Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 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, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

Should deletion nominations be limited to a certain amount of tries?

I noticed that some articles have been getting nominated more than ten to even twenty times, such as the Gay Nigger Association of America, and the article of now-defunct Encyclopedia Dramatica. I thought a question should be asked to the community of Wikipedia on how many times an article should be allowed to go through deletion, and if possible, should it be limited to a set amount? Rainbow Dash 14:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would say there should not be a specific limit, just as there should not be a limit of deletion review requests. What matters is that each new request is not merely a request to re-run a previous conclusive result with the hopes that a different outcome occurs, but that there is a good faith belief on the part of the nominator that either some policy requires that the article be deleted which was not addressed (or in existence) in the previous deletion discussions, or that general consensus on similar articles has moved since the last discussion. I would just mention that GNAA went through a large number of DRVs before getting restored, and any hard limit would have stopped that, so it works both ways. Monty₈₄₅ 14:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• The gay NA was trolled by nominating vandals and many of the 20 are not AFD discussion at all but vandal edits and deletions. That article has not been nominated since 2006, over four and a half years ago. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Rule creep. We can deal with this on a case-by-case basis, along the lines that Monty advocates. Do we have an actual problem with AFD being gamed like this? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• This isnt just a case at AfD, it's everywhere in Wikipedia, if a policy says something someone doesnt like or doesnt go "far enough" according to a few people they just keep bringing up the same wording change over and over and hope eventually they get a day where those opposing it are too busy and they get a slight majority and once they have their way they shut down anybody from the other side who wants to bring up the discussion again saying "we just had consensus on this". For this reason ALL DISCUSSIONS need to have time limits between when you can bring up the same discussion, whether its a new policy wording or an AfD or anything else. Once a consensus (or no consensus) has been reached, then THAT is the decision. You shouldnt get 1,000 tries before you get your way. Just as you have to for the next election (in 2 or 4 years depending on the office) if you lose; you cant say "well, I just lost the election, now I want a new election right NOW two months after it. I think I might win now because my opponents wont show up at the polls."Camelbinky (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you advocating an actual rule, Camelbinky? If so, could you provide examples of (alleged) gaming of the present system? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not advocating an actual rule because Wikipedia has no rules whatsoever at all. I'm advocating the addition to policy that we have a time limit between bringing up the same discussion after it fails (or passes based on what side you are on), and as with any policy there are and will be exceptions based on consensus of the Community on what is best for Wikipedia; we may ignore the time limit on certain occasions and we dont need to spell out in policy the exceptions because we dont need "rules". As for examples... Well, let's see- every four months we go through at WP:V or the RS/N the discussion regarding whether non-English sources should be allowed and each time we have to state YES. Constant discussion at WP:5P regarding their status, each time results in "no tag" or no consensus regarding putting it as an essay and definite consensus against policy tag; but yet we have to drag out another discussion every couple months because someone wants to change the wording of the 5P or the FAQ page or asks "what is the 5P?". Latham Circle was nominated for AfD based on non-notability, passed by a large margin, and then was renominated based on non-notability (and I guess stub-status, but stub-status is not a legitimate reason for deletion). If something is found to be notable then it's notable. You lose, then you lose; you had your chance to make your point.Camelbinky (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But Latham Circle was kept the second time...? I don't understand the problem. Notability guidelines could evolve over a period of time, for example. What's the point in having a policy which says "don't renom within n months" and then let people nominate within that period? Everyone's going to think their case is an exception to the rule. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead, that an unsuccessful XfD should preclude another XfD for a reasonable period, say a minimum of six months between bites of the apple. Right now, sometimes the very week an XfD has been closed, another nomination for deletion is made, or a discussion arguning for such is made on the article talk page. This verges on gameplaying at that point. Collect (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• If an AfD is premised on the question of whether the subject is notable based on the existing content of the article or existing sources are reliable, a determination to that effect should be difficult to upset. However, if an AfD closes on the premise that existing problems can be resolved, the article should remain subject to deletion if the problems identified are not addressed. bd2412 T 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • the whole AfD close under "keep and fix" premise is such a farce - the "fixing" is never doneActive Banana (^bananaphone 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Both a maximum number of AFD/DRVs and fixed time limits between AFDs are bad ideas. Keep the current system, it seems to work reasonably well. Yoenit (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It does? Really? Where is the proof that it works? That's like saying the US education and health care systems dont need to be fixed because "they work reasonably well". These frequent AfD's waste our time that can be used on editing and creating other articles. Creating and adding information to articles is the very (and only) reason Wikipedia exists and it is crap that there are those who waste time on anything else thereby causing the rest of us to waste time. If an article needs to be "kept and fixed" then how about those that think it needs to be fixed (or deleted) take THEIR time to fix it! Ridiculous that people go around slapping templates and AfD's on articles but never seem to have the time to do what needs to be done to FIX the problems they are so willing to point out.Camelbinky (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the proof that it does not work? Is the sky falling down? The encyclopedia collapsing? With regards to wasting time, look at the hyphen-dash debate. Now that is example of wasting of time, a few unnecessary AFD's are absolutely nothing compared to that. I also don't understand the attitude that you create a crappy article and then expect me to clean it up? That is like having your dog shit on the street and then telling to people who complain about it that they should clean it up. Yoenit (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind the next time I delete an article about a teacher/junkie/activist who is known for pedophilia and smoking crack. Or some 9-year-old kid who has a high gamerscore and plays Halo a lot. –MuZemike 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article is kept on a very marginal basis, I watch the article and after a reasonable amount of time ~3 weeks I re-nominate the article explaining the previous AfD's marginal keep reasoning and how the article has not improved, despite assurances that it's issues could be resolved. Some articles (Like a certain neologisim) have been nominated for AfD multiple times despite the significant community consensus that it is notable, well sourced and cited, and provides a decent understanding of the word. If you want to fight something, fight the editors who are bringing these spurious AfDs that are taking away time from articles in general. Hasteur (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Collect: I'll give a prime example that is in the AfD process currently. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Bhandari (2nd nomination). The article was created before the creation of WP:BLPPROD, was nominated for deletion on the 27th of May, was speedy nominated on the 27th of May (and speedied thereby closing the original AfD discussion), was restored via a user request on the first of June for userfication, and moved back into the Article space less than 3 hours after userfication. At this point I was trolling the AfD closing date page and noticed that the article had been nominated, speedied, and was a blue-link again. I went through and edited the article to remove links that masqueraded as RS citation and rightly nominated it for AfD. Now this meant that less than a week after the previous AfD was closed a new one was opened for the same article. If there is a truly good reason for the article to be up for deletion it should, otherwise I'm open to a 3~5 week stay on deletion discussions while those who were in the majority consensus work on the article to improve it. Hasteur (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, if someone has something new and useful to add to the discussion or the consensus, then they should be free to add it. Users have the right to challenge consensus, and if the new AfD ends with "keep", then the discussion serves to reaffirm and augment the original consensus. It wouldn't be fair for to bar users who missed the chance to partake in the previous discussion from starting new ones, where they could potentially bring up new ideas, issues, or alternatives that weren't brought up before. Several users and I worked hard in the discussions involving the GNAA article's restoration, and it would be a shame if all our collective efforts were doomed from the start due to some silly discussion cap. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - there is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Require a seconder?. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• The last time this was bought up I offered a suggestion that I expected to be rejected as CREEPy and I expect it to be rejected now but I offer it anyway. If any first AFD closes with a "clean keep" (not "no consensus", not a "delete" overturned at DRV, not "speedy" or "procedural" anything), then anybody who nominates the article again shall be required to "impeach" the previous decision. That is he must explain why the previous consensus was wrong. Can he show that the sources used to demonstrate notability in the previous AFD were not reliable? Has a guideline or policy changed since the first AFD? Did a significant number of the "keep" !voters turn out to be somebody's socks? If he just says something like "not notable" while pretending that the previous discussion never happened then the AFD can be speedy closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is basically covered by wp:BEFORE point 3. Than again, wp:BEFORE could do with a big cleanup and trim so people actually start reading it. Yoenit (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I doubt the length of WP:BEFORE is particularly significant; I think that, in cases such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu Gaze, it's simply ignored. Meph^talk 09:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Much more likely the editor, with his grand total of 16 edits, had no idea it existed in the first place. While making wp:BEFORE shorter may not help with that issue, it will definitely not make it worse either. Yoenit (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur. If any AfD determines that a given version of an article can be kept, then unless it was concluded improperly, there is no justification for deletion. At maximum the article can simply be reverted back to the version as of the last AfD. I'll also say that the obvious thing to do with provisional keeps where the article is supposed to be upgraded to a version worth keeping is to specify a time frame for the fix, so that the delay between AfDs is established. Wnt (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Of course there shouldn't be a limit. Such a limit is so trivially gamed as to be laughable, and to virtually guarantee no article ever gets deleted again. → ROUX ₪ 07:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. An ad hoc solution, with the potential for exploitation. Meph^talk 09:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, somepony isn't getting the idea. This isn't some deletionist scheme as a guy said in the other discussion linked, nor is it a way to guarantee a said article should never get deleted. But when you take into account articles on a subject that are obviously hated and/or cause editors to have such an extreme bias, that said person will try at least 100 nominations until said community gets fed up and lets the moaning child get his wish. Rainbow Dash 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lulz, unintended sentence fragment anyone? But to continue my argument above, because this moaning child who will not stop at nominating the article so many times, the article will never get any benefit or effort to fix, and the community will only start thinking of new ways to get their agenda to work. Rainbow Dash 12:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any example of this or are you just making it up as you go along? Yoenit (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's go back to the GNAA subject again. Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America has this curious template that shows 21 deletion discussions directed at this one article. And the Gay Nigger isn't alone, because his buddy Al Gore III went through 8 AfDs, and 1 DRVs, and his distant cousin List of male performers in gay porn films went through 7 AfDs and 2 DRVs. All of these discussions have one thing in common, and that is an extreme biased hatred from the community. Rainbow Dash 12:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinfo (6 nominations) should also be mentioned. I don't think it can be argued that the community "hates" this article. It was kept for a long time for "historical" or "legacy" reasons or something but was eventually deleted. There's also Steak and Blowjob Day (3 nominations) A subject that "technically" fails our notability guidelines but otherwise seems to be a popular meme. I don't see this as a matter of "hatred" so much as a strong belief by some that WP:N needs to be enforced consistently and a subject shouldn't get a free pass simply because it has a lot of "groupies" to defend it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So, which of dozens of editors who nominated these articles for AFD/DRV is the "moaning child"? I will not dispute that these articles have seen a unseemly amount of deletion discussions, but almost all of those are several years old. The male preformers article was last nominated in November 2009 and while Al Gore III was put to DRV half a year ago, the last AFD before that is from February 2008. A similar gap can be found between the last discussions for List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (Feb 2011 - April 2009). (why did you remove this one from your comment btw?) I don't see how a nomination once every 2 years is a problem, regardless of the article's prior history. With regards to the GNAA, its last AFD is 5 years old, so I couldn't care less that it has 21 of them. It is definitely record holder for most DRV's though (although those are seriously inflated by trolls). But even this extreme example has been stable for 3 months now and is in fact being actively improved (note it is nominated for GA). Yoenit (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this already covered by Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22? The GNAA didn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines until the At&T Email leak, so it was the 18th AfD that finally fulfilled what the AfD was meant for, and it was the 12th DRV that finally fulfilled what DRV was meant for. As I'm said in the last GNAA DRV, some of discussion were started by trolls wishing to heighten GNAA's AfD high score rather than "haters", and the haters in opposition were correct about the GNAA's lack of notability until about a year ago. It also took many discussions for the community to realize that Daniel Brandt wasn't notable. Somethings, the community is too stubborn to admit that it's wrong, so repeating discussions in order reaffirm or overturn the previous consensus isn't such a good thing. Wikipedia needs to be open to new discussions. There's a chance that a group of users may try to continuously create new AfD in hopes that the community will eventually lose the willpower to combat them, but that's why we have closing admins who could see through these attempts. Disruptive users may also be warned or blocked. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this was ever to be implemented, it would have to be limited to good faith nominations. Without that caveat it would be quite possible for someone to nominate an article for deletion several times, withdraw the nomination quickly each time, and reach the limit so it couldn't be nominated again, thereby removing any possibility of it being deleted even if it deserves to be. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with the proposal. Bad-faith nominations should be the ones limited, not the good-faith ones. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone talking like an article should be renominated for DELETION if it isnt "cleaned up"? Being a stub or having crappy formatting or grammar or what have you is NEVER a reason to delete! We are specifically a "work in progress" and it is in fact policy not to delete based on such BS like "it has bad grammar", delete because of notability, not whether it is a crappy article. Maybe people thinking anything that is "crappy" should be nominated is the problem and their ability to nominate should in fact be limited. And secondarily- Why is it any of your concern if someone makes a crappy article and you dont want to fix it, then why do you care if it exists? If it bothers you so much then FIX IT. Or ignore it. But deletion to make it go away is not an option.Camelbinky (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that we need to do somethig to quell this problem. I get rather frustrated when I am involved in a 6 week conversation about something only to have it get resubmitted a week after it closes and start the process all over again. --Kumioko (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's frustrating, but I don't think we want a firm rule. If we have new information, we should act on that. Also, WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway, so adding a "no re-nominations allowed for 30 days" rule wouldn't really have much impact. It'd just be one more bureaucratic (rather than substantive) complaint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have at various times proposed rules, but in practice, it does depend on the details, and I would not like to try to solve any general problem using GNAA as an example. I think we are in general getting more reasonable about this--there is much less repeated abusive nomination going on than there used to be 3 years ago when I first discovered AfD process. I've also seen objections to renominations after repeated non-consensus, and this is a very different matter than if after repeated keeps. If there's no consensus we need to admit it, and see if we can get it a little later. My suggestion was 3 to 6 months after a keep,doubling after each successive keep, with anything need to be done quicker being approved by deletion review. There is sometimes a need to quickly revisit a keep that was anomalous. What I think we really need, is some way to equally easily review a deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand concerns about rules creep but conversely does anyone have a valid example of where more than 5 nominations was ANYTHING BUT an attempt to do by brute force what could not be done by consensus? I am entirely in favor of both a hard cap on the number of tries (remember notability is not temporary, but a page's defenders may move on as time goes by) and a hard limit on renomination after a valid consensus close. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Instead of a hard cap on the number of tries, a better policy might be giving a topic closed a Keep immunity from another deletion challenge for one year. Consensus does change over time; the point is to limit the gaming of the system implicit in multiple repeated deletion attempts. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a year may be too long.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree a year is a bit too long because sometimes things change rapidly. Conversely, I have never seen a nomination tagged "sixth nomination" that was anything other than an attempt to forum shop until the nominator found a group of editors willing to delete, the most ardent defender of the page was away for some reason, ect. I understand that there are concerns about changing consensus, and I'd change my vote if anyone could provide me a good counterexample. As it stands there is a point at which nominations should be presumed to be WP:POINTy, and I think 5 is about that number. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the closing admin would understand that, review the "Keep" arguments made in previous discussions, and, if strong enough, close as "keep" despite the fact that the present !votes were all/mostly deletes. They should be no need for a hard and fast line. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was actually bored enough once to list them at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Deletion wars. I just updated it down to four debates, I had those logged from a while back but forgot to add them. Fences&Windows 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole system is unfair and biased

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

This desk is "to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines." Why did you post the above rant here? ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm really tired of seeing new editors attacked and belittled for not knowing all the rules. This includes the removal of the editor's comments above by TreasuryTag [1] ([2]) after I restored them once before. [3] [4] While I have to assume Bob House 884 just didn't know any better because he is a fairly new editor, TreasuryTag is not a new editor. In the case of TreasuryTag's removal of this editor's comments, this has got to be one of the most blatent disregards for WP:AGF and WP:BITE that I've seen. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I never questioned Alicianpig's good faith. I said that they posted their rant on the wrong noticeboard, because it is clearly not a proposed new policy or a discussion of existing policies. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it expresses a viewpoint about the way policies ("rules") are applied on WP. Many threads on this page are far more off-topic than this.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to say, I removed the comment initially because it seemed plainly outside the scope of the board and didn't seem likely to attract any constructive comment. Perhaps hatting would have been a better idea. Slightly ironically it seems that the cause of Alicianpig's stress is the impending deletion of an article called 'Whinge wars' Bob House 884 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(Directed at the OP) Instead of making vague generalizations, can you give specific examples of what you're referring to? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the OP may be making a reference to Wikipedians' general scepticism of the WP:BROTHER excuse! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that might explain things; however, I do see Alicianpig was given a dose of good faith there, which is, after all, what we're supposed to do around here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Tempest in a tea pot, really, hatting would be likely been better. We should go have a refreshing beverage. But am I correct that implying another editor is a troll in an edit summary could be interpreted as a personal attack? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time. [5] This also begs the question if TreasuryTag wasn't simply trying to revert my restoration of Alicianpig's comments here because I had warned them for canvassing [6] here on VPP for this section above. Sigh. WP:POINT, anyone? --Tothwolf (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag you did question Alicianpig's good faith, by calling them a troll in an edit summary. GB fan (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the particulars here, but Wikipedia is a vicious place for new editors. Imagine a world with zillions of imperfectly written rules where everything done violates a literal broad interpration of them, and where every person (including social misfits) is given a badge and a gun. That is the WP world to a new editor. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TheParasite (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that North8000 (talk · contribs) and TheParasite (talk · contribs) are the same person [7] – ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the "badge and a gun", wouldn't that be real life? –MuZemike 08:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking as an occasional but serious editor, still a newbie in many ways, I have to say that I do not have a problem with understanding and following the rules once they are pointed out to me (which sometimes had to happen repeatedly.) I find the experienced and active editors to be friendly and helpful without exception. I do get irritated with editors who persist, sometimes in very mischievous ways which stay within the "rules", to push their (obviously) biased PoV. I have to work hard at disciplining myself not to retaliate in kind, and I think I have mostly been successful. I love what Wikipedia is doing, and I am pleased and proud to have played a small part in it. pietopper (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• With regards to the "particulars" in which why the complainant is here, I need to repeat that Wikipedia is not the place to post stuff that is completely unverifiable or otherwise madeup; see Wikipedia:Verifiability for details. This is an encyclopedia which relies on information that is verified by reliable, independent sources and that are neutral. If the complainant cannot understand those very basic things, then there is not much we can do to help. –MuZemike 08:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course Wikipedia isn't the place for unverifiable material, but we still shouldn't bite and bash a newbie over the head when they attempt to express their frustration with the general unfriendliness of the system. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Alicianpig - it's amazing that 'the free encyclopedia' can have such a vicious hierarchy which seems to take great pleasure from removing posts from new editors. How is Wikipedia supposed to encourage more people to start editing, when anyone who accidentally violates the smallest, most inane rule is slapped with an angry notice and sees their article/post deleted? I once referenced an online news story about an event which happened in July 2008. In the article, I accidentally wrote that it happened in 2007. Clearly a typo - but what does the editor at the top of the food chain do? Instead of correcting the obvious, one-character error, he/she decides to delete my article. This is exactly the sort of thing the 'important' people endorse - they assume they have some sort of power and decide to use it to make the whole experience difficult for new editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R013 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  First off, there are differences between your case and Alicianpig's above – you were writing about stuff that were more viable, as opposed to something that was completely unverifiable or otherwise madeup. Second, it is not your article – once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and can be edited at will by others, within common sense and basic policies, of course. Moreover, I highly doubt an administrator deleted the article in question because of one minor typo. –MuZemike 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• "It seems a lot more like an encycleopaedia which only experienced, well connected people who know all the tricks to keep their articles on and delete other people's can edit."

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

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

• A lot of Wikipedians have problems with the hierarchy, bureaucracy and sometimes difficult to understand, or to access, rules that WP operates on. Sometimes this results in inequity or BITEyness and sometimes we all want to complain about it, but this thread does not contain any actionable proposal. Have a cup of tea and visit the help desk if you need help. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Actionable isn't the point. There is active discussion going on here and I've undone your close of this discussion thread. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  (edit was simultaneous with the closing) Us who have have been down in the rabbit hole in the Wikipedia alternate universe for some time should realize that newcomers sometimes may have a better perspective than we have. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's time for some massive change

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

Agree that change is needed

• change? (I got nothing) Gurch (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Disagree that change is needed

Other

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

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

I'm inclined to think that your experience at wikipedia might be better if you didn't upload obvious copyright violations (File:Vishling.jpg), didn't make personal attacks [8], and didn't write insulting things on people's own personal pages [9] and maybe didnt ask other people to come and sabotage wikipedia on an off-site website [10]. All of these things are real world rules - they're easy enough to stick to with a healthy dose of common sense. People might be more inclined to help you out if you stuck to the more obvious stuff like that - you can then try to get to grips with the more complicated ideas which are specific to wikipedia like WP:Notability (which is why your article got deleted) and WP:Verifiability. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the system or policy, just a need for consideration for inexperienced users.--Charles (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP appears to be unfamiliar with WP:BITE. --Jayron32 17:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me or to Alicianpig? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not you. --Jayron32 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The main reason for your concern seems to be the deletion of your article Whinge wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whinge wars. I see there is also an attempt to recruit people to keep the article at http://whingewars.weebly.com/news-and-updates.html. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. In [11] (admin only diff of deleted page) you wrote:

"This is not a made up game

Due to the current small scale of this game, there is no information available other than the source website. However, this does not necessarily mean it is made up, just that it has little online presence. As it is not a commercially available or predominantly online game, the internet does not have much information about it. This is why it is necessary for the information to be published on wikipedia, so the information is accessible online somewhere other than the actual website. It is a mistake to say that there is no online information about it, because this article IS the online information. If wikipedia only contains information which is available elsewhere, there is very little point in it existing"

Regardless of how new editors are treated, the above is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. The article would also have been deleted if it had been written by an experienced editor knowing all the rules. Nobody would be able to satisfy Wikipedia's source requirements if the only source in existence is the subjects own website. Wikipedia is exactly for containing information which is available elsewhere in reliable sources, but collected here in a free encyclopedic format. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability. You will not get this fundamental principle changed. And there are millions of selfpublished websites. Wikipedia is not the place to duplicate the Internet or advertise almost unknown subjects which "need" a Wikipedia presence to become better known. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I tend to agree with all of this (and the reason that it's being brought up, because the user "lost" at AFD, certainly doesn't help), except... NPP'ers and vandal patrollers still seem to get overzealous or burnt out from time to time. More importantly, I think that many of us who have been around for a while have become somewhat "ossified" in our thinking, which is exemplified by your closing comment MuZemike. I find the whole "Wikipedia is too big!" thinking to be unproductive, and I suspect that it's more of a reflection of some user's need for control rather then anything that is really related to the encyclopedia.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I find myself wondering why it is people seem to have already forgotten about the results from Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion (related Signpost article)? --Tothwolf (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can (seem to?) be an extremely bitey place, even for an intelligent person. My first 'comeback' edits disappeared insanely quickly, because I was unfamiliar with the rules (obviously! How many people, in all seriousness, are going to read the whole rule book before making a one-sentence or two-sentence edit?) If I had not been me, I might have just never come back, instead of trying to find out what happened and where I went wrong. And we really do need to remember that some newbies can be real youngsters, and what seems mightily important to them may be complete crap to the rest of us - but it doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to turn into really useful members of the community, given the right nurturing. Imagine if the newbie you'd just given a severe bite to turned out to be a very bright 10 year old kid with a load of potential, who spent the next week crying themselves to sleep every night. Hmmmm. I'll bet Einstein himself could have looked pretty trollish as a kid. We really mustn't assume that all our newbies are adults, and likely to respond and react and interact in an adult manner. And DO remember - we have some exceptional young-teen editors on-site; they have to start somewhere! Yes, some people are just trolls. But some really do just need a bit more guidance than others, and could turn out good - instead of just walking away whimpering, or biting back.

Always remember, in your interactions with someone who just doesn't seem to 'get it', that this could be a kid you're talking to. They're not going to 'get it' like a 17+-year-old will! And they may not even know what some of the words and phrases you're using even mean! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't get what is so "ossifying" about requiring that content be verified by stuff that is reliable rather than from some "Joe Schmoe forumite" or "I heard it somewhere" source. Moreover, I'm not suggesting that "Wikipedia is too big", as we're already at over 3.5 million articles and increasing daily – including topics from Abraham Lincoln to Toilet paper orientation. However, there is a threshold for what we include and don't include, and that one most basic policy is one of our gauges of that. –MuZemike 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Real proposal - project

Re-wording templates, rules, all-sorts.

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

Example:

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

• Verifiability : "people have to be able to check that you didn't just make it up!" Maybe?
  • Boldly did that, too.
    • ... aaaand ... just got reverted! Oh, well .... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bite: "don't be too harsh on new editors"
  • I Boldly did this one (Alicianpig (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

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

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

Ahhh, good! I've done two 'simple explanation' things - can you go check them out, please? They're at WP:NPOV and WP:V. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This all seems to me to be a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If people are unable to read the guidelines as they are written, they are not going to be able to contribute writing of the quality required for an encyclopedia. The "nutshell" versions are concise and clear, and I don't see a need for two one-sentence summaries of the policies. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many things people can do that don't involve writing high-quality prose, but still require understanding the policies. For example, Alicianpig does not appear to have understood that merely uploading a copyrighted picture to Wikipedia is itself a serious copyright violation, even if s/he never linked the picture into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• There is another related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Teenage Editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Template, please?

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

So we're going to have a "In a nutshell" box with a once-sentence summary of the policy, and then below that there will be another box with a one-sentence summary of the policy for people who lack reading comprehension? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not the point, quite. We need to make sure that whatever summary we have can be understood by pretty much anyone capable of clicking on the link to the page they've been directed to. I'm really hoping that we can get this done - even if people don't yet have the ability to understand the in-depth explanations - or even the 'in a nutshell' explanation (because some of those aren't 'simple'!) they really have to be able to understand the purpose of the rule at an elementary level. We can't just throw people in at the deep end of vocabulary, particularly if they're new - and those are exactly the type of people who'll be being directed to those pages. Anything we can do to recude biteyness has to be a good thing, on the whole. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What does your suggested one-sentence summary do that is different from the one-sentence summary in the "Nutshell" box? Can you give me an example of a "Nutshell" box that uses difficult language? Can you explain why you feel that it wouldn't be better to just rewrite the "Nutshell" box to use simpler language? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting the 'nutshell' box is certainly an alternative way to go about this. My suggestion - of really dead-simple wording - will get the idea across to absolutely everybody, including the 12-year-old who wants to put something in about thier favourite place / game / whatever. If they can't understand what we mean, and make mistakes because of that, then that's our fault, not theirs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia about 12-year-olds' favorite comic book characters. We don't need to cater to people who can't read. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" isn't that easy for a youngster to 'get'. "don't take sides!" they understand from very early on! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I think I understand what you're trying to say. You're not concerned about the vocabulary, really. You're actually concerned with people not understanding the purpose of the policies. Is this correct? ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I just removed "Innocent until proven guilty" from wp:Assume good faith because that is not what AGF means. This a serious danger when you try to explain policies in 6 year old language. Take for example your "don't pick sides", that is not what the actual policy says. For example we write the moon landing happened and only provide a small section about the people who say it didn't. If we didn't pick sides we would have to treat them as equal, but as the undue weight section explains we don't do that. "don't pick sides" completely ignores that section of the policy and would therefore actually cause new editors to misunderstand the policy. Yoenit (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of 12 years olds won't understand most of the concepts anyway, not matter how simplistically you break down the content. I understand where you are coming from, Pesky, but I think it is a mistake to equate a lack of clarity (or failure to understand) the policies with the choice of language. Talking simplistically doesn't often have the effect that is expected. The policy pages are primarily there to record, in detail, the established policy of Wikipedia. Making them understandable is probably best done as a separate "project" - perhaps a collection of pages expressing the policies in various simple and effective ways that can be used to link new users lacking comprehension.

Although, at the end of the day, no matter how simple or clear you make something there are still many people for whom it will not "click"--Errant ^(chat!) 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

The problem is that it doesn't really. Such an explanation is useful advice for an editor, of course, but isn't really the NPOV policy --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As Mesoderm already pointed out, that's what we have {{nutshell}} for. I think most of them are written pretty reasonably, but if there is room for improvement, then changes are welcome, though care should be taken per Yoenit's points above. It is understood that there is often initial confusion, and that's what we have WP:BITE for. Otherwise, if someone really doesn't have enough competency in the English language to grasp the meaning of the policies (whether it is because they are 10 years old or speak English non-natively, or have a learning disability or etc.), then maybe the Simple English Wikipedia is the place for them. —Akrabbim^talk 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything that gets even the beginning of the idea across has to be better than something which people shy away from. Sometimes you have to do a minor 'not-quite-accurate' version of something, just to give people a foothold on the thing. See Lying_to_children; that explains it pretty well.

I should probably point out here that I'm actually a trained & qualified instructor myself, and have been since (eeek!) 1977! I've taught all ages, and obviously don't teach beginners and advanced students the same way. Beginners progress to more advanced knowledge, and more advanced explanations, as they go along. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-aggressive usernames

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

Something similar could be said of many of the edit summaries used too. Even the default Twinkle summaries can sometimes look a little "bitey". --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• But then what about someone like me, whose username contains more than enough letters to spell the word 'rage'? Or someone whose username contains the word 'wolf'? I think that going too far down this line would get a little silly... ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

i am only a gurch i don't mean to hurt anyone Gurch (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think 'animally' names are OK. But then I like animals :o) And I'm a WikiWolfcub. A good point about trying to ensure that people don't appear to be approaching potentially bitey areas with a name which suggests that they take pleasure in inflicting pain or oppression ... maybe those with 'bitey' names need to take care to be even more un-bitey in their style? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi there, Ron Ritzman et al. I invite you to look at my edit history, which has spanned about three and a half years here. My sincere hope is that new users look at my often personalized advice or reasoning before leaping to my signature. For the record, I briefly engaged Alicianpig (a username for whom I hope no kosher Wikipedians are offended) on the (now deleted) talk page of Whinge wars. I am interested that he/she is now looking into Wikipedia policy, but it seems that interest has only been piqued now that the article promoting the game he/she invented has been deleted. Much good-faith advice was given on that talk page, but I believe it was deliberately ignored because the advice did not fit with that particular user's intent, which was to promote and legitimatize his/her invention. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes good outcomes spring from unlikely sources. Anything that piques someone's interest in getting into the policy stuff has to be good - my 'comeback' started just the same way, but at a slightly different level (verifiability vs. truth, WP:NOR stuff). And if the result of it all is that we can do anything which makes policy clearer, that's a major net gain, and reduces the need for experienced editors to spend time on personalised explanations :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However, I was of course only responding to statements of general advice that specifically used me in an ill-informed manner. To respond to the issue of "simplest explanation", my feeling is that in whatever form or placement it takes on the policy page, it is unlikely to be read by your target audience. Direct contact with the editor who can't, won't or hasn't yet read that page is still the best option. Remember: this entire proposal began not with an editor who couldn't comprehend the "in a nutshell" template; it began with an editor who was unwilling to accept, after many instances of simple personalized guidance, that Wikipedia is simply not the place for him/her to promote a made-up game. In a nutshell: I feel a solution is being proposed here for which no problem previously existed. Steamroller Assault (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Moving on ....

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

BLP links to their Facebook page

I'm sure this has been asked before, somewhere. But I don't notice links to a person's (or entity's) Facebook page in the same way that I know a link to a person's website is permitted, and indeed encouraged. Is there a usage policy on this? Is it encouraged or discouraged or not permitted? JohnClarknew (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL; in particular, the "Minimize the number of links" subsection. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see at "Links normally to be avoided" there, it's listed under no. 10: Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook). I think that this should be reconsidered in light of the fact that social networking sites are now so huge, and growing. Researchers use them all the time to get a rounded view of their subjects, so why not make it quicker and easier by providing them in a standard WP format and a suitable template? It should suggest that the links may contain inaccurate and unreliable content, and are not endorsed by WP. Comment anybody? JohnClarknew (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time you can get to the social site from the main official page easily enough, so there's no need for the redundancy. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Plus there can be problems of validation, and what would it add to the articles, really? --John (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, virtually everything on such sites would be self published and primary source. We avoid these for sound reasons.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes a website qualify for listing as WP:ELOFFICIAL—the subject's own official website—is the very fact that it is self-published. WP:EL is very different from WP:RS; external links do not have to be reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I bring up Oprah Winfrey's page, as an example. I see a link to her at Twitter and YouTube. I don't see a way to find her instantly on Facebook. And Facebook pages are not necessarily self-published. And (permitted) Websites obviously are! What would it add, really? Information. Information. Information. That's what an Encyclopedia is supposed to do, isn't it? JohnClarknew (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't post infinite information, we make editorial decisions where we decide which information is appropriate and which isn't. The justification of "its information, isn't, why not include all information" is bullshit because we never include all information about anything, even if it's true, and even if it's verifiable. Certainly, it must be verifiable if it is included, but merely being verifiable doesn't mean we always include it; there's lots of stuff which is verifiable but irrelevent, for example. Same with external links. We need some standards, so we make choices, we decide some links are better than others, and over time the community has decided that one link, to the subject's official website, is enough. Of course, this doesn't have to be the case forever, but you're going to have to come up with something better than "It's information!" to justify a change in longstanding practice here. --Jayron32 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you reporting Policy, or just your Opinion? At the moment, you sound like a Republican running for office. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

wp:ELOFFICIAL is the relevant guideline here. I quote: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." This is already linked above though, so I am not sure why it needs repeating.Yoenit (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@User:JohnClarknew: There are numerous pages at Wikipedia that clearly support what I said. I would also note that your disgusting, outrageous, and clearly uncalled for personal attack against my character is quite upsetting, and I will thank you to never do that again to another human being so long as you are alive. If you want policy and guideline pages which support that sometimes, information is not included in Wikipedia articles, even if verifiable, see the following:

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Content "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
• What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper: "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced."
• Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information."
• Wikipedia:External links (lead section) "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

There's more about this if it is confusing to you, JohnClarknew, but I think you can read the relevent policy and guideline pages yourself. If you need additional explanation as to Wikipedia policies, I can provide them for you. --Jayron32 17:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, that is a wonderful bullet list. I'm cribbing that onto my user page for ease of copying later. Thanks for assembling it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A link to the subject's FB page is clearly permitted by the policy if it is the "official" site of the subject, and if it is the only such site. If the subject maintains his own site at www.subject.com and the FB site, then the FB site should usually not be listed since there will be a link to it from the main site and the FB site is almost certainly not going to have encyclopedic information not found on the main site. It will probably be used primarily for fan interaction, event posting, and other marketing activities that are more ephemeral. If the opposite is true, then I would link to the FB page instead.--Hjal (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, I said you sound like a Republican running for office, and you said I would also note that your disgusting, outrageous, and clearly uncalled for personal attack against my character is quite upsetting, and I will thank you to never do that again to another human being so long as you are alive. Well, I am glad you have a great sense of humor! I thought I was flattering you, Jayron, but I see where you're coming from. LOL, you made my day! And thanks for your calm comment, Hjal. A Facebook (FB) page then can be used as a substitute for an official website page, if I understand you correctly, an either/or? JohnClarknew (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. We generally include one single official external link to one single official website, regardless of where it is hosted. Sometimes, we need to make a decision on which external link is the "officialest", and there's nothing to say that it can never be Facebook; however in general where a normal, just straight-up, non-social networking plain-old official website exists, this is usually the one we link to. There could be cases where a Facebook page is linked instead of such a website (for example, if the facebook page appears to be actively updated, and said normal website is grossly outdated), but such matters are considered on a case-by-case basis. So it itsn't that we never link to Facebook, its that we generally don't link to every single external link in existance about a person or company or band, we link to one official website about them, and the best official website. --Jayron32 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline seems to be fairly clear. There is nothing 'wrong' with a facebook or twitter or similar link, but if the official page clearly links them, we don't generally do so also. They are acceptable links, but they aren't needed. Is there a specific page you have in mind for your concern about not having these links included? (Side note...You sound like a 'politician' running for office is unlikely to ever be taken as a compliment. Your suggestion that it was intended as flattery in this context is absurd.) --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Hjal's comment. Even if an official site does not link to a Facebook page or other social media, I see no need for us to do so here as long as we have the link to the official site (unless, as Hjal states, the FB page is more substantive than the official site, in which case we'd link to FB rather than the official site). This is an encyclopedia, not a web index. Persons wanting to survey websites dedicated to the subject should check with Google. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, ever tried to link your FB page to your website? It's a real puzzler, not simple at all. I very much doubt that it's common. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Boxes with social media links are incredibly common. Or did you mean the other way around? But that's pretty common too. Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It was said somewhere that a person's website will often have a link to their FB page, so why bother. But I find little evidence of this, perhaps because it is difficult to put it there. I know on my website, I can't even upload the link, says it's "not authorized" http://johnclarkprose.com JohnClarknew (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

It appears that the directions for doing so with your provider are "shoot us an email". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it Wikipedia's problem if the official website does or does not link to a facebook page? It really isn't Wikipedia's role to promote the subjects of the articles in it... --Jayron32 16:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is little argument that the category Biographies of Living People (BLP) has and is causing more problems than any other, and is the one most likely to undergo Darwinian change. Controversy surrounds the subject, mainly to do with the fact that subjects are discouraged from editing their entries, even as to correcting errors of fact (i.e. a cited newspaper reporting a wrong date, etc.) INMHO, the next areas will be to do with the linking of certain social networking sites, Myspace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin being the most representative. As I said before, a template could be written that would contain just those links, and display the label that the contents were not necessarily endorsed by Wikipedia editors. I also believe that our founding fathers see the need for these concerns to be addressed. JohnClarknew (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As an incentive to make this change, imagine what it would do to readership response if people knew that WP was the only place to go for a BLP's list of links? And to the volume of donations? The increase would be exponential. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The "only place to go?" Hardly. And I don't see how we'd get an "exponential" increase in donations; most people who use Wikipedia already don't donate. There's really no incentive to add these links, and several disincentives. — The Hand That Feeds

You:^Bite 22:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hardly"? "most people"? Poor argument. And stop being vague - where exactly is the one place you would go to find out these links? I challenge you to give me an example of a random LP and apply your answer. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to second Jayron's point; we are an encyclopedia, and have neither need nor incentive to make ourselves the place to go for somebody who says "OMG, i totally need justin bieber's twitter, waht is it?"! That is not our purpose. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer John's challenge about the "one place you would go"- Google. Or any search engine because- that's their purpose! Searching Google would take you less time than Wikipedia. We dont need to list Facebook pages. Though similar to this I do wish contact information (email and/or physical address) for contacting elected politicians on their Wikipedia pages. I know when I would like to contact a senator or congressman or even my local common councilman it would be nice if I could come to their Wikipedia page. But we dont always get Wikipedia the way we'd like it, so Im sure there are those who would oppose that.Camelbinky (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, you are missing my point. Try these shoes. I am a journalist, right? I am a publicist, right? I am a lawyer, right? I am a manager/agent, right? I am a director, right? I am a competing professional, right? Where do I go to get my information on a living, breathing, notable person? Wikipedia, that's where. And why? Because 1. I usually get great updated information on the really notable, including their personal background as well as professional information, and a lot of marginal clues from the discussion pages too. And the linking has all been done for me, and all this by unpaid volunteers! 2. I can quote from it and run copyright-free pictures from it too. And, a big deal, I don't even have to cite the source, so I can pretend it's all my own work! As for Googling - that's a lot of frustrating work, and besides, you cannot find the combined information all in one place. Except at Wikipedia, usually optimized on top. But, as one of those persons (I'm the exception BTW, I always cite WP, as an active volunteer), I am grateful, and I do donate every year. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're being facetious in saying I don't even have to cite the source, so I can pretend it's all my own work, because that would be advocating the violation of Wikipedia Terms of Use. older ≠ wiser 17:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do, please, read more carefully before weighing in. I didn't say I do it, I said others do it, especially print and TV journalists. I don't think such people care about Wikipedia's "terms of service". JohnClarknew (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

John: Wikipedia is not a directory. Full stop. That is not what we are for. We are not a glorified Rolodex or collaborative Farley-file. For that, people should be going somewhere else and not burdening us with their mistaken impression of what we are for. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) I did read it carefully, thank you. You framed the comment as a hypothetical in support of an argument to change policy. Even if people do such things, that is not a reason to make Wikipedia an even more convenient resource for people to do such things. older ≠ wiser 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a Village Pump, isn't it? Not a wailing wall. We need donations, and more of them. From most everything I read here, you people are stuck in the present. But we have to think of the future. Otherwise, next thing we'll be forced to take advertising, or become socialized, like free medicine. Oops, hope Obama doesn't see this, may give him ideas. Seriously folks, let's hear from some others who really are older and wiser, like me. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Orange Mike– please do not ever attempt to throw me in to an idea in which I never proposed, advocated, or supported, do not misrepresent me or chastise me again! I said it would be "nice" if I could get such information as an address for politicians from Wikipedia and it would be convenient BUT that we dont get to have Wikipedia the way it would be convenient for ourselves. I suggest you completely delete (not strike) MY name from your comment. As for John quit with the Obama bashing and two- few just simply comes to Wikipedia like you described, normally it is through a Google search in the first place. And those professional careers you described are certainly not coming to Wikipedia for their information. I for one would not read any journalist's articles if they used Wikipedia as their source.Camelbinky (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The rules seem to have been relaxed somewhat since I started contributing a few years ago. The 2 places to be read carefully and scrolled down are 1. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and 2. Wikipedia:External links. Editing by living notable subjects is much less feared than it was. As for FaceBook, because one has to register to open an account, it makes it tricky to include. Remember, linkage is not content, and shouldn't be confused. However, mark my words, I give it a year before my suggested changes take place. It will evolve. King maker James Farley would have used WP you can be sure, anything to get FDR elected, which he did. And, BTW, I think that Obama is a great president, because he stands for evolutionary change. He too is constantly blocked. Oh, and remember to be polite, it says so. And try to appreciate humor, it's in short supply around here. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your casuistical arguments fail as to the need for a broader scope for the category BLP. Here's why: My dictionary defines a book of reference as A book, such as a dictionary or encyclopedia, to which one can refer for authoritative information. Wikipedia may be something different if you want, but the argument usually boils down to "is it encyclopedic?" WP will have to accommodate this change, because there's too much competition out there, and someone else will, and readership and popularity will decline. It will probably be developed by IMDb, which, as you know, is owned by ultra-rich Amazon. There, they are not afraid of personal links. As for common sense, when I note that Camelbinky wouldn't read any journalist's work if they used Wikipedia as their source, I despair. Wikipedia - just a tool for students? JohnClarknew (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag prompt bot

Given that any newbie can slop a speedy delete tag on any wikipedia article there is something very wrong if experienced editors like myself here can't be trusted to remove clearly invalid speedy deletion tags to articles, especially after they have made improvements to it. It is extremely irritating to remove invalid tags [placed by inexperienced or disinterested individuals and then be instantly reverted by a bot and drilled a warning. Can we PLEASE change this speedy deletion tag to exclude the experienced editors here with privelages, much like rollbacking and auto new page patrol. We should be trusted to know when articles meet speedy criteria or not, even our own articles. This is potentially damaging as any admin could accept speedy delete tags and delete content which could be easily improved and the speedy tag removed. Vandals can do this to any article and the experienced editors here cannot revert their speedy tagging if it is their own article which is wrong.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of articles being deleted under the above scenario? Singularity42 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't as I've worked with so many articles, but I do know admins have been warned in the past for deleting articles which were sloppily speedy tagged and they didn't even look into them before deleting them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As an experienced editor, is there any problem with simply being patient and waiting for an admin to remove a blatantly inappropriate speedy tag, if inappropriate it be? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well I've know of articles which have been speedy tagged for several hours before anybody actually bothered to assess them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  You'll notice that I used the word 'patiently' in the comment to which you are replying? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  "Speedy" does not mean "within an hour". If the decision is made within a week (that is, faster than PROD or AFD), then it's still "speedy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think this is a big problem. CSD tags are reviewed by admins relatively quickly (insert your own definition of "relatively"), so the tag doesn't stay up for long. I don't think CSD tags are used too often as disruptive editing (although there are some incidents). There is a lot of work in setting up a whole new privilege, and we would also have to develop some type of policy of who is or isn't qualified for such a privilege. That's a lot of work when TT is right - it is just as easy to be patient and wait for another editor or administrator to remove the tag. I also think there is a bit of illogic here: 1) a few admins don't use their privileges correctly; 2) therefore create a new privilege for editors which has the potential of not being used correctly... Singularity42 (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Many administrators have a poor track record of accuracy when assessing speedy deletion taggings, so I have some sympathy for Dr. Blofeld's point (for example, the tortuous logic often employed to delete things as "test pages" when they very obviously aren't). All the same, the scenario he describes only affects people who remove speedy deletion tags from articles they created. If you believe an article you created was inappropriately tagged, all you have to do is ask any other editor to remove the tag. If you can't find anyone willing to do so, perhaps the tagging wasn't so inaccurate after all. Bearing in mind that any user may already, in good faith, remove a speedy deletion tag from any article that they didn't create, I don't see the need for a new privilege here. Thparkth (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Thpharkth: Don't remove the tags yourself; go get a third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• You can always add hangon tag with a reason, or add to the talk page. Of course some admins won't bother reading the talk page before deleting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new CSD

I've seen enough cases where this has happened to warrant my suggesting it... should we have a speedy deletion criterion for unreferenced articles created in a foreign language that have no equivalent in another language Wikipedia? There's no real reason why an unreferenced stub in a foreign language should be sitting around with a PROD tag on for 7 days or go to an AfD debate. If the subject is notable enough, someone will eventually start an article about it in English. XXX antiuser ^eh? 07:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of requiring there to be an equivalent article already on another language Wikipedia is that if there isn't, it could potentially be usefully moved to that project. Theoretically, adding {{not English}} to the article brings this to the attention to people who might do that sort of thing; in practise, pages needing translation into English isn't that active. They should at least be given a chance to, though, so I don't think speedy deletion is a good idea. Gurch (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of A2, and my suggestion is completely unrelated to it. CSD are intentionally very narrow, and that's exactly why I'm suggestion a new criterion for unreferenced articles only. Having a page in a foreign language sitting around waiting for a PROD to expire or AfD to conclude is more harmful than helpful, as it might confuse users. Jinjeru is an example of that. As far as giving them a chance to be translated, most articles that are tagged with CSD can be "rescued" from speedy deletion. This would be no different. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

People at WP:PNT are usually reasonably quick in determining whether a foreign-language article should be translated or deleted. If a page is listed there it doesn't take the 7 days of PROD or AFD to come to a decision. As foreign language pages need somebody who reads that language to check them, they are not a good candidate for something that should be speedily deleted (as not everybody can check what they are deleting). Also, this discussion belongs at WT:CSD. —Kusma (t·c) 10:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite the point. If an article is created with no claims to notability, no references and a biased POV, even if the subject is notable, it would still qualify for A7, and another editor could just as well rewrite it or recreate it with content that conforms to WP standards. A foreign language article in the English WP doesn't really do anyone any good - and if the subject does warrant an article in English, someone can just as easily come up and create it, in English. What I wanted to suggest was a criterion that is purposefully narrow, just to keep unreferenced foreign language stubs from slipping through the cracks and "messing up" the project. It's just something I not infrequently come up against whilst recent changes patrolling and figured I'd suggest it here. I wasn't aware of WT:CSD, thanks for letting me know. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeating what Kusma said, in smaller words: If the article is written in a language that I do not understand, how the heck am I supposed to know that it contains no claim to notability? Magic?

For that matter, how will I know that it doesn't contain any WP:INTEXT citations? If you typed "According to the June issue of Famous Magazine..." in the text, rather than between ref tags, I'd have no clue that it was there, but that text definitely qualifies as a (badly formatted and incomplete) WP:CITE to a WP:Reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, how the heck are we supposed to know if the article is a personal attack, or full of libel and BLP issues? I suggest that it would be better to immediately move any foreign language article to some sequestered space where the appropriate people can decide what to do with it. Whether that prevision belongs in CSD or not, I'm not sure.--Hjal (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New essay: WP:BOMB

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

• WP:BOMB / WP:Wikibombing.

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

Would you consider moving this "essay" out of the project space? At a quick skim it reads like a soapbox oratory about the controversy and the related issues around it. It reads like a semi veiled attack on Crit and an attempt to lay precedent tracks. Minimize the origination issue, generalize the comments (not only about online campaigns, specific examples from the issue, etc.) then I could see it being a valid guidance document. Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone who wasn't active in the dispute would connect this essay with Cirt or any other user. I therefore think it unreasonable to interpret it as an attack on anyone.

The two primary reasons that we userify essays is that the editor doesn't want anyone else to make changes to it, and that the essay directly contradicts the community's view. I think that the general theme (i.e., don't abuse Wikipedia for your outside political campaigns) is widely supported by the community, and JN doesn't seem to mind others improving it. Therefore it is not appropriate to userify the essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who looked at the history would be able to tell exactly who is at issue, connecting it to Crit requires about 10 seconds of work. I agree this doesn't belong in project space as written--it looks to be a thinly veiled personal attack. I assume it wasn't intended as such, but intent doesn't really matter here. As such, I'm not real thrilled with it in userspace either. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be fine with just describing the effect and issue. Even with a simple note where the term was first coined. But the fairly long list of the "bad things" done by one user is what makes it seem like an attack. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think the essay would be fine if it were genericized to remove all references to specific examples, that is remove all of the "santorum" stuff from it, and just leave it generic. --Jayron32 20:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Since the essay was in project space, I decided to be bold and cut out a bunch of details. Most obviously, the author has little awareness of how pagerank is actually computed - internal links in a domain are not taken into account (or are only a small factor). Thus the complaints about creating inbound links with templates and DYK nominations are not only speculative, but actually wrong, and in my opinion impugn the assumption of good faith we should have towards the editors who worked on the variety of articles related to Santorum (who was after all a prospective presidential candidate), and the generally useful templates that were spun out of that article. A page should be judged on its own merits, not the supposed motivations of its original author. Dcoetzee 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks much better, thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• As I already noted, internal links do not contribute substantially to pagerank computations. However I agree that an essay based on a single event may be premature. Dcoetzee 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of the literature I find says that internal links are taken into account in calculating page rank: [12]. --JN466 22:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• This point (using single events to make decisions about how the community governs itself) is part of what I was talking about on WP:VPM yesterday before Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) started haranguing me about it, for whatever reason. Bad things happen occasionally (vandalism, hoaxes, advocacy, whatever...), and we should deal with that when it does occur. If there is something that we can do to enable volunteers to better combat the occurrence of those bad things (like the NPP, for example) then that's a good thing. However, trying to prevent those kinds of bad things is usually worse then the problem. In this instance, for example, it appears that the intent of the essay was to somehow prevent people from linking to the type of article represented by the santorum article (see the original Guidance section). Understandable, but misplaced, and that advice tends to contradict other widely accepted guidance (Wikipedia:Linking). My point is: let's not allow ourselves to become overzealous trying to prevent problems.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  What's has been discussed a few times, but never implemented, is to add nofollow to nav template links. That would take navigation templates out of the page rank equation altogether. Lots of people are saying that our internal dofollow links push our page ranks up. That's legitimate, but arguably less so with nav templates adding a couple of hundred extra links in one fell swoop. --JN466 23:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  The thing is... that's all external to the site. Look, I'm not making light of your concern with page ranks and how SEO issues relate to our internal practices, but... I mean, that's not something that is really in our control, and I'm not sure that we should try to throw monkey wrenches into the way that Google (or Bing, Yahoo, etc...) operate based on our necessarily imperfect view of the way that they operate. If there's a problem with our content, then our content should be talked about and changed to address those concerns. Trying to keep people from seeing it doesn't seem particularly constructive, to me. Besides, all of the stuff about what affects page rankings in Google or any other search engine are just guesses... they're well informed guesses, but they're still guesses. More seriously, the manner in which Google and other search engines operates can change at any time, without notice. Relying on "nofollow" or similar mechanisms for issues such as this risks the possibility of Google and other search engines choosing to ignore all of our robots guidance, which is trivial for them to do. If that happens, what would we do then?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, yes. On the other hand, once people generally wisen up to the fact that they can make their articles rise up the Google ranks by throwing in a couple of fat navigation templates, everyone will want to have some on their article, whether useful to the reader or not. You may argue that promoting our page rank promotes the project -- in which case let's all create nav templates for our favourite topics! -- but I'm doubtful whether that's best for a harmonious editing environment. Someone will create navigation templates for Republican scandals and Liberal columnists, another one for Democrat scandals and Conservative columnists, and so forth; you get my drift. Making nav templates nofollow would remove the incentive, and the potential for strife, and level the playing field. Articles would earn their page rank with their content, rather than nav templates. --JN466 00:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, keep in mind that there are good reasons to add navboxes to articles which are completely unrelated to any potential SEO effects (which, I still feel that the potential effects of our internal links on page ranking are speculative). See: Wikipedia:A navbox on every page, for example. Not everything occurring on Wikipedia is going to be related to partisan politics, even on partisan political pages. Some of us are actually concerned with improving the quality of our coverage. :)

  Taking your arguments on directly though (we obviously see this through slightly different paradigms, which is fine): should a "harmonious editing environment" trump potentially helpful content creation? If content can only come about though conflict... I mean, that kinda sucks (I'm awfully averse to conflict, personally), but in the end so what? After all of the arguing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, we do typically end up with good content. There may be some bent feelings as well, but over the long term... i mean, content is king, in my view.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  I've been googling about for a bit and everything I find says that internal links do matter, a lot. See [13][14] for example. Frankly, I need to think about this for a while, because I'd never really given it a lot of thought. Cheers, --JN466 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to get the "last word" in here, or anything like that, but... if I concede the point that internal links matter (even if they matter significantly), my main point is much wider then that, you know? I'm trying not to be dismissive of your concern, not only because I don't want to dismiss anyone's concern, but also because I think that it's something that we can legitimately take into consideration in certain circumstances. My main issue is using that single concern to make content decisions on is not something that is good for the encyclopedia in the long term.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  That's why I need to think about it. I came to the topic through the santorum thing, but that's obviously only one aspect of the issue, alongside many others. --JN466 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I agree that this essay would be better off without such pointed reference to Cirt, such as the list of his actions and link to the (declined) arbitration case filed against him. This appears to not just assume bad faith on his part, but also codify it into policy in a way that I'm not comfortable with until his actions are more thoroughly investigated and evaluated by the community. I'd also suggest that the guidance section be expanded/rewritten to give an editor guidance in how to write about a Googlebomb and expand its coverage fairly, rather than a warning that to expand coverage of a Googlebomb topic will be seen prima facie as bad faith. (Probably not how this section was intended, but it's how it's coming across to me at the moment.) I do think this is a topic worth talking about in policy terms, though, so thanks for tackling it. Khazar (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's appreciated. As originally written, I actually tried to just describe the actions that caused concern this time round in the essay -- because these are the sorts of actions that would likely cause similar concerns in the future, if another editor were to engage them -- and to do so without imputing intent, because intent is a matter of perception. I may have my perception, which may differ fundamentally from that of the next person, and both my and others' perception may change in the light of new evidence. So, as an essay, the text should not interpret actions that have actually occurred one way or another. But it is legitimate to address how things might be perceived, both within the community, and by our readership and critics outside the community, and to get editors to think about that. I think we all agree that we neither want to be cheered by supporters of a campaign we cover, nor castigated by those opposing it. I'm happy for others to take the lead in developing the essay further; please remove what you think is too specific, and translate the scenario that occurred into more appropriate and generic language. --JN466 02:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

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

Thinking about it, the real question I think we should get at is: is there any upper limit to the number of links in a navbox? As said in WP:A navbox on every page, navboxes can go up to hundreds of links - which is to say, hundreds of inbound links to each article on the list. To facilitate that, navboxes have an exemption from the prohibition on content hiding which applies to nearly every other type of content, including potentially offensive images. Maybe we should have a fixed maximum size above which you should make a category rather than a template, and stop using show/hide to shoehorn unreasonably large numbers of them into articles. I've mentioned this idea just now on the essay talk page. Wnt (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I've nominated the essay for deletion.Hobit (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing‎, for the record. Prioryman (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Boilerplate review for repackaged WP content books.

There was a recent discussion on whether/how to deal with publishers that sell repackaged Wikipedia content as what appears to be original work. A similar discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#LivingBot where it was pointed out that Amazon is starting to acknowledge the problem and that the number of such titles is in the hundreds of thousands. In the previous discussion, User:Spinningspark suggesting adding reviews for these books on Google and Amazon so people will have fair warning before they buy. I'd like to suggest a boilerplate review, possibly to be attached to Wikipedia:Buying Wikipedia articles in print or another form. This would allow people to copy and paste rather than write they're own, which should be a big time saver if this is to be done many times. It would also save on possible blow-back if the language is reviewed for legal implications. As a first pass, I'm proposing:

This book seems to consist of repackaged free content from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org). Wikipedia content can be purchased in hard copy form from Pedia Press (http://pediapress.com), some of proceeds of which will support the Wikimedia Foundation.

--RDBury (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, if someone started an off-wiki campaign to make systematic, boilerplate comments on Wikipedia, I'd be unhappy. I expect that an on-wiki campaign to do the same to off-wiki websites would be exactly as unwelcome by the targets. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's to the benefit of Amazon and Google to protect people from getting scammed on their sites, so I would think they'd be happy to have the input.--RDBury (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. Amazon makes just as much money from selling crap as they do from selling legitimate books; they are famous for not caring when authors, their agents and friends fill their "reviews" sections with shameless plugs for garbage. --Orange Mike 19:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) (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, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A discussion and vote are on going about Pending Changes level 2 for certain BLPs.

While there is an RfC and it's on WP:CENT I was a bit surprised a vote was on-going here and I thought it might be of interest to those who follow this noticeboard. Hobit (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia written for?

Is it written for the worlds population at large? Or just the part of it that regularly visits Wikipedia? I can't find a policy for this. It should have an impact on every other policy. You can't really talk about neural points of view or global styles unless you know which part of the worlds population you're talking about when you say global. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.121.68.1 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious the aim is to write for everybody who speaks english at a reasonable level. For the people who are poor at english we have Simple English Wikipedia and foreign language versions. That we are only read and edited by a subgroup can mean this is not what actually happens, but it should not change our aim. Yoenit (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Humm... you know, even the most "obvious" issues (especially the most obvious issues?) should be spelled out somewhere. Doing so prevents confusion, at the very least. It can also inform and guide our other decisions. Wikipedia:Editing policy seems like the most obvious place to talk about this.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The audience depends on the article. We do not expect any typical 12-year-old native English speaker to understand anything in an article about graduate-level abstract algebra. We do expect that child to understand a significant fraction of an article about, say, George Washington or Queen Victoria. The audience for Introduction to genetics is not the same as the audience for Genetics.

In general, I would say that most articles I deal with (e.g., not pop culture) appear to aim for a level that is appropriate to first-year university students, with some articles and some sections being either more or less complex, depending on the needs o f the material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the audience of a given paragraph varies even with articles. I would expect a lead to have a broader audience in mind than body text. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What would be the problem with saying that on the Wikipedia:Editing policy page, though? Something along the lines of: Wikipedia is generally written for the first year undergraduate students, although the audience can vary significantly from article to article. Seems like a pretty straightforward statement to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, it appears we do have a guideline about this Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Yoenit (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO the "varies significantly" is far more important than the "first-year undergrads" part. Also, that's really a style issue instead of an editing policy one, so EP is probably not the right place for it.

WP:Make technical articles accessible has good advice: Write one level down. If it's a "graduate level" topic, then write for undergrads. If it's a "college level" topic, then write for high school students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you guys, it's just... I mean, one of the first things taught in any writing class, tutorial, or reference, is that you should "know your audience" and "write to your audience", so it doesn't exactly seem like an outrageous idea to me that we spell out who are intended audience is.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there isn't any single intended audience for the encyclopedia as a whole. It's too big a thing for that. There's an excellent essay on this, WP:MANYTHINGS.

On another note, though, I would kind of like to see a more general understanding that en.wiki is allowed to be aimed at speakers of English. So if we cover Shakespeare better than, say, Pushkin, or American politics in more detail than Brazilian, that's not unreasonable. Not to say we shouldn't cover Pushkin and Brazilian politics — naturally, we should. But the fact that detailed coverage tilts to the Anglosphere is not an indication of some evil conspiracy. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but WikiProject Countering systemic bias is also not an evil conspiracy. The English Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia for the Anglosphere. It also serves as the place where an Italian speaker from Switzerland can quickly look up some facts about the culture of Tamil speakers in Sri Lanka. Also, translations between the various Wikipedias tend to go via the English Wikipedia. And of course English is the language of science, which is why I am at home here rather than on the German Wikipedia. Hans Adler 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment: All articles, even the most technically sophisticated (ie advanced Quantum physics and calculus articles) should be written in a way that an uninformed (but basically educated) adult could come to understand the topic. In advanced articles, the topic should introduce itself with wikilinks to articles that provide a simpler introduction to the concepts dealt with. If I, as a first year engineer, cannot understand what an article on complicated manifolds is explaining, it is using far too much technical jargon and must be simplified. All of our core and vital topics should be written so as to be understood by a grade 3 student researching their solar system project, or something along those lines. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No. While I agree that most technical articles are not as accessible as they should be, it is simply impossible to present every notable topic in this way. You can see this with the articles that Scientific American produces on mathematics and physics. I once cancelled my subscription because I could no longer suffer the nonsense that they were writing in that area. As a mathematician I should have had no trouble understanding these articles, yet I understood nothing at all because they dumbed them down to the point where they were not actually saying anything. That's a natural result of taking the ideology that you have expressed too seriously. Hans Adler 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Floydian with the exception that perhaps Grade 3 is dumbing it down a bit too much to Simple English's standards. And in the same instance I agree with Hans Adler, though I do have a subscription to Scientific American (and Discover, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, National Geographic, and Astronomy; all of which could have the same complaint put against them) As for who is Wikipedia written for? Simple answer- Those who are searching for information and type it into Google and get Wikipedia as their first hit. Realistically that's how the majority of people find the majority of our articles. They dont specifically come to Wikipedia, a search engine draws them to us. In a way we are very much similar to IMDB. Someone sees an actor on a tv show, cant remember where they've seen them from or the first name and they type it into Google, bam! you pick Wikipedia and you read all about him/her. We should therefore assume that the person reading the article knows SOMETHING about the topic, enough that they knew to Google the term, location, person, event. We should never dumb down to the lowest common denominator however. Secondly- we are not and should not portray ourselves as a research tool! Encyclopedia's are NOT acceptable research material for grad students, and neither should Wikipedia at any grade level. Using Wikipedia to take the sources that we have already used and read them oneself however is much better. We shouldnt write as if we are helping 3rd grade students write a paper on oak scrub ecology.Camelbinky (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The project as a whole has no overarching level of writing, nor should it. It is to everyone's benefit if at least some part of every article is understandable to the layman, but we should not be shy of tackling more technical information in articles where it is relevant. Some subjects simply require deep study to understand, such as light cones. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The language doesn't entirely have to be dumbed down throughout the article, but for core articles, the basic premise should be understood by an intelligent eight year old. Looking through them, there is not a single topic on the list that I did not already know about or wasn't capable of learning at that age. Not all there is to know about the topic, but the basic idea of the concept. Understandably, Curvature of Riemannian manifolds cannot be entirely written for someone who graduated high school. However, the basic premise could still be explained in both a technical and non-technical way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Floydian, it is entirely possible that you were not the median eight year old. Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Seuss has a third-grade reading level (3.8, actually[16]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

While I think for instance the article cohomology could and should be simplified a bit I think most adults even will have some difficulty, and there are lots of much more advanced topics. I think the advice to do it at one grade down is about best. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

OpenCorporates

I've started a disucssion on linking to OpenCorporates, following an approach they've made to Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Should users be allowed to remove current block notices

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

• My own opinion hasn't changed since last June..."I also don't think current block notices need to be shown. The block notice is there for the benefit of the person being blocked. If they've seen it and want to remove it, I see no reason to revert them. Unblock requests, ban notices, sockpuppet tags...those are there for the benefit of the people who may be dealing with an ongoing issue." --Onorem♠Dil 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal (My rationale is the same at WT:UP#Change to WP:BLANKING) Why must we force a user to keep a scarlet letter on their talk page when this notice in regards to a user's block automatically appears at the top of the talk page to inform other editors when it is being edited? Declined unblock requests are necessary while a user is blocked, but a notice for the user letting them know they have been blocked should not be forced onto the talk page when a user has read it (hence the blanking). These notices are only posted for the blocked user's notification, not other editors who happen upon the talk page. The last time I checked, block notices don't say "Hey all editors who come to this user's talk page: he or she has been blocked! FYI." It tells how long an editor has been blocked and why so that they can appropriately appeal by posting an unblock request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Don't allow removal of block notices. If users wish to not have block notices on their talk page, they need to not behave in manners which get themselves blocked. --Jayron32 23:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of the notice in this situation? I wish people would not behave in manners that get them blocked. That would be great. What exactly is the benefit of forcing the notice? It's a good thing that nobody ever gets blocked for good faith reasons...or doesn't take the time to reflect on their edits until after they are blocked. Those scarlet letters will surely fix everything. --Onorem♠Dil 03:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Don't allow removal of block notices, Per Jayron. Also this was decided a few months ago, and if I remeber correctly, it leaned heavily towards disallowing removal. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - since most of the block notices don't say "This must remain until the block has expired", it is kind of open for people to think they can remove it, since we typically let people modify their Talk page however they wish. Maybe it would be useful to modify the Templates. -- Avanu (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Don't allow removal - allows users to game the system. Also, this is helpful if a user is trying to get a hold of a blocked user and doesn't realize they're blocked. --Rschen7754 00:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• In what ways could a user game the system by removing a notice? They'd still be blocked... Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Do not allow removal by user but there can be a note in the request unblock info that the blocked user can ask for the notice to be removed, and if an established editor thought that it was desirable, that third party could remove the notice. There would be no need for any bureaucracy (i.e. do not require a discussion with the blocking admin), but someone other than the blocked user should think that removal would help the encyclopedia. If it is a short block, the time will soon elapse and removal would be pointless fiddling. If it is a long block, there is a reasonable likelihood that someone will visit the talk page (without necessarily wanting to leave a message), and it is helpful for the situation to be apparent. The recent change to WP:BLANKING simply clarifies what the old wording implied (obviously an active block is a sanction). Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Or, you know, we can just allow removal of block notices since nothing is gained from forcing a user to keep it on their talk page. Is it that big of a deal that an uninvolved user would have to approve of a removal of the notice? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Allow removal (possibly with exceptions in circumstances which it's really necessary.) Because theres something inherently unpleasant about a community which insists on forcing everyone we've ever kicked out on wearing a dunce's hat in perpetuity and I'm not convinced theres any adequate reason to do so. I think this applies especially in cases of controversial blocks and blocks of established users, where enforcing block notices through edit warring is likely only to create ill will and the appearance of grave dancing. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of the arguments against are more applicable to expired blocks and warnings than to active blocks. It's very easy to tell if a user is currently blocked (if you don't know - click 'edit' on their user page or talk page), but it's more difficult to tell if they've previously been blocked (which requires accessing their block log - which isn't built in to the standard skin) or have recieved a final warning for something (which means going through the archives or edit history). Bob House 884 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

"WP:BLANKING has seen a change recently to include active block notices on the list of items that can't be removed by users from their talk pages" (emphasis mine). I've taken that to be the scope of the discussion. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comment was based on the block notice covering an active block. That is, you get blocked, you get notified by the blocking admin. Don't remove that notification until the block expires or is lifted. After the block expires/is lifted, you can do whatever you want. --Jayron32 02:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is about my change to the "Sanctions that are currently in effect" item. The edit introduced "notification of a currently active block" as an item that may not be removed by the user. Almost everyone agrees that a user may remove notices of expired or revoked blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Allow removal. Why not? What good will removing it do them anyways? What good does the template serve to those other than them? If they continue to vandalize after the block and require another block, the blocking admin will be able to see past blocks in the block interface, and if they ever apply for rights the admin there will obviously take a gander and their block log. This is a solution searching for a problem... Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Allow removal. Admins should use some method of keeping track of who's been blocked (such as the logs) which is not possible for the user to change. The mere fact the talk page can be played around with is why it shouldn't be relied on at all. The user page should be to communicate with the user, not to signal admins, not to be a Scarlet Letter. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Do not allow removal While it may be the habit of some users who don't review things properly to just glance at the block log and pass judgement, a proper block notice (and any relevant discussions/information which indicate a more complete rationale for the block, including diffs) should be retained for the purpose of assessing whether a block is warranted, justified, and/or necessary. We have limited resources and if an admin or other users have already gone to the trouble of providing a rationale (be it for the user, for other admins, or for the community as a whole), it's not so that it can just be removed and then some admin can come along and then miss something crucial to the block. A block log is limited in the information it provides (more often limited to a general scope of the issue). We've already had one situation where an IP was causing trouble and pointing out how susceptible the system is to abuse and misuse of this kind; it was an embarrassment to pretty much all admins that the Community needed to invoke a site ban in that case in order to address the issue. We don't need more of the same for some misguided and unjustified belief that it is some scarlet letter; if we were forcing users to retain it after the block is expired, that may warrant such a belief, but the reasons are pretty clear cut for keeping it in view while the block is in force. I certainly will not support a view that encourages a deliberate and/or persistent gaming of the system. Note: this does not prevent users who are gravedancing to be dealt with appropriately, but this is different to providing information regarding why an user was blocked, or what other pattern of behavior or incidents exist in a particular case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Instruction creep. We don't need special rules for this. The only type of situation where enforcing block notices to stay on the page is really worth the trouble is while a blocked user is seeking an unblock; if he prefers to just wait it out and move on there is no reason why anybody else should ever need to care about the notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Q. Would it be possible to modify the code to allow for something like a red notice at the top of the page that shows the log entry of the latest block? It's a quick solution that would be quite helpful to admins who might not have caught on to the block due to any blanking or a tedious, indirect back-and-forth on the talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  Such a notice is already displayed when editing the page, and someone could write a script if someone wanted it shown at the top the page when simply viewing it. –xeno^talk 17:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Allow removal. The blocking information is available anyway to anyone who tries to contact the user. The rationale behind enforcing the notice is not clear, as it suggests that editors are encouraged to restore removed notices, which is a sure way of creating problems and tension for everyone concerned. Established practise per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments is that if a user removes a notice, then it is clear they are aware of the notice - job done, no further action needed. The reason we established that practise, is because restoring notices leads to edit wars and conflict, and is inclined to push a frustrated user into a nasty corner. If someone has a temporary block it is because we wish them to return. They may not return if we push them too far at a low moment in their Wikipedia career. Blocked users are not evil - they are just people who may have erred in some way, and some previously blocked editors have gone on to become admins. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal - I see no reason that block notices need to remain on a talk page. If anyone is interested in when someone was blocked, it is there forever in the block log. If they are interested in more than the information in the block log, all the information is avalaible in the history. I do think it is appropriate to leave the block notice on the page if the editor is asking for an early unblock. Then it is pertinent to an ongoing discussion and should remain otherwise they acknowledge they have read it and it has done it job and can be removed. GB fan (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal, nothing is gained by edit warring to keep them. If you want to outlaw something, better outlaw edit warring on other people's talk pages by re-adding warnings or block templates. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Disallow removal, If you've been blocked, your block notice needs to remain in place so administrators (and other editors) can get the context of why your editing privileges have been suspended. Even if the editor acknowledge their mistakes and elect to sit the duration of the block, they probably recieved warnings prior to the block reminding them of what the community saw wrong with their actions. Once the sanction is no longer in effect, the editor is perfectly free to remove the block notice. In response to the arguments about remaining for an early appeal, it's nearly impossible to know if and when a user might early appeal their restriction. Is it reasonable to expect a restricted editor to restore the block notice before they make their early appeal? In response to the "Scarlet Letter" arguments: This is not a permanant branding, this is like anklet based house-arrest. After the period of the sanction is complete, the editor is perfectly free to return to the anonymous mass of the community. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Disallow removal. There are numerous reasons why it is convenient, if not 100% essential, for a block-notice to remain visible to all on the page of an editor while they are blocked. On the other hand, there are no reasons why removing it is a good idea. Therefore, the balance has to tip towards disallowing such behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Do not allow removal per above comments. I'm also not sure this is the appropriate venue to be rehashing a discussion that very recently had clear support somewhere else. In any case, I see plenty of reasons that active block notices are useful for others (transparency, context on the reason for the block, context for unblocking admins on unblock requests, etc), and the only major argument I'm seeing against that is "why not?". I've seen users try and remove previous unblock requests prior to requesting an unblock, which could "game the system" by tricking the unblock admin into thinking there was no previous context. I've also seen users remove active block notices, only to have others add content to their talk page, unaware the user couldn't participate. I've also been in situations where active block notices would have been useful to me, personally. Furthermore, my experience has been that this is currently the community's thought on this issue, as I've seen it pointed out to blocked users repeatedly, and our policy page should describe that, not prescribe a new rule by which we expect it to change.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I might unwatch this page for the duration of the discussion so I don't end up responding so often that I appear to be badgering...so this will hopefully be my last comment here. I don't think it's inappropriate to request discussion on the page designed to give the community a place to discuss changes to policies and guidelines. 27-17 or so in a !vote 8 months ago isn't so recent that I think it's inappropriate to discuss again, especially when it's a change to a practice that's been discussed many times and enforced in a different way for years and when the previous discussion didn't actually lead to the change. I agree that unblock requests shouldn't be removable while a user is blocked. (unless maybe if it's indef and they just want to blank their page completely) That's not part of this discussion. If users are adding content to blocked users talk pages, they should hopefully notice the big red 'this user is blocked' edit notice and realize they can't participate. Can you give a specific example of a situation where the block notice would have been useful? When I'm dealing with a specific user, it's probably unlikely that I wouldn't check their talk page history, make an edit to their talk page, or check their recent contributions...all things that would pretty quickly indicate their current editing status. If I understood what purpose past shaming the blocked user these notices were supposed to have, I'd likely change my stance. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • re: "I've seen users try and remove previous unblock requests prior to requesting an unblock, which could "game the system" by tricking the unblock admin into thinking there was no previous context." Any admin who looks only at a blocked user's talk page without looking at contributions before reviewing an unblock request is not competent and should be desysopped. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Disallow removal If you're blocked and it's not overturned or amended later, then it's proooobably your fault. And as we're all adults here (wait, lol), I'm sure we can all live with a little notice or two. It's not shameful, that's just psychological. Removing would make it more of a hassle to determine if a user is blocked. For example, if I want to ask a user for immediate help with an article when they've actually been blocked for a week, I'd like to know that before going ahead and asking them, because they won't be able to do anything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal - Blocking isn't a scarlett letter. Leaving the notice there is in no way preventive, it's punitive. Removal of the notice has been OK and standard for some years, and admins reviewing blocks have long had to (and expected to) go check the old talk page versions if there were any removals. It's not that hard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal otherwise Wikipedia would be in breach of the license that applies to the addition of the notice. This license allows any one to modify the text and warns if you don't like people changing it don't put it there. However since it is intended as a communication to the blocked user, the blocked user should at least read it before removing. Once they have read it the blocked user can safely remove the notice. Others who care if the person is blocked will see the notice when they edit the talk page. Side effects on twinkle are the twinkle users problem, and the twinkler should use another method to edit if there is an issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal Users should continue to be allowed to remove all template trash from their talk page. The wp:own problem should most definitively not be expanded onto user pages. There is no need to troll and stalk (former) editors. It has nothing to do with the project. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal - user talk pages are for communication between a user and the rest of the project. Once the communication (notification of a block) has been received and read, the user should be free to remove or (at the end of the block) archive it. The matter of recording the present or past existence of a block is dealt with by block logs. Editors and admins wishing to see the history of an editor's block log or the history of that editor's talk page should consult the block log and page history. User talk pages are not the correct place to look for a record of such things and moving in that direction encourages admins and editors to be lazy and not look in the right place (i.e. the block log and page history). The matter of notices placed on a blocked user's user page is a bit more tricky, but that isn't being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Allow removal as doing otherwise may encourage pointless revert wars in a user's own edit space. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  As in, allow vandalism because that might also lead to revert wars? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  Vandalism? I don't think so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: if removal is allowed, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Block_log_annotation may be of interest. Rd232 public ^talk 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Scribd

I've got a mail from some newly joined User:Chirag from delhi who asked me about the notability of Scribd. He/She has some prime numbers based research document there, and want to know whether or not it would be consider as valid source of reference. This is a copy of mail:

Hi! Please tell me:

Can Wikipedia consider an article published on Scribd (www.scribd.com) as a valid source of reference?

I did some research on prime numbers which I have written in the form of an article; link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51240401/Floor-of-Prime-Raise-to-Power-Half

Can this work get some place on Wikipedia? I think two biggest achievements of this research are:

1. I have made a function of prime numbers which returns a patterned output - a smooth curve. This is the first plot in my article. I think I am the first person in modern records to make such function and show pattern in prime numbers.

2. I have derived that "Between the squares of any two consecutive non-zero integers, there exist at least two prime numbers". This statement is stronger than both: Legendre's conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendre%27s_conjecture)
and Brocard's conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocard%27s_conjecture).

- Chirag Virmani

I think it comes under the policy, so posting here. If I'm wrong then please tell me the right place to go, thanks and regards. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Scribd is notable, but it is not a reliable source for the obvious reason that anyone can post anything they like there. Self published sources are ruled out under WP:SPS. I suggest you advise the individual that he needs to get a paper published in a peer reviewed journal before it'll be of any interest to wikipedia; and even then, there's no guarentee. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think nine times out of ten scribd is just a trap - a lousy copy of some public domain document available for free elsewhere on the web if you look hard enough. This is the exception - but it's something we can't use anyway, because we don't publish original research. This is a literal case of original research, not the sort of crazy extensions we usually see where people argue about whether it's OK to say a word isn't in a dictionary. We simply have no idea whether this is a genius theorem about prime numbers that will eventually lead to cracks for every bank code and the much-deserved downfall of the international banking system, or just a plus swapped with a minus somewhere. Wnt (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And, apropos nothing, Brocard's conjecture is clearly stronger than Chira's point 2. I pass on Legendre, though noting that [17] clearly shows that the number of primes between n^2 and (n+1)^2 are always 2 or greater. I'm not entirely clear why Chira thinks his work is stronger; at best, he has derived what is already very well known. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have said "I simply have no idea..." Wnt (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly explain why I consider my statement stronger than Brocard's. Brocard's conjecture is that there are at least four prime numbers between (Pn)^2 and (P(n+1))^2, for n > 1. Now for n > 1, P(n+1) - Pn is always greater than or equal to 2. From my statement it automatically follows that "Between M^2 and (M+m)^2 there exist at least 2*m prime numbers, where both M and (M+m) are any two positive integers". Put value of small 'm' as 2, and thus Brocard's conjecture is derived from my statement. Brocard's conjecture says that there are at least four prime numbers between (Pn)^2 and (P(n+1))^2; my statement says that take any two positive integers having a least difference of two, and you will find at least four prime numbers between their squares. I hope I've explained clearly. --Chirag from delhi (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the document (paraphrased): "For x = 1 to 27 values returned (observed from the plot) are [...]. Therefore, for all integers N...". Nuff said. Nageh (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your responses. I've familiarised myself with "Wikipedia:No original research". --Chirag from delhi (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocking policy needs to change for repeatedly disruptive editors

I've been here for a long time. I've improved hundreds of articles ranging from rattlesnakes, to aristolochic acid to the Bataan Death March to Goju Ryu karate. I've created templates, edited Wikibooks, uploaded images, and improved Wikipedia policy pages. I've removed hundreds of vandalism edits, patrolled new pages, and dealt with all sorts of other Wikignome-ish activities. Well, after nearly 16,000 edits here, I'm going to leave, and I'd like to talk a little bit about why, so that hopefully someone else can deal with the problem.

What ultimately made me decide to leave was the disruptive edit warrior User:V7-sport stalking me around from page to page, and forcing me to choose between spending large amounts of time arguing with him (an endless process), or just going away and giving him free reign to destroy articles. Most of my work was outside of the articles he's harassing me on, but the amount of time I've had to dedicate to him alone is enormous, and I see no hope of it stopping any time soon.

Before I go further, I'd really like you all to go and open up his list of contributions, and judge for yourself what type of editor he is.

You'll notice a few things:

• There is not a single article that he has significantly improved (i.e. contributed a significant amount to, using high-quality reliable sources). Not a SINGLE ONE.
• His tone is consistently rude and combative with anyone he disagrees with. He repeatedly misrepresents and ridicules other editors' positions. He rarely acknowledges the validity of anything that his "opponents" are saying. And when he has been shown to be wrong, he doesn't admit fault -- he just changes the subject, and keeps on battling, searching for some other way to attack his opponents' positions (or straw men).
• The majority of his edits are to talk pages, rather than to articles (nearly twice as much to talk than articles). Furthermore, the majority of his edits are to ARGUMENTS on talk pages, rather than COLLABORATIONS with other editors. In fact, I'm not aware of a single place where he has been in an extended discussion on a talk page, and worked with other editors to improve an article.
• He has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring. When blocked, he lies and grovels until he is unblocked, and then immediately goes back to acting exactly like he was before.
• The few edits that he does make to articles are of very low quality -- using poor sources, misrepresenting sources, giving undue weight to trivia, taking things out of context, or performing synthesis or original research.
• The vast majority (almost all) of the edits he has made to articles are on topics related to U.S. foreign policy or the U.S. military. He does not edit outside of this narrow topic area.

One of many possible examples of the behaviors listed above: He comes to the article state terrorism, because he is convinced that if he changes the definition there, he can then remove reliably sourced content regarding "state terrorism" from another article by claiming it doesn't fit the definition that he's written in the Wikipedia article state terrorism (even after it has been explained to him that this is not the case). He makes an edit to the definition section, which misrepresents the (low-quality) source that he cites, which myself and another editor have to explain to him. He then makes a false accusation of me stalking him when he actually followed me to the page.[18] When this is pointed out to him, he doesn't admit fault, but rather changes the subject and tells me that I'm being "disruptive" and "pathetic"[19], and informs me that "evidently" I think the page is "mine" (because I keep reverting junk edits like this one) and that I think that attempts to "improve them" (which I suppose is code for "adding original research and misrepresenting sources") are disruptive. When I tell him that I never said this, he says that he only said that "Evidently I feel" that this is the case, and that I'm "behaving like a yipping little dog that's defending a lawn it's previously peed on"... and so on (along with edit summaries like "Don't you have a dumpster to dive?" - a reference to the fact that he's been reading my personal blog - and "Shouldn't you be packing to move to Venezuela?"). This is the type of shit that I've been dealing with for months now, on multiple articles that he's followed me to.

He's taken special liking to me, and is stalking me both on and off-wiki (at least he only stalks me around in articles related to his nationalistic obsession -- he hasn't started harassing me at rattlesnake just yet). So I've had to deal with his removal of large amounts of sourced content, his soapboxing, his personal attacks, his misrepresentation of sources and of other editors' positions, and his persistent edit warring, on several pages. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it, and am deeply upset with the community for not having done anything about this by now. Why am I having to waste my time dealing with his bullshit, instead of editing?

Again, please look through his contributions, and verify for yourself that this type of thing is the norm for him. Now that you've done that, please answer me this: WHY IS THIS EDITOR STILL HERE? Seriously -- What is he contributing to the encyclopedia that makes him worth keeping around?

During an ANI he attempted to file against me when I called him out for repeatedly lying (a claim that was validated by the people at ANI), an uninvolved editor told him: "Reading the talkpage actually suggests to me that it would be a far more collegial environment if you weren't involved in it, rather than Jtayloriv." I would argue that the same could be said of the project as a whole. I welcome someone to explain to me the benefit of keeping people like this around.

Well, what do I suggest doing about it? Personally, I'd suggest blocking him indefinitely, as it appears User:Kww almost did, because he's clearly not a useful contributor, and wastes an enormous amount of community time. But, of course, that's not going to happen, because the policy here is currently designed to accommodate people of his ilk. The process goes like this: Act like an ass, get blocked, grovel and lie, get unblocked ("Free and rehabilitated!"? ... how cute), act like an ass in the same manner you did before, get blocked, grovel and lie, get unblocked, repeat ad nauseum ... He can keep going as long as he wishes, because nobody is asking the question "When we unblock him, do we expect it to improve the state of the encyclopedia?"

Of course, I'm not saying that everyone who edit wars should be indef'ed immediately. A lot of good editors, including myself, have gotten into an edit war during their time here. Everybody makes mistakes, and I am very supportive of Wikipedia maintaining a policy of "forgive and forget" for people who have obviously just screwed up. But when people are repeatedly blocked for the same behavior, and repeatedly act obnoxious, and repeatedly fail to contribute quality content, and give no indication that they are going to change their behavior, then maybe we should ask the question: "What good are we doing for ourselves by unblocking this person?" Limiting ourselves to waiting for them to violate 3RR or call someone an "ugly little loser" is not helping. Those types of things are easy to skirt around, while still being able to prevent productive editors from getting work done.

By repeatedly unblocking him when it's clear that he still doesn't give a shit, and doesn't intend to behave differently, we're just training an obnoxious and completely useless editor to game the system more effectively. He might be stupid enough to have been blocked for 3RR 3 times, and maybe he's even stupid enough to go for a 4th. But eventually he'll learn to control himself enough to be able to stay active in the battlegrounds he's created. He will learn how to act like as much of a dick as possible, while managing to just barely avoid getting himself blocked. And then we'll be stuck with him. He'll become a permanently useless and disruptive editor. We'll get to endlessly waste our time dealing with him, and in return our readers will get biased, low-quality content (and less of it too, since we'll be hanging out with V7-sport on talk pages, rather than writing articles). I don't want to be around to deal with that; he's already drained enough of my time as it is. So, in effect, you're losing an editor has contributed an enormous amount of quality content, and you've held on to a nationalistic zealot who contributes rude, inane comments on talk pages, deletes reliably sourced content that doesn't fit his POV, and contributes little, if anything, of value. I'd love to hear how that's going to result in the creation of a decent encyclopedia. (And I'm still waiting for information about that article he's written).

I suggest that you all figure out some way to revise the blocking policy for chronic cases like V7-sport, because what we've got now is not working. Unlike him, I'm not here looking for a political forum. I'm here to write content. It's too draining for me to have to spend several hours a week dealing with a single non-productive, nationalist extremist, because the community is assuming a bit too much good faith, and letting him come back "into the fight", when it's quite clear that he doesn't give a shit about collaborating with other editors. I also think that it needs to be made clear that admins should take into account users' contributions when determining block-lengths and unblock decisions. If a user isn't contributing anything useful, then why do we want them to come back, even if they don't violate 3RR and just spend all of their time arguing? What are we trying to do here -- have an open political forum, or produce something useful?

If I can't spend the large majority of my time writing content, and spend my talk time collaborating with people, I don't want to be here. Until you all decide to fix this, you can all enjoy dealing with his shit yourselves. I'm done. V7-sport, you win. Wikipedia, you lose. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your retirement. Rather than get upset, you should have considered some of the dispute resolution avenues such as WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, or the newly minted WP:DRN Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So, because this user decides that Wikipedia is a drama-filled place where several users get away with basically not editing and only harassing, some decide to collapse his, though very angry but still very important concerns. What a joke.Camelbinky (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hasteur -- Of course I've considered WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, etc. The reason that I didn't use them is that they are useless for this sort of thing. The result will merely be me getting told to assume good faith and wait until he does something "blockable" again (and then he'll be blocked for a few days, say whatever he needs to to get unblocked, and then come back to doing exactly what he was doing before, leaving the real problem unresolved). That's why I brought it here. If spending the majority of your time lurking around talk pages, starting fights with people over a single topic area, while contributing nothing of significance to the articles is not blockable, then the blocking policy needs to change. If you think there is some form of mediation that would be able to handle the situation, I am completely open to it; but none of the available options seem to be designed to deal with this situation. I love editing here, and would love to stay, but I'm just at my wits end with being followed around and harassed, and I don't see any options available to me that are going to be anything other than a further waste of my time. So what I'm doing here is ask that the community come up with such options, and consider how to deal with tendentious editors who contribute little to the encyclopedia, while creating an enormous amount of conflict and disruption. Again, I welcome someone to explain the value of keeping such a user around. Seriously -- point me to some thing X that says "In spite of V7-sport's repeated edit warring on U.S. foreign policy articles, in spite of his personal attacks and rude interactions with other editors, in spite of the fact that he hasn't made a single significant contribution to the encyclopedia, X makes it worthwhile to keep him around, and will help us reach our goal of creating a free, high-quality reference." If such an X doesn't exist, then something is wrong, and needs to change. Anyhow, I'll periodically check in on this thread, and you can also reach me via email on my userpage. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv may be giving up prematurely. The user that s/he complains about here was blocked 5 times within approximately 6 weeks. That kind of record is not a result of Wikipedia coddling tendentious users. Rather, the length of the blocks was increasing at the same time that the user was getting "second" chances. If the disruptive behavior was continuing, it was time to escalate the issue. --Orlady (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Having been in a situation similar to what Jrtayloriv has described (linked at the top of my talk page), I can certainly relate to a lot of what Jrtayloriv is saying. There actually isn't a system in place for this type of thing. The person being disruptive only ends up indef blocked once their behaviour catches the attention of a much wider audience. I also wrote about some of this in a prior VPP discussion, and further expanded on later it in some comments I made during the AESH case. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the solution then to make their behaviour known to a much wider audience, for example through AN/I or other venues? I have seen several similar problem editors, which I at the time thought capable of gaming the system forever, but once reported there with proper evidence they actually did receive warranted attention and eventually booted off the project. The AN/I thread that Jrtayloriv links to was a botched attempt at the problematic editor to spread drama, but if Jrtayloriv themself had started a thread with ample evidence, I am sure it would have been treated differently. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What never ceases to amaze me is that true vandals get so many short blocks and extra chances, but someone like User:James dalton bell who just wanted to correct some things about his own article went straight from newbie to indefinite ban for "incivility and disruption" after about 70 edits and 22 days.[20] I think all the breaks go to the wrong people. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, many blocked and banned users create their own breaks. –MuZemike 18:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that too does not help individuals editing under their own name about their own articles. I know COI is a problem, but I think people who edit in such an honest fashion deserve some extra consideration. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that things should change for repeat offenders. Think the simplest and most neutral way to do this would be to have set times limits for editors second, third and so on blocks. Something with more bite to it like - first time 24hrs, second time a week, third time a month and so on. Mandatory block times would also eliminate "judgment calls" on length of block times, that many times results in more conflict and unnecessary talks that are not about the underlining problems but rather the block its self. Having mandatory block times listed on some page would allow us all to link to this page showing vandals and POV pushers what their actions may led to. Having a well defined sanction type page is much better for our readers to understand then the "judgment call" system we are currently using. Moxy (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Isn't the solution then to make their behaviour known to a much wider audience, for example through AN/I or other venues?" Well, in theory anyway. Unfortunately it can sometimes turn into a situation of "the squeaky wheel getting the grease", especially if an AN/I post is long and difficult for others to read (many editors will simply skip over a long section which lacks visual queues and defined paragraphs).

In practice (and based on personal experience) when someone who has been repeatedly attacked or harassed finally makes an AN/I post, the individual(s) who have been attacking or harassing them will usually try to turn the AN/I discussion on the very person they've been targeting. (See Cyberstalking#Definitions "key factors") The effectiveness of this tactic depends on the initial AN/I statement, how the targeted individual has previously responded to attacks and harassment (ignoring and staying calm vs frustration, anger, etc), how much the issue has previously been known to other community members, and so on. One of the boilerplate ArbCom principles you often see is "Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.", unfortunately this often seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I can say from experience that simply making a statement on AN/I and providing a few diffs generally isn't enough to put a stop to attacks and harassment the first few times. In my case, after it got really bad, even trying to get ArbCom involved didn't help the first time around, and in the end, the community got involved and put a stop to it. Looking back over the material, it began on May 26, 2009 and was finally stopped on November 6, 2010, so it took place over roughly a year and a half (although it seemed like it was longer). In terms of how it played out as a whole, that isn't the way it is supposed to work at all, which is why I continue to push for change in this area. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is WP:BEFORE obligatory?

There's currently a bit of a general ongoing debacle about whether or not WP:BEFORE is required, ie. whether nominating an article for deletion without having made the slightest effort to check out potential sources permissible [21] and I'd be interested in some input on this? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I, too, would like to know the status of WP:BEFORE. Is an editor required to do an in-depth investigation of an article's notability before CSD or AfDing it? What if the article is one sentence long, has no assertion of notability and zero references, such as this article? Basket of Puppies 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't interpret BEFORE as asking people to do in-depth research. In many (most?) cases simply Google-News or Google-Books searching the article title will suggest whether or not it's likely that sources exist: hardly arduous! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'd say required but you need not spend more than a couple of minutes. If you are sending articles to AfD where lots of good sources come up at the top of a Gnews or book search, you should be chided vigorously. If you do it regularly, you are wasting other people's time and should likely be banned from XfD until you agree to actually follow WP:BEFORE. Heck, I feel strongly !voters should do a web search before they !vote. I know I've missed obvious sources (and more commonly claimed sources were reliable that aren't if you look more closely) a number of times. It's embarrassing. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be happy with 20 seconds in most cases. It's when I do the most cursory scan of Google Books and find twenty times the references needed to satisfy the GNG that I start getting irritable. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Required. Which makes a great deal of sense -- it saves the community what is otherwise wasted time, when a nom does a wp:before search prior to nominating an article for deletion. That allows the community to focus that time instead on more appropriate and helpful work at the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Absolutely. That's why it's the first thing you see on WP:AFD before instructions for listing an article at AFD. We don't delete articles for fixable problems. See also WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, part of Wikipedia:Editing policy. postdlf (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not disagreeing with a lot of the comments below branded as "optional". Obviously WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and all that. Best practice unless there's good reason not to might be a good statement then. As long as it's clear that "I don't have to" is not actually a reason for not doing it. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"I don't have to" is exactly what WP:BURDEN says. Without a source readers cannot determine fact from hoax which is why contested and unsourced material can be immediately removed. Statements written without sources are just as likely to need to be re-written to comply with sources found - that's a lot of work, and it is why the burden to write from sourced material belongs on the author, not the editor. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Not required, but encouraged I've been on both sides of the debate on this one. On the one hand, I'll be looking through an article and notice how glaringly below standards it is, try to improve it, draw attention to it (by tagging with the appropriate improvement templates), and wait for someone to try to improve it. I consider that a "Due Diligence" in the fact that I tried improvement, people who are in that article's space were alerted of it's deficincies. Yet when it gets put up for discussion there's suddenly editors and IP addresses crawling out of the woodwork claiming that it can be improved and they will. In some cases it's blatantly obvious when even BEFORE won't help the article. In other cases having BEFORE applied has raised the article above my criticisim threshold. It really comes down to, I as an editor have my little niche where I am somewhat of a subject matter expert. I don't claim to hold any specialized information for other criteria, yet if articles are not improved when issues are pointed out, it shows me that there is little interest in the subject. Hasteur (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (as I'm sure you're expecting) WP:NOEFFORT. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional but certainly should be done for courtesy towards others and to avoid cluttering AFD. The problem if it was made mandatory is that, if a topic does have sources (through Google, lets assume) but finding the sources using traditional search methods is difficult if not impossible, and I, the AFD nominator, did that and found no sources and thus AFD'd the article, someone will certainly game the mandatory nature and accuse me of "no, you didn't search *this* way to find these article...". Of if the sources are only in print journals, and me, without access to academic catalogs, determines there are no online sources, again, someone will complain "Well, you only had to go to your May issue of this journal to see it..." That said, even if optional, if an editor continually and regularly nominates articles without BEFORE and these have sources that are easily found by an obvious search, then there's a behavioral issue to take into account. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What would be the point to nominating an article for deletion unless one has determined to one's satisfaction that the article should be deleted? I think it should be a serious consideration taken upon oneself to nominate an article for deletion. One should only do so if one has thoroughly examined the topic of the article, and one should pay attention to and participate in the WP:AFD process. One should be prepared to change one's mind if other editors present arguments and present sources showing that the article should not be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Lack of experience? Lack of clarity about what's required? (We do occasionally encounter people who believe that 100% of unref'd articles must be deleted.) Lack of understanding the subject (without realizing it)? Not every nom at AFD has the intelligence and experience that this group of editors does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional, but highly recommended, especially when running through a whole list of items someone else is going to have to check after you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional in regards to having go through the whole regime. Good practice to go through some of the points, though. I'm not a "deletionist" but somedays there seems to be a lot of stubby or inconsequential material out there, and the loss of some of that would be no big deal. To take the checking of sources, to put the burden absolutely on the reviewer (to give the nominator a neutral name) is unfair. It says in the guidance on writing your first article "Gather references both to use as source(s) of the information you will include and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." Even if sources do exist, that does not make something notable of itself - I could scour the archives of my local newspaper and pull together enough mentions of the village hall, or even the corner shop but they would still not be a notable subject for an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional but recommended. Certainly it makes things go more smoothly if the nominator searches, but our verifiability policy says that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and I would add that this implies also someone wanting to keep material that is disputed. An article that's AfD'd for lack of sourcing is, essentially, disputed material, and a !voter wishing to keep it has the final responsibility to provide evidence supporting that material. That said, I agree with many of the points Masem makes above. An editor who habitually refuses to perform good-faith checks before nominating would bear speaking to, if only for the sake of our collegial editing atmosphere; however, codifying BEFORE as a requirement will, I suspect, lead to assumptions of bad faith against AfD nominators, with !voters suggesting that if only the nominator had put forth effort of level X rather than a clearly-unsuitable level Y, we wouldn't be here, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Let's make new bullet points and bold mark the first statement. BEFORE has been optional for years, etc. It's nice to do a cursory glance for refs but let's face it, sometimes we don't need to or sometimes people mess up and don't when they should. Let's use common sense. Killiondude (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional, BUT... BEFORE is part of a procedure, not a policy. Following it keeps you from embarrassing yourself and accidentally wasting the community's time with inappropriate nominations. Transparently following it—say, starting your nom with a description of your search strategy for sources—tells the community not only that this AFD is highly likely to be a legitimate candidate for deletion, but also that you are the sort of desirable, respectful, competent editor who takes reasonable efforts to avoid wasting everyone else's time. People who follow it get respect (and high rates of deletions); people who don't get disrespect (and, unfortunately, occasionally thoughtless "keep" !votes from people who have decided they're incompetent/jerks/etc). I wouldn't require it as a bureaucratic procedure, partly because some people are so familiar with a given subject area that they already know the state of sources. On the other hand, I personally don't believe I've ever nominated even one article without at least a quick trip to my favorite web search engine, and I can't imagine nomming multiple similar articles without doing my homework. But—your reputation, your nomination, your choice. If you like having your noms responded to with statements like "As anybody can see from the following basic web search results, there are at least hundreds of sources..." then I'm okay with that. I don't think that we have such a huge problem with this that we really need to put up a bureaucratic obstacle to AFDs when so many of them are actually valid (and when the others can be dealt with effectively case by case). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Required If you don't have time to do the research, then don't do the AfD per WP:DEADLINE. It's not like somebody else can't get to it who has the time, and the 'pedia won't explode if an article isn't nominated for deletion this very minute. Not to mention that any claim of non-notability has to be backed up by something. "I've never heard of it" is no better a reason to delete, than "I've heard of it" is a valid reason to keep. How does anyone make a claim that there is no coverage without looking outside of WP? Nominators should do their own homework. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced and contested potential misinformation should be deleted immediately, regardless of WP:DEADLINE. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Required modulo IAR, i.e. optional if you know what you're doing. So if you skip a reference check in a fit of exhaustion or pique, okay, things happen, nobody should burn you at the stake. But if you routinely skip reference checks or think that "good faith effort" means you don't have to do it and anybody calling you out for failing to do it is violating AGF, then you should be brought up short. To put it in the clearest possible terms, every time you make an AfD nomination that results in a keep because of references that were easily found, you have imposed needless busywork on other volunteers that achieves nothing more than to keep you from damaging the encyclopedia with your laziness. Doing so as an occasional accident is just the cost of human effort. Doing so as a matter of course is inappropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• It should be required for those that nominate many articles for AFD. Say over 10 nominations the nominator should have learned to do the before part to stop time wasting. For people new at this we can give them some more leaneancy in not following the recommendation. It should apply to people like Basket of Puppies for AFD. For A7 nominations the article can speak for itself. But for anything that is old, say over 3 months the nominator should check history and online references. We do get a fair amount of embarrassment through foolish nominations for deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional. If people want to suddenly make it obligatory they can throw a community-wide RfC, which I would be happy to comment on. Short of that, I'm not accepting its presence on a general community page as evidence it's a required read. I mean, Joseph Reagle can be found on internal pages too, and his book is shite. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Required to some extent (but a guideline, not policy) as I have been saying for years. Anyone can make mistakes, and the way of preventing mistakes is to go carefully. I this very month myself nominated an article for deletion that I should not have nominated, because I thought it so obvious that I did not search; fortunately others found the necessary references. There needs to be established procedure, because if in spite of all I have ever said I can let myself fall into this temptation, and use it unwisely, others can also, and so they do. The real question is a little more difficult: how thorough a search is necessary. The prescriptions in WP:BEFORE are considerably more stringent than is usually necessary or possible, and a full search in the sense I as a librarian consider a full search, will be rarely appropriate. In the exceptional case, the group at AfD can do it better than a single nominator. But a preliminary search to avoid discarding material careless and thoughtlessly, should be required. After all, the fewer articles we send unnecessarily for deletion, the more time for properly discussing the truly problematic and difficult-to-diecide deletions, and defintively getting rid of what we must get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Hell no can you say instruction creep? --Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Look, nobody is going to be blocking and banning people over BEFORE (well, if someone does I expect the community to overturn such action), but as others have said above it really ought to be a required checklist that you go through prior to nominating an article at AFD. This is one of those things that's not really policy, but it's certainly good procedure. We wouldn't be here (and at AN/I) if User:Basket of Puppies wasn't in the process of embarrassing himself and causing all sorts of unnecessary drama by following BEFORE.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Following the essence of WP:BEFORE is necessary in order to avoid deleting articles that shouldn't be deleted, and wasting the community's time. Taking articles to AFD which could easily be sourced with a couple of minutes effort of Google searching could legitimately be seen as acting in bad faith. We all make mistakes but editors who make no effort to follow WP:BEFORE should expect to be criticized for it. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional — 1., The burden of proof is on the article—not the nominator. Someone nominating an article for deletion should never have to be well-versed in the topic. 2. A requirement to "google for sources" would be unenforceable. 3. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. 4. Our policies are implicitly optional, especially so in this case. --slakr^\ talk / 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

the burden of proof is on the nominator. "No adequate reason for deletion" is a keep. Under existing policy, a non-consensus is a keep. The need to show something notable is on the article is a prima facia case for non-notability is given, , but that's only part of the reasons for deletion. Why should someone be able to delete articles by saying merely "non-notable" without some reason, like lack of findable references. Otherwise it's "i don;tlike it." DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• required but not as policy, written policies are things we require all editors to follow, we should keep them pared down to the essentials. Procedures and unwritten rules are the lessons people learn as they become experienced editors, we need to make sure they are well documented and we need to communicate them clearly otherwise we risk the community becoming closed and unwelcoming to new editors. ϢereSpielChequers 08:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Guideline WP:BEFORE seems to have guideline status per WP:GUIDES, "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Editors who flout this guideline can expect to have it held against them on occasions such as RfA — TenPoundHammer is a good example. In extreme cases, more serious sanctions may apply —TTN is an example. Note also that WP:BEFORE contains many steps and is not just a matter of searching for sources. These steps include sensible behaviour like reading the talk page to see what discussions are already underway and to check for previous AFDs. The problem now is that Twinkle makes it too easy to start an XfD without doing any of those things. Twinkle should be modified to give the nominator a reminder, just as article creators are now prompted to think about sourcing or whether the article has been previously deleted. Warden (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Guideline as pointed out by Colonel Warden. I tend to agree with DGG and Jim Miller that we can't completely ignore best practices established by hard-fought consensus; we'd be left with anarchy (or reboot). BusterD (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Highly encouraged but not guideline/policy yet. I would expect to see a cleaner version first. On the other hand, nominator saying that WP:BEFORE is not needed is just lazy and against AGF. I expect someone nominating an article to be sure that their nomination is necessary, not TWINKLE-stamping articles. On that regard, I would not mind TWINKLE including a reminder about BEFORE. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment on enforcement The method of enforcement that has always been suggested is by reject those AfDs that show no evidence of following the elements of BEFORE, without prejudice to their reinstatement. I do not think anyone is suggesting anything more drastic. (except perhaps that someone who insists on frequently repeated nominations without any trace of BEFORE, might be considered disruptive, but this has already been the case in certain extreme circumstances). DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - worst example of WP:CREEP imaginable - effectively this gives a licence for wikilawering and will severely discourage good faith nominations of inapproprate, unreferenced or damaging articles because of the implicit threat of punishment if one makes a mistake - which could be as simple as mis-spelling a Google search.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Encouraged and comment - perhaps a statement about whether an AfD nominator took steps to find or verify sources (or whatever) can be included in the Template. Something the Nominator can then attest to, like:

"Before nominating this article for deletion, I took the following steps to ensure this nomination was fully warranted: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (list of various actions taken)."

This would allow other editors to quickly see what steps have already been taken, quite a timesaver. If this is found to be blank, then it is a clear indication it was not followed at all. -- Avanu (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly recommended (but not policy-force) – The community's time is a valuable resource, and before a deletion discussion is started, we need to explore other options before going to that. In general, the first steps are to see what can be done locally before moving up to higher community input, i.e. a deletion discussion. Applying WP:BEFORE is basically "doing one's homework" before going the deletion route. That being said, there are going to be cases in which requesting deletion may be the only viable and reasonable option (the term "polishing a turd" comes to mind) for a variety of reasons; that is where IAR comes into play. –MuZemike 18:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Its policy. That page is a Wikipedia policy page isn't it? They need to start enforcing it though. Stop people from using bots to automatically nominating a hundred biography articles at a time, knowing they couldn't have possibly have looked over each one themselves. And I haven't seen this in awhile, but I previously went through a rather large number of articles people said there were no sources for, and clicked Google News Archive search at the top, and got ample results proving they were. Dream Focus 20:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, its not. BEFORE is part of WP:AFD, which is one of the {{Processes}} pages, not a {{Policy}} page. Some aspects are represented in the WP:Deletion policy, but BEFORE itself is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• It's policy. The policy doesn't say that someone making a wrong nomination must face "punishment" on the first try, but it should be clear that he has done something the wrong way. Like everything else, it's when it becomes a routine occurrence that it becomes a problem, and eventually, one way or another, he has to be convinced to do the right thing. Bogus AfDs don't just waste one person's time, but many. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:BURDEN trumps WP:BEFORE Big but - this project is a (hopefully) collegial community effort. It is courteous, polite, and expected for users to help other users. WP:V is a stricter requirement, and that requirement is not on the person nominating for deletion. Most AfD are short articles and deleting them should be no more dramatic than removing a paragraph or two of recently added but unsourced material to a longer established article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Optional- making it obligatory would open the door to "Speedy keep- nominator hasn't explicitly stated how they followed WP:BEFORE" kinds of bullshit. There's already way too much wikilawyering and attacks on nominators at AfD; we do not need a vehicle for more. As Schmucky says, WP:BURDEN is more important and I oppose any attempt to water it down with artificial roadblocks and obstructionist pettifogging like this. WP:BEFORE is best practice and good advice, but failing to follow it should not be a dealbreaker. Reyk _YO! 01:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Optional and not required. It would be best practices, but the onus is upon the creator and contributor to the article to demonstrate notability through the use of reliable sources. An article can be nominated for deletion (even speedy) is it does not assert notability and lacks RSs with the nominator not being required to do an exhaustive improvement project before nomination. Basket of Puppies 03:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Optional, but best practice. Following it preempts some objections and saves other editors' time. This question was asked recently at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#Is this page a policy, guideline, or just a suggestion? (April 2011). If you consider it to be policy, form a consensus to merge into WP:Deletion policy. If it should be a WP:Speedy keep criterion, form a consensus to add it there. Please do not be BOLD, considering that both are minority views here. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Existing Policy

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

With the difference that WP:RS is (a) actively linked to from WP:V and (b) has been actively and explicitly described as a policy or guideline. Your similes don't mesh. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If BEFORE is mandatory policy then you've declared unsourced stubs immune to WP:V. There is no objection to removing unsourced paragraphs from established articles, but once you remove all the unsourced content from a stub the article is blanked - deleted. BEFORE values process and deliberate publication of unsourced potential misinformation to a world wide audience over our readers trust. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I do not think any one is suggesting that BEFORE be mandatory policy, rather that at least the basic elements of it be a required procedural guideline. The reason it is unsuitable as policy is the same reason WP:RS is unsuitable as policy: it involves too many exceptions and special cases, and needs to be applied with judgement, not blindly, As for the technique of deleting an article by the gradual removal of content without any attempt to improve it or source it, I've said what I think elsewhere often enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If this article didn't have a source I'd say delete it regardless of BEFORE. It says things that most readers could not and would not be able to source. Slightly changing the information, or leaving it without the sourced information, could be lethal as it may look like a designer drug analogue. That's why it's not the job of those proposing deletion to provide sources. After several years all the unsourced BLP, spam, hoaxes, and other crap I've seen laying around WP while AfD dawdles on a resolution have pushed me almost to the point of thinking lack of sourcing should be a CSD criteria all by itself.

BTW, I didn't say gradual removal, I said stubs. There isn't enough material to gradually remove it. The equivalent material in an established article would be reverted without question but a user writing a new article with the same material gets a week on AfD. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

RFC: implementing Manual of Style restructure

Editors may be interested in revisiting this RFC, now that there is discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Random article functionality

Should the random article function be redefined to link to stubs or disambiguation pages?

What is the purpose of the "Random article" function? Is there an intention that it cause users to expand stubs, or just to read interesting articles? If the latter, then most stubs aren't enough to be interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.171.128 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose is to enable people to look at a random article, so all articles have to be included with an equal chance of being selected otherwise it wouldn't be random (I've just checked and soon hit an article tagged as a stub). I suspect there would be use for an option that enable editors to change their user options to give them a button for Random featured article, Random Featured or Good article etc. But as a matter of basic honesty we shouldn't call that a random article. ϢereSpielChequers 10:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The mathematician in me just started crying. It probably has to do with me using the word random in the same way (each with equal chance) in class and having all the EEs in the room scream bloody murder. :-) Hobit (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO it should be what it says it is. And there is no one pre-defined purpose. Different users can each have their own purpose for using it. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that the random function can also be applied to other namespaces? See here. Trouble is, for some of the namespaces, you mostly hit archived discussions or other subpages (I'd love it if there was the option to ignore subpages). I think I once worked out how to generate random hits on AfDs (see here), which was pretty pointless as well, but fun for about 30 seconds... The most disconcerting thing about the random function is that Wikipedia is so large that it is likely that any page you visit and think ("Ooh, that looks interesting, I'll read that later"), you will likely never visit or see again (unless you preserve your browser history or make a note of the article). Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy on example code

Hello,

I was wondering whether there was a policy on example code in articles. Specifically, does uncited example code (such as that in cycle detection) constitute original research? As well, if it is cited, what license must the code be released under to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia?

Thank you. InverseHypercube 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that an example is an illustration if it illustrates the article and does not introduce any new ideas and should be handled using exactly the same policy as for such images. They may be made up by editors and need no attribution but they must be relevant and not imply anything extra. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Dmcq: Editors are allowed to make up examples, so long as it is obvious to all (reasonably informed) editors that the example does comply with the WP:Published (NB: not merely the "WP:Cited") reliable sources. Describing, illustrating, and contextualizing are the proper activities of an editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That makes sense. Perhaps there should be an official policy on this? I can see questions about licensing, verifiability, etc. that are different than images. For example, outlining acceptable licenses, standards about what language versions to use (should Python 1.5 code be used?), and coding standards. InverseHypercube 22:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)