Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
• This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
• Proposed speedy deletion criteria belong at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
• Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
• Discussions or proposals which warrant the attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF).
• Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

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

RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for proposal. As indicated in the discussion there is already provision for the AfD closer to soft delete an article that has been de-prodded. The consensus appears to be that the current system of the closer making an informed judgement based on the circumstances to either relist or soft delete after one week is fairer than encouraging or requiring a soft delete after just a week. SilkTork (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Should all articles listed at articles for deletion for a week without opposition be eligible for "soft deletion"? HouseBlaster^talk 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

probably, yes. This shows that there is probably little reason to keep the article in question, so can be deleted. However, if a good reason does exist, it should be reinstated, hence soft deletion Cal3000000 (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Details (RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations)

Wikipedia:Deletion process § No quorum says (underline in the original):

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor, and no one has opposed deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators.

This proposal would remove the requirement that an article be eligible for PROD to be "soft deleted". In effect, this would mean poorly-attended but unopposed deletion debates can be closed as WP:REFUND-eligible soft delete.

Survey (RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations)

• Support as proposer. In December, there were 46 deletion nominations ultimately closed as delete after being relisted as "ineligible for soft deletion": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46.
  In fairness, there were four (4) articles that are still bluelinks because they were ineligible for soft deletion: 1, 2, 3, and 4. But I don't think that a redirect, a stub, a non-neutral REFBOMB mess, and No Pants Day justify the volunteer time rubber-stamping nominations. WP:OFD2023 shows that ~15% of AfD nominations are closed as keep, which is ~twice the 8% survival rate of the "ineligible-for-soft-deletion" December group. This suggests that editor time is better spent rescuing other articles.
  Finally, I will note that this change would still allow for WP:REFUNDs of the affected articles. HouseBlaster^talk 01:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I want to add a little bit to my rationale: this proposal would result in PROD and soft deletion being treated differently, and that is the point. A well-advertised-but-unattended discussion is not the same thing as a banner staying atop a page for a week. Arguing against this proposal because it would treat soft deletion and PROD differently is textbook circular reasoning: treating them the same way is A Good Thing because they should be treated the same way. Respectfully, why should fundamentally different processes have the same outcome?

  I would also point out that the status quo is the 46 articles from December are "hard" deleted: you either need some showstopping sources to show the closer/an admin at WP:REFUND or else must make your case at WP:DRV to get them undeleted. This proposal would result in all of them being REFUND-eligible. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support no irreversible harm. Potential abuse/misuse is mitigated by a single user and in worst case, a guaranteed WP:REFUND is always possible. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Makes it easier to restore deleted articles and discourages drive-by/rubber stamp !votes. Seems like a net-positive. -Fastily 01:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support but caveats: The nominator must make a clear delete rational; the nominator must declare that they have followed WP:BEFORE, and say why the BEFORE options, especially WP:ATD are not suitable. I assume that this can override a previous PROD removal. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have always held that soft deletion at AfD is simply a procedure where we pretend that the nominator, instead of nominating the article for AfD, tags it for PROD instead. So there should be no difference in the rules for soft deletion vs. PROD IMO. However, I am open to considering introducing an expiration for PROD declines, such that an article which has not been declined for PROD in, say, the last five years becomes eligible for both PROD and soft deletion. The reason why declined PRODs are ineligible for PROD is the same reason why we discourage edit warring - you shouldn't be able to get the last say just by being more obstinate at forcing your changes through. However, five years is long enough to presume that the original decliner may have forgotten about the article; they can always maintain their opposition by re-removing the PROD or !voting keep at AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support as outlined by nominator. Makes perfect sense. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support I don't understand but i support. LionelCristiano (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I thought we already did this? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It took me a bit to parse the proposal, which boils down to "can articles be soft deleted if they've had a contested PROD?". Q for nom: would this change mean that after a single week a decision would be made, or would the normal relisting cadence happen? I'm with King of Hearts in an alternate solution where a soft deletion would only be blocked if the PROD was less than some number of years ago. Eight years, perhaps? Ten seems too long (2014 was a decade ago) but 5 feels too soon (2019 was just a few days ago). SWinxy (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I envisioned it being a tool in the closer's toolbox: namely, if they feel relisting would be productive, relist. If not, it would be eligible for soft deletion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per King of Hearts. If someone nominates an article for PROD, which is contested, and then immediately renominates it for AfD, just because the person who opposed that PROD didn't show up to the discussion, doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Also open to allowing PROD again after 10 years or something like that, but soft deletion is just applying PROD rules to AfD. Galobtter (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal would effectively allow an article to be PRODed twice. If a PROD has already been removed once, the nomination is controversial. If the person who removes the PROD states in his edit summary that the article should not be deleted, or that the grounds for deletion are erroneous, or that the article satisfies GNG, or the like, I can only infer that the AfD is not unopposed, and that making a comment like that amounts to opposition. James500 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This proposal is also explicitly based on the assumption that changing the rules of AfD will not change the behaviour of AfD participants described by the statistics cited. It is not obvious that the assumption is true. This proposal might result in an increase in the number of nominations being made in the first place. Nominators might decide to send every declined PROD to AfD in the hope of getting a soft deletion while no one is watching. This proposal might also result in more keep !votes being made in the first place, if deprodders cannot just wait for an unattended AfD to be closed as no consensus. I also notice that the statistics cited are for December (the time of year when we have the fewest active editors), and do not take into account any seasonal variation that might exist. James500 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough point about seasonal variation. I pulled the statistics for June 2023 (chosen as halfway through the year): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.
      Bluelinks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 16#Explore Learning, which I am not sure which category to put in. It was closed as "delete", but is currently a redirect to ExploreLearning (without a space). That article appears to be on an entirely different company. At the very least, the two articles (Explore Learning and ExploreLearning) coexisted for a period of time—maybe there was a WP:CONTENTFORK? I'd appreciate it if someone with admin goggles could take a look.
      Finally, the behavior changes you cite seem to be positive changes. The point of any discussion is to find consensus, which logically means "no consensus" closes are not an ideal outcome. We allow speedy renomination of no consensus closes for a reason, after all. Thus, I would argue that discouraging dePRODers from seeking a "no consensus" close is a good thing. I also take issue with the assertion that Nominators might decide to send every declined PROD to AfD in the hope of getting a soft deletion while no one is watching. First, I would hope that people would not attempt to game the system. But holding a full-blown AfD is absolutely not while no one is watching. There is a banner atop the page (which was evidently enough to attract the dePROPer), it is listed on the daily AFD log, and there is literally an entire WikiProject dedicated to ensuring other interested participants see the discussion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
      • ExploreLearning and the deleted Explore Learning (AfD discussion) are two different subjects on two different continents. The latter went through Proposed Deletion in July 2008, one month after it was written. Also relevantly, a succession of copyright violations of corporate advertisements, editors with declared and undeclared (but obvious) conflicts of interest rewriting most of the article, and preference for the company WWW site over independent sourcing caused the non-company sources cited in 2008 when Proposed Deletion was challenged to have been long-since lost, buried years deep in the edit history, in 2023 when the article came to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose there is often low participation at AfD so waiting a second week for comments is reasonable. Also the deprodder would be rushed into responding when they may be offline for a period. This suggestion would unnecessarily speed up deletion without any consensus in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Fastily. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support Slacker13 (talk) 15:17, 04 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. If an article is ineligible for PROD then it is, by definition, controversial and is thus completely unsuitable for deletion without an active consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, although well-motivated, this proposal would open the door to deletion of articles that just don't happen to be interesting to the handful of editors who regularly visit AfD, even when the nomination is obviously spurious or misguided. Admins should be both allowed, and expected, to use their discretion to relist, or otherwise ensure that deletion is for policy-based reasons, not just because no one could be bothered that week. Elemimele (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose may open door for misuse. I see these cases as no consensus to delete which if anything should default to keep. Well-meaning proposal but defies conventional wisdom. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. If nobody cares enough about an article to make a brief comment on an AFD, it does not have enough support to exist. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. If nobody can rebut the argument for deletion then we shouldn't be keeping the article, per WP:CONSENSUS. BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Meh This RFC seems poorly written, as it fails to note that very section the nomination links to goes on to offer several options for when it was an opposed prod, one of which already is soft deletion. It's unclear to me whether "supports" will be interpreted as supporting the status quo or as calling for something more strict, and I could see some opposes actually supporting the status quo too. I see there was a better-worded RFC on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes that didn't get many responses.
  Personally I think we can afford a relist or two before soft-deleting, even if the de-PRODder didn't notice the AFD to oppose there too, per WP:NODEADLINE. But leaving it open to admin discretion (i.e. the status quo) is ok with me too on the assumption that admins will save immediate soft deletion for clearer cases. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose For similar reasoning as King of Hearts. I would not necessarily be opposed to this in cases with a multi-year gap between PROD and AfD, but I do not like the idea of essentially being able to PROD an article twice in a short period of time. As for a timeframe, leave it to admin discretion. Curbon7 (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - a week is nowhere near enough time, a lot of articles for deletion are likely to be on more obscure topics, that we possibly should have articles about, but that most editors will not be familiar with. A week is not enough time to be seen by someone who might be able to expand the article or explain it's importance. If there's an automatic deletion cut-off it should be closer to a year. Irtapil (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose per Anomie. There is a lot of context missing from this RfC, such as how that sentence got added to the process and the conflict with another part of the same section, i.e. it may already be an option. I put forward a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes to try and discuss some different wordings and options that could be used in a proper RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. It would be advisable to close this discussion, workshop the wordings on that talkpage, and come up with a more comprehensive one since the current wording is self-contradictory. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I take this proposal to be stating that we should strike and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, which I think would resolve the contradiction. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  If that's what this means, then support, to strip away some bureaucracy and also get rid of the kind of nonsensical idea that some CoI or other "problem article" writer gets a special "right" for having removed a prod tag while addressing no problems in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  One side effect is that notable articles could be deleted if this were to be implemented. For instance, it took two weeks to find sources for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TL;DR (2nd nomination) 71.239.86.150 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that would have been deleted after just one week. There's no consensus for deletion in the first week - two different redirect arguments and a delete !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• eh. I appreciate the reasoning, but I don't much like the idea of an unopposed AfD being soft-deleted at the end of a single week, and I don't really think it's too much to ask that someone second an AfD in the event that an article was deprodded. I'd be happier with the idea if it was something like "can be treated as an expired PROD if they've been relisted at least once", I suppose. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'll generally relist a no comment nom when I'm patrolling the logs but when no one has argued in support of retention or even commented indicated an interest, I will close these as a soft delete. No one has shown up in that two week window but if they do down the road, they don't need to do the DRV dance. They can have it restored and it can be addressed, if necessary at that time. I do think a week might be too little of a time though so while i do this, I'm not in full support. It's something that deserves merit though. Star Mississippi 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a week is too short; at least one relist is reasonable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose if an article is ineligible for PROD, it is because someone has deprodded the article and would, presumably, !vote to keep in an AfD. They should not be expected to have to do this twice. I would be in favor of considering a time limit on prod (ie articles proposed for deletion >10 years ago can be re-proposed), when considering how much our notability standards have changed, and the possibility for PROD to be abused. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Eddie891 I don't think this is an accurate assumption. I frequently see PRODs like "article has existed since 2007, take it to AfD". Many de-prodders give no reason at all, and also do not show up to the AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  yes, but the implied de-prod reason in the first instance you give is that the person is suggesting the article be taken to afd, where more editors can !vote on the afd. And editors not showing up to the AfD is part of why I opposed— we cannot expect good faith de-prodders to have to keep tabs on a subsequent afd nomination and comment again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  If I PROD an article, I keep it on my watchlist in case it is de-PRODed, so I can then determine if I want to take it to AfD. Presumably a person asking to take something to AfD will want to participate in that discussion, and if they do not, I don't think asking someone to take something through another bureaucratic hoop is a great reason to de-PROD. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  The person is suggesting the article be taken to AfD, yes. But it doesn't make sense to infer from that that the de-prodder would vote "keep". In my experience, they do not, since "article has existed since 2007" (or whatever) is not a valid keep rationale, and they can find no other. -- asilvering (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  On multiple occasions I've deprodded something not because I think it should be kept necessarily, but because I believe determining whether the topic should or should not have coverage on Wikipedia and/or whether it should have a standalone article or be covered on a broader one (i.e. merge and/or redirect) needs more time and effort than PROD allows. For example, I deprodded The Roaring Twenties (band) recently because google searches brought up so many false positives that determining whether sources exist for the subject is not possible from just a cursory look - especially as many of the obvious ways of excluding false positives will also exclude an unknowable proportion of true positives if they exist. In other cases I've deprodded because the most likely place sources are going to exist is in offline resources and/or in languages other than English. A third category is where the only realistic outcomes at AfD are keep, merge or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, those are all fine reasons to contest PROD. That's exactly why it doesn't make sense to infer that a de-prodder would vote "keep". -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  But a PROD isn't a keep vote, it's a statement saying "this article should not be deleted by PROD." If there's no subsequent discussion at an AfD on an article that has been PROD-ed, the two statements are "delete this article" (nominator) and "don't delete this article through PROD" (the de-prodder) which is a no consensus as far as deletion is concerned. SportingFlyer T·C 20:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I'm saying. -- asilvering (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Thryduulf and others. Rlendog (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: it is too easy to create an article that worsens the encyclopedia's quality and too difficult to delete it. Anyone may object to a PROD without a valid reason, but only justified AfD comments are taken into account by the closer. Deletion should not be prevented because of baseless objections by article creators. Soft deletion after no reasoned opposition at AfD is a good approach. Relisting indefinitely is not a solution to low participation at AfD as a venue: the same number of discussions will need contributors regardless of how long they are open. A closing admin who sees the nomination is poorly reasoned should not delete the page. They should instead !vote in the AfD, present some references and/or improve the article (just as they should if it was a nomination and three baseless "delete" !votes). — Bilorv (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - A week is too short of a time, so I would appreciate at least one relist. Since there are no requirements for editors in nominating an article for deletion (just expectations), suggestions to require a more complete nominations are unrealistic, or subject to interpretation by the closing editor. --Enos733 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything wrong with the procedure here of relisting ineligible AfDs when discussion is light. The problem is really just that we need more AfD participants. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - One week is not long enough. If it went through the cycle three times with nobody offering an opinion, I might see it — but when's the last time that has happened? A solution in search of a problem — or a short-sighted "solution" that will create problems. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support If the administrator believes an relist would be appropriate, they should relist it. If an administrator believes an article that has received no opposition to deletion should be deleted similar to PROD, they should delete it, with the opportunity for REFUND. I see no need to forbid soft deletion in these cases that typically still result in deletion and no need to expect others to expend time casting a !vote for what may be obvious or easily undoable. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per KoH (who, no, I am not related to). If someone has previously objected to deletion, we should not just go behind their backs deleting it. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on general principles. Sandizer (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A handful of editors are saying it doesn't harm anyone. It will drive off many a new editor who sees their hard work turn into a red link and who leaves without asking for a WP:REFUND, either due to ignorance of its existence or anger/sadness with the community. Also per Thryduulf in particular. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 18:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  If people use AfD as cleanup, then this would be true. But it an experienced editor truly believer an article was not notable, no process whether DRAFT'ication, reviewing it or even PROD'ing it will make it notable. New editors should interact with kind AFC reviewers and or NPP reviewers. I see this proposal as reducing the amount of time in AfD to precisely increase time for reviewing AfDs themselves and reviewing new articles. But testing this out would reveal that better. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  People shouldn't use AFD as cleanup, but it happens quite often. New editors should interact with kind AFC/NPP reviewers, but many get bitten instead. This proposal will not go any way to remedying either problem, rather it will make the impact of people incorrectly using AfD as cleanup worse and it will increase the number of new editors who are bitten. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  As Thryduulf wrote, unfortunately many do use AfD as cleanup.

  Also, any logged-in user, regardless of knowledge of policy, may nominate. The proposal doesn't require anyone to vote (assuming I'm reading it correctly), so experienced editors may not even voice an opinion. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 18:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The default shouldn't be deletion when we know that the deletion is controversial due to a contested PROD. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support AFDs with no participation is a major problem in this process, there are at least 20-30 of them that get zero attention at any given point of time - just look at Cyberbot. Saying that more people should join AFD is NOT going to solve things, most people gather around a few popular AFDs anyway and ignore the rest. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support? oppose per below - I don't think I understand the opposition. The proposal requires closing admins to go through the "before deletion" part of WP:PROD, right? That includes making sure "The page is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion." So let me spell out what I'm supporting:
  PROD → DEPROD → NO-VOTE AFD → NO SOFT DELETE
  [NO PROD/DEPROD] → NO-VOTE AFD → SOFT DELETE
  What am I missing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites that's what it says now. I think you've missed the proposal immediately underneath that, since your explanation appears to me to be an !oppose. -- asilvering (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think I got caught on the fact that once an article has gone to AfD, it is by definition ineligible for PROD, and this was to address that problem but is worded in an overly broad way. Sounds like extra breadth (to apply to articles that have been prodded/deprodded in the past) is kind of the point. In that case, yes, I am opposed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per king of hearts but I do think that allowing a PROD again after a long time period (10 years? 5 years?) is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why does the passage of time automatically make something that was controversial no longer so? Sure it will in some cases, but unless it does in at least the significant majority (which I'd be interested to see evidence for) then it doesn't strike me as beneficial to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To me it's because an objection from years ago has little weight now. Our inclusion guidelines (and more so, how they are interpreted) have changed significantly in that time. An old objection based on how things were doesn't seem like it's hugely relevant at this point. It's not something I really want, but I think it would be a reasonable compromise. Hobit (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  That assumes that the old objection related to something that is no longer relevant and/or standards that have been superceded. That is going to be true in some cases, but in other cases the objection is still going to be "hugely relevant" today. For example rationales like "plenty of sources in books", "seems notable based on the <other language> Wikipedia article", "widely covered in contemporary (non-English) newspapers", "sources seem to be available but they're paywalled so I can't check myself" and "if this is not individually notable it should be merged not delete", for example. It would be better if sources were in the article of course, but assertion that sources existed 5-10 years ago is as much a reason to take it to AfD today as it was 5-10 years ago. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair. And because AfD is always a way forward, that's reasonable. But it feels reasonable to me to let them expire as described. I agree it could be abused. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been here for (mumble, mumble) a very long time, & this is the first time I've heard of "soft deletes" & I don't understand the point of it: an article is either kept or deleted. And if someone as experienced as I doesn't understand the point, I figure new volunteers will be equally confused. (Unless they are uniformly smarter than me, which is entirely possible.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  A WP:Soft delete is basically a PROD that spent some time at XfD and received very few (if any) comments rather than being prodded. If a page has been prodded or soft deleted anyone can get it back by going to WP:REFUND and asking. If a page has been deleted following a consensus, they need to go to DRV and convince folk there that there was something significantly wrong about the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you're curious, scroll down any past AfD log and you'll see a bunch of them. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that this is the defacto process for those anyway, except that this proposal speeds up the time table. Lots of AFD's need more than a week to get some input. North8000 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose This creates a loophole where deprodding can be bypassed through a low-attendance AfD (i.e. you prod, they deprod, you AfD, they ignore or fail to notice it, the article gets deleted, all in a relatively short amount of time). I would support if the proposal specified that the deprod must have been at least (say) five years ago. I would alternatively support a proposal to "expire" old deprods as King of Hearts suggests (in which case this proposal would be unnecessary). I would also also support a proposal to discourage (but not prohibit) relisting more than N times (for, say, N=3), to encourage the closing admin to select another option (policy already allows the use of soft deletion at the discretion of the closer).This is already in the policy, oops. Any proposal along those lines would have my support. It's just this particular combination of features that, in my opinion, is problematic. --NYKevin 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support If inclusionists won't appear at AfD to make an argument, deletion is the result. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Mild support though I think one re-list is a reasonable check on this. It's pretty rare that something slides through AFD without any comments, and there is always a WP:REFUND later. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Llywrch and KQ♥. No need to default to deleation. – SJ + 01:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose This will certainly result in articles that should not be deleted getting deleted and remaining deleted, per other opposes above. AFD soft deletes are a problem and we don't need any more of it. One takes an article to AFD in the hopes that an enforceable consensus will determine the fate of the article for what is usually a considerable amount of time. Soft deletes of AFDed articles are a loophole for COI/UPE. If I counted all the times problematic articles got soft deleted by admins not knowing to evaluate whether a misuse was likely, and got refunded soon after, I would be very mad right now, and that's just not healthy. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It's very difficult to get a clear consensus if there are only a few participants (e.g. nominator plus one or two) in an AfD. That being said, anyone concerned about an article absolutely should take the time and make their argument at its AfD nomination. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Very often I see "relisted" in AfDs, meaning that participation is low (or too many AfD nominations to consume :-) - Altenmann >talk 02:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Something with more checks and balances might work. Perhaps we should require a delete !vote by someone other than the nominator. An alternative would be for the closer to do due diligence to check for sources etc, but that's not the closer's job and they may have better things to do. We could say that anyone other than the nominator can close the unopposed AfD as delete, but only if they repeat the WP:BEFORE as a check. Certes (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations)

So to be clear and article like MIKTA would be deleted even though the rationale doesn't make sense?Moxy- 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, because someone expressed opposition to deleting the article in the discussion. (If that comment had not been made, the article would be eligible for soft deletion under the current rules.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

So not comment then default deletion ..... do those involved in deletion at least look for sources...as in is there an common sense or effort involved if noone comments? Moxy- 04:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If people are not looking for sources before !voting, I would argue that is a problem beyond the scope of this proposal. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

MIKTA is just a case of a really bad nomination by a user who clearly sent an article to AfD without Googling its title. Lazy nominations are a problem with or without soft deletion. Pichpich (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

But soft deletions make the effects of lazy nominations very significantly worse. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I'd be counting on the closing admin to review the deletion rationale before actually soft-deleting the article, just as I'd expect admins to close PRODs as deletions only after performing the usual and basic WP:BEFORE checks. Am I just being naïve here? Pichpich (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I just being naïve here? unfortunately you are. While the worst offender that I know of was desysopped, there is no shortage of deletions being done without proper checks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I know for a fact at least some admins don't look at articles at all when closing deletion discussions, so no. (And TBF deletion closers have a lot of work to do without replicating the participants work) Mach61 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The admin instructions for handling expired PRODs do not require us to conduct checks for sources (etc.) prior to deletion, but if you feel they should be changed to include such a requirement, feel free to gather a consensus to that effect at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. WP:BEFORE is a part of a different process, namely WP:AFD; PROD is intentionally a more streamlined process. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Well admins could do checks for a prod and decline, but so could any one else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The intention behind this proposal is decent. I might encourage another proposal with a few more checks and balances, but I think it's so rare that a deletion discussion would go more than a week with no response. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I assure you that this is absolutely not rare. -- asilvering (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Notes

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

General Sanctions (Darts)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Although this hasn't been kicking for quite 30 days yet, it looks ripe for closure with no input in a few days and a pretty solid ratio. There is no consensus to authorize General Sanctions for the topic of Darts. By the numbers we're looking at an almost even split, and there are no strong policy based arguments that support or refute the authorization of GS, so it comes down to if editors believe that the disruption is severe and widespread enough to warrant GS. Arguments from those supporting the authorization simply weren't enough to convince even a slim majority that GS was necessary, rather than the enforcement mechanisms we already have in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Note that I originally proposed this at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard#Can an uninvolved admin please step in over toxicity and BATTLEGROUND at darts-related pages? (Permalink} by mistake. Moving it here per the new procedure. but I've copied by comment below. For further context, see the linked thread as well as Talk:2024 PDC World Darts Championship and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts#Stats that are against WP:SYNTH The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing this thread, the linked diffs and talkpages, and the requested closure above, I'm supremely unimpressed with the conduct of a number of people in this topic area. It certainly isn't just one person, incivility is rampant throughout the area. In order to break the back of this problem, I'd propose General Sanctions be authorized for the Darts topic area, text below copied from WP:GS/PW. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

• Support as proposer. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Listed at WP:CENT — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The AN thread is quite revealing of how editors interact in that topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• You might consider proposing that the community designate the topic area in question to be a Contentious topic. isaacl (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I considered it, but chose not to on purpose. WP:CTOP is specifically tied to Arbcom and subject to their oversight; we still have template issues leftover from when Contentious Topics replaced WP:ACDS. By using the older Discretionary Sanctions language, it makes things much more clear that it was placed by the community and not Arbcom, that it doesn't happen at WP:AE or get appealed to WP:ARCA, etc. Separating community-based sanctions from arbcom-based sanctions reduces confusion in the long run. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Over the long run, personally I think it would be simpler to have one procedure for authorizing additional actions by administrators, with either the community or the arbitration committee designating topic areas where the procedure can apply. I appreciate, though, that this would be breaking new ground for the community and so at present has more uncertainty. isaacl (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support I had no idea darts of all things could be so toxic. KaptenPotatismos (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I've long since given up being surprised at what people will argue about. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute is a decade out of date, but it gives a flavour. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Before Wikipedia even existed, I received the wisdom that politics, religion, and sports were subjects that caused heated arguments. So I am not surprised at all. That said, from what I've been able to follow of the dispute here, it's not the topic, but the fact that articles have been written in one form for a long time, and the argument is over whether that form adheres to our policies and guidelines. It's the common "But no-one has objected since 2006!" argument, combined with arguments over Manual of Style compliance, original research, and sports statistics, all of which have provoked heated arguments in other areas in the past. It's not really darts itself that is being argued about. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      Nothing that cannot be resolved with some AGF colleborative discussions. But that will need the necessary goodwill on both sides. An outsider barging in with "my opinion can't be swayed" as their motto doesn't work at all, as the last two years have shown. And assuming bad faith of the darts regulars isn't helpful either. This proposal is an overreaction. It will only discourage discussion. Tvx1 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      Ah, yes, the perennial WP:CONTENTAGE "argument to avoid", which supposes incorrectly that old content is mystically exempt from later changes to policies and guidelines and process (often even compliance with the P&G rules that existed all the way back then but weren't followed in that topic at the time, without much of anyone noticing). The more obscure a topic is, especially if it has a fans/practitioners editor base that leans in a walled-garden direction (often via a topical wikiproject), the less it tends to attract cleanup efforts, especially compared to things of broad editorial interest like major sciences or globally famous persons. It's a severe misunderstanding of WP:EDITCON, a supposition that because a loose consensus can be established simply through acceptance of content being as it is for a long time that this equates to the formation of an ironclad topic-specific consensus that somehow overrides any highly-specific site-wide consensuses established through affirmative processes, like policies and guidelines, that have a much higher WP:CONLEVEL. This fallacy is a long-term source of squabbling, across many topics. I only ends one way (with the P&G eventually being followed as in every other topic), but has a very corrosive effect on editorial goodwill. Sports and games in particular are commonly a nexus of this recurrent problem. CONLEVEL policy was created to curtail it, but perhaps is not clear enough, or simply too infrequently acted upon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      SMcCandlish, I still think that the CONLEVEL reform that was tossed around last year could be promising, if there's any interest in it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

      I'd forgotten about that, and it's worth developing further. Though that rather long discussion was most immediately about WP:YEARS and "their" articles, WP:ITN, and a few other specifics, what SnowRise said there (in part paraphrasing Levivich) resonantes strongly and is broadly applicable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a massive overreaction. The entire situation really revolves one user, who even during the AN report stated their intention that they would not colleborate and stated that "their opinion can’t be swayed", against whom the community seems to be unwilling to take action. This proposal amounts to using a large blow torch to get rid of a fly. All it really needs is users on both sides to be colleborative and to accept nothing is black and white here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs)
  • The issue goes far beyond the one person you're pursuing an indef on, as well as the other two long term users who have been indeffed over Darts content. Invicility, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, and WP:OWNership seem to run rampant in this topic area. For avoidance of doubt, here are a few examples of your own recent conduct: [1][2][3][4][5]Wrong link, should have been [6] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  • What point are you even trying to make with these diffs? More than half of them is me just reporting factual events like two users having been blocked. Care to explain what policy I violated posting that? Or is it just a blockable offense to just post something in a darts-related discussion that doesn't agree with the non-regular darts article editors?? As for the first two, maybe you should also read and cite what I was replying to? Heck, I'm not even a member of that darts project, I'm just an occasional editor to those articles, mostly those on the world championships. I was just baffled by behavior shown on the talk page by BOTH sides during the last world championship and it's still inexplicable that only one of the users who resorted to personal attacks was sanctioned. Even more so because the unsanctioned users had displayed the same behavior before in an other topic area and got topic banned there as a result, and because the user did not show any insight on their behavior and no willigness to change during the AN proceedings. I honestly don't understand why you and others keep putting all the blame on one side. In fact all the drama that occured over the past two years in that topic area is somehow connected to that user. A core issue is their ""my opinion cannot be swayed" they displayed throughout and which they reiterated at WP:AN. That's why I maintain that this proposal amounts to suggesties to using a nuclear missile to kill ant. Start with dealing with that one user, as multiple people suggested during the AN, and then see how things evolve at the topic over next weeks and months before resorting to such drastic measures as general sanctions.Tvx1 17:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

    I honestly don't understand why you and others keep putting all the blame on one side. The whole point I am making is that all the blame is not on one side. This entire time you've been crusading for an indef on ItsKesha, and you're right that she's been grossly uncivil. Much of her behavior has also been in response to even worse personal attacks and even slurs hurled by the now-blocked editor and others. That doesn't excuse it at all, but rather it points to a wider problem. As far as which policies you've violated, right off the bat You need to learn to read is clear WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, especially given that it was a response to a ten month old comment. The rest demonstrates WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, WP:OWNership, and assumptions of bad faith, though my fifth diff has the wrong revision so I'll correct that now. The point is that there's enough conduct here to block half the editors on Darts pages, but instead I'm trying for a gentler approach of "final warning for everyone, cut it out or else". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

    Battleground, Ownership and assuming bad faith are things that I hope are not referring to me, because these are not characteristics of mine. I was one of the few who actually did the effort of carefully reading the policy and guideline arguments and the relevant policies and guidelines and properly adressing the arguments. I certainly do not consider myself the owner of any article ever. And as I said, I'm not a darts project member at all. Just an infrequent editor of some related articles. Tvx1 23:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support but with a time limit like a year or 18 months or something. We have too many topics that stay perpetually under conditions like these (community or ArbCom ones), when the problems are usually traceable to fewer editors than it takes one hand to count, most of whom learn their lesson, do something else around here, or go away entirely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) PS: I don't mind waiting for a while as Tvx1 suggested. This might actually just fizzle out on its own.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: A time limit does seem like a good idea, though I'd suggest 24 months to capture the full 2024 and 2025 darts "seasons". Even the frequent use of words like "outsiders" make it clear that we're dealing with a group of entrenched editors centered on one topic area, and GS/DS/CTOP is the only tool we have that has a proven track record of success for this type of issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, works for me, if it comes to actually needing the GS. Hopefully Tvx1 is correct that it won't be, though I'm not sure how that is determined? Do we have yet wait for yet another ANI to come up?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. We're talkin' 'bout darts...darts. GS is one of the worst pieces of Wikipedia red tape. I've been here for years and I still don't understand how it really works. This is some sort of heavy-handed response to a few people that can't play nice together. Just block them and move on. Don't put some big hanging sword over the entire topic. For the record, I've never edited a darts page, and couldn't really care less about the topic. I just happened to see this pretty randomly and was dumbstruck. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Any topic can get messy, even darts. Tree shaping was under GS once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support with a renewable 18-month limit per SMcCandlish Aaron Liu (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Wait per Tvx1, now that I’ve reread the diffs. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence presented here and at AN is sufficient to suggest that admins would be more effective if TBANs are added to the toolbelt. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - this appears to be a small handful of rogue editors that need dealing with, rather than a wider problem. GiantSnowman 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support having reviewed (what I could see) of the evidence, it is clear that nearly every single editor involved in the area has a tendency to go all BATTLEGROUNDy at the drop of a hat. See Tvx1 above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• I mean, do whatever you want, but... what good is this supposed to do, exactly? --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm neutral on whether or not general sanctions would help, but I don't believe the problem is darts. The problem is one we've seen time and time again where a few editors take control of a specific corner of Wikipedia, establish their own way of doing things, and the community drags its feet on doing anything about it. GS is a bandage that might have a marginal effect on this outbreak, but it doesn't actually solve the problem. We don't need to fix the darts topic area, we need to fix WikiProjects and the way they facilitate ownership of content, and we need to start handing out bans to editors who can't engage civilly. If general sanctions are adopted, I agree that it should only be for a limited time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the problem is WikiProjects any more than it is Darts. To me the problem is groups of entrenched editors fixated on isolated topic areas (darts, roads, weather etc); they do tend to congregate at Wikiprojects but also regular article talkpages, project-space pages, etc. Even off-wiki locations, so restructuring the WikiProjects themselves won't be effective. Discretionary Sanctions are the one thing that's shown promise, so I think applying it to more of these areas could help correct the issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Overall I agree, but WikiProjects seem to facilitate it the most when this comes up, and getting better about restricting the whole "controlling a topic from a WikiProject" thing would benefit Wikipedia overall. But you're right that there's an underlying problem here beyond individual topics and beyond WikiProjects. Walled gardens need to be broken whenever they crop up, and group ownership over a topic area needs to be easier to address. Once a group of editors decides to ignore best practices in their topic area, there's very little recourse short of a massive Village Pump or ANI discussion (and even those are hit or miss). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, this is exactly the problem. We see the same things in so many areas, and LOCALCONs just self-perpetuate due to the editors in a niche WikiProject being the only editors following a DELSORT topic. So we end up with long-term "consensus" that, e.g., academic journals do not have to have ever received any significant or even secondary independent coverage to have an article, simply because editors in that area misrepresent an essay as if it's a real guideline or as if it was compatible with GNG at all. That leads to articles on pseudoscience-peddling academic journals that can only be based on puffy content from their own website and outdated, trivial primary data from an indexing service they applied to join... Or, e.g., the "600 articles on phone versions" from that other thread, or the "solar eclipses sourced only to primary news reports and listicles" issue pointed out there by @TryKid. It's Wikipedia-wide. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Believe me, I know. I spent several months challenging WikiProject ownership at WP:YEARS with mixed results, and I keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events because many of the regulars there have decided that routine news coverage demonstrates notability. There just needs to be a way to address the Wikipedia-wide problem rather than playing Whac-A-Mole with general sanctions and then hoping that admins actually pay attention to the given area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's dissapointing that some people only see the negatives of WikiProjects and don't see the many WikiProjects have actually been very positive to Wikipedia by colleborating to do things like writing multiple Good and even Featured Articles. Tvx1 23:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure that sufficient evidence has been put forth that this is a widespread problem, rather than being a few editors we could easily handle through regular process. I also don't see how this solves the walled garden issue. There is considerable muttering that the darts regulars are being recalcitrant. But somehow I doubt that GS is going to be used against the regulars. Indeed, it seems more likely that GS is going to be used against darts newbies, to keep out dissenting voices. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it's more than reasonable to just deal with this on an individual basis. Buffs (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it has not been demonstrated that there is a sufficient need for this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Contrary to the previous three users, when I read the pages the nominator links, I can see behaviours that rise to the level of community sanctions. Way back last year, JRRobinson was indefinitely blocked and topic-banned, but I think his conduct and language has become normalized in this topic area, and we're still seeing discourse at his level. The AN/I thread led to an indefinite block of Penepi, which I think is a useful intervention. In the AN/I thread, ItsKesha articulated a clear apology and retraction, and pledged to do better in future. I think the jury's still out on whether there's more to do; but as a precautionary measure, for the time being, I would support community sanctions.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  At the same time ItsKesha also kept insisting they were right and announced there intent not to collaborate with others, so I don't see a pledge to better all. Tvx1 23:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support: It's not just currently, but there've been issues with darts-related topics going back a decade or more. Some people might think the topic a petty one for sanctions, but the measure of a contentious topic is, well, the degree to which people are running to the battlements. Ravenswing 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. GS (and DS, CT, and the like) are good for a handful of particular problems: mainly blocks that won't stick, pages in need of more liberal protection, and editors who need to be topic-banned rather than blocked. They shouldn't be used just as ways for the community to signal its unhappiness with something, I don't think. It seems that the conduct issues in this area are already being resolved quite effectively when they're reported at AN[I], and adding general sanctions just adds more long-term bureaucracy for little gain. But I certainly support the underlying idea that the behavior in this topic area hasn't been appropriate and that admins should feel empowered to make blocks as necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems to be much more preferable to deal with on a case by case basis. While there is some issues with WP:OWNership from the looks of things, I don't see (and can't imagine) the problem to be articles about darts tournaments, but rather a behavioral thing with users. It might end up in shared spaces with darts and related talk pages... but "darts" are not the cause, and the topic doesn't seem like it needs to get hit with sanctions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support I don't think that darts are above sanctions, and this topic area needs to be cleaned up from the link above. Culture is the single worst problem Wikipedia has right now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Try lesser sanctions like blocks of the editors involved. A contentious topic or general sanction designation should really only be used when we need to discourage good-faith editors to ensure accuracy and minimal to no disruption. I am not seeing how this is a topic that will attract continued disruptive editing. Interesting side note: almost every topic designated on WP:GS already are very contentious topics in the real or academic world outside of Wikipedia. Awesome Aasim 06:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping that imposing sanctions on the topic area would be the less severe option, with the possibility of restrictions and blocks inducing better behavior without the need to actually impose blocks on anyone. Nonetheless this proposal doesn't seem likely to achieve consensus, so it may be necessary to take this advice the next time this topic area flares up. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Behavioral problems can be dealt with on a case by case basis per Utopes. Some1 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Purpose of ANI

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It is snowing here. This is not going to happen. Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the scope of Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents limited to user conduct discussions only, and should ANI's secondary role of addressing "urgent incidents" be transferred to WP:AN? Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) modified 16:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Background information

Back in 5 January 2024, I requested a retitling of Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User conduct. User:Ritchie333 has recommended on my talk page that the scope of ANI should be decided upon first rather than heading for a move request straight away.

• Support as nom The new title would clarify the noticeboard's purpose to new editors. AN is much less clogged than ANI, and complex issues can be discussed in AN without the trouble of short archive durations or large page sizes. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not convinced anything is broken here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose ANI's original purpose is for "urgent incidents", which overlap with user conduct issues much more than they overlap with the routine administrator actions and ban appeals than AN sees more often. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: “ANI” is just too iconic, and incidents that aren’t user conduct can sometimes appear. Both urgents and user conduct need urgent review, and splitting would require prospective people to watchlist subscribe to both pages and get everything at once. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weakish oppose. This isn't a bad thought, and if we were just setting up the noticeboard, I'd want to give it serious consideration. I do think it'd help newcomers understand the noticeboard's purpose more easily, and that it'd discourage the (frequent) misuse of ANI as a place to litigate content issues. My main hesitation would be that titling the noticeboard "user conduct" would make the "you've been mentioned on ANI/ANUC, therefore you've done something wrong" implication even stronger than it already is, which might in turn raise the heat level, which is, uh, not what that noticeboard needs. That said, I have to oppose because, in 2024, the noticeboard has been ANI for ages, and retitling it would cause disruption/make it harder to read the historical record. There is not a compelling enough need for a change to make that worth it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Aren't "urgent incidents", usually caused by editorial behavior? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I showed in the RM, incidents requiring immediate admin intervention aren't ANI's "secondary purpose"—the clue is in the name—they're the original and primary reason that the board exists. Its mob-justice user conduct function crept in over time without anyone really meaning it. If change is needed, it's in the other direction: we should be directing user conduct complaints away from ANI and towards lower-drama options like WP:DR and WP:XRV. – Joe (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - This feels a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and would just continuously confuse users with 33% of posts being closed as "No action, take it to WP:AN". We don't need to create more problems in a board that's already rife with problems. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and topic ban Ca from meta edits/discussion about ANI Ca seems to be unable to drop the stick about ANI being not what they want it to be. The requested move was closed only 12 days ago and we are having a very similar discussion. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ehhh, seriously? It was just seekings of consensus within process (the RM) after a bold edit, and following okay advice from someone else. I don’t see why this warrants a topic ban. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion (Purpose of ANI)

• Ca, could you sign your !vote above? Could you also move the rationale from the opener to your !vote. The opening RfC statement needs to be neutral and brief. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice, I'll be shortening my RfC question and sign my !vote. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Better. Can you please add a signature before the background information header. Only the neutral question should be copied over to the central RfC listings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

   Done I presume LegoBot will do its thing and copy the new RfC text over. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  'Twill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think I would prefer the reverse: discuss patterns of user behaviour at the administrators' noticeboard, and leave the incidents noticeboard solely for incidents that require immediate attention. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I find AN to be a place I'm more likely to check in on given the pace, volume, and temperature of discussions when I'm busy than ANI. Bringing some, but not all, of the discussions where temperatures flare the most to AN would, for me, not be any sort of improvement. Joe's suggestion above about directing some stuff to other forums already setup to handle them is also a good one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  To double-check my understanding, are you saying that you feel discussions on patterns of user behaviour as well as discussions of incidents requiring immediate attention are both discussions where temperatures flare the most? isaacl (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I wrote the following a few minutes before the RfC closed, and I am not convinced there is WP:SNOW possibility of a change in the opposite direction: [Oppose, but] delete the words "and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" that were added to the page header in June 2018 per Joe Roe. ANI is certainly not a suitable venue for dealing with accusations of that kind. At the moment ANI certainly sometimes functions as a kangeroo court, where it is not possible to get natural justice or a fair hearing (!voters are not even required to be impartial, or to be capable of telling the difference between reality and fantasy, and there are no rules of evidence etc); such discussions there are sometimes vehicles for subjecting regular editors to harassment and psychological abuse, that sometimes rises to the level of a massive public show trial, complete with ritual public humiliation and threats, bullying, gaslighting and other pressure to make forced false confessions; such discussions there are sometimes vehicles for trying to gerrymander a content dispute by making false or frivolous conduct accusations in attempt to get the other side blocked or banned so that they won't be able to !vote in the content dispute; and such discussions there are sometimes a an exceptionally toxic environment, and sometimes not an environment compatible with the safety of editors either. James500 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  @James500 I closed it due to the fact that the RFC is for changing the whole purpose of ANI in general, (which doesn't have a chance right now)) not just the header, that is why I left this section open so things like changing the header can be discussed. Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the many of the points you made. If we were to not use ANI for such purpose, what should be the alternative(s)? Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think there should be a more concerted effort to direct people to the more structured alternatives that already exist for specific types of disputes (WP:DRN for content disputes, WP:XRV for contested use of permissions, WP:AE for edits in contentious topics, etc.) and, as a last resort, ArbCom for the remainder. – Joe (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Bump XfD heading sizes

Should the daily WP:XfD logs have a level-2 heading for each page and a level-1 heading for each day? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, the heading "April 18" would appear as large as the page title, and an article title like OneGet would look like the "Bump XfD heading sizes" heading above. For obvious reasons, this does not include WP:Requested moves.

• Yes. This would make all such individual page discussions subscribable, and only level-2 headings are subscribable due to technical complexity. As for the level-1 heading, most XfDs already have a separate page for each day's log anyway, so displaying it as large as the page title shouldn't cause much problems. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• @Aaron Liu: Two questions. (i) Have you informed all relevant bot operators, and the maintainers of scripts like XfD Closer? (ii) do you intend to alter old XfD pages? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  No and no. You do bring up a good point with notifying scripts, but I don't see any scripts other than @User:Evad37's XfDcloser and @Awesome Aasim's xfdvote that could be affected.
  I do not intend to alter old XfD pages, as there really isn't much of a point in doing so. Maybe we could only alter these beginning in March so monthly logs retain some uniformity. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• I see it as pointless. At the most, the heading for the top level should be level 2, not 1. If anything it could mess with scripts as stated by Pppery Redrose. I don't think my script would be affected, but others certainly can be. Awesome Aasim 23:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe the solution is to have deletion discussions on talk pages and transcluded at the appropriate forum... Hmm.... Awesome Aasim 23:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you meant Redrose
  Having the top heading would be very confusing and wouldn't have everything below it fold, and I can name at least one other discussion page that has level-1 headings. I don't see why it would be bad either, and while I don't know much about XfD closer's code, I suspect it'll be an easy fix of adding one equal sign to everything. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's also definitely not pointless. It allows people to subscribe to a section instead of watchlisting the entire page for notifications. Wikipedia:Help desk has already done basically the exact same thing. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Subjectively I prefer the look of the current smaller headings. Though I realise this is pretty small compared to the practical advantages of subscribing to a new topic. ― novov (t c) 11:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Notified: WT:TW. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  WT:XFDC notified. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, makes sense; it's easy to miss out on further discussion at XfDs that use log pages. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• We've done it this way since the dawn of time over on Wiktionary. See wikt:WT:RFDE for an example. This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
• I did some work on T275943 Add support for subsection subscriptions in December, then got busy. It looks doable and I intend to return to it when I get some time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Some other thoughts: 1) Using H1's seems to be a bad practice and is avoided almost everywhere on enwiki. 2) Changing this would likely require patches to several pieces of software including WP:Twinkle and mw:Extension:PageTriage. 3) It may be a good idea to sandbox this and drop a link here so we can see what it would look like. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Traditionally the advice has been to avoid multiple first-level headings on the web, but for semantic reasons, rather than technical problems, assuming the heading structure is laid out in appropriate hierarchical order. (As far as I know, assistive technology such as screen readers don't have a problem, and search engines deal with it as well.) It can be argued, though, that a web page could semantically be a container for multiple documents, each with its own first-level heading. In the context of MediaWiki, since the software automatically generates a first-level heading for the page title, then semantically everything before the first = heading = in the wikitext would be its own document.

  Although personally I feel a bit uneasy with more than one <h1> element on a page, I can't say that it causes any practical problems from a general web perspective (I don't know about the various tools and extensions used by editors). There are of course already English Wikipedia pages with multiple first-level headings, such as Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders. isaacl (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that there should be no technical wider-web issues; the HTML spec even provides an example of how outlines with multiple h1 elements can be rendered, so any fully-compliant user agent will take it in stride. Having said that, if there are a bunch of internal tools that will need to be updated to handle the change (and it seems that there are), then that's the more relevant technical issue. I'm not worried about the semantic aspect, given that something like XfD should prioritize the needs of its specific users, determined through consensus, rather than doggedly adhere to general advice. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Won't work at WP:RFD due to its current header hierarchy. In other words, this proposal is probably too broad since it includes all WP:XFD forums. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you mean how the list is transcluded under the final section, I actually don't see much of a problem with that as the headers will only appear at the end of the ToC. RfD was an intended target. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Steel1943, why not change the current header hierarchy? Changing it seems feasible to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Already did that once. What I see currently works best, IMO. Steel1943 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, my comment at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Can we reduce the number of RfDs transcluded on this page? is relevant here as well. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• No for MFD, page works fine, anyone that wants to follow a specific entry can watchlist it. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder how well the existing structure of MFD works for people using screen readers, when they go directly to the page. It has a =Level 1= (the page title), then nothing for ==Level 2== or ===Level 3===, but there is a ====Level 4====. I'm pretty sure that skipping levels like that is not recommended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: It's not in the HTML spec; you need to burrow about in WCAG 2.2 in order to find G141 Organizing a page using headings, which says To facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure, authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.). In the "Other sources" on that page, we have a link to WebAIM: Semantic Structure: Regions, Headings, and Lists which has The <h1> describes the page as a whole (and should be similar to the page <title>). A page should typically have only one <h1>. Headings <h2> through <h6> represent increasing degrees of "indentation" in our conceptual "outline". As such, it does not make sense to skip heading levels, such as from <h2> to <h4>, going down the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The primary page for readers to land on is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which emits h1, h2, h3, h4 in a standard tree already. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure

Should all community discretionary sanctions (DS) be updated to use the new contentious topics procedure? Awesome Aasim 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Background

In late 2022/early 2023, the discretionary sanctions procedure was overhauled by ArbCom and converted to "contentious topics". With now two different processes for two different kinds of sanctions there is now a lot of fragmentation and inconsistency in how contentious topics should be handled, with even conflicting wording. The main goal of this RfC is to unify the procedure used for all areas where general sanctions are in effect with the one designated by ArbCom, going forward.

As proposed at this time, there will be the some similarities and differences between community and arbitration contentious topics, including:

• The imposition of the standard set of restrictions by consensus of administrators in a community designated topic would be at WP:ANI rather than WP:AE.
• Reconsideration of contentious topic restrictions would be done at WP:AN instead of at WP:AE or WP:ARCA.
• Awareness of a community contentious topic would include but not be limited to being mentioned in the discussion closing summary regarding that contentious topic, which is the closest there is to a "final decision".

And of course, ArbCom would be able to convert community contentious topics to those designated by the committee, after which all the ArbCom venues would have to be used from that point forward, though existing restrictions would remain appealable to WP:AN until renewed at ArbCom.

Survey (community contentious topics)

• Support as proposer. It needs to be clear, especially for new editors, what contentious topics are and what the expectations are for editing topics designated as contentious by either ArbCom or the community. A unified procedure will ensure consistency rather than fragmentation and will make editing the list of contentious topics and their restrictions much easier. (I did do a little bit of work in the Module:Sanctions/sandbox adding in support for ArbCom contentious topics, as it would make it so much easier to use the related sanction templates. I also did work in user space to help envision what a unified contentious topics page might look like.) Awesome Aasim 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The current iteration of WP:CTOP is far too tied in to the Arbitration Committee. The available sanctions and procedures are under the jurisdiction of WP:AC/PR can be modified by the Committee by motion at any time, which in this scenario would be binding on decisions made by the community without community consensus. Additionally, many of the General Sanctions areas have a set of restrictions that either exceed what CTOP would allow, or have a more limited subset of them. The community currently has the flexibility to customize sanctions based on the needs of the individual topic area (similar to how Arbcom can impose their own restrictions either alone or on top of the CTOP designation), rather than relying on a "one size fits all" solution. Regarding the possibility of Arbcom choosing to convert community-based CTOP to Arbitration Enforcement, the Committee already has the power to supercede and convert General Sanctions. They've done so before, in cases including WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBTPM. This proposal as written would reduce the community's autonomy and flexibility for the sake of consistency, and I don't see that as a net positive.
  I would, however, support the community adopting a "standard/default" DS language that could be used when customization isn't needed, and reviewing all the existing GS areas to see if they should be abolished or modernized. Updating our own process, templates, info pages etc to completely separate from the Arbcom version would also accomplish this proposal's goal of reducing confusion and would be better than the current system of sometimes linking to CTOP, sometimes linking DS which redirects to CTOP (when they really mean the older version of DS), sometimes a completely different thing with no consistency. Template:Gs/alert is one example of this, where it links to WP:CTOP even when the actual restrictions are unrelated to that designation. Revamping our own procedures would be a better way to reduce fragmentation and confusion than glomming onto what Arbcom chooses to do. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am not exactly seeing how this is a dealbreaker. The CT procedure applies only to designated contentious topics; community consensus or arbitration remedies can always add additional sanctions regardless of WP:CTOP like in WP:ARBPIA. Awesome Aasim 22:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support The phrase "discretionary sanctions" is not clear and so the phrase "contentious topics" was introduced as an improvement. We should have clear and consistent language for contentious matters so that discussions and actions are comprehensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The "sanctions regimes" are too complex as it is, and we need to use consistent terminology to reduce that complexity when possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (community contentious topics)

Cooperation of ArbCom

I wonder if adding in stuff to the WP:CTOP page and similar would require the petition and referendum process. If so, then I guess the merging of templates would have to hold off until a former petition and request for amendment actually passes. It is possible ArbCom will green light the merge if this RfC passes, but I do not know. Awesome Aasim 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel the community should work with the arbitration committee to assume responsibility for the contentious topic process, with a pointer to an arbitration-committee specific page where it can customize the process as it feels necessary. This would bring the process under community control, while still allowing the arbitration committee to adapt it to its needs. (There is no change to arbitration policy and so no need to amend it.) isaacl (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be the status quo (or perhaps the old GS/DS) status quo? I think Arbcom is more agile than the community in drafting this kimd language given that passing a motion is easier than an RfC and motions can be adjusted mid vote which is nearly impossible to do with an RfC. Truthfully I think the right place to start is with the standardized language for community GS and perhaps to be more intentional about whether it wants its restrictions to be eligible to be heard at AE, though as The Wordsmith points out there are really good reasons for the community to decide not to do that. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The process for authorizing discretionary sanctions was documented by the committee, and then later the community started authorizing discretionary sanctions, with its process pointing to the Arbitration Committee pages and saying, "like that". This resulted in the community's process being coupled to decisions made by the arbitration committee. I'm suggesting the reverse: have the community assume responsibility for the contentious topics process, and then the arbitration committee can point to it and say, "like that, but with our specific customizations". I agree the community can decide on its own on what contentious topic process it wants to create. I think it would be good, though, to check with the committee that it is amenable to adopting the community process as a base, and layering any desired differences on top. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That also sounds like a good idea: community authorizes the remedies that are appropriate, ArbCom implements them. If ArbCom were to deviate then they would just need to ask the community whether it is an appropriate deviation or not. Awesome Aasim 17:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The committee doesn't have to be constrained by the community as it is already authorized through the arbitration policy to enact remedies of its devising for matters within its scope. It would be simpler for editors to understand, though, if the arbitration committee version of the process was just a set of differences upon a common process. Differences could include things like additional administrator actions that could be performed, or a specific venue for appeals. isaacl (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you know what I mean :)

WP:ARBECR is already used a lot by both the community and by ArbCom, like in WP:RUSUKR and WP:CT/A-I. What I am saying is if ArbCom feels that a specific sanction that there has never been any precedent for is necessary, they should propose it to the community, where there then can be consensus on the exact wording. Placement, enforcement, and appeals are all going to differ though depending on whether the restriction is placed by the community or ArbCom. Awesome Aasim 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The community can provide feedback on proposed decisions. I disagree that the committee needs to obtain community consensus on new types of remedies. The arbitration committee is empowered to impose a restriction that community consensus has been unable to reach through prior dispute resolution. If you are referring specifically to the standard set of restrictions that can be imposed for designated contentious topics, I still disagree that community consensus should be mandatory. Typically the committee will provide an opportunity for feedback and the last review of discretionary sanctions illustrates that it strives to lighten the load of enforcing administrators. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the extended-confirmed restriction, it was initially devised by the committee on its own. After taking some time to evaluate its effectiveness, the community chose to adopt it as an available restriction. isaacl (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with isaacl that ARBPOL and CONEXEMPT explicitly mean that the committee does not have to, with-in its scope, get community consensus.

However, ECR is a example of why I think the committee is better placed at the moment to be a leader when it comes to contentious topics. The committee having to deal with the absolute hardest conflicts means there is going to be more of an incentive to try something new and ~15 people are going to have an easier time getting to yes than what is required to get community consensus for that newness. It's also revealing to me that ArbCom gets more requests for us to assume community imposed sanctions (examples: COVID, Horn of Africa as two that the committee did assume and Russia-Ukraine War as one that committee has twice been asked to assume and haven't). I would really love it if the community could, as it does in so many other ways, demonstrate broader capabilities when it comes to general sanctions than it has in the past. And to that end getting consensus for some standard wording would be a great place to start. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the arbitration committee is better positioned to try new approaches (consensus doesn't scale up well, so getting consensus amongst 15 people is definitely easier). In a similar vein as you expressed, I feel it would be ideal for the community to agree on a base contentious topics process, which the committee could extend in new ways that the community could later choose to incorporate back into the base process. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In WP:DS2022, one of the changes made was to allow the community to make use of AE. I think we should do so. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think we should split contentious topics from WP:AELOG. A separate contentious topics log would make restrictions much easier to follow - and, if the restriction is rescinded or converted from community to ArbCom or the other way around - it can be logged as well. Awesome Aasim 21:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request revision to initial question

The statement all community general sanctions (DS) in the initial question is misleading. "General sanctions" is not synonymous with community authorization for discretionary sanctions. I think the intent should be clarified that the proposal only affects discretionary sanctions authorized by the community, and not all general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Isaacl Done. Awesome Aasim 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Explanation of nationality on sports pages

If you look at wikipedia pages relating to club teams or club games it will often have lists of players and beside each one a little flag denoting 'nationality'. As per wikipedia protocol these flags represent sporting nationality rather than actual nationality however nowhere is this ever explained to the reader on the page. My suggestion is that where possible, for instance on a chart with a 'nationality' column, there should be a pop up note. Obviously for international sport this is not needed as it is obvious that used flags denote the country a player represents rather than actual nationality. Firestar47 (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Separate Buttons For Visual Editing and Source Editing

As we all know, Wikipedia has two different modes of editing: visual editing and source editing. However, upon a visit to German Wikipedia to translate an article, I noticed that they separate the "Edit" button that appears on top of the page to two different buttons - "Edit" and "Edit Source Code" (the bar shows Read | Edit | Edit Source Code | History). I think that would be a useful change to make on the English Wikipedia. Sometimes you want to make simple edits and it pulls up the source editor, which means you have to waste a few seconds switching it, and vice-versa. This would simplify the process of editing as it would allow users to jump straight to visual or source editing depending on their needs without having to waste time switching it. It would also help let users know when a page only allows source editing instead of visual editing, which some pages do. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. The mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab (an unfinished project of the mw:Editing team; pinging @Trizek (WMF)) is better for brand-new editors, who don't know what the difference between "Edit" and "Edit source" is. For myself, as a power user, I prefer two tabs, and I use both frequently, based on what kind of edit I plan to make.

I recommend to experienced editors that they go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-editor and choose the "Editing mode" that works best for their own needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe edit source could be renamed to something like "edit wikitext" to better clarify what it does? When I was new I thought source editing would be editing HTML directly so it was a bit confusing. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New editors don't know what "wikitext" is, so I don't think that will help.

I don't think there is a perfect name for this label. I believe I saw one comment, some years ago, from someone who thought that "Edit source" meant editing the Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Mostly, I think that people will figure it out by clicking on the button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This is already a thing. Special:Preferences > Editing > Editor > Editing mode > "Show me both editor tabs". InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it time for a new design for the main page?

Hi, Wikipedians,

I believe it's time to consider updating the design of the main page. I'm not certain when the current style was implemented, but it seems to date back to 2006 or even earlier. Nowadays, there are numerous modern and colorful box templates available that could give the page a more contemporary look. What are your thoughts on starting this initiative? After all, the main page represents our entire community. I understand that changing a familiar style can be challenging for many users, but it's part of the natural cycle of updates.

Best regards, Riad Salih (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ain't broke, don't fix it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 It still looks good on Desktop and even on my phone, in Monobook and Minerva. Everything is in one column and the content is very readable.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This contradicts the well-established community consensus of “ain’t broke, let’s break it and pretend we might fix it later”. 216.147.126.60 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair, true, and appropriate.

I agree. ProofCreature (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You may want to review Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Redesign the Main Page. Anomie⚔ 03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't like change (see above), so it's not going to happen without a lot of work, but I do agree that it's time for a redesign. Since the last major attempts a decade ago, responsive design technology has advanced enormously, a new design system has been rolled out across Mediawiki, and we got a new default skin. All of this makes the main page look particularly dated and out of place in 2024. Ideally, we'd proceed by asking Wikimedia's design team to lend us their expertise and create something new – subject to community-agreed goals and constraints but not a crude yes/no vote on using it (which would inevitably fall afoul of the "change is bad" phenomenon). – Joe (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Riad Salih You could probably get consensus for the general idea that the MP should be changed, but the consensus would break down over what specifically to change it to, as everyone has their own idea about that. As noted, this is a constantly made proposal. The best chance of success would probably be to propose incremental changes, one at a time- a wholesale redesign would never gain consensus. Even a small change would take much work to convince others to support and implement. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

One idea that might get approval is moving to a single column. The current layout was well designed when pages used the whole screen, but there are very few words on each line now that we have two thin columns shoehorned into a narrow stripe down the middle of the screen with an acre of empty white space either side. Certes (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The white space is probably from the skin you are using. It looks fine in legacy vector. Easier to change the skin to something that you like rather than change the main page for everyone RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

From a purely selfish viewpoint (which is allowed, as this is an aesthetic matter), I want the main page to remain unchanged. I use Vector 2010, and everything looks just fine to me. However, the vast majority of readers don't have the luxury of setting that preference, and are stuck with wide blank sidebars. Certes (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I use the full width view of new Vector, but when checking it on the narrow width, it looks fine to me. A little narrow perhaps, but not nearly constrained enough IMO to obviate the advantages of a two-column view. ― novov (t c) 08:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

VECTOR2022 should just be reversed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As Joe Roe said, Wikipedians are usually a little less open to change than a cube of iron. But do you have any specific ideas? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @331dot @Anomie @Certes @Cremastra @Joe Roe @Mir Novov @Pppery @RudolfRed @

What do you think, for example, of the design of the main page of the Spanish Wikipedia? Or the Portuguese version or Turkish?

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I kind of like the Spanish version, but Vector 2022 forces the text to wrap in a weird way because it's so narrow. The Turkish version is pretty similar to en.wiki's, and wouldn't be much of an improvement. I also looked at the Chinese MP (fine, but too white) the French one (I quite like it, actually), and and what I believe is the Slovakian one, which I also quite like. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra Yes, I do agree with that, especially the Slovakian one. However, you know we still need ideas from other contributors, which can be challenging. Nevertheless, I will make an effort to advocate the idea of changing the main page design. Riad Salih (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, the gradients in the Slovakian one make it look very dated, like an early-2000s PowerPoint template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Slovakian one is too dated. I don't see any problems with the Spanish version under vanilla V22. Maybe swap POTD with On this day for slightly longer line lengths for the latter, make Other projects full-width (and maybe unbox it), and of course adapt ITN to our format, but I don't think the Spanish version needs any more changes. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I would concur that it's a good idea. IMO, some of the other Wikipedias have Main Pages that put enWP's one to shame. But as others have stated, good luck finding something that everyone can agree on. ― novov (t c) 08:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there something particular you feel is a problem with the current design? – Teratix ₵ 09:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that it’s probably best to make changes one by one, so that consensus would be more likely. Like one change per discussion. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Redesign it, but in a way that removes ITN and DYK. Both are massive investments for very little return, and much of the content they display is low quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Fucking excuse me? How the heck are the articles that we've vetted low quality? ITN gives us some global perspective and is one way readers could keep themselves up to date in current events. DYK makes everything a bit more fun for everyone and trivia is fun. Both highlight our utility as an online encyclopedia and good work on our behalf. Removing it would make no sense at all. It has worked, it is working, and it returns. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: The problem with opening remarks such as Fucking excuse me? is rather that they invite a retort along the lines of, yes, well, "fucking excuse you".

Regarding the gist—How the heck are the articles that we've vetted low quality—I think what Thebiguglyalien might be getting at is that simply undergoing a vetting process is insufficient; it is the quality of the vetting that is important, and so by extension, the quality of those doing the vetting. If, for example, ITN and DYN undergo a lightweight review which is perhaps keener on filling slots and reducing backlogs than ensuring the integrity of the main page, then it would be unsurprising, in some eyes, if these processes came under extra scrutiny, hein. Some might also argue that trivia—however much "fun" it is—is incompatable with an encyclopedia that aspires, where possible, to serious scholarship. HTH! ——Serial 16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, though I don't think the vetting that we do is low-quality. At least at ITN we do a pretty big referencing pass.
I also wonder what you mean by "hein". A dictionary search shows that it is 1. surprisingly not German 2. Dutch for death 3. French and Portuguese for "huh?". Is that last one what you meant? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu:, indeed, I know no German or Dutch! But yes, a "huh" because I wasn't speaking for myself on the quality of the vetting, merely that it's a view (among others, of course, as you point out.) Cheers, ——Serial 17:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Cremastra/MP looks fine to me. What do you think of the changes here? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, but unfortunately I don't like it very much:

1. I don't know any good ways to fix this, but flushing the Welcome banner's text to the left leaves a lot of blank space in the rest of the box, making it feel weird.
2. We already have a search box; we don't need another one.
3. The third column has line lengths that are way too short in the limited width. That makes the excessive space to the right of the descriptions all the more jarring. And that is in my version of V22 enhanced with my private styles. Under the normal limited width all the columns have line lengths that are too short and the sister projects' descriptions run off the page.
4. Something feels wrong about the concept of giving that much prominence to our sister projects. Wikipedia readers are hardly gonna go there and this introduces a lot of colorful icons that clutter up your attention. Previously it'd only take attention when you scroll/look down and want to dedicate attention to it.
5. Lots of useless blank space under the third column.
6. Probably a bug, but Other areas of Wikipedia appears twice.

Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Cremastra/MP: using Galobtter's design for the main portion. I think a large prominent search box on the main page is a good idea, though, as opposed to a redundancy. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That does look much better! Combining the search box with the first box seems alright, though maybe I'd use the tagline "Search free knowledge". I'd also recommend making the globe logo stick to the bottom of its box, replacing the whitespace between the first two boxes with a horizontal rule, and maybe put the occasional banner before that rule with a white background. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the search box, but I like the top banner otherwise, especially the logo in the bottom left. Galobtter (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WPAds should be isolated. Maybe it could replace the search box.

Also, any ideas for how to eradicate that awkward gap below the image for the first box? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If we modernize it, I suggest we make it like eswiki's (which happens to be adapted from ruwiki's). It's OOUI, modernized and is in a familiar layout, though I might make the "other projects" part full-width. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think people will support a new main page design as soon as they're shown a new main page design that they like. I would encourage people who are so inclined to create and share mockups of new main page designs. Eventually someone will make something that enough people like. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW my 2c: make the main page, en.wikipedia.org, look much more like www.wikipedia.org: a minimalist interface, with a prominent search bar, to which I'd add prominent display of TFA and FP. Like maybe FP centered at the top, search bar below that, and TFA below that. But I'm no web designer though so I'm not sure exactly how that should all look. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to have, say, the current main page visible to users with the Vector legacy skin, but a main page similar to eswiki's for Vector 2022 users? This way we could keep up the "modern" look for Vector 2022, but keep the "legacy" style for Vector legacy. I just don't know if this is technologically feasible. ‍ Relativity 03:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The current main page has no problems to view in Vector 2022. That said, it should be possible with CSS selectors. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• I am dubious Why? No clear argument for why this would be desirable. Can we be sure it would not lower general accessibility depending on the device being used to access the site? I am not adamantly opposed to sprucing things up a bit. But the oft quoted adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it," definitely comes to mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• I think where previous proposals have failed before is in trying to do many changes at the same time (e.g. changing the emphasis of different parts of the main page while also restyling it). Anyways I have a modest proposal, under the principal that less is more and that the boxes around everything is the most dated part of the main page, at User:Galobtter/sandbox/Main page. It could do more work from someone who actually knows how to design (I like ptwiki's main page header a lot and that could be incorporated), but all I did was basically remove unnecessary (imo) styling. Galobtter (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, I like that! Zanahary (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I like that! It's simpler but clearer. Although something seems a little off with the header box, the lack of border makes it feel poorly-defined to me. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I like it, but I think the margins around each section need to be a little more generous if there are no borders. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I also like this. While we're at it, maybe align DYK with On this day Aaron Liu (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's done manually by admins each day since aligning depends on how much content is in each of the sections. Galobtter (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Can't we add padding to the bottom of TFA, like ptwiki seems to do? Also the manual alignment doesn't seem to be working for me Aaron Liu (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I like a lot of that, but (at least on Desktop on MonoBook) the colored section headers only seem to have a thin border on the bottom and nothing on the other 3 sides. Much better than the es.wiki one linked above, which is visually clean but seems to lack any sort of flavor. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think the border's supposed to be like the heading's border.
  I believe that whatever we think about the rest of it, we should adopt the first box of the eswiki/ruwiki main page. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  colored section headers only seem to have a thin border on the bottom and nothing on the other 3 sides is intentional - I wanted to have a simple header style rather than having an unnecessary box around the headers. Yeah, I liked ptwiki's a lot more than eswiki's, which is probably technically the "best" in terms of modernization but is too bland. Galobtter (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  My proposal would be to change the boxes to a very light gray and then remove the border. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahecht I added 1px of margin, which was missing since I removed the 1px border. It looks ok to me now, although you might be right that more margin is needed. @User:Cremastra I stole the box shadow from ptwiki - what do you think now?

  I want to avoid doing more with this, since I think that's where previous proposals have failed - people want some of the changes but not others so it ends up a whole mess. And since at least some people seem to like this, I might try to put it up for RfC soon, but want to make sure there aren't small tweaks needed to what I've done. Galobtter (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'd support it at the RfC stage, but unfortunately I doubt it would pass. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Another idea would be to use light gray rounded rectangles, because rounded rectangles are a very common part of modern web design. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes they're common but Wikipedia and mw:Codex, our design language, never use them. That would be completely alien to the rest of the encyclopedia. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have a visceral dislike for rounded rectangles, possibly because they are now so prevalent. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Probably, yes it is time, however the problem is not to change the design, it is how to herd the cats without them canabalizing themselves. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  What is that graphic metaphor supposed to mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  When you try to get a lot of people to make a decision together, they often spend more time attacking each other than they do collectively moving in any productive direction, if I understood the metaphor correctly. Levivich (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  What's needed is a brainstorming RfC process like is currently being done for RfA. This gives an opportunity for a variety of ideas to be suggested and we can then see what sticks. For example, I'm most interested in structural change -- amending the section order and content so that the featured picture and ITN swap places so that ITN can expand coverage of its recent death entries. Issues like this can't be resolved by the editors who maintain the individual sections and so an overall mainpage forum is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think expanding coverage of RD entries is needed much, and the POTD often needs a dedicated row due to its image size.
  We're currently kinda designing some layouts, so a more formal workshopping process should begin when we have more proposals. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you go to one column, you won't have to worry about balance. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  That would be wasting a lot of space. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, that would be allowing the text and images to spread across the screen instead of being cramped into tiny corners. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Why would we need all the text and images to spread across the screen? They don't gain anything from being wider. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  You don't think that a larger image and prose that isn't chopped into tiny sections that resemble the old "See spot. See Spot run. Run, Spot, run." children's books would be useful?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  As I don't have a childhood, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
  We do not have an overabundance of blurbs, blurb words, recent deaths or DYK hooks. Besides size limitations, there's a reason newspapers separate every single article into columns. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  The most popular view or Wikipedia is the mobile one and that's already one column. We should therefore be designing and optimising for that as the primary interface. The balance issue is absurd in that it often causes ITN admins to remove news entries -- form rather than function. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Remind me what happened the last time a bunch of editors thought Wikipedia was optimizing for the mobile view. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  The most popular editing view for Wikipedia is desktop, not mobile. Alienating the site’s most essential users is a serious risk to take. If there had been no way to revert the Vector 2022 and recent line height changes, I would have been strongly alienated from Wiki and contributed way less. Zanahary (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Most editors are not allowed to edit the main page and so we have a frozen format which is alienating too. What's needed is a process for making changes which allows the main page to evolve. Perhaps there could be an annual update. During the year, there would be a beta test version to trial proposals and then a confirmation and release process at the end of each annual cycle. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we'd need to change the main page every year. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Maybe changing every 3 years would be a better idea. 71.239.86.150 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Please revert to original font design

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

---

Hello there, Wiki changed the font on Thursday night but is there any way you are able to revert it back to the original font before the changes on Thursday. The new font changes on mobile look very ugly and I personally would much prefer the original font design. VileName8089289 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

At least the browser I use allows me to choose the standard serif/non-serif fonts for rendering text in settings, which doesn't override Google's preferences but whatever is Wikipedia's default font is substituted by the font of your choice. I use Bahnschrift (essentially DIN 1451), but you can choose Comic Sans if you want.

As far as we are concerned, most of us cannot change it on a system level. You should first start with the technical part of the village pump, maybe they will have a better grasp on your issue (I noticed nothing tbh), and maybe they will ask you to add a ticket to Phabricator (a bit like Wikimedia's internal Github). It could also be that interface administrators tweaked something, though I heard nothing about it. If VPT doesn't help, ask the interface administrator noticeboard if they were tweaking anything lately that caused a change in fonts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, do you know how I am able to add either of the font designs that you gave me onto my own wikipedia on my own phone? VileName8089289 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, BEFORE YOU ASK ANYWHERE ELSE, make sure you didn't change your system font settings on your phone or tablet. Maybe you inadvertently did just that. Because I am on mobile and I cannot reproduce your problem. It looks OK. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The font design changed to the new edition on Thursday night then it briefly reverted back to the original design and then permanently changed to the new design. The new design is much less appealing and I much prefer the original font design pre Thursday night. VileName8089289 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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

British imperial style

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

---

Why do we have to use the British imperial style of writing in the English Wikipedia? Most native English speakers use the American style of writing. Furthermore, the British imperial style reminds a lot of people of colonial abuses. I certainly don't want to be reminded of any of that while editing an article. Wikipedia is a free, democratic wonderland to me, but having to learn "the King's English" reminds me of how many robberies, rapes, and murders it took to build that empire. This destroys my inspiration, my motivation. I would be happy to learn a new style that doesn't remind me of violence, however you like, but please, no more abuse. Citizen127 (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

We allow and use many varieties of English. See MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES for related rules. —Kusma (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And the Americans didn't rob, rape, and murder in building their 'empire' across the west? Just ask the Indians about that. But, seriously, EVERY empire ever built from the Persians, to Alexander the Great to the Romans to the Mongols the Spanish to the Japanese robbed, raped, and murdered their way to emperial 'glory'. To take it a step further, most empires also practiced genocide while expanding. So I don't see your point in singling out the Brits. Masterhatch (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a side note to clear up a potential misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia being a "free, democratic wonderland"; in fact, it is not a democracy. It has processes which resemble democratic voting, but these are still generally consensus-based and subject to override (even straw polls such as RfA); and the institution itself is not wholly democratic, due to the site's relationship to the Wikimedia Foundation and effectively functioning as its volunteer arm. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Please revert font design on wiki to original design used before Thursday

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Don't badger us with the same requests over and over again - this will not increase your chances of addressing your concerns. The VPT thread is dealing with that, and you already got advice above (how you change fonts on your device/browser, rather than in Wikipedia, is device/browser-specific); no need to start more of these discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Hello there, Wiki changed the font on Thursday night but is there any way you are able to revert it back to the original font before the changes on Thursday. The new font changes on mobile look very ugly and I personally would much prefer the original font design. VileName8089289 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered two sections up. Please stop posting this over and over, on this page and on the other pages you have been doing so. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Allowing editors to opt out of private information on XTools.

Many wikis (such as Wikisource) allow users to opt-in to showing some of the more private information on XTools. En-WP, on the other hand, has done a project-wide opt-in by default. This is not an RfC, per WP:RFCBEFORE, but should we:

• Option 1— do not allow English Wikipedia users to opt-out. (This is the status quo).
• Option 2— allow English Wikipedia users to opt-out.
• Option 3— make it an opt-in process by default.

Thank-you. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 at the least, as proposer. The current state of affairs does not seem like a good thing. Isn't automatically revealing more private information on XTools unsavoury at the very least? Users should at the minimum have the right to restrict more private data such as the timecards from appearing in the XTools analysis. As SlimVirgin wrote during a 2014 discussion on the issue, Even though the information is in theory publicly available, presenting it in this format is still a privacy issue. (Just because we all walk down the street doesn't mean we'd want CCTV cameras joining up our activities and someone posting it online.)🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 The data in question is not private to begin with, and never was. This does nothing but create privacy theater. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I do not think users should have any expectation that information extractable from WP logs won't be compiled, and would argue that allowing them to is (mildly) against WP:5P3 Mach61 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Pppery. This doesn't qualify as "private information". InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Option 3. Option 2.5. As I understand it, the devs only allow opting out of three areas: timecard, monthly counts, and top edits by namespace. My !vote is to require users to affirmatively opt-in for timecard and monthly counts, but not top edits by namespace, which should not allow an opt-out. I agree with @Cremastra and @SlimVirgin. When you're editing on Wikipedia isn't private information per se, since anyone can take a look at someone's edit history. However, an easy-to-use tool that lets someone know when you're generally online and making edits can pose security risks (e.g., it can show when you're usually home and usually not at home; similarly, monthly counts can show what months you're generally on vacation or away from home). Regarding @Mach61's point that users should [not] have any expectation that information extractable from WP logs won't be compiled, the only tool that currently does that compiling is XTools, and I doubt someone would go through the headache of creating, hosting, and maintaining a new tool in the event that en-wiki users are allowed to opt out. This should be disabled by default because new editors won't know that it exists, and anyone who knows enough to know that XTools exists would know how to opt in if they choose. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC), changed !vote 20:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC) and again 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I doubt someone would go through the headache of creating, hosting, and maintaining a new tool in the event that en-wiki users are allowed to opt out. It's quite simple to write a quarry query doing all of this - it wouldn't look as nice, but the information would be there. BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but how many people know how to do quarry queries or will take the time to learn how to do so? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  There already is at least one other tool that shows timecards and monthly counts (wikichecker), and I'm pretty sure that creating a new version of the xtools edit counter tool would be relatively trivial, since the source code is freely available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Xtools is fairly integrated into Wikipedia though, so I think removing that option creates an extra step for potentially malicious people to poke around. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1.5 - Mostly agree with Pppery and Mach61. Edits are public and transparent. If someone wants to gather our public edits and make a neat tool to show patterns in those edits, that's generally a good thing IMO. What's more, we have no real say, because we already agree to make edits on a public, transparent, free, and open wiki. It's 100% up to the developers what they want to do, and an RfC about opt-in/opt-out is really just a request. If the devs honor it, anyone else could just fork it and host the same thing elsewhere. For the most part, I don't think the devs should allow opt-out. Again, it's all public information and the tool is frequently useful. The only argument I find myself sympathetic with is the one about timecards per SlimVirgin/Cremastra. Although I just finished talking about how it's all public and up to the devs, to take it to an extreme, I think this community wouldn't take kindly to developers of a tool that, for example, processed the entire text of a user's contributions to produce a profile guessing at their real life identity. In short, if you run an RfC, be sure to separate the timecard from everything else or you'll get a bunch of people like me who sortakinda think the timecard should have an opt-out, but would oppose a blanket question. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Along the SlimVirgin/Cremasta line of reasoning, let me toss out another way edit timestamps might leak personal information. Lets say I looked at all your timestamps and observed that near the end of every week, you abruptly stop editing at a specific time, and pick up again 24 hours later. I might guess that those are the times of sunset where you live and thus surmise that you're an observant Jew/Muslim/etc, who stops editing on the sabbath. Other editing gaps around major religious holidays might confirm my guess. A few minutes with an almanac could narrow your location down to a few cities where sunset happens at those times over the course of a year. That's quite a bit of information just from looking at your timestamps.

  If I've figured out that you're an observant Jew who lives in New York, I've narrowed you down to maybe a million people. On the other hand, if I've figured out that you're an observant Jew who lives in the Falkland Islands, according to Jewish population by country, there's only one of you, so I've got you nailed. RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - The info page on xtools says Your wiki should have had a local discussion showing consensus for these statistics to be allowed. Did that discussion ever happen, and if so when? If not, then en wiki needs to go back to hiding that info until that discussion happens (which would be this topic if/when it becomes an RFC). RudolfRed (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  It happened at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 111#Edit Counter Optin. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Your edit history is always publicly available and visible to anyone and everyone, and pretending otherwise is at best ineffective and at worst misleading and harmful to the transparency that Wikipedia tries to support. Even allowing opt-out for timecards is potentially harmful, as it gives the false impression that users can hide PII such as the times they are active. Finally, it seems somewhat silly to have all this handwringing about XTools when completely unaffiliated sites such as https://en.wikichecker.com/ exist. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2.5 (My !vote is to require users to affirmatively opt-in for timecard and monthly counts, but not top edits by namespace, which should not allow an opt-out. -- voorts) What harm can one do with someone's edit count and top edits? I can see an argument against time cards and monthly edits. Someone could always try to create a tool to replicate these functions in order to act maliciously, but there's no reason for us to facilitate their aims by providing a tool to do this.Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are the time cards implemented in the first place? What purpose do they serve? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Several purposes: they can help users in identifying sockpuppets, they can can help visualize when a user is likely to be active if you're waiting for feedback from them, and they can help make it obvious to editors that such an analysis is possible and that it is something they should be aware of if they are trying to keep their anonyminity. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1; scrutiny protects both the encyclopaedia and the user. Allowing some users to opt out would allow maleficent users to evade / delay proper scrutiny. If some editors' editing patterns are available, then all editors' editing patterns should be available. This data is not private like one's medical records or finances. Having said that, a warning to editors, say in the edit window, might not go amiss. The principle is simple; if you don't want your editing patterns available to all and sundry for scrutiny, then do not edit Wikipedia. Baffle☿gab 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Scrutiny such as what? In what circumstance would the timecards serve a demonstrable purpose? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  One use is to help identify sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1; this won't improve privacy, all it will do is gate-keep it - more technically minded users will still be able to access it, while less technically minded users won't. I don't think that is a productive division. BilledMammal (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Option 3, per North8000. I hadn't considered non-editors accessing and using this information; to reduce the potential harm caused by outing, having a technical barrier in place is a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Security through obscurity is a bad thing, and in this case it's not even that obscure since sites like https://en.wikichecker.com/ exist. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• The timecard should go. I see no reason for this data to be aggregated like this - what legitimate purpose does it serve? But the others, I see legitimate uses for them, and I don't see any good reason to allow opt-out. I think opt-out would possibly be harmful as mentioned by some responses above (ie, that it would make people think their edits are more private than they are). We've already given up that kind of privacy by editing here in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Aside from all-important anonymity, Wikipedia is the most privacy-violating website that there is. It it a very easy convenient publicly searchable database of every edit that the editor ever made including the exact date and time that they made it. And there isn't a simple line between public and non public. Degree and ease of public access is important. Scratching your butt on your front lawn is technically public, as is your name and address, but if I take a telephoto video of you doing it and have it put on television and make a permanent searchable youtube video of it, I'm changing the degree of privacy and can't just say that I'm not because it's all public already. For example, if somebody outs you, anybody with no expertise can just click "edit count" can prepare a study on you in 30 seconds on how much editing you did when you were supposed to be at work and give it to your boss. I think that protecting anonymity is far more important than this proposed change, but I think that the proposed change is also a good idea. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The privacy of editors is important, but we need to balance this against our goal of making an encyclopedia, which requires a degree of transparency in order to track sockpuppets and malicious editors; failing at that doesn't just hurt our mission, it has the potential to cause real-world harm even to people who haven't edited the encyclopedia, either because of BLP issues or because of harm caused when they try to rely on it. On the balance, these things are not a high privacy interest for most editors, while they are extremely valuable for identifying sockpuppets and COI editors. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment regarding tracking SOCK accounts: There are other tools available that have different, but close, functions, such as the Interaction Timeline and Intersect Contribs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voorts (talk • contribs)
  • No, those are not even remotely close. When you suspect that someone might be a sock of a previous user and are trying to build a case for SPI (or whether you even should attempt to do so), comparing the users' time cards is an extremely valuable way to get an initial at-a-glance sniff test. It doesn't prove anything on its own, ofc, but it allows you to avoid wasting time on editors that are clearly and obviously distinct. Editor interactions are far less valuable for this because it's natural for editors with overlapping interests to edit the same articles, and because it is easier for a sock trying to evade detection to move to another article than it is for them to change the entire times at which they edit over an extended period of time. And of course combining the two can provide enough information to tell you whether it's worth digging into their edits for more specific similarities. Losing access to time cards would make it far more difficult for editors who hunt sockpuppets to perform an initial pass to rule out possible sockmasters, while providing a "privacy" benefit that is purely symbolic at best. --Aquillion (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Status quo. The information proposed to be obfuscated doesn't seem particularly dangerous to me except maybe the timecard, and the timecard is an important tool for sock hunters. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Novem. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. This is silly. It's all public information, and absolutely nothing is stopping me from forking xtools and/or developing a similar service and running it out of my personal website. -Fastily 01:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I don't see the privacy concerns with monthly counts or edits by namespace, and these are very often used by e.g. people at PERM/RfA evaluating a someone's activity and where they spend their time editing. The timecard is more concerning, but is used to find socks, and so it is useful that way; but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the "option 2.5" suggested above. Galobtter (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 don't allow opt-out, but only let CUs see it, for privacy reasons. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. Levivich (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The data is public, will remain public even if you were to opt out and even if you did opt out on Xtools it could be compiled and displayed in the exact same way by some other tool. Pretending editors can opt out from this would therefore be misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• New option 5 Allow only users that are not on Special:ActiveUsers to opt-out.

I tried using the en.wikichecker.org tool to look up an user that has agreed to it, and got an html code 403, so the argument of it being possible to view this aggregated data elsewhere is still moot. Might be an EU issue. I have never used timecards as an admin on an smaller wikipedia for my entire time of serving as one, which is over an decade, so I reject the argument of timecards being useful for moderation. As for timecards being useful for communication, just use some patience, volunteers do not owe you to respond within the hour.--Snævar (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiChecker does that sometimes. Usually refreshing the page gets it to load correctly without the 403 error. It's probably a CDN issue. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 with the strong reminder that no private information about editors is available in this tool at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Allow users to opt out if they want - it should only be up to them and it's the kind of situation where giving the choice doesn't really hurt anyone. But because we are only speaking of publicly accessible info, GDPR isn't implicated so I don't particularly care either way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: basically per Pppery and Ahecht. The data is already publicly available for all and can be easily accessed by an external source (and one such platform is mentioned above). JavaHurricane 12:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 and the RfC question is misleading. XTools does not show any private information. the wub "?!" 13:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I reject the premise in the heading. The times editors make their contributions are public information and there's no reasonable expectation they ought to be private. As others have outlined, there are many legitimate reasons to audit a user's pattern of editing – detecting sockpuppets, evaluating RfA candidates, and working out when you can expect them to respond to a question. – Teratix ₵ 14:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. I disagree that hiding timecards gives a false sense of security. Making it less accessible does mean fewer people are likely to see it, and I hope that doing so would be widely-accepted as still being possible to view. That being said, I strongly disagree with the idea that publicly showing XTools data should be opt-in. I also disagree that there should be an opt-out. There may be an opportunity for the XTools maintainers to remove timecards publicly, and our checkusers given an internal tool for timecards. SWinxy (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  There's already another tool which provides timecard information: https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/ (which I maintain). It's integrated into the SPI toolset, but there's nothing to stop people from running it as a stand-alone tool. XTools presents the data in a nice U/I, but the basic functionality is trivial to implement, so making XTools opt-in would be meaningless. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The data is public and apparently easy to recreate. Now, I could get behind encouragement to only allow logged-in editors access x-tools, but that is a separate question. --Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The data is public and anyone can aggregate it to show the same. To pretend otherwise is security through obscurity and just encourages people to have a fake sense of safety. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 the data is public; I do not think this is a privacy issue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 though it wouldn't be my ideal formulation (which would be to have a public opt-in version and a no-opt-out version accessible only to particular rights-holders). I seem to recall opining in the opposite direction when the same question was raised several years ago but my view has changed due to a factor strangely absent from this discussion: volunteers' experiences of harassment. Even though the information is all public and can be collated with some technical knowledge, reducing the ease of access of information would limit or prevent certain types of harassment and violence against volunteers. It is worth noting that privacy of a volunteer can reduce rather than increase when they create an account, as many IP addresses are not highly sensitive to that individual but the pattern of their editing behaviour is. I'm reluctant to spell out more per WP:BEANS. — Bilorv (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Special:SerialSources

Should there be a page, perhaps titled Special:SerialSources, that is like Special:BookSources, but based on ISSN instead of ISBN?

Here are some links I think it could include: (note that the information in the middle columns is mostly based on observation and guesswork, and only occasionally on documentation)

Name	Access for anyone	Access depending on geography	Access depending on subscription/membership	URL
ISSN Portal	Metadata	N/A	More metadata and download options	https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/{issn}
WorldCat	Metadata and holdings	N/A	Customized by subscribing library	https://www.worldcat.org/search?fq=x0:jrnl&q=n2:{issn}
Google Books	Metadata and possible full text, preview, and/or search	Access to full text / preview / search	N/A	https://books.google.com/books?vid=ISSN{issn}
HathiTrust	Metadata and either full text or search	Access to full text	Ability to download multiple pages at once of Google-digitized books	https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Search/Home?lookfor={issn}&searchtype=isn
PressReader	Metadata	N/A	Full text	https://www.pressreader.com/search?query={issn_formatted_with_dash}
Flipster	None	N/A	Full text	https://flipster.ebsco.com/results?q={issn}&fieldCode=IS
Gale Directory Library	None	N/A	Metadata	https://go.gale.com/ps/headerQuickSearch.do?inputFieldNames[0]=OQE&quickSearchTerm={issn_formatted_with_dash}&searchType=BasicSearchForm&prodId=GDL
Gale Power Search	None	N/A	Metadata and full text	https://go.gale.com/ps/basicSearch.do?inputFieldNames%5B0%5D=OQE&inputFieldValues%5B0%5D={issn}&nwf=y&searchType=BasicSearchForm&prodId=GPS&method=doSearch

EBSCOhost and ProQuest unfortunately appear to be technically infeasible without some modifications. EBSCOhost requires a token in the URL alongside the query, and ProQuest sends the query in a POST request.

Here's some related prior discussion:

• Phabricator: "Add Special page similar to Special:BookSources for ISSNs (International Standard Serial Numbers)"
• Phabricator: "Create Special:Sources and {{#sources:}}"
• Template talk:ISSN#Too specific
• Template talk:ISSN#Special:SerialSources
• WP:VPR#Special:Audiosources

Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I welcome this. The ISSN link defaults to OCLC, so that would mean one extra click to getting where you're going. BUT the advantage is that if one place doesn't give you access, another place might have it. SWinxy (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest sending this to the m:Community Wishlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Why there, and how do I do that?

Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the OCLC WorldCat URL is what {{ISSN}} and {{ISSN link}} currently link to. It's good for finding library holdings.

FWIW: I think Google Books and HathiTrust are usually included in the lists of libraries for a digital edition when they have a scan, but I'm not sure if their links work, so actually locating the entry is a pain, especially for Google Books. And I don't think the other sources are listed at all, though I haven't really checked. Google Books and HathiTrust usually link to WorldCat. Google Books and WorldCat have metadata for most things I've looked for, but I think ISSN Portal has public metadata for all non-provisional, non-legacy ISSNs and subscriber have access to metadata for all ISSNs ever assigned.

I think using WorldCat typically takes enough clicks that the inconvenience of one more click is probably worth the convenience of having much easier access to other websites that might provide better access to it.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 requests for adminship review

You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review :) other proposals on this page have been moved there to prevent duplication and clutter. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

New Anonblock/Schoolblock template

A long time ago I wondered why we have a separate anonblock template for educational institutions, and one pointed out that the educational one has information specific to educational institutions (specifically, it provides information related to class projects). The problem with this is that sometimes IP addresses belonging to educational institutions are not easily identified. So to address this, I've boldly created a new template that merges both of them at {{New Anonblock}}. Thoughts? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 00:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)