Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

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

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

WP:NOTMEMORIAL Victim lists in mass tragedy articles - Round 2

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

---

The issue of victim lists in mass tragedy articles was adressed before and the consensus was that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I believe the issue needs to be addressed again to finally reach global consensus due to the fact that each mass tragedy articles become a constant struggle amongst editors supporting or opposing the inclusion of a victim list. There is also another issue where outcomes of a consensus on a specific article does not count as consensus for later articles, so the back and forth edits and fights never end. Current RfC

Current language of WP:NOTMEMORIAL: Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

I propose that we add a line to WP:NOTMEMORIAL that would either allow or prohibit listing individual victims of mass tragedies if they do not meet our notability guidelines and/or WP:BLP and they are covered in the media as part of the story of the mass tragedy event. This proposal, if approved, would also override any local consensus and precedents. Long lists containing more than 20 names should be contained in a collapsed section.

   Support = Will allow inclusion

   Oppose = Will prohibit inclusion

Cheers, --Bohbye (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Memorial:Support

• Support as nominator. --Bohbye (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I continue to say that the victims are notable in the context of the given event. This isn't just someone creating an article in order to remember their deceased loved one or friend. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support — I'm reading this proposal as "allow" not "require," since that's what it says. I don't expect adding a line to WP:MEMORIAL stating this will end all disputes over victim lists. However, right now these disputes often boil down to

Proponent: I think we should have a victim list due to X, Y, and Z.

Opponent: I don't think we should have victim lists because of WP:MEMORIAL

Proponent: That's not my reading of WP:MEMORIAL.

Admin closer: No consensus.

This is simply not a helpful pattern. If WP:MEMORIAL included something like the following it would help: "This policy does not prohibit the inclusion of lists of victims of tragic events, if they serve an encyclopedic purpose, appear in reliable sources, and are compliant with other Wikipedia policies. These lists should be written to provide relevant information, rather than memorialize the lives of the victims."--Carwil (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Carwil:

Proponent: I think we should have a victim list due to X, Y, and Z.

Opponent: I oppose per WP:MEMORIAL.

Proponent: MEMORIAL says we can have the list if it serves an encyclopedic purpose, appears in reliable sources, and is compliant with other Wikipedia policies.

Opponent: I disagree that the list serves an encyclopedic purpose.

Uninvolved closer: No consensus. (or the closer counts votes and calls it a consensus) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the revised conversation is better, since the opponent has to explain how it serves no encyclopedic purpose. Of course there will still be disagreements but there is room for compromise and consideration of the page at hand.--Carwil (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It it easy to "explain how it serves no encyclopedic purpose" convincingly enough for your argument to count as much as any other in the eyes of the closer. Many editors have done exactly that. There is no clear Wikipedia definition of encyclopedic purpose. Therefore your suggestion would change nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Support as 2nd choice. A mandatory rule that overrides local consensus and past precedent is a horrible idea that will require absurd and illogical outcomes. However, if the community decides to create a mandatory rule, I’d prefer for it to be inclusion for two reasons. First, this is more in-line with common practice on Wikipedia (particularly with school shootings) and will require less clean-up. Second, many tragedies are notable because of the specific victims (such as the 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash, which killed many leaders of the Polish Government in Exile). In these cases, it is incredibly important to know the names of at least some of the victims. Further, many notable people (particular those from non-English speaking countries) do not have articles, so we’d have to hold a pre-emptive AfD for many entries into the victim list. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I realized that a mandatory inclusion rule would require victim lists for pandemics such as the 1918 flu pandemic (50 million deaths, minimum), natural disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (230,000 deaths, minimum), and genocides such as the Rwandan Genocide (500,000 deaths, minimum). Most commenters in this RFC agree that victim lists are appropriate in some articles but not others; the main dispute here is over the proportion of articles in which victim lists are appropriate, not whether they are appropriate period. I think this RFC would have been more helpful if it proposed a default rule that could be overruled with local consensus instead of a mandatory rule that must be obeyed even in illogical situations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support — if already in place, would have avoided so much drama in Troubles-related articles over the years. There is nothing to prevent inclusion of relevant lists, in collapsible boxes if necessary, and a list of names included on a WP:NOTPAPER WP article is not a "memorial." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support/Comment/Reject as Malformed - this looks like a dirty trick to me. I think most people are reading this to think that "support" means they have to include a victim list, and balking at that excessive outreach, when in reality "support", misleadingly, seems to have the effect of "allow", i.e. maintain the status quo. I insist that a change in policy should not be accomplished by getting a majority of Oppose votes on a "proposal" -- otherwise every wikilobbyist will be doing it. And for what it's worth, I "support" allowing the list of victims every time. I think Wikipedia made a mistake back in 2001 when it invented WP:NOT and abandoned the idea of hosting an enduring 911 memorial that tried to collect what was known about all the victims. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support since, as stated above, "support" means "allow", while "oppose" means a blanket prohibition. Davey2116 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Memorial:Oppose

• Oppose, policy is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. As it stands, this type of information gains consensus to be included in some articles and fails to in others, so there is clearly no consensus that this should always or never be added. Therefore, case by case discussion, as is current practice, is the proper way to settle it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Seraphimblade, I'm not sure that your response matches the description above for what "oppose" is supposed to mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, the victims of mass tragedies are (generally) not notable, they are simply the people who happen to be in the area when the event occurs. Even in the case of mass shootings (where this debate keeps popping up), most of the perpetrators are not targeting specific people, they are simply killing anyone in the way. Obviously there are some minor exceptions. The vulcanologist who was killed by the eruption of Mount St. Helens while collecting data, a newscaster who is blown away by a tornado while on air, a passenger on a jet who attempts to stop hijackers, a shooting victim who was called out by name in the perpetrator's manifesto. But notice that these are highly specific things. For most victims of these tragedies the story would have been exactly the same if anyone else had been there and their names give us no real extra data. --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose but with appropriate exceptions. We should encourage editors to avoid these, unless there are reasonable circumstances, notably that if discussing the event that it is impossible to do so without mention some of these people. --Masem (t) 02:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Masem: My understanding is that this is about complete lists of names and ages, not prose about selected notable victims. They are separate issues and I think most opponents of the former do not oppose the latter outright, although we might disagree on the meaning of "notable". In my opinion your !vote is the same as mine in the following subsection. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edibobb (talk • contribs) 02:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, with appropriate exceptions per Masem and Khajidha. The status quo, however attractive it may seem to !vote for, has not served as well, and provides a justification for battleground that is really unnecessary. The wording should at least strongly discourage the practice of inclusion. No such user (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the normal reader it is an utterly meaningless and worthless list of names randomly pulled out of the phonebook (with my apologies to the family and friends of the deceased). For the normal reader, it serves absolutely no encyclopedic purpose. Name(s) should only be included where it provides some identifiable and distinctive purpose for a generic reader. If it's a relative of the perpetrator, or a celebrity who gets individualized news coverage, or one of Khajidha's examples, it makes sense to have a textual-discussion of those individuals. To make the point reducio ad absurdum, there's no reason we should treat the victims of a mass shooting any differently than the victims of 9/11. A list of 20 random names is just as useless as a list of 2,996 random names. Alsee (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - 2nd choice because there should be explicit provision for exceptions. Superior to status quo, however, per my comments elsewhere in this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a list of the names of non-notable people who were killed in an event has no point other than to memorialize the victims in question. While I feel for the people involved, that is not the point of an encyclopedia. Cataloging the victims of various of events is a noble pursuit, but is more suited to another venue. My conclusion would be to prohibit victim lists unless the victim meets general notability requirements. It is either that or we have to decide where to draw the line. Does every soldier who died during a battle get listed in an article about the battle? How about everyone killed by the Nazis at Auschwitz in it's article? The list could do on. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 05:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, If for no other reason then who gets to decide what is deserving of such memorials? Victims of Terror, Mass shootings, collateral damage? Too much room for edit warring and POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• General oppose including lists of nn individuals, as (indiscriminate amount of information). Victim lists should include those who are independently notable, i.e. blue-linked. There may be a section in the articles on the victims - covered as a group / individually, depending on the depth of sources for specific individuals. I find the exhaustive lists not only excessive, but also potentially disrespectful to the relatives. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, in general for lack of notability and per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose introduction of lists of non-notable victims as they are almost always un-encyclopedic and incompatible with the letter and spirit of NOTMEMORIAL. I am fine with an external link to an appropriate memorial website or list of victims. But such lists don't belong in articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Memorial:Alternatives

• Status quo Continue deciding ona case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo One-size-fits-all policies are rarely useful at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 02:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo, since apparently "oppose" doesn't actually mean, well, "oppose", but I oppose making such a change. Policy is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. As it stands, this type of information gains consensus to be included in some articles and fails to in others, so there is clearly no consensus that this should always or never be added. Therefore, case by case discussion, as is current practice, is the proper way to settle it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo - 2nd choice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Default to omit, exceptions by local consensus - There was a minor but distracting outcry of "Not this again!" when the list was disputed at Santa Fe High School shooting, and the RfC for that case is underway. If "Status quo" or "no consensus" is the result here, it must be stressed that "Not this again!" is inconsistent with that result and thus an invalid complaint. If the community kicks this decision down to article level, despite the fact that the relevant factors and circumstances are essentially the same in each successive case, then the community is saying it must be re-litigated at each successive case. I oppose that as a waste of editor time, and I support omission as default with provision for exceptions by local consensus. The difference between that and the simple "decide case-by-case" is that any arguments for exception would be required to show what is unusual about the case that justifies exception to the default. My rationale for supporting omission rather than inclusion as default is found here (first !vote). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo. Continue deciding on a case-by-case basis. One-size-fits-all policies are rarely useful at Wikipedia. Case by case basis with no default rule. Some take WP:NOTAMEMORIAL way out of context. It is meant to shut down stand alone bios on deceased friends and family. It is not meant to exclude the mention of a murder victim name within the context of a page about a notable crime. Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Omit excepting strong local consensus I'm not entirely sure what adding a comprehensive list of victims adds to an article, and as some users commented at the last RfC, it may be seen as disrespectful to mention people purely for how they died (WP:BLP1E). If some victims are notable for other reasons, sure it may make sense to list them. However, there may well be cases where listing all victims makes encyclopedic sense, and local consensus should be sovereign where it exists. Richard⁰⁶¹² 12:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Generally Support Inclusion I think generally murder victims names and often ages (which helps distinguish the victum from other people with the same name) are an important part of every murder story that are almost always covered by reliable sources repeatedly. We have almost always covered the victim names for other notable murders like Golden_State_Killer#Original_Night_Stalker There is a trend in the media to even deemphasize the killer's name and emphasize the victims for notoriety reasons. Some take WP:NOTAMEMORIAL way out of context. It is meant to shut down stand alone bios on deceased friends and family. It is not meant to exclude the mention of a murder victim name within the context of a page about a notable crime. Do to privacy and accuracy reasons I do not support releasing victim names before they are released by law enforcement and published in RS or the listing of all wounded victims, which needs to be considered on a case by case basis. If child Mary Jones is shoot in the leg and survives she does not need to be named on wikipedia but if Jane Smith gets shot and earns an award for heroism we may well name her. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo. The current wording, which in general would appear to prohibit the mass listing of names, but would allow for it if there were a good reason (mainly notability), seems fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo - Case by case basis with no default rule. I have supported inclusion on the two most recent mass shooting pages I have participated in, but I see examples where it was decided to exclude the names, and if there is another situation where that is what the consensus is decided to be I have no problem with it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo - Should be done on a case-by-case basis, Seems the logical answer..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo - There are some cases where setting notability as a threshold would be a good idea. But, there are other cases, like where there are seven or so victims, and one notable person among them, when including the names of all killed would be a fine idea. Overall, having a guideline to cite isn't very good when that guideline has lots of good exceptions. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo I'd suggest that it mostly depends on the number of names, if there are only a handful then it makes some sense to include them, if there are hundreds then it probably isn't a good idea. There are other factors that could affect the decision though. Hut 8.5 20:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Default to include, allow exclusion per local consensus After every major shooting, we seem to have the exact same debate about whether to include a list of victims. The debatealmost always centers around the same general arguments rather than the details of the specific shooting. Having to debate the same point again and again is a waste of time and is starting to ware on the nerves of many editors. Establishing a default rule instead of continuously debating the same point would be in the best interest of Wikipedia. I would prefer for the default rule to be inclusion of the lists for the reasons I explain here [1]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo These are the type of articles where the need for editorial judgement is the greatest. Drawing lines in the stand is rarely useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• These local discussions are never about the characteristics of the case. They are regurgitations of the same general arguments about victim lists, over and over. The result depends merely on the mix of the editors involved in the local decision. And there are always many editors who !vote based largely on precedent, as if that showed a community consensus, when in fact it does not. If there were such a community consensus, it would be affirmed in discussions like this one. The status quo is a mess, and the only way to resolve it is to reach a community consensus for something other than status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Status quo Bearing in mind that WP:BLP1E still applies in the "breaking news" phase. I know that's aimed at articles, but the last thing I want to happen is for us to repeat an innaccurate list, potentially causing great distress to an affected family. There are some articles that a list of the victims just doesn't make any sense - e.g. The Holocaust. At the same time, sometimes it makes sense. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo Going to squeeze in just under the wire to note that a case-by-case basis simply seems the most logical to me. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Depends. Do what the historical secondary sources say — if they report a list of names, that's reasonable, but if not, don't. And don't go advocating the fringe theory that news reports are secondary sources: I'm talking secondary sources as defined by professionals. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Status quo, Proposal options are inappropriately Procrustean. Allow listings only when they are demonstrably encyclopaedic or significantly clarify an encyclopaedic point. Burden on the editor wishing to include to show this is the case. Decision by standard talk page consensus. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Status quo A case-by-case basis is best. As noted below, there are many cases when a list is appropriate, and good reasons why me might decide to limit or omit a list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Status quo, use existing guidelines WP:LISTBIO and WP:LONGSEQ already provide guidance that exhaustive lists should not be used if the same items would not be accepted if written as prose. Lists are a form of presentation, not an excuse to mention trivial items.—Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Memorial:Neutral

Memorial:General discussion

The two suggested "votes" may be confusing people. The options might be better framed like this:

1. Require victim lists (if verifiable; WP:SPLIT to a stand-alone list if large)
2. Decide separately for each article (permitted with consensus; status quo)
3. Prohibit (no lists, except in extraordinary situations)

If people can be clear about what they mean in their comments, that would probably be more helpful than "support" or "oppose". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Victim lists have long been an issue. I was involved in a related local discussion nearly 5 years ago which had some interesting points raised. Cesdeva ^(talk) 11:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well it appears that nothing has come out of this discussion, the issue is going to continue to be fought out and re-discussed to death. Sorry if I sound pessimistic here but I have seen it play out now many times from both sides presenting the same arguments. Why would one school shooting for example be different than another with the same talking points presented? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Remarkably, at least one editor—an editor with extensive experience—has declined to help form a consensus with the rationale that there is no consensus. Apparently, avoiding pointless expenditure of editor time is seen by many as an improper use of community consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you seeing something above that implies anything other than the status quo (no change)? This has been discussed in one way shape or form for years now, something is going to have to give eventually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I'm not sure I understand the question. If you're asking how I read the consensus to date, of course it leans toward status quo. If the trend holds, I know WP:how to lose and I'm resigned to the continued waste of time, but I will respond negatively to further "Not this again!" protests at article level. This will be the clear will of the community, and every editor should respect it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the closer apply extra care evaluating individual responses. We have a striking situation where there are !votes in three different sections all saying the exact same thing: names can be included if they serve an encyclopedic purpose. People are just coming at it from different angles. If we get stuck with yet another RFC on this same question I suggest extra effort to more clearly articulate that position. The current drafting looks too much like "Always include all names" vs "Never include any names". Alsee (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the framing is poor, as might be expected from a very-low-time editor. I offered to collaborate on framing and my offer was ignored. But to me the drafting looks like "prohibit lists" (Oppose) vs "don't prohibit lists" (Support). In any case, I think it was clear from the start that the question is about complete lists of names and ages; that's what "victims list" means. It is not about prose about selected notable victims, and I'm pretty sure that some !voters have missed that essential point. It certainly is not about lists of names and ages of selected notable victims with no explanation for what makes them notable; that should never be on the table for obvious reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee:, @Mandruss:: I think Alsee has the correct read of responses posted here and Mandruss has the correct read of the proponent's intent in writing the RfC. Above, I tried to offer a succinct clarification of the policy that summarizes when victim lists are appropriate: ""This policy does not prohibit the inclusion of lists of victims of tragic events, if they serve an encyclopedic purpose, appear in reliable sources, and are compliant with other Wikipedia policies. These lists should be written to provide relevant information, rather than memorialize the lives of the victims." I could offer this as the basis for a future RfC, or we could refine it here, and then have an RfC about it. What do people think?--Carwil (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the opposition to victims lists is that they inherently do not "serve an encyclopedic purpose", so I don't know what that would accomplish. Victims lists either generally serve an encyclopedic purpose or they generally do not, and that is something that can and should be decided, at community level, for all victims lists in mass killing articles (with provision for rare exceptions).
Further, closers cannot read the minds of the participants, and forgive me for believing that many supporters whose desire was to memorialize the victims would say that their aim was to serve an encyclopedic purpose, if that's what it took to get a list included. Ends justify means, very often. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Carwil if the closer has trouble extracting a clear result here, then I agree with your suggested followup RFC. However I think your text needs adjustment. When writing policies&guidelines it's often key to write for the audience who is motivated to not-find the answer we're trying to provide. You essentially wrote that uncontroversially-good content is permitted, and an over-enthusiast-list-maker can argue that your text says nothing against their list. I suggest starting with a default that victim names are generally inappropriate, then add "unless..." to allow names with a genuine purpose. I think consensus is that, in a disputed case, the person adding names is expected to offer a credible rationale beyond "listing victims". Alsee (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. The entire point is that these lists of names are not encyclopedic content. Individual names may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but the burden of proof should be to show that mention of each name (individually) serves an encyclopedic purpose. --Khajidha (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Khajidha on specifics directly above. Have not examined all of Mandruss' arguments sufficiently to form a definite opinion on them, but those just above look rational and to the point. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk):

@Pbsouthwood: This comment is interesting considering that your "status quo" !vote is diametrically opposed to both mine and Khajidha's. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The proposal options are so badly expressed as to be inappropriate. Status quo is the default option. In Afrikaans there is nn expression "Kak vraag, vra oor", which basically rejects the question and requests rephrasing to make it answerable. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Agreed, but I don't think the community would respond favorably to another run at this at this time, or most likely for another two years minimum. In my experience the community's attitude in such situations is: "You botched it? Too bad. We're tired of discussing it." The #Memorial:Alternatives section at least appears to free responders from the chosen framing if they don't like it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think that the Oppose voters are right that a list of names is of relatively little use, "like a phonebook". Not no use, since it is still a way to cross-reference some facts, but yes, I want more. I think these articles should routinely cover published details about the victims the same way they cover published details about the shooters. I don't at all get the people who claim that the shooters deserve Wikipedia coverage because they were an "active party" whereas the victims, being just "passive", should be effaced and forgotten. The victims played as much a role as the shooter - their biographical details are just as important to understanding the scope of the tragedy - and they have a damn sight more sympathy from the readers. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

What we usually do, in practice

I'm feeling a little tired of this particularly perennial discussion topic, so while my already-delayed lunch is getting delayed a little longer, let me see if I can shed a little light on what happens, in practical reality.

We include lists when:

1. The list of victims is short. A "mass killing" can mean as few as four victims to be named. When there are just a handful of victims, it's weird to write 5,000 words about the event but only mention the perpetrator by name. Most notable mass tragedies do not have a victim list that runs even into the dozens, much less hundreds or thousands.
2. The victims' identities are relevant. There is a victim list in the very first sentence of Execution of the Romanov family. In more ordinary cases, we will have victim lists that read like "He killed his ex-girlfriend Grace, her new boyfriend Bob, and Larry Law, a police officer who responded to the emergency call. Her parents, Alice and John, survived their injuries".
3. Some of the victims are independently notable. This may be a partial list ("230 victims, including Alice Expert, Joe Film, and Paul Politician") or it may be complete (four notable victims and a non-notable junior-level staff member or the non-notable emergency personnel who died trying to save them – when a complete list is feasible, it's inhumane to say that only a small fraction is too unimportant to name).
4. Naming the victims makes it easier to keep track of the tragic events (e.g., Colonel Mustard first killed Miss Scarlet in the library, and then Mrs White in the kitchen. The next day, he killed Prof. Plum in the study, and Mrs Peacock in the ballroom).
5. Naming (some or all of) the victims helps explain subsequent events and people, e.g., why a "Smith and Jones Families Memorial Scholarship Fund" was created, or why all the sources keep talking to Mary Mother.

We don't normally include lists when:

1. The list of victims is long.
2. The victims were largely innocent victims/random targets.

Does that feel about right, when you think about the breadth of articles we write? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but who's "we"? Clearly we've participated in different subsets of the whole. I and other editors that I have observed don't see it that way at all. In my subset experience, a large majority of editors either want the lists in all mass killings articles, or none, with some editors allowing for rare exceptions. If you want to propose the above usage, then propose it, but please don't frame it as an unwritten community consensus. I would oppose the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Point by point: 1) Seems perfectly normal to me to not name people who have no notability beyond being the ones who just happened to get killed (as opposed to being specifically targeted), 2) These are targeted deaths, so yes they belong, 3) A partial list would be appropriate, but your "inhumane" is simply another way of saying "We must memorialize them" and that is against policy, 4) seems like "the perpetrator killed one person in the library, then another in the kitchen. The next day, he killed someone else in the study and a fourth person in the ballroom." is just as clear, 4) the namesakes of such a fund would be notable, but Mary Mother should just be "the mother of one of the victims". --Khajidha (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me second WhatamIdoing's general rubric, which strikes me as strong. As I've said before, names are the easiest way of keeping track of victims, motives, and involvement in a complex event where the deaths were anything other than simultaneous and indiscriminate. In cases where the shooter targeted certain individuals and avoided targeting others. These are encyclopedic details best indexed by naming the victims involved. Note that when deaths are simultaneous and/or indiscriminate, these reasons don't apply.

Here's the nub of our disagreement about "memorializing"… When the victim list is short and several people are individually notable, and demographic characteristics are part of reliable source coverage, it's best to just use names and basic characteristics to record the whole list. In my understanding, WP:MEMORIAL prohibits eulogizing the dead unduly, not listing them where it is relevant and/or clarifying.--Carwil (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"In cases where the shooter targeted certain individuals and avoided targeting others." But do we actually know that certain individuals were targeted or is it just that only certain people happened to be killed in an area? If I go into an office and yell out "Spacely! I'm coming for you!" that is one thing, if I go into an office and fire one shot that happens to kill Mr. Spacely that is another. Without explicit confirmation from the shooter (words spoken at the time, manifesto written beforehand, or statement given after the fact) I don't think we can assume that someone is targeted, even if they were the only one killed in that area. "When the victim list is short and several people are individually notable, and demographic characteristics are part of reliable source coverage, it's best to just use names and basic characteristics to record the whole list." Nope. Un uh. Record individuals who are notable outside of the event, record individuals who were specifically targeted, and say something like "18 others, including 5 women and 4 children under 12 were killed. Victims included a wide variety of ethnicities." THAT is much clearer and avoids any emotionalism or personal attachment. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I also find it telling that everyone arguing for inclusion keeps going back to mass shootings. It seems people can accept that most deaths are just deaths if it's a flood, fire, earthquake, etc, but can't seem to accept that most of the people killed in one of these shootings weren't targets and didn't matter to the shooter. They were just the chunk of matter that happened to be in the pathway of the bullet. --Khajidha (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They're more than "chunks of matter", they're people and they matter. If somebody gets swallowed up by a crack in the earth or run over by a self-driving golf cart or shot by the township's newest blind police officer, we want to know who it was. And if there were three or ten or fifty somebodies, we want to know as much about them as is practical to collect. Because it matters whether the people shot were moms watching their kids at the mall or drunk frat boys out on the town, whether the lovers were just engaged or going to be married next week. It gives a sense of the scope and purpose and purposelessness and tragedy and beauty of life. But most importantly, it's reliably sourced and some editor cared to source it, or it's not here! And that by itself should be enough to want to keep it. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

All of which is just another way of saying "we should memorialize them". Sorry, no. As far as their participation in these tragedies go, they generally aren't "people". The deaths did not target them personally and individually. They just happened to be there at a bad time. Who they were is no more relevant than who the people who were killed in the ancient eruption of Vesuvius were. And we also have a policy that being reliably sourced is necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion. --Khajidha (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree.

The reason that we keep going back to mass shootings, rather than natural disasters, is that the list of victims tends to be short, and the killer usually does target the victims personally and individually (or at least representatively). That means that both #1 and #2 in the "include" factors will get considered.

When a volcano kills hundreds of people in a given area, what you need to know, to really understand that event, is that hundreds of people in a given geographic area were killed. Ideally, you would learn something more about who survived and who didn't (e.g., this group survived because they were out of town, rich people could drove away before the hurricane hit, poor people were locked in the bottom of the sinking ship), but that's a classic example of when we don't usually include a victim list: it's long, and the victims are more or less random. By contrast, when a mass murderer killed the five newspaper employees recently – well, it turns out that they didn't "just happen to be there at a bad time". They were killed because of a particular aspect of their identity.

Here's the thing: most mass killings aren't just random victims. Most killings involve a small number of people who are connected to the killer. In fact, to get away from mass killings to everyday individual murder, if you encounter a murdered woman in the US, you can, without knowing anything else at all, safely bet that murderer was a current or recent boyfriend (or husband). You don't even need to know whether she ever had a boyfriend before you place your bet. That's how rare random murder is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

They were killed because of a particular aspect of their identity Right, and that aspect was that they worked at that newspaper, which can be conveyed without listing their names and ages. In fact, their names and ages say exactly nothing about where they worked.
The same principle applies to most school shootings. At Stoneman Douglas, for example, the only connection all victims had to the shooter was that they all attended Stoneman Douglas at one time or another. Again, names and ages have nothing to do with that connection. I've seen no information that he even knew any of the victims beyond a passing-in-the-hall "acquaintance", let alone singled anybody out. Even if they single out some victims, that is no reason to list names and ages of all of them, which is the issue under discussion here. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, Mandruss. --Khajidha (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Khajidha: You say "The deaths did not target them personally and individually". To the contrary, the deaths absolutely did target them personally and individually; nobody else died in their place. Possibly the killer didn't intend them specifically to be his victims -- though we don't really know that. But they sure as shit didn't intend the psycho to be their killer, so does that mean he isn't worth mentioning in the story? If victims are a dime a dozen, so are spree killers! I mean, it just seems like common sense that if you're writing a story about a murder you tell about the killer and you talk about the victim ---- just like our reliable sources do. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If a person walks into a room and fires 17 bullets at random, then, no, the people that those bullets kill were not targeted personally and individually. And without explicit statements from the killers, that's the situation all of these school shootings fall into. The killer is an agent, he DID something. The dead had something done to them. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Revise WP:NPOL so that someone who wins primary qualifies for more information in Wikkipedia

In any election, the incumbent has a great advantage over a challenger. Wikipedia's NPOL policy means that incumbent is by default notable but challenger isn't. As a service to our readers, instead of just re-directing from name of challenger (who at least in the US got some coverage running in primary election) to district race URL, could we not give more information about the race as exemplified for example here?[2] I understand reasoning behind our current model. I do not propose that, after general election, we continue to host info on challengers who are not otherwise notable. I do not propose to change notability criteria for any other categories such as NACTOR etc. But I think we can do better for general elections. What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"I do not propose that, after general election, we continue to host info on challengers who are not otherwise notable." That seems to make the proposal a WP:NOTNEWS violation. We don't temporarily host information just to make races more fair; that's simply not Wikipedia's thing. Huon (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec)In an article on the race you can say as much as sources and WP:DUE allow about any candidate, and balanced coverage is good. As to biographical articles, you seem to be suggesting a form of temporary notability, which we don't do. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK so for example, if you search for Texas candidate Lizzie Pannill Fletcher you end up at page for Texas 7th district, which has zero info about challenger Fletcher but a link to incumbent she will challenge. I am suggesting that such a page (for election) has a section for some links or info about positions of both candidates. I agree with Huon that it will be unnecessarily tricky to create a new category of "temporary notability." I am searching for a way to benefit our readers without requiring painful contortions of Wikipedia principles. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The best solution in such a situation is to add neutral, well-referenced information about each of the candidates to the redirect target, describing the race neutrally. Articles about unelected candidates tend to start out as campaign brochures masquerading as encyclopedia articles, and then are often loaded up with cherry-picked negative information added by supporters of rival candidates. It is a mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the lively description of Cullen³²⁸ about articles of politicians. Cullen, if you can give an example, on any page you like of what and WHERE such info might go, that would be a great help. Sleepily, from Sweden, HouseOfChange (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In the current case, HouseOfChange, the information can go in the District 7 section of United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018. If you look at sections for other districts, you will see that some have information about various candidates. There could be 36 neutral spinoff articles about the races in all 36 Texas Congressional districts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen³²⁸, I do not propose to write 36 spinoff articles, but I will try to wrie one or 2 and see what reception is for them. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment generally there haven't been stand-alone articles on US House races, but based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California's 39th congressional district election, 2018 it seems that it is permitted, at least for races that generate national-level coverage (normally well-correlated with competitive races).
  As far as notability of candidates: I'm not happy with the current system, but don't see a better alternative yet. Notability is not temporary, and proposals that suggest current candidates are notable but will not be notable after the election are exceptionally unlikely to find consensus. Some candidates (Kara Eastman, Mark Walker) have been kept at AfD recently.
  Finally, as a procedural note, this is a fairly good time to have this discussion; there's enough time before any election that there's no obvious benefit for any political group associated with any policy change, but enough activity to give specific examples rather than hypotheticals. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In the case of the U.S. House of Representatives, there are very few competitive seats in any election cycle. Cook estimates that less than 100 of 435 seats are competitive [3] in 2018, for instance. That means that in three-quarters of all U.S. congressional races, the general election challenger candidate will often be either a perennial candidate or someone simply running as a party standard-bearer with no hope or intent of election and no organized campaign. Over the next six years, that means we could potentially accumulate hundreds of biographies of individuals notable for no other reason than they once spent 15 minutes filling out a certificate of candidacy. Further, many general election candidates for congressional office already are usually able to meet notability standards absent this proposal as they will frequently be former state legislators who are inherently notable, or in some other way pass the WP:GNG. Candidates for competitive house seats are rarely unknowns. Chetsford (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Credible candidates in competitive House races are usually notable—Rather than try to generate a temporary rule, I want to suggest that in a polarized political environment, virtually every credible candidate in a swing district is getting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Shortly after the primary, you should be able to defend them using the GNG, which NPOL specifically directs you to do.--Carwil (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand the intent is good... so I apologize in advance... but I'm about to cast this in the ugliest light possible. The proposal here is for Wikipedia to give non-notable individuals temporary free campaign advertising, because Wikipedia wants to alter the outcome of elections. I know, the intent is to be "more fair", but I subscribe to a rather purist view of Wikipedia policy. We write policies for strictly encyclopedic purposes, not trying to fix issues out in the world. Individuals who are already notable^{(Donald Trump cough cough)} have an inherent advantage in elections. That is true no matter what we do. We shouldn't screw up our policies trying to fight that inevitable fact. The world isn't fair, we can't solve that. We're also already overloaded with work to do without having to try to manage a highly politicized category of "temporary" articles, especially when they lack the sort of sourcing we require to handle them properly. In some cases we'd have little more than campaign-adverting&attack-counter-advertising as sources to work with. We don't want to cross those streams. It would be bad.^{(Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously, and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.)} Alsee (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not in the business of being a voter's guide. Winning a primary is a pretty low bar, and it is not much higher if, in the US, you restrict that to the two main parties' primaries. In the best of times these articles would be partisan battlegrounds and an attractive nuisance for off-wiki trolls and partisans. In short, if they were not notable enough for an article before then simply being successful in their party's selection process does not make them more so. Jbh ^Talk 02:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hopefully not needed per Carwil. It really is concerning that Wikipedia might be magnifying the advantages of incumbency (the concern is not so much "fairness" to individual challengers as it is having a realistic prospect of dismissing incumbents). But as others have noted, as encyclopedists per se, that's not really our problem. But hopefully GNG will suffice. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - as a one-time major party nominee myself, I feel this is falsifying our concept of notability. Think of it as the political equivalent of BLP1E. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above, and biasing our rules to advantage subjects from one country is flat-out not acceptable. This proposal is tailored to suit the peculiarities of the US election system, and that makes it prima facie unacceptable, this website is not the Yankopedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comnent I don't believe we should change policy. What we need to do is actually follow what's written. Many editors seem to discount any national coverage about unelected candidates as not being able to satisfy GNG, though that's not anywhere in the official guidelines. I believe the regular GNG requirements are already specific enough to determine whether unelected political candidates are notable. I can understand desiring some amount of non-local coverage for unelected candidates, but I disagree with the idea that well sourced and useful national coverage about candidates should be deleted just because the person is unelected or loses their election. It would be far more difficult to fully document elections and get a complete view of the election when all the coverage for the losing side always gets deleted. We had an extremely widely covered district attorney race recently, and the information about the losing candidate is historically important to understand the race and some of the actions of the winning candidate, even if the loser never does anything else notable. Second, I can understand that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a campaign brochure, but I think the regular policy guidelines are enough to fight cases like that. Third, it seems against the purpose of Wikipedia to delete well sourced information and national coverage about candidates right as people are looking for and need that information the most. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm more familiar with the Canadian system where we have 3-5 "major" party candidates selected by the local party members, but in most races really only one party or maybe two have a shot of winning. A national election is a collection of local elections and the standard bearers of the parties without a chance, and even the runners up simply are not usually notable and fade back to obscurity. Arguably some of the winners do nothing notable in 4-5 years but being elected makes a very clear bight like everyone can verify. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. These specialty notability guidelines are a plague on Wikipedia. Far too often they are interpreted to be restricting notability rather than expanding it, even though the text could not be plainer about that point. WP:GNG is the main criterion; NPOL just allows a hypothetical incumbent who fails GNG to have an article anyway. Which is Never Gonna Happen. I can't support the original proposal because it would mean any bozo can file a form to get in an election and be guaranteed his own temporary Wikipedia article. But I don't think it would ever have been made if people weren't abusing a guideline that has no real use in the first place. Wnt (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A candidate who has won a primary is sort of like a football player who hasn't played for a professional team yet. I believe WP:NPOL exists to disqualify sources that would otherwise pass WP:GNG, similar to the notability restrictions for sports players, as a high school sports player may receive lots of local and even national coverage but shouldn't necessarily qualify for a Wikipedia article (and WP:GNG is inclusive enough for the exceptions). Similarly, I believe politicians must either pass the WP:NPOL guideline, or pass WP:GNG using sources not directly related to their campaign, due to concerns of recentism, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:PROMO, and the problem that notability is not temporary, which here means you don't get to keep an article because you're a candidate only for us to delete it when you lose once your fifteen minutes of fame are up (also noting the ten year rule). There are many politicians who would win a primary but wouldn't receive enough coverage for WP:GNG. Furthermore, primaries are tailored to the U.S. system of elections. I'm familiar with preselections, but someone preselected doesn't automatically qualify for a wikipedia article. Strong oppose. SportingFlyer talk 21:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Throttle edits adding excessive disambiguation links

In my long experience as a disambiguator, I have observed that the larger the number of disambiguation links added in a single edit, the more problematic that edit is likely to be in other respects as well, such as containing copyvios, overlinking, creating a sea of non-notable red-links, adding walls of text, or indiscriminate data dumps. I think an edit that adds more than, say, links to twenty different disambiguation pages should probably at least bring up a notice advising the editor to review Wikipedia's policies and MOS and consider whether they need to adjust their writing before saving the edit. I will add that, out of the hundreds of thousands of edits made on Wikipedia per day, only a handful have this characteristic. Nevertheless, it would quite often save a lot of work if the editor adding the disambiguation links (and likely other issues) would get a heads up, rather than other editors needing to puzzle them out afterwards. bd2412 T 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

bd2412, that sounds like an excellent idea. The next step would be to put in a request on phabricator. If that doesn't get results, drop me a line on my talk page and I will create a proposal and push them until I get a yes or no answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is in the same vein as various semi-perennial proposals for alerting users before they save certain types of edits: ones that introduce unsourced text, spelling mistakes, etc. In fact, there was a proposal in 2016 for similarly alerting editors when their contributed text contains links to dab pages. To rehash in the current context some of the reasons why these have all failed: 1) they introduces additional hoops for good-faith new editors to jump through (not good in the context of declining new editor numbers), 2) the presence of many dablinks by itself is only a minor problem that can easily be fixed afterwards, and 3) the real problem is the presence of copyvios etc, and these might or might not come along with the type of edit that would get picked up: the software will have no way of telling which edits are problematic and which aren't.
  Also, worth remembering that articles with more than 8 dablinks get swiftly tagged by DPL bot, which places them in Category:Pages with excessive dablinks (which currently has three members), where they can be examined by experienced editors. And the user who introduced any number of dablinks will promptly receive a talk-page notification (unless their edit count is below 100 or they have specifically opted out). – Uanfala (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The previous proposal was to throttle the addition of any new dab links. This is for edits adding a relatively high number. To add one or two disambiguation links in an edit is easy. To add more than ten takes a special kind of absence of forethought. I would add that very frequently the sort of editors who add masses of text laden with disambiguation links are the sort who have fewer than 100 edits. Suppose for the sake of argument we were to say that we would do this for edits adding 20 new links to disambiguation pages? Or 50? Or 100 (since I have seen that happen on rare occasion)? bd2412 T 11:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I have a lot of sympathy this goal, but AIUI throttling can only be done through the edit filter, which means that it has to be computed on every single edit at the time of saving, and that's expensive (slow) for every single edit. I don't think that the rest of the community would love having every single edit slowed down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Isn't that what the edit filters are already doing? bd2412 T 16:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, and that's why we need to do as little of it as we can. Each additional thing to check slows down editing even more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
          • How about a bot that reverts edits with more than 20 dab links in them, and tags edits with more than 10 dab links in them? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Also, can we at least do something to catch obvious disambig-linking vandalism like this? bd2412 T 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Banner in EU countries explaining dangerous European Parliament copyright proposal and linking to SaveYourInternet.eu

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

---

Background: please see this discussion started by Jimbo Wales on his talk page.

I propose that a site-wide banner be displayed through June 20, 2018, on all language Wikipedias including the English Wikipedia, when geolocation indicates that the reader is in an EU jurisdiction, explaining the upcoming June 20 European Parliament vote on the copyright law changes being considered there which could severely impact all Foundation projects, including a link directly to https://saveyourinternet.eu/

Note that the Wikimedia Foundation already has an official position on this issue: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/ Doctorow (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Background information

Collated information on the effects of the law on Wikipedia

• The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia, EFF

• 70+ Internet Luminaries Ring the Alarm on EU Copyright Filtering Proposal Update to EFF by Danny O'Brien and Jeremy Malcolm, June 12, 2018, including link to protest letter text

Filtering proposal

(taken from @Doctorow:'s message on Jimmy's talk page)

• Sites that make material available to the public are required to filter according to rightsholder-supplied lists of copyrighted content
• Even if they do filter, they are still liable if infringing material is uploaded and made available
• If you believe that you have been unfairly blocked, your only remedy is to contest the block with the host, who is under no obligation to consider your petition
• There are no penalties for falsely claiming copyright on material -- I could upload all of Wikipedia to a Wordpress blocklist and no one could quote Wikipedia until Wordpress could be convinced to remove my claims over all that text, and Wikimedia and the individual contributors would have no basis to punish me for my copyfraud
• There was a counterproposal that is MUCH more reasonable and solves the rightsholders' stated problem: they claim that they are unable to convince platforms to remove infringing material when the copyright rests with the creator, not the publisher (e.g. Tor Books can't get Amazon to remove infringing copies of my books because I'm the rightsholder, not them); under this counterproposal, publishers would have standing to seek removal unless creators specifically objected to it
• There is a notional exception for Wikipedia that carves out nonprofit, freely available collaborative encyclopedias. This does get WP a lot of latitude, but Article 13 still has grossly adverse effects on WP's downstream users -- anyone who mirrors or quotes WP relies on the safe harbours that Article 13 removes. Think also of all the material on EU hosts that is linked to from Wikipedia References sections -- all of that could disappear through fraud or sloppiness, making the whole project (and the whole internet) more brittle

Position of Wikimedia organisations

• Wikimedia Foundation position
• Wikimedia Deutschland
• Wikimedia Sverige
• Wikimedia France press realease
• Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position

Questions?

Please post any questions about the law and how it might affect Wikimedia projects:

• Do we currently make use of copyrighted material in a way that would be affected by being in violation of this "law"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Slatersteven: yes, "it could also require Wikipedia to filter submissions to the encyclopedia and its surrounding projects, like Wikimedia Commons. The drafters of Article 13 have tried to carve Wikipedia out of the rule, but thanks to sloppy drafting, they have failed: the exemption is limited to "noncommercial activity". Every file on Wikipedia is licensed for commercial use." ref.
  • @Slatersteven: No, no direct impacts on Wikimedia projects as the text currently stands in both Council and Parliament. All non-for-profit projects would be excluded, which means all our projects. If our content is used commercially this would happen on another, non-Wikimedia service. That being said, the wording is not final and sloppily written, so no guarantees it will stay this way. But there is a clear political will to exclude all Wikimedia projects. --dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Supplementary

I asked how we would be in violation of it, maybe I was not clear. If this rule was in place now what do we do that would mean we would could be prosecuted for being in breach of it (assuming that it does not have an exemption)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• What effect would this law likely have on sources Wikipedia uses for references? E.g academic journals and newspapers. John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Under Article 11, each member state will get to create a new copyright in news. If it passes, in order to link to a news website, you will either have to do so in a way that satisfies the limitations and exceptions of all 28 laws, or you will have to get a license."refJohn Cummings (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• What effect would this law likely have on websites that Wikipedia sources open license media content from? e.g Flickr John Cummings (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Flickr would have to filter all uploads. --dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Does this law effect Wikimedia Commons? John Cummings (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, see answer to question 1.
  • No it doesn't affect Commons, as commons is also a non-for-profit service (but compromises not final).--dimi_z (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for similar reasons as not doing anything about net neutrality and not coming off as political. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No using banners to advocate for or against political policies unless there's an existential threat involved. --Yair rand (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  Further, even if this is an existential threat, the correct way to act against it would not be to link to an external site, and certainly not one like that. "The European Commission and the Council want to destroy the Internet as we know it and allow big companies to control what we see and do online." That's not a sentence Wikipedia can be associated with. --Yair rand (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As with the last time someone suggested a political banner, I see no reason that this is appropriate for wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Apparently there is an existential threat, see the post by Doctorow at 19:44, 4 June 2018 here. This proposal should not have been made without clear information. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Doctorow is none other than Cory Doctorow. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The first link in this section includes that description. I agree it certainly does represent an existential threat to the freedom of content re-use, even if the exception for encyclopedias was carved out to prevent direct legal attacks on the existence of the wikipedias. Other projects such as Wikisource would certainly be directly at risk, but they don't reach as many EU citizens as enwiki banners would. EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support:
  • European Copyright Law Isn't Great. It Could Soon Get a Lot Worse.
  • Updated position paper: Article 13 remains a terrible idea and needs to be deleted
  • Copyright wars are damaging the health of the internet
  • Article 13 could "destroy the internet as we know it": What is it, why is it controversial and what will it mean for memes?
  • EU censorship machines and link tax laws are nearing the finish line
  • European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
  • Text of the proposal: English Other languages and formats

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. According to [4], "France, Italy, Spain and Portugal want to force upload filters on not-for-profit platforms (like Wikipedia) and on platforms that host only small amounts of copyrighted content (like startups). Even if platforms filter, they should still be liable for copyright infringements of their users under civil law, just not under criminal law." There is a time to panic, and unless someone can come through and show that all this is not true, then this is that time. If the EU enacts this, we should immediately and permanently block all access to Wikipedia from the EU, globally lock EU-linked editors on all WMF projects, and disband all EU Wikimedia chapters and liquidate any assets there. For a start. We should do that in two weeks. Or we can do a banner now. Your choice. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  European chapters have no legal responsibility whatsoever for Wikimedia sites, IIRC. Does the WMF even need to listen to European copyright laws at all? What we need now is an analysis by WMF Legal on what the ramifications of this would be. Panicking isn't helpful. --Yair rand (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  There is a duty of care. If the above comes to pass, anyone participating in a European chapter would be subject to very extensive legal harassment and it is not reasonable to pass that responsibility on to them. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It's not reasonable to claim that the WMF is not subject to EU law and thus action is not necessary. I'm skeptical about some of the claims made by opponents of this measure, but if they are accurate I would support an EU-wide blackout in response. I'd like to hear whether the WMF or their lawyers have an opinion before !voting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• It may not appear reasonable, but it is the case the the WMF servers are in the US, and US opyright law is controlling, not EU copyright law. There may be personal risk for individual editors, but there's no more risk to the WMF's projects than if China changed its copyright laws, or Melanesia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken: I’m going to take the opportunity to point out that Wikimedians are already individually liable for every action we take on WMF projects, so if the concern here is that individuals will be held more accountable for stealing the intellectual property of others, well, good for the EU in my book. If there is actually an existential threat to the WMF, I’m sure their legal team would be on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • US copyright law is (fortunately for us) not all-controlling. Local copyright law is also important. WMF does need to comply. The point is the opposite; individual editors are not affected; WMF is. But it's not complaining. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think you have it backwards, but I'm not prepared to mount a detailed exegesis. My understanding is as my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support This has wide-ranging implications for the sources WP relies on, for downstream users of WP, and for WP itself. It's an unworkable and dangerous proposal that it antithetical to WP and any future project founded on similar principles. [Wikimedia has already taken an official position in opposition to this https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/] a year ago when the proposal was first mooted. Now it's on the brink of passing and it's actually gotten worse in the intervening year. Note that I'm a consultant to the Electronic Frontier Foundation which has opposed this since the start, so I'm hardly impartial, but WMF and EFF are on the same side here, and I think Wikipedians should be too. This is a real problem for the whole project and needs to be averted. Doctorow (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment added to Template:Centralized discussion. Holding off on a !vote per Power. TeraTIX 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support absolutely flabbergasted with the mountain of oppose votes solely on the grounds of "political bias". The proposed law has wide-ranging implications, which at worst could mean closing Wikipedia in the EU. It doesn't help that the proposal was made so soon after the net neutrality one was closed. Net neutrality was arguably harmless, but I just can't see how this law could possibly not have substantial negative effects on Wikipedia. We can't afford to gamble on Wikipedia exceptions being added to the final bill. The one political cause we should campaign for is our own. (see Headbomb) TeraTIX 23:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Question: Is there a Wikipedia article on this topic? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Mike Peel I think it's called Digital Single Market, but I might be wrong. TeraTIX 02:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've created Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. It's fairly difficult to find "neutral" sources here, and I'm not even sure how the EU makes legislation. Hopefully the magic of collaboration will improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per TonyBallioni's concerns about being perceived as politically biased. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless the WMF is supporting such a banner (Jimbo != WMF) we have generally decided that politically-oriented banners are not appropriate. If the WMF want to enforce one, if they feel the issue is significant enough, they have ways to push that themselves. --Masem (t) 01:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I'm sympathetic to the arguments here, I am somewhat weary of requests for politically-oriented banners. If the Foundation wishes to do it themselves, they can (and, by all means, they should, if they feel that strongly about this issue), but the voters of Europe have made their choices, and it's not our place, as a worldwide community of editors, to browbeat, cajole, or even attempt to persuade them otherwise, through the usage of Wikipedia. So, just as I voted on net neutrality (twice), I vote again: please, no more political banners/alerts/whatever on Wikipedia. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons stated above. While I can see the harm to the wider internet if this passes, I'm not convinced that this poses an existential threat to Wikipedia which I believe is the only case where such banners are appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Winner 42: this article outlines the direct threats of the law to Wikipedia, thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Wow, that reads like it was written in response to this thread. I did find one factual error though. Doctorow states, "Every file on Wikipedia is licensed for commercial use." A relatively large amount of copyrighted content is already used under fair use doctrine and is not licensed for commercial reuse. That said, this hardly rises to an existential threat. Worst case, some European sources get harder to find. I think Wikipedia could reasonably ignore most of what this is because it is US based and I seriously doubt that Europe has the political capital to block or fine Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any political banners, as always. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As above and echoing the oppose votes for net neutrality banner further up. We should be careful with political banners. doktorb _words^deeds 04:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni and oppose Political banners and this is a political issue and feel there other fora are better for this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Though I'm sure the proposal is with good intent, ultimately this is an encyclopedia and not a campaign rally. Chetsford (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest some plan to formally document somewhere that generally politically-themed banners from any country will not be run, to save editors time in discussions like this. It is all evident from recent proposals, that consensus cannot be reached on issues like this. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think we should be in the business of championing political causes, and adding a guideline to that effect sounds like a good idea. If the WMF decided this was a threat to the movement and wanted to campaign against it, that would be a different matter. That is part of their job, after all. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. On June 11, net neutrality will be adopted as official U.S. policy, and if internet can survive in America, it can survive in Europe too. wumbolo ^^^ 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, at this point we should ask WMF for more information and advice about this situation instead of speculating based on opinion pieces and advocacy sites (such sites may very well be correct, but they do not offer an unbiased perspective on controversial topics). Also, as already pointed out by others: it would be helpful to discuss a more general guideline about prohibiting political (and other) advocacy on English Wikipedia and to clarify the handling of possible exceptional cases (if any). GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Not an existential threat as Wikipedia can easily exist without the EU, see also the Turkey block. While bad for editors in the EU (including myself), if this comes to pass we might as well fork the encyclopedia, it seems a saner strategy at this point. I find it interesting btw. how people point at WMF whereas WMFs strategy has been to ask the community. Seems a bit circular. :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure, for that matter Wikipedia can continue existing even if tomorrow a biological attack kills the entire humanity. It just won't have any user. --Nemo 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Well it's clear that the community is fine with that, isn't it ? The ideals have eroded to the point where we effectively ARE the Encyclopaedia Brittanica that we replaced. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, we need to be able to address laws that directly affect Wikipedia. (Note that I am not thrilled by the not very informative nature of https://saveyourinternet.eu/ ). We regularly have banners claiming Wikipedia will die if users don't donate -- the potential threat from bad legislation seems worse than two years without donations. —Kusma (t·c) 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, the community is here to build an encyclopedia, not for political campaigning. Proposals like this are on their way to WP:PERENNIAL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support compared to net neutrality, this appears to actually have a direct and major effect on wikipedia in the EU, closer to WP:SOPA. Hope to get a statement from the WMF on how exactly this would affect us though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• As Galobtter and Kusma say, this is legislation which directly affects our copyleft and wiki model: not only it directly affects Wikipedia, but of all possible topics in the world it's the one where we can't avoid having an opinion and can't avoid being the most competent to talk (copyleft is the third pillar, folks). On the other hand, it's a bit hard for a community like ours to give a clear and short message among stacks of open letters signed by hundreds of organisations, piles of papers by hundreds of academics, hundreds of competing amendments. Realistically, the true menace will be clear after the JURI vote and the final call to arms will be before the vote in the European Plenary, like last time. After the committee vote, it's certainly too late to have a good law, but it won't be too late to stop a bad one. If we use all our bullets now, we will be harmless when the lobbies come up with yet another trick against Wikipedia. --Nemo 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support great idea. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• NEUTRAL Oppose yet ANOTHER PROPOSED WIKI-BANNER CRYING WOLF about the end of civilization as we know it. When can these well-intentioned—but badly conceived proposals—and the accompanying Wiki lawyering, just stop? If the WMF speaks out on the issue, ping me... GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping. This is highly relevant for everyone to read.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article makes a good point. Particularly about how difficult this would make editing for our average users, per:

...Third, the broad and vague language of Art. 13 and the compromise amendment would undermine collaborative projects that rely on the ability of individuals around the world to discuss controversial issues and develop content together. Free knowledge that is inclusive, democratic, and verifiable can only flourish when the people sharing knowledge can engage with each other on platforms that have reasonable and transparent takedown practices. People’s ability to express themselves online shouldn’t depend on their skill at navigating opaque and capricious filtering algorithms. Automatic content filtering based on rightsholders’ interpretation of the law would—without a doubt—run counter to these principles of human collaboration that have made the Wikimedia projects so effective and successful.

For that reason alone, I would not condemn action by the site regarding this issue regarding Article 13, and change my opinion to Neutral for this activity if it is deemed by consensus that either a Banner or Blackout to be necessary by the WMF. Thanks for the input, Jimbo. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the oppose comments - Exactly as the opposition to the US net neutrality banner. Also this would mean identifying from cookies/IP adresses the location of our users/readers. Our encyclopedia is international and it must remain apolitical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: "Also this would mean identifying from cookies/IP adresses the location of our users/readers" eh. we already do that for almost every single banner.. Since at least 2009. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

TheDJ, I have no idea. I'm an editor not an IT expert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Apolitical? LOL. I have a list of articles I would like you to make apolitical.... HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48 then as a Wikipedia editor there are things you can do about it. Hope your list is not too long...Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung Some I can work on. Give me time. Some are owned by unprincipled Admins who would rather see me banned forever. There is no hope there. (For those articles or those Admins, and maybe Wikipedia.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not appropriate to push that POV, even though many of us might agree with it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per GenQuest. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs, in articles or otherwise. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We are not a forum, and that must just as much apply to this as anything else. Wikipedia must not and should not engage in advocacy. Once we do that then any claim of neutrality goes out of the window, we play into the hands of those who say we are not neutral.15:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
• Support. Like the net neutrality proposal, this is not inherently political. Like net neutrality, this also has to do with something that threatens the very premise of WMF's purpose. But unlike net neutrality, this law may prevent EU users from accessing Wikipedia because Wikipedia doesn't pay the appropriate fees to news sources for using short snippets of text, and so forth.
  I initially thought this was about the image copyright law that banned images of certain structures in the EU, but this is much, much worse. Talk about heavy-handed... epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We are not a forum, and that must just as much apply to this as anything else. Wikipedia must not and should not engage in advocacy. Once we do that then any claim of neutrality goes out of the window.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Too late. clpo13_(talk) 17:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The whole point of the project and the foundation is advocacy for free and open knowledge, for everyone to contribute, share and make money off. A highly radical concept in 2001 and still in most parts of the world. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Completely wrong. Not right at all. 100% wrong and 0% right. The point of the project is to provide that free and open knowledge. Not to advocate for it, or for anything else whatsoever. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: this law will have very serious consiquences for Wikimedia projects as outlined by the proposer, Julia Reda, WMF, WMDE and others. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support although I doubt a proprosal on en-wiki can affect all other language wikis, so probably just here. I'm quite flabbergasted whenever I hear the "we shouldn't be doing advocacy"-line. Obviously we shouldn't be advertising for political parties or recommending the next big dietary supplement, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with telling our readers whenever a proposed policy would severely **** with our editing model. I wonder if one would get the same reaction if the proposal was more obviously authoritarian. It's also incorrect that the WMF hasn't said anything about this as explained above, and various elements of the WMF-affiliate ecosystem has been working against this, such as the WM EU-group (full disclosure, WMDK, which I'm a part of, has done so as well). Despite the carveouts for online encyclopedias in the proposal, it would still impact some of our other projects, as well as the general free-knowledge infrastructure, such as forced remuneration. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This is not just a vague human rights thing, this is something that may well have direct financial consequences for WMF. On that bases I'd go as far as to support WMF overriding whatever consensus happens here to make the blackout happen. Daß Wölf 02:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Wikipedia is not a soapbox, whether political or not. But wait, why would we think this is a bad idea anyway? Isn't a robust and effective filter to prevent copyright violations one of the things we've repeatedly asked the Foundation for in the various community wishes consultation exercises? Isn't it exactly what we desperately need and want for this project, instead of relying on a script written by a user and the one dedicated admin who monitors it? Since the vote is imminent, can we take it that the WMF has already dedicated substantial human and financial resources to preparing an effective filter in case it turns out to be needed? Will it be ready in time? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Justlettersandnumbers: this article outlines the direct threats of the law to Wikipedia (and more generally why its a terrible idea). John Cummings (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Kusma, including caveat that the saveyourinternet link is not ideal. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Before it is too late. Yann (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Copied from the recent proposal for a Net Neutrality banner, after reading much of this discussion (I can't say it any clearer than this). I'll note that something does not need to be "partisan" to be political by my understanding and use of the word. First definition at m-w.com: "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government".
  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for political statements supported by a majority of the few editors who happen to show up in a discussion on this page. That's regardless of the merits of the issues or how Wikipedia might be affected by them. We are Wikipedia editors, not political activists (although each of us is free to be a political activist off-wiki). In my view, this proposal should go the way of the proposal to show an anti-Trump statement before the U.S. presidential election. Furthermore, I think we should consider an explicit policy against using the encyclopedia as a platform for political statements. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Guy Macon and Wnt. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I will abstain from voting. But just to point out that if we do it, we should have our own banner, as we did on de.wp and bg.wp. We are in a particular situation where Wikimedia projects have been carved out from the proposal as the text currently stands. We need to explain why we still worry with a little bit more nuance, at least on the landing page. --dimi_z (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia commununity get involved in any political issue which is an existential threat to Wikimedia projects. There is a preponderance of evidence that this political issue is an existential threat to Wiki and for that reason it is fine for us to take a political position. It is true that Wiki is "neutral" but neutrality is relative and rational and aligns with an ethical code. Our ethic code includes values like "publishing an encyclopedia" and "making the encyclopedia accessible". I feel that we have met an appropriate standard of evidence in this case, and I agree that WP:reliable sources say that Wikimedia projects are facing an existential threat with this political issue. It is fine for us to advocate, lobby, and demand our right to develop and provide access to the encyclopedia we are sharing. I also feel that it is not necessary to settle any political controversy around this issue. I am willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of critics' concerns about our incomplete information on the law and lack of total certainty that this law is bad. For me, it is enough that we are diligent to cite reliable sources which confirm that some authorities have identified a danger.

I see "oppose" !votes which suggest that Wikipedia should avoid reacting to any country's legislative process as a way of achieving neutrality. I feel that this is misguided, because while Wikipedia is neutral about many topics, we always take a position that every country should allow Wikipedia, access to information, and the educational resources we provide. I will not entertain anyone's arguments that restricting access to Wikipedia should be part of the Wikipedia mission. There is no reason why we should expect that the law of every country is best for Wikipedia. It is fine for us to say that Wikipedia is basically good, and to expect that the laws conform to the existence of Wikipedia. Citizens like us make laws for the public good. People do not exist to conform to laws which fail to consider the public good. It is right to start with the assumption that Wikipedia is good and that good laws will encourage its development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support A lot of the oppose votes seem to come from editors who won't be affected by this legislation, which makes me question if they truly understand the potential consequences. Speaking as someone who will be, from what I understand of it (correct me if I'm wrong), it will make it nigh-on impossible to do anything more than trivial edits. We would no longer be able to upload fair use images, cite web sources, or even quote copyrighted material. How on Earth are we supposed to write decent articles with those restrictions? This could be detrimental to Wikipedia and those in the EU who wish to edit it. The WMF may not be bound by this legislation, but my ISP will be. This is not just a political crusade. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Then do something about your law makers. Do you understand the current legislative actions affecting internet, copyright law, and legality of use for our users in China? How about Turkey? Spain? Thought so. Wikipedia is here for people to access—or not. They can do so, as best they can from the countries they live in. These are countries where they have –politically– elected the officials who then propose, debate, and enact the laws they deem necessary. We are not here to advocate for or against any such laws, any such country, or any such lawmakers. That's politics. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Period. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Remember that proposed copyright legislation a few years back? It would have made many, many free images used here subject to copyright. We had a banner about that, because it would have directly and adversely affected us. I don't see how this is any different. Adam9007 (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. And I was against that action too, but consensus was against me. I stopped editing for about year afterwards, too, because I saw that these kinds of political actions would become perennial requests. Judging from, counting this one, three discussions so far just this year, I guess I wasn't far wrong. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional moot. This discussion will probably be closed after 20 June 2018. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just like the net neutrality discussion we had a while back: I'm sympathetic to the ideals, but I'm opposed to Wikipedia being used as a political platform regardless of ideology. Unless of course, the Wikimedia Foundation itself decides to release a statement themselves, but in any case, there are alternative outlets for statements like these to be expressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Direct advocacy on a political matter is about the farthest you can get from maintaining neutrality. "Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles", to quote {{uw-npov2}}. Go start a blog if you want to publicize your opinions about political matters, whether in your own country or another. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC) This is intentionally copy/pasted from my vote on net neutrality. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. The oppose voters must be missing the fact that a major part of fair use methodology that is absolutely essential for Wikipedia's functioning will be rendered effectively illegal unless Wikipedia tithes to every news source it cites and quotes. If we're not going to protest for the sake of the internet, then do it for the sake of Wikimedia's budget. Daß Wölf 02:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. If the legislation passes, it would almost certainly be illegal to access most Wikipedia articles from the EU, and Wikimedia and/or individual contributing editors might be found liable for copyright violation. Certainly downstream commercial users would be found liable if they did not block access from the EU, even if Wikipedia and individual contributors were exempt. We need a banner within 3 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: SOPA is a precedent, but this actually is much worse. Wikipedia is a name synonymous with open content online, and if they try to assert the "it applies to any website which serves European users regardless of where its being run from" card like GDPR is, this is an existential threat that goes much farther than just Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Blue Rasberry. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support for the convincing reasons given in the proposal. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong possible support Being apolitical does not mean being blind to threats to Wikipedia. The Red Cross is apolitical. That doesn't mean they can't take a stand against a proposed law that would make it harder to give blood. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Let me share you a Wikipedia [Hungary] story, happened a few years ago and handled by yours truly: a large number of Wikipedia editors (image uploaders) got email from a large lawyer firm which stated that they have violated the rights of a LargeImagePublisherHouse™ since they have illegally used their imagery without their permission and they are commanded to immediately remove the image (from WM Commons) and immediately pay a large sum of money or they will be brought to courts. Possibly hundreds of such. The users got really scared, and I tried to figure out what was going on. After contacting the lawyering gang it took a weird turn: turned out they have used a company specialising in content filtering to scan millions of web images against their image catalog and flag copyvio [and have paid a helluva lotsa dinero for that], then started sending out harrassing mail en masse. The problem was, however, that their library ("accidentally") have included lots of images from Wikimedia Commons! So they have "claimed" their copyright, matched against, well, the originals then sent out the pay-or-get-sued mail. Obviously when they've been shown this they were hugely embarrassed and apologised and sent out correctional mail in the following weeks. Nevertheless, the harm's been done: some people left Wikipedia immediately and disappeared for ever. This is the same principle and technology They™ would like to enforce on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, and apart from that basically everyone around your internet cable. Whether this is existencial or not… decide for yourself. Compulsory monitoring by copyright owners (not the authors, mind you)? Veto right for them? And we have to pay for that technology, implementation, and by the way accept all responsiblity for misfiltering, either way? I do not think that would get unnoticed in Wikipedia and Wikimedia operations. --grin ✎ 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Unlike the US net neutrality issue, this impacts Wikipedia as a project much more immediately and negatively, and it is legitimate to oppose it from this operational perspective. Sandstein 12:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support very clearly something that negatively supports our community's direct mission and activity, Sadads (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is an instance where being "political" is unavoidable: the political aspect is baked into the very idea of a free encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not a political platform, even if the policy issue impacts (to some) our continued existence. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons I've opposed other similar proposals, we shouldn't be using banners to urge action in a particular way. That said, the issue is quite important and under-reported. I could support a neutrally worded banner that linked to some neutral information sites, but not one that advocates opposition or support. I think most readers are smart enough to make up their mind, if they are given information.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because Wikipedia should not be using its position to influence the way the world is run. Our founding principles stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars include that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and that "We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them." SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that we already use edit filters on Wikipedia: Edit filter management and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The concerns raised in last year's WikiMedia blog do not appear to have considered our own existing filters and the way we operate them. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Blue Raspberry. --Carwil (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Has a significant risk of impacting our ability to function. Agree with User:Sandstein. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a banner linking to a page explicitly in opposition to Article 13, Neutral on a banner linking to a NPOV summary of the facts. --Joshualouie711^talk 00:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WAIT, how is this political?

WAIT. before you oppose on 'not-political' grounds, be aware that this is not something that it politicised in the EU, it is something that has not been reported on in the media, and the public are largely not aware of. This EU proposal is far more dangerous than any of the net neutrality debates, in a direct way to Wikipedia. Net Neutrality doesn't directly affect Wikipedia, but the changes to copyright that article 13 contains may make it impossible for Wikipedia to operate in the EU; the 'link tax' might completely shut down access to Wikipedia in Europe if enforced, and the rules for copyright basically eliminate fair use, making all the European branch language Wikis largely impossible. That is way more of a big deal than a bit of political activism. Please do not bandwagon this one, THINK. I was against the other net neutrality banners, but this is NOT THE SAME THING. I urge you guys to please reconsider, because this is not a partisan political issue in the EU, and that this is actually a potentially huge existential threat to Wikipedia itself. Even Jimbo Wales has said so over on his talk page.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• It is being done through the political process, thus it is political. The WMF isn't worried about it, so why should we be? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Where have you been told that the WMF isn't worried about it? It is not a partisan issue like net neutrality, so Wikipedia wouldn't be 'taking sides'. This is trying to be snuck through the political process with nobody noticing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, if this is a threat to the WMF model, then the WMF should be clearly issuing a statement against it and/or issuing something to say they support a message. (WMF supported the Protests against SOPA and PIPA). If we had this, I would see no problem then including a banner message to warn about this. --Masem (t) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Err, they already did: wmfblog:2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/. Judging from the statement, WMF seems rather worried about article 13, which would probably make the WMF subject to some kind of liability. The European users and associations originally cared about other things, necessary for our copyleft wikis: freedom of panorama, public domain, orphan works. But then, maybe that's considered "political" too. --Nemo 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I detest hidden pings; if you're going to ping me, at least make it so I can see my name. Anyway, I agree with Tony and Masem; if it's an existential threat in the view of the whole of the Foundation, not just Jimbo, something will be done. Moreover, it's not our place to attempt to sway the minds of voters regarding the proposed policies of their lawmakers. (Hint: contact your lawmakers and spread the word about this.) — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Javert2113:Sorry about the hidden ping, I pinged everyone that had made a 'political' oppose above, and it was a long list of names. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's fine. I'm just a bit grouchy today, to be honest. Thank you for the ping; I probably wouldn't have seen this otherwise. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 21:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Whether or not the WMF is worried about it, or whether or not I'm personally worried about it, I still oppose. While I understand the proposed banner would not be encyclopedic per se, I think the general spirit of WP:NPOV should still apply to publicly-facing content and the proposed banner - linking to a site that says a specific piece of legislation "threatens everything you do" - is not in line with that. That said, I appreciate the spirit in which the banner is proposed. Chetsford (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Is there anyone here who would change their position if the banner was worded differently or linked to another page such as [ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/digital-rights-groups-demand-deletion-unlawful-filtering-mandate-proposed-eu ]? I am guessing that the answer is no. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think your guess is probably a good one. I'd be opposed to any type of persuasive banner regardless of the specific words used or the topic referenced. Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think the issue is that it isn't clear exactly what consequences this might have, particularly for Wikipedia. Article 13 is pretty broad in its language, which makes it a bit unclear where it will be enforced and where it won't. When similar laws passed in Spain I know that google news shut down in that country (at least linking to Spanish publishers). A lot of these links are pretty fearmongery, and I am not sure anyone really knows what consequences this might actually have. Everyone seems to agree that it will be bad to some degree however. If a Lawyer from the WMF could give us confirmation on this (can someone ping somebody?) that would be the best. I'm not sure if wmfblog:2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/ represents a WMF position on the topic or not... — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• The worst case scenario, it seems, is that Wikipedia in the EU goes the way Google News did in Spain. That, in the future, Wikipedia will be inaccessible to EU citizens. However, I oppose the persuasive banner regardless of the consequences. If the citizens of the EU, acting through their MEPs, decide WP is not welcome in the EU we should respect their decision, not chain ourselves in the guest bedroom and demand to stay. Again, though, I do appreciate the spirit in which the banner is proposed and agree it would be unfortunate if the worst came to pass. Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Meh, the WMF is not worried about it. They are insulated by being (as an entity) based in the US, the material based in the US etc. This will not impact Wikipedia or any of the major encyclopedias in any significant manner. It will be an issue for editors in the EU but as to how much - that remains to be seen. What it is highly likely to totally fuck right up is Wikia - a site that routinely (and is in fact built around) violates copyright. And since Wikia is a for-profit cash-generating machine of a certain someone, who happens to live in the EU and so is subject to EU law, its not surprising they are 'concerned' about legislation that will directly impact that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Julia Reda AMA

For those few interested, tomorrow Julia Reda (one of the few defenders of the Internet within the EU politics), is doing an AMA tomorrow at 12:00 CEST on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/ —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it has started: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/8oywxz/i_am_mep_julia_reda_fighting_to_saveyourinternet/ --Nemo 11:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Article outlining the threats of the law to Wikimedia projects

Cory @Doctorow: has written an article for Electronic Frontier Foundation that outline the threats posed by the law to Wikimedia projects and what can be done to oppose it:

• The EU's Copyright Proposal is Extremely Bad News for Everyone, Even (Especially!) Wikipedia.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on the subject

Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market has been started, it is currently not very comprehensive, please help expand it. John Cummings (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the (fairly critical) de:Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger Germany has already such legislation, maybe that is something worth inspecting? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Germany already has the link tax aka article 11, see Google News (it failed miserably, so the EU lobbies are now proposing an even worse version). The biggest danger for Wikimedia is probably article 13 (mandatory upload filters and liability). --Nemo 08:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It also appears to be poised to but some real teeth in the EU right to disappear, with hefty daily fine if a US website like Wikipedia refuses to delete a BLP article on demand. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WMF position

Hi everybody, since some people have been asking about it, I wanted to confirm our position very briefly: the Wikimedia Foundation is deeply concerned about requirements for mandatory upload filtering to fight copyright violations or other problematic content that could appear in the future. Therefore, we oppose Art. 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive due to its potential harm to freedom of expression, user privacy, and collaboration on the internet. We believe that a general monitoring obligation for platforms would threaten user rights. Best, --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

JGerlach (WMF), As I pointed out at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 229#How about a far less controversial EU Copyright law proposal? the WMF position you just linked to is over a year old, and the proposed regulation has changes significantly since then. See Talk:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market# Timeline of the proposal (prepared by Cory Doctorow) for a list of the changes. The leaked secret proposal to make the upload filter in Article 13 more extreme especially troubling and might require an additional WMF comment.

May I request an updated position statement? If there are no updates, may I request a simple republishing with a comment to the effect of "in the year since this was published, our position has not changed"? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I can confirm that our position has not changed and we oppose Art. 13, in its amended version too. Even with the recent changes and the exception for non-commercial purposes, we oppose this proposed norm because it would establish a dangerous precedent and threaten user rights on the internet. --JGerlach (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass ping

@TonyBallioni, Yair rand, Natureium, Power~enwiki, Billhpike, Masem, Javert2113, Winner 42, Godsy, Doktorbuk, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Chetsford, Ammarpad, Joe Roe, Wumbolo, GermanJoe, Finnusertop, Kudpung, HiLo48, Joshualouie711, Slatersteven, Justlettersandnumbers, Mandruss, Narutolovehinata5, Nyttend, Chris troutman, SilkTork, and Sphilbrick:--Apologies for the mass ping.But, I feel it might be prudential to inform you of the WMF 's stand on this issue, which has been clarified at this thread, since it has the potential to affect your !votes.Best,∯WBG^converse 04:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Still oppose as bringing politics into Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• I would still think that if the WMF felt this needed to be known, they can force a banner across all projects. limiting to just en.wiki is not a good idea. --Masem (t) 05:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Same view with Masem. If the Foundation felt it is "necessary," just run banner across all projects as non-overridable Office action. But waiting for en-wiki crowd to agree first means it is not as "dangerous" as pro-banner camp are making it to look like. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Still oppose. To be clear: the WMF statement contains many valid thoughts and concerns (although a bit vague in some parts), but it does not demonstrate an immediate threat to Wikipedia's core mission. GermanJoe (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• I remain opposed to a banner of any kind. Regardless of the WMF's position, I remain unconvinced that Wikipedia should be used as a platform for programs such as this. This would violate NPOV and other related policies, including the Five Pillars. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Still oppose. We have to be careful about hosting political banners. Think of the unintended consequences... doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Still oppose It is not an issue of the rights and wrongs of this directive, but out commitment not only to the concept the the principle of neutrality. I believe that you should obey not just the letter of the law (or you should stop using commitment to the law as a kind of Moral VC to tell people how great you are).Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not one bit different; WMF's stand does not change the fact that this would put political advocacy atop every page. Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping, but I already commented on that year old blog article in my oppose. I'm not sure that the Foundation is aware that we already use edit filters created by our users, some of which are designed to combat copyright violations. But even if they are, I think it's OK for the Foundation to say that they are opposed to stuff which they feel impacts on Wikipedia. What is wrong is for anyone to use Wikipedia as that platform. Those folks who are opposed to this (and that includes our blessed Jimbo) should use legitimate platforms to express their concerns or disagreements. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• No change, if the WMF wants to take an office action to run a banner I could tolerate that but I wouldn't be incredibly happy about it. That said, I have already been mass pinged twice to this discussion and would appreciate it if this was the last one. W42 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Continue to oppose: Thank you for the ping, but this has not affected my position, either, nor the ones of my fellow editors, I daresay. My position may best be summed up as a combination of Ammarpad's thoughts, Narutolovehinata5's beliefs, and Winner_42's hope to not be pinged again. If you care to read it all, it's below.
  First, the Foundation may say whatever it likes, naturally, but they don't post their (inherently political) statement on English Wikipedia: neither should we. As it stands, there are other platforms that should be used to political lobbying and discussion instead of our collaborative encyclopedia. Moreover, of course, the Foundation could force Wikipedia to run a banner, and there'd be bobkes we could do about it, but they haven't; whilst one may see that as respecting the autonomy of our efforts here, I see that much in the same way GermanJoe and Ammarpad do: this isn't something that is wholly inimical to Wikipedia as a core threat to our mission and our future. Finally, as a standard matter of policy, we do not engage in political campaigning on the encyclopedia, and we do not allow campaigning or WP:ADVOCACY (our stance against SOPA and PIPA being a notable exception). It would behoove us, in my opinion, to continue such a policy. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!|Contributions) 15:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• WMF's opinion never made any difference to me; I find them despicable. I still oppose this political jousting being hosted on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• I concur with the comments on this matter made above by TonyBallioni, Doktorbuk, and Nyttend. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• continue to oppose If WMF wants to influence EU legislation, they should hire a lobbyist. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Reaffirming oppose per TonyBallioni. --Joshualouie711^talk 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• I had reasoned that my !vote would stand unless I modified it, but a large number of editors appear to feel that it would be effectively withdrawn if I didn't re-affirm it here. Shrug. Still oppose as there has been no counter to my argument, let alone a persuasive one. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Time to close?

Reading the discussion above, while of course voting is not consensus, as of this comment, there are 27 26 support comments versus 30 oppose comments. Even if the support comments were more numerous, considering the amount of participation here (far less than the unsuccessful net neutrality proposal a few months ago) and the narrow gap in numbers, it's becoming clear that there really doesn't seem to be consensus at this point to implement the banner as proposed. With that said, some users from both sides have stated that they are open to either a neutrally worded banner that merely discusses the proposal and its details, or a WMF-implemented banner. But from the looks of things, with discussion having slowed down over the past few days, it seems unlikely that the numbers are going to change. As such, I would suggest that this proposal be closed, albeit without prejudice against continuing discussion of the EU proposal itself elsewhere. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes time to close I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, clearly there's no consensus. TeraTIX 11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A neutrally-worded banner, moreover, still announces to the world that we believe it a really important thing about which tons of people need to know; the details of the wording wouldn't affect the fact that its mere presence is non-neutral. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Also support close at this time. A "neutrally worded" banner would need a separate new discussion—that was not the topic of this one, so absence of comment cannot be fairly interpreted as absence of opposition. To avoid unnecessary confusion, the close should be clear that the "neutrally worded" option remains unresolved. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Post-closure discussion

Post-closure comments, including discussion of the EU directive, can continue in this section. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Appears that Art. 13 was adopted on June 20th by the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee. Next this will go July 4th to the Members of the European Parliament and if 10% oppose the proposal than a more formal vote will be required.

With respect to us being "political", Wikipedia lives and functions within a political and legal reality. We should engage "politically" when laws are being proposed which will affect our ability to function or our future.

This should include efforts to oppose the blocking of Wikipedia in Turkey and attempts to censor Wikipedia in France. It should also include opposing unreasonable burdens, such as upload filters, which would affect how we work. A banner should educate people in Europe about what this law would mean for us and others.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, it.wiki decided to advertise the potential issues with a banner, obscuring Wikipedia for few days, and –eventually– to share an open letter with other projects addressed to the UE representatives. The decision was made basically because we belong to a movement that promotes open knowledge, thus we should stand to defend the right to free education and culture, even if the UE decision wouldn't directly affect us (but it would do anyways). --Ruthven (msg) 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It is now 2 July. If we are to have a banner, it should go up now.

@Doc James: @Jimbo Wales:

Noting that whether to put up a banner is a WMF decision not subject to community consensus, are we going to put up a banner? If so, it needs to go up now; we need to give the readers at least a couple of days to read it. If not, may we please have an official statement from the WMF that you have decided against a banner? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon Banner is up now...

Can be seen here

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note, a banner was added as meta:Special:CentralNotice by WMF staffer User:Seddon (WMF):. It is targeting viewers in the following countries: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. This banner is currently set to expire on 2018-07-04 23:59. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any banner. --Robertiki (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Media response

list

• 4lphac. "Italian wikipedia down for protest against EU Copyright Directive". r/europe. reddit.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• "Italy Wikipedia shuts down in EU protest". BBC News. 3 July 2018.

media discussion

If anyone identifies any media discussing this then share please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

How to/should we add a Wikidata item link to Authority control

Currently, there is no link from the {{Authority control}} navbar template to the Wikidata item page, where the information displayed is gathered. The Wikidata item page is where an editor may add/remove/correct authority information on a person/entity. A common complaint against {{Authority control}} is that the template (and thus Wikidata) contains information on the wrong subject, or that the links are useless, or the associated link is broken, or frustration from how/where to correct it (there are other complaints as well, but they are outside the scope of this discussion). This proposal/survey seeks to allow editors to more easily access the Wikidata item linked to the Wikipedia page to make such additions/removals/corrections. While gaining some support, it has been suggested at Template talk:Authority control#Adding Wikidata item link to aid navigation to poll a larger audience, so voilà.

A 'Wikidata item' link exists on the left hand margin of any Wikipedia page which currently has a Wikidata item associated with it, similar to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. Also similar is our placement of a 2nd link to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. at the bottom of the page in the external links, to aid navigation and visibility. So the addition of a 2nd link to Wikidata would be in line with current behavior.

This will not affect dormant transclusions of {{Authority control}}; i.e. those which do not display on the page.

Option 1 - RHS in-line 'Wd: Q2144892' links as the first item:

Pros: it's short, so the chances of adding an extra vertical increment to the height of the {{Authority control}} template is also small. After scanning all ~690k transclusions, 59.5% of {{Authority control}} templates display 3 or fewer links from Wikidata, and 90% display 7 or fewer, so at least those 60% would very likely retain their current height. Also, parameter suppression of some kind will probably happen in the next 1-few months, making even more templates 1-liners.

Cons: it's lumped together with the other authorities so it (Wikidata) might run the risk of being misidentified as an authority (which it isn't), but I've only seen this concern raised once (part of the reason I'm here). This hasn't been a problem with a sister template, {{Taxonbar}}, which has about ~50% of the transclusions of {{Authority control}}.

Option 2 - LHS 'Q2144892' link on a separate line:

Pros: less chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1.

Cons: will force all {{Authority control}} templates that are 1 line tall (~50%) to be 2 lines tall.

Option 2Wd - LHS 'Wd: Q2144892' links on a separate line:

Pros: lowest chance of being misidentified as an authority, and more obvious linkage to the corresponding Wikidata item than Option 1 and Option 2.

Cons: same as Option 2, and slightly wider.

Option 2Q - LHS 'Q2144892' links on a separate line (stylistic variant of Option 2Wd; Q and 2144892 link to different pages):

Pros: same as Option 2, plus the additional link describing what Wikidata is, and is "cleaner looking" than Option 2Wd.

Cons: same as Option 2.

Option 2Wikidata - LHS 'Wikidata' link & RHS links display ID names instead of numbers:

Pros: same as Option 2, but much more reader friendly, and LHS is constant width regardless of Q# size, and the RHS (with this example) is slightly shorter than any Option 2.

Cons: same as Option 2.

Option 2pencil - LHS ' ' link:

Pros: same as Option 1, and widespread use elsewhere, so intuitive.

Cons: less descriptive than Option 2Wikidata, and hard to see for users who invert browser colors.

Option 2edit - LHS '[edit on Wikidata]' link:

Pros: same as Option 2 and Option 2Wikidata, and widespread use elsewhere, and maximally intuitive.

Cons: possibly too enticing?

Option 3 - any of the above.

Pros: various.

Cons: various.

Option 4 - no change.

Pros: status quo.

Cons: less mobility to Wikidata, and thus less potential for editors to add/remove/correct information.

---

AC Wikidata item link survey

• Option 2edit, 2Wikidata, 2pencil, 2Wd/2Q, 2, 1, in that order, as nom.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2Wikidata, if not, 2Wd, failing that, 2. I feel 2Wd is the best here, or failing that option 2. 2Q is bad and confusing. Option 1 is baaaaad. Personally, I'd just add the full Wikidata:Q2144892. The objectings (below) to this are silly, since it makes editing what is presented harder if there are errors, and presents Wikidata as authoritative.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Options 2edit/2pencil, 2Wikidata, 2Wd, and 2, in order. We shouldn't add it to the authority field, so option 1 is a no-go, and 2Q is confusing for the user. Option 2Wd gives the best indication of what the Q link is for, although just calling it "wikidata" would suffice. Option 2edit is probably the most clear, but the pencil reduces the template back to one line, which is nice. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 00:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 2Wd in that order. Oppose 1 as very bad. Oppose 2Q as too difficult for mobile users to navigate. I also oppose 2pencil and 2edit. IMO we should not be including calls to action such as "edit this" or "edit that" since it seems to encourage the least competent drive-by readers to start editing things and, while WMF projects do not demand much in the way of competence, Wikidata is not a good jumping off point. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the "V · T · E" in every navbox template should also be removed. There haven't been significant issues of navboxes getting messed up because of the edit links being displayed. We need to give readers some indicator of where the data is drawn from and how to make corrections or additions. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"V · T · E" isn't an overt call to action since none of those abbreviations will necessarily be obvious to the drive-by reader. "Edit" or "Edit here" or "Edit this" are all calls to action; it's an announcement to the reader that we want them to edit it. I don't really want every rando reader to start editing a Wikidata entry. "This Can Be Edited" would be a descriptive indicator that was not a call to action but space considerations would obviously preclude that. Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option 4. There is no need for a WikiData link, especially since we now transclude most from WD (at least up to 22 per subject are transcluded, up to 43 possible). WD is NOT an authority, and anyway it is already linked from the toolbox. There is no ‘one size fits all’, on many articles, both the in-AC link ánd the link in the toolbox will be visible at the same time on one physical computer landscape oriented screen. No objection agains a ‘sisterlink’ like template at long articles (but no standard inclusions there either, it does need merit). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As it is relevant here, today I did this. The link to Commons is in the toolbox, anddisplaying it so prominently in this case suggests that there is more to get on Commons. However, commons in this case has just three other cropped immages of the same as in the article - nothing to ADD. For much of WD (we are set to transclude 43, we sometimes display up to 22), the WD link has NOTHING TO ADDin terms of authority control (and there are enough requests to have more parameters to be added ...). The inclusion at the bottom should be a choice, not a standard for the 10s of thousands of articles that have an AC. If WD really has more to offer, include a sister link. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • On a short page like David H. Sanford the link in the lefthand box ánd on the AC would be almost next to each other, hence there is no easier access. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Beetstra, can you explain how Wikidata is not an authority? Are you referring to the possibility that there might be more than one authorized heading for the same topic? By that token, we ought to remove WorldCat, because it's quite common to have multiple OCLC numbers for the same book because a cataloguer wasn't paying attention. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @Nyttend: WikiData is not a reliable source, and therefore it is not an authority on any subject. Subjects get, within its capabilities, assigned a unique number, but anyone can create a subject, anyone can put whatever they want in it. By that datamodel, without proper authorized peer review, it is not an authority. That is fully in line with discussions going on elsewhere. Note: if we call WikiData ID as an authorative number, then The PageID of every page here on en.wikipedia is, by that same reason, an authorative ID. In short, not everything that assigns an ID is an authority. And that we need to link the WikiData ID because we use its data is, to me, a rather circular reasoning. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Beetstra, do you even know what an authority file is? If so, why are you contradicting yourself by describing an authority file and promptly telling me that WikiData isn't one? Hint: reliability is completely unrelated to whether it's an authority. Please tell me, in depth, what an authority file is and why your definition is superior to the definion that we professional librarians use, to which your description of WikiData is quite close. Then, get it published in JASIST or a similar journal. Until you can prove that people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about representation and organization are wrong, don't waste everyone's time with a fringe definition of "authority file". Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
          • So, go include all PageIDs for all other Wikipedia pages, it must be useful as they are full of info. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • But simply, we do not need to include any possible identifier that is publicly available, especially not ones to open wikis and any other unreliable source and randomly assigned list. option 4. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • After reading a bit more, I stand with my initial comment. WikiData is an open wiki, it does not have the necessary control measures. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 4. The reason given as a "con" is actually a "pro". We don't have the WD link in other templates that are filled way too often from Wikidata (official website, commons cat, ...). AC is already a poorly designed reader-unfriendly template, and efforts are under way to drastically change it. Adding yet another link and another undecipherable code after a meaningless abbreviation is not the way to go. If not option 4, then whatever, but definitely not option 1. We shouldn't put IDs from unreliable wikis into our "authority control" templates (not just Wikidata, but also musicbrainz and so on). If any option 2 is chosen, then don't add the Q-number, just add "Wikidata", so readers have a better chance of knowing what the link means (something that should be done for all the others as well, give the short "name" of the site instead of the meaningless ID, so people know that they are looking at a link to a Czechian, Swedish, US, ... repository). Fram (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added the 2 - names to give an idea of what I mean. Fram (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've renamed Option 2Names to Option 2Wikidata following convention & updated subsequent references to it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Beetstra and Fram. To be honest, I'd be quite happy if Wikidata folded but since that is unlikely to happen any time soon, the less connection there is, the better. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You do realize that with Option 4, the data would still be pulled from Wikidata, right? All Option 4 does is make it less obvious how to correct errors, it doesn't make Wikidata go away. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 15:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 3 Adding the Wikidata link/ID is useful. Option 1 has the benefit of (almost) matching what is used in this template on other wikis (e.g., commons). I quite like the last Option 2Wikidata with the full display of the names rather than the acronyms and numbers. But any of the options would work aside from option 4. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Mike Peel, I like the look of the full names too, but I realized now that they lack a link to the WP page describing the authority. The alternatives I see revolve around something like "VIAF: ID", or "Virtual International Authority File: ID", or "VIAF: Data", etc.; anything along those lines, as long as both links are preserved. Since some IDs can get very lengthy, having standard-length link text seems like a good idea. For simplicity, though, this would be best done as a separate proposal (which I won't have time to do until at least August, winkwink nudgenudge).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• "No link to Wikidata" is painful. I think we've generally established that a template pulling from Wikidata should provide in the context of the template a way to edit the content at Wikidata (this is how Module:Wikidata functions broadly). OTOH, I don't think any of the options above provides the call to action in the way that Module:Wikidata does presently (the little pencil icon). I would prefer to see that here rather than the Wikidata ID or even the nomenclature for Wikidata.

  Regarding the specific proposals: Some Pencil Icon Version > 2Wikidata > 2. I'm partial to 2Wikidata for a non-Wikidata-specific related improvement. That said, I believe the intent is for the template to provide the links internally so that people who are curious about any particular identifier can understand (with some level of encyclopedicity) what it is they would end up looking at without taking up oodles of space with the template where it is provided (by use of the abbreviations). I'm not sure if those links are so valuable in fact or not, and I might suggest the general link to authority control/help:authority control suffices for "hey, what is this template doing? what are these links here for?" rather than specific links to each of the authority controls. That leaves me somewhere in the realm of option 2 as a last resort. Flat rejects: 2Wd for previous comments, 2Q per sea of blue rationale, 4 per first paragraph, 1 per con listed, and 3 because I have a specific preference. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Option 2pencil (per Izno) or Option 2edit . This has become the standard way of indicating "edit this on Wikidata". All of the presented options betray into thinking that Wikidata is one of the authority control files. It's not (is it?). The problem this proposal wants to fix is not that readers want to use Wikidata as an authority control; it's that editors can't find how to edit the actual authority files stored on Wikidata. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you provide some examples of this standard? Also, is your second choice then Option 4 - no change?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Many of these templates (though not all of them). For representative examples see {{Twitter}} (live example: Cristiano Ronaldo#External links) and {{Infobox astronomical event}} (live GRB 970228). Yes, my second choice is Option 4. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Created Option 2pencil.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Tom.Reding. As for its con, it's something we should definitely check against MOS:CONTRAST, but I don't think we're married to this particular blue pencil. Your Option 2Wikidata is close to what the rest of the WD templates do (see e.g. {{Infobox anatomy}}): in brackets. That would be the clear, and standard, way to phrase what this option is trying to do. I don't mean to be critical, but there would have been no need to reinvent the wheel here when standard options already exist. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, the color used doesn't appear to match those at the top of phabricator ticket M82 (the pencil is ~2 years old and needs updating).

I think you're the first person to enter this conversation that was aware (or at least vocal) about such standards!

I guess Option 2edit needs to be made for ""?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Created Option 2edit.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Anything but 2Q Option 2pencil I disagree with the arguments for Option 4 that another wikidata link would be redundant, as it's not obivious in any way that the wikidata link in the sidebar had any connection to the data presented in the authority control template. The only option I am really opposed to us 2Q. It seems like an WP:EASTEREGG, is likely to be confusing when editors don't realize why they're not always being sent to the page they expected, and the single-character "Q" link is a small target to hit. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 4 Per Sitush. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 4 - we already have a wikidata link in the toolbox. I agree with Sitush here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Then we should eliminate {{commons}}, {{wikiquote}}, {{wikisource}}, {{wikispecies}}, etc. too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The links to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies etc are NOT STANDARD in the toolbox, as opposed to WikiData. As I said above, I did this. That template did, on that page, not ADD anything (not even in the toolbox). On most pages where AC is transcluded it does not necessarily add anything (especially since we have up to 22 identifiers transcluded, what is it supposed to do, even more identifiers to be found?). And I would not necessarily oppose careful use of a sister link to WD where it adds something. A blanket transclusion with AC is distinctly different from having a chosen sisterlink. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • If the only concern against adding a WD link to AC is the presence of the same link elsewhere on the page, then it's an irrelevant concern due to the ubiquitous existence of the above templates, as described in the opening paragraphs of this proposal. Please read them.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd also argue that "I don't like Wikidata, and/or I want it to go away, and/or I don't want to do anything to improve it nor Wikipedia" is antithetical to all involved Wikis, and also not a valid point, unless there are plans to dismantle the project.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I rest my case. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 4: per Beetstra and Fram; but Sitush raises the best argument. I've never seen the use of Wikidata, to be frank. But that's a conversation for elsewhere. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never seen the use of Wikidata, to be frank. This is precisely what this proposal seeks to improve.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Unless you meant figuratively seen, which I now suspect was the case, then yes, a conversation for elsewhere.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Did and do mean "figuratively". Sorry if my statement was unclear. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2 (indifferent among them)—Editable and on the left-hand side of Authority Control to differentiate it. People should know where this information comes from and have a way to edit it.--Carwil (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2edit, then 4If people know Wikidata abbreviations, they likely already know that the Wikidata item can be accessed on the sidebar. ^Daylen (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2Wd, Option 2, Option2Wikidata in that order. It's a good idea to include it, I don't like the pencil or "edit on" options, and 2Q seems too subtle to be useful. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

---

AC Wikidata item link discussion

Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of the available options.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some text to clarify 2Q. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we please promote this to an RfC, that attracts more editors and will get independent closure with a bit mere authority? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are the options confusingly numbered 1, 2, 2Wd, 2Q, 2, 3, 4? Could we change to having them as 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3, 4 - or something else that's more straightforward? In particular, we shouldn't have two that are just "option 2"! Mike Peel (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I renamed the second option 2, that was my mistake. Fram (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Headbomb & Chetsford, just to inform you that Option 2pencil and/or Option 2edit were created after your vote (and since you didn't vote Option 3 nor Option 4), in case you wish to amend. The available options appear stable now...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Misleading opening statement

@Tom.Reding: you state: A 'Wikidata item' link exists on the left hand margin of any Wikipedia page which currently has a Wikidata item associated with it, similar to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. Also similar is our placement of a 2nd link to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. at the bottom of the page in the external links, to aid navigation and visibility. So the addition of a 2nd link to Wikidata would be in line with current behavior.

There s NO STANDARD LINK to commons, wikiquote, wikisource, wikispecies, etc. There IS a standard link to WikiData on all pages with an associated WikiData item. But as a list of non-exhaustive examples:

• Vladimir Sobolev (diplomat)
• Tolombeh-ye Ashayiri Deh Gowd
• Francis Albert Eley Crew
• Elsie, Kentucky
• Dehliq
• ...

All have A WIKIDATA LINK in the toolbox, and NO LINK to commons, wikispecies, wiktionary, wikitravel etc.

At the time of my removal here [5], the article Giovanna Fletcher had a commons link at the bottom (IMHO useless as it did not provide significant material), and NO link to commons in the toolbox at the left.

Adding this link leads, by definition, to duplication, as opposed to other ‘sisterlinks’. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And anyway, also for those sisterlinks - since they can now be linked from the toolbox, barring exceptions those templates are, in my opinion, then excessive and should be removed, but that is not for here. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we clearly understand the argument: we had sisterlinks in the document (e.g. through {{commons cat}}). Through WikiData coding that now sometimes results in duplication on the page as a second link to e.g. commons appears in the left hand box. Now, because we duplicate commons at the bottom in the article ánd in the top-left box, it is argued here that the duplication of the existing WD link in the left hand top box is fine. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: A link is shown in the sidebar to commons, wikispecies, etc. in the left-hand side-bar where it is available (defined as an interwiki link in the Wikidata entry, or as a manual interwiki). There is a large overlap between those links being shown and the sister project templates also being included (far from 100%, since there are many cases where those templates have not been added even if the link does exist, and there are templates that provide a link where it's not an interwiki on Wikidata). Of course, if a link doesn't exist, then it can't be shown, which is the case in the examples you have given here. Meanwhile, nearly every Wikipedia entry has a corresponding Wikidata entry, so you see that link in the sidebar far more often. So there is nothing wrong or misleading with the opening statement here. Mike Peel (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. a commons link now appears for the first item in your list as I just created it. Up to you if you want to add the photo that's on commons into the article. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Be careful, the photo is clearly of a different person than the subject of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Is it? Did de:Wladimir Michailowitsch Sobolew get it wrong? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. The guy was born in 1924 and the photo is recent; even of the photo were historic, there is no way a Soviet diplomat in the 1940s or 1950s could be dressed like that.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Aah, I found your deletion proposal now at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sobolev.jpg. Thanks for that. Mike Peel (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If a commons cat exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If a Wikispecies entry exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If a Wikidata item exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. Lo, if a <another wiki> entry exists for the page, a link will appear in the margin. If there's Wikidata item associated with the Wikipedia page (and no forced params in {{Authority control}}), then both the template and the link in the margin are 'dormant'. You've done an excellent job at finding variation on this theme, but not to prove the point you think you're making. The example pages above have Wikidata entries associated with them, but none of the other Wikis. Clearly you've misunderstood the system and need to reevaluate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand. Your argument is still that duplication is fine because we do that elsewhere. I disagree, I would even oppose the other duplication - especially in cases where the corresponding commons cat does not add anything extra over what is already in the article, or just has limited content. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say we should get rid of {{commonscat}}, especially since it pulls data out of Wikidata anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I was indeed considering that we could get rid of all sisterlinks-type cats, as they are all in the tools. It is just duplication. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I personally would be fine with that, but I know some people feel very strongly about the sister links.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I can see arguments for some cases to be there, but not general. There are indeed strong feelings there, would likely need an RfC. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Which would sink like a stone, I expect. Commons links are infinitely more important, useful and used than Wikidata ones. But carry on chatting among yourselves. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Since I am now looking, I do more regurarly running into cases where commons has nothing more to offer, but where the commons template is there just for the sake of it. Others indeed give an rder of magnitude more images than in the article itself and are useful. Some moderation only probably. I however still fail to see why we transclude up to 22 authority file ids, and need to link to WD to find ... what? Because that is what including it in the template suggests: low and behold, on WD there are even more authority file IDs! —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make Uw-Unsourced warning more user friendly Suggestion

I have been posting (subst'ing) this message User:DBigXray/ref as a Twinkle Welcome message for newbies who are not aware how to add sources. I have posted this on hundreds of talk pages of newbies and several editors have copied this subst and modified this to their own version with this image, I propose to update the Template talk:Uw-unsourced1 with a screenshot image and text as as below. Based on my experience and positive feedback I have recieved, I believe this will help Wikipedia's acute problem of unsourced editings. --DBigXray 12:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(updated) proposed text and the image to be added at the end of the template

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Adding a well formatted references is very easy to do.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill all relevant details,

Discussion

I wouldn't support fill as many details as you can, but I'd support fill all relevant details. Also, the toolbar should support other {{cite xxx}} templates and order them alphabetically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• The proposal is open to any Copy Editing of the said text, if others feel it can be improved. I had written as many so that at least the Title publisher dates etc are available for a google search in case of WP:LINKROT. --DBigXray 14:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• I have updated the text with your suggestion --DBigXray 17:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• The main question I have at this point is is the RefToolbar enabled by default?, especially for IPs and the like? Otherwise we'd be giving a screenshot of something they don't have access to. I do like the idea though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: Did a quick check from a different browser, where I'm not logged in, and it appears to be at least enabled for IPs on desktop. Don't know about new accounts or mobile, though. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Headbomb: I am quite sure, it is also enabled for the newbies. I am saying this from the confidence of experience, None of the hundreds of newbies who got this template from me ever complained about not seeing the refToolbar. I did recieve many thanks from them. Since it is enabled for IPs it is safe to say it is also enabled for new users. --DBigXray 20:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If it's on by default, then there's no possibility of confusion. So I say add it to the warning. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that we have lots of editors that a user can potentially encounter, not just WikiEditor 2010. Also note that the reftoolbar is currently not supported by a single person, so any changes will require it finds a new maintainer. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• WikiEditor 2010 by its name now appears to be 8 years old. Do you have any wise estimation or numbers of users editing wikipedia and not using WikiEditor 2010. I believe those numbers will be far less in comparison to users of WikiEditor 2010. This proposal does not need any source code edits in the Reftoolbar. Just a suffix in the warning template is all it needs. The image is self explanatory and does need any reading of wikilinks or policy pages. The links would still be there for people interested to know more on policies. Based on my experience we cannot slap the template and then expect the said newbie or IP to go through the wiki policies and understand HTML tags so that he can make a sourced edit. --DBigXray 16:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried to get the numbers you ask for a while ago, and it appears that the answer depends – far more than any reasonable personw would guess – on exactly what you mean by "number of users", "editing", "Wikipedia", and "not using". Here are a few things that I have learned:

• There are too many mw:Editors.
• At the English Wikipedia, half or more of all edits are semi-automated or fully automated changes made via scripts (like Twinkle, HotCat, and AWB) and bots (e.g., ClueBot). An unfortunate proportion of these script-based edits aren't tagged or labeled in a way that would let you find out which tools an editor is using.
• The "number of edits" and the "number of users" are significantly different issues. Thousands of humans (across all the wikis) use the visual editor; sometimes, a single editor makes a thousand edits at just one wiki on one day. You probably care about the proportion of humans using a given editing environment, rather than proportion of actions taken by those humans.
• New editors are more likely to use the visual editor exclusively than others; people who have been editing for a decade are more likely to use a wikitext editor exclusively. You probably care more about new/learning editors than about experienced editors.
• The proportions also change by namespace. You probably care about the proportion of mainspace edits, which has a lot more edits via the visual editor (VisualEditor's visual mode) and the mobile editors, compared to talk pages or template pages (where, e.g., the visual editor is disabled).
• Desktop users [like me] make more edits than mobile editors.
• When you look specifically at what I'll call "fully manual" edits in the mainspace, about 7% of all edits (not humans) are made using the mobile editors.
• Sometimes, it's hard to figure out how to classify something. For example: if you have WikEd enabled, and you use HotCat to make several changes, which editing environment did you use? I'd like to see that get a Special:Tag for both HotCat and WikEd, but WikEd is an overlay on one of the old wikitext editors, so maybe it should get a tag for that editor as well. Also, a lot of straight-up reversions happen. The Undo button leads to an older wikitext editor. But did you really "use" it?

Sorry that I don't have any simple answers, but I think you would do well to be cautious about assuming that the people who need to hear your message are working in the same editing environment that you prefer. That said, among less-experienced editors, the most common alternatives to the 2010 WikiEditor are always tagged server-side. You could make up three or four screenshots, check their contributions to see which tags are attached to their edits, then post the relevant screenshot. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Support in principal. I'm sure the debate about what screenshot to use can be resolved. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle At WP:MEDHOW we explain how to use both main editors to add a reference. The above does not take into account VEDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle per proposer. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This is a good idea, and if the template wording and diagram can be made even clearer, that would be even better. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Questionnaire for new users

When new users start using Wikipedia, how about giving them a questionnaire? This could have questions such as "Did you find Wikipedia easy to edit?" "Were you aware that you could look at the history of an article?" "Did you find the talk page useful?" "Were you aware of Wikipedia: Articles for deletion?" "Were you aware of Wikipedia: Requested articles?" In the long run, the goal of such a project would be to help to improve Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC) I appreciate that a problem with this suggestion could be working out where such a questionnaire would be. It could go on a new user's user-page. Vorbee (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: See WP:User survey. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like everyone to read this

This is important. It focussed primarily on Article 13, but Article 11 is quite possibly worse, although frankly it's all so bad that it is hard to say with any certainty which is worse.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It really is a nightmare legislation. That's why we should have a banner being displayed prominently. Wikipedia being neutral when presenting content doesn't mean being passive when our very existence is jeopardized. The Red Cross is an apolitical organization, but that doesn't mean they won't oppose legislation that makes it harder for them to organize blood drives.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• +1 support to User:Headbomb. We use Turnitin, a world leader in copyright infringement detection, but they are still only correct just over half the time. We apply them "after" a person makes an edit not before. Apply them before an edit goes live would result in significant disruption. And text is easy compared to images and video (ala Commons). Additionally German and Bulgarian Wikipedia had a banner related to this from what I understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Neutrality does not mean staying silent when threatened by legislation. —Kusma (t·c) 17:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• I also agree with the above sentiments, and I think we should post a neutrally worded banner to raise awareness of this, at least in the EU, if nothing else. We can't always remain neutral when something threatens the site's continued existence. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 20:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Jimbo Wales: If this needs vast volunteer support as a banner, requesting placement as a CentralNotice (perhaps with geo fencing/targeting) at meta:CentralNotice/Request would hit the widest audience - if it has foundation support it should be able to get fast-tracked. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There was an RfC on this (further up the page) already, but there was no consensus on posting the banner. There was some support for a neutrally-worded version, but it was buried in the overall discussion. There could be reason to post another RfC specifically for a neutral banner to notify readers in the EU. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC's here (such as the one you referenced above at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Banner_in_EU_countries_explaining_dangerous_European_Parliament_copyright_proposal_and_linking_to_SaveYourInternet.eu) are about banners driven by and for the English Wikipedia only, the actual impact of this sounds much further reaching. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No. You can't just keep making proposals over and over again until one of them passes. This is at least the fourth such proposal within the past few months. At this point, I'd support Ammarpad's proposal above that we decide that political banners will not run, period, to save editors time on discussions like this. The risks from continually dealing with these proposals may be greater than the risk of not being able to act in the face of some possible future dangerous political threat. --Yair rand (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no greater risk to Wikipedia than being unable to edit it because of laws makes it a crime to do so. Opposing banners on this is like saying "We firefighters are apolitical, we'll put fire outs no matter where they happen. It's more dangerous to our existence to comment on politics than oppose legislation that would make it illegal extinguish fires." The threat is NOW. Not in the future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What is "the risks from continually dealing with these proposals"? Lots of proposals for banners are not and should not be supported. Some should and are supported. Disallowing discussions is a strange proposal and one I definately do not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what the proposal is here. I agree that the legislation is awful, but like AfroThundr said, there was no consensus at the above discussion. Are we proposing a neutrally-worded banner? TeraTIX 13:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo was mostly bringing this matter to everyone's attention (for those who live under a rock, anyway.) I do think we should try that RfC again with a neutral notification banner. In the closing statement of the previous RfC this was mentioned:

There was also a proposal to put up a neutrally-worded banner that would provide information about the directive without pushing any particular position of it. It was supported by some users from both the support and oppose sides, but ultimately there was not enough discussion on it to have any sort of consensus of approval either.
With that said, the discussion leaves open the possibility towards proposing a neutrally-worded banner, which would then be the topic of a new discussion.

While I'm aware of !voter fatigue, this proposal would segue off of the previous one, and could be handled rather quickly, one way or the other. That should put this matter to bed once and for all, at least on enwiki. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 15:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree and I think that such an important discussion needs to be brought to a very wide audience within the community, as most people don't hang out on Village Pump. (The number of !votes in the above discussion shows clearly that not enough people are aware.) I think personally that a neutrally worded banner is insufficient - I think this is an existential issue for the free culture movement and therefore deserves to be killed - and the only practical way I know to kill it is to create world headlines and put real pressure from voters on the European Parliament. We have a board meeting in 5 minutes to discuss further, and I'll report back what I can, when I can! Thanks to everyone for your attention so far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please keep us updated. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd support having an RfC on a neutrally worded banner, although the WMF response will be interesting and pertinent. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The neutral wording should only be used as a last resort if the community is too dumb to realize the danger is in. Jimbo is right here, we should be active in opposition to something that wants to pretty much directly kill Wikipedia and Commons and all other Wikimedia projects as best it can. This notice shouldn't just be on Wikipedia, but on every Wikimedia projects. With a blackout if needed like we did for SOPA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

We had a board call with senior management at the Foundation yesterday, and a statement from the board is forthcoming. I wouldn't like to speak for anyone but myself, but I think I can safely say that there is consensus that (1) everyone would like to see broader community awareness of this, (2) that a decision about what action to take should, as always, not be dictated by the board or Foundation staff, but the community, and (3) the Foundation staff stands ready to assist with whatever we in the community request.

My own view is that we are at a point that I would consider to be something of an emergency. Time is very short. I'm told by reliable sources that a vote of the entire European Parliament is likely to take place on July 4th, which means that coordinated action to bring intense awareness on Parliament in the form of phone calls and emails from millions of ordinary European citizens needs to take place by July 3rd or so. If anyone is interested in how the process is likely to work, I'll explain it as best I can, but I'm still learning myself.

We are up against incredibly well-funded interests who have spent literally millions lobbying for this stuff. The general public is, as we all know from our day to day work here, quite unaware of and bored by copyright law. This is a classic example of how moneyed interests can lead law in a direction that is contrary to public interest. (I should add that in this case, at least some of the changes contemplated are beneficial in an indirect way for companies like Google and Facebook, who can afford to comply, and so I think this is a classic case of the two major financial sides (content industry and big platforms) reaching a "compromise" which benefits themselves, at the expense of the public and smaller competitors).)

The biggest challenge that I can see for us is time. The timetable is much shorter than would be desirable for a comprehensive community discussion of the type that is our great strength. The opposition knows this, and I believe this is giving them incentive to rush through a vote before we can get organized.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, Katherine, and others should probably, if not already in progress and in addition to on-line efforts, do an "emergency" media tour of Europe, hold press conferences in various cities (perhaps even at the Wikipedia Monument), interview shows, etc. (both in person and by remote-access) during the next week to up-awareness and allow Europeans to understand the extent and ramifications of what's proposed and what passage would look like. And of course put a banner up (not just in Europe but worldwide), a serious threat to civilizational communication and knowledge is occurring in a limited time and Wikipedia is one of the only platforms that can make the public aware of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At this point I really think a CentralNotice is necessary to raise awareness among our users and editors as well. As I mentioned before, there was some support for a neutrally worded banner in the previous RfC, and I think we should work with that. This goes to vote in 7 days so we should at least notify people about what is happening. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 12:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If WMF thinks this is a huge issue, CN is the way to go - since it seems to be much further impacting then only the English Wikipedia if the hype is true; not quite sure I'm seeing what the "or else" part is - if WMF just ignore this all together what impact will actually be realized? Fines levied in a foreign jurisdiction are hard to enforce generally, and unlike most other companies we don't "sell" things in these jurisdictions. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• The previous discussion was before the committee vote, when over a thousand amendments were theoretically up for vote. Now the situation is much clearer: unless on July 5 the European Parliament plenary rejects the committee proposal, we can be sure to have nightmare copyright legislation for the next 20 years or forever. --Nemo 14:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are we even bothering discussing this? Either it isn't a threat to Wikipedia and a banner is unneeded, or it is a threat to Wikipedia and a banner is needed. If the foundation has determined that it is a threat, then the foundation should put up a notice. This isn't something that editor opinion is relevant to. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with @Khajidha: here, and am completely missing how this is a problem that only impacts the English Wikipedia - why is this not being considered WMF wide? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem which affects only English Wikipedia, and it is being considered WMF-wide. I just sent an email to the heads of all the chapters to ask for their support in making the issue known as widely as possible within their own language groups, and I have cleared my schedule of almost everything so that I can do as much as I can.

Regarding the idea that "if this a threat, then the foundation should put up a notice" without the support of the community. I'd be the first to oppose that. Decisions of this magnitude should be taken by the community - as it is a much more powerful message when coming from the community. And I personally do not think that a neutrally worded banner is sufficient, although if that is all we can get to, then we should do that at a minimum. I personally believe this is one of the very rare cases where a much more significant move is needed.

• Some languages have already run banners. EN WP represents about half of our traffic and many in Europe use EN WP thus a banner here could significantly raise awareness. Yes we could move the discussion to meta to make it movement wide but time is short.

Here's where I get to on this whole issue. At this time, the only thing that can stop this is a huge outpouring of calls and emails from the general public. We need to explain to them that this affects their rights online, and that it affects the entire free culture movement that Wikipedia is the great shining example. And we need to inform the public as to how their voice can be heard.

This isn't only about narrowly defending Wikipedia, it is about defending our values and the broader ecosystem and culture that we are a part of.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• But much of the community will have no idea this is going on or very little understanding of what it is unless the foundation takes the first step of putting a highly visible notice out there. The community members would then know what they could do and that "huge outpouring of calls and emails" could commence. --Khajidha (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Statements from the Foundation and Board should go out soon after SF wakes up today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, calendar cleared so...news conferences, video link to media and news shows in Europe, personal in-studio at news programs, the news releases, etc. You and Katherine can blitz Europe (wrong choice of words?) in opposition. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Our projects are generally self governing, and this typically includes the banners. Thus community opinion on these matters I feel is important. The first proposal was brought forwards by a community member. The community at that time was undecided but input was not that significant. I am hesitant to see the WMF overrule this. There does appear to be a fair bit of support for a neutrally worded banner though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I just see this as falling more or less under the "Legal issues" portion of the perennial proposals above. We, as a community, don't have to worry about the legalities, that's what we have the foundation and its legal advisors for. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure I agree. We as a community do need to worry about the political and legal environment we function within. Well the foundation can support and provide some legal opinions our communities have a significant voice when we decide to use it / are able to come to consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Request for help I am beyond my limit for what I can do to help but I see what I think are obvious problems which have multi-million dollar negative impact but which have labor solutions which could cost a few thousand dollars.

1. Relevant Wikipedia articles are in bad shape - net neutrality, General Data Protection Regulation, and several dozen related concepts are low quality. Lobbying organizations spend $$$ advocating for the consumer but the single most consulted sources of information on all these topics is Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not clearly inform and educate then there is no clear way for anyone to become informed and educated. Wikipedia's strength is supposed to be its articles but our articles on these topics are unsatisfactory.
2. Wiki labor pool needs organization - the social context is that there have been many wiki community attempts at organizing to do something about net neutrality. Most of these attempts have been a request for a banner. Despite all these banner requests where 100s of Wiki community members have participated the wiki editing of the concerned articles has been low. Someone should take a few hours to list all these discussions because having the list of records is the only way to put the sum conversation in context. Although there has not been consensus for "Wikipedia" as an entity to take a political position, I think everyone in those conversations would agree that Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects should provide clear information on the issues with wiki articles, illustrations, etc. The WMF historically has been hands off about content and this is good. However, if there were a community organizer who was neutral and who could bring the best available sources from all sides of the issue, then I think everyone would benefit. This is not exactly a winner-takes-all competition, but rather, a situation when everyone benefits when all sides of the situation get their best presentation in Wikimedia projects. The Wiki community is not spontaneously crowdsourcing labor management and really needs a funded dedicated lead (perhaps from a university, perhaps from any organization) to help sort the dozens of volunteers who each do their part here.
3. Poor external relations - there are various advocacy organizations which have information to share in wiki but fail to do things like post to talk pages, share images, and share sources. It is beyond usual wiki volunteer capacity to do office administration to interface with expert organizations. That kind of support has not been a priority of the WMF grantmaking strategy. Somehow - and not with WMF staff - the WMF needs to fund someone somewhere who can interface with the 20+ organizations who have expert content to share in Wikimedia projects.

I fail to recognize any other Wikimedia community goal in this space more important than the development of Wikimedia educational content. We are greatly bottlenecked by the complexity of this issue being beyond what is typical for Wiki community crowdsourcing and challenges accessing basic source content. It is not as if there are summary publications to choose from which could be a guideline for a wiki article on these individual topics.

I recognize that net neutrality and GDPR are different issues, but collectively these and other issues are "online community rights" and the popular global perception still groups all "computer" issues as related. We need to have clear information about all of these to make it easy for people to browse one issue to the others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• So, call the RfC: Suggest alternatives 1) black out or 2) banner with link to WMF statement and 3) 24 or 48 hour time limit. But someone with knowledge has to make the RfC proposal and advertise the question at CENT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note, the most impactful action is to direct people to https://changecopyright.org/ (or https://saveyourinternet.eu/ ) during business hours. Both are localised but SaveYourInternet has an English-only call system. An option for (2) would be a slim landing page on Meta-Wiki à la m:Freedom of Panorama in Europe in 2015 (to simplify translation) with links to either campaign website and select statements. The discussion could allow several levels of support, e.g. 0, 8 hours, 16 hours, 7 days. --Nemo 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I spoke with Julia Reda

(As with my last message, I am not here making a concrete proposal but passing along information as background preparation for any actual concrete proposal that we may consider.)

I spoke today with Julia Reda, MEP. As you may be aware, she is one of the key members of the European Parliament who has been fighting the good fight against Articles 11 and 13. I learned a few things from her which I think are relevant to our deliberations.

First, the vote will take place next Thursday, July 5th. This means that our time scale to let the community know quite widely that a proposal has been put forward so that it can be voted on by a meaningful portion of the community is quite short.

Second, she agreed with my estimation that without dramatic action from Wikipedia, this is very likely to pass. It is up to us.

Third, she pointed out that the vote on Thursday works in this way. A vote from parliament tomorrow of "yes" means that the law is fast-tracked and that's the end of it. We've lost. A vote from parliament tomorrow of "no" does not mean that it is killed - it is a vote that it should NOT be fast-tracked and there will be an opportunity for the entire European Parliament to debate the whole thing and for amendments to be put forward. Given the wide range of civil society groups and Internet luminaries who are opposed to it, this seems like something that needs to be done. But what it also means is that it is quite an easy "ask" even of MEPs who think that overall the bill is a good idea - we aren't asking them to help us kill the entire thing, but to open things up for a proper debate. (To date, there has been NO debate from the full parliament.)

The point of this third point is to day: we can win this, if we can make enough noise.

My evaluation here is that it is up to us (the multilingual Wikipedia communities of Europe) to win this - we are the only ones who can. And, we actually can win this - with millions of ordinary people calling their MEPs and blanket news coverage, we can have a big impact.

I further think that this is the right moment strategically. If the WMF sends representatives in to talk about the good of the commons and so on, not many people will listen if we are a powerless small nonprofit. But everyone will listen if they know that we not only claim to have the public on our side, we can actually demonstrate it with direct action.

My next call, in about an hour, is with Danny O'Brien, who is the International Director of the EFF.

I am also in touch with policy people from Reddit, who are also obviously concerned about this and interested in helping to shine more public light on the issue before it is too late.

And finally, I'm in touch with the heads of the WMF chapters to get their feedback and guidance about the situation in other languages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So an immediate banner in English seems like it would help, and, as I mention above, you and Katherine should maybe be holding press conferences, media interviews, press briefings all across Europe (maybe a meeting of like minded individuals for a press conference at the Wikipedia Memorial), etc. You are our only hope, Obi-Wan Jimboi. Thanks for your energy and caring. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and I am very much on emergency footing here and planning to do as much press as I can. I think more than that is necessary, and one problem with me doing press is that, despite living in the UK for 8 years and all, there can be a feeling in Europe of not wanting an American Internet Entrepreneur lecturing them. Hearing directly from our community, and directly from our readers, is a lot more powerful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Because of your creations and the internet prestige of Wikipedia I think you might be recognized more as an international citizen. Don't want to take up any more of your time, so thanks again and good luck this week. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposals for wording of a neutral banner

Time is short. We need proposals for a neutrally worded banner. I have added one possible below. Please make other suggestions. If we are to go forwards with this we need to have something ready by July 2nd to go live July 3rd. So this will be closed midday UTC on July 2nd. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yup. Pundit|utter 20:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is not an issue on which we can or should be neutral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Option 1

The second link would be to a page that lists options for engagement and further details. July 5th is just an initial vote and if successful a future vote will occur in the future. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

---

• Oppose per my comment below: this is not a neutrally-worded banner at all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, but suggest changing "of the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of" to "of the open Internet in general and Wikipedia in particular". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support we can not ignore this change Gnangarra 10:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This banner message is factually correct and it contains the relevant information to draw attention to the issue. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is factually correct text with a call to action. If we go for a banner, I would prefer this option. --dimi_z (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support A bit long winded, but accurate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Long winded, Needs to be short and to the point. –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Looks accurate enough. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - not neutrally-worded, therefore directly contravening the previous RfC's closure. GermanJoe (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - gets the message across. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Could perhaps be condensed, but good enough. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per my earlier comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The best one. Yann (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support a little long, but clearly put and accurate. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support GMG^talk 02:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 03:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment "Join the discussion as we decide what we should do." does not link to a discussion users can join. Instead, it is a link to a letter from WMF staff. The link text should be revised to reflect that the WMF has already established a policy position that is is encourage its users to advocate for. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support but also agree with Billhpike above. We don't need to discuss this. We need to post a strongly worded banner opposing a clear danger to Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• If the intent was to write a "neutrally worded" banner, this clearly fails, as it blatantly expresses an opinion with respect to the issue at hand. Mz7 (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support but not first choice. My gut feeling is that this pushes the reader too hard and he should rebel, though nowadays they seem to swallow just about anything if it has the right company's tag and font colors. Wnt (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support it is forceful and to the point. That's what we need. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• support as best option...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• support--مصعب (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support I do not think that Wikipedia should be neutral about a directive that threatens the freedom of speech and the survival of this community as a whole. David A (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I support wiki action on it. We aren't in a neutral position. It isn't neutrally phrased, but isn't a slam dunk option link like choice 2. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Needs some trimming for length and punchiness. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Kaldari (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: My first choice. It's factual, informative, and makes clear that there is a threat to Wikipedia. -- econterms (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• For brevity, can change to: "threaten to disrupt the functioning of Wikipedia and the open Internet." And change to "as we decide what to do". -- econterms (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• FYI to all who do not know the policy details: European parliamentarian Julia Reda, discussed above, addressed Wikimania in Mexico City and later visited my chapter in Washington DC and we had a substantial discussion in a large group. She's great on copyright issues -- an expert, not a partisan/extremist. She understood us and advocated specific changes to make things easier, like freedom-of-panorama and standardization of copyright across the EU. I trust her. She says the new change is bad. We cannot individually follow every detail, therefore we must trust and support each other through networks of people and organizations, and therefore I strongly support slowing down the new EU proposal and presumably stopping it. I have confidence that she and the others who know this issue are right about it. -- econterms (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary as of Noon UTC July 2nd: Oppose 5 (19%), Support 22 (81%) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I find this to be a better call to action than the others. It's not excessively long.- MrX 🖋 12:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As the most effective option. If not Option 1, then Option 2 and Option 3 over Option 4.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support (2nd choice) - — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Better than the others choices. Also puts in clear and plain language this can have adverse affects on Wikipedia. ContentEditman (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Although it's a bit long, it explains clearly what Wikimedia's opinion and suggested solution is. epicgenius (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It will raise (for good reason) questions about our ability to be neutral and out commitment to neutrality. It plays into the hands of those who do try to portray us as non neutral. Rules have to apply to everyone, and that includes Wikipedia itself, if we start to have political banners why cannot I have them emblazoned over my user page?.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I am opposed to all political banners as Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. I have worked here since 2006 under the impression that my contributions would not be used for personal crusades or political campaigning. I am not comfortable that after twelve years of work on Wikipedia that the sweat of my brow is to be used to influence due political process. That is not what I signed up for. As regards the proposed directive, Wikipedia is excluded: "Providers of services such as non-for-profit online encyclopaedias, non-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, non-for-profit open source software developing platforms, as well as internet access service providers, online marketplaces and providers of cloud services which allow users, including businesses for their internal purposes, to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive". We would be compromising our neutrality for nothing, and making fools of ourselves. SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  @SilkTork: All of our content is licensed for-profit as well as not-for-profit, so we are directly affected. Besides, the constellation of re-users would be damaged by this directive. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

We would not be directly impacted - the Foundation acknowledge that themselves in their recent statement. The Foundation's concern is in the general application of the proposed directive, which they view as restrictive. So, let's be clear, even the Foundation accept that Wikipedia would be exempt from the directive, but they wish to make a statement regarding general free-flow of information. If Wikipedia users who are voting on this issue are aware that they are voting not to protect Wikipedia, but to protect the right for websites other than Wikipedia to use copyrighted material without permission or payment, then we are cool. Given that we don't allow any material to be used here without the understanding that it can and will be used by other people for profit, so we in effect don't have copyrighted material, what content on Wikipedia do you feel another website would be restricted from using under the proposed directive? What I am seeing here is people voting yes to a political banner without even understanding what they are voting about. SilkTork (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Were does "the Foundation acknowledge" that we will not be directly impacted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support and agree with Guy Macon above. "We don't need to discuss this. We need to post a strongly worded banner opposing this as being a clear danger to Wikipedia." This is not a time for neutrality, imo, this is an existential threat we are addressing, 1 of several Wikipedia faces. Nocturnalnow (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not under threat. Wikipedia is exempt from the directive, and the Foundation in a recent statement acknowledge this. The Foundation are opposed to what they feel is the general restriction on free-flow of information. Those whose work websites are uploading without payment may feel differently. So what agreeing to this banner would be saying is: Ignore copyright laws - let websites upload what they like. I actually like that as I'm an old hippy. But we have copyright laws for a reason - it is to protect the work of those who make their living by writing. I respect that. And this directive aims to protect those writers. You should only support this banner if you feel it is OK for websites to take other people's work without acknowledgement or payment. SilkTork (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The NGO exception is only for art. 13 not art. 11 it appears. This would mean that we may have to pay to use references and create further reading sections. The art. 13 NGO exception would not apply to many who reuse our work. These websites would thus not be able to directly use us but would need upload filters on stuff they import from us. If you spend time working on copyright on Wikipedia you will quickly see the problem. Wikipedia articles fairly rapidly get included into fully copyright sources including textbooks and journal articles from the likes of Oxford University Press and Elsevier who occasionally claim copyright over it. It takes a fair bit of work to figure out who copied from whom in these situations.

I agree that one should not infringe on other peoples copyright, but fair use is important, and upload filters are not the solution for user generated content.

Additionally we do not "upload content for [our] own use". We upload content for the use of the entire world. Thus it is unclear if that exception even applies to us as we allow commercial reuse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong supportSadads (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Strong Oppose This wording is decidedly non-neutral. How can one possibly read words such as "threatened to disrupt the functioning of the open Internet" as neutral? A test of neutrality is whether a reader, unfamiliar with the underlying issues, nevertheless knows which side is preferred by the writer of the text. The use of "threatened", "disrupt", and "open" all lead the reader to be clear which side is preferred. While I'm not exactly thrilled with the wording of option three, as I'd like us to be as nonpolitical as possible, at least that wording is neutral enough to be acceptable. I'm disappointed to see so many people I respect choosing to support this wording. I haven't updated the math but both option one and option three had strong support. I would've hope that a closing admin would not simply close on the basis of numbers, but reflect the concerns for neutrality expressed by many participants. As a bit of a coincidence, I came here immediately after responding to an individual writing to us at OTRS asking how to write an article about their company. I explained that they shouldn't and emphasized the Wikipedia pillar of neutrality. If we support neutrality in articles we ought to support neutrality in banners.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Option 2

I'm fine with any option but I was thinking of a text along these lines. Four points:

1. stress that we're for democracy: the JURI committee passed some texts by just one vote, we're not accusing any political group but we think fair that the European Parliament has a full debate;
2. rather than make statements about specific dangers of the directive (there are too many to summarise), say what people should stand for and why we care (the reference is also to problems created for freely licensed content, public domain etc.);
3. mention creators, authors, creativity or something like that, to convey the message that this is not about pro-users vs. pro-authors (Wikipedia editors are authors too),
4. actually reference the only thing which matters i.e. calling the MEPs over the phone, probably via http://changecopyright.org/ (which can be linked in teh landing page if/when there's consensus).

Maybe an adjective like "problematic" is warranted before "new copyright directive", but I'm not sure it matters. --Nemo 21:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Rubber stamp" does not sound very "neutrally worded" at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  "Approve" would be equally fine. It's just hard to pick a verb which doesn't suggest the thing goes immediately into effect. It's a mandate for negotiations. --Nemo 07:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

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

---

• Oppose per my comment below: this is not a neutrally-worded banner at all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support we are not neutral, we are all going to be negatively impacted by ridiculous law changes that limit access to knowledge. Gnangarra 10:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• I am not at ease with this text. As much as I myself criticise the process, "rubber stamp" is in my mind not the right term to use. --dimi_z (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not neutrally worded; the result of the previous discussion was that the banner should be neutral if we have it at all. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not neutrally worded. –Davey2010^Talk 14:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - not neutrally-worded, therefore directly contravening the previous RfC's closure. GermanJoe (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - "rubber stamp" is a bit much. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per my earlier comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support (last choice) - "pass" would do much better than "rubber stamp", because it invites an "unless you do something!" afterward. But it's still better than nothing. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - "rubber stamp" seems too strong. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - as with others, rubber stamp is too strong, makes us come across as petulant and even if you wanted wiki to campaign would actually be counter-productive Nosebagbear (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Either this or #1 is fine with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as gratuitously insulting ("about to rubber stamp"). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary as of Noon UTC July 2nd: Oppose 10 (71%), Support 4 (29%) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I stopped reading at "rubber stamp".- MrX 🖋 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - "rubber stamp" adds a bit too much I think — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Rubber Stamp" comes off harsh/aggressive and does not seem to help others see this may affect Wikipedia clearly. ContentEditman (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is definitely not neutral. epicgenius

(talk) 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It will raise (for good reason) questions about our ability to be neutral and out commitment to neutrality. It plays into the hands of those who do try to portray us as non neutral. Rules have to apply to everyone, and that includes Wikipedia itself, if we start to have political banners why cannot I have them emblazoned over my user page?.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I am opposed to all political banners as Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. I have worked here since 2006 under the impression that my contributions would not be used for personal crusades or political campaigning. I am not comfortable that after twelve years of work on Wikipedia that the sweat of my brow is to be used to influence due political process. That is not what I signed up for. As regards the proposed directive, Wikipedia is excluded: "Providers of services such as non-for-profit online encyclopaedias, non-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, non-for-profit open source software developing platforms, as well as internet access service providers, online marketplaces and providers of cloud services which allow users, including businesses for their internal purposes, to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive". We would be compromising our neutrality for nothing, and making fools of ourselves. SilkTork (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Option 3

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

---

• Support Thanks User:Javert2113 agree that is an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Begrudging support, as a matter of course; after all, I did write this. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 05:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Needs a copyedit. Maybe: "On 5 July 2018, Members of the European Parliament vote on a new copyright directive. Make your voice heard. Join the discussion." TeraTIX 06:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks User:Teratix adjusted to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support if the neutrality aspect has to be adhered to. If the neutrality can be stretched a bit, maybe add "restrictive" before the word "new", and/or "which will affect Wikipedia" after "directive"? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Could add as option 4? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible, please do so if appropriate. Hopefully a banner of some form could be up by Monday, maybe with some kind of graphic added on the 3rd - 5th to draw more eyes to it (I'd guess most people x out many banners with just a quick review of the first few words). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support good work! Pundit|utter 16:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The linked article on the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is at best a weak start-class, and it would be inappropriate to direct users there. The article also has NPOV issues such as a lack of any mention of the benefits of harmonization. If we want this on the main page, the article on the directive should be improved and then go through the standard channels — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding my above comments, if there is a consensus to run a banner, I think this would be the best text. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support we must do something to oppose these changes, Gnangarra 10:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Second best option for text after the first one. --dimi_z (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Seems like the best option. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• If consensus is for a banner to pass, this might be the best option, but I think it's still too strongly worded for my taste. Perhaps it could do without the "make your voice be heard" statement? Even that statement doesn't seem very neutrally-worded at all, since it could interpreted to be a call to voice out a particular position. Or perhaps instead of "make your voice be heard, join the discussion", it could be rephrased to be something like "read to find out more"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the language is weak, I'd rather have a call to action in the banner, but it beats doing nothing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as best one here - Neutrally worded and short & to the point. –Davey2010^Talk 14:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, Better than nothing. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - as Pbsouthwood says its better than nothing, but as an uninformed reader I would have no real motivation to click that link since it says nothing about why I should care as a Wikipedia reader. Option 1 is a better choice. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support for a weak message. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per my earlier comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Better than nothing. Yann (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). It is a little understated, but it should pique the reader's curiosity. I mean, this isn't Facebook; you show readers something like that and they should wonder. I would have preferred to add some "with far-reaching effects" or something to spice it up just a little, but it is still good. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for a weak message. Not much point in making a message unless we indicate that it is a threat to Wikipedia. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• support as improvement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is needed, and I am embarrassed that I only started paying attention today. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is the most truly neutral phrasing, and those who want to raise awareness without advocating rightly support it. As one who feels the self-interest of wikipedia necessitates advocating, it must be oppose from my POV. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. Kaldari (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support since this is actually more neutral than the other two. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 12:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary as of Noon UTC July 2nd: Oppose 3 (15%), Support 17 (85%) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Omitting why this is important will reduce its effectiveness.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support since the phrasing is neutral and if the vote passes, it will inevitable destroy the internet, as we know it. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 19:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose To weak and does not draw attention that is truly needed. ContentEditman (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is a more neutral wording than any of the other options, and my second choice. Though if it came down to two choices, I would choose Option 1. epicgenius (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose whilst now not trying (overtly) to advocate for something it is still politicsing Wikipedia (and I think most of us know the real intent, including those who would use it to attack our (alleged) neutrality (especially given what it links to).Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I am opposed to all political banners as Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. I have worked here since 2006 under the impression that my contributions would not be used for personal crusades or political campaigning. I am not comfortable that after twelve years of work on Wikipedia that the sweat of my brow is to be used to influence due political process. That is not what I signed up for. As regards the proposed directive, Wikipedia is excluded: "Providers of services such as non-for-profit online encyclopaedias, non-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, non-for-profit open source software developing platforms, as well as internet access service providers, online marketplaces and providers of cloud services which allow users, including businesses for their internal purposes, to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive". We would be compromising our neutrality for nothing, and making fools of ourselves. SilkTork (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• SupportSadads (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as written (no addition of "restrictive"). S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Option 4: No Banner

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

---

• Support as proposer. Any banners on issues to be resolved through the political process undermine NPOV. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - How many times must the community reject such banners? At least not more than once per political event. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose putting our head in the sand will not be good, this issue will impact our ability to provide reliable sources and do so in a neutral way. Gnangarra 10:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose NPOV is a a valuable editorial guideline concerning the text of Wikipedia articles. It does not directly and fully apply to content outside the Wikipedia article realm. There might be a reaon for the Wikipedia community (and to WMF) to refrain from making political statements unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. However, this also does not apply here, as the article 11 and 13 of the proposed copyright directive. As it has been pointed out, both article 11 and 13 would undermine Wikipedia's ability to fulfill its mission. It is therefor acceptable and advisable for Wikipedians to make themselves heard before these rules are enacted. "No banner" is not a good choice of action, in my opinion. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - the issue needs to be highlighted. Renata (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Attempting to ignore the world around use or pretending that the provision of information is not a political act does not support our mission. We need a policy that we oppose laws and policies that threaten to disrupt the functioning of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• I am normally very weary of banners and prefer there would be less. Speaking about the legislative process, now is probably one of the better moments to run a banner. If we don't change the tides now (and it looks like it is going to be a toss-up vote) the text will be pretty much a done deal and only details could be changed later. --dimi_z (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comments elsewhere in the discussion. In the interest of disclosure, I am opposed to the contents of the directive itself and worried about its implications, but as I said, Wikipedia should generally refrain from involving itself in political affairs. In fact, while I don't want to invoke WP:OSE here, Wikipedia has seen different challenges before such as blocks in countries such as Turkey, but you didn't see the English Wikipedia putting up banners, even neutrally-worded ones, about that. With that said, I'm not opposed to discussion or banners in other Wikimedia sites such as Meta, but personally, this is a battle that should be kept off the encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The issue is very important and attention must be called to it. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have mixed feelings about what wording we're looking for, but I've read the discussion above and I agree a banner is needed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Opppose A banner is the bare minimum needed. I'd support everything and anything up to a blackout. Wikipedia should stay out of political affairs only to the extent that political affairs don't try to directly annihilate us. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Opppose It's absolutely legitimate for us to defend ourselves as proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously. –Davey2010^Talk 14:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is an issue that should be publicised. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mathias Schindler. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "[P]retending that the provision of information is not a political act does not support our mission" — exactly right. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I wholly agree that it is a political act, and that is the very reason we should not get involved; an encyclopedia should not be an advocacy group. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my earlier comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Whatever the text, but we need to speak up! Yann (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Voice need to be heard on important matter of such. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - yet another attempt to push through one of these political banners. Is this the new strategy? Propose something until people stop caring and you can push it through with minimal people commenting? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'll also add that the proposed legislation does not appear to threaten Wiki(m|p)edia's existence. Article 13 even provides an exemption for non-profits. I haven't had the time (nor will have the interest) to go through the proposed legislation line by line, however. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is an existential threat to the free Internet. We need to stand for our values and protect the free and open knowledge movement, as one of its key players. Pundit|utter 07:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: We should not ignore this clear threat to Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with the thought that WP:NPOV "does not directly and fully apply to content outside the Wikipedia article realm". It very much does, and I can explain why. Wikipedia's mission is nuanced. The spirit of NPOV is that we should give readers a place where they can find out what reliable sources have written about the proposed legislation in a way that allows the reader to decide for themselves what to believe without getting the feeling that Wikipedia's editorial community is trying to sway their viewpoint in a particular direction. This is also a part of Wikipedia's mission. Whenever we, in the voice of Wikipedia's editorial community, decide to publicly take a side in a dispute, we undermine our ability to remain neutral with respect to that dispute no matter how we write our article. If you are considering supporting a political banner, you had better be absolutely certain that it is worth abandoning this part of our mission for. Mz7 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia should generally be apolitical, but we have a right to defend ourselves, and this copyright directive could destroy Wikipedia as we know it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Installing censorware would be unacceptably abandoning our mission. Autotomizing everything in Europe is the more acceptable option, but still abandons a substantial chunk of the mission, and doesn't magically keep the news searches and sources we would like to cite from going away. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• oppose per Wnt--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm usually not a fan of political banners, but this is one case where we need to do something, and it's the kind of thing where it makes sense to have a statement on behalf of the entire community. (I'd even support a day of blackout.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - putting aside non-wiki interests, the copyright directives have been written so badly that even a focused exception fails miserably. NPOV should not be the answer when doing so threatens Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's OK to shun attemps to influence things happening in the world outside wikipedia, but not OK when there is an existential threat. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support Wikipedia's mission must never become corrupted by political advertising. Ever. No matter the cause. The SOPA blackout was before my time as an editor, but if I had been on WP then, I would have opposed it on similar grounds. Let that be the last time we make this mistake. Jakob (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia should not be partisan nor should it take political stances in general, but when it directly affects our core mission and principles, we have a duty to take a stand. If you value being appearing "non-political" over our core mission, why are you here? Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support and just because Jimmy is proposing it doesn’t make it any more bad that we keep discussing this until the people who oppose a banner give up. Enough with the politics. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: as the second-best choice. Simply because I agree to a heavily watered-down banner (which I drafted) does not mean I fully believe that a banner remains necessary. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Letting more people know about this important vote seems like a good idea, especially since it will likely effect Wikipedia and other free culture projects. Kaldari (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a genuinely important issue that very negatively affects all of us. David A (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is a top-ten web site. The others can take a stance, and we're the only not-for-profit, so our voice is unique. Potentially if we don't speak for ourselves, nobody defends the rules we need. We can stand for good institutions that enable good web sites with good rules. Copyright issues, and a few other things, are in our zone and we can speak out. -- econterms (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary as of Noon UTC July 2nd: Oppose 26 (84%), Support 5 (16%) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Banners are cheap and the directive is a threat to our mission and purpose. I've only read about half the discussion above and may have missed something, but I wonder why the WMF doesn't have a war chest for lobbying against such measures. - MrX 🖋 12:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a major piece of legislation that can affect not just those in the EU but also many outside the EU. To much to lose by not drawing the needed attention to it. ContentEditman (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we allow the EU vote to pass, then that defeats the entire purpose of this project, regardless of what your political opinions are. I think Wikipedia should display a banner so that people at least know about the vote, so they can support or oppose it or whatever. epicgenius (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support in principle per what I wrote above. I'm afraid it looks like there will be a banner, so I would just like to take this time to encourage my fellow Wikipedians to be far more cautious about using Wikipedia's platform as a means for advocacy in the future. Wikipedia's neutrality is one of its fundamental principles. It is not really something that's supposed to be negotiable or situational. Wikipedia should be a space where people can have the sides explained to them, rather than have someone telling them what they should believe. When the Wikipedia editorial community puts up a banner like this, we jeopardize this part of our mission for our readers. We can argue about whether this legislation poses a fatal threat to the project, but perhaps it is the Wikimedia Foundation's role to lobby governments on our behalf, and not the editorial community. I would honestly prefer it if the WMF Board of Trustees took a vote and decided by fiat to put up a banner, instead of having it come as a consensus of the editorial community. Simply put, it is anti-Wikipedia to come out as an editorial community and endorse political opinions in the way the editorial board of a newspaper might. It sets what I see as a dangerous precedent for more banners in the future. I hope I am wrong. Mz7 (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Pretty much per nom, if we get involved in this we are not (not just not being seen as) neutral. And any article we have on the subject will be seen n that light. That must (ultimately) affect the overall reputation of the project. If you want us to be taken seriously we must be apolitical.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I am opposed to all political banners as Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. I have worked here since 2006 under the impression that my contributions would not be used for personal crusades or political campaigning. I am not comfortable that after twelve years of work on Wikipedia that the sweat of my brow is to be used to influence due political process. That is not what I signed up for. As regards the proposed directive, Wikipedia is excluded: "Providers of services such as non-for-profit online encyclopaedias, non-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, non-for-profit open source software developing platforms, as well as internet access service providers, online marketplaces and providers of cloud services which allow users, including businesses for their internal purposes, to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive". We would be compromising our neutrality for nothing, and making fools of ourselves. SilkTork (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Discussion

• I don't know enough about this to draft any text but the current options have problems, mainly that there is no mention of any problem for Wikipedia. Option 1 suggests something will affect the internet and Wikipedia might express an opinion. Option 2 has far too much advocacy with no indication of a problem for Wikipedia. Unfortunately these will not get due consideration, particularly given the recent and poorly framed RfCs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• None of those banners tell me, presumably the person who would see them - what it is that I need to actually do - I'm not represented by anyone in the "European Parliament" - what am I supposed to do here? Is this intended to be a geo-notice? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Yes the plan is for a geo notice. The prior discussion leaned towards a banner that informs rather than directs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• As the previous discussion's closer, I'm hesitant about the wordings of either proposed option here. The proposal calls for a neutrally-worded banner, but neither option seems neutral to me as they still appear to be advocating for a position. If the WMF decides to put up a banner regardless of community consensus, there's nothing I can do on that part, but right now as it stands, neither banner is "neutral". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• No matter how reluctant I am to admit that a banner is needed, and, maybe, just maybe, one is, I cannot endorse the syntax of either banner: both seem to be non-neutral to me. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  User:Narutolovehinata5 and User:Javert2113 do you have any suggestions? Or can you explain which parts you see as non-neutral? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  Sure, Doctor. First, the non-neutral parts, as I see them: "These changes threaten to disrupt the functioning of the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of." While true, they can be seen as Wikipedia passing judgement on the proposed directive/legislation itself, which isn't neutral. Likewise, "Speak up now for creativity, free culture and an open Internet." seems to intimate that the bill's passage would lead to deleterious effects for creativity and free culture, which are both somewhat too intangible to be expressed so. (For instance, I could see graffiti protesting this law should it pass; would that not be creative?) Anyway, regarding alternatives, hmm. It's late, so I'll probably re-visit this in the morn, but...

How's that? —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and agree it is an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As for how neither proposed banner is neutrally-worded, one makes the claim that the directive will "disrupt the functioning of the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of", the other banner uses words like "rubber stamp" and "speak up now". Option 1 expresses a particular opinion, Option 2 requests making a stand. They seem pretty far from "neutrally-worded" to me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in both the net neutrality RfC and the previous EUP directive discussion, I'm opposed to a banner, even a neutrally-worded one, of any kind. Personally I myself have concerns about the implications of the directive, but Wikipedia, as a neutral website, shouldn't really involve itself in political affairs. Even the mere presence of a banner, even a neutrally-worded one, can be interpreted as Wikipedia taking a stand on an issue. With that said, if a banner has to be implemented (most likely by office action), it has to be carefully worded and ideally should link to a website that only shows facts and does not advocate a certain position (so no SaveYourInternet.eu). But in any case, I still am unconvinced that we need a banner on the main site. There are other alternate venues, such as social media and the Wikimedia Foundation's own website, where the WMF position can be stressed, but Wikipedia itself may not be the right place for this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking the stand that people should be informed, is at a level a political position, as of course some believe that people should not have the opportunity to be informed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• The 'action call' on this is to join the discussion - but going there doesn't show a discussion, its talk page is pretty much empty as well. Are you expecting people to just put comments on the associated talk page? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes that page still needs a fair bit of development. I encourage people to join in improving it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved some discussion to Meta-Wiki

Please see

• meta:EU policy/2018 European Parliament vote

and subpages

• meta:EU policy
• :meta:Talk:EU_policy

Meta-Wiki is the place for cross-wiki discussions, including discussions among Wikipedias of different languages and the various Wikimedia projects like Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. I moved the discussion about potential banner text on English Wikipedia to there because the proposed banner is a multi-lingual, global issue.

Community organization is hard and it is very challenging for the Wikimedia community of volunteers to respond to complicated government policy proposals very quickly. The rumor in circulation is that the proposed policy is an existential threat to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects as it exists now. I as a Wikimedia community member am unable to evaluate this claim but I see urgent messages

• Wikimedia Foundation board is in opposition - Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Statement Opposing the EU Copyright Package
• Wikimedia Foundation itself state opposition through general counsel - How the EU copyright proposal will hurt the web and Wikipedia
• Wikimedia Foundation policy experts state opposition - Time is running out to defend user rights online

I recognize that the English Wikipedia community historically tries to stay neutral about most legal controversies and I think that is for the best. Despite all these statements I am unclear on what is happening here, but if I am reading this correctly, the lawyers and experts in the Wikimedia Foundation are in great fear of disruption in publishing and presenting Wikimedia projects.

I expect that the Wikimedia community can always protest and oppose direct threats to the existence of Wikipedia. An easy political position for us to take is that no law can threaten the fundamental existence and operation of Wikipedia. If this is what is at stake then banners on English Wikipedia or anywhere else seem fine. Since this seems like a multi-national, global issue then discussing this on Meta-Wiki seems best so I moved the text and some discussion there.

I wish that this matter was easy to identify as "direct existential threat to Wikipedia with no ambiguity". That is what I am reading out of this. If anyone has doubts then please raise them. I presume that if this is such a threat then everyone would support opposition. We are all in agreement here that no law or policy is good if it directly attacks the existence of Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the copyright directive would do to Wikipedia. All of the WMF's posts on this have been terribly uninformative. I'd like for someone at the WMF to write up something like a "day after" plan, for what Wikimedia would likely do in the immediate aftermath of the passing of this law, which would help people determine what we're dealing with here. (If the answer is "nothing, this doesn't directly affect us in any way", that would also be informative. --Yair rand (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The day after would probably look very similar today. I think the big concerns are "what ifs", not "for certains". That said, I too would like to see more information on what the expected effects would be. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)'

Well the next vote on July 5th in the EU is about if the entire parliament should discuss and vote on the directive or just accept the conclusions of a small committee. Raising awareness will hopefully allow further discussion of what the effects of this directive will be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass ping: Neutral banner

@Adam9007, Alanscottwalker, Ammarpad, Bellezzasolo, Beyond My Ken, Bluerasberry, Carwil, Chetsford, Chris troutman, Daß Wölf, Doctorow, Doktorbuk, Double sharp, EllenCT, Epicgenius, Finnusertop, Galobtter, GenQuest, Grin, Guy Macon, Hawkeye7, HiLo48, InsaneHacker, Insertcleverphrasehere, Jimbo Wales, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Joe Roe: @John Cummings, Joshualouie711, Justlettersandnumbers, Khajidha, Kudpung, Kusma, L235, Masem, Mike Linksvayer, Natureium, Nocturnalnow, Nyttend, Only in death, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Power~enwiki, Sadads, Sandstein, SilkTork, Slatersteven, Sphilbrick, TheDJ, TonyBallioni, Trovatore, Winged Blades of Godric, Winner 42, Wnt, Wumbolo, Yair rand, and Yann: Pinging previous participants who have not yet participated here. Apologies for any missed, redundant, or unwanted pings. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Preceding exceeded 50. Retrying the excess. @Winged Blades of Godric, Winner 42, Wnt, Wumbolo, Yair rand, and Yann: Pinging previous participants who have not yet participated here. Apologies for any missed, redundant, or unwanted pings. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: FYI, I didn't get this ping. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@L235: Thanks for the feedback. I had received a system-generated notification reading: "You tried to mention more than 50 users. All mentions above that limit were not sent." That didn't give me a warm fuzzy but I had to assume that all "mentions" below that limit were sent or risk sending 50 notifications twice. On the strength of your comment I'm now going to retry the 50; if none of those editors report that they received the first one I'll take the issue to WP:VPT. Notifications have become too important to tolerate fixable bugs and false feedback. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adam9007, Alanscottwalker, Ammarpad, Bellezzasolo, Beyond My Ken, Bluerasberry, Carwil, Chetsford, Chris troutman, Daß Wölf, Doctorow, Doktorbuk, Double sharp, EllenCT, Epicgenius, Finnusertop, Galobtter, GenQuest, Grin, Guy Macon, Hawkeye7, HiLo48, InsaneHacker, Insertcleverphrasehere, Jimbo Wales, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Joe Roe: @John Cummings, Joshualouie711, Justlettersandnumbers, Khajidha, Kudpung, Kusma, L235, Masem, Mike Linksvayer, Natureium, Nocturnalnow, Nyttend, Only in death, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Power~enwiki, Sadads, Sandstein, SilkTork, Slatersteven, Sphilbrick, TheDJ, TonyBallioni, and Trovatore: Pinging previous participants who have not yet participated here. Apologies for any missed, redundant, or unwanted pings. To help resolve a technical question regarding pings, please also respond if you received a similar ping on 30 June (it should still be in your notifications history, accessible via the bell icon). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a confusing message. Am I supposed to reply here? I got the ping. Didn't get one on 30 June. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Thanks for the response, although it was unnecessary if you didn't get the 30 June ping (per the confusing message). The ping had a dual purpose: increasing participation in the neutral banner question, and trying to resolve the tech issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I only got the second ping, and was going to consider the proposals before chiming in, but the discussion closed before I did – which doesn't matter, as I fully respect the consensus that resulted. (I happen to agree with it, as I would support option 1 and oppose the others myself, but I would of course respect it regardless of whether or not I happened to agree with it.) Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Likewise on both counts. I only got the second ping. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The tech issue is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Pinging over 50. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Further statements from the WMF on June 29

• Here
• And one from the board of the WMF here

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For those who want to help this effort, the better our article on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is the better the chances that the politicians will make a decision that doesn't harm Wikipedia. Staffers, constituents, and sometimes the politicians themselves often turn to Wikipedia for information on an upcoming vote. If we can also create/improve similar articles in French, German, etc. on those Wikipedias, all the better. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• That statement lends itself to a better banner than any of the options above. Removing some commas and changing "the proposed directive" for clarity:

I rather like that one. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Could it be tweaked to remove the ambiguity? Right now it could mean that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees stands on the side of the people in Europe or it could be asking the European Parliament and Council to stand on the side of the people in Europe. Other than that, I like it. I like it a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I also very much like this version. We're getting short on time. Is anyone going to turn this into an RfC so we can get consensus, or what are we planning? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We have people voting above on 4 proposals. This is slated to close at noon UTC which is slightly less than three hours from now. A little rushed I agree but to be effective needs to go live on the 3rd. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Italian banner went live today

Can be seen HERE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

And the other languages? XOR'easter (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Italian has replaced banner with press release and obscured all Wikipedia Italian pages. - see here [6]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the English text of the Italian blackout notice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And this BBC news article shows that such action is effective in spreading our message. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Spanish press release went live today

Here is the English text of the Spanish blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Latvian press release went live today

Here is the the English text of the Latvian blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Estonian press release went live today

Here is the the English text of the Estonian blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary as of noon UTC July 2nd 2018

There is strong numerical consensus for banner option 1 and 3. And consensus against "no banner" and option 2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and if this is being voted on in three days, why is a banner (any banner; some banner; all banners) not already live? - MrX 🖋 12:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that 1 of the supports for Option 1 said that they preferred Option 3 (Wnt), while there were 7 supports of Option 3 that were either weak supports or said they preferred Option 1 (dimi_z, Headbomb, Pbsouthwood, Ahecht, XOR'easter, Yann, and Kaldari). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that while both options 1 and 3 gained significant support, option 1 has the most support of the two. We should implement this soon, or this whole discussion will be moot. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Will be going live on July 3rd per my understanding. Folks at the WMF have agreed to take care of the technical aspects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No, there is not. We just had this discussion. Three times. It would be silly for everyone to specifically say yet again that they oppose political banners every single time. And the idea that "no banner" is an equivalent option needing equivalent consensus in favor of "no action" is incorrect. --Yair rand (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A few things. 1) More has become known since the last discussion. 2) The last discussion was "no consensus" not outright opposition 3) It left "open the possibility towards proposing a neutrally-worded banner" which is what we have been discussing here and which is what has gained consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Tbh, I suspect that we've somehow become less-informed since the previous discussion, including some people seeming to think that the passing of this would mean that the project would be killed outright. (If they're right, please say so as soon as possible.) Most or all of us are running completely blind here, and we're talking about going into a major political action, in a discussion that discounts almost everyone who has commented on the proposal because a mostly-irrelevant detail was changed after everyone got tired of having the discussion restart. Many individuals who participated in the previous three discussions made it completely clear that they oppose political banners. Discounting those because they did not keep coming to vote again and again is really unfair. As you'll notice, almost all who participated even in the most recent discussion did not participate in this one.

Whether there's consensus is something for the closer of this discussion to try and figure out, but regarding the issue itself... @Doc James, I'd consider you to be a trustworthy source of information here, and you were presumably at the WMF board meeting on this topic last week, and likely received some details regarding what there is to worry about. Are you personally sure that there's a risk of this directive would really harm Wikipedia in a substantial way? If you can vouch for that, I'll take your word for it. --Yair rand (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Yair rand we have an excellent legal team at the WMF who have raised significant concerns about the proposed legislation. [7] I was at the meeting in question. We also have a bunch of other organizations I highly respect including Creative Commons and Internet Archives who strongly opposed.

Wikipedia functions within a wider open movement. This proposal I do believe has significant potential to harm not only Wikipedia but the entire movement we function within. As another example github shares open code but also is a commercial plateform. Well we may get exceptions to parts of the legislation others we rely on do not.

I would not describe this as a "major political action". Blacking out Wikipedia for a day would be that. This is simple a proposal for a fairly bland banner, present for a day, asking people to inform themselves. A fair number are requesting we do more than this but that currently lacks consensus. Also this is a push to have the entire parliament consider this legislation rather than just a small part of the partliament. Whether you support or oppose the underlying ideas in the directive getting copyright law correct is critical.

Italian Wikipedia has done more today and is currently "blacked out"[8]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Have you looked at the banner? It links to an external advocacy website with a giant "CALL NOW" button, asking all users to phone their MEPs. (Linking from a CentralNotice to an external website is, incidentally, in violation of CentralNotice policy.) This is not what users above were discussing, and I don't think it's fair to say that this is just "asking people to inform themselves".

(Thank you for the information on the directive, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(Also, it appears to be scheduled for 44 hours, not just a day.) --Yair rand (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean the link to Mozilla.org to help people reach out to their MP's? That was used in a number of language banners I think. I imagine legal at the WMF okay-ed that link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opinionated regarding what should be done for this particular situation, but I'm concerned with the process. If it is desirable to have a community consensus because it is a "much more powerful message when coming from the community", then for better or worse, sufficient time must be given to allow the community as a whole to participate (consensus requires patience). Even under ideal circumstances, it takes time to build a real consensus, and it's worse with English Wikipedia, where a) the group of persons who participate in such discussions are only a small fraction of the entire community, and likely not representative, and b) there is insufficient alignment of purpose amongst its editors for a decision to be reached quickly. To say that a message is coming from the community based on maybe a couple dozen voices weakens the message, in my view. I appreciate the time-sensitive nature of the intended message, but the fact that a vote was coming (even if the exact date was not known) is not a surprise. To be asked to make a decision like this in a few days feels like brinksmanship, and it's not a pleasant feeling.

Also, to be honest, a simple banner feels like a mismatch with the community's skill set (though I understand the outreach goal of the banner and its importance to try to influence the vote). If the community's forte is compiling information and editing it into a cohesive narrative, then a way to deploy these skills in support of this issue could serve both readers and those seeking to safeguard an online knowledge-sharing ecosystem, while at the same time showcasing the strengths of fostering this ecosystem. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I was very surprised when I saw the ComCom email about the banner because it was my impression that a banner proposal was dead. Though I strongly support the banner, I share isaacl's concerns about the process by which the banner was authorized. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• What are we waiting for? Option 1 has the most support at the moment, and it is time to go. Unless this is implemented in the next 12 hours or so, there won't have been much point in having the discussion in the first place. @Doc James: what happened to July 3rd? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Insertcleverphrasehere: It's already been implemented for any logged-out users in Europe. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The other view

The directive aims to protect those who earn their money by creating text or other material, by limiting the ability of websites to upload their material without payment or acknowledgement. Not for profit online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia are exempt from the directive. By supporting this banner you are supporting the notion that other websites (not Wikipedia as it is exempt) may steal other people's work.

There is, of course, a petition in support of the directive. Don't be mislead. Look into the issues yourself. And if we are to have a political banner, I would prefer we had one in support of the directive, not against it, as while I enjoy the idea of everything being for free, I recognise that a lot of people make their living from making music, writing text, taking photographs, etc, and we shouldn't be campaigning to allow websites to steal from them.

The other petition: Makeinternetfair. SilkTork (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Extract:

We, creators from all artistic fields and from all over Europe, call on you, EU decision makers, to put a stop to the funneling of value away from the creators to a number of online platforms.

You have rightly acknowledged that user uploaded content (UUC) platforms are now the main point of access to our works online, but unacceptably do not, or only barely remunerate us for their exploitation. The viability of cultural and creative industries, which create significant growth and jobs for the EU economy, is threatened by this transfer of value.

We want an environment that fosters growth for new and legitimate businesses, including UUC platforms, while providing legal certainty for consumers, and ensuring that this is paired with appropriate remuneration for creators. UUC platforms have built their businesses on people’s desire to access and share our works, and should not put the burden of liability on consumers or creators.

The current situation is a race to the bottom that drives down the respect for and value of creative works. We depend on copyright/authors’ right as this is our pay and the only leverage we have to negotiate fair remuneration for our works.

The forthcoming legislation on copyright is your opportunity to stop these freeriding platforms.

We therefore call on you to:

clarify that UUC platforms like YouTube are involved in reproducing and making our works available under copyright laws; ensure that the safe harbour non-liability regime does not apply to them as it is meant for technical intermediaries only.

The European Commission’s fair and balanced approach on this issue was a step in the right direction. We count on the European Parliament and the European Council to build on and further develop the solution proposed by the Commission to ensure a sustainable environment for all.

There are two sides to this story. SilkTork (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

NGOs like Wikipedia may have some exceptions but are not exempt to the entire package of changes.

Saying that Wikipedia may "steal other people's work" is not accurate. We do get take-down notices, most of which are unfounded.

Those supporting this are not looking for "acknowledgement". That would be an easy and supported request by all here.

The vote that is coming on July 5th, 2018 is NOT about whether to approve or reject this legislation, it is about whether or not the ENTIRE parliament should consider what is being proposed to make sure it is clear, unambiguous, and fair. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

WMF has taken action / Banner went live

Screenshot of the banner from a German IP address

As pointed out above in the previous section on the banner [9], WMF has enabled a banner for en.wiki in European countries as seen here meta:Special:CentralNotice. I think that makes any further discussion on banners unnecessary. --Masem (t) 13:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As noted in the other discussion above, a banner was added as meta:Special:CentralNotice by WMF staffer User:Seddon (WMF):. Different verbiage was selected, with about 90% of the banner linking to changecopyright.org. As Doc James mentioned, you can see what it looks like by following this link.

It is targeting viewers in the following countries: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. This banner is currently set to expire on 2018-07-04 23:59. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I added a screenshot to this section. Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I was pleasantly surprised to see this banner when I logged on just now, but I think it came a bit late given that it is 4 July now. Adam9007 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot archive all article talk page sections unchanged for five years

Several years ago I proposed something like this here, and was told by one of the regulars (in a frankly patronising manner) that there was no need to worry about this, as in a matter of months if not weeks the old talkpages would be swept away by the new social media-style set-up, Wikipedia:Flow. Well, here we all are, and the average less-frequented talk page still goes back to say 2006. So once again I propose we set up a bot that auto-archives all article talk page sections that have not changed for 5 years (or 7, or 3, whatever). Few of the ancient points are still at all relevant, and the pages give a very bad impression - often referring to a totally different text. I'd imagine this is fairly easy to get set up, if the support is there. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

social media didn't replace talk pages. Pros and cons with proposal. Archiving makes information discovery harder, finding unknown unknowns. Posts are dated so no chance of old threads being mistaken for new and they can contain FAQs and other still-relevant material. They can also contain outdated information and embarrassing comments from early career days. In balance I would weigh on keeping data as open and accessible as is practical ie. not archiving except for constraints of size or frequency. -- GreenC 00:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

On highly-viewed or well run talk pages old threads are archived long before this, but on neglected ones they just sit there forever. There is every chance of "old threads being mistaken for new" - I not infrequently see people "replying" to random comments over 10 years old, clearly without realizing this. Many inexperienced users assume the newest posts are at the top. Actual FAQ sections should of course not be affected. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how this would help anything. Edits rearranging talk pages, however minor, makes tracing history harder. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a problem on articles where the talk page is actually active. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Rather, it's that on those talk pages, the benefits of archiving are considered to weigh up against the downsides; on inactive talk pages, the benefits of archiving are significantly lesser and do imho not weigh up. While yes, inexperienced users (as well as folks just not paying attention) may occasionally mistakenly respond to a really old comment, they likely were already looking to post something on the talk page. People, especially new editors, generally only visit the talkpage to either use it or see if something's been said about a particular subject. In effect, it doesn't matter particularly much whether their response is to a decade-old comment or on a freshly archived talk page: when a talk page hasn't received edits in five years, it's close to a given that unless attention is attracted to said talkpage comment by other means (e.g. helpdesk or teahouse, or by means of the editor committing problematic edits resulting in heightened scrutiny on all their edits) no one is going to respond either way. If the talk page has received more recent edits, it's just particular sections that haven't, it's likely to be on people's watchlists and much like folks are perfectly capable of handling new editors who respond on the wrong part of a user talk page, they're perfectly capable of handling new editors responding in the wrong section of an article talk page. (And if it isn't on people's watchlists, much the same goes as for the fully-dead talkpages: it wouldn't matter whether they respond in the right or wrong section when no one's around to reply anyway) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• I really don't see the problem with talk pages containing old posts. Ideally, we would want to have all the past discussions clearly visible on one page, and noramlly archiving enters the picture only when that page starts getting too long. I don't think we should be fragmenting the history and making it more difficult to access past discussions unless there are clear benefits and they outweigh the risks. I don't know how common it is for new users to reply to old posts mistakenly taking them to be still relevant, I can't recall seeing that happen. I do recall seeing new users make proposals that have been rejected before simply because they haven't learned about the archives, and I've seen editors mess up the templates so the link to the archives disappears witout anyone noticing for years. – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Really, do any of you ever look at unarchived talk pages? They are very very rarely worth reading at all beyond 3 years back, and give a pretty bad impression to the uninitiated. Typically there are complaints from c. 2006 about basic failings that were no doubt justified at the time, but are now completely irrelevant. If any good point is raised and a discussion started, that is liable to get archived anyway. A properly-written bot would get the edits right. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Almost all of the article talk pages I look at are unarchived. If there are old posts on a talk page that an editor deems distracting, they can always set up the archive themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• On less active topics, old posts are often very relevant. See Talk:Tirana for example, which has never been archived, and is currently at 32,160 bytes (not too large). See Talk:Tirana#About the name! which still ought to be of interest to current editors. Someone started that thread in 2005, and there is a new (apt) contribution from 2008. Also Talk:Tirana#Tirana or Tiranë. It's a perennial proposal to change Albanian cities to the indefinite form (ë instead of a) and that talk thread is quite germane. It was started in 2007 and there is a later contribution from 2009. Under the above mass-archiving proposal, both of these useful threads would be sent away into Archive 1. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, unless saved, before or after archiving, by someone adding some comment now (like "Best not archived"). Or by making/adding to an FAQ header. Incidentally the top section here illustrates one of my points: a post from 2003 is replied to in 2005 and then in 2012, probably without the last poster realizing he is talking to departed users. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Good idea. I see new editors getting confused by really old talk page messages. IMO archive everything older than 3 years maybe (keeping at least two of the most recent posts). Put a link to the archive at the top of the page with the ability to search said archive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Weaker Oppose especially if you mean all kinds of talk pages (not just ns:1) without someone doing some database diving this sounds like a recipe to create possibly millions of pages. For example File talk:'The Morning of Sedgemoor' by Edgar Bundy, Tate Britain.JPG - what is the benefit to anyone of creating a sub page, copy-pasting this content, and creating an archive header? Any busy talk page can already request archiving. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • More examples from random talk-spaces: MediaWiki talk:1movedto2, Template talk:00sboxBC, Help talk:A Day in the Life, Category talk:0 BC births, Portal talk:1950s, TimedText talk:Velar nasal.ogg. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually I only meant article talk pages, & have amended at top to clarify. The talk pages of the types you mention normally so rarely have anything at all I agree it's not worth it. And when they do it is more likely to have lasting relevance. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, weaker oppose - but would still want to see some numbers (and we would never approve a BRFA that can't estimate the load - and if it would be 100,000+ pages it will need a LOT of consensus). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd see this as something that only needs to run say annually or bi-annually, and is obviously not urgent, so could be broken down into manageable chunks. I'd like to see some figures too, but I'm afraid I've no idea where/how to get them. Anyone? Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense to me. Old talk page messages could be confusing (though I'm wondering if this would be restricted to a specific namespace or not), so this sounds like a good idea. SemiHypercube (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Solutions looking for a problem - If you see an unarchived talkpage → Add this to it = Problem solved. –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't; at all. In fact the default 90-day archiving is part of a rather different problem, giving us a bunch of talk pages with 60 or 70 archives that contain almost nothing. Of course the page you link to is entirely incomprehensible to those not professional or keen amateur IT people, and I suspect to quite a few who are. You don't "just add" that at all - it seems you have to go off to a choice of other incomprehensible pages (selected how?) and do something or other there. Then it will archive far more frequently than is usually desirable, annoying User:GreenC, Johnuniq, and others above, as well as me - I don't usually like to see anything more recent than about 9 months archived. These are the reasons such auto-archiving is rarely found, and sometimes removed when it has been added. If there was a simple template for a one-off archive of sections unaltered for over x years then yes, that would go about 10% of the way to solving the problem. But apparently there isn't. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So then people can change the day can't they?..... it's not rocket science and we shouldn't be treating people like they're thick nor should we be spoon feeding them, "You don't "just add" that at all" - Well .... you do .... you copy and paste it = problem solved, Well if you dislike seeing anything over 9 months you're more than welcome to use WP:1CA, Again I feel this is a solution looking for a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That only does a section at a time, and "due to Technical 13's indefinite ban, it is currently unmaintained". Not the same at all. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Try the similar tool by Sigma: User:Σ/Testing facility/Archiver. --Izno (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - that looks like about 15% of what I'd like. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well doing a section at a time hardly takes up a lot of time does it ? .... But now that issue's been resolved I'm still seeing no reason for this.... –Davey2010^Talk

• Oppose per Ed. If there's barely anything happening on a page, it's nice to have context. Do people sometimes ignore or miss the dates, and necropost? Sure. Does it really matter at all? No. Not sure what the harm is in having someone try to comment on an old post; if folks are watching, it'll get replies, and if people aren't watching, then no harm done! Don't see any gain or benefit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Based on my experience – which I readily grant is not everyone else's experience, but which is also sufficient to not be dismissed with a "Really, do any of you ever look at unarchived talk pages?", eh? – I would have qualms about an automated implementation of across-the-board archiving.
  Yes, I do see very infrequent instances of less-experienced editors posting replies to talk pages without realizing that they are adding to threads which have been quiet for years. More frequently, however, I see less-experienced editors creating redundant new threads on talk pages, dealing with issues that were talked to death in threads already archived. Out of sight is out of mind. If we are attempting to protect newbies (and not-so-newbies) from confusion and wasted effort caused by old talk pages remaining visible, we cannot discount the confusion and wasted effort suffered by newbies (and not-so-newbies) who don't know there's another layer of extra-buried talk pages behind the regular talk page.
  Speaking anecdotally, I know that less than 24 hours ago I made improvements to an article driven by fresh comments in a talk page thread last edited in 2013. Infrequently-edited talk pages are often associated with infrequently-edited articles; issues that existed five years ago can and do linger unresolved.
  Consequently, a blanket imposition of automated archiving is problematic. If a talk page isn't desperately cumbersome, 'cosmetic' archiving provides little benefit. Manual or semi-automated archiving (where the talk page's and article's editors determine acceptable thread counts, talk page sizes, and so forth, within reason) is much less likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and helps to retain a talk page's focus. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Talk page threads, if closed/handled, give users a glimpse in how the article reached its current status: reading a discussion on why a certain section is written in a certain way is much easier than digging the history. If not handled, discussions may be relevant for many years to come: there is no deadline and I often find useful suggestions which are 5 or even 10 years old. Age is not a predictor of usefulness. --Nemo 14:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• oppose The only reason, ever, to archive talk pages is because they have become unmanageably long. Simply archiving them because they are old hides useful information. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes User:Mangoe agree that is the main problem. Maybe just auto archive the ones that are too long. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support There's a lot of lesser-watched pages on my watchlist that get comments on threads that are several years old. Timestamps do not fix basic stupidity or ignorance of WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no problem to be solved here; none was even expressed. And in certain articles it would do harm. North8000 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you misssed "Few of the ancient points are still at all relevant, and the pages give a very bad impression - often referring to a totally different text", expanded on by various people above. Our talk pages are so full of crap it discourages people from looking at them or using them; we can at least get rid of the really old crap, which is either the usual nonsense, or if there is a valid point, it will almost always have been fixed many years ago. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose archiving talk pages for any reason other than the one expressed in the lead sentence of Help:Archiving a talk page: "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large." Lightly used talk pages should never be archived, especially if such pages contain discussions crucial to the substance of the article's content or if there are past exchanges regarding WP:Requested moves.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I cannot see the use of this, quite frankly. I follow several articles and talk pages that are long enough, chronologically, to be archived should this proposal pass, but they're simply not long enough in terms of length; archiving for archiving's sake is rather unnecessary, I believe. And there's really no issue here that requires a resolution; moreover, I believe this idea, if implemented, might substantially degrade the rate of usage of talk pages. I mean, to drop the high-falutin' talk for a second, let's be real: if Alex Q. Public saw an empty talk page (with archives and whatever) for article Orange, do you think they would add to it? No: it's hard being the person who speaks up, more so when an empty page exists. I rest my case. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't think there's a pressing need to archive *every* talk page on Wikipedia. Generally, if I come across an old Talk page with lots of old comments, I'll manually archive it or set up an archive bot. It's a bit of a hobby of mine. I think that is sufficient for dealing with the rare page that has gone too large without archiving. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Odds are that a talk page that hasn't been archived in five years is talking about issues that nobody has settled in five years. It seems excessively optimistic to imagine that there are gnomes running around fixing problems on a mainspace page without dumping some manner of poo on the talk page in sufficient quantity to have forced an archive. Wnt (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most of the time it's going to be appropriate, but it's not worth those few times that a thread does pick back up after several years, or those times when an older thread provides important context on little-watched pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Not a good idea. See the first section of Talk:Edward Smith-Stanley, 12th Earl of Derby, which began in 2012 and has just been resumed. Yes, this is an unusual situation, but "do X in all situations" is appropriate only if X will never be problematic, or if doing X is a significant improvement and it's worth a few problems. This isn't a significant benefit: if you ignore talk pages with banners only, most of our article talk pages have had only a tiny number of comments, and archiving would be confusing. One week ago, this is what Smith-Stanley's talk page looked like. Even if the issue had gotten resolved in 2012, why archive? It's just one discussion, and you'd be creating a separate archive page for it. I just now hit "Random article" until I found one with a talk page comment, Talk:Quantum mirage. Is it a good idea to have a bot create an archive for pages with this history? This one's exceptional, with no datestamp, but if that post had been properly signed, it wouldn't affect my argument. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don’t really agree that the reasons suggested for auto archiving are pressing enough for it to be done. Aiken D 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Website allows users to place any number of Wikipedia articles on timelines

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

---

With minimal effort, this website allows anyone to create attractive and interactive timelines out of any Wikipedia articles.

http://wikitimelines.net

Thanks Jeffrey Roehl <email address redacted> Jroehl (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

When I click the link, I get nothing (using Firefox 60.0.2), so I assume this is spam of some kind? Matt Deres (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

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

This is not spam. We love Wikipedia (who doesn't?)

We have not tested any other browser but Chrome at wikitimelines.net.

We are just trying to see if there is any interest in this sort of thing.

We will write a proposal if there is.

Thanks Jeff Jroehl (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a great socialistic project for all the people. Therefore, you will find the best reception using the non-profit people's browser, Firefox. Chrome is something I think of catching from a drive-by download like a computer virus, though I suspect Google Update uses more system resources than the average virus... Wnt (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove the perennial suggestions section

In my opinion, the perennial suggestions section is useless. What if the community's opinion changes over time? Instead their opinions are censored to a box. The perennial section needs to go. Axumbasra (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is censored, however, it does help cut down pointless, hopeless discussions before they happen. New person comes in, they don't know that RFA reform has been talked to death. This is where they learn it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb; the perennial box lets people know a subject has been done multiple times already. If the person reviving an old conversation has new information or some other reason to believe the situation has changed since the last edition, they should explain that reasoning in their post. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 12:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia: Village pump (proposals) does have a note saying "Check to see whether your idea has already been discussed at perennial proposals" so it might be an idea to look there for newcomers to the Village pump. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• I see keeping it as helpful. On top of reducing unintentional rehasing of old arguments, someone who wants to make a new case can look up why it was previously rejected and use that info to create a new proposal that addresses the previous objections.--76.65.41.59 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Autowelcome new registrants

• Newcomers need a few reading links before they begin editing, and definitely before they begin creating articles or drafts. AfC provides too many reading links, and is geared towards someone already committed to writing a new topic. The welcome template reading links will catch many of them before they commit to an ill-advised topic. Too many newcomers' talk pages are created by speedy deletion notices or AfC decline notices.

It's a very old perenial proposal, but I can't find anything in any archive that provides a good reason to not do it.

Perenail proposal links are:

• Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Use_a_bot_to_welcome_new_users & Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Frequently_denied_bots#Bots_to_welcome_users

The reasons sound as if they have been unreviewed for about six year.

Responses to the reasons for previous reject:

• 1. If bot-weloming is cold and impersonal, then being completely ignored is absolutely shilling.
• 2. Vandals can be exposed by a red user_talk link? True, but primitive, and the technique still works by looking at the color of the user link.
• 3. An estimate 1000 welcomes for every non vandal that edits? This is a WP:PERFORMANCE objection, and it reveals a lack of value for the registration process. It is not trivial to register, stuff to read, having to find a likeable never-used username, auto-welcome is far less an expenditure for the project than for the registrants.

• Hostbot? Run by User:Jtmorgan, good, but, the welcome givne has zero reading links, too few. I see from a look at a few authors of new drafts that it is not catching many authors. Looking at new authors, it is common for the registrant to make their first edit, a draft page creation, a few hours after registering. I think for them, the welcome links would help and not hurt. It is also common for new registrants to wait a long time before their first edit, in which case Hostbot misses them.

There is an interesting discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_3#Response_of_New_Editors_to_a_Welcome (August 2012)

• I agree with User:Berean Hunter 21:08, 26 August 2012 "The real purpose of the welcome is about getting them off to a good start with some links".
  Welcomes are for giving the basic starting information, initiating a conversation is not a high objective.
• User:Steven Walling 22:13, 26 August 2012 conclusion from a a German Wikipedia experiment, rings true, that: Shorter welcome templates are more effective.

• My feeling is that template:Welcome is about right, not too many links. Line links for reading/following. Maybe a few less would be better. Template:Welcome only, with zero reading links, has too few.

The most common theme of opposition is that autowelcoming robs human welcomers of the chance to be first to give the welcome. While I agree that this is a downside, it is far short of compelling. Human welcomers, like Hostbot, wait for edits. Newcomers need access to the reading links before they start editing. Also, a great many editing editors are never welcomed.
I suggest that human welcomers, and even Hosbot, could continue to thank new users for their first edits. A slight differentiation of the templates would be easy.

The proposal:

• All new registrants on en.wikipedia.org are to have their user talk page created with {{subst:Welcome}}, with the modification to the signature to explain that this is an automated welcome. This should be done by WMF software working straight from the registration process, to be developed if the proposal is supported.

• Accounts from other WMF projects, such as other language Wikipedias, will not be welcomed.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: are you aware that everyone who registers already gets a notification linking to Help:Getting_started? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't, but as per the Steven Walling 22:13, 26 August 2012 point, Help:Getting_started is way too heavy, WP:TL;DR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• No. Sorry to be a wet blanket but a hand-crafted welcome is much better than a machine that welcomes silly vandalism. I put {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~ on a new user's talk page, but only when I think it would help the encyclopedia. Some people do not like receiving an automated welcome, and often they are the kind of academic person that we really need (I have seen that a couple of times, but can't provide a link). Edits made by someone with a red-linked talk page need extra scrutiny and a bot should not hide that. Welcoming vandals makes us look dumb and would encourage some personalities to think Wikipedia needed to be attacked because such a system is obviously silly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The "hand-crafted welcome is much better" response I think is well answered by "hand-crafted welcomes are woefully failing to welcome newcomers when they need it most, which is after registration, and before their first edit.

Some people do not like receiving an automated welcome, sure, but the solution is to keep is brief, to the point. Most unlike Help:Getting_started. In this world, it is a common thing to sign up to things, and to immediately receive an emailed welcome providing the basic information. "red-linked talk page need extra scrutiny", yes, as do redlinked user pages. The counter point is that a newcomer seeing their own redlinked usertalk page is feeling a cold shoulder.

Welcoming vandals makes us look dumb? That's almost funny. Welcoming them before the vandalise looks like AGF not dumbness. I guess you really mean that welcoming obviously bad usernames looks dumb? I don't think so, everyone can understand what registration auto-welcome is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. If you check out the summary of message testing results the tl;dr is that even with automated messages delivered via tools like Huggle, a shorter message that is written in an informal, first-person language performs better. If we do want to try out an automated welcome, I'd just suggest writing it in a style that still feels like a person wrote it just for you. Additionally, some of the best help in such a message is to tell people how to contact a real fellow editor, not just give them FAQs or policy pages to read. Steven Walling • talk 04:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks User:Steven Walling. You were writing some very interesting things on this topic six years ago. At the very least, I think it is time for a review. I think, going on feelings, that newcomers these days, setting aside the very much large number of spammers, are arriving with less patience, and your point is even more important now than then. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Per Steven Walling, a message simpler than {{welcome}}, but not with zero reading links like {{welcome only}} I think might be good. Perhaps a single reading link, to WP:5P? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• pinging @DRAGON BOOSTER: as he does a lot of welcoming. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm leaning to oppose because redlink talkpages are useful for detecting potential vandals and give an indication of "newbieness". My replies to redlink TP users are always different than my replies to bluelinked ones. I would propose a banner or automatic editnotice for newcomers instead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think warning every new account is helpful. If the link they are pinged to isn't helpful, propose to change that page. I don't see how a redlinked talk page could feel like a cold shoulder. If they asked a question and no one answered, sure, but this isn't a social network, and we don't need to send everyone an impersonal automatic message. Natureium (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - same reason as L293D, redlinked talk pages are the number one reason that I review an edit on my watchlist. It is very important to look at the first couple of edits made by a user to detect if they are vandalizing Wikipedia. It also allows me to add specific messages to their talk page (for example, if they are making good edits but using primary sources to cite the information). Daylen (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per L293D and per the fact you'd just be welcoming vandals..... which would send out the wrong message, Also worth noting not everyone who registers immediately edits and some never do so again there would be no point welcoming them ...... –Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support a trial. There needs to be concrete data and proper A/B testing to test an automated welcome message's effect on editor retention and rates of vandalism. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest looking at the quality of newcomers first edits, comparing new registrants pointed to 5P in a brief message, against new registrants ignored. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

New proposal

Instead of autowelcoming new users, how about an automatic editnotice for their first ten edits? L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Enable FileExporter

Further information: mw:Help:Extension:FileImporter and meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Move files to Commons

The FileImporter and FileExporter extensions allow importing files to Wikimedia Commons from other wikis with all the original data intact, while documenting the import in the version history.

FileExporter provides a link to import the file to Wikimedia Commons on the local wiki. FileImporter imports the file, including all data, to Wikimedia Commons.

Should FileExporter be enabled on the English Wikipedia? 04:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey (FileExporter)

• Support enabling as a beta feature; this extension would allow editors to bypass the community-maintained tools and allow file history to be attributed better. However, I think that this should not be enabled automatically for all users yet, since the extensions are still in beta. Jc86035 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as beta per Jc86035. Also, to avoid abuses, it might make sense to restrict use to extended confirmed, like with the translation tool. Regards SoWhy 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Also agree with Jc86035 and SoWhy on restricting the usage. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 13:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Jc86035, SoWhy, and AfroThundr3007730: Please note that from my understanding of this extension, it only adds a LINK. This link will take you to the FileImporter on Commons. Therefore all actions and all usage and abuses of the feature are controlled by the users permissions on Commons. Seems sort of useless therefore to limit to any usergroup. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Good point. Then the link probably should only be shown to users who can use the Importer on Commons. Can this be done? Regards SoWhy 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Jc86035: is the required matching importer extension active on commons: ? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Seems like it. Example URL (with a dewiki file): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ImportFile?clientUrl=%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3ABSicon_uxgmKRZusw.svg&importSource=FileExporter. It looks like the extension is visible by default to all Commons users. Jc86035 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support sure why not, I'm not seeing any negative impact to enwiki - all the "writes" are on commons: — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support And should be available to all users since it appears there's no problem posed to enwiki in doing so. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support without restriction from enwiki -- This really isn't any different from CommonsHelper was when it was linked from {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and it includes similar/the same protections as existing tools. If disruption occurs for some reason, we can deal with that in the future. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• not yet I might be missing something here but I see no protection or safe guards in place to ensure that once sent to commons images arent deleted there without the community here knowing about it. Gnangarra 10:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• The tool doesn't actually move the image to commons, it just copies it from here to there while keeping the edit history intact. Action would still required on the enwiki end by an administrator to delete the local file (which any editor can currently request by using the {{Now Commons}} template). Adding a link to this tool doesn't create any risk above and beyond that created by the {{Move to commons}} template. --Ahecht(TALK
  PAGE) 18:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• at which point it gets deleted here, the steps to move are in place but the steps to ensure discussion, and restoration here arent. Gnangarra 02:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• And how is that different from any of the methods at Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons#Tools, other than this tool would correctly import file history? --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per SoWhy - I don't see why we shouldn't have the tool available here however I agree in that there should restrictions as to who can use it. –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, athough it should initially be limited to file movers until the tool is moved out of beta. Looks like this tool is available now for copying from enwiki to commons (I was just able to use it by manually entering the commons URL). All that's needed on this end is a tool to mark the files with {{Now Commons}}, which even an IP could do right now. Hiding the link is just security through obscurity, especially since adding the link to the sidebar and tagging the local file could be done by a userscript without any advanced permissions. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• FastilyBot automatically replaces {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} with {{Now Commons}} when a file has been moved to Commons. -FASTILY 21:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not yet Generating description pages for files to transfer is *very* tricky to get right (speaking from personal experience - I created Wikipedia:MTC!). At a minimum, I'd like to see the extension leave beta before being enabled for the masses. -FASTILY 21:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 00:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Have two new permissions: File and Page Remover

Hello. I am proposing that we should add two new user permissions: File and Page Remover. The reason why we should have these permissions is that if an discussion at WP:AFD and WP:FFD outcome is delete, someone with the permission could delete it and they wouldn't need to wait for an admin. The rules for Page Removers should be:

• The user should have an account on Wikipedia for at least a year.
• The user must have made at least 2,500 edits.
• The user must display levels of familiarity with doing actions per consensus.
• The user must be active on WP:AFD
• The user must not have performed any obvious vandalism for at least a year before applying.
• The user also should have no WP:3RR and/or behavioral blocks for at least a year before applying.
• The user must not delete pages without consensus, unless they are obvious vandalism!

The rules for File Removers should be the same :

• The user must have an account on Wikipedia for at least 6 months.
• The user must display familiarity with the guidelines of WP:NONFREE and their files should show this.
• The user must have at least 2,000 edits
• The user must be active on WP:FFD
• The user must not have performed any obvious vandalism for at least a year before applying.
• The user also should have no WP:3RR and/or behavioral blocks for at least a year before applying.
• The user must not delete files without consensus.

These permissions would absolutely improve the convenience of WP:AFD and WP:FFD discussions, it would also help to rid Wikipedia of attack pages and other vandalism. Thank you. In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. 09:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The problem with that proposal is that such users would be unable to fix any mistakes they might make. We can't grant them the ability to undelete content because then they could potentially view sensitive material, and allowing them to view such material would require them to go through an RFA-like process anyway. I'm also not sure what problem this is supposed to solve. You wouldn't be granting these users the ability to do speedy deletions, deletions through AfD and FfD are not urgent, and there isn't a problematic backlog of AfDs and FfDs waiting to be deleted. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If some material is truly so sensitive that no one should see it after deletion, it should be Wikipedia:Oversight'ed, not just deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That's not just my opinion, the official stance of the WMF legal counsel is that non-administrators should not have access to deleted material. See Wikipedia:Viewing deleted content. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE) 19:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not an actual problem. If the page should not have been deleted, any admin could undelete it. The rate of errors, versus rate of business as usual, would be low, so it would be a net increase in productivity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose If we trust a user enough to delete pages, then we can trust them with the entire admin toolset. Related: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures -FASTILY 06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  While I don't support this proposal, I have to point out that your comment isn't responsive to the nature of the proposal, which is to get more hands on deck for one particular bit of maintenance, not to vet them for adminship. WP:RFAs fail all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with the candidate's understanding of and trustworthiness around page deletion (most often for civility problems, or failure to fully understand some other, completely unrelated, policy or guideline). All it takes is one slip-up, e.g. pursuing the wrong person at WP:SPA, or having breached WP:3RR and accusing someone of vandalism when the community decides it was a legit content dispute, or insert a zillion other deletion-unrelated things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support unbundling the delete permission in general, but I'm not sure about this proposal. I don't think there should be two groups for deleting (especially since the software isn't set up that way currently). I don't think that being unable to revert your action is a serious argument against unbundling; event coordinators can only assign the confirmed permission and stewards can globally suppress an account name but under certain circumstances need to ask a local oversighter to undo it, to give two immediate examples of this that come to mind. I also don't think that people who can delete are instantly trusted by the community with the full toolset. I would personally trust them with everything, but I think there's a case to be made that 'block' is the big ticket item that prevents the community from handing out adminship more liberally. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Somewhat OK with this. Agree not being able to undelete shouldn't be a showstopper here. Agree this should not be separate groups. Basically bring the "eliminator" group here. If so I think they should get: delete, deletedhistory, and maybe browsearchive. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, though I personally dislike the name eliminator and didn't use it when making Pathoschild's global group (:P). Worth noting that other wikis tend to include undelete in the package but also have a one-week discussion period, making eliminator a sort of admin-lite with all the same bureaucracy to get it as regular adminship. I wouldn't want the same process to apply here, though it might be worth having a bit more in-depth process than PERM, whatever that might look like. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz: would prob be best to use that on the back-end since it is common, but we can of course localize it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux and Ajraddatz: see my comments below. I can’t imagine granting the ability that delete without the ability to view deleted content. We know the WMF won’t consent to that without an RfA equivalent process, which is one of the many reasons unbundling delete always fails to gain consensus: it’d turn into RfA, Jr. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  Why does it need to come with the ability to view deleted content? Strange without I suppose but not technically required. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  "Hi there. Seven months ago you deleted this page under the obvious vandalism! clause. I don't see how that can be, I remember it being perfectly reasonable. Please justify yourself immediately or I and nineteen of my closest friends will devote an entire WP:ANI archive page to making you look irresponsible. ~~~~" —Cryptic 01:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  Heh, fair point. A sysop could always provide the deleted content or speak to it in such a case, though that would certainly not be ideal. Then again none of this is ideal; but if we want to better utilize the hundreds of users who are involved in deletion-related processes who have no desire to go through RfA this is something we should start to think about. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits, I don't think "backlogs via NACs" at AfD and FfD are a pressing enough (or at all) concern to justify this proposal. Basically, I think the above is coming at this from the wrong direction and on unsure footing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Agree with this - a better rationale for general unbundling of the delete permission would be to allow trusted users to become involved in the deletion process (beyond NACs) without needing to get the full sysop bit, with the need part being the distinct lack of people willing to go through RfA. This could apply to CSD tagging and deletion discussion closing. I doubt that unbundling the delete permission would ever get serious support, especially since a couple of RfAs have passed this year so people think the process is unbroken again and thus further devolution isn't needed. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Fastily. If someone can be trusted with page deletion, why not trust them with all the tools? If there's really a problem with not enough admins, make adminship "no big deal" again. Natureium (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Users carrying out administrative tasks should be held to WP:ADMINACCT whether or not they have the admin bit. You can't do that with deletions unless you have deletedhistory and deletedtext permissions, too. —Cryptic 19:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This would be useful beyond the cases mentioned here. Last week I had a new page in my user space, but when I went to move it to the mainspace, I was unable to do so due to a redirect page being in the way For some reason I mistakenly thought that I could move a new page over a redirect. Had I known that I could not, I would never have created the new page in the first place. If I had this permission, I could have deleted the redirect page and then moved my new page. As it was, I had to file a WP:Requested Moves request. Of course, this was not obvious vandalism, but an uncontroversial technical move (G6). I would expect thoigh that it could be used on any Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: You're an extendedmover, you could've done a WP:ROBIN and then WP:U1'd the redirect. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 02:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

    I did consider doing a WP:ROBIN and requesting a speedy delete, but hadn't thought of using WP:U1. I'll try that next time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as the ability to delete needs to come with the ability to undelete abd view deleted content. The WMF will not consent to this without an RfA equivalent process for legal and political reasons. Community opinion on this simply doesn’t matter as it would be vetoed by the office. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support in theory but not this particular proposal. Deletion is not as dangerous as people think it is (it can always be undone), but various aspects of this are a bit daft. We don't have hard requirements of a sort this specific even for full adminship, for starters. A more specific criticism would be that being active at AfD doesn't indicate anything. There are AfD regulars who are rabid inclusionists and rabid deletionists who are both too often wrong. There are also rubber-stampers who never !vote at AfD unless they're already sure where the consensus will go, because they're trying "sculpt" their AfD stats for a run at WP:RFA some day. Doesn't indicate any understanding of deletion policy. A solid WP:CSD-tagging track record would be a better indicator.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not sure I can fully support this proposal as written, given the low standards required. It, indeed, might be best for us to revert to the "RfA is no big deal" if this gains traction: I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea of particular users, through user permissions (which, though no offense is intended to the administration, are granted solely by one person, and sometimes as a matter of course), being able to delete pages without the whole of the community weighing in on said person's suitability. (Moreover, if this passes, the inherent security issues glossed over in the proposal are a serious concern.) In short, the RfA process is the right place to go for this, and not a new permission. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would be very surprised if (delete), (block), or (protect) ever get unbundled from the administrator toolset. Everything else, maybe, but these three seem to be the "core" set of admin tools. I'm not too familiar with WP:FFD, but at least for the past year administrators have been pretty good about closing WP:AFDs on time. The administrative backlog isn't so egregiously long that we need to change our process from how it's been for 15 years. Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose really don’t see the need for this, and some of the criteria seem pretty arbitrary. Aiken D 18:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Warn on move to protected title

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T85393

I am an admin. If I start to create an article on a title which has been salted so only admins can create, I receive ample warning of what I am doing. But if I move a page on to such a title, I get no warning whatsoever. I have seen several titles where valid protection has been removed in this way. There ought to be some sort of warning, preferably a confirm page showing the block log and with a tick box saying "I realise that this move will remove the existing protection from this title". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Presumably, titles are protected because they are unsuitable topics for articles but have been repeatedly created regardless. If you are moving a page to that title, there must be a reason you want to have an article with that title, so why does it matter if the page were salted? Natureium (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Scenario: You're plugging along through a backlog at the AFC review queue, see what looks like a reasonably well-sourced page, and move it into mainspace... over a title that's been deleted at AFD, and then speedied an additional four times as verbatim G4 re-creations in the last month, and then protected from creation for a year, and the draft you just moved in is no improvement. Even if you notice it immediately, it's entirely too easy to forget to reprotect after either deleting the page or moving it back to draftspace. —Cryptic 01:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

See (not nearly a complete list): Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 42#Moving over a salted page, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Moving over a salted page (redux), Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 146#Warning message when moving to a salted title?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Warning for admins moving pages to create=sysop pages, phab:T85393. —Cryptic 19:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Guilty as charged:/ DMacks (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@RHaworth: does phab:T85393 address what you would like to see sufficiently? Note, it has been stalled for years pending someone to want to work on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot to deliver Template:Ds/alert

Moved from WP:BOTREQ#Bot to deliver Template:Ds/alert.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a bot to deliver Template:Ds/alert? 17:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We have a long-running problem that is easy to solve technologically:

Short version:
Discretionary sanctions (DS) are not working as intended. Most editors – including topically disruptive ones – are immune to DS for lack of "official awareness" on a per-topic basis. Our awareness templates are disused, because when editors hand them out to each other it looks like a threat rather than an awareness notice. It escalates instead of having the intended effect.

Have a bot neutrally and automatically deliver them, based on participation level on pages that are subject to discretionary sanctions.

The alerts are not admin warnings about user behavior, but notices from anyone that different rules apply to a topic; nothing more. The bot can be crafted to exclude minor edits, new users, rote edits like category fixes, etc.

The details:

• The Arbitration Committee invented discretionary sanctions (DS) to deal more swiftly with disruptive editing; it is applied on a per-topic basis.
• No one is actually subject to DS unless they are "aware" that DS apply to the particular topic area in which they are being disruptive.
• This "official" awareness only happens a very limited number of ways, typically by being a party to an ArbCom case that imposes DS on the topic, being subjected already to disciplinary sanctions in that topic area personally, or receiving a {{Ds/alert}} template on their talk page for that particular topic (this awareness provided by the template is deemed to have expired after one year).
• Talk pages of articles (and other pages, e.g. topical guidelines) subject to the DS receive a banner about the DS at the top of the talk page (also often used as an editnotice seen when editing the actual article). Despite being prominent, these do not constitute "awareness" on the part of anyone participating on the talk page or editing the non-talk associated page. All it does is provide a means of identifying which pages are subject to DS (rather like wikiproject banners on the same page categorizing by project).
• ArbCom's intent was that editors active in such topic areas would routinely receive these Ds/alerts so that no one is a) caught by surprise that DS pertain to that topic, or b) able to WP:GAME their way out of sanction by making a show of not being aware of them.
• However, this does not happen in actual practice.
  • Virtually zero admins ever leave a Ds/alert unless they were already going to impose DS on someone and found that they could not (i.e., in such a case the disruptive party effectively has already system-gamed their way out of sanctions; in theory, one could make an ANI report about the disruptive activity, but ANI typically has higher standards than DS does for what is actionable).
  • If non-admin editors leave a Ds/alert on the talk page of an editor whose behavior in a topic seems to indicate they are unaware of the DS that apply to the subject, this is universally treated as hostile – as a threat, as one-upmanship, or as just "noise". Because it was delivered by a non-admin, it is not treated as a notice of awareness, not read, not understood. In effect there is nothing routine about editors leaving Ds/alerts for each other, despite the intent of the templates, which often make dispute worse rather than calmer.
• Consequently, the discretionary sanctions system is not actually very functional. This engenders continual disruptive activity in "hot topics", inaction on the part of WP:AE admins, unnecessary re-litigations of previous ArbCom cases (e.g., after WP:ARBAP and WP:ARBAP2, a new ARBAP3 is being contemplated to deal with non-stop disruption at articles on modern American politics, because DS are not being employed – too many disruptive editors are immune to them for lack of Ds/alerts.
• The obvious solution is for a bot to automatically deliver Ds/alerts on a topical basis to the user talk page of every editor who makes more than X number of non-minor edits within Y timespan at a page (or its talk page) that is covered by discretionary sanctions for the same topic. Delivery would be skipped if the editor has already received a Ds/alert for the same topic within the same year. (The templates could also be left manually by any editor, in the case of DS-covered pages not properly categorized as such.)
• In considering the proposal, please do not get mired in minor implementation details. These would get hashed out in later discussions developing the bot and considering it for approval. E.g.: excluding new, e.g. non-autoconfirmed, editors from automated notices; ensuring no one's first talk page notice is a DS notice but a welcome message; excluding minor edits; detecting tiny edits (or identical page-after-page edits, or paticular classes of edits like category updates or dispute/cleanup tagging) that were not flagged by an editor as minor; maybe having an opt-out from the bot delivery for gnomes, with presumption of awareness; counting edits made over several days as just one edit (i.e., requiring longer-term participation in a DS topic to receive an auto-notice); ability of an experienced mentor to opt a new editor out of further notices; and so on. No solution is ever going to be 100% perfect, and it need not be, just better than the status quo.
• Should WMF decide that a community RfC can't directly authorize this bot, ArbCom should take the community input in the RfC as advisory.

Side benefits of this approach:

• The current scary and TLDR wording of the {{Ds/alert}} template, which ArbCom has declined do anything about despite years of complaints, would be demanded by the community to be trimmed to a short and informative message that: a) Just so you know, DS apply to this topic; and b) this is a good thing because it keeps us focused on the content and sources not on editor personalities. c) Thank you for saying on-topic, reducing dispute, and helping improve our articles.
• We would no longer need "terrify new editors" messes like {{American politics AE}} atop various articles; the normal {{Ds/talk notice}} used on article talk pages and as editnotices would be sufficient (with a concise parameter for anything special like a 1RR restriction).
• It will thwart "PoV railroading", by putting all regular editors of a DS topic on equal footing. Currently, drama-prone experienced editors who know the rules well can strategically deliver Ds/alerts to all their opponents, while their "side" are mostly not subject to DS. This is a tagteaming, sanction-gaming, and "civil PoV-pushing" technique that would no longer be effective.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC); clarified: 17:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Ds/alert bot proposal

• Support. This is an excellent idea. It lends itself very well to automation, and would serve an important but unmet need. Beyond the strong argument put forth above, I want to point out that some thought needs to be put into determining which pages would be recognized by the bot as being within a DS topic area, because sometimes not all applicable pages get tagged with the page notices. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer. I've informally suggested this idea for a long time. On numbers, my initial though is that perhaps 10 edits in 1 week to the same DS-covered topic should be enough to trigger the alert. E.g., if you edit Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton, and Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump a total of 10 times this week, you get {{Ds/alert|ap}} if you haven't already received one this year. I would entertain a wide range of alternative numbers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Non-admins issue DS warnings all the time. The result is going to be a large number of bot messages (e.g. after responding to a RfC or doing relatively minor gnoming edits) which will just be ignored. The system also won't work on the many pages which are not DS marked but that portions of them fall under DS (ARBPIA is full of these). The current system essentially provides a one warning grace to new (or returning) users in a topic area, which is not a bad thing.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  "All the time" = about 1/50th of the times that they should, and generally with a "go screw yourself" response. It's almost universally treated with flippant hostility. People who receive these from other editors generally don't read them, and simply go into a tit-for-tat dispute escalation mode. That some pages need to be categorized as subject to particular DS is a very trivial technology problem we can fix in about an hour. Ds/alerts are not warnings; they are informational. This fact is central to both the problem and the solution. A bot delivering the same awareness notice has no effect at all on whether someone gets their "grace period"; it just prevents inveterate disruptors evading sanctions for months or years because most editors are scared to deploy the template on someone else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think the concern about RfC responses and gnomish edits is a valid one, one that I was thinking about raising myself before Icewhiz beat me to it. It might make sense to set a threshold on a per-page basis, rather than per-topic. That way, the editor making gnomish fixes on multiple pages won't get caught up in it. Also, use of the bot should not preclude manual alerting. That way, editors could use discretion to alert users about page sections. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  I integrated some of this into revised proposal notes above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Rather than an exact one year, any automated template should probably be triggered at something like 11 months or 350 days if you're worried about the warnings going stale. MarginalCost (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  The first draft included that, but it's not necessary. No one needs a reminder if they are no longer editing in the topic area. If they are, then they'll auto-receive another notice in due course when they make the X number of edits in Y timespan to the same DS topic after their old notice expired.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sure, I'm not saying it should "auto-renew," just that when someone trips the "X edits in Y time" filter, and the bot checks for the last notice, it should run even if the last warning was 364 days ago. MarginalCost (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• How should the bot know which pages (not topics) are under which DS? --Izno (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would have to be based upon a page notice template, or edit notice, already having been put on the page or talkpage. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Simplest approach would probably be hidden categories, applied by {{Ds/talk notice}} and its variants (i.e, what Tryptofish said).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As I said in my original comment, there would still be the issue of pages that haven't yet been identified with a tag, but which are within the topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

      Then we add the tag. It isn't necessary that a solution be 100% perfect for us to implement it as an improvement. The point is to bring most people editing within a DS topic into awareness of the DS. If we miss a few that's okay. The status quo is that we're missing almost everyone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

      I agree, but I felt it important to point it out. It's important that editors still be able to issue alerts manually, in addition to any bot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

      Oh, sure! This wouldn't prevent that. I've clarified the proposal on this point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support the concept, assuming the details around thresholds and such can be resolved. This is an area that would benefit from the consistency and perceived neutrality of a bot. --RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• I personally support this idea, but it's my understanding (in my personal capacity, speaking only based on on-wiki statements) that a substantial part – likely a majority – of the committee does not. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  The committee membership changes yearly, and are not a hive mind. They also never collectively do anything to make DS functional. The entire point of this RfC is that the community can and should step in where ArbCom is failing to get the job done. "The Committee has significant autonomy to address unresolvable issues among the community, but at the same time does not exist to subvert community consensus, ... or to decide matters of editorial or site policy." Implicit in this is, of course, that it can't subvert a community consensus that emerges after ArbCom's creation or about something ArbCom has implemented.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support – This system would avoid personalizing the delivery of notices, that always have a potential for being interpreted as criticism. Also, the bot could easily check whether a notice was already served in the prior 12 months, which is a tedious task for editors. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support An obvious solution to the problems outlined above. I think it will be good for editors who may only comment once or twice in an area, if it is worded nicely like SMcCandlish suggested. It would encourage neutral editors to keep the page on their watch list and have more eyes on contentious areas so it hopefully doesn't spiral as easily. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support a great solution that would save a lot of editor time, and make the process more impartial. Ideally would be a separately named bot so that it can be seen easily on a page history.--Tom (LT) (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to only count non-minor edits? I imagine some people would think that too easy to game, but we have a lot of AWBers and HotCaters, and I don't know that we want to spam editors with every Ds notice available for fixing dates and hyphens and categories. Poor Giraffedata! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Yep. I added that clarification. (It had been in the first draft but I cut it out accidentally!)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I’m of the opinion this is forbidden by WP:AC/DS. It states “Any editor may advise...” Bots are not editors. By my reading, automatic alerts are incompatible with the requirement that an editor be issuing the alert. Even if this is not the case, I’m opposed, as a human touch with specific advice and wording greatly reduces the unintended biting effect of alerts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Any editor may advise, in that it's not limited to admins or senior, etc. The editor in an AE action has to be notified. Whether it's by an editor or a bot is irrelevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That’s not what it says, and I at least consider it heavily relevant. The community should probably be aware that the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over discretionary sanctions procedures, not the community. I doubt we intended automatic alerts. If we did, we would have implemented them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sir Joseph about that. The only reason the wording is "Any editor" is because there wasn't a bot when that was written. It would be a different matter if it had said "Only an editor who qualifies by xyz may...", but it doesn't. I also would advise that ArbCom members should not be too quick to oppose input from the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

      If – due to some wikilawyerly wrangling about jurisdiction/scope/authority between the editorial community, ArbCom, and WMF – it is determined that this RfC can't directly authorize this bot ArbCom will at least need to take it as strongly advisory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

      If ArbCom doesn't want this to happen and passes a motion to that effect, it's not happening. DS is an ArbCom enforcement process and ArbCom has the right to dictate how its remedies are, and aren't, enforced. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

      I agree that ArbCom does have that authority, but my advice to them would be to take community sentiment very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  • More to the point, bots are – as a matter of policy – extensions of the editors who operate them, and those editors take responsibility for their edits; they are not considered independent entities; see WP:Bot policy. So this "Bots are not editors" thing is a non-issue. [Policy background: If bots were not formally considered side accounts of their human operators, then bots would actually have no permission to ever make any edit of any kind; WP:Editing policy provides this right to editors in good standing. Yet bots are, obviously, actually permitted to make edits, ergo they qualify as editors in good standing, when they are approved bots (and functioning properly).]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Botops are responsible for their bot's edits in theory, but in practice there is a large difference. Botops only get in trouble if they screw up hard technically (demonstrating they should not be trusted with a bot account with high-volume editing abilities) or knowingly let the bot do some stuff that goes against consensus or BRFA scope; a series of 100 stupid edits that would get a human WP:NOTHERE-blocked can be forgiven as a configuration mistake (and fortunately so). In the discussed scheme, it would be extremely different to have a bot deliver notices to everyone according to hardcoded criteria than to have the botop hand out notices themselves (as you note in the OP, this is viewed as personal hostility). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

      "knowingly let the bot do some stuff that goes against consensus or BRFA scope" – delivering ArbCom-and-community-approved notices in an manner also so approved won't be against consensus or BRFA scope, so this just doesn't arise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Even if AC/DS's wording excludes bots intentionally (which of course is far from clear), for your argument to hold water, it still needs that either (1) ArbCom has the jurisdiction to forbid bots from doing certain kinds of editing (in that case placing DS templates), without a motion or whatever explicitly making this point, globally (for all bots, not just those operated by a sanctioned botop); or (2) a template placed by a bot could be considered not to validly make the recipient aware of DS (when the same template left by the botop would). Both propositions seem far-fetched to me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13, "the human touch" as you call it is disallowed, at least initially. Somewhere since the current system was implemented there was discussion/instruction that the alert must be provided by the template, to thwart the problem with the prior notices of using them to do battle. It was felt that standardizing the FYI would help reduce the battle mentality, and so the thread with the alert HAD to begin with the template. There is no instruction to add any followup. Having given many alerts, they are always receive as a seeming threat, and so I devised a way to deescalate that... I gave the same alert to myself, and would follow up with a custom commment in a separate edit saying I had done so. That's the "human touch" I chose to add, but there's no requirement that I do that, and a bot-delivered version could also tell people not to take it personally because everyone in the topic area who edits at the threshold gets thme. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I support this, I too find that oftentimes the DS alerts are not seen as the friendly notice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• What is the ideal number of X and Y that avoids people going on AWB-based typo fixes (or comparable mass efforts) from being spammed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The bot operator would have to prevent such spamming with a throttle specific to each editor receiving too many alerts, since that would be disruptive and disruptively alerting editors could lead to sanctions for the bot operator under our current procedures. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, the proposal has been clarified to exclude minor edits. A smart bot could also exclude AWB/JWB edits, and those made with specific other edit tools (either by tool notes in auto-generated edit summaries, or by specific WP:EDITFILTERs. These are very simple technological tweaks; our bot crafters are generally very competent at this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I'm pretty sure I suggested this 3-4 years ago. I believe it should be set up to deliver the alert when X=1. Some of the most troubling edits are from users whose first edit to an article is a policy violation, frequently followed by more policy-violating edits. It should nipped in the bud as early as possible. If WP:AC/DS doesn't allow bot alerts, change WP:AC/DS. Alternatively, Arbcom can change the requirement that an alert be delivered to an editor before the editor can receive DS sanctions - MrX 🖋 20:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Would conflict with WP:BITE. We already have WP:UWT to deal with this learning-curve problem, and it has served us well. For those who take the opposite of MrX's position: If we wanted to, we could even tweak the bot to excempt accounts that are not WP:Auto-confirmed, if we wanted to give new editors more leeway than people who should know better already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Although MrX is correct that sometimes a new editor can be a big problem, I think that is something better left to editor discretion, rather than the bot. There will be a lot of gnomish etc. single edits, so I think an automatic X=1 is a bad idea. Let those users be notified manually. But I definitely would not set any criteria like auto-confirmed, because there are new users who make trouble. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Your first and last sentences seem contradictory. To clarify, the potential idea is that non-autoconfirmed editors would be left to editor discretion (i.e., manually delivered alerts). I don't feel that strongly about it, but a, anticipating BITE as an objection, and discussion below is already bearing that out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Nah, getting a politely worded alert is not a bite—it's a lick on the face and a wag of the tail.- MrX 🖋 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The technical details can be tweaked over time. GMG^talk 21:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support It also helps in the sense that it simply gives users more information about the topic that they are editing, and where the community stands on it. Seems like it will reduce disruption. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It will help a lot more than the piecemeal method we currently use to give out discretionary sanctions. If such notices are applied automatically (regardless of the threshold that's ultimately used), it's possible editors would take more care in their edits, especially if they aren't previously aware of the sanctions. A bot-issued notice issued casually is not as personally targeted as a tag that's applied by a human in the midst of an edit war, so it's likely that people will take offense. (Although, on the other hand, some people might abuse this system by tagging all their edits as minor. This could probably be resolved with further filtering that could detect semi-automated minor edits vs. manual minor edits.) epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Minor Edit Query - As the flip side to the point raised directly above by Epicgenius, lots of actually minor edits are not tagged as such, and I feel it would be inappropriate to also tag them with these warnings. Can it can be calibrated to count edits which make a +30/-30 change? I realise that with effort a near 0 byte change can be made, but that is fairly rare and wouldn't disrupt the idea. Newbie gnomes which are fairly common are especially unlikely to remember to tag as minor edits and are most vulnerable to problems with the warning. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  About minor edits, I think it's relatively uncommon for a good-faith gnome (or a good-faith RfC respondent on the talk page) to make more than a few edits per page, so I think that a carefully determined minimum number of edits per page before triggering the bot would take care of a lot of that. And for users who make many consecutive minor edits, it's probably a good idea to notify them. For example, for the GMO DS, there are requirements about not changing some wording, so even editors making what they think are minor edits could actually violate the DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Both of these seem reasonable; this proposal is to authorize such a bot and set the wheels in motion, not actually write all the code for it on the spot. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As a concept, I can fully support this, as the posting of discretionary sanctions is, shall we say, somewhat lax. I'm sure the details which are not laid out here, and any issues arising from those, can be sorted out at a later time. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I like to see bad or at least borderline behavior before issuing a warning. Spamming warnings to all editors who happen to edit a page is a turnoff to new and well-intentioned editors and will lead to warning fatigue for long-term editors. I'm much more likely to ignore messages from bots than those from humans. And yes, I know that there are editors who take it upon themselves to spam warnings to everybody new in a topic area, regardless of how well the new people are behaving. I frown on that. But more importantly, a lack of notifications is clearly not the problem. Take U.S. Politics as an example: a few months ago User:Coffee basically made himself the bot that is proposed above and issued a warning to basically everybody who had made any recent edits to U.S. Politics pages. All those warnings are all still in effect, yet the US politics topic area is a disaster area. The solution to lack of enforcement is, well, enforcement, not automated warnings. And I am fully aware of the irony of me saying that as an admin who has been passively watching several U.S. politics articles for some time now. ~Awilley (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  Awilley, consider that this also would present an opportunity to make the notice much more user friendly and less BITEY, as an automatic notice added by a bot because of some threshold which we would need to explain somehow. GMG^talk 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Awilley: To repeat a point already made in summary above: ArbCom has been very, very clear that these are not warnings and do not imply wrongdoing. There are nothing but notices to make people aware of the applicability of DS to the topic. Previous attempts to interpret them as warnings and appeal or challenge them have been flat-out rejected by ArbCom as misunderstandings of what the templates are/do/mean.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo, less bitey would be nice in any case, but like I said, lack notification isn't the problem or the solution.

  @SMcCandlish, I fully get that the template says it is does not imply wrongdoing, yet we end up having the same conversation on thousands of user talk pages ("Then why did I get this?"). I'm not able to do the mental gymnastics required to believe that the template isn't a warning. It is clearly a warning that special rules apply to a topic area and that those rules will be enforced by administrators wielding blocks and bans. ~Awilley (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  And users should be aware of that via neutral process with a user-friendly notice that's about the topic not their personal edits; rather than threatened with it by individual PoV pushers who are trying to scare them based on what their last edit was.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The DS warning is scary and I'm concerned about the impact on editor retention. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Billhpike: Please see the first point under "Side benefits of this approach"; an explicit goal of this proposal is to make them less scary (because ArbCom refuses to do so until the community demands it in a way they cannot ignore any longer). Aside from L3X1's point immediately below, a new editor is going to get one of these eventually if they keep editing in a DS topic area, and they're going to get the scary current version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support DS is not scary, and anyone new enough to be put off by larger colored notices on their TPs probably shouldn't be working in DS areas. We should add a "What is this" link at the bottom that takes them to an essay explaing very clearly that this is a piece of boilerplate and doesn't mean they are about to be dropkicked off the project. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  As this is probably to going get No Consensused and then Perennial Proposalled, I made User:L3X1/sandbox#Sample_essay as a sample for what a non-indepth, brief, easy to use and understand essay on DS could be like. I could have sworn we had essays on DS already, but cannot find them. Feel free to wade in or comment here or on my TP. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Re: "anyone new enough to be put off by larger colored notices on their TPs probably shouldn't be working in DS areas" That's right. We don't want New Editors with fresh viewpoints working in DS areas. Better to just keep the long-term entrenched editors pursuing grudges and enforcing stalemate. ~Awilley (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, please. You all know I have a dim view of content editors "pursuing grudges and enforcing stalemate", but we all know new editors parachuting in without significant understanding of our policies are going to be in for a very rough time. I'd be more than happy to support a proposal to Gold-lock are articles under DS, and onlu open then up once a quarter to implement whatever changes have received consensus in the interim, as for civility police to ban with prejudice anyone doing anything remotely unhelpful or uncivil, but such a proposal is never to going to make it around. New editors often don't have "fresh viewpoints", they have their POV just like anyone else. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry about the straw man, it was hard to resist. That's said, in my experience new editors often come in with a different perspective that is quite refreshing compared to the baggage carried by long-term entrenched editors. Sometimes the the regulars miss obvious and simple solutions to their problems because they are so caught up in fighting with the other side. Also, I'm not just talking about newbie editors, but also experienced editors wandering into the topic area for the first time. ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't want editors who make a copy edit at Dan Quayle or Bulgaria or Electronic cigarette getting a DS alert (yes, this electronic cigarette topic area is under discretionary sanctions, and they have been used against exactly three editors in the 2.5 years they have been around, and two of those three were warned by the committee directly, so ARCA or AE could arguably have been used without DS being needed). This would be so disruptive because as Euryalus (ping since I'm appealing to him without being able to find the exact quotes) has pointed out on numerous occasions, discretionary sanctions have expanded greatly and we'll soon approach the day where arguably everything could be under it if ArbCom is not careful.
  I like the idea for its simplicity, but when we think of the scale of the DS regime, this would cause a lot of TP notifications for a lot of people, most of whom have no clue that ArbCom exists and would be productive contributors to their obscure topic area that has legacy DS without the need to be told about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: Detecting and ignoring minor edits (even ones not checked-off as minor) is already part of the proposal. And the scope of a problem is no reason no to work on the problem. If DS are expanding that much, the entire system has to be overhauled anyway; i.e., every new editor will need to be aware of DS the day they start editing, and DS will need to be integrated directly into all behavioral policies and guidelines.
• Oppose I'm skeptical we can filter out copy editing, counter vandalism, and other uncontroversial editors who move between many articles, and would end up getting spammed with notices. The defacto effect of a DS notice serving as a warning an editor is heading into dangerous waters is lost when we spam them out at everyone, while per policy there is nothing to stop an editor from DS noticing people making totally uncontroversial edits in covered articles, this rarely happens, and doing so with a bot would not be an improvement. Finally, the argument that this would force improvements to the DS notices puts the cart before the horse, get the notices fix first before we authorize expanding their use. Monty₈₄₅ 01:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Monty845: Skeptical on what basis? Do you really think it'll difficult to detect any of the following?: minor edit, short edit, back-to-back edits (to treat them as one), edits made with AV tools, reverts, an editor making the same edit on page after page? It won't be. If it came down to it, we could have a DS noice opt-out user permission (with presumption of DS awareness accepted as the price of entry; WP:GNOMES already tend to assume anything they edit could be under DS since they hit topic after topic). Next, ArmCom is insistent that these templates are just informational notices, not warnings or threats. The waters actually are dangerous and this should not be hidden. Finally, ArbCom have been prodded about all this many times, for years, and just sit on their thumbs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: I would propose a hypothetical to you: An editor experienced with BLP enforcement notices an editor has made a series of unambiguous BLP violations in an area subject to DS. That editor then goes in, and correctly applies BLP policy in a neutral and dispassionate way to those articles, removing all BLP violations, and then moves on. Large edits, to several articles subject to the same DS, that are not mere reverts. Should that editor get a DS notice? I would argue no, but will the bot be able to tell that is what is going on? DS notices should be for those who are getting WP:Involved (though in this case, obviously not limited to admins) in the nexus of controversy, not passersby who are neutrally enforcing site wide policies, or making other gnomish edits. I think this level of judgement is beyond the likely capabilities of a bot. Once we agree a bot should do this, not being able to implement this sort of judgement will be an argument against such a rule, not an argument against doing this at all. When we agree to general ideas, without a full structure, knowing the details will be controversial, it often ends in a mess. Monty₈₄₅ 15:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a reasonable solution top a real problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is a very well intentioned idea and part of it makes sense, but I too feel it will impact editor retention, especially those that may see the horrid agenda driven POV pushing and near SPA's that tend to haunt some articles and sincerely wish to just help. Having a bot show up at their page just because they make an edit or comment is not the right way to handle this. While it would depersonalize things somewhat and help prevent losers from slapping DS "reminders" on ones page in some childish way to somehow intimidate or passively-aggressively threaten someone they might have had a tiny spat with, I still think having humans do the reminding/notifications is best.--MONGO (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This creates more problem than ever there's with DS alert system. Having bot automatically spamming editors unnecessarily. If human cannot detect why someone needs the notice then they probably shouldn't know, if the template text is perceived as cold and wordy, then modify it. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as part of overall AE/DS reform. Distributing (rewritten) DS alerts frequently and neutrally would help raise awareness and reduce the stigma of receiving a notice. The first time I received an alert, it helped me understand the resources available for dealing with disruptive editors in that topic area.

We also desperately need an easily understandable guide to how the entire process is supposed to work. The links in the current DS alert template lead to pages and pages of vague WikiLegalese, including the expectations section which many editors will recognize as basic requirements for all of Wikipedia. This would also provide an alternative to an unofficial DS FAQ which some editors are attaching to the AP2 alert.

Or we could eliminate the awareness requirement. The first formal warning issued by an admin would serve the same purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is an obvious solution, it should already have been implemented. A DS alert is less scary or threatening from a bot than from a person. The alert should be non-judgemental, and should not differentiate edits on the basis of being helpful, well-meaning, trivial, controversial, minor or any other characteristic. It should simply and routinely alert editors of articles that have discretionary sanctions, otherwise there is going to be selectivity and bias in this process. Bots do some tasks well so humans can get on with building an encyclopedia. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer.
  As a side comment, I'm 110% behind the proposer's wise advice: "In considering the proposal, please do not get mired in minor implementation details. These would get hashed out in considering the bot for approval (e.g., perhaps excluding tiny edits that were not flagged by an editor as minor). No solution is ever going to be 100% perfect, and it need not be, just better than the status quo." I've had a comment to that effect near the top of my user page for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Such notices should only be delivered if a user is making substantial edits that are not clearly appropriate (e.g. neutral copyedits would be clearly appropriate). A purely numerical measure has been proposed; A qualitative evaluation of the edits is preferable, therefore, this is not a task particularly suitable for a bot (that is not exceptionally advanced). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Godsy: Except this isn't the actual intent of the templates or ArbCom's creation of them. They're not user-behavior warnings. The fact that people use them as if they are and only as if they are is actually part of the problem. They're just notices that particular topic areas are covered by different rules. Why would/should an editor not be made aware of that?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: I concur with your first four sentences but wholly disagree with your last. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts; Why would an editor want to be made aware of anything that opens them up to a potential sanction? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Godsy: That's not what I asked, though, and chose the wording carefully (other than forgetting the slash, now fixed). I'll rephrase it even more plainly: Why would/should the community not want an editor to be made aware? That is, we collectively have an interest in editors at DS topics being aware of the DS so that they're less likely to be come disruptive, and so that if they do, their disruption can be quickly dealt with. If they never turn disruptive, their awareness does them no harm. It's a win-win either way. Of course an individual editor with questionable motives may want to escape "official awareness", and thereby escape some potential sanctions. But it's maladaptive for the community to enable such escape. Shutting down this loophole is part of the rationale of this proposal. Maybe this is scary to someone who is never disruptive? I dunno. That seems irrational. I edit so widely, as far as I'm concerned I'm aware of all DS and not immune to any of them. I don't go around calling people dickheads, or questioning whether they're editing a page on Himmler because they're crypto-Nazis, or telling them they should screw off, nor do I revert-war in articles, etc. Good for me, good for the project. The only time in recent memory DS was used against me, for a 3-month topic ban, WP:AN overturned it. I'm not terribly afraid of DS. Why is anyone else, unless they're here to start trouble?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @SMcCandlish: Alright, I see your point; I'll move to a weak oppose. My tired mind must have added a "want" when I read your reply earlier. I cannot convert to a neutral or support, however, because I do not support editing restrictions in general (outside of blocks, though I believe they should be more restricted in regard to experienced editors because of the lasting stigma). The fewer editors eligible for an editing restriction, the fewer editors can be inappropriately restricted. Unfortunately, I do believe editing restrictions, especially those placed unilaterally, are wrong often enough to be concerned that an automated process would make more people eligible. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. The problem runs deeper than the proposer describes. Users not only need to be aware of DS before being sanctioned; the evidence of awareness must be from within the last year, while at the same time the DS warnings page asks users not to warn those who have received a warning within the last year. This little mess means that even longstanding editors with low levels of activity may have periods of immunity. To address concerns about scaring away newbies we just need to be careful about the wording. The template already says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date", and we can be even more explicit; furthermore, if a user is going to be scared away by "you have done nothing wrong but you need to be aware of this", then they are probably not ready to be editing in ARBPIA areas (or wherever). Vanamonde (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is the best way to remove the stigma of getting a notice. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 04:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose some tooling is needed, but I don't think more automated messages is necessarily the right answer, and I don't want to endorse a pig in a poke while we don't know what that system will be. As noted above, this will need a lot of work regarding thresholds; the BLP DS specifically are so wide that it's possible no threshold for auto-notification will work. For American Politics, I don't see this as being necessary; disruptive editors on high-profile pages get the notice fairly quickly already. If an editor stops being disruptive without a block being necessary, that's great. For lower-profile DS areas (e.g. Armenia-Azerbaijan), this does nothing to get more admins to patrol the area. A toolserver based "list of editors who might need a DS alert" page may be useful; once that exists there may be more support for automating its usage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: This seems to presume that there is some harm in being aware that DS apply to a topic. Someone doing GNOMEy work site-wide probably should be aware of the grand scale of DS, and edit accordingly. I know I do. I presume that DS applies everywhere, and try to be mindful to check the top of the talk page for 1RR and other special restrictions if some unconstructive changes need reverting and aren't obvious anon vandalism. An idea already floated above is that actual new editors (perhaps those not yet autoconfirmed) would be exempt from bot notices. Maybe also have a DS notice opt-out or gnomes (with presumption of awareness).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As far as ease-of-use improvements, a separate {{ds/reminder}} that is worded to make clear it is a periodic bureaucratic reminder (and can be issued after 11 months instead of having to wait 12) may be helpful now, and would definitely be helpful for a bot or semi-automated system. An official way to allow for voluntary recognition of DS (as I have attempted on my talk page) would also be an improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

      Sure. There isn't any reason the auto-notices have to be the same as the current ones; indeed, part of this proposal is to see them changed anyway, to be less menancing, more purely informational. They just need to constitute "official notice". Or we could scrap this "must be made aware" DS condition as silly WP:BUREAUCRACY. It's not actually plausible that someone editing a page with a big DS editnotice and talking on its talk page which has one, too, isn't really aware of the DS. It's a strange fiction of ArbCom that we have to work around, at least for now. If the proposal just got ArbCom to obviate the "awareness" nonsense, then it was successful, just in a different way that actually implementing the notices bot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but further discussion of the implementation should be widely publicized as well Automated notification will remove the stigma of receiving such notices, hence, we can notify for unproblematic edits; even if that is not desirable, the cost of one false positive is not very high. The real drawback is spamming gnomes and other passer-bys (i.e. if we get too many false positives), but the numbers in the implementation can be tweaked to eliminate this (that's where further discussion will be needed); that might set the threshold very high, but if any number of notices gets delivered with that threshold, it is still an improvement over zero. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note: The way the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions alerts work is up to the Arbitration Committee, not the community, and people should be aware this discussion can only be advisory. We do have a separation of powers, whether or not SMcCandlish thinks it's "wikilawyerly wrangling" to speak of it. An arbitrator, User:BU Rob 13, has already said so above. There are a handful of community discretionary sanctions, such as WP:CASTE, over which the community does have authority. Perhaps this proposal should be limited to making the alerts for those ds automatic and more user-friendly. Or to advising the committee, of course. Bishonen | talk 09:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC).

  Arghh, that's User:BU Rob13. Very difficult name! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 10:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC).

  My take: If ArbCom wishes to assert authority here, overriding community consensus, then that authority comes with the responsibility to make the mechanism work effectively. I've seen them discussing the known problems with these alerts, but no solutions have been forthcoming or we wouldn't be here. I would strongly disagree with any assertion that the status quo is the best we (ie they) can do. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Personally, I think the mechanism works fine. The fact that editors sometimes react poorly to it seems more a selection issue than a problem with the alert. Editors quick to anger (or who aren’t willing to consider messages from others as coming in good faith) are most likely to get the alerts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  It doesn't work fine. Try remembering which editor has received a notice in the past 12 months (as required for DS enforcement) and reconciling that with the fact that you're not supposed to give alerts any more frequently than every 12 months. This --> Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts is a bureaucratic mess. Arbcom should either fix it or let us have a bot.- MrX 🖋 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: See already-quoted material above ("The Committee ... does not exist to subvert ..."); there is no such separation of powers; community decisions, including on policy matters (this would be one), cannot be thwarted by ArbCom. And if you actually try to make any separation-of-powers argument in an ArbCom case it'll either be ignored completely or flatly denied (depending on the Arb). I've tried SoP arguments multiple times from a different angle (to end DS being applied to internal policy discussions, because our "judiciary" should not be telling our everyone's-a-legislator "legislature" how we're allowed to formulate policy; we already have community-written behavioral policies and community-operated noticeboards that cover it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Discretionary sanctions are created by ArbCom. Every sanction placed under them is an arbitration enforcement action. The entirety of the procedures to alert, etc. can be modified only by ArbCom motion. It is not a community policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  This has already been discussed above, BU Rob13. If ArbCom cannot thwart community consensus, it more narrowly cannot thwart community consensus about what it is doing or implementing or failing to do or implement. There isn't any magical loophole in "cannot thwart community consensus". It's a blanket statement, intentionally.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Except that the Arbitration Committee can override consensus within its scopes and responsibilities. It just cannot create policy by fiat. See WP:CONEXCEPT. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  You seem to be suggesting that the community is utterly powerless to check-and-balance ArbCom in any way, even with a strong showing of support in a site-wide RfC. I don't think anyone on WP buys that, nor that anyone at WMF does. This attitude just demonstrates exactly why this RfC is needed. See also the first law of holes, and the comments of many in this thread that, procedural quibbles aside, the RfC should at least be taken as advisory. The results so far show that most of those with oppose !votes are either the Arbs themselves, or simply misunderstanding one or more of: the proposal wording, what the notices are/mean, who can use them, what DS is, what bots are capable of, or something else simple and factual. Meanwhile, those who understand these things are in support of the idea, either as laid out or at least in theory/spirit. Pooh-pooh this at your own risk, and especially keep in mind that community faith in both ArbCom and in DS has been steadily decreasing over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose( I've struck my "oppose" as I still think that this is a matter for Arbcom and !voting might suggest differently - I think this is not a good idea) for a number of reasons. New editors might receive this as the first post on their talk page. For a few that might be a good idea, for most, probably not. DS alerts are signed allowing the person receiving them to ask the person adding it any questions they might have. A bot would be sending out many times the number of alerts that are sent out now, and whose going to answer any questions? We can't expect the help desk or the Tearoom to suddenly take on this workload. People would be automatically receiving alerts in areas where it seems sensible to keep sanctions but where the existing problems are infrequent, and I think that's a bad idea (User:TonyBallioni's point). We have no idea how many alerts would be sent out but I'm sure it would be far more than necessary and that inevitably it would inhibit some editors from editing in the area, or even perhaps editing at all. When all is said and done it's still bitey, and I've seen many editors thinking that a bot notice is from a real person. If the wording can be made friendlier so that no editor responds badly, that would be great but I doubt we can ensure that. I'm all for any suggestions to improve the wording of course. And yes, this area is the Committee's responsibility. I'm sure all of us would welcome more suggestions to improve the use of alerts, but I for one still think that personal alerts are far superior to anything a bot can do. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller: A bot can refrain from leaving a DS notice as the first post on a talk page. Random editors are not in a position to properly explain DS; that's what WP:AC/DS is for. If topics don't have frequent problems, remove DS from them (DS is for dealing with disruption that ANI can't handle, and ArbCom's short-sightedness about this is practically like an addiction). Why would receiving neutral automated notices inhibit someone more than definitely does the receipt of pointed ones from dispute "enemies" who usually (though wrongly) believe these notices are handy threats they can menace people with? This proposal is not BITEy since part of it is to exclude new users (if the community wants that), though this wasn't spelled out clearly when first posted. Perfect is the enemy of good. ArbCom won't actually take responsibility for it or we wouldn't be here. I've been on every sitting ArbCom's collective ass about the problems with these notices for something like 4 years now, and no action is ever taken. I want to be really clear here: The primary reason I ran for ArbCom last election was to fix DS, because you all won't. (And I got more votes than several of you; you just got fewer opposes because I edit in enough controversial material to have some people who don't like me. In a normal election system, I would be a sitting Arb right now and DS reform would have been under way since January.) If you think the personal alerts are better, it's because you're neither leaving nor receiving them, or you are but seeing this through admin glasses, where the experience of both is markedly different than for an everyday editor. "Adminsplaining"? That should be a word. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doug Weller and TonyBallioni. I’d add more (or repeat what they said) but am on a rapidly expiring cellphone. This is well intentioned but too much of a blunt instrument given the number of articles under DS and the importance of nuance in working out which edits might legitimately require a notification and which are off topic or trivial. Some human discretion is necessary here. In passing, it’s suggested that a bot notice would have less aggressive wording - mildly, if there’s a good suggestion for less aggressive wording then let’s adopt it right now. — Euryalus (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a page for the purpose of "asking for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions": WP:ARCA. (Indeed, I just saw you on that page, SMcCandlish.) Might that be a better place to raise this, Doug Weller and Euryalus? People would be able to add their arguments and opinions just the same as here, and this discussion could also be linked to. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC).
    • I suppose. Probably should clarify that there's argument for this being solely in the Committee's area of responsibility to change or keep the same, but meh, I'm perfectly happy with a community debate proceeding here on this issue and us just applying the outcome. I see it as a minor procedural issue either way, and not something integral to the committee's actual Arbitration role. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support: As a concept on a limited scale, beginning only with topic areas that receives the highest traffic. I would oppose bot notifications for every DS area. Alex Shih (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• While I appreciate the idea behind this and am all for people thinking about how to make DS work better, I oppose this proposal as it stands, for several reasons:
  • Firstly, I'm not convinced it's actually solving a real problem. There is not a big problem with editors avoiding sanctions because they are not formally aware of DS. I've just looked through the last ten pages of AE archives, back to the start of March; in that time, three reports were closed because the editors were not formally aware of sanctions. Even in cases where editors do avoid sanctions for lack of awareness, either the experience has the intended effect and they change their ways, or they are back at AE pretty sharpish and sanctioned. Personally I have recently levied a mass topic-ban of ten editors; not one did not meet the awareness criteria.
  • Secondly, a large part of this is outside the community's jurisdiction. I'm not entirely convinced that the community can't establish a bot to hand out these alerts because they need to be done by a real editor (as has been argued above); nonetheless, the form of the alerts is required by arbcom before an editor is sanctioned. So even if the community took it on itself to change {{Ds/alert}}, the only effect would be to make DS more unenforceable, as anyone who had received the modified alert wouldn't count as aware under the awareness requirements. It might well be true that friendlier notifications would be a good thing (and anyone who wants to have a go should create one in their sandbox and inform the arbitration clerks about it) but changes here need to go through the committee.
  • Thirdly, I don't think the practicalities have been thought through, and the difficulties are insurmountable. DS are typically authorised for "pages and edits about <topic X>". "Pages about topic X" is reasonably easy to deal with as has been discussed above through use of talk page notices placing invisible categories. "Edits about X" is much more difficult. They could happen on literally any page anywhere on Wikipedia and be subject to DS. Some obvious cases leap to mind: People asking questions about American politics, or pseudoscientific theories, or Kashmir, or... at the reference desks are subject to DS. Someone who asks several divisive questions about one of these topics would be a prime candidate for the application of DS. In these cases, having a bot to normally distribute these alerts makes formal awareness less likely, not more (unless we're going to spam DS notifications for all possible topics to everyone who edits the WP/WT namespaces). GoldenRing (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    On your first point, I hope you realize there is quite a bit of selection bias in your stats: AE-savvy editors will not report before leaving the notice. The good measure would be how many good cases of AE were not filed because of a lack of notice. And actually, even that is not the whole story - the real measure would be how many AE filings were not made or dismissed because of a lack of notice when the notice would have been made had the bot been in operation. Good luck measuring that, of course. (You might still be correct that there is no problem to fix, but your sampling does not prove anything either way.)

    On the third point, I am not sure I understand. The bot will not be able to notify in the "edit about X" scenario. So what? False positives (e.g. notifying someone who copyedits every page containing {{infobox officeholder}}) are a problem (because spamming), but false negatives are not (as long as editors can still post the notice themselves, it is equivalent to the status quo). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    @Tigraan: You're right about selection bias, of course; nonetheless, I don't see lack of notification as a significant problem. If a user is thinking of filing an AE report and realises the editor is not aware, they send on the notification. Either this has the desired effect, or the editor continues on and is at AE a few days later, now fully aware. Regarding the third point, what I mean is that if an editor turns up at the refdesks (for instance) asking those questions, someone will pretty quickly drop the DS template on their TP because it's a process lots of editors are familiar with. Once most editors forget how DS alerts are distributed (beyond "a bot does it") it becomes less likely that the alert will be given in a timely way. The same problem crops up in article space, too; it's possible to make an edit that is covered by DS in vast swathes of articles (I'm tempted to say all articles, but I'm sure there are exceptions) where the main topic isn't obviously related to the DS; consider that any edit containing biographical information about a living person is subject to DS; how will the bot pick out editors making this type of edit?

    The main merit I see in this idea is that a bot notification lacks an obvious target for retaliation. With that thought in mind, what about a bot that delivers alerts to users who have been nominated to receive them? The bot's userpage could have a subpage where you can leave a username and a DS topic code; the bot can deliver the template. This gets around the spamming and false negative/positive problems and takes the heat out of leaving a notification on someone's TP. The bot can also automatically ignore requests that would be a repeat within twelve months. GoldenRing (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    I'd go for that as as second choice, perhaps in a later RfC or something. It would be an improvement of one facet, but miss the overall point, that the purpose of these notices actually has nothing to do with a user's behavior, and is informative, that special rules apply to certain topics. Ultimately, all editors should know this and know what the topics are, at least if they're editing in them actively.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Is there any reason not to simply expose every editor who opens a DS page to edit to a banner stating that DS applies? This would notify everybody every time they edit the page, and would be entirely impersonal and always relevant. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Certain pages under 1RR, such as Donald Trump, display such a notice. We would need a way to log which editors have been notified, since it's likely impossible to add a notice to every DS page. Gun control DS, for example, applies to any gun which has been used in a crime, but only if criminal use is actually included in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Dlthewave and Pbsouthwood: This would be one way to do it, but ArbCom has already rejected the idea that editnotices and article talk page notices about DS constitute "awareness". It would be an acceptable outcome of the current proposal if instead of a bot, every DS-covered page produced such an editnotice, and it was considered notice/awareness. Then we would not need to log edits; simply a diff showing an edit at such a page would prove awareness. I've proposed this solution at least twice and ArbCom ignored it or argued against it (depending on the Arb).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Correct me where I am wrong, but as I see it, Arbcom does not make policy, they are the final arbitrators, enforcers and interpreters of policy which is made by the Wikipedia community based on consensus. If this is true, then they have no special say in whether and how the community decides to notify editors that they are editing an article where DS applies, except if they consider that it conflicts with higher policy, terms of use and the like. As volunteers they can indicate their disagreement, and if it is sufficiently strong, resign. As members of the community they can argue against it, and I would expect a high level of reasoning from them, and it may be persuasive, after all they were elected for their demonstrated ability to get to the root of the matter. Nevertheless, I think that the community must make the policy, and arbcom members would be within their remit to abstain from the discussion, which in practice may be indistinguishable from ignoring requests for comment.

  To get back to the point, I think that having notices in the article which display when open to edit may be considered a reliable way of notifying everyone who edits the article. If the notice was there at the time of the edit, the editor may be deemed to have been notified.

  Regarding the identification and tagging of relevant articles: It is not necessary to tag all articles with the banner if it can be added by any autoconfirmed editor, as the same editors who are currently leaving notices on talk pages could with less overall effort, leave a banner in the article, which only needs to be done once, unlike talk page notifications, which must be done for each editor who is to be notified, and every year. Very little surprise is induced, and there is no pointyness or agression implicit in the notice which is directed equally at all editors to the article. This seems less likely to stir up ill feeling than the current or other proposed systems. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think that's correct, about ArbCom, as do most other editors. But ArbCom mostly don't seem to think it's correct, which is troubling. They're starting to deny that the community has any say over what they do or how, despite DS itself being the making of policy, and procedures for how and why people can/must notify others is also making policy; it's behavioral and administrative versus content policy. The committee need to re-read WP:ARBPOL, WP:ARBCOM, and related pages.

  The editnotices certainly should be adequate "awareness" – and it would obviate this bot proposal and the whole DS notification and enforcement problem (though Ds/alert might be retained for use when someone seems to need a manual reminder). The problem is that ArbCom keeps rejecting this approach to "awareness" and demanding one-year, user-talk notices that scare people, piss them off, or both.

  Agreed on the banner promulgation. Or ArbCom could make a list of what articles it want under what sanctions. Or whatever. It's not a large problem to solve, from any approach, but a simple WP:AWB job.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps people are misinterpreting the responses of the arbcom members. I expect them to be cautious, and oppose changes which they believe to be contrary to existing policy, terms of use, and the purposes of the project. Those are things they are expected to do, and were selected to do. I do not think they would oppose a change of policy that would improve the ability of those of us here to build the encyclopaedia to do so more effectively while at the same time making it a more pleasant place to work for people of that mind. This is a testable hypothesis. I would like to test it. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal as it's written. First, like GoldenRing, I'm not convinced that lack of awareness is a significant issue. Second, adding a discretionary sanctions notice to the talk page of every registered editor and IP who has non-trivially edited a BLP? No thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • However Arbcom should seriously look at dropping the notified-every-year requirement. It's bureaucratic busy-work and not having that requirement in areas covered by various general sanctions hasn't caused any issues as far as I'm aware. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @NeilN: I sometimes think so too. But I think we do see this from an AE perspective where everyone is mind-numbingly aware of DS; a user who made a few PIA edits a couple of years ago and got this template-thingy pasted on their TP, and now gets hauled to AE for a 1RR infringement must wonder what on earth is going on and I think the alert is an important protection for these editors. GoldenRing (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Probably not allowed. Sounds good in theory, perhaps less good in practice once one considers the alert-spam that will ensue, but in any case my understanding of WP:AC/DS#Alerts would rule this out. That rule provides that "any editor may advise any other editor ...". A bot is not an editor. Any scheme like the one proposed here would need to be cleared first by ArbCom via WP:ARCA. In my view, just doing away with the alert requirement would be better. Sandstein 14:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: See already-quoted material above ("The Committee ... does not exist to subvert community consensus, ... or to decide matters of editorial or site policy."). The "a bot is not an editor" thing has also already been addressed; bots are side accounts of their human editors, per WP:BOTPOL; they are not some independent entity. Implicit (now made explicit) in this proposal is that if implementation's legalistically invalidated, it should be taken by ArbCom as strongly advisory anyway. "Probably not allowed" can't apply against community advisory input to its own ArbCom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose overall - I agree that the status quo isn't ideal, but notifying everyone who edits an article under DS seems like overkill and could be very confusing to newer editors making innocuous edits. That said, support giving ArbCom a clear message that the template needs to be updated and made less scary. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestions for updating the template have been made, and prompts posted a couple of times asking for some response. Let's hope some progress can be made! isaacl (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

    And that thread is just one of the times; I and others have raised the issue at ArbCom talk, DS talk, and the DS template talk page, numerous times, with no action. Even, back in the day, getting the template wording changed to stop implying wrongdoing on the part of the recipient took two WP:ARCA cases and over a year; it was like pulling teeth from an allosaurus. ArbCom have been extremely resistant to individual or small-cluster community input on what's wrong with DS. And we were promised another community DS review something like two years ago; never happened. This is a community RfC for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ajraddatz:, please actually read the proposal. It says nothing remotely like "notifying everyone who makes any edit to an article under DS".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I have. New editors typically don't mark edits as minor, and may require multiple edits to make the changes they want. I think this is too big of a hammer for the problem. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

      @Ajraddatz: Several points of discussion have been about excluding new editors from the bot notices; this is now explicitly mentioned in the proposal. Better?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

      I still have hesitations, but I also don't know the topic area very well so I'll strike my opposition. I appreciate the work you put in to proposing this. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have some sympathy for the idea and my first thought was "why not", but after reading this over and thinking about it, I oppose. The "alert" model not only serves as information for the user, it serves as a double check on the admin - either the admin has to think about, 'how am I going to approach this user and warn, so the bad stuff is cut-off, and the good remains', then actually has to communicate with the editor, or the Admin has to research and think about the history of this editor including what warnings they have received, and whether the boom should be lowered, now. Admins do there best, but a little process thinking break helps. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alanscottwalker: Please see Template:Ds/alert and WP:AC/DS. This is not an admin template. It's explicitly intended to be left by any editor. It is also not a warning about user behavior, it's a notice that different rules apply to a topic. Nothing more.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I was already aware of your argument. Nonetheless, it's admin action that this circuit breaks, and it's admin action that is the teeth behind the alert, no matter how it is worded - it opens the editor to the expanded sole-discretion of another (that is the historical development of why they are called, discretionary). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

      Elmidae's !vote immediately below this basically gets at it. It doesn't matter if admins are involved somewhere; the point is editors understanding the rules, not who gets to enforce them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

      No. Neither below, nor what you said gets at it. What actually matters is that it is the predicate for expanded sole-power given to 1000s of admins over a particular person, and it functions as a pause, no matter who places it or what it says. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

      It can't actually serve that function when most DS/alerts are added by non-admins, which seems to be the case. I've only seen an actual admin leave one a few times, and they were usually doing it not as admins but as WP:INVOLVED participants in the discussion that triggered the desire to post the template. "Drive-by" admin Ds/alert is a rare thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I already went over why it serves the function of causing pause even in the case where that admin was not the one to give it in my first post. And the notice is the only built in pause before the admin action. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you think it matters more to the admin considering action whether the template was delivered by a bot because the editor was editing in that topic area a lot, or because I dropped it off, without comment, for exactly the same reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support in combination with making the template look less like a Final Warning Before Summary Execution. If it's made clear that this is merely a heads-up that you are editing in an area with some special rules, then I don't see any downsides. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. The template's line "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date" is effectively a lie: that is how the template is used, and of course that's how the template will be interpreted, for naive newbies and irate experienced editors alike, and in neither situation will it calm the situation down. Having a bot neutrally place a simpler and less aggressive message automatically would be a big improvement.
  The wording of the new template and the exact parameters (number of non-trivial edits and time period) are obviously worth debating, but I am confident we would come to a consensus which would avoid the situation where a newbie makes an uncontroversial edit to a page tangentially related to a DS and gets a warning slapped on their talk page. Conditions like adding a welcome message if it's the first edit to their talk would also help this situation. Both of these have been taken into consideration in the very well-thought through proposal, so I am very happy to support it. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose In the abstract I support the idea — DS are in place, this is the sort of thing that should be easy to do automatically (see Bellezzasolo's arb.js) — but in practice I'm not sure this is a good idea. For one, even as suggested via minor edits and some well-researched/well-designed limits, this will sweep up a lot of passing editors. That's not inherently a bad thing, except yes, the notice is scary. If I do a double-take whenever I see one, the average editor (new or otherwise) will likely do the same. Yes, the notice should be made less scary, and that's incorporated above, but that's putting the cart before the horse; I wouldn't want to support this until at the very least the notice was less scary. Folks who have never heard of ArbCom but listened to a podcast or caught some breaking news and want to help improve the 'pedia are likely to be most affected or turned off, and that's a problem. Alex Shih's idea of only certain, especially-contentious areas is reasonable, and might be enough to have me change my views here. There will be a lot of questions, and nobody to take responsibility for them. Fully in the realm of the Committee, and they are free to take this if they like, but completely fine if they do not. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. If anyone wants to discourage new users from editing Wikipedia, this is it. This is really a frightening message. Edit at your own risk and expect what? Consider someone who just started editing and has no idea how DS and administrative noticeboards work. Few to none users are sanctioned each year in most areas covered by DS. In other subject areas (like Eastern Europe), 95% contributors have no trouble and will hardly ever appear at WP:AE. Areas like ARBPIA or Syrian war? Yes, maybe. Try this in ABPIA and see what happens. But I strongly doubt this is going to help. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I sympathize with the proposal, I think it can be easy for experienced editors to fail to appreciate the discouraging effect that any kind of warning can have on newcomers. Even if it is well worded, I think it is still very likely to make some editors fear they have done something wrong or are perhaps getting close to doing something wrong. And even for those who don't take it that way, it can still make them wary of editing in the affected area, and we should not be discouraging newcomers. I think the only people who need to be alerted of DS sanctions are those who appear to be in danger of breaching them. Good editors working constructively in a DS-affected area have no need to even know about them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  So why do thousands of pages and their talk pages have DS editnotices and banners? Can you show that these are driving editors away? The only reason this proposal exists is that ArbCom illogically refuses to accept those notices as "awareness", only user talk page ones. We can't have it both ways. Something has to give, in the direction of WP:Common sense, one way or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  I'm sure you understand perfectly well that there's a big difference between an alert on an article talk page and on a user talk page, and that we should be far more careful with the latter (which can overflow into apparent biting where the former does not). Also, I honestly don't think that badgering every opposer (while continuously banging on about an apparent grievance with ArbCom) is doing you any favours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  It's not a difference that's easy to define, and it may have more to do with the wording of the template. People almost invariably react much more negatively to a Ds/alert than they do to other process-mandatory templates like {{Uw-3rr}}, {{ANI-notice}}, {{tlx|Template:Socksuspectnotice, etc. Why is that? I've addressed your "badgering" accusation elsewhere [10]. Noting that old process hasn't been working and opening an RfC instead isn't a "grievance", it's moving past the roadblock to get stuff done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose because it is not possible to algorithmically determine which edits are and are not a substantive interaction with the content of a page. New page patrollers, copyeditors, those who perform similar gnomish edits, and those doing admin tasks on an article (edit requests, XfD implementations, oversight, reverting vandalism, etc) will inevitably just get spammed with notices for pretty much every topic that's under DS sooner or later. These notices will just be ignored as spam, and so despite having received a notice they will not actually be aware. The separate problems of biting new users is also a showstopper - as well explained by others. This is not the first time automatic delivery has been proposed (it comes up quite regularly when arbcom discusses the DS system in any way) and these problems have been raised every time, yet there is still no evidence that anyone in favour of the proposal has even put much thought into them, let alone come up with practical and workable solutions to them that wont themselves cause other issues. Finally I'm sceptical that the problem the OP on this occasion intends to solve is actually a problem that needs solving. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  This and most other opposes are predicated on the idea that Ds/alert is a warning for bad behavior, when ArbCom has repeatedly disavowed this interpretation and insisted they are just notices that different rules apply to the topic area in question. How is awareness of this fact a harm to the editor – new, gnoming, or deeply involved? And what biting of new users? An explicit part of the proposal is excluding new editors from the notices. It looks like you're responding to your idea of what is proposed based on memory of what someone else once proposed, rather than on what is actually proposed now. The fact that ArbCom keeps ignoring community input about DS and its problems just because it's kinda hard doesn't mean that ArbCom is right, it means they need to listen. (Especially given the frequency with which they're poised to sanction editors for not listing to the community input of other editors. There is no "I'm an Arb, ergo immune to IDHT" clause.) The raising of a technical challenge does not mean the challenge is insurmountable, nor that it must be surmounted with absolute perfection.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support variant During the last review (2013 I think) a major goal was to reduce BATTLE mentality is passing these things out. Some argued then that the only way to achieve that goal was UBIQUITY... make sure everyone gets them. Opposes here generally group into (A) false belief they are still about warning for bad behavior, (B) ignoring the skills of our bot-filter programmers some argue it would would create oceans of spam for trivial or gnomish edits, (C) some correctly point out that some articles are obviously in the topic area ("global warming" falls under WP:ARBCC but its hard to realize a section under Al Gore might as well) but those commenters ignore the nunace that the notice can still manually be given when a circumstance inspires someone to provide it, and (D) Doug Weller (talk · contribs) adds the important observation that new comers will be put off. To address Doug's concern, I would add a time-period factor to the filter, maybe topic edits 5 days apart in a 30 day period or something. Editors who suddenly make a big splash over three days can still be given the notice manually if anyone wants. And to protect regulars from annoyance create the opt-out "Alright already, I know! I know!" suggested by OP SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). Finally I suppose some may try to game the system by marking nonminor edits as minor, but that's easy to deal with. Finally, observation I think the main reason the DS system is perceived as dysfunctional is that it was originally invented to "solve" the dysfunction with regular enforcment and regular sanctions at ANI. I doubt we can legislate our way around what is, at its root, a cultural problem. But we can make it incrementally better. The original goal in converting the old for-cause WARNING into a new no-fault FYI was to reduce BATTLE attitude. The best way to do that is to "fix" regular enforcment, and the least bad alternatives is to make these FYIs ubiquitous. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ANOTHER TWEAK, Create an opt-in "HandHolder" service..... for any topic area, invite editors to volunteer to be the desinated go-to editor(s) when people get a notice and have questions. Design the notice to steer them to these volunteers. Tell the bot to run only when there are volunteers to receive such inquiries. Needs a reporting system so people whos questions go unanswered have a recourse. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @NewsAndEventsGuy: Would this really bring more value than just pointing to general help forums, i.e. the Help Desk and/or the Teahouse? Folks there can explain what DS are, even if not the precise delimitations of each DS topic area. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Tigraan: Up above, Doug Weller (talk · contribs) correctly points out that applying the bot to all areas would create a spike in negative reactions, and Doug said We can't expect the help desk or the Tearoom to suddenly take on this workload. I agree with Doug that it would create a problem from those folks. By recruiting interested topic area "HandHolders" who optin ahead of time, that particular problem goes away NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @NewsAndEventsGuy: Three points.
          1. I am not convinced by DougWeller's argument that We can't expect the help desk or the [Teahouse] to suddenly take on this workload [of angry notified editors]. Is there evidence that it would swamp other queries, or is that just speculation? Weak evidence from a recent similar experience makes me think it would not be a problem: a couple of months ago, article creation was disallowed for non-autoconfirmed editors, who now have to go through WP:AFC instead. I do not know how much burden this added to AFC reviewers, but as a regular Teahouse respondent, I can say we are not drowning in AFC-related questions; maybe the number increased, but by no way does it swamp the TH. We are talking about 150 to 200 AfC submissions per day, most of those being as many unique editors. Let's say that editors notified for DS are three times as likely to go to the designated help forum than AfC submitters; a similar level of "flooding" would be reached with 50 DS notifications per day. Does that look like a realistic number? (I suspect not, though I really do not know.)
          2. Assume for the sake of the argument that there would be so large number of daily DS complaints/questions, that it could not be managed on the HD/TH (I would say the order of magnitude would be at least 20/day.) Do you really think a new process ("HandHolders") would absorb that number of queries smoothly? Said otherwise, if the established TH/HD that run relatively well cannot handle it, I doubt you can easily set up something that can. Many of Wikipedia's stalled processes would run well if only we could recruit interested topic area specialists, but the thing is that's hard.
          3. Same assumption, and let's say that above N notifications per day, the TH/HD get swamped by angry DS-notified editors. Easy solution: set up the bot to send at most N or N/2 or something notifications per day. In that case the bot will not solve the problem, but it will still be helpful: I have a very hard time believing that number would be below 100/day, and even 10/day would be well enough to justify a bot. You can tweak the numbers, but there will pretty much always be an intermediate area between "bot does nothing and is useless" and "bot sends numerous crowds to storm help forums".

        What I am trying to say here is that your argument rests on unspecified numbers and I strongly suspect your implicit assumptions on those numbers are wrong. I am ready to change my mind if you have evidence to provide, of course. Qualitative arguments could be made (e.g. that TH/HD respondents are not qualified enough to handle specific DS questions, or that notified editors would be very angry and break the TH friendly atmosphere) but the quantitative one seems dubious to me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  @NewsAndEventsGuy: I've added both of these ideas to the list of potential implementation details in the RfC text. You have correctly divined that the inspiration for the RfC goes back to the 2013 community review of DS (and what that review did not fix, and the same community sense that these should not be handed out as threats/warnings but evenly). I just didn't want to mire the proposal in old news; wading through that material could take someone hours.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are vast topic areas that fall under the DS regime, and within them there are huge number of editord that make a large number of problematic edits, but only a fraction of those editors get dragged to WP:AE, and that's a good thing: this procedure is meant to be used when everything else has failed. Yes, the way they're currently issued (typically between editors who are annoyed at each other after not getting along in the discussions), the DS alerts are usually pretty hostile, but that is a side effect of them being a sort of last resort. If everyone got the alerts, then the message would get diluted. And I'm not comfortable with the idea of new editors getting exposed to the DS system from step one: raising awareness is generally not a bad thing, but here this might deter cautious editors from contributing to articles and it might encourage others to go straight for AE level litigation instead of first trying to discuss things on the talk pages. Also, the implementation issues are not minor at all: 1) how will the bot select the articles? Because the vast majority of articles under DS are not tagged in any way, the bot will be of limited use unless significant editor time gets syphoned into tagging the articles; 2) how will the bot select the editors to warn? This is not as staightforward as it seems: take reverts for example, how will the bot tell if it's the routine everyday reverting of vandalism and test edits or the persistent POV reverts without which a large portion of existing sanctions wouldn't have been imposed? – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration discretionary sanctions motion: community comments invited

An arbitration motion has been proposed that would clarify that editors are not permitted to use automated tools or bot accounts to issue discretionary sanctions alerts. The community is encouraged to review and comment on the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions

• Read it. Has nothing to do with this RfC, only with whether an existing tool can deliver Ds/alert without human approval for each save: "alerts are expected to be manually given at this time."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Don't be so disingenuous, of course it's about this RFC - it says so in the very first sentence! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  Mentioning the RfC, and having been coughed up in response to it, doesn't mean it substantively addresses anything in the RfC, which it does not. I'm encouraged that a few Arbs so far are also taking the opportunity to make it clear that they'll take the RfC comments seriously, but the motion was a bad move, a knee-jerk reaction. It was unclearly worded, sowing more confusion than it has resolved (and which is still ongoing over there). I'm hardly the only one to say so. People who want to comment on this RfC should not be diverted from it by that motion, which is primarily of interest only to people who are already using or working on tools that use ArbCom-related templates in a semi-automated fashion, such as User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User-right that allows non-admins to Semi-protect pages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T12192

While fighting off mass waves of ip/new account vandalism on articles related to the world cup and the NBA drafts, I thought about how it would be easier if I could protect the pages instantly, instead of having to go to WP:RPP, one of the most notoriously backlogged pages on the site. I believe that trusted users should be able to request a user right that would let them Semi-protect pages for a finite amount of time (a few months, 6 maybe, at most). This right would have to be requested for and granted, and can be removed like any other right. Having this would massively benefit those more active in anti-vandalism work (like me), and would overall decrease the amount of vandalism/spam on the site by a large amount. I know the primary concern will be weather or not this right will be abused if edit wars happen with unregistered/new accounts, but the request process for the right should be able to filter out those who would abuse it in that way.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Update: (I already feel like this discussion going to evolve into absolute chaos) To add to this, users who get the right should have 2,000 or so edits and should be very active in the anti vandal/spam scene, and the list of users with the right will be low because of this (300s probably)💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Another update I'm fine with NielN's proposal (I will admit this is a broad proposal, I ain't offended)💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with all protect permissions being devolved from the sysop group, and assigned through PERM with some reasonable requirements (2,000 edits, experience in counter-vandalism, whatever else). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose giving people the right to edit war with IPs with impunity. Also oppose any devolution of any protection abilities to non-admins. The people who are least likely to see an edit warring block are those with experience, which is why keeping protection solely a part of +sysop is ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  That sounds a lot like what I suspect were the same opposing reasons for WP:ROLLBACK (I wonder where that RFC was), yet the sky has yet to fall... --Izno (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  The difference being that rollback has no ability to prevent editors from editing and is usually given to newer editors who are easy to review. This would be given to more experienced editors, which means it would be seen as a right and it would be extremely difficult to vet for concerns on edit warring. Anyone who has a quick look at AIV or RFPP can clearly see how disasterous this would be. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  I rather think it would just be a hassle for a short period when those granted this bit who end up not understanding what vandalism really means here and what does/doesn't qualify something for protection, makes asses of themselves and lose the bit. Then those who are not boneheads would chug along doing the right thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose giving people the right to edit war with IPs with impunity. If someone persists in edit warring with IPs with impunity, show them the door. Problem solved. Lots of other problems solved, too, by the way. It's a bad idea to let chronic disrupters determine the project's direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support, notwithstanding various details to work out. We should have done this years ago, along the lines of template-editor, page-mover, etc. Have a "is this person experienced and not a PoV pusher?" basic vetting process, some clear rules of use, and a swift revocation upon misuse, and all will be well. Example rule: you can't apply the temporary protection if you've edited the page in the last X days (or whatever – some determinant(s) of proximal WP:INVOLVEDness with the immediate dispute and parties). The editwarring-against-IPs scenario is only plausible if new bit and rules of its use were implemented in a stupid fashion. Every single unbundling of a formerly admin-only tool was met with stiff opposition, of the "it will be abused and the sky will fall" variety, like we're seeing below, and every single time it has proven untrue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC); revised: 00:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I've said this before - I support a user-right that would allow trusted users to semi-protect BLPs against repeated vandalism for two to three hours which would allow patrolling admins time to decide on the final length for protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: actually, something you said at ANI not too long ago made me think of this.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Relevant draft/discussion from last March. GMG^talk 17:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • And comments here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• question: doesn't 'non-finite' mean 'infinite'? So then shouldn't the statement read: Semi-protect pages for a finite amount of time (a few months, 6 maybe, at most).—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Trappist the monk: Yeah, I didn't mean infinite; thanks for pointing that out.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Thinking along TB's lines. This might be radical thinking, but protection is arguably a more powerful tool than blocking. While we are still, at least in terms of public perception, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, this would fly somewhat in the face of that. Blocking only stops one account editing a page; protection stops up to ∞... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps for BLPs for a short period of time as NeilN suggested. That sounds like a good idea and wouldn't cause the problems that allowing it on just any article for a longer period of time might cause. And of course could be extended later. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Looks like this has been opened as phab:T12192, and stalled for over 10 years. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• This is a perennially rejected proposal essentially due to WP:Relist bias. In order to properly deal with vandalism and disruption, you need to have all the tools at your disposal so you don’t have to settle for the fifth-best option, which is the only one available to you. That includes blocking. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I prefer to have the potentially second-best option implemented for a few hours rather than having editors jump up and down to get the attention of an admin while a BLP is being mass-vandalized. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Tony & Serial Number, this is powerful and dangerous and would require vetting at almost admin-level before given out. I don't see the point in selected individuals having this right either, because they would still have to be contacted to act on it (instances where it would be necessary are, after all, not going to happen only in articles these people are working on) - which takes us right back to a request board situation, only more decentralized and less efficient. Might as well go ask an admin in that case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  We're already doing that vetting for page-mover, template-editor, etc. Why this different? Why would holders of this bit need to be contacted? Do they not have watchlists? Sure, they might need to be in this obscure case or that one, but if a large corps of competent and sane users had this bit, disruptive nonsense in most places would be detected quickly and shut down.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, I've been a great supporter of unbundling core admin functionality, and I'd certainly make good use of this right, but way there's too much potential for abuse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  Wait, you're really arguing that the tool would be fine for you, but not for that person you don't trust over there, so no one should have it?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not what Headbomb said, and the position is nothing out of the ordinary. Societies commonly abide by rules that, while not needed by some (or many or even most) of the society's members, are for the greater good. I'm not allowed to own a tactical nuke, and while such a rule is not needed in my case, I fully support the rule. Meters (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support (details to be worked out) This sound very promising. I think it was the other day at an article suddenly featured off-site of a BLP that I was wondering why protection was not coming through earlier, given the vandalism - protection eventually came (possibly even after it was really needed, because by that time there were multiple editors with eyes on immediately reverting in a nano-second, and vandals often tire of the shiny new thing. But, you know, those editors could have been doing something more constructive than that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment another issue is that a non-admin would be unable to revdel the BLP violating content, and would have to get an admin to do so. Overall I'm not sure I would find this better than using the IRC stalkword if an egregious vandalism issue takes more than 10 minutes for a response at AIV. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm unsure about this. I'm not concerned about it being abused, but as pointed out by several people, sometimes the situation would be better dealt with another way and if you have a group of people that can protect pages but not block vandals, I'm imagining a big increase in the number of protected pages when blocking one IP would have been a better solution. And you can usually conjure up an admin on IRC if there's rapid-fire vandalism. Natureium (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we can trust users with the protect button, then we can trust them with the admin toolset. -FASTILY 18:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ehhhh... - Ehhhh... Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Wildly open to improper use, and likely to just inflame editors prevented from editing. Plenty of RFPP items get declined, and probably more should. Additionally, as per Rob above, it helps to have all the tools in order to use the right one where appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose God no. I'm in favour of unbundling some abilities from the admin toolset, the ability to lock down pages at will is not one of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support I do see the possibility of abuse of such a user right, but I think if it was abused somebody (e.g. an administrator) could remove those privileges, just like with any other user right. This does sound like it could be a good idea if executed right. On a side not, what would this user right be called? SemiHypercube (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @SemiHypercube:Page protector, probably.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Money emoji and NeilN: I'm also wondering if either of your proposals for "page protector" would also allow users to give pending changes protection to pages, since it's essentially just a weaker version of semi-protection. SemiHypercube (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @SemiHypercube: Pending changes is a nightmare for editors to deal with when there are rapid-fire changes to an article so I would not recommend offering that option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is completely consistent with the unbundling of other admin rights, and if the power is only to semi-protect (meaning that experienced editors would still be able to edit the page), there is very little in the way of lasting mischief that can be done with it. bd2412 T 00:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• I agree the original proposal is too broad. But I think the following would be of great value to the project:

• Page protector right given to trusted editors with a history of making good reports to WP:RFPP.
• Can only protect pages for three hours.
• Can only protect BLPs undergoing sustained vandalism by multiple editors (usually due to an incident on social media or some sports thing). The definition of vandalism will be strictly adhered to, meaning things like editors adding info about unconfirmed trades will not be eligible for protection.
• All protects will be listed at WP:RFPP for admins to review and execute the final protection action.
• Any misuse of the right will mean revocation of the right which can be done by any admin.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment If the right to protect is granted, it would have to be accompanied by the right to unprotect (so that the editor with this right could correct his/her own mistake). I don't know if the limitations suggested above are meant to be enforced by software, or enforced by the honor system, but the ability to limit actions by software might be different for protecting vs. unprotecting. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but note that I think this has potential. Obviously it needs to also have the right to unprotect (to be able to revert own errors), but these editors should not be able to unprotect if it was an admin doing the protecting in the first place. The long periods available seems excessive. A few hours is all I would expect would be necessary, as a stopgap until an admin could have a look at it. Needs some criteria for what kind of editors would be given this right. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose in original form, weak support for NeilN's modifcations: as the original proposal stands, it is far too broad, and somewhat frighteningly so for our reputation.
  Let me explain: as an vandal fighter myself, I've found that the majority of BLP vandalism (or, really, most non-LTA vandalism) generally dissipates over a week, a week and a half, at maximum. The proposal, as written, would allow for a protection period of several months, which is not done now, and is wholly unnecessary. Additionally, I believe this would allow for users to, to some extent, carve out their own fiefdoms and niches of our encyclopaedia (whether as an intended consequence or not), by (if it moves forward) requiring unregistered editors to jump through additional hurdles before editing, etc. (While not banning editing as a whole, I would argue that it would rise to a level such that it could be seen as de facto banning of editing.) Moreover, regardless of the measures put into place to attempt to prevent abuse, abuse of this privilege will occur: just being vetted once isn't enough, especially for powerful tools, like this and deletion. Neither the latter nor the former would bode well for our reputation as the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and, as a result, editor retention will be harmed.
  NeilN's proposal here is more moderate: several hours is perfectly acceptable to find an admin to put in a longer block, if needed; restricting only to BLPs with multiple vandals is far more circumscribed than the general "pages", which can only be a boon; and immediate, ongoing, and total oversight is a protecting mechanism that guarantees the whole of the operation.
  As a whole, therefore, the initial proposal is not one I can support as-is, but with Neil's modifications, I'm more inclined to support it, details notwithstanding. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fastily. I can't say that occasional exceptions won't exist, but in general, if you can be trusted to protect pages, you can be trusted to be an admin; and if you can't be trusted to be an admin, you can't be trusted to protect pages. The only actual benefit would be assisting the tiny group of people who can be trusted with protection but not other admin rights (and I can't immediately think of such a scenario), but we'd risk having this user right in the hands of people who can't be trusted to use it properly, and the trustworthy people would have a further incentive not to run for admin. PS, the rollback comparison is a non sequitur. Rollback merely speeds up what anyone can do already, but nobody can protect pages at all (unless they run a bot that edits so fast that it crashes the server :-) without admin rights. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support NeilN's revision. Like rollback and template editor, the project didn't go up in smoke, this won't either. Honestly, I think all admin rights should be decoupled except for actual user blocking/unblocking. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. I don't think that (delete), (protect), or (block) should ever be unbundled. An administrator often has to weigh between these three options when deciding how to respond to disruptive editing. For example, page protection is unnecessary when a block of a single user/IP address would be sufficient. Giving a user the ability to protect pages but not block users would bias those users to apply page protection when blocking would have been the better solution – see WP:Relist bias for a similar phenomenon regarding non-admin closes at AfD. This is highly problematic because whereas a block would have typically affected just one user, page protection now unnecessarily affects many users who are interested in one page. This is something that is not necessarily deliberate; it's an unavoidable consequence of not having all of the administrative responses available to you. Over the past decade, we have indeed seen some rights which were originally given exclusively to administrators unbundled and given to other editors: rollback, file mover, page mover, template editor, edit filter helper, and most recently, event coordinator. However, it is these three – delete, block, and protect – that have failed to be unbundled every time because they are the core of the administrator toolset. Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify that my comment here refers to the original proposal. NeilN's proposal is more well-thought-out, but I think that in order for it to gain any kind of coherent discussion, it should be split out into its own separate proposal and RfC. Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional support Change "6 months" to "6 hours" and I could support this. This should be an emergency stop-gap only, and the page can be submitted to AIV to extend beyond 6 hours. This would also need to come with the ability to remove semi-protection, but there would have to be a strict policy against users with this right removing protections that they themselves didn't place. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 03:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose original proposal, which is far too broad.

Support in principle NeilN's revision, which I think can be improved with some fairly straightforward revisions.

Pending changes reviewers will be able to semiprotect pages for six hours. Pending changes reviewers have already been screened for competency in evaluating content, and I don't believe there have been many examples of abuse or serious mishandling of the user right. I'm not sure that three hours is long enough to allow for full admin review.

This right should be exercised only when clear BLP violations have been introduced multiple times into the same article in a short period of time. It's easy to insert unacceptable content regarding living persons into non-BLP articles. "Producer X raped Brittany Murphy on the set of Superhero Returns and drove her to suicide" is intolerable not only in the producer's BLP but in Murphy's bio and in the film's article. And, sadly, some of the worst violations come from editors who believe in good faith that Alex Jones, Perez Hilton, IMDB, "Crazy Days And Nights" and sites of its ilk, and tabloids like the National Enquirer are credible sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I like the stipulations set out by NeilN and believe it can be further refined with other improvements that will invariably surface. Tweaking verbiage and certain details should not be seen as negating this RfC while necessitating another. The proposal is sound at its core and it reflects the direction (un-bundling the majority of the admin tool set) Wikipedia is rightly poised to travel.--John Cline (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni , Mz7, and others. There are rarely backlogs at RFPP, besides which, PP often requires the additional blocking of users. These require sound admin judgement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: That's a nice idea and I've thought of proposing this idea myself, but for now, Ill have to oppose. If you take a look at RFPP, (which is, contrarily to some users' comments, very backlogged) you will see that in many cases, requests are declined, or the vandals are blocked instead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kudpung and others - In short if you want to be protect pages than go be an admin, As noted above this would be open to abuse and potentially you could have 2 editors protection-warring with each other .... either that or it'd be used in a content dispute, Better off going to RFPP. –Davey2010^Talk 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, provided that the user right would only be given to users who have a record of accurately requesting page protection and who do not have history of inappropriate conduct in content disputes. Limiting the action to a few hours may be a good first step. There's no reason to believe that someone having this user right would have any less good judgement than an admin who has passed RfA, but whose competence in protecting pages has not been fully vetted.- MrX 🖋 18:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

LGBT rights summary tables as templates

Note: not completely sure if this is the right place for this proposal.

Articles about LGBT rights in countries have a summary table after more detailed descriptions of rights and laws (example 1, example 2). I propose we turn these summary tables into a template which would be easier to add to new and/or existing articles for both new and expert editors. An example of such template is available on hr:wiki (in Croatian). --Hmxhmx 18:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You should create a draft version, so we can see how it would look like. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I made a draft version avaliable at Draft:Template:LGBT rights summary. Feedback is welcome. :) --Hmxhmx 21:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:VP talk pages

Yes, it's odd to discuss a talk page on its associated non-talk page, but proposals tend to go here, so we thus end up with a slightly odd self-referential discussion. Wikipedia talk:Village pump isn't a good place, because it's so rarely used (just six sections in the last two years, several of which don't deal with the VPs), and I don't want to propose this at one talk page and leave out anyone who cares about the others but not the one where I propose things.

Why do the various VPs need to have separate talk pages? The Reference Desks share a single talk page (see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Humanities, for example), as do WP:AN and WP:ANI. WP:AN3 has a different talk page, but it has a different structure: each section's completely isolated, and it's template-populated, versus discussions at AN and ANI. How are the various VPs at all different from each other from a technical perspective? Aside from our choice to put proposals here, ideas at the idea lab, etc., is there any difference among them? It seems to me we could just merge all of them into one, and either we could retain the existing archives or we could dump everything into one big page, rearrange them chronologically, and create a single unified archive system for everything. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Suppose Wikipedia talk:Village pump would suffice if going this way. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling this has come out on the Village Pump before, although I do not recall what the discussion said. Vorbee (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to a related discussion here. TeraTIX 07:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's actually a bit different; the person asked why the VPs have any talk pages at all, while I'm simply asking about merging them all into one. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Update on protests

As of right now, Italian, Latvian, Polish, and Spanish Wikipedia are dark to raise awareness of the EU Copyright Directive. I have seen an email sent around by a copyright maximalist lobbying group complaining about the Wikipedia community's direct action here - the attitude appears to be that back room deals in Brussels by highly paid lobbying firms is fine, but the public speaking and responding is not. I am reminded of the famous case of Chris Dodd of the MPAA complaining to Congress in the US "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake" and also calling our action an "abuse of power". As I said then, millions of people calling their lawmakers is not an abuse of power: it's democracy.

The Polish Wikipedia in particular moved very quickly from a proposal to a blackout. I'm not suggesting that we can do the same here, but I am wondering what others think. English Wikipedia is the loudest voice for free culture in the world, and our banner certainly is helping... I just fear that it may not be enough. If we could black out for just 4 hours before the vote (which is at noon Brussels time tomorrow) then I think we'll get their attention at just the right moment.

To remind you - a "No" vote tomorrow just means that there will be a wider debate in European Parliament, involving the entire chamber, in September. Amendments can be offered and our action will make sure that free culture has a voice at the table. A "Yes" vote tomorrow means that our only choice will be to try to kill the entire thing in September... when it is only Articles 11 and 13 which are the problem. (The rest, I am told by activists, is pretty straightforward and useful modernization.) Obviously it will be harder to kill a mixed bill then, and a shame to kill it. So I am keenly hopeful that tomorrow goes well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW we have Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that should include any major coverage of the protests or reaction to the protest. --Masem (t) 17:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would firmly oppose an enwiki blackout for this. While it's an important matter, it's not exactly an existential threat that would justify such an extreme measure. A blackout would adversely impact our readers with no real upside.- MrX 🖋 18:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'd support a localized SOPA-style blackout from now until the vote on July 5th personally (or until September if this passes with no option but to kill it in full in September). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Given that our servers, if I'm not mistaken, are mainly based in the United States, and, as a result, the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and law, I would wholly oppose any English Wikipedia blackout that could be seen as a political action to cajole, coax, interfere, or otherwise effect a response from lawmakers and representatives of other nations and states, which would in no way affect U.S. law. It would, as Mr X says quite plainly, detrimentally affect our user-base, as well, in the United States, Australia, and other English-speaking, non-UK nations, which would hurt us severely regarding editor retention, too. I cannot, for these reasons, support any sort of black-out of English Wikipedia. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'd also oppose any blackout, localized or not. This isn't an existential risk, and a blackout disrupts our primary goal. --Yair rand (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I think this very much is relevant to the English Wikipedia, and anyone around the world reading it, because the standards sets by the European Union will affect any website with clients within the EU, which is basically every website everywhere (see how the recent privacy bill created a global standard). Article 11 would allow websites to demand that we purchase a license from them when quoting their text (even small snippets), which would make life miserable for us trying to maintain neutrality and due weight in articles by writing thoughts as quotes attributed to wherever they came from. Meanwhile, Article 13 creates some unspecific obligation to filter copyrighted content (with whether our systems are sufficient being anyone's guess), then bungles an attempt to create an exemption for us, so that whole thing is asking for regulatory creep. Overall, the whole thing is quite menacing to our project and goals, and I'm more than willing to sacrifice a couple hours to help stop it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: As with one of the comments above, something I think is missing is the enforcement part of this rulemaking, and what the projected impact of that would be, do you have a good way to explain it to the common reader what happens if: (a) These new EU rules become active and (b) Wikipedia just ignores them. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)