a candidate (based on our criteria #3) and the media didn't report it, it's still an endorsement. It just doesn't make sense to me to exclude such endorsements. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The endorsement is only notable if it is covered by reliable, independent sources. Notability applies to the content of the edit, not the person who said whatever was said. Risker (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, notability only applies to teh existanc or non-existanced of an articel it never applies to selection of article content, and the policy says this explicitly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well then obviously I said it wrong. An endorsement by Cousin Becky in the family newsletter should not make it into our article. An endorsement by Senator Foghorn, reported in the New York Times, probably should. Notable person (i.e., someone who has WP article about them) publicly endorsing the candidate as reported in well-regarded reliable source should be the boundary. Risker (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is cleaer yes. Several people inn the discussion have been speaking about the "notability of the endorsement" which is just not how notability works. Perhaps that was intended only as shorthand, but "notability" is a term of art here on Wikipedia, and it is better not to muddy it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That siad, the above is clearer but I disagree with it. If anyone's endorsement is reported by the NY Times, then it should be liated, whether the person has an article or not. And If SAenator Foghorn endor5ses Joe Blow for Gov, that is worth listing even if it is done in a tweet, and not reported in the media. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah see, this is where actual practice disagrees. We decide what to include in articles on a daily basis by looking at whether or not the proposed content is "notable". We might very well be able to find reliable sources that say Notable Cousin Becky has a wart on her elbow, but we're not going to include it unless her claim to notability is that she has a wart on her elbow. And I do disagree with you that Notable Senator putting out a tweet endorsing Candidate A should make the list. It should only make the list when an independent third party thinks the endorsement is significant enough to report it. It's okay for us not to agree about this, but I want to make it clear that I don't think any endorsement that is not independently reported should be included; otherwise, it's just an advert. Risker (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would some of the proponents of this be willing to sandbox versions of the articles in Category:2016 United States presidential election endorsements so we can see just what effect this might have? I worry that the US media's tendency to ignore third-party candidates might result in unbalanced articles, where Democratic and Republican candidates have many more "minor" endorsements listed. Anomie⚔ 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support 1 & 2 in the alternative. That is if a notable person makes an endorsement (a clear and explicit endorsement, not "I would support") that is enough for the endorsement to be listed, or if an endorsement by anyone at all is reported in major media, that is enough to be listed. The two together are not required, if either is satisfied, the endorsement can be (not must be) listed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: Endorsements should be unequivocal and explicit

  • Support - I was surprised to see how many "endorsements" we include are actually just people using a particular hashtag, expressing positive feelings about a candidate, saying they've donated, talking about going to a fundraiser, etc. This also gets at the problem of using only social media as sources. Something published in a reliable independent source would be less likely to pick something like that up and call it an endorsement. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe As per basic principles, if we're claiming X backs Y, we need a source showing that X backs Y and merely expressing positive feelings or attending an event shouldn't cut it. That said, I am wary about requiring specific language, like expecting the word "endorsement". Different countries, even those notionally speaking the same language, use different words and phrases. There is a particular culture of endorsement in the US and we shouldn't be applying how endorsements are done in the US and the language used around them to other countries. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably, but this is the weakest of the three suggested criteria. If there is a consensus of independent reliable sources under criterion #2 above that X has made an endorsement, then we should follow their lead rather than trying to interpret primary-source material. --RL0919 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Donating to a campaign, using particular hashtags, and/or attending any candidate event are not enough to be considered endorsements in isolation. This is because 1. Any individual can donate to multiple candidates or attend the events of multiple candidates (Example: Jack Dorsey donated to both Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard) 2. Hashtags, such as #YangGang, could be interpreted as a way to boost the visibility of a tweet, or attract attention from people who search said hashtag. I think that minor variations of "I endorse xyz", such as "I support xyz", "I am campaigning for xyz", or "I am voting for xyz", are explicit enough to be considered support. (Example: again, Elon Musk's tweet. If myriad independent sources consider this an endorsement, then I don't see any reason we as editors can't similarly interpret other tweets. Why should we wait for a media source to essentially do the same thing?) I agree that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, especially for tweets that may be slightly more ambiguous than your standard "I support xyz". Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer 2. If a reliable independent source calls it an endorsement, we should list it as an endorsement regardless of whether an editor thinks it's equivocal. Obviously we should prefer unequivocal and explicit endorsements, but I'd prefer following RSs over our own judgment on what that constitutes. In the absence of 2, I'd support this, but am otherwise neutral on it. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wugapodes and RL0919: I agree with both of you. I added this as separate from #2 for two reasons. First, in case #2 doesn't pass. Second, because there's still the question of interpreting the language of reliable sources. If a reliable source says that someone attended a fundraiser, tweeted in support of, used a particular hashtag, praised, etc., do we interpret that as an endorsement, or does the RS need to call it an endorsement? There are some other terms which, to me, are quite close in meaning or allow easy inference like "backed," "declared full support for," "campaigned for," etc. but there, too, I think it's tricky. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat support - most of the examples should be gone, but I don't think it needs to be as ironclad as "I endorse X for president" etc. On a distinct tack, if a RS says it's an endorsement and it isn't blatantly vague, then that should also suffice. However some filtering is clearly needed - a positive statement doth not an endorsement make Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's unfortunate that this has to be documented, but it's surprising what some editors consider endorsements. An endorsement should include the word endorse, or a synonym like support, recommend, back, approve, etc. If a reasonable person questions whether something is an endorsement, then it should not be considered such. Vague comments, shout outs, donations, attending events, and the like should not be interpreted as endorsements. WP:V is the underlying policy. - MrX 🖋 13:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree wholly with MrX. Neutralitytalk 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given the nuances of the English language, there are many things that sound supportive that aren't endorsements. Let us stick to the explicit and if necessary go behind the RS (who have their own agendas) to look at the statement and see if it really is an endorsement. I agree with Ched that we should not have such lists of endorsements, but am also dubious that they could be stamped out if we wanted to.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support under WP:V. I agree with MrX here: we cannot extrapolate a claim that is stronger than what is presented in the underlying source. — Newslinger talk 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Turning a “statement of support” into a full blown “endorsement” would violate WP:NOR. So requiring that the endorsement be explicit makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Endorsement" is loaded language if it were used to describe mere passing statements of support. feminist (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this definitely seems justified. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely agree. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per my logic to criterion 1 (and I strenuously urge the support !votes to step back and consider the implications of having this pass alongside criterion 2) - yes, this proposal sounds appealing, but this is not a call we should be making ourselves. The call on whether a particular statement counts as an "endorsement" is entirely based on how reliable sources characterize it, and should never depend on editors adjudicating whether the statement is "unequivocal and explicit." If this passes, I foresee people saying things like "yes, the NYT, LA Times, etc. describes this as an endorsement, but I personally think their wording was ambiguous, so we can't include it because the RFC required that it be unequivocal or explicit." If WP:RSes say it's an endorsement, then it's an endorsement and ought to be listed. Fullstop. (EDIT: Unless this is interpreted to mean just "the endorsement must be described as such by reliable sources", but that's not how I read it now.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aquillion: the wording of the proposal (well, specifically, the "Note on #3" just below the bolded bit) says 'In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof' - I suspect the interpretation of this along the lines of what you describe is uncontroversial, given WP:V and the support for #2 above. I worded it to talk about the endorsement itself, too, because going into this RfC we're still using Tweets, etc. as sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of criterion 3

Examples
  • "Let's win the era! @PeteButtigieg has me excited about the next generation of American government"
  • "I have listened with an open heart and an open mind and time after time, the individual who has continually impressed me with his consistent, thoughtful, and error-free presentation of our values and needs in this country is @PeteButtigieg. He has risen to the top"
  • "Go #PETE !!⁦@PeteForUSA2020 @PeteButtigieg"
  • "@PeteButtigieg i think you have a shot at uniting this country again. i am a big fan and am sending you all my support. if there is anything i can ever do for you pls let me know"
  • "Same" (responding to the one above)
  • "Buona settimana!!! HAVE A GREAT WEEK!!! Feliz semana! 👊🏻👊🏻👊🏻 @PeteButtigieg #mayorpete #petebuttigieg #accettomiracoli #aceptomilagros #buonacattivasorte #buenamalasuerte #tzn2020"
  • "This guy is so smart and on point and he wore the 🇺🇸 uniform. Good luck @PeteButtigieg - you are what this country needs."
  • "A candidate for #President that speaks, genuinely, of #unity, #prayer and #reflection. I'm all over that, thanks #PeteButtigieg #PeteForAmerica @PeteButtigieg"
  • "Still believe Mayor Pete is our best candidate for the presidency. His unique combination of qualifications is unbeatable. All our candidates are talented and good, but Mayor Pete stands out. He will be a great president. And we desperately need greatness in the Oval Office"
  • "Please RT. Only 174 $1 donations by midnight to reach goal for @TulsiGabbard !pic.twitter.com/KTOCZp0NNR"
  • “Oh noooooo, @KamalaHarris guess what?! @TulsiGabbard has your number. She is by far the better candidate. Go Tulsi"
  • "A Joe Biden/Kamela Harris ticket or a Kamala Harris/Joe Biden ticket would please me greatly!"
  • "GHosts for @BetoORourke fundraiser tomorrow evening in NYC:"
  • "Bernie @SenSanders or @elizabethforma (Elizabeth Warren) would be two people I would LOVE to see in the White House, as both of them would be capable and ready to fix the damage caused by the @GOP and the Trumpino crime family"
  • "God I wish we weren't a sexist hellscape so she'd get the nomination"
  • "Increasingly all-in for Elizabeth Warren, gotta say"
  • "Here's one very good reason to be for Elizabeth Warren. Wall Street is terrified of her"
  • "Greatest Of All Time! #GOAT twitter.com/ewarren/status/1179851099978846209 …"
  • "Russell Brand will be joining me in Los Angeles on Sept. 15"
  • "We need an uprising of consciousness #Marianne2020.com #JoinTheEvolution #WagePeace A #President who leads with #Love & #Intelligence ."
  • "I was there at his launch party in SF!"
  • "Andrew is actually the "not stuck in the past and open to new good ideas guy""
  • "read up on @AndrewYang. he's the only young candidate addressing issues that nobody else is. his politics are actually good (more than just giving every american $1,000/month), and he has a fun and transparent personality. I uhhhh, i think we ✈️ #YangGang 2020"
  • "It takes an amazing amount of strength to be this vulnerable in public. This display of emotion makes me admire @AndrewYang even more..."
  • "I've actually donated for the first time ever. New podcast with @AndrewYangVFA is up! Check it out on offthepillpodcast! #yanggang"
  • "LFG!!!!! #YANGYANG"
  • "Thanks man. Best of luck future Mr President!"
  • "Yanggang"
  • Full disclosure, I was the one who restored them. It was 50KB worth of removals and certainly a bold edit by size alone, so I reverted them (temporarily) based on WP:BRD. I view this RfC as the "Discuss" phase, and if there is strong community consensus to remove tweets as sources, then I do not oppose the re-removal of these entries. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first impression of this is that it lacks a third party reliable source stating that each detail is individually notable beyond the fact of endorsement.
  • The endorsement is possibly notable, but saying yah boo fifty seven ways until Sunday about it is not notable at all. Oh how I love thee is notable, that they do. Oh let me count the ways is a bit wandering, unless you can establish the particular commenters way-counting as notable. ~ R.T.G 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OR is often bent to provide or enhance simple academic study. This seems to be a deep research of trivial twittes to highlight faces in a crowd who went woop at a certain time, and it may prove harmful to living persons. I mean, apply these precedents to the Trump endorsement page on Wikipedia and see what you get. Bending OR is for like, simple but important primary resources directly relevant to a subject. Endorsements should be directly relevant or presented as a number. People can be notable, but when you cross that notability over to something they aren't notable for, they can mislead you, and if we follow misleading resources, we mislead people, and we don't want to obstruct peoples right to disappear. None of these twittes are authorative. Collectively, they have an individual value, but if we record that value today with a fact checked number, there is no need to save the woops for playback tomorrow. Show me a Trump doing something cruel and unusual, and I'll show you a Democrat playing the other side to prove a bet that the people cannot be trusted. I mean, its my bet, and he's proved it so hard we might not recover... I've defended Trump loads of times for the purpose of revealing the other side, but I've never endorsed him. He's not my president. I'm not even American. ~ R.T.G 07:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify that: OR is often bent to connect resources. To make lists, for instance. To provide "See also" sections. To clarify points. This above list however, is like listing woops, to an extent.. And it's not just the trivial nature of the individual items, it's the hotbed of emotion around ongoing events, ~ R.T.G 18:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops didn't reply to the second part of your comment. Although I'm not sure what you mean by why that disqualifies the notability assumed by Criterion 1. It has nothing to do with the notability of the people speaking. It has to do with WP:OR, relying on Wikipedians to interpret someone's words to be an "endorsement". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion: inclusion criteria for political endorsement lists

  • Personally I'm against ANY list of political support or endorsements in any way shape or form. It's one thing to say "Senator X supported Candidate Y in the past election" in a prose article. To my mind said "lists" or categories of "support political anything" goes against what our project is supposed to stand for and be. It's far too easy to put "list 1" which supports candidate A in a more front and center position than "list 2" which supports candidate B. IMO, there's far too much political POV pushing going on throughout wiki as it is - these "lists" simply add to that, and I can NOT support such things. — Ched (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, this RfC isn't about the validity of the lists. Whether we should have them at all may be worth discussing, but at the moment we have oodles of such lists, so let's at least create some baseline rules. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sheer number of these lists suggests there's consensus for their existence. I agree with Ched that I'm not sure how useful they are, but I think getting consensus for their exclusion would be an uphill battle that would cause more problems than it's worth. Many of these are suitable as standalone lists per WP:LISTN (FiveThirtyEight for example keeps a running list and ranking of primary endorsements), so if we prohibit inclusion in articles they will and (and maybe should) be spun out. Those that can't will probably be included in the relevant article because the community doesn't agree, and we'll just wind up back where we started or worse: fighting edit wars over stupid stuff and blocking people who could otherwise be useful contributors to politics articles. For better or worse, I think it's best to let the lists be and figure out how to curate them to minimize the negative aspects of such lists. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US has a particular system of political parties and endorsements that doesn't always translate to other countries. I note that on UK endorsement lists for general elections, we don't cover members of a party endorsing that party, as that goes without saying in a UK context. (If a Conservative MP endorsed anyone other than Johnson in a general election, they'd be out of the party very quickly.) In comparison, intra-party endorsements dominate US endorsement lists. Likewise, when considering recent referendums, we didn't include every single SNP politician as endorsing Scottish independence: we just included the party as a whole doing so. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note 2 things: 1. My comment above is in no way a reflection of or on Rhododendrites who I've seen around and I think they do excellent work. (I even appreciate this particular RfC/proposal) 2. I'm aware of the many lists out there - that doesn't mean I think they belong; hence my statement. I also fully aware that there's not going to be any removal of said lists. While I don't usually stick my nose into any of the political stuff - I am aware of it. I just don't care for how our project deals with it. — Ched (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will go against WP:BLPSPS to use those social media posts outside the article for the publisher of the media posts themselves. It will also go against articles 6 and 7 of WP:DIRECTORY. Hmm.. WP:NOTEVERYTHING? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mentioned this elsewhere, but per WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field ... This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook. Endorsements are definitely considered part of "their activities". Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have misgivings about such lists for the reasons given above (they do belong in sections of the relevant election's article, but I believe that LISTN should apply for standalone lists). If we do decide to have them, I support all three criteria, with the assumption that criterion #3 will be played by ear as necessary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These lists are obviously political campaigning and so should all be deleted per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, &c. People's opinions on such matters can change and so they seem too ephemeral to be maintained in a timeless, encyclopedic fashion. Also, in the US, where money talks, celebrity endorsements may be bought. For example, I often see George Clooney promoting Nespresso or Harvey Keitel promoting insurance but don't think we should make lists of such. Only in the rare cases, where the endorsement becomes a cultural icon, should we create a page for it; for example the George Foreman Grill. Andrew D. (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that a lot of the people who have !voted support on all three criterion need to stop and think about what they're saying. Do we actually want criterion 1 and 3 to be applied on top of the WP:RS requirement? My feeling is that the only thing we should care about is whether an endorsement has coverage in reliable sources (and is referred to as an endorsement in them); I'm extremely skeptical of the way the wording of the other two criterion would seem to encourage or even require editors to substitute their own judgment for that of the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refbegin and refend templates

These templates shrink the size of the reference material (cites, references, bibliography, etc.) at the bottom of an article, mimicking the format used by many academic journal and books for this type of stuff. Not bound by the limitations of paper and the corresponding need to cut printing expenses, do these actually add any value to articles on Wiki? I would argue not and I believe that they actually impose a cost on visually impaired readers.

The guidelines in MOS:SMALLTEXT in the MOS:ACCESS page state: "Reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly", but I believe that using refbegin and refend should not be considered as falling within that category. Footnotes, etc., for most articles are generally fairly minimal, but I've seen Featured Articles with over 200 footnotes and dozens of books and journal articles cited so they can actually be pretty substantial in high-quality articles. Why are we making them harder to read? What value are we adding by doing this?

What would be the downside of eliminating refbegin and refend entirely? The only thing that I can see is that the formatting of some sections will revert back to the baseline format as the additional parameters controlled by those templates are column number and hanging indents. I feel sure that some enterprising programmer can figure out a way to control those parameters outside the reflist template for those editors enamored with those formats. There may well already be such things already being used, although I wouldn't know because I don't about either of those things. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Parsec: who made you the judge? I'll humour you by asking a simple question. "How many people have complained that they can't read bibliographical details under refbegin-refend?" Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with a fundamental understanding of logic can tell you the same. It would perhaps shatter your mind the number of times in an average work week where I'm confronted with the argument "but we've always done it this way" and have to repress the urge to respond "well that ain't the damn policy, is it?". And as for your ridiculous counter (as if you imagine there to be some complaint department that tracks such things), if you'd bothered to read this very discussion, you'd see that some here have complained. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much concerned about how it is done, but I see no benefit in small text. It is hard for some of us to read. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size change that refbegin makes is also made across the board for all references using <references/>. If all references have consensus, then so does refbegin. If we really want to have this discussion, I expect you should have a full-on RFC changing the default size for references. I anticipate no-consensus. (I question whether the style switch for size in refbegin is valid--we should limit style variation on this point.) --Izno (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably right, but I'm trying to get a feel for the arguments against. Right now they seem to be mostly IDONTLIKEIT.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never noticed that before. You can see an example at Andrei Tarkovsky. "Notes" uses <references /> but "Bibliography" uses the refbegin/end pair. The text size is the same between the two. I think I'd have to oppose changing this specific template without wider discussion on reference text size in general. I'm a little more optimistic about finding consensus; I think the accessibility point is an important one, and don't see a compelling reason to keep it small other than aesthetics. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the default way to present references, in the various {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc. templates, does not reduce the size. In most articles, the size of the full references is 100%, so why are we going out of our way to reduce the size of some of them? Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those do not decrease their font-size precisely because it is known they will predominantly appear inside reflist/refbegin/<references>; no, their use as in a bibliography or similar is not the predominant appearance. And, errors/maintenance messages that appear in these templates do decrease in size (95%). --Izno (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you have any evidence for that? For either, actually; the creation of the cite templates predate either of our editing here, and earlier versions (like {{book reference}}) are even older. In the early days, there were relatively few footnotes and most references were simply in bulleted lists (all that to say that neither of us were around for the discussions over these templates, and even if what you say about the predominance of one formatting style is correct, you ought not confuse how we do things now with why things were set up originally). As for error messages in the templates, I don't think you're right; see here for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            {{book reference}}, now long, long deprecated, does not appear to have ever specified font-size. Beginning with this edit, the rendered citation was wrapped in a <cite style="font-style:normal;">...</cite> tag. The descendants of that template and all of the other cs1|2 templates do not modify font-size except for the rendered subscription- and registration-required annotation (now deprecated and will be removed) and the value assigned to |format=. For these parameters, font-size is set to 95% in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css. All other font-size for these templates is inherited from the enclosing block. In this case, {{reflist}} font-size is specified in MediaWiki:Common.css and {{refbegin}} font-size is specified by Template:Refbegin/styles.css. cs1|2 error messages are wrapped in <span class="error">...</span> tags (not sure where that class is defined – here, I think). Because the error class makes big red error messages, css in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css resets the cs1|2 error message font-size to 100%, the same size as the text used in the rendered citation. Thereafter, cs1|2 font-size for the citation-proper and any error messages is controlled by enclosing markup.
            —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            @Parsecboy: For illustrative purposes, the quantity of articles using a CS1/2 template is ~3.9m[1], which is an absolute majority of the current ~6m articles. The quantity of articles using a CS1 template and using reflist is in the realm of 3.6m[2]. It's another 0.2m[3] or so using <references/> and CS1. I daresay that's a convincing ratio of all articles that are using something with small text on it. As for not being here, you can see above where/why the text got small. As for "we've always had it small", you can also see above that is not the case in those discussions. (I did not make this argument, nor in fact did I argue for one side or the other.) As for CS1/2, no, I can basically guarantee that text was never changed because it would clearly have fallen afoul of WP:ACCESS, because a reflist or similar is where the majority of CS1/2 citations are. (I can get into position territory here but I'll decline in the interest of supplying information :).) --Izno (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsec, the question is "How many people have complained that they can't read bibliographical details under refbegin-refend?" do you have an answer? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the number of people complaining be relevant? If the size of the text is a problem to some it is a problem worth looking into. The other side of it is what advantage does the smaller text provide? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because Keith doesn't actually want a debate; he wants to stonewall and this nonsense is classic sealioning. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel asserts "I would argue not and I believe that they actually impose a cost on visually impaired readers" I would like to debate facts not assertions. I think one person so far has endorsed Sturm's view. Do you struggle to read biblio details? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one person in this unpublicized discussion says that it's a problem for them. So, at the very least, one reader is disadvantaged by the current format. That's a issue because that one person stands for an unknown number of other readers who aren't aware of this discussion. Let me turn your question around; how will you personally be inconvenienced if the format is changed to 100% text? Other than aesthetically, that is, 'cause that appears to be at the foundation of your argument, however much you cloak it in "that's the way that we've always done it". That's logically fallacious and does not stand when even a single person has admitted readability problems because of the smaller text. You need to address the accessibility guidelines, which are the basis for my entire argument, but you have entirely failed to engage with them thus far. How and why do you believe that the current format for refbegin/refend do not fail the guidelines? It's a simple question, deserving of an direct answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith-264: Still waiting for an answer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too find small text unhelpful (at best) and downright obstructive much of the time. My eyesight is quite good for a man of my age (49), or so my optician tells me. I don't need glasses to read most books. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two people say it's too small and one infers that many others do too; I think we need something a little more scientific before accepting a change to the status quo. PS I'm a dashing 57. Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the village pump a place for publicising something? If not, get off your backside and publicise it; show me how and I'll help. This is beginning to look like pathetic excuses on (poorly focused) stilts. PS I've been short sighted since I was an early teen, read with varifocals and have never had trouble reading reduced scripts. I haven't come out against a change, merely a capricious one. Did I mention that I was a dashing 57? I'm also debonair. On a technical point, does it have to be all or nothing or can Wiki be arranged for individual preference? Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Parsec actually have a point or is he whining again? Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And here we are, again, trying to derail the conversation with personal attacks. Your stonewalling is pretty transparent, Keith; drop it, or we'll be heading to ANI. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yet again you claim the victim role and try to frame the debate as hostile; if you don't like retaliation, stop provoking. Simples. I'll set the example. If you make a substantive point I will reply but I will take no more notice of the extraneous comments. My question was simple, "how many people find the biblio details hard to read?" Two or three so far. I suggest WP:STICK Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The number of people complaining is a measure of the necessity of a change, particularly when there is a lack of consensus. This [4] was perfectly civil but when I mentioned it here [5] you got uncivil rather quickly, instead of waiting for other editors to venture their opinions like me. Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many people have complained somewhere besides this thread that you or I don't know about? How many people have had trouble reading the print and haven't said anything? What you're asking is an unanswerable question, and I'm sure you know that. Oh, and here's a thought for you: if in this short discussion, a few people have complained about it, how often do you think it's a problem for the readers who will never see this discussion to tell you they also have trouble with small text?
        • As for the rest, post a diff where I said something uncivil. If you can't handle being called out for dodging questions, maybe try answering them. And if you don't want to be accused of stonewalling, maybe don't engage in behavior that an objective person might reasonably describe as stonewalling. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you ask around like I did? I thought that after what you disclosed on the Tel el talk page asking on the milhist board was your next step. I got fed up waiting and did it for you. Look how you responded. I humour you here by answering your loaded question and you write "how often do you think it's a problem for the readers who will never see this discussion"? Why don't you do the work like I did on the milhist board, instead of sniping? Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, why do you seem to think that Sturmvogel and I are the same person? This is the second time you've conflated the two of us. (And no, you have yet to respond to any question I've seen directed your way [by me or anyone else] in a direct manner; do you see why I label this behavior as stonewalling? Do you see how this is clearly unproductive on your part?) Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your presumption in trying to be judge and jury in your own cause does you no credit. I suggest that you change your approach. What do you want re: refbegin refend? Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be helpful if you responded to points made, though it seems you have no interest in an actual debate, despite your repeated utterances to the contrary. I suppose I ought to stop trying to squeeze blood from that particular stone. I'll answer your question with one of my own: why do you think yourself entitled to answers when you refuse the same to others? Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming section - I suggest "Keith-264 derails all attempts at debate". It still won't mention font size or accessibility, but it would be more accurate. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you get a life; as for PSB he's still sulking so I'll leave it there. Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I truly don't care whether the references have font-size: 66.6% or 100%. Somebody else can vote on that. But I do feel strongly that any templates that allow customizing it on a per-page basis should have that feature removed. ―cobaltcigs 05:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let's suppose the following:

  • [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] specifies a default size of font-size: 85% for references.
  • [[User:Alice/monobook.css]] overrides it to 60% because she just fixes spelling and doesn't care about refs.
  • [[User:Bob/monobook.css]] overrides it to 100% because he's hard of seeing and often clicks the wrong things by accident.
  • Both users independently stumble upon [[List of Turkmen jellyfish]] which contains some crap like 
    {{reflist|font-size=92.5% !important}}<!-- DO NOT CHANGE PER WP:TMJF CONCENSUS [sic] -->
    (based on a 3–1 vote by members of some WikiProject that neither of them (and none of us) have heard of).

Both users would be rightfully pissed to have their settings nullified. ―cobaltcigs 18:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what we're talking about. The idea is to swap the default behavior of the templates so that the reduced size is opt-in. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos my comment above, I'm not wasting any more time on this; if anyone wants to change the status quo, the burden is on them to make a case. No-one has so the matter rests. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That you refuse to see the argument that several of us has advanced is irrelevant (and only goes to further demonstrate your bad faith here); it's really quite simple: the size reduction does zero good (as you yourself have tacitly admitted by refusing to provide any benefit to it) and it causes harm to some readers. That's all we really need to justify the change. Parsecboy (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see, the reduction in size is applied, either directly or indirectly to pretty much all of what is considered "non-readable prose" - ie captions, TOC, info boxes and references etc. In the case of reference templates, they are intended to be used with with RefBegin, which does more than just reduce the size of the text. So, there is more than just one windmill on the field of battle. If one perceives size to be a problem, then the solution lies outside of EN WP (at MediaWiki) but any change will affect every Wiki project? Consequently, this is probably not the place to argue the point without involvement of all of the (potentially) affected stakeholders. I would also suggest that an "opt out" option to then make everything the same size might be an equally valid alternative to the "opt in" option being suggested. Another alternative might be to add a toggle where the text appears. Yet another, we could scale everything up by 111% so that 90% would then be equal to the current normal text size. I also just noticed that the default editor also uses a "reduced" font size. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T237268

Hello!

I would like to have a "By user(s)" parameter in advanced search. If you for example search with "Search in" set to "File" and "By user(s)" set to "Jonteemil" you would see all files uploaded by me. Can this be done?Jonteemil (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: Special:Contributions/Jonteemil with Namespace set to File may do the job you need. (Expand "Search for Contributions" to see the Namespace box.) Certes (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Special:ListFiles/Jonteemil would also solve that problem but if I for example want to find all the files, uploaded by me that contains the word "extracted", which really is the reason I made this proposal, there isn't a way that I know of.Jonteemil (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Same here. Someone asked ”Hi, what is the underlying use case for that?”. I want to useit to find all the files uploaded by me that have been extracted from a PDF. In the source parameter in {{Logo fur}} in all of them I have written ”extracted from /pdf/”. I would therefor search ”extracted from” and by user(s) Jonteemil and find the wanted files.Jonteemil (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability RfCs to counter systemic bias in new page patrol

While new page patrol has largely been able to keep its backlog in check, one problem that we have is that, due to the relatively small roster of new page reviewers, we lack editors who are familiar with (or capable of researching) sources from many parts of the world. This is further compounded by Wikipedia's systemic bias, with the end result that articles reliant on sources from biased-against regions take significantly more time and effort to review, and even then reviewers are less likely to make an accurate decision in their review. In an effort to address this, for the past few months I and a few other editors have been compiling a source guide, WP:NPPSG, primarily for use by new page patrol. The purpose is to help combat systemic bias in page reviewing by providing baseline, consensus-backed reliability information about sources for all topics and geographic regions. The main differences between it and WP:RSP are that NPPSG is sorted by topic and region, and that it has a much lower bar for inclusion on the list (consequently, NPPSG has explicit instructions that the inclusion of a source on that list should not be used as an argument for the (un)reliability of a source above and beyond whatever consensus the listing is cited to).

I started out this project by first transcribing all of the RSP entries to the list, and then further expanding it by keeping tabs on RSN discussions as they are archived. However, this reliance on just monitoring RSN means that while there's still some useful information at NPPSG (and more importantly, useful information that would not belong at RSP), we're not closing our systemic-bias blindspots at anything faster than a glacial pace. Those of us who have been working on this guide, and others involved with NPP, have had previous discussions here and here to determine what our next steps should be, with a local consensus that we should move to start having regular discussions about regions that are underrepresented on RSP, likely using the RfC format, and inviting editors from NPP, relevant WikiProjects and other language Wikis, and the broader Wikipedia community to participate. Given that the close for the recent RfC about moratoriums at RSN included language about not having RfCs about sources that have never been discussed before, I wanted to get broader community support for this proposal before opening up a discussion. It is my opinion that a lot of the pushback against reliability RfCs has been from editors who are alarmed that these RfCs being used to aggressively deprecate sources; the sole purpose of this proposal is to address systemic bias in our ability to evaluate sources, particularly in the context of new page patrol.

Here is a draft of what a regional source discussion RfC could look like. I anticipate that some people may object to the amount of background summary provided; I would be amenable to cutting down the introduction to a list of links to relevant RS and Wikipedia articles, and to leave only completely uncontroversial statements in the sections for individual sources (any further relevant information can always be added in a signed comment in the discussion section).

TL;DR New page patrol has a systemic bias problem, WP:NPPSG is an attempt to help close that gap, but in order for it to be effective we need to proactively have discussions about sources covering regions and topics that do not often come up at RSN on their own. Please comment with your general thoughts on this proposal, as well as constructive criticism for the proposed discussion format. signed, Rosguill talk 04:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and still don't understand it. What is being proposed here and why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notices about this discussion have been posted at the talk pages for the reliable sources noticeboard, WikiProject Countering systemic bias, new page patrol and WikiProject Reliability signed, Rosguill talk 05:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a nice idea. Provided the RfCs make clear that their scope is only for broad guidance in reviewing AfCs, and not to be used as a definitive statement of reliability or deprecation, I don't see any issues. Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The essay at Wikipedia:Systemic bias attempts to address a wide variety of biases. I have my doubts about an omnibus RfC meant to address them all.

  • Any new-page-patrol-level countermeasure addressing those without access to an Internet-connected computer is unlikely to have any resemblance to a new-page-patrol-level countermeasure addressing editing by corporations who deploy staffers and pay outside consultants to create/edit articles about themselves.
  • Any discussion on Wikipedia among experienced editors tends to focus far more on paid editing than on things like gender bias. That doesn't necessarily mean that paid editing is a bigger problem as opposed to just being something that pisses those editors off.
  • Any discussion on Wikipedia among brand new editors tends to focus on things like alt med or on whether Wikipedia is more based against Team Read or Team Blue, simply because so many people feel strongly about those issues and do not feel strongly about things like topics lacking sources in the native language of the topic. Alas, the proposed RfC is quite likely to become Yet Another Battleground About Alt Med, Donald Trump, Etc.
  • Some of the biases listed at Wikipedia:Systemic bias may not be a problem at all. That page says that regions where English is an official language or English-language schooling is common participate more than countries without broad teaching of English. It is not clear to me that this is an actual problem. I would expect the French language Wikipedia to have more participation by French speakers than Spanish speakers, but is it an established fact that this is a real problem? Who decided that the Polish Wikipedia focusing in on Polish issues and the English Wikipedia focusing in on English issues is a real problem?

One possible countermeasure to the above problems: separate sections for these different areas of bias with aggressive pruning of off-topic comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If editors of an English-language encyclopedia tend to create more articles about subjects known in the English-speaking world then that's no great problem, but if new page patrollers are using different standards for evaluating articles according to the origin of their subjects and the sources about them then it is a problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I read this proposal. it seems to be saying just the opposite: that new page patrollers are using the same standards -- standards that are more appropriate for the US, UK, etc. -- no matter what the the origin of their subjects and sources. I am pretty sure that this is correct in my case. I have been studying WP:NPPSG and find that I already have a good feel for the reliability of a lot of the sources listed for North America, and far less familiarity with the sources listed for some other regions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's less a question of standards and more a question of our ability to actually meet those standards, and these errors occur in two places.
Any good page reviewer knows that before nominating an article for deletion, they need to put in a good faith effort to find sources that weren't included in the article. But if the article is about a Turkish singer, and the reviewer not only know nothing about Turkish music, but nothing about Turkish media landscape (or even enough of the language to begin to look for sources), then they're not going to be able to properly do such a search.
The other case is evaluating if sources already in the article are sufficiently reliable to establish notability. While there are publishing norms in American and British media that make it easy to spot a trash tabloid vs. a newspaper of record, these norms are not universal. For example, coverage of movie stars in highly regarded Indian dailies often adopts a tone that would be instantly dismissed as PR cruft in an American publication, and that's before we even deal with a language barrier. A reviewer might be able to evaluate English-language coverage from sources that they don't recognize on the basis that they can tell from the content itself whether information about the subject is significant, but when they have to rely on a machine translation (and especially a machine translation from a non-Latin alphabet) it becomes a shot in the dark. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone is under the impression that this will solve systemic bias issues once and for all (and as you pointed out, some systemic biases are less problematic––I have no intent to mitigate the yes we are biased biases with this process). The goal here is simply to improve our ability to evaluate and find (and thus, our ability to rely on) sources that are unlikely to be familiar or to the typical enWiki editor. The main obstacles to source comprehension are language and the difference in media landscapes and formats across the globe; however, there are also some niche topics that are also difficult for the average editor to evaluate properly (in my experience at NPP: anime, theology, firearms, metal music) and I wouldn't rule out dedicating a discussion to establishing some baseline reliability assessments for sources that cover such topics signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also in case it wasn't clear, the idea being proposed here is to make this a semi-regular thing that progressively moves across different types of sources. For example, one month we could have a discussion about Turkish sources, the next month one about Vietnamese sources, a third about Arabic-language sources from the Gulf states, etc. signed, Rosguill talk 19:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments have pretty much cleared up my doubts. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This regional sources RfC format is a wonderful idea. Regional sources are indeed underrepresented on the perennial sources list. Less popular sources are typically given the benefit of the doubt if they have an editorial team, and haven't been the subject of a reliability dispute. However, in many cases, the lack of guidance around regional sources causes new page patrollers to skip articles that are based on these sources, especially if the sources are in a foreign language. As a result, articles based on these regional sources receive less attention, and aren't vetted as rigorously as articles that are primarily based on international or English-language sources.

The results of these regional sources RfCs would allow new page patrollers to become less hesitant with reviewing articles based on regional and foreign-language sources. I like how the main goal of these RfCs is to identify reliable sources from media landscapes that were previously undocumented in Wikipedia discussions.

Since there is some discussion about systemic bias, I want to clarify that this is absolutely not an affirmative action proposal, i.e. the proposed RfCs would not result in editors being more lenient when evaluating regional sources. Instead, this proposal would help new page patrollers apply the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline consistently across all regions, since patrollers would have more information on foreign-language sources and sources that are less familiar to them. It's not easy to research the reliability of sources in a foreign language that one doesn't understand, since there is a lot of translating involved, and because it's difficult to assess usage by other reliable sources when there is no readily available data on most of the sources in the region. This proposal would help resolve all of this, one region at a time.

Finally, I'd like to thank Rosguill for their work in maintaining the new page patrol source guide, which has been very useful for determining how much trust to assign to foreign-language sources when I encounter them in articles. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to distinguish move and cascade-protect lock colors

Current move (proposed/old version here)
Current cascade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a complete list of sandbox subpages and redirects.

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

Straw Poll

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



Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association

Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Word Association/Archive 2


Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Reverse Radial Ultra Cross


Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Word before last


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

Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Sub-Page Sandbox

Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Archive 1

Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/Archive

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


Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Earliest sandbox history


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gosha Kutsenko

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

This information is not propaganda. Returning information will make the pack more informative--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no reason why this argument is on this page. Should be on the article talk page, or possibly discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, if that is a live project. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shut down Article Rescue Squadron

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

Can you stay in one area and stop forum shopping all over the place?! You just started this at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Neutrality_check. Also created a deletion discussion for it [6] days ago that ended in a snow keep. Dream Focus 14:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a big problem here. We probably need to shut down your baby. Or maybe we could just topic ban you, User:Andrew Davidson and User:Lightburst from ARC? Might that help things? jps (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has been broad community support for ARS since it started. Your personal disputes with a couple people are disruptive. Your escalations are disruptive. -- GreenC 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing will come of this thread. It comes up at least once a year and goes something like this:
"can we do something about this page that seems to only serve to canvass keep !votes"
"the general idea of the project is positive, collaborating to find sources and improve articles to save them from deletion"
"but they usually just show up to support keeping, without finding new sources or improving articles. also, the notices are often non-neutral"
"they should be neutral. please work on that, ARS."
"ok"
The problem has never been the idea of ARS, which is why all attempts to shut it down have failed. The problem is when particular users treat it as a keep canvassing club. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is people make accusations without checking the actual edit records. There are things that get listed by a regular member that have no one else show up to comment on such as Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#List_of_dimensions_of_the_Discworld. I couldn't find any sources so I didn't participate in that one. Also currently on the list Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#His_Dark_Materials which I did find sources for, listed them there, and stated why it should be kept. No one just shows up and says keep every time, they only do it if they believe there are sources to prove it meets the notability guidelines or its a valid list article. Dream Focus 16:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That there have been instances where members have found sources or have not shown up just to !vote isn't much of a counter-argument (to the extent I was even presenting an argument). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment jps has engaged in extremely disruptive editing (edit warring) on the ARS. Then engaged in forum shopping, and attempted to delete the project with an MfD. All the while ජපස refused to discuss anything on the talk page and blanked requests to come to discussion. I finally reported the editor for edit warring this morning. My hope is that the editor will drop the stick and we can all go back to working on the project. This is like Wack-A-Mole. We think the disruptions have ended but they have only moved to another section of the project. Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Yes, the ARS is a canvassing club and always has been. No, the community hasn't got the spine or the stomach to do anything about it. Never have, never will. Reyk YO! 18:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the sentiment that ARS often functions as a canvassing board. Regardless of intent, it is quite common for a nomination to result in a number of "keep" !votes with no effort made to improve the article. I believe that greater oversight is the solution, with guidelines written by the community instead of project regulars. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually disagree that the primary problem with ARS is its essentially being a canvassing board. There are too few members left who haven't been site-banned or essentially forced off the project for them to actually swing the tables on most AFDs. The problem is that every time someone brings up how inappropriate some of the group's behaviour is, they start hounding and attacking that person all across the site, and by always moving in a group they make it near-impossible for ANI or the other relevant fora to deal with their disruptive battleground behaviour (I guess whenever they are brought to ANI the vast swath of "average" Wikipedians' eyes glaze over because they think it's an "inclusionists vs. deletionists" dispute -- I know I did until 21 months ago). Thing is, the community seems to be unwilling to shut down a WikiProject because the majority of its members are extremely tendentious, prone to not only attacking anyone who disagrees with personally but also violating Wikipedia copyright policy left, right, and center. So there isn't really anything that can be done. The disruption that has been going on at Talk:Mottainai since roughly February 2018 is one example, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88 is probably the most blatant recent example. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this will be a very popular opinion, but I think we should reform ARS to be a beneficial part of the project by listing articles that have survived an AfD discussion since sources have been demonstrated in the discussion, but still need WP:HEY/proper cleanup in order to be a sufficient encyclopaedia article, thereby shifting the project's focus from "saving" articles at AfD to providing effective cleanup on articles which have survived AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am fully in agreement. From my experience, the Rescue Squaddies I've encountered are extremely disruptive, entirely discourteous and bring zero benefit to the project. I am very active in a very small and narrow area of Wikipedia - that of AfDs for companies/organizations. The problem of the Rescue Squaddies is twofold. The first (as has been pointed out above) is that it really is a cavassing club. I see the same editors follow each other around and !vote to Keep articles often with similar reasoning. It is meat-puppetry, plain and simple. Also, an analysis of their !voting patterns and their stats will support this view. Secondly, this type of block !voting works most times. It is very frustrating to see closing admins ignore well-reasoned analysis of (for example) why various sources fail the criteria for establishing notability and instead lend weight to the Rescue Squaddies commenting in unison that all the sources are good. Many AfD's are closed based entirely on their participation. I've also seen the hounding and vilification an admin when they correctly and properly evaluated the reasoning and deleted the article even though the Keep !votes outnumbered the Delete !votes. I can provide links if anybody is interested but I won't until asked. In summary, while I have no doubt that the Rescue Squad was set up with honorable intentions, it is time to recognize that it is now a rallying and canvassing board to "Keep at all costs" and ignore our policies and guidelines. HighKing++ 14:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Highking, the removal of any walled garden is never to be pitied. ——SN54129 14:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the 20 or so times it's been nominated for deletion and kept every time, but it's worth exploring whether some of the active members of the project have the right motives (i.e. "oppose all deletion of any content ever for any reason" is not a rational approach to building an encyclopedia). In principle, attracting more eyes to deletion discussions is a good thing, because deletion is disruptive and should be a last resort limited to topics entirely unfit for the encyclopedia, and too often AfD is being used to force article improvements contrary to WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NODEADLINE. If ARS results in some of those inappropriately nominated articles being saved from deletion then it's a net positive. Or to put it a different way, the editors crying that ARS participants "never improve articles" should consider dropping this crusade and improving the articles themselves.
Now, if the Article Rescue Squadron is being abused to sway consensus on project-side content discussions, such as Hijiri's SPI MFD, it's being used against its purpose and against WP:CANVASS, and the editors involved should face sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support albeit pointless. I agree that ARS is well-intentioned as a concept, but that the execution of it falls short. However whether it should be shut down or not, how would one "shut it down"? It doesn't need to exist as a concrete entity, it's simply a mindset shared between a few like-minded editors and perhaps a listing of targets. "Shut it down" and it would only re-appear. Off-wiki if needs be.
Maybe the solution is to engage more with it, and to "rescue" based on improvement, rather than weight of numbers? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I actually very much support SportingFlyer's proposal (assuming actually shutting the project down is off the table as Andy above seems to believe it to be), and I suspect if it were presented appropriately most of the community would support it. Every defense I've seen of ARS in the past has taken some form of "The ARS does good work fixing articles" -- non-members who are not especially involved seem to generally believe this to be the case, but even members frequently present this as being the case, apparently knowing that it's the only reason the rest of the community tolerates ARS. But this argument isn't borne out by the behaviour of many of ARS's members, who seem to be more interested in !voting down AFDs, regardless of whether the articles are improved. (Occasionally they show up after the AFDs to shut down redirect/merge proposals,[7] and even rewriting/formatting/compromise proposals,[8] apparently for no reason other than revenge against "deletionists".) Some recent listings have indeed been rescued as a result of delete !votes being retracted or ceasing following a series of edits by some members of ARS rewriting the articles during the AFDs. The ARS members in question have my gratitude and admiration for this, but such instances appear to be outnumbered overwhelmingly by cases where a discussion ended in "no consensus" and no ARS member ever touched the article itself either during or after the listing. All of these problems would be solved, or at least ameliorated, if the rules were rewritten so that either (a) only articles that had been nominated for AFD but with the AFD being closed with some non-deletion result could be listed there or (b) for every X articles listed during AFD discussions Y articles that have been AFDed in the past but not deleted need to be listed and noticeably improved by the members of the project. It would also discourage instances like those linked above where ARS members undermine attempts to improve articles after the fact if they were given explicit encouragement to support such efforts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We just had an AFD for the project close days ago. [9] So why is this being brought up yet again here by the same person who started that deletion nomination? I think the other place was the correct venue for such things, not here. Also note that on the Rescue List right now are two things that were put there by two different regulars that no one but them showed up to vote KEEP at. [10] [11]. Look through archives and this happens many times in the past as well. So obviously we don't all rush over and say KEEP no matter what. That is not a problem. Dream Focus 15:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CLOSEAFD: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. These AfD discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, the quality of the arguments presented matter the most. I think editors get confused with which discussions canvassing has the most impact for. If we were lets say talking about a huge discussion with multiple editors taking a # vote (RfA is a good example), then it would matter much more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The question to be asked is what is best for the project. All one needs to do is look in the archives: our last archive 12 deleted articles out of 31 to see how difficult it is to save an article - most of the articles had zero participation from ARS members. Additionally there are about 3 editors who follow the ARS and obstinately !vote Delete on nearly every article listed on ARS. Also as every editor knows, an article can be sent to AfD over and over and over again. Yet a recreated article brings editors shouting SALT. This proposal to scrap the whole project in in bad faith and comes from a tendentious and difficult editor who has an extensive block history for: socking, edit warring, disruptive editing, personal attacks, redirecting articles without consensus, etc. I am also not surprised to see the High King here. The High King is smarting over the fact that I spotted them placing an AfD on an article just hours after that article survived AfD. In any event this is a bad faith nomination by a tendentious editor with a long history of disruption on the project. The only question about anything related to the encyclopedia should be: What is best for the project? Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response This perfectly highlights the problems. Let's break down Lightburst's reaction. First, Lightburst creates a strawman argument saying I am "smarting" over being caught re-nominating an article at AfD. Entirely fabricated view. This is the AfD and I clearly acknowledged that it had only just survived AfD and I provided my reasoning for resubmitting it. It also highlights the meat-puppetery of the Rescue Squaddies as can be seen at that AfD. All three ignore the nomination requesting production of references. The allegations that I have a history of socking, edit warring, disrputive editing, etc are no surprise but not the full picture. If anyone cares to check my block log, the last time I've been "in trouble" so to speak was in 2010. That's 9 years ago and was solely in a single topic area - the "British Isles". I haven't been near that since. But hey, why let facts get in the way of smearing another editor, eh? Not just me either - this is part and parcel of the normal everyday tactics from certain members of the Rescue Squad. Attack everything, especially other editors, but when that doesn't work, attack the policies/guidelines and even the closing admin if results don't go their way. HighKing++ 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The block log he linked to is the guy who started this bit, he then talking about you after that. You link to something that was not tagged in the Rescue Article List. At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hammerax_(2nd_nomination) you accuse the ARS of always showing up and voting keep but that was not mentioned at the Rescue Squadron's list either. Just one member who had been in the previous AFD that ended days before did comment, and then another regular member happened to show up. Dream Focus 17:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if you thought I was referring to you as the one who has a history of socking, edit warring, disrputive editing etc. I thought it was clear I was referring to the OP, User:JPS and I linked to the extensive block log. However you are what we refer to as a deletionist. You almost never !vote keep. Out of 439 !votes at AfD you !voted to keep 28 times. So I am sure it is inconvienient when editors show up to attempt to improve one of your articles targeted for deletion. I think we can all agree it is easier to delete than improve. The OP is also a deletionist - only came across two article worthy of Keeping. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great example of the toxic paranoid nonsense that seems the sole domain of ARS members (which is not to say all ARS members). The scourge of "deletionist" bogeymen who mindlessly !vote delete contrary to policy! Quick, poison the well! The reality, of course, is that HighKing's !votes are out of line with consensus an incredibly low 4.8% of the time. That's the only thing that matters. Just like HK shouldn't care that you're inclined to only get involved at XfD when it's something you think is worth keeping. You, however, miss the mark more than four times as often. People have different kinds of engagement at XfD. Some people only get involved when there are particularly egregious issues in play. Some people only bother with promotional articles. Some people focus on particular topics. Some try to resolve contentious disputes. Some people only bother if they can justify keeping it. These are all perfectly fine as long as we're acting in good faith. Trying to undermine what people say because they're "deletionists" is not doing that. Canvassing is not doing that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toxic is a bit harsh. We have an attack on the project several times a year and the attack is from deletionists. You cannot blame the sheep for being weary of a wolf. And even paranoid people can have actual antagonists. It is very easy to be on the "winning side" in an AfD. One can assess the majority opinion and vote the majority. The ARS members usually come to an article after a concerted effort to delete, and !votes have been cast. In any event this is about what is best for the project. And your opinion is clearly stated. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Support - I think I've opposed this in the past (or maybe abstained) because the central thrust of the oppose arguments is a sensible one: the original idea of the project is not a problem. And I agree with that. Every time we do this, people argue that it's a good project with a good aim, acknowledging that it's often used problematically but that the answer is to set stricter rules or enforce those rules or sanction the problematic editors. But none of that ever happens, and it's still a keep-canvass-club.
It's the exception, rather than the rule, that participants make nontrivial improvements to an article, finding new good sources to keep it based on our guidelines.
Sometimes a user does improve the article (kudos to them, truly), and then uses ARS to canvass keep votes with a "I've improved the article/added a source" notice (again, not what it's for).
Notices are often non-neutral or make no effort to argue why it should be kept, sometimes just making a joke about the subject (because adding something to the list just implies "go keep this").
The people who use the project most operate according to unwritten rules, and those rules are by now well known. Regardless of what it says on the tin, the descriptions of ARS are not what the project is. This isn't a referendum on whether the ARS is a good idea, it's about whether the way it's actually used is beneficial to the project. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (not that it would do much good) While I'm annoyed that whenever I see the usual suspects swoop into an AfD, one can count on the place being peppered with vague "meets GNG" and superficial Google Book title searches... - being personally annoyed should not be a factor here; and as stated, we are after the good of the project. So here's what I see as the actual damage done by this tag-team: they tend to water down the consensus-building in AfDs by piling on with weak Keep arguments. Raw biomass does tell in closing, however much an experienced closer might intend to weigh quality; a finding of "no consensus" is always easier to make than a "delete" that will clearly tick off several !voters. And "no consensus", after all, is a Win: article not deleted. Whether that's a conscious tactic (I suspect so) or an "innocent" outcome of the totally-not-a-canvassing-board list - it's deleterious to article quality. - However, seeing that this is always the same core of half a dozen editors with a few satellites, I don't see how this behaviour would stop if the ARS page went away. Nothing is preventing them from achieving the same effect by just keeping an eye on each other's contribution lists. It's a personal behavioural issue, exploiting a weakness of the consensus process to force a specific philosophy, too subtle for outright sanctioning. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose The contributions to the improvement of articles is considerable and demonstrable. There is no merit to the alleged abuse. Indeed, User:HighKing never misses an opportunity to bring up the same arguments whenever and wherever the opportunity is remotely available. He doesn't like the outcome of his stupidly nominated AFDs. He doesn't like when articles and references are improved, and WP:Hey happens. He continues to ignore WP:Before. Repetition of those repeatedly rejected arguments does not undo the WP:Disruptive nature of these efforts. Nor does it make them more worthwhile or credible. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant, but full, support. In theory, the ARS should be a useful place to improve articles. In practice, the ARS has become a place for people to canvas votes that automatically, and uncritically, vote keep at deletion discussions without any work, forethought, or intention to actually rescue the articles they claim to want to. As a concept, we should have a working ARS. As it works in practice, it needs to be shut down. --Jayron32 18:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please back up the accusation with some diffs of ARS members votes that automatically, and uncritically, vote keep. Anyone can go through the archives or the present ARS page. You should be able to support these wild claims with diffs. As a member of ARS I have nominated many articles that not one single member !voted on. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't intend to respond to all the opposers here (it's likely a futile exercise, after all), but I find it particularly disheartening to see an arb drop a drive-by straw man into a discussion. Nobody has argued anything like "editors trying to preserve content is a problem". I don't actually expect this to pass, but mainly because of people doing what you're doing -- looking at the purpose of ARS, saying "it looks great!" and moving on. That was my perspective at one point, too. ARS is not a problematic canvassing club by nature. It is a problematic canvassing club by nurture, per what I wrote above. It's a good idea executed in a way that far too often gets away from its intended purpose. If delsort and article alerts got to that point, we could discuss how to remedy it, but it's extremely unlikely because the reason those processes are great is that they're all about attracting participation based on knowledge of the subject/sourcing, not based entirely on their likelihood to !vote a particular way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The OP doesn't provide any evidence and the supporters don't seem to have either. What we just seem to have are groundless personal attacks, aspersions and falsehoods. So, there's no case to answer. A couple of points while I'm here though:
  1. The ARS has a huge nominal membership which has accumulated over the years – over 400. It would be good if more of these were to participate at AfD so that the few die-hards don't have to try to cover everything. This is a general problem with AfD and other patrolling activities – the number of active volunteers is dwindling and so the remainder get over-stretched and fractious. And it doesn't then help if attacks of this sort are made. I'd quite like to be focussing on other activities like editathons, the six millionth article and many topics of interest. So, I am combing through the ARS membership list to establish who is still active and may then send them out a newsletter, as is done for the New Page Patrol or AfC projects, which have similar issues of overstretch.
  2. For a fresh example of an article being rescued, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard (unit). Initially, a long list of editors said that there was nothing to be found; that the topic was probably a hoax. I wasn't convinced and spent some time digging into it. I found sources that other editors had missed and got the article back on track. Another editor has picked up the baton and continued to improve the article and so we have a good consensus now that it should be kept rather than deleted. Now, the key point here is that this work isn't easy. Few editors are capable of performing such work to a level of WP:HEY. Uncle G is a good example but he likes to do his own thing and doesn't tend to edit much now. If the nay-sayers think they can do better, then they should try it.
Andrew D. (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe that I am listed as a "member" of the ARS, althoguh i ahve not been active in their internal discussions. But I have, from time to time, used the ARS list of 'threatened" articles to select ones to try to source and 'escue" and successfully doing so has been among my prouder and more rewarding contributions here. My "rescue" efforts have normally taken the form of finding and adding good sources, although sometimes also of debating the value of sources already found, or the meaning of specialized notability guidelines. I have certainly not engaged in 'tag-teaming" nor have I observed such behavior from the ARS, although it may have occurred. I am thinking of such articles as Tolu Ajayi, Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action, The Narrative (band) , and 500 Miles High, all of which i was involved in sourcing while at AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken a number of articles that were proposed for deletion on to be WP:DYKs on the main page. This is part of what you now want to destroy.
Can you say, "Vendetta"? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I prefer to plough my own furrow and so occasionally see an article that looks like it's going to be deleted but can find sources myself to stop that happening, or, probably just as often, I look for sources but can't find them and say so. Others prefer to collaborate on such things. I think that the supporters above are only seeing the small minority of cases where people may have given rather dodgy "keep" opinions, rather than the majority where the sourcing of articles has been improved without any fuss. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Can someone help me to see where I'm going wrong here? I'm taking up a lot of space in this thread, admittedly, but I feel like I agree with the underlying reasons given by several of the opposers here (and although I find ARS folks frustrating at times, I do value a lot of the work the users do). So please help me to understand. As per WP:CAN, "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". It therefore seems important to distinguish posts which seek to improve an article and find sourcing from posts which simply influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Nobody will dispute that when someone improves an article and finds sources that it is a very positive thing for Wikipedia. And I won't dispute that has happened via ARS (just like the same happens through the various other mechanisms we have to advertise deletion discussions). My question is about when that's not what it's used for -- what its purposefunction is influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. There are two scenarios that seem to me most fraught:
(1) Regarding the person posting to ARS: Cases where someone posts about a discussion to ARS just to turn the tide of an AfD. Maybe the person has added sources themselves and thinks it should be kept, maybe they think the people !voting delete are wrong, maybe they just like it, etc. Regardless of the reason, the function is to influence the outcome by attracting people who will agree with you (or, at minimum, certainly won't disagree with you). Is ARS exempted from this kind of canvassing? Is there some way that it is not canvassing? Is it sufficient to issue a catch-all "no, I want them to improve the article, and it's not my fault if they just show up to !vote keep"?
(2) Regarding those responding to posts at ARS: The more complicated one, and complementary to the first scenario. Given that the audience at ARS are people who are likely to !vote keep and will almost never !vote delete, if you learn of a discussion through ARS without the crucial step of finding additional sources or improving the article, and just show up to !vote keep, that would be considered canvassing on basically any other forum on Wikipedia where people are likely to !vote a particular way. Am I wrong? Maybe an easy provision to avoid the problematic responses would just be to make explicit somewhere that if you learn of a discussion through ARS (and we'll take you on good faith as to whether you did or not), you should only act on it if you're going to participate in the rescue beyond !voting keep.
What am I missing? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I try to improve articles to the extent I can. I can't make sources up.
Sometimes I vote. Sometimes I don't.
Posting on ARS invites others (sometimes with better access to relevant sources than I) to help improve the article. I've seen it happen. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. And sometimes they put the sources into the AFD discussion (See WP:Before), but don't bother putting them into the article. I wish they would follow through. But I can't control how editors (they are a cantankerous herd of cats) choose to respond.
In some respects, the Modest proposal of mandating contributions by a particular set of voters at AFD sounds like a Poll tax. Or Voter Identification laws. Clearly not neutral; clearly set up to disadvantage those who want to keep an article.
If we are going to condition participation in AFD discussions, what rules should be imposed on those who seek deletion? WP:Sauce. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is all well and good indeed, but when it's about finding sources and putting them in the AfD and/or in the article, that's uncontroversial. Where I'm unclear is about those cases when people don't bother with the sources/improvement and instead just !vote keep. It seems often that it's a matter of dispute whether the sources are sufficient to keep, or when someone feels strongly that an article should be kept due to sourcing that's been found, and ARS is a venue where one is most likely to find people to fall on the keep side of those disputes (i.e. cases when posting to ARS isn't about improving the article or improving sourcing, but about supporting the idea that the sourcing is good enough). Regarding rules about those who seek deletion, I'm having trouble thinking of an equivalent on the "other side". Feel free to suggest something? We should impose the same canvassing rules on everyone. The question here is about the extent to which there should be an exception to those rules. There's obviously broad support for advertising articles to people with subject-based interests, but there's no other venue where the common interest is a particular outcome independent of subject. There is no deletion equivalent to ARS (nor should there be). Outside of ARS, everyone follows the same rules for canvassing, and if there's a venue where that's not true, I'd appreciate learning of it so I can make the same arguments there. We do have the language of the deletion policy and WP:BEFORE, in terms of conditions put on those seeking deletion, but this is all about canvassing, and I don't think there's an equivalent worth talking about. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ARS posts should be worded neutrally, and if they aren't that should be fixed. Usually IME they are. There is nothign stopping a person who tends to favor deletion from reading the ARS lists, going to the AfD pages, and posting in favor of deletion. Therefore, i don't see ARS posts as canvassing at all. They are either calls to help find and add sources to an article, or to evaluate the sources already there and give an opinion on whether they are sufficient. Both are perfectly acceptable. A call to "vote keep on XYZ, you don't need to know why" would be improper, but I trust ARS isn't doing anything of that sort. Any specific person doing that can and should be warned and eventually sanctioned. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Oppose – I periodically check in on the article rescue squadron, and I'm consistently impressed by the good work they do improving articles. I've popped into a number of deletion discussions where the article has greatly expanded since the discussion began. Clearly a positive to Wikipedia and not seeing any diffs to prove otherwise.Patiodweller (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=927027910"