Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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

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

« Archives, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

G5. Creations by banned or blocked users.

WP:SPEEDY "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates. To qualify, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned. A page created before the ban does not qualify. To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are in some other topic."

During my seven-year history of writing articles for Wikipedia I have been blocked or banned at various times for my interpretation of the Manual of Style. As a result I resorted to using sockpuppets to make contributions. Now some of the articles written as far back as July 2011 have been singled out and deleted. I'm puzzled as to why these particular ones have been selected when there are well over 1000 to choose from. Personally I don't mind if the whole lot are removed, but what I do mind is the inconsistency in interpretation and application of G5, and in particular the lack of common-sense underlying the rule. I can understand the admins feeling that the perpetrator should be punished - what I don't understand is how Wikipedia benefits by deleting perfectly good articles. To be fair the admins I have chatted to are divided about deleting such contributions. Paul venter (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the imperfections in our ability to detect sockpuppets. We do our best, but it is a difficult problem. If your first twenty or thirty attempts had been quickly discovered and reverted there is a good chance that you would have stopped abusing Wikipedia instead of going on to do it over a thousand times. As for you "minding" inconsistent applications of the rules, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. When you decided to flout our rules you forfeited the right to criticize others for allegedly not following those same rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise for any flaw in WP's sockpuppet detection mechanism as I didn't criticise it. Your use of the word 'abusing' though is interesting and rightly applies to my sockpuppetry, but you imply that somehow that same abuse has contaminated my contributions, and it is exactly that point with which I disagree - an editor's social or anti-social behaviour is not necessarily reflected in his contributions which should be judged on their own merit and not seen as fruit of the poisoned tree. WP is far from perfect and the rules managing its creation should be seen as a work in progress rather than divinely inspired commandments. Issues like this help to spotlight problem areas and with sensible input may hopefully lead to an improved WP. Paul venter (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It isn't mandatory that we delete such articles, but what G5 does is give us the ability to do so when necessary. It's another tool that allows us to remain flexible in dealing with a disruptive Wikipedia user and in quickly stopping disruption, but the existence of such a tool does not mean that we must use it every time. --Jayron32 05:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the user G-Zay was one where good contributions were interspersed with bad and masked into the very articles that he worked hard on. This is a good example of a reason why G5 exists; valid and positive contributions which are easily verified can be vetted and remain, but any questionable or unsourced work can be promptly removed under G5/BLP/etc. reasons. If I go an make an FA article; the FA doesn't go in the trash because it is assumed it is peer reviewed and factually accurate and so forth. Wikipedia's real issue is that some editors create hoaxes and insert false material to get back at Wikipedia or damage its credibility; G5 exists for that purpose where there is doubt, but no other easily applicable reason as to respond. Its the "if in doubt throw it out" clause. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with the Wikipedia policy that says that your abuse has contaminated your contributions, but that is our policy and this is unlikely to change any time soon. The community has decideded with an overwhelming consensus that material added to Wikipedia by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be (but are not required to be) removed by any editor. Of course consensus can change, and it might very well be that your agruments are compelling enough to cause a new consensus to form that this policy should be changed, but until that happens, our current policy is that your abuse has indeed contaminated your contributions.

Removing the incentive for abuse is in itself a desirable goal. Consider the widely held "we don't negotiate with hostage takers" policy. The logic is that, while negotiating is likely to benefit those particular hostages, it also sends a message that taking hostages works and thus leads to many more cases of taking hostages. Now of course I do not want to imply that there is any sort of equivalence between sock puppetry and hostage taking, but my first draft of this comment, where I used the analogy of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum, was even more offensive. The point is that if you reward a particular behavior you get more of it. Clearly you did not evade your block just because you wanted typing practice. The fact that those contributions actually modified the articles instead of being instantly reverted was your reward. Denying you that reward in order to discourage your behavior is a legitimate goal, irrespective of the actual content of your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental flaw in the policy you outline above is that it assumes something sinister akin to terrorism in sockpuppets. What does it matter if an editor chooses to contribute under a score of different names so long as a contribution adds to the value of Wikipedia. On the other hand if false information is included in an article, deliberately or inadvertently, it will inevitably be corrected. To assume bad faith and blindly throw out contributions without having examined their merit is just plain silly, and flies in the face of the constant reminder that the most important consideration when weighing an issue is whether it improves Wikipedia. Paul venter (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

if false information is included in an article, deliberately or inadvertently, it will inevitably be corrected. This is where your argument breaks down, as that's far from inevitable, particularly if cleverly done, and there are some very clever people out there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The entire point that everyone is missing is that we're allowed to delete such articles, but we are still not forced to delete such articles. Discretion is allowed, and many factors including the quality of the article, later good-faith contributions by other editors, and the specific nature of the block and/or ban in relation to the article itself can all be considered. At no point do we automatically purge Wikipedia of every contribution of every blocked or banned editor; but we have the option of doing so if it is necessary. Every case must be judged of its own specifics, and no general statement about if or when G5 would or would not be invoked can me made except in relation to an actual specific article and an actual specific banned user. --Jayron32 02:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Giving admins discretionary powers to delete or not delete articles in this type of situation is vague and leads to the chaos that may be seen here, where it is obvious that deletions can become very arbitrary. This is not a good basis for consistent and sound policy. Paul venter (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So...admins should have compulsory deletion power? Or should we just have bots delete everything by identified ban/block evaders? postdlf (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Yes we realize that Paul Venter thinks that giving admins discretionary powers over deleting the contribution of sockpuppets is a Very Bad Thing. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia community has determined by an overwhelming consensus that requiring admins to either always delete them or always leave them in is a Far Worse Thing. You know Paul, you can avoid this issue entirely by not engaging in sockpuppetry. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Was gonna stay out of this, but re "you can avoid this issue entirely by not engaging in sockpuppetry," I have to say: Or at least go for a clean start and avoid doing the stuff that resulted in a ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to arrive at a better wording of G5 without grandstanding or unsubstantiated remarks such as "overwhelming consensus". This is not the time for cheap shots, but rather to gather input from a larger number of editors who are willing to look critically at the thinking behind this non-rule. Paul venter (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Giving admins a discretionary power to delete material contributed by sockpuppets appears to me to be a better option than any other solution so far offered in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, so far I haven't seen any constructive proposal put forward. Perhaps because nobody sees it as a problem.....Paul venter (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind making G5 much stronger in order to resolve the inconsistency, indicating that except in the unusual circumstance that the article has been substantially edited by multiple other editors, the content must be deleted. Sockpuppetry is such a deceitful activity that most steps to minimize its rewards are justified.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is it that makes sockpuppetry so wicked? Paul venter (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The practice of deceit and the breach of the principle of good faith. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that adopting the moral high ground is supported by "As so often, Yogesh, I really don't give a crap what you think. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)" Paul venter (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also called stuff "bollocks" and told someone to "fuck off" recently. I didn't claim above to have the moral high ground. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If the articles that result from the sockpuppetry are in themselves constructive and improve WP, then so what?Paul venter (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not the question that you asked, nor the one that I answered. You are proposing a Robin Hood defence but when push comes to shove this is all about discretion. I've seen articles created by socks that have been retained and I've seen ones that have been deleted. If it were me, I'd probably delete the lot on the basis that socks should not be encouraged and if the subject matter is notable then someone will recreate it in due course. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The point of G5 is that it gives teeth to banning, the only sanction the community has against users who show they are unwilling to abide by its rules. If a banned user can simply go on editing by creating more sockpuppets, and forcing endless arguments about which of their edits are "constructive", the ban is useless. This has been frequently debated, but there has never been consensus to change the policy stated in WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Enforcing G5 motivates the banned user to take the more constructive option: repent of their previous sins, request unblock, and agree to and comply with any conditions imposed. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I would personally routinely delete articles created by a banned or blocked user, unless there was an exceptionally good reason not to. Otherwise banning users has no value. A merely "constructive" edit will, if it benefits the project, will sooner or later be made legitimately by a genuine editor. As to the thousand or so edits listed above as being created by Paul venter sockpuppets, and their survival in the encyclopedia, this simply means that their origin was not spotted, or that they were felt at the time to be worth retaining. They still should not be here, although it may be seen as unduly narrow-minded to delete them now in view of the time they have existed. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems unduly narrow-minded to me to delete them on grounds of their origin in any case, however old or new they are. If they are bad articles, then the fact of their being created by a sockpuppet merely provides an excuse to delete them without going through a process. If not, then anyone who deletes them is wilfully harming Wikipedia (and should perhaps be threatened with blocking themselves). If you think this means banning users has no value, then so be it (I disagree); but if it is to lead to well-meaning people deleting good material, then it comes to have a negative value, which is even worse. Victor Yus (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My fundamental position has been the following:

The purpose of WP is to create a free encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. The environment is not the end in itself, but the method we have chosen to create the content of the encyclopedia. The criteria for acceptable content do not change depending who who write is. Nobody has special authority to contribute, and the only reason for preventing someone to contribute is if their contributes are disruptive. If a normally disruptive editor creates good content, they are to that extent not being disruptive. There can be exceptions--a contributor most of whose content is disruptive may cause so many problems that the only practical solution is to refuse all the content--for example, a serial copyright violator who we can not persuade to stop--it is reasonable to presume that further contributions will be similarly copyvio. But if someone is prepared to demonstrate that a particular contribution from even that person is not copyvio, and otherwise acceptable, we will have a better encyclopedia if it is included rather than excluded.

But some people are manned for other reasons: for example, they disrupt the overall editing process by making threats, or using sockpuppets to influence decisions. If they are however not currently doing things which pose such a risk, there is no reason for them to remain banned, except the fear that accepting the work will encourage them to resume their formal behavior. In extreme cases, I can understand that we might not be willing to take the chance, but I am not convinced that this applies to every blocked user. We have too few good content contributors that we can afford to turn them away on the hypothesis that someone else will write the article.

But I could equally make the opposite argument.

The purpose of WP is to create a free encyclopedia in a collaborative environment.There are many ways of creating an encyclopedia, even a free encyclopedia, and the current method here is not the only one. This is more exactly a project in open intellectual process, a project to see how far a collaborative environment operating under open content principles controlled entirely by the community in accordance with its own self-generated rules can produce really important useful work while still maintaining the environment. No group has ever done as broad a project in terms of scope and general public importance as we have done with our current methods. We are really a project in experimental social organization--organization not for its own sake, but to actually do something. The encyclopedia is a focus for our work, but the mere product should not take precedence over the entire social group.

It is evident that not everyone can work successfully in this environment. We are a voluntary group, not an all-encompasing compulsory structure of society, and therefore do not have the problem of having to accommodate everybody, in the sense that a political entity has. There are many opportunities for those who want to do this sort of intellectual work to do it elsewhere. We are an opportunity for those who want to experiment with working in this particular manner. We therefore have an obligation to our voluntary participants to permit them to work in the way they have chosen; that people who want to pursue this experiment. as far as it will take us be free from disruption. We therefore must judge by whether a particular individual is of net benefit not just to the actual encyclopedia, but the entire process here.

These two views must be reconciled. Most of us in practice have a combination of those two motives. We are after all talking not in most cases about global banning, but about the particular project of the English language Wikipedia, and we have always acknowledged that many people who cannot work successfully here, may be able to work successfully in other affiliated projects--tho this is not always the case, which is why we do have the possibility of global blocks. For myself, I am in fact interested in both aspects--I have always wanted to participate in a large scale encyclopedic project, and I am here to realize a childhood dream. But I am also here to realize the childhood dream of being able to do something useful free from outside controls. I never thought to be actually able to do either, and here I am doing both. I am also aware that if I were a little more eccentric, I would not be able to do this--that there are controls in the sense that only people with a willingness to follow informal but still substantial expectations can participate, because otherwise the disruption they cause would result in too many other good contributors leaving.

Here's a series of hypotheticals. Suppose I know personally someone who has been indefinitely blocked here. Suppose that person tells me about an error, and suppose I can verify the error. Should I make the edit (knowing of course it will be me who is responsible if I misjudge the factual situation) Now, suppose they tell be that something where we are lacking an article would make a good topic, could I write it? Suppose they give me the material to do so, material I myself can verify? Suppose they actually write the article up in WP format, & I can verify both the references and the suitability, and they are explicit in giving me the work to present in my own name?

Here's another series: Suppose a banned editor writes something up and submits it at AfC, and although it is determined it is from a banned editor. can I as a reviewer verify it, revise it, and accept it? Suppose they write it on their talk p., not being blocked from posting there. Can I similarly use it, if I am willing to take responsibility for the contents? Suppose just the same, except they contribute it under some other pseudonym in mainspace?If I delete it and then resubmit it exactly in my own name, is it copyvio? Would it be copyvio if I attributed it to the now-deleted name used? If I delete it, and use the deleted article which I have saved to write a parallel one, am I plagiarizing? Should I find some way to attribute it? What if I do not save it, but rewrite it exactly or approximately from memory? or use the general concept? DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Using contributed text without attribution is a wmf:Terms of Use violation. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

These are all plausible cases, but the crunch is that there are times, fortunately rare, when it is necessary for the good of the community as a whole to say to a problematic user that he must conform to our rules and standards or he cannot continue to edit here. If such a user believes that, for all the plausible reasons you give, we are not in practice prepared to enforce the current policy on edits by banned users, he can happily reply "Don't care! I feel no need to comply with your rules, and you can't make me, because I shall ignore any ban and continue editing as much as I like by setting up new accounts." It would be better for all concerned if such a user took the threat of a ban seriously. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

@JohnCD: That is exactly why the WP:BAN policy is not taken seriously and should probably be partially, if not completely, abolished. By extension, I would say the same with the WP:BLOCK policy. Who are we to say who is allowed to edit here when we have no way whatsoever to physically prevent them from doing so? If we are going to let an already-banned user's edits in unconditionally, then we might as well let that editor back into the community unconditionally, as well. Unfortunately, much of the community (plus myself, which I find myself guilty of the same thing) like to hypocritically "pretend" that users are "banned" when in actuality they are not. --MuZemike 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For me it's an easy decision: content trumps the identity of the editor.

For the G5 nominations I've run across, I estimate I decline about 1/3, delete about 1/3, and let someone else decide the remaining 1/3. Deleting perfectly good content simply because the author is blocked is a stupid idea, and a small number of my G5 declines have been for that reason (the rest didn't qualify for G5 anyway).

It's been said before above, and I'll say it again: Just because an article qualifies for G5 doesn't mean it must be deleted. Our job as administrators is to prevent disruption, not punish the the entire project by depriving it of good content. I know my views on this don't agree with most other admins. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For me, it's an easy decision in the opposite direction: with 4,000,000 articles in the the encyclopedia, it's impossible for any one G5 to damage the encyclopedia by more than .000025%, more or less, and I think the value of discouraging block evasion is much higher than that kind of trivial loss.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP shooting itself in the foot can hardly be counted as a success story..... With such exalted intellects about there has to be a better solution while satisfying those with a puritanical sense of crime and punishment. Paul venter (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite. But Kww is one of the leaders in this shooting in the foot idea; perceived crimes must be punished at whatever cost. Eric Corbett 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In your haste to set up your straw man and get in your cheap shots, the two of you failed to address Kww's actual point, which is that there is value in discouraging block evasion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not about punishment, it's about sending a message that the community has decided that even if you are capable of making good contributions sometimes you are too much of a pain in the ass at other times and so all your contributions, good or bad, are no longer welcome. Forgive my bluntness, but it is only a petty and childish mind that would engage in socking to prove how good they can be. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not about shooting oneself in the foot, Paul. Socking is a form of lying and cheating to get one's way. The project is not well served by being associated with liars and cheats. It's a matter of short-term loss vs. long-term gain. What the project really needs to do is drop this cloak of privacy nonsense that makes socking so easy to accomplish and take a far more aggressive approach against those that do it.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my bluntness - but utter balderdash. When WP's Mrs Grundys start showing an unhealthy interest in the moral virtues or faults of its contributors, then it is on a very slippery slope. Paul venter (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That you consider not lying and not cheating to be an excessive restraint speaks volumes.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote was that the Mrs Grundys of WP are a liability - and yes, as long as the quality of an article is good, I couldn't care whether the contributor is gay, a paedophile, has nasty toilet habits or is a supporter of the Taliban - and neither should you. Paul venter (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about any of those things. I do care about whether someone is lying to me.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember lying to you (if that's what you mean), but at the same you must remember that you are living morally untroubled in a nation that lied to the American Indian and cheated him out of his heritage. Do you feel morally ambivalent? Paul venter (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. If you just want to argue for argument's sake, take it elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. This was meant to be a constructive discussion, but instead has turned into a personal sniping opportunity. Paul venter (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• G5 must retain its teeth but it also should not be made into an automatic deletion. Discretion is an important element of content management. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• G5 should remain in full effect. I realize that I am a WP:DELETIONIST, but if we decide to keep some articles that banned or blocked users create in violation of their ban or block, banned or blocked users will start violating their bans and blocks thinking that we'll let it go, and we can't let that happen. smileguy91^talk 14:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly so. If you reward someone for their behavior, you see more and more of the behavior you are rewarding until you finally have to crack down anyway. I also think that "not mandatory" is a good policy, because it is usually OK to ignore the problem when the edits are constructive and to instead concentrate on persistent sockpuppeteers. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would add that this is not at all hypothetical. I'm not going to name names but this has actually happened on more than on occasion with more than one banned user. It did not end well for anyone involved and took up even more of the community's time, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect of a ban. Banning doesn't just happen out of the blue. It is actually not all that easy to enact a ban on a long-term user, which is as it should be. But once we do ban someone, that is it. They are not welcome under any identity regardless of what contributions they intend to make. They can appeal the ban instead childishly evading it and going "look at me, I can be a good boy." Just because that worked on your mother or your schoolteacher doesn't mean we have to put up with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd argue that the intent of G5 is to keep banned or blocked users from making more incessant contributions in violation of what earned them that ban or block in the first place. That being said, we decide admins by consensus, and it is highly doubtful that an admin would delete what appears to be an excellent contribution to the encyclopedia just because "oh, but that awesome new article was written by someone who was blocked at the time, so I have to delete it". Though I am not an admin, I do know that admins use discretion because they have to. It's part of having the mop, as they say, and I'm sure there's no admin out there who feels obliged to delete an excellent contribution just because of G5. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Red Phoenix, but I'd really hope the admin is familiar with the reason the user was banned, and is confident the contribution is unrelated to the reason for the ban. If the ban had anything to do with introducing misleading content, the admin had better be a top-notch subject matter expert, otherwise, delete it. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems to speak to the spirit of G5. Primergrey (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

More Comments on the G5 Debate

This situation is bizarre. We have an editor who thinks that Ignore All Rules really means Ignore All Policies and Guidelines. We have an editor who thinks that the Manual of Style is for other people, and that the blocking policy is for other people, and that the rule against sockpuppetry is for other people, and this editor has the audacity to suggest that G5 is an unreasonable rule, especially if it gives administrators discretion. Maybe that is because he has made a "career" of pushing the limits of administrative discretion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for lowering the bar even further in this dialogue. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• As long as there is no sign-in-to-edit procedure, there will always be people sneaking back in and socking. Always. The key question is whether they do it productively or whether they do it abusively. Everything should be case-by-case. Believe it or not, not every blocked or banned editor should have been. The lynch mob on any given day at AN/I is not all wise and infallible. The path back to good graces is difficult for some and impossible for many. We're here to build an encyclopedia, productive contributions should be welcomed, not deleted without analysis or thought on the basis of WP:NEENERNEENERWECAUGHTYOU!. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia subject to gags by British courts?

I have come across two cases in recent days where Wikipedia articles have been censored/deleted due to gagging orders issued by UK law courts.

The case I am mostly familiar with is the Bishop Bell School#Child sexual abuse case. In September 2012, a major manhunt was launched looking for a teacher and his 15 year-old pupil who had eloped to France. The girl's name was widely reported by the British media: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. After the teacher was charged with having sex with a minor, UK based publications were gagged by British courts from carrying her name. As a result of this judgment an editor removed references to her name from the article: [7]. The trial has concluded with the teacher's conviction. Media outlets around the world (bar the UK ones) are carrying the pupil's name: [8]. This case has been discussed at Talk:Bishop Bell School#Court order and Talk:Bishop Bell School#RfC: Should the pupil's name be included in the Wikipedia article?.

Another incident that has come to my attention is the Peter Tobin article where a British police officer compelled a Wikipedia administrator to delete an article, if I am interpreting the discussion correctly: Talk:Peter Tobin#Deletion of full article?.

Now, their may be good policy/guideline based reasons for removing this material i.e. if it is libellous for example, but can I have a review of the legal situation please in regards to British court orders? In a nutshell, is Wikipedia subject to them? It strikes me we wouldn't censor Wikipedia to comply with a Chinese or Iranian court so why do British courts get to decide what we can and cannot add to Wikipedia?

There is an RFC to address inclusion of the material in regards to the Bishop Bell school case, but I would like to determine just how relevant British court orders are to the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO these matters should be referred to the WMF's legal experts. Individual editors and admins should not get involved. The only courts that do have real jurisdiction over Wikipedia are the courts that have jurisdiction in the state of Florida in the US. The only relevant consideration in the abovementioned matters are the BLP rules and particularly the privacy and protection of minors parts of BLP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"The only courts that do have real jurisdiction over Wikipedia are the courts that have jurisdiction in the state of Florida in the US." Is that why there's so much reversion-deleting related to the Church of Scientology---we're afraid they'll see the vandalism and sue us penniless? I noticed this months ago, when I was still editing as an IP, and it's been bugging me ever since. Obviously, we shouldn't kowtow to anyone, but if they have aces up their sleeves.... Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The WMF may or may not be subject to British court orders (as Roger says that is a question for its lawyers) but anyone editing from the UK most certainly is. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is viewable in Britain then the prosecuting authorities may decide to take action against anyone they consider has broken the law. That applies in any country. And if any person in that situation is in Britain or is extradited there then they may be arrested, etc. WMF need to take a balanced view on all such potential issues. It is no good believing that only the US courts have jurisdiction and ignoring everywhere else. Thincat (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We can't permit Wikipedia to be under the jurisdiction of every court in the world. I encourage the WMF to hold the line: Florida and the US federal govt, and that's it, period, end of discussion. We do need to keep editors apprised of any personal risks they might be taking, that is true. --Trovatore (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect we need to apprise the members of the WMF Board of Trustees because I'm sure they will be taking their own legal advice. I should be clear: I am expressing no view about what should or should not be excluded from Wikipedia on legal grounds. I am simply saying that it is prudent to be looking beyond the boundaries of the US. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It also needs to be pointed out that publishing this kind of information can, in serious cases, be enough to derail a case, as public opinion can be influenced by media (incl wikipedia) and prevent a fair trial, which can be grounds for appeal or even allow someone to go free. Its not just a legal matter, but a moral one. Im not putting forward a position at this stage, just playing devil's advocate. -- Nbound (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound more negative that is really intended but...that's not really our problem IMO. Especially if the vast majority of the worlds media is already reporting it. Kumioko (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In this single case, yes. In every case? No... -- Nbound (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes your right, in this case. I should have clarified that. I think the WMF legal can offer better insight but I don't think we have anything to worry about with this case. Since our servers are in the US I think there is more to worry about from them but there have been numerous examples where we told them no too. Kumioko (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If the British press does not carry the name of the victim, then there will be no local sources available for the article. Also, we can avoid mentioning the name of the victim who is relatively unknown in the spirit of avoiding victimization. There is a presumption in favour of privacy. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes British courts try to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, so to speak, which is true of this case where there was plenty of "local" coverage prior to the court order, so sources are easily available. National British stories end up in the Irish press anyway which are not subject to restrictions, so sources are nearly always available. I think there can be good policy based reasons for omitting content, but that's for normal consensus based editing to decide, and this is just part of a wider issue. British gagging orders are becoming all too frequent, sometimes with celebrities obtaining them to prevent the British press from publishing details of extra-marital affairs such as the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy. It's time to clear up the confusion IMO, since it's not good if British courts are censoring Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

After being rather stern above, I'll now say the English courts can be excessive to the point of becoming ridiculous. Peter Tobin, who you mentioned above, was in the the UK headlines, then became prominently anonymous (but it was obvious who it was without looking on the internet) and then reappeared again. Thincat (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

One must clarify the question. If you mean "can a country attack one of their own citizens for what they did or didn't do on Wikipedia" (if they managed to find out who they are) I'd say that there is nothing stopping them except for the systems within their own country. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that goes without saying: if an Iranian editor posts something critical of its government on Wikipedia and the Iranian authorities get wind of it, I don't think the Foundation pointing out that the servers are not based in Iran will hold much sway. However, I think a more interesting question would be whether a British court could effectively compel Wikipedia to turn over the identities—or at least the IP addresses—of British editors which may have contravened a court order? I would be interested in knowing what legal powers—if any—a British court could exercise over Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe, and IANAL, that British courts hold absolutely no power over Wikipedia, since Wikimedia itself has no presence within its jurisdiction. If British prosecutors wanted to get whatever information Wikimedia has on editors who have touched such articles, I believe they would have to petition American courts under American law. Resolute 18:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a red herring, because we can take the decision to redact the name on the basis of the common human decency mandated by our WP:BLP policy without worrying about any legal niceties. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that we cannot discuss the general principle, This is the policy village pump, not the individual cases village pump.

As for "We can't permit Wikipedia to be under the jurisdiction of every court in the world." neither I or Wikipedia are subject to Chinese law, but if I edit the Falon Gong page and later visit China, I could be arrested. Likewise, if a British court orders Wikipedia to turn over the identity of a user and Wikipedia refuses, in theory Sue Gardner could be arrested upon visiting the UK or even visiting Germany with a stopover at Heathrow. There is nothing the WMF could do about this other than make a public protest. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Guy Macon. It is awfully xenophobic of us to say "only Florida and US laws and that's it period". Imagine if GE, Honeywell, Microsoft, Google, and other US companies that have wanted to merge have told the EU that two multi-national companies based in the US are NOT subject to their regulations on anti-trust laws and they didn't need EU permission to merge. Of course Wikimedia lawyers would know what to do best, but on our end shouldn't we consider ourselves a multinational corporation under the jurisdiction of every place we "do business" or have a "presence" which would basically be wherever our editors are editing from. Which by jurisdiction I mean they can try to prosecute whatever they want but actually they are limited by who they can get their hands on. (Eg- If you shoot someone who is in Mexico and you are standing on the US side of the border, and you have never been to Mexico, therefore not a fugitive from justice, can you be extradited? Can a US state court try you for a murder that did not technically occur in that state, let alone the US?)Camelbinky (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing xenophobic about stating the fact that having no presence in a jurisdiction means you are not subject to that jurisdiction's laws. And no, we are not a multinational corporation, nor should we pretend to be. Resolute 19:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Guy is right that there are (at least in theory) risks for editors. We need to make editors aware of them. But I stand by my statement. We need to take the hardest possible line against the tendency of governments to meddle outside their borders. So, once again: Florida and the US govt, period. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My recollection is that m:Wikimedia servers is out of date and this says there are three locations for the servers, so I am not sure that will affect what laws WMF uses now. I do know that British law has pretty near zero affect on anything that I do. In the case where France wanted its radio transmitter article deleted, not only was it not deleted, but it became a top viewed article, so the backlash was enormous. I would personally recommend making decisions based on their encyclopedic value, rather than on the whims of any government. Apteva (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

To really make it complicated, the WMF happens to be a Utah corporation (because Utah laws are very forgiving for non-profit groups... like Delaware does with for-profit corporation and seemingly everybody of any size is registered in that state as a corporation). In addition, the WMF headquarters happens to be in California, so I'd suspect that all three states (Florida, Utah, and California) might be an issue from time to time. Most of the servers are still in Florida from my recollection. The main issues would be if Wikipedia was seen to promote illegal activity of some sort (like child porn or drug sales seem to be good examples... some of the issues on Commons could be mentioned here).

There are "local" groups like Wikimedia UK that certainly could be subject to UK law though, especially its officers and fundraising efforts. I know that Wikimedia Italia has been the subject of several lawsuits and has caused all sort of grief (in part because of Italian law that encourages such lawsuits). While it would be nice to think that Wikipedia servers are isolated from the rest of the world, some care does need to happen with some "common sense" as applied to dealing with laws in countries other than the USA. Suggesting that a UK court has direct jurisdiction over content on Wikipedia is certainly a bit of a stretch, but life could certainly get uncomfortable for many volunteers and fundraising could certainly end in a country if Wikipedians are doing things which offends that local government.

I seriously doubt much fundraising happens in Iran or Taliban-occupied Pakistan in terms of WMF activities, so trying to appease those governments is less likely to be a concern. On the other hand, Wikimedia UK does quite a bit of fundraising, and there certainly are plenty of UK residents who participate in editing and administering en.wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a UK resident, and I fully accept that the UK government has jurisdiction over anything I post on Wikipedia. Heck, I don't even hide behind a pseudonym, so I wouldn't exactly be hard to find. Eric Corbett 00:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be focusing on offering guidance/warnings to British editors, to help them understand personal legal implications. Consider the reports of the tweeters/facebookers who were convicted recently for naming a rape victim, under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. 10 people were criminally convicted in a Magistrates' Court; they were ordered to pay £624 compensation each to the victim, and one was fined £405 + £615 costs as well.[9][10] In a way these cases were more serious than a WP editor might be in, as some of the comments were malicious and the victim had never been named before in the media, but OTOH a WP article might be seen by a lot more people. There is some useful discussion of this on this good legal blog. So a UK WP editor editing about some Sexual Offences cases does seem to have a realistic possibility of getting into a bad mess. I wonder if we should create a Template notice warning UK editors that section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 might realistically apply to an article's content, similar to Template:Sub judice UK. Rwendland (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Why stop at UK editors? Other countries have suppression orders too -- Nbound (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and sure, for other countries too. Editors should be apprised of any risks they personally face, to the extent we can reasonably determine them. (This last point is problematic, of course; it's not clear to what extent we can determine that, and certainly we don't want the absence of such a notice ever to be taken as a guarantee of safety. Probably any such notice should prominently note that its absence should not be construed as an all-clear.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the point is here. If I were to accuse UK Prime Minister David Cameron of paying for sex with an underage prostitute, as Silvio Berlusconi has been convicted of today, I might reasonably expect to have to defend myself in court. Eric Corbett 02:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not under discussion. This section is about gag orders, not libel. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the WMF's position under this law (section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), and assuming the unlikely possibility that WMF had any manifestation in the UK that was capable of being prosecuted, there seem to be some tricky to decide legal questions:

• The law applies to things "published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public" - so would an English court consider WP published in England? It seems to regard twitter/facebook as published in England (see prosecution reports above), so this seems likely.
• In the case of a newspaper or periodical, a journalist/writer would be in the clear, as section 5 of the Act says only "any proprietor, any editor and any publisher" can be prosecuted. But for a website "the person publishing the matter" can be prosecuted, and considering the twitter/facebook prosecution example again it seem possible the UK based writer is covered by this.
• But if the courts did consider WMF Inc to be the publisher instead, then the executives "of the body corporate" could also be prosecuted if the disclosure was "with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of" the executive. I have no idea if this could be used against any WMF executives travelling in the UK, without also prosecuting WMF Inc itself.

Not sure if this helps clarify very much, but this seems to be what an amateur reading of this law suggests. (There could be court orders that apply as well.) Lucky WMF does not have a UK office! Rwendland (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The WMF is fairly flame-proof I think, but not us editors. Eric Corbett 02:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  So in such cases it is probably better that the article be edited by persons from outside the country. If there are editors who never even plan to go to that country, all the better. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Failing to execute a court order may seem impolite to the British, but, IMO, it's better to be rude than to tolerate abuse of juducial power. --Синкретик (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Usernames policy: Sock usernames property of sockpuppetier or wikipedia?

It doesn't matter how many socks user create, if he agrees to use only one account then as per current understanding all sock usernames becomes property of that user. If some genuine user wants to rename his/her account as 'X' but 'X' is blocked because it is sock then genuine user should enter in talk with owner of sock to 'release' his 'property account' in wikipedia public domain to be used for new users. This is completely illogical and outragious. I think policy is needed to deal with such situation. Currently I am facing such situation as you can see here. Thanks. neo (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the stewards could not usurp the account, since it never should have been created? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason: It has live edits. Whether it should have been created or not, usurping would misattribute those edits. If the user agreed to let the account be renamed to something else then it could be usurped, but otherwise, no, at least by understanding of how these things work. In any case this is pretty much out of our hands, SUL is a global policy and not under the control of the English Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the owner is no longer active and the account is abandoned, renaming to something link Sock(2010) where the year identifies the account creation would seem non-controversial. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No matter what, the account in question isn't even on en-wiki and is a global account tied to an account on wikiquote. Whether the account in question is active, blocked, a sock or an account of a Martian is moot. There is nothing that en-wiki can do here. Jguy _Talk^Done 13:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wanted to contest it, meta would be the only place where it would be appropriate and heard. Not to seem pushy or trying to get you to go away or anything, but that's just the fact of Wikimedia. If an account isn't on en-wiki, especially with an upcoming policy, there is nothing we can do.Jguy _Talk^Done 13:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is distributed under CC-BY-SA which requires Wikimedia to present the user name chosen by the user when you look at a list of contributors. If you change the name in the list of contributors without asking the user for permission, then you might violate the user's copyright by renaming him. You should be careful with forceful renames. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone confirm that? I had thought, both under GFDL, and CC-BY-SA, that the attribution had to identify the contributor, not necessarily the way the contributor wanted it identified. Also, this would seem to mean that RevDel/Suppress of the contributor ID is prohibited unless the contribution is also RevDel'd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License#4. Restrictions. It says that you need to include "the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied". When you click on "Save page", you supply your user name, which is either your real name or a pseudonym, and this needs needs to be supplied whenever your work is used. The term "Original Author" is defined at the top of the licence: it includes all editors, not only the one who created the first revision of the file. Of course, if all contributions are deleted (including text in historical revisions of the page), then there is no need to keep the user name intact. In some cases, contributions by a sockpuppet may have been posted for a long time, meaning that there is no practical way to delete some of the contributions (for example, it might require deleting one hundred revisions of this page if the user participated in a discussion here). Also note that most user names are global for all Wikimedia projects, so a change of a user name may cause problems for other projects:

• Some projects (for example Commons) do not have G5, so contributions to Commons can usually not be deleted.
• English Wikipedia only cares about US law, but many other projects care about other countries' laws. A change of attribution may additionally violate moral rights in lots of countries.
• Even if English Wikipedia approves a renaming, other projects where the sockpuppet has been active might oppose this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So it's a violation of CC-BY-SA for me to RevDel an editor name, even if the name is obscene or outing, and even if the edit is constructive (or cannot be RevDel'd because of intervening edits)? I see it is noted. I'll keep that in mind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if someone is a sock, then their contributions should be G5'd, so they do not need to be properly attributed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Gendered changes needed in Washington state related articles?

Per this news article [11], Washington state has banned sexist language in that state.

Freshman is now "first year student," fisherman is now "fisher," and penmanship is now "handwriting," just to name a few.

Does there need to be a change of terminology in articles on people from Washington state? Is there a policy in place to cover this, or does a new one need to be created?--Auric talk 20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, unless there is more to this, it only looks like they are removing such words from state documents, not that such words are "banned". This is one of the least sensational pieces I could find, which states "the ban only applies to state statutes". Chris857 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts on how this relates to WP:GNL?? The policy already says use gender-neutral language, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexist language is protected absolutely by the first amendment. The WA law only applies to Washington state employees and only when drafting official state documents. We are not employed by WA, nor is this 'pedia an official state document, so that doesn't apply here. We might nonetheless still choose to use our freedom of speech to prefer gender-neutral language as a matter of decency and general good writing, but in that case, we'd do so globally, not just in pages relating to Washington. Kilopi (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to WP:GNL, some Wikipedians (most especially those whose main interests include chess) prefer gender-generic "he" over gender-neutral language as standard English. Georgia guy (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

He, and the word "man" in words is already the gender-neutral word, as it is in numerous Indo-European languages where the masculine is the gender-neutral when referring to a mixed-group of male and female, and many non-Indo-European languages such as most (or all?) Semitic tongues. There is nothing "sexist" about words that have "man" or "men" in it. I'd love to see what they do when the words menstruate, menopause, and manslaughter show up in official state documents.Camelbinky (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Why was I taught that "he" was a male pronoun when I was little then?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You were taught that "he" is a masculine pronoun because it is a masculine pronoun. The rule in question is that the masculine gender is used to refer to persons of unknown gender. While that is a rule of long standing, some people, mostly but not all female, object to it, considering it derogatory to women. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Camelbinkys think it is gender-neutral language to use gender-generic "he". That's why I have this question. The answer would be "People are sometimes taught only one definition of a word when two definitions are proper." Georgia guy (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is true that sometimes a word has two definitions rather than one, and this is an example, that "he" may have either masculine gender or common/animate gender. Some people consider the use of "he" as a common-gender pronoun to be derogatory. I would consider it derogatory to myself if "she" was the standard referent for persons of unknown gender, and so I can see where they are coming from. In any case, the law only applies to official documents in Washington state. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

But do you think that it doesn't apply to Wikipedia?? Please go to WP:GNL. Georgia guy (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Washington State law only applies to Washington State documents. It doesn't apply to Wikipedia articles. For instance, it doesn't apply to Washington (state) or Spokane. WP:GNL is an essay, not a policy, but I agree that the use of gender-neutral language is desirable, and the use of "he" as a common gender pronoun as well as its standard use as the masculine gender pronoun is not gender neutral. I will try to avoid referring to editors as "he" unless I can infer their gender from their handle. "Georgia guy" can be inferred to be male. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Especially since "menstruate" and "menopause" come from the same root as "month" and "moon", not "man" or "men"? ;) Anomie⚔ 22:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some MENtoring on the subject... Primergrey (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I just wonder what they'll do about Woman, Women and Female. Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Oh, you mean womyn... postdlf (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, cant we just put all this behind us... into history and herstory. Puns are funsCamelbinky (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

RFCs on FA changes

• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#.22Who_is_in_charge_of_the_clattering_train.3F.22_.28ack._E._J._Milliken.29 discussion leading to the two current RFCs
• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#RFC_on_governance_of_the_FA_forums first one
• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Alternate_RFC_on_governance_of_the_FA_forums first alternate

I suspect there will be other versions posted.PumpkinSky talk 13:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Images - Copyright

Im not sure the existing guidelines are clear on what constitutes PD in both the US and AU are entirely clear (either on the PD-Australia Template, or elsewhere). Most editors seem to think that anything pre-1955 (PD in AU date), pre-1946 (URAA date -50yrs), or even pre-1923 (published PD in US date) is fine. When none of these is necessarily the case. Unpublished works can be be covered by copyright in the US upto 120 years. Many AU images are taken from government archives and likely never saw the light of day (at least provably) prior to being made available on websites in the last 10-20yrs. And are possibly covered under these provisions. This could be something to be worried about? Perhaps Im misreading... Perhaps this has already been discussed? Hell, I'd like to have a better idea even so I know what I can upload. -- Nbound (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't give you any concrete discussions, but from a Canadian perspective, I've generally seen it held that something created before 1946 can be safely claimed as PD in the US. I think the same would be true for Australian images. Resolute 15:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

USA and Australia have very different rules for Australian works.

• Australian copyright status: use terms in {{PD-Australia}}.
• US copyright status: PD in the following situations, not PD in other situations:
  1. PD if the material satisfies the terms in {{PD-US-unpublished}}, regardless of the copyright status in Australia.
  2. PD if the material was published before 1923, regardless of the copyright status in Australia.
  3. If published for the first time between 1 January 1923 and 28 February 1989 (inclusive), and the copyright already had expired in Australia by 1996, then check Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright for subsisting copyrights. If there is no subsisting copyright, then the material is in the public domain in the United States, but if there is a subsisting copyright, then the material is copyrighted in the United States. For the Australian copyright status in 1996, see {{PD-Australia}} but substitute 1954 with 1946.

I see that {{PD-Australia}} doesn't tell when literary works (such as books) enter the public domain in Australia. I assume that this is an omission in the template. The problem is that USA doesn't use the rule of the shorter term and that US copyright terms are very different to Australian copyright terms, so a work is often in the public domain in USA but not in Australia, or vice versa.

You can find the above information by carefully reading Rule of the shorter term, WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, Commons:COM:URAA and URAA.

The problem with the US copyright law is that it heavily depends on when something was published for the first time. The publication history of a historic image is often not easily available, so it is often difficult to tell whether a photo has been published at some earlier point or when it was first published.

Also, if they were first published "10-20 years ago", then beware of the provisions in US copyright law which say that Australian photos taken before 1978 but first published between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002 are protected by copyright in the United States at least until the end of 2047 (see Commons:COM:HIRTLE), without any regard at all to the date when the photos were taken (i.e. this rule also applies to photos which are several centuries old but remained unpublished until the period between 1989 and 2002). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont know exactly when these internet archives came online, and individual images would obviously have different dates anyway. Many AU images are unpublished (at least provably), and much newer than 1893, this could present a serious copyright problem for Wikipedia/Commons. Even on an article like Sydney Harbour Bridge, theres a lot of old photographs that are definitely PD-Australia, but not provably PD-US. Similar issues exist on any article containing photgraphs form that era (and there is alot of them) -- Nbound (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

How were the images stored before they were published online? Many images are kept in physical form in a public archive, and if anyone was allowed to walk into the archive to see the physical photos, then the photos would probably count as "published" (according to the US definition) on the first date that the general public was allowed to do this, at least if you were allowed to obtain a copy of the photos (using a camera, a photocopying machine or whatever). See Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which tells that exhibiting a painting at a museum or a statue in a park sometimes constitutes publication, in particular if this happened before 1978 (when the meaning of the term "publication" changed slightly in US law). On the other hand, if the photos are private photos stored in a private photo album, then we have a big problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Its going to be very hard to prove when they were made publically available, as they dont usually say when they were made available to the public. Some are govt works, some are purchased/acquired private sets. Next to none state any publication information whatsoever. I would presume the onus is on us to prove the images are PD or remove them from WP?. -- Nbound (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In some way, yes, that's probably how it must be. There have been numerous discussions on Commons about the problem of establishing publication (especially with regard to paintings but photos suffer from the same problem), but people try to avoid and disregard this problem due to the disasters a strict enforcement and request for prior publication might cause, acknowledging that it is usually very hard to find the information. I'm not sure what would happen if someone would sue you and claim that a work is unpublished if you can't provide proof of publication in court. The person suing you might not be telling the truth, but you have no way to prove this. I would concentrate on photos taken in 1946 or later as those are much more unlikely to be in the public domain in the United States and leave the rest for now at least, unless you have a good indication that the photo is unpublished.

For Australian paintings, the problem is usually that you need to show that the painting was exhibited at a museum before 1923 and that the museum allowed people to take photos of the painting. If the painter died before 1946, it is enough if the exhibition was before 1978. This first requires us to know when and where the painting was exhibited, and also whether the museum allowed people to take photos at that time. Even if you find out that a painting was exhibited at a specific museum in 1920, how would you determine whether the museum allowed people to take photos at the museum in 1920? It's usually easy to find out whether a museum currently allows people to take photos, but it is much harder to find out what the policy was 90 years ago.

For Australian photos, the task is usually to locate a newspaper from the 1920s or 1930s in which the photo was published. However, there were thousands if not millions of newspapers published during that time, and you can hardly search through them all. A good thing, though, is that you can use newspapers as your source for the photos. If you find a photo in an Australian newspaper from 1930, then you know that you can scan the newspaper and upload the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Trove, searching newspapers is actually easy, unfortunately, there arent too many images in newspapers of that age. In general though, the answer for the majority of these images (100s/1000s) is essentially the Wikipedia version of cover our ears and say LALALA, and hope nothing happens? :S. This seems very odd especially when we goto so much trouble to state why we think other images are fair use. -- Nbound (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A new policy needed: Using questionable sources, and discussing fringe claims and issues

The problem: There is a need for discussing and reporting on fringe claims, and people and organizations around them. But the primary sources for showing these claims, are exactly those designated as questionable or biased sources.

The current status: wp:V (verifiable sources) states: The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

This means that sometimes they can be used. When?

Questionable sources are defined by the policy as:

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, 
that are promotional in nature, 
or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. 

Questionable sources cannot be used for:

Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, 
which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.

But in the section: 'Biased or opinionated sources' the policy states:

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources 
for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. 

Although immediately following, the policy states:

When dealing with a potentially biased source, 
editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, 
such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

IMHO, and I hope to have a good discussion on this, we should have clearly defined ways to use biased or questionable sources, in particular with articles dealing with fringe claims, as I'll explain immediately:

The need: Since the 1980's and more so since the 1990's and the web revolution, there has been more and more knowledge which is "noise" to the established world of information, but which nevertheless exists as information. I'm talking about views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. In the past, encyclopedias and other 'respected' publications would steer away from this type of information. But there is no way of getting around it: Today, that information, even if it is controversial or misleading, is available and widely spread. And narratives change with time. What yesteryear was extremist, today is conformist. It needs to be dealt with.

Some say to simply disregard it. But it isn't blowing away. IMHO and probably many other wikipedians will agree with me, there should be some way to deal with this information, and it is important to bring it up on the wikipedia itself. So for example when dealing with a claimed "alternative" medical procedure which has caused death it should be clearly described, along with the damage it has caused. When there is a conspiracy theory it should be stated clearly along with its refutation.

I believe that this would be a better policy than just ignoring fringe claims and their sources. If you agree with me till now, the next thing needed is a discussion on using questionable sources in this context: There are four types of sourcing required: So the following cases should IMHO be discussed, and not pushed aside offhand:

1. Notability (or notoriety) and specifics of claims In many cases, conspiracy theories, "alternative methods" in science and medicine, controversial political claims, and other "fringe claims", will be dealt with by "established sources" only on the main issues, but with no details about the (usually living) people and organizations that are connected to those claims, and missing specifics in the claims.
Examples:

• a. Proving that someone is famous for a fringe claim (a "suppressed scientist" according to conspiracy theories)
• b. Proving that a fringe claim is commonly used by conspiracy theorists, eg. some "over-unity" energy generation unit
• c. Explaining the specifics of a fringe claim e.g. the details of a claimed "alternative medical procedure".
• d. Showing the source of a fringe claim e.g. telling who claimed that the Boston bombing was staged.

In all these cases, you would probably need to resort to using a questionable resource. There should be some policy specified for that.

2. Refutation from biased sources: In other cases, fringe claims show up in the media, on the internet and even in published books, and are contested only by writings in blogs, complaint websites, or "debunking" fora and organizations.
For example:

• A book publicized by an "alternative medicine" promoter, and dealt with only by an organization (biased in itself, but using established primary sources) refuting the book online.
  

In this case, it would be logical to point to the (biased) source.

3. Personal postings: There are cases where a person who's views are being debated posts information in their own words, on a well know blog, or in their own blog.

• a. Used to show someone's personal view: A public notice posted on their personal blog
• b. Used to show someone's personal view: A public posting on a well known blog, or in the social media

4. Proving a claim is fringe: Sometimes a wikipedia article may contain a fringe claim, showing it as an accepted claim. The only way to show that the claim is a fringe claim is by pointing to questionable sites, either from the refuting party or from the fringe claim sites.

Your thoughts? Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you confused "questionable" sources and "biased" (or "non-neutral") sources? Questionable sources are sources that have no established reputation for meeting relevant standards of research. The result is that questionable sources are largely limited as to for what types of claims they can be used as reliable sources. Biased sources are sources that favour a point of view. The categorization of sources as biased is independent from the categorization of sources as reliable. That's what the two quotes on biased sources are trying to communicate: That a source is identified as biased means it must go through the regular process of checking whether it is reliable. That a source is identified as questionable means it has already been ruled out as a reliable source for most types of claims. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 1. c,d, and 3. My understanding is that any source can be used for the statement "the source says X" (e.g. "The para-quasi-pseudo-phsychophysics blog SRSLY GUYZ! TRTH claims that hamsters can levitate small metallic objects with their minds" (reference: SRSLY GUYZ! TRTH)). Of course, you need to take care with WP:UNDUE in this situation. MChesterMC (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with vanity in BLPs

Is there any policy or guidance regarding how to deal with situations where a living person claims a certain date of birth but numerous other sources say otherwise? This is a hypothetical situation but it is or was the case that, for example, some actors would knock a few years off their age. Does the presumption of "least harm" apply and thus we pander to their vanity? Similarly, if there are two perfectly acceptable images, do we prefer an obviously Photoshopped/airbrushed image of a living person over a less vain one simply because the former is their "official" image? - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The date of birth question is clear. The date that is reported in reliable sources is date that we should report. With birth date, pandering to the principle of "least harm" would allow people to introduce unsourced false information. That applies to any fact in a biography of a living person where the person contradicts a reliable published account. (If there are conflicting dates for the birth of a person, both in reliable sources, they should both be included.) If the person has knocked a few years off his or her age, that can be noted if it is considered notable. Otherwise the reliable date of birth should be used. An obviously photoshopped image is a more difficult case, because it is still a likeness, but I would still prefer to use a picture taken by photographer who did not have a conflict of interest. Does anyone have any further thoughts on the photoshopped images? I think that the question about an altered birth date is obvious. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We prefer free images (that is, those compatible with Wikipedia's copyleft licenses) over any other images, but editorial decisions about image quality are entirely up to editors. That is, where two free images are available, editors use discussions and consensus to decide whether to use one, both, or neither of the images based on relevance and aesthetics. The opinion of the uploader and/or the subject of the article is not given any special weight in such discussions. Of course, non-free images are not generally allowed where equivalent free images are available. But being free does not force Wikipedia to use it, if there is a sound editorial reason not to. --Jayron32 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The primary consideration when choosing an image is pertinence and encyclopedic nature. My interpretation of that guideline is that a photoshopped image is a less accurate representation of the subject, and therefore has less encyclopedic value. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

On the birthdate question, if there are conflicting reports, then it's common to report the conflict. This is true even if the second date is just on the BLP's own blog: "The Times says that Joe Film was born in 1964, but Film's blog says that he was born in 1965". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sitush. Hope you are well. The question:"Is there any policy or guidance regarding how to deal with situations where a living person claims a certain date of birth but numerous other sources say otherwise?" The answer is, that we have numerous separate guidelines that, when sourcing and giving strength to a particular "source" we have to ask if the verifiability of a primary source can trump a reliable secondary source.

The truth is, this really isn't a hypothetical. It seems to be somewhat common. I asked for guidance a while back on a situation at Jimbo's talk page and we discussed the strength of the sources verses the good faith assumption of what the subject may have meant when an inaccurate or conflicting date is given. The principle of "least harm" here is to assume the best with the subject regardless of what the decision of consensus is for dating. Here is what the consensus seems to have held in this last situation I am referring to. There was a valid, government birth record and enough information to rule out mistaken identity as there are already previous statements of the accurate dating in several sources, but far more by simple number with the inaccurate date. The date was changed to reflect the birth record confirmed by the earlier sources and more recent sources with the inaccurate date dismissed as a misreading of an off comment that seemed even the author saw as tongue in cheek.

BLP dating with simple math is allowed and common. BLP policy on "Tabloid journalism" sources help narrow the sources down to the strongest ones and primary sources on file may be used as dating but cannot be linked in the reference as personal information may be present. But if it can be confirmed to be the same individual, primary birth records have been used as verifiable sourcing especially when a secondary source does indeed mention that date.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand about simple math. I agree that, if the date of birth is reliably sourced, determining the age is a matter of simple math. Is that what is meant, or is it a matter of counting how many references there are to a particular stated date of birth? I agree that, if date of birth is disputed, the one that is sourced to a government record, or to a secondary source that attests the government record, is the reliable one, no matter how many people have quoted the incorrect date of birth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I also would suggest that an actual government-provided date of birth is a secondary source. The primary source is the document filed by the hospital (or midwife) with the registrar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea that a birth certificate is a secondary source and is only published by the government in the documentation they provide. That makes some sense actually. And I meant that it is simple math if you have a person stating an age at 25 and they were born in May, you can use simple math to say they were born in May of 1988.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Robert has suggested this idea before, and it's been roundly rejected every time. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN: a faithful transcript of an eyewitness account (e.g., a birth certificate) is not magically a secondary source. Secondary sources, especially in the sense that Wikipedia uses that term (and has since the term was first introduced into policy years ago), provide an intellectual component that transforms the primary source. A secondary source provides analysis, comparison, interpretation, or other higher-order thinking. A secondary source does not merely regurgitate what someone else wrote beforehand.

It is true that some fields use a notably weaker definition. I saw one website (genealogy, I think) claiming that a photocopy of an original was a secondary source, which is so laughable that I assume it was just some amateur who got things confused. We've had many editors who believed that "primary" meant having a conflict of interest and "secondary" meant being independent. This is also wrong: WP:Secondary does not mean independent. But there are some differences, and some of our editors are used to the more generous definitions used in their fields. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as they remember that Wikipedia doesn't accept those definitions.

More importantly, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which outright bans the use of "public records that include personal details, such as date of birth". A birth certificate is definitely a public record. You can also search BLPN and RSN for multiple discussions of whether it's okay to use a birth certificate. It's never acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"[I]f there are two perfectly acceptable images, do we prefer an obviously Photoshopped/airbrushed image of a living person over a less vain one simply because the former is their "official" image?" This is also very common. The answer seems to be that, official portraits provided by the subject that are preferred by the subject, have no stronger argument for use than the sci-fi convention snapshot taken at a table, or signing a book. We can photoshop as well, and I have removed objects from images from the consensus of the discussion, but...my experience has been that Wikipedia editors don't tend to like the glossy artistic portraits used by management agencies. They are not encyclopedic. Consensus rules, but I have never seen a discussion support a subjects preferred image over something that could be located with a suitable license.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC:Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)#On promotion

New rfc on a longstanding proposal. Also listed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Are online references mandatory for new articles?

Below is an extract from a discussion I had when trying to go through the AfC process (I have removed the other persons identifier as it is not relevant):

Your references are not verifiable. Please find online references to support your submission's verifiability. 03:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying, for instance, that the New York Times is not verifiable? If so then what do you mean by verifiable? If you conclude that only online references are verifiable then that is an incorrect interpretation of Wiki's rules. What is necessary is a reliable Source, not a verifiable online reference (although that is useful). I refer you to WP:RS which sets out what sources are appropriate. NealeFamily (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that New York Times is not verifiable. What I want to say is that your submission cannot be verified by books or newspaper articles only. You also need to add some online references along with it. 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know if an article must have online references or not. I can not find anything that states this as necessay. All I have found is that the primary criteria is WP:RS. I just want to make sure I am following the right line of thought. NealeFamily (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

An unfortunately too-common misconception. Sources need not be online, no. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. We require sourcing but the sourcing need not be online. It's easier if it is online to create articles but we don't limit sourcing to that. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Another good example of a terrible AfC review. Why isn't there a vetting process for AfC reviewers? Even a minimal one, like for rollback— easy to get in, yet easy to get the tool pulled if the reviewer isn't competent. Far too often I've seen clueless reviewers reject perfectly fine articles (or reject a poor article but don't have the communication skills necessary to let the author understand what the problem is) and I sometimes wonder if this is even a bigger problem for new editor retention than the usual suspects. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Can I suggest a modification to WP:RS in an appropriate place that states: there is no requirement for all or any sources to be online ones for an article, but if available online sources are useful. or at least something along those lines. NealeFamily (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I added one sentence to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources. Take a look at that. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That captures the heart of the issue. Thank you. NealeFamily (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, online (reliable) sources are not mandatory, as they may also come from print-only materials not available online (e.g. print newspapers, old magazines, etc.). Since this is an online encyclopedia, FUTON bias is going to exist, but it shouldn't get in the way of verifiability if just print-only sources are available. --MuZemike 20:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note for this particular user, and I've amended the AFC reviewing instructions to address this error. In his defense, he seems to have just been copying what he saw someone else doing, which is what most of us do around here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing. I don't want to discourage the user as they are very diligent. Hopefully they will take as being in good faith. NealeFamily (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Points of view and reporting the speech of others.

Thanks so much to everyone who responded to my last question here, concerning this encyclopedia's scope. I have another question now, and I really want as many responses as possible, so thanks in advance to anyone who answers.

WP:NPOV is about points of view. I think we all basically agree what a point of view is, and we even agree that various clauses, sentences, paragraphs, et cetera can express or represent a point of view. So for example, "the cause of the diversity of species is evolution" expresses the mainstream, scientific point of view. And "the cause of the diversity of species is intelligent design" expresses a fringe, creationist point of view.

If you include either of these clauses as sentences without the quotation marks in an article, the statements would then be in the authorial voice of the article, and—insofar as the article contains such a statement—the article would be expressing the corresponding point of view. But what happens when such clauses are not in the authorial voice of the article? What if they are given while reporting the speech of others, either in direct speech or indirect speech? What point of view is being expressed in such a case?

For example, if you include "Professor Nobody says that the cause of the diversity of species is intelligent design" as a sentence without the quotation marks in an article, what is the point of view that would be expressed? Is it the same point of view as before—a fringe, creationist point of view—or is it the point of view that Profressor Nobody has a fringe creationist point of view?

That really is my question. I've so far found anecdotally that editors go either way on this one (which is really quite amazing, because it so fundamentally affects the application of WP:NPOV), but I really want a broader survey. Thank you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: The example is just an example. Take any other example: "Hitler said that Roma people were part of an inferior race." Is the point of view expressed the fringe point of view (i.e., they are inferior), or the non-fringe point of view (i.e., Hitler held that racist view) that if that sentence is included in some relevant article? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

EDIT 2: Forget any example if you must. Consider all sentences that are treatable as being of the form: Someone in some way made some claim. Are the points of view expressed by such sentences (1) in some way expressed by the claims that are in the grammatically reported speech, or are the points of view (2) that those persons made those claims in that way? So the question can be fairly answered with "1" or "2"; "the former" or "the latter". If you think the point of view expressed depends on other factors outside of the sentence itself (e.g., in which article the sentences are included, or exactly what claims are being reported, etc.), that is also an answer I am very interested in hearing, i.e., a "3" or "it depends" answer. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I would say the point of view being expressed is that Professor Nobody has expressed (and unless otherwised qualified still holds) the stated view about the cause of the diversity of species. In other words, it expresses a view about what Professor Nobody says. It expresses no view about the actual cause of the diversity of species and, by itsef, expresses no view on whether such a view is fringe or otherwise.--Boson (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC) PS: In context, of course, there might be a number of implied points of view, for instance if no other views are presented and Professor Nobody appears to be presented as an authority. --Boson (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• The situation is this: In an article on the professor, a statement of what the professor believes or has said is fine; in an article on ID (and assuming that sources show the statement is a reasonable summary of the ID position), the statement is fine. However, in an article on any scientific topic, the statement must not be used as it would be WP:UNDUE—there are many very reliable sources supporting the evolution-is-a-fact POV, so the contrary opinions of a couple of professors would not be warranted. We also have WP:ONEWAY which asserts that an article on ID can (indeed, should) mention that evolution is an established science, but an article on evolution does not mention ID (unless the article concerns a creationist controversy). Another example is Barrack Obama which states that he was born in Honolulu, with no mention of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in the article, although a link occurs in the navbox at the bottom. Text like "media commentator X says Obama was born in Kenya" will not appear in the main article because that view is WP:FRINGE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The example is just an example. I'm not asking whether the statement should be included anywhere; I don't think there is any need to talk about reliability or any other issue; in fact, just assume that the statements are founded on sources which are completely reliable. I'm asking what is the point of view expressed by the statement. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I should have read more closely, I think you pretty much answered the question with your last sentence. I just want to clarify, is it your opinion that the point of view of a sentence containing reported speech can change depending on what article it is in? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My two bobs worth. If the statement had no quote marks it is the article authors paraphrase of what was said. With quote marks it is a third parties paraphrase of what the person said. It does not change the meaning, only the source of the statement. NealeFamily (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the above, "Hitler thought X" will not require much by way of balance in an article about Hitler, but much more balance in an article about X - where it might be a fringe theory or not be worthy of mention at all. It's all a case of framing the NPOV question in the right way. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So you too are of the opinion that I imagine Johnuniq also espouses (I'm still waiting for his definitive answer): The same sentence containing reported speech can represent one point of view in one article, but a different point of view in another article? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That is possible, based on its context within both articles. In one article you could hold a statement as supporting the articles viewpoint, while in another article, for instance, it could be used to show bias towards a particular viewpoint.

The nastiest use of a quote I heard was a Political Science professor in a lecture ascerting that context was irrelevant so long as what was said supported your claim. So I guess what I am saying is the context of the quote within an article can change the meaning of the quote. NealeFamily (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry Statement

I am posting this question here, rather than at the talk page for WP:SOCK, not to forum-shop, because I am not a primary party anyway, but to get a quicker answer on a frequently visited page. However, the following statement was made: "For sock puppetry, seems there are many legitimate reasons for having sock puppets, and though usually you have to disclose that you are sock puppets, there are quite a few situations where you don't need to or even shouldn't disclose that you are sock puppets." Is it as bizarre as I think it is? Either an experienced editor has confused sock-puppets, a never permitted type of alternate account, with legitimate alternate accounts, which are used in special situations, or the editor is just confused, or am I mistaken? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The sock puppetry page is very clear stating While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed. It then goes on to list what improper means. The editor or discussion you are talking about should be referred to that page. NealeFamily (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is exactly the same as my reading. The other editor had read the policy, but paraphrased it wrong, thus changing its meaning almost 180 degrees. I told him to re-read the policy again. By the way, he wasn't defending sock-puppetry. He was defending his question as to whether two of his opposing editors in a slow-motion edit war were sock-puppets. I had said that his question about whether they were sock-puppets was a serious allegation, because sock-puppetry is normally dealt with blocking the sockpuppets, and sometimes the puppet-master, and sometimes even banning the puppet-master. He was trying to defend his question/allegation as not necessarily a serious attack. That is what is going on. The basic problem is a slow-motion edit-war. Many slow-motion edit wars have to do with countries that may be six thousand miles from the United States (or from the United Kingdom or from India or any other Anglophone country). This has to do with a place that is ten thousand times as far away, that is, sometimes sixty million miles away. It is not a country because it is not on Earth because it is Mars. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Threatens to Ruin Wikipedia

I have been a registered and active member on Wikipedia for 3 years. I created several articles a few years ago and used the wizard at first and from what I recall had no problem. Recently I wanted to create a new article as a “stub” and properly tag it and let the community contribute. I could not remember how to create an article and so I Google searched "Wiki Create New Article" and it gave me Wikipedia:Starting an article which gives 3 options Sandbox, User Page or Wizard. I was confused and also surprised when I was done to be “locked into” a review process. This process is not only unneeded but threatens to ruin what Wikipedia is. I logged into the IRC to ask what to do and no one was on. The next day after my article was denied (big surprise), I was able to login and find out how to use the old process but with a warning of how my article will probably be deleted. Total biased nonsense!

AFC is deceitful as it never provides the option or even a link for the user to bypass the review process. Even though this is supposed to be “optional” for editors, it never provides any way outside of it (except for sandbox and user page for testing). Many people (such as myself) get locked into this unwillingly and since it should be an option it outright deceitful.

With the exception of protected and semi-protected articles any user may freely contribute and edit Wikipedia. What if it was setup that it was not so simple to see and you did a Google search and found a wizard and then your edit was put into a “review” process? This is outright dangerous!

Additionally I fail to see how AFC has some how stopped or cut down on SPAM (as I am not sure what the whole purpose of it is) as I view and flag tons of newly created articles daily. You can look at the "thousands" we get and how many are flagged for speedy delete. The impact has little to no effect on intentional SPAMMERS as they are experienced to bypass it.

Also it is dangerous in that if "AFC Admins" have a conflict of interest OR lack the knowledge of the subject they can keep denying it. Again this threatens what Wikipedia is about.

In my opinion this AFC is not needed whatsoever since users have the Sandbox or User Page to create and test an article and thus AFC only serves to grant the AFC group “control” and “power” over what articles maybe submitted. For example why was my new article denied? Because it was a stub?

I propose that at the very least if AFC is kept that is not setup to be deceitful and “lock users” into it, the process should give users a clear option at the start or at the end or the article to opt out and proceed to post. As it is setup now, new users cannot use the wizard without being “locked into” a political biased and potentially abusive system. Tyros1972 Talk 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add that if the purpose of not adding a clear and obvious option to “opt out of AFC” and proceed to post unreviewed defeats the whole purpose of AFC, or that users will not use the AFC process; then that clearly shows how AFC is not needed. It also proves that users are NOT using it willingly, that they (like myself) were locked into it. Tyros1972 Talk 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What is this “opt out of AFC” a rubbish? Any 4-days-old account with ten edits can directly create new pages in the main space. Is actually important whether a Wikipedia article will be created four days later or earlier? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that isn't obvious and as I explained when you do a search on Google or Wiki you get the AFC wizard. Once there you have no option to opt out of it, the way it is setup is to "trap" the user and "deceive" them. If AFC was purely an open option as it claims to be surely it would allow the user to freely use the wizard and at the end present them with 1) Have Article Reviewed or 2) Publish to Wiki. If your argument is if you did that no one would use AFC as I stated above this proves AFC is pointless and serves only one purpose for the AFC group to control what articles are posted. Articles in question should go through go thru the WP:AFD process were a single person isn't deciding if it should remain. Tyros1972 Talk 19:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some specific suggestions as to what else needs to be said and where, to make it more clear to registered users that the Article wizard and Articles for Creation process are optional, and that at any point they can just ignore it and post an article directly? I agree that it isn't spelled out very clearly. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that users should be able to use the wizard as it guides new editors and at the end have those 2 options. I don't recall in the past that the wizard was controlled by the AFC Group like it is now. All user should be able to use the wizard and at the end have the option for review or to post. Additionally if the article is rejected they should be able to ignore that and directly post it and if other editors have a problem it be submitted through the AFD process. Tyros1972 Talk 19:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So maybe something that states clearly that a rejection is basically just one editor's advisory opinion, and while it shouldn't be ignored, it's not a bar against posting it directly in article space? I agree it's a concern; recently I saw an AFC rejection that was actually contrary to well established (and I thought well known) notability guidelines, by a reviewer that was no more experienced (based on edit count) than the submitter. I don't know how common that kind of thing is, but it should be made clear all through the process that no registered user has to go through it, and can take the end result as just an opinion. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say about the rejection, the user "must" have the option to disagree and post to the community. AFC is bad from it's core, this is a pre-modded system that prevents the community from properly accessing the article. It should be purely an option, even if rejected have the option to post and let us decide not AFC group. Tyros1972 Talk 20:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Any registered user does in fact have that option. You can go ahead and move the page into article space and remove all the AFC stuff even after it has been rejected, provided it was not deleted. The main problem with AFC, in my opinion, is that it has been badly backlogged for a very long time and some reviewers may be being a bit hasty. Resorting to overblown hyperbole is not a way to fix any problems with this process. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Why didn't I see it? Why is it so hard to find? Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

AFC is only for brand new editors who may not be aware of notability guidelines and whatever else, any other editor can just modify a non existent page. -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I fail to see the point of "pre-moderating" new editors as we see new articles on a daily basis that are not notable. This should be up to us (the community) not the AFC group. The biggest concern is that one small group is controlling what goes on Wikipedia. If this is how Wiki should be, then we may as well throw out AFD and any of our tags since every article must be approved by the AFC group before it is posted. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, it is not necessary for any editor reviewing an article or an edit to an article to have subject knowledge; all that is required from them is to have sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines. This does not unfortunately presuppose that they are qualified in this respect; neither new page patrollers nor AfC Reviewers are vetted for these tasks. The one exception is the Reviewer right for Pending Changes, which is however is accorded on a low threshold of experience

, and is not related to the creation of new pages.

I agree with the comments that the title of this heading is overblown. Articles for Creation is broken, and possibly broken beyond repair, but it does not interfere with article creation by registered users. The least complicated feasible method of article creation by registered users is to create the article in user space and move it. (An article can be created directly in mainspace, but it is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion by a deletionist before the creator finishes adding the content and references. That is why it is better to create the article in user space and move it.) AFC is broken, but the idea that it threatens Wikipedia is an exaggeration. It only threatens article creation by users who don't know that it is broken. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Because this obviously effects new users and not experienced, the title is even more so appropriate. Wiki becomes a closed community like a "message forum". New users register and try to create an article and this happens and they leave. Additionally AFC is where it starts, if we don't nip this in the butt it has the potential for the group to gain more and more power to eventually it is standard. As AFC stands now it is a "dangerous idea" and I see it as a very serious threat. You have to look at the BIG picture instead of looking at what it is now. I see AFC as a "bad seed" but at this time it is still just a seed but given time the seed will grow. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, neither AfC nor NPP will physically prevent the creation of articles by Autoconfirmed users.

Thirdly, there is absolutely no urgency for the creation of any any new article.

WP:ACTRIAL was an attempt by the community to address the problem of the creation of unwanted pages and significantly reduce the requirment for New Page Patrolling, and the AFC process by limiting the creation of new articles to autoconfirmed users. Although the idea was was supported by a healthy consensus, and the debate was heavily subscribed, the idea for a trial of the proposed process was rejected by the Foundation because it was thought that it would be contrary to Wikimedia ideology and would ultimately lose new users. The proposal of ACTRIAL (note trial) was to find out if such claims were justified, and to demonstrate the main purpose of the restriction before being adopted as a new measure.

In the immediate aftermath of the ACTRIAL rejection, the WMF nevertheless offered Article Creation Workflow as a solution. Wikipedia has never has a proper landing page, and this excellent proposal by the Director of Engineering would probably have addressed all these issues of page creation. However this development was shelved and archived as being of low priority, while instead, the Foundation developed and launched the Page Curation tool which although a superb piece of software, is only effective in the hands of sufficiently experienced users. Hence the core problems persist to this day. For up-to-date discussions, please see this thread and this thread. Maybe all this will help to encourage more development on the original Article Creation Workflow as proposed by the WMF, and ultimately address Tyros1972's concerns which are possibly echoed by many. 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

• I've tested something at WP:WIZGO to add a button to allow them to create it directly. Right now, it adds {{unreviewed}} to it, this can be updated if people wish. Feel free to revert if you all wish. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Addendum - I think it'd be nice if someone with better knowledge of templates can a) make sure I didn't break anything too bad, and b) create a new "unreviewed" style template that can be used to add this to a category (say Category:List of articles created directly with the Article Wizard or similar) that'd be great. Just for a test run until we see how this affects the articles being created. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: That's a good start, obviously I don't object to it. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Every single thing we can do to channel the majority of new users into AfC is a step for the better. The vast majority of articles created by new editors, in my experience having done both vandalism and new page patrol, are simply inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Most new articles are either so malformatted that having them in mainspace is non-functional, or, more often, don't even come close to meeting WP:N. I know that this probably sounds mean, and harsh, but I believe that barriers to article creation is actually a good thing. Our value, as an encyclopedia, rests on the fact that we take the immeasurably vast amount of info available online, in people's heads, in books, etc., and cut it down to the minimum critical information on only notable topics. That, after all, is what encyclopedias have always been for. I know that to many people this sounds antithetical to the idea of an open-sourced encyclopedia...but, after all, our goal is not to be "open to all editors", it's to be "open to all editors here to create an encyclopedia". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: Until there is a policy (or guideline) that has site-wide consensus for this drastic change in how we operate (the principle of "registered users may create articles"), I don't feel comfortable supporting it. I think AfC is something everyone should take part in. But it's not your or my determination to make. I'm considering starting an RfC on this to determine the consensus for requiring or "strongly discouraging" not using the article wizard (such as is done for COI editing). At least then there's a policy/guideline basis for not having the button. Right now, there's the button that I added. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion started because User:Tyros1972 read Wikipedia:Starting an article, chose one of the three methods listed there, and then was surprised to find that the article was under a review process. I have looked at this page, and it does indeed give three options for how to create a new article, with instructions for each. Only one of these three leads to the Afc, and it specifically warns that the article will go through a review process. Why choose that one if that's not what you want? Also, as soon as a new user successfully creates one article through Afc, an automated acceptance message is sent telling the user that they can create articles directly and don't need to have them reviewed, and points them to the instructions on how to do this. There are help message boards all over Wikipedia (including this one, the main help desk, the Teahouse, the Afc help desk). If User:Tyros1972 or any other autoconfirmed user found his or her article accidentally in Afc when the intention was to create it directly, why not simply ask for help in moving it instead of claiming to be "trapped"? Why not assume good faith instead of claiming that other editors are out to frustrate you and ruin the encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I chose create the new article and never saw any option to bypass AFC. At the end my only option was to "submit for review", that is why I said I was locked in. This has nothing to do with "assuming good faith" this is about using "common sense", no matter what the idea behind the AFC Review process is, it is dangerous and should be abolished. If it is kept as I stated multiple times, leave it as an "obvious option" for new users who want help. Tyros1972 Talk 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is the "lock-in", where I would agree with you that you can and should opt-out at any time. Then again, you may end up having your article reviewed anyway and end up going through the AfD process (where I find that almost all new articles with just a few exceptions seem to hit now if they don't go through the AfC process). I disagree that it should be a bilateral one or the other, and it does reflect poorly on the new article creation process in general, but it is the current state of affairs at Wikipedia. I've complained about this issue in the past, and have had personal attacks and other stuff happen that makes me just want to even give up entirely on Wikipedia as a result. The process can be salvaged, but it will take more than the support of just one or two editors to get it to happen. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I had said on my talk page: "Then new users can use it as an option, the way it is set up now a new user cannot go through the wizard and opt out of review at the end, nor do they have the option to disagree with a rejection and post it to us for review. We should have the power NOT the AFC group, that is why we have AFD and our tags. We don;t delete articles that are not notable, we guide new users, post on talk pages and help them. We the Wiki Editors and Community are here to do this not one group. AFC has taken power away from us and we want it back as this is what Wikipedia has always been about." Tyros1972 Talk 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Only new or un-registered users are REQUIRED to use AFC or some other mechanism because of technical restrictions. Now, can we improve the AFC process to make it clear to autoconfirmed users that they can bypass this process? Yes. Should we? That's a fair discussion that should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. I can think of two very good reasons NOT to encourage inexperienced-but-autoconfirmed editors to bypass AFC: 1) it's far better for them, their proposed article, and the project if their proposed article is cleaned up or politely rejected in WP:AFC than for it to go through the discouraging process of WP:AFD, and 2) you don't want to encourage paid/COI-editors using throwaway accounts to bypass AFC unless there is some other mechanism for denying them the "reward" of a mainspace article that search engines will index (AFC submissions are marked "noindex" and few if any major search engines index them). Having said that, we probably should encourage experienced editors to skip AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment: While AFC can certainly be improved on in many ways, I disagree that it's a detriment overall. You note that new contributors (and IPs) may be frustrated by semi-arbitrary rulings by un-vetted AFC reviewers, or less-helpful boilerplate AFC templates, but I ask what is the alternative? In a "free and easy" alternative, NoobX submits his article "Awesome New Band" directly after having been auto-confirmed, and excitedly goes on Facebook and forums to let all his friends know the band know has "Wikipedia coverage". A few hours later, NPP pounces on it and CSD's is quite justifiably for having no cites whatsoever. Now EditorX is just as disillusioned as if he was turned down by AFC, and quite possibly more so since there is no "Resubmit" option, there aren't nice clear listings as to which reviewers Delclined him, easy links to remediation sources like AFC Helpdesk and the Teahouse, etc.

Without AFC and NPP, Wikipedia would be subsumed with crap: garage bands, bios of your bestest school buddy, "companies" with two employees who made one single Android app, etc. While AFC could always use improvement (and more volunteers), at least it provides a process by which articles can be improved over time and with mentorship. I would strongly support improving AFC process (and I am myself a sometime AFC reviewer), but I would be very much against discouraging use of AFC, and while I recognise that Wikimedia wants to always have an option for people to submit directly, I think we should strongly encourage new users to communicate and interact with the existing community in order to help them get articles successfully published.

And as a minor sidenote, I strongly disagree with the implication that AFC is a "cabal" given that it is a purely volunteer endeavor that requires no vetting, election, or even membership. All AFC represents is an opportunity to have other interested people advise you on a draft. Editors can (and sometimes do) either Move of (unfortuntately) copy-paste their drafts into mainspace, though not surprisingly I estimate 95%+ of the time AFC submissions self-submit they end up being Deleted anyway. Let us fix AFC, but let's not act as though Wikipedia suffers from too much peer-oversight rather than not enough. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt here, this is the most insane thing I have ever heard. I am the one who removed the buttons to directly create submissions and mainspace articles, mostly because there were many submissions entering the backlog and mainspace that simply said "Subject of my article is...", which is the preload text from the wizard. The wizard is developed by AfC for new users. It always has been. If you wish to create an article directly in mainspace, search for it on wiki and hit the link to create it. I have absolutely no idea why you believe AfC will ruin Wikipedia and I honestly believe it does the opposite. There are currently 31,948 AfC reviewed pages in mainspace, 596 of which are B-class and above. You aren't roped into the system, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from creating articles in mainspace. You want change, petition the WMF to approve WP:ACTRIAL. </rant> --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is concerning both MatthewVanitas and Nathan2055 as they both feel AFC has cut down on SPAM. Unfortunately I don't see how AFC has stopped anything you mentioned? To prove my point try using Special:NewPagesFeed and setting the filter for new editors and new articles. AFC has had little to no effect on the daily crap we get, I have submitted TONS of speedy and AFCs for a company with 2 employees that just created an Android app, bands are indeed one of the most common. The point is once again is that AFC Editors should NOT have the final and only say as it has crippled the community. We have our guidelines, tags etc. and we don't need AFC. Tyros1972 Talk 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that AFC has failed to cut down on spam because people who aren't using AFC are still submitting spam? I can't tell if you're meaning "submitted TONS of speedys on AFC[-approved articles]" or you're saying that you've submitted tons of speedys on directly-created articles that were spam and you also note that people often submit the same kinds of articles to AFC. All that aside, I'm really not seeing how AFC is some totalitarian system, how it's "crippling" anything, and how it's so much worse than people submitting crap (which lingers for days) and then gets CSD'ed with even less explanation/transparency/remediation than AFC offers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

People will always submit crap to any open source, the only way to cut down on it is to close it for pre-moderation. AFC has the potential to become a politically biased and abusive system. I hate to use an example of US Politics but look at what happen to our rights and gov. spying, with that aside the people have "lost" power and gov. gained it. That is what the danger is with AFC that the group becomes bigger and bigger and eventually things change. The Wiki we had is gone. You have to look at this from the point of view I am. I am NOT saying it is good right now, it is still very bad with locking users in and having a single person review it and no way to bypass that - this is a change I am calling for right now. Tyros1972 Talk 22:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Before OP starts screaming that AFC is the cause of a catestrophic slight against wikipedia that OP familiarize themselves with what AFC does and how we go about it. To use an analogy: If you don't know the right doors to knock on when trying to get into an illegal gambling den and you blunder into a sting operation, your rights are going to be severely curtailed. If a user starts creating garbage articles in mainspace, their privileges of creation are going to be severely curtailed. AFC gets it's mandate from a Wikimedia foundation requirement (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation#Brief history). In the perfect world, all AfC submissions would be perfect on the first submission attempt. In reality, 90% of all AfC submissions are declined at least once. The Manual of Style has evolved so much that even experienced editors have trouble making sure they pass all the requirements.

I also note OP's submisssion of New Media Rights and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/new media rights. The mainspace article already has several "problem templates" on it and appears to have been a "I know better so I'm going to ignore advice from others" submission from the AFC version. If the OP would have asked questions or attmepted to remedy the issues then the article wouldn't be under notice that it is not sufficent for mainspace.

The goal of AfC is to get a submission into such a state that it has a 50% or better chance at surviving a AfD discussion. Personally, I'm very much a hardass in terms of what I'll accept out of the AfC process. Other reviewers may accept at a lower level, but I try to get at least a 85 to 90% chance at surviving an AfD. It wastes New Page Patrollers time, it wastes volunteer time to sit down and evaluate the merits of the AfD discussion, and it wastes the time of Admins to evaluate the consensus of the AfD discussion and take action on the submission. Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Concerning my article if you had looked you would have seen that it was I who added those tags. My objective was to create a stub and get the article going, AFC prevented that. Additionally everything you stated about how great and wonderful AFC is, that is your opinion as a member and supporter of the group that is fine. As I said sticking to the issues: 1) Users need to bypass AFC and submit it to us so WE have the last say. 2) AFC has failed it's purpose in cutting down on SPAM, as most AFC submissions are by honest users. The SPAMMERs know better. Tyros1972 Talk 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• comment. As both a new page patroller and a content contributor, I'm a big fan of AfC. Writing articles is a lot harder than it was five or six years ago - not only because user expectations of a website have changed, but also because our standards for what content we accept has changed I can point to academic works if anyone wants to debate this Frankly, if I was starting off today I have no idea how long it would take me to be comfortable writing new articles. I have no idea if I'd even survive the process. Whatever AfCs limitations, I consider the fact that we have people willing to help newcomers improve their articles before they release them into the wild and get bitten A Good Thing. It makes my life easier as a content editor, because I have more people who understand how to write good articles. It makes my life easier as a new page patroller, because I have, well, better articles to review. AfC and its maintainers do not deserve our annoyance or anger, they deserve a round of applause. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1) No reason to "trick" users and "lock them into the AFC process". 2) AFC should not have the final say, even if rejected the option to disagree and submit to us should be available period. 3) There is simply no evidence whatsoever to support that AFC's "pre moderating" has cut down on crap articles. That's why we have tags and help new editors. All AFC does is give the group power and take it away from us the community. Tyros1972 Talk 23:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where those scare-quotes are coming from, since I've never made those statements - nor do I agree with them. Users aren't tricked, nor are they locked in; people are free to create articles however they want, whatever AfC says. AfC doesn't have the final say, unless I've missed something - what's to stop the creator of a rejected AfC article flinging it straight to mainspace? There isn't any evidence to support the idea that pre-moderating has cut down on crap, it's true. But I haven't seen any evidence from you that it's increased it, or driven users away, or caused any problems. As the person making the assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. And given that AfC contributors can be, well, anyone, AfC and the community can effectively be synonymous. Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the OP has any understanding of AfC whatsoever. Just like NPP (the WE that the OP keeps referring to) AfC is simply a group of editors monitoring article drafts from IPs. In most cases, the only difference is the fact that it's not officially implemented into MediaWiki. I have seen absolutely no evidence to backup the OPs statements and this is getting to the point of being a flame war. Unless the OP can come up with actual facts to prove what he is accusing the project of, I think this section should be closed. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignorance is stopping the "new user" you don't provide this information, that all they need to do is copy and paste into the name space. Why is that? What is AFC afraid of? The user wizard is a very good idea for new users, but the whole pre-moderation is not. Users can test on user space or sandbox, they can get their advice in your IRC channel but AFC having the last say and NOT making an obvious, clear option for "new ignorant" user to do so is outright wrong. The evidence is that a user that has been on Wiki for 3 years and went to create a new article got locked into it. Surely this effect is far greater on a new user this is a no brainer. Attacking me personally and calling me views ignorant does not address the facts and concerns I have presented and not a vaild reason to close this section. Tyros1972 Talk 23:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's rather a strawman argument, again, to claim that AFC has "failed" because spammers still submit to mainspace. First off, there are plenty of spammers who submit to AFC, despite your comments otherwise. Are they stellar-ninja-pro spammers? No, they're just blokes who think they can write up an ad for their window-washing service in small-town North Dakota and post it for the world to see with a glowing recommendation and cell-phone number. It goes to AFC, we can tag it properly and delete it before it enters article-space.

Also, you haven't rebutted the statement that AfC prevents turning off some users, in that it is somewhat less bitey than a CSD from NPP. There will always be some number of hurt feelings from people who can't stand one AfC decline, people who are writing poor articles about their boss or deceased uncle and are crushed we don't accept it, or decent folks who unfortunately just have a lot of trouble with getting an article together and get frustrated. But again, how are those folks going to be less upset when they "successfully" submit just to mainspace, only to have their article tagged to pieces and eventually deleted with no clear remediation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Tyros1972: I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your platform. Comment on content, not contributors. Also, you were never locked into AfC. Just go create it in mainspace. The thing about stuffing mainspace creation in front of new users faces is that in AfC you get comments and help on your article. In mainspace you get issued a deletion notice. New users will obviously go for what gets their article in front of people faster, but that won't make them contributors. I was a host at the Teahouse during it's pilot phases, I deal with new user's comment son my talk every time I do any reviewing. I understand editor retention, and AfC has always given better results than NPP. Finally, you still haven't provided proof that anybody other than you is having these problems. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've said a lot about AfC from time to time, which I will summarize in one sentence: The insoluble problem with AfC is that the WP crowd sourcing method requires participation by multiple people to improve an article, but having just one random person give advice can work only when there's a very high probability that single person will be an expert, which is not the case at WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AFC is one of the best things we have here, if you don't like it, then fine, that's your choice and we can't do nothing about that.. But are you aware that we don't need AFC to create an article, rather create on manually and directly without the whole precess thing. Prabash.Akmeemana 11:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indic transliteration has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Indic transliteration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF intends for Only VisualEditor to be usable on Talk pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor&diff=prev&oldid=564282164

What. The. Fuck.

Was anyone consulted on this? What if you want to quote text from the article on the talk page? Or wanted to use templates?

Not to mention how many bots will need recoded. Goodbye auto-archiving bots. Goodbye the bot that handles Good article promotions.

Goodbye to this noticeboard having the same format used for discussions elsewhere.

Is the WMF insane? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the information about Flow, you will discover that most of this is wrong. Jorm has designed header space to permit templates (e.g., WikiProject banners) and other templates at the top of the page. Flow has its own built-in "archiving" system, so auto-archiving bots will simply be obsolete. The GA bot can be replaced by a Flow-based workflow, or it can edit the header space at the top of the page. Noticeboards will be capable of having the same format as all the other discussions (although those of you who hate scrolling through a dozen screenfuls in search of a couple of new comments will probably appreciate the option to collapse read messages, so that only the new ones will take up much space on your screen). The discussions will also be able to use more complex workflows, such as automatically knowing when the AFD is supposed to get closed. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is at least as quick as the non-VE environment, I can live with the clarification above. Right now, it is like molasses and I dread to think what it does for people in developing nations who have poor connections and/or people using mobile. Needless to say, I've turned it off for now. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The question remains, will it support full-featured wikitext, with inline templates, images, image galleries and the rest? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• If it is as slow as VE, I don't want it. I'd rather not edit talk pages. I'm on a pisspoor connection half the time, and anything that makes loading even slower essentially has the effect of making editing unbearable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This does seem to be a bit of a sidestep, Whatamidoing. Supporting templates in a talk page header at the top is not remotely equivalent to supporting templates in messages directly. There's also the fact that we were told that the standard method of editing would not be disabled, and this brings the veracity of that statement into question. I don't want to use the Visual Editor. That's why I disable it. That shouldn't mean that I can't discuss things with other editors. The main header seems to be quite accurate: Jorm does not intend for us to be able to create messages as Wikitext. That's unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Look: one thing we know for sure is that Flow needs to be designed with the VisualEditor and HTML5 first and foremost in mind. We can't design it around all the legacy assumptions and affordances of wikitext. That

doesn't mean that some kind of source or markup mode is necessarily impossible, but it may be different "under the hood" than wikitext as we know it. We definitely want to make sure that you can continue to post to Flow boards with older browsers, and since VisualEditor doesn't support them, we'll likely have to provide a fallback mode.

As for templates, one of the goals of Flow is to offer a more user-friendly method than {{subst:}}ing templates into talk pages for leaving standard messages or enabling more complex workflows. That doesn't mean that templates within a Flow message will necessarily be unavailable (clearly some support for templates will be required), but we want to make sure that we can offer intuitive interfaces for the most common and most important tasks without forcing users to manually find the right templates.

Flow is still in the prototyping stage, and we're continuing to analyze these use cases. As we do so, some requirements will increase in priority and others will be dropped. But Flow will representa big and dramatic shift from talk pages as we know them, and we want to make sure that we let users know early that change is coming.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)