Page move-protected

User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WMF Resolutions/Images of identifiable people

Mr Wales, someone over on Commons referenced this 2011 WMF board resolution about images of identifiable people. I was a bit surprised to read it, since it suggests that Wikimedia Commons had some process for declaring that identifiable people in images had given their consent for the images to be taken and shared. Commons does have a policy discussing consent, but I haven't encountered even a question about consent when uploading photos, let alone some way to affirm that consent has been granted. Has anything changed since this resolution was passed almost 9 years ago now? Mo Billings (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak with any authority as to the current situation on commons, but to my knowledge, that is still Wikimedia policy. Notice that the policy is construed fairly narrowly - it is about "identifiable living persons in a private place or situation". It also mentions that "evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media".
Heart shaped Pancakes
The resolution also references this page which appears at first glance to appropriately implement the recommendation. To find out if anything has changed since 9 years ago, I suppose you could look at a diff of that page back to whatever date you might be interested in?
I have just uploaded a file to commons (not of a person, I was just looking for where I might volunteer that the pancakes had given consent haha) and I think there should be a radio button added at a minimum. "If this is a picture of a living person in a private setting, do you have consent?" and YES or NO options. I'm obviously not able to do that myself, nor do I have a clue who to ask, but it is my opinion that it would be a good thing. I could have made a note about consent in a general information field that I saw, but nothing prompted me to do so and I would imagine most uploaders wouldn't have a clue that they should volunteer that information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: The policy on Commons now includes the idea of consent, but as you saw yourself, this is not mentioned when someone is uploading an image. I don't know how many people who upload images are going to take it upon themselves to seek out this policy and read it. I understand that we don;t want to discourage people from uploading freely licensed images, but if we really, truly, actually cared about consent issues why don't we even ask the question? I don't mean to be glib, but it looks like you and the board wrote up this resolution and then no one followed through on actually making it happen. Commons policy got a lot of words added to it, but even the simplest technical change (asking the question) was never done. Mo Billings (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I have made a section at the Commons Village Pump (proposal) about the lack of a consent check field, pointing to this discussion and the resolution. There may be practical or technical limitations of this. --Masem (t) 19:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I would think that as a part of the already quite good wizard, it can't be too hard technically to include an appropriate checkbox or radio button of the type that I mentioned. My guess (without going off to research the history) is that the upload wizard is newer than the policy, but that whoever made the upload wizard didn't think to include it, and the issue was also overlooked by the community. I assume the main result of this is not tons of images uploaded and kept contrary to the policy. The main result is probably newbie editors violating the policy and having their images deleted or being challenged for not affirming consent, which is also a bad thing of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, I can say from long personal experience that Commons routinely refused to delete images of identifiable people, even when they wrote to OTRS saying that they really disliked the image, even when they supplied a preferred alternative.
But the fact that Commons doesn't get the whole "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should" thing is no surprise, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales I haven't been around Commons for very long, but my impression is that images are not generally deleted due to consent issues. This deletion discussion may prove to be interesting reading. MGA73 is a Commons admin, by the way. Mo Billings (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
One thing is that compared to the 2008 resolution on non-free media which seemingly was both well announced and required concerted effort on to become compliant with, this 2011 resolution seemed to be quietly passed. While it aligned with existing policy on both and Commons for the most part, that also meant there was no need to review all NFCs in the same manner as the 2008, nor determine what to do in the future. That could be why this really hasn't been an issue in the last several years. --Masem (t) 17:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Mo Billings, yes, this is true. They are not deleted due to anything other than copyright, normally. Commons gives a great impression of being run by a bunch of berts - and not in a good way. There are good people there, but there are also assholes who refuse to delete anything unless it's illegal for us to host it. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
If something is legal and useful - why delete it? Elli (talk | contribs) 10:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
ElliThere's an aspect of legal that is embodied in the concept of consent. The image example I gave earlier has already been deleted, but let me offer up another, similar example for you and MGA73 to consider. Is File:IMG-20171115-WA0166.jpg (NSFW) legal if the person didn't give consent for their image to be posted on the internet? I don't know the answer to that, but it's really a moot point. We shouldn't even be hosting images like this if we don't know that the person in the picture gave their consent. And why whould we assume that an editor who has done nothing but upload 3 images to Commons is aware of Commons rules? Mo Billings (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mo Billings: we assume good faith, both here and on Commons. the photo in that case is claimed as own work. there is no good evidence to the contrary. they were obviously posing for a photo. I see no reason to assume that there wasn't consent (though, ugh, that file should be renamed, which I will probably do shortly). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: You need to read WP:AGFC. Assuming good faith doesn't mean we ignore copyright concerns and it doesn't mean we should ignore consent concerns. Let's look at what we know about whether the subject of the image (the identifiable person) consented to posting that image on the internet for anyone to see and use. Nothing. We know absolutely nothing. Is it revenge porn? We don't know. You may not think that's a problem. but I do. Mo Billings (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mo Billings: I've read AGFC, it does not contradict my position here. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Complete lack of any evidence of consent is inadequate, just as it would be for copyright. Mo Billings (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Elli, "because the subject hates it and has given us a better one" would seem like a great reason, but apparently not. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Since I was mentioned I would like to comment that in my opinion photos can be deleted if there is reason to think that the subject did not give consent and the photo is taken in a private place. Especially if the subject send a request to OTRS. The reason I commented as I did in the DR is because subject posed for the camera at File:Marcia Imperator 2.jpg earlier (I would take that as concent to take photos) and she is a pornographic actress so I do not think that it is unlikely that she would allow someone to take a photo of her in what could be seen as a naughty pose. The only way to be sure if we make a rule/policy that we always require that a formal permission is send to OTRS. If not it is always a matter if we think the person consented or not. --MGA73 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    Requiring formal permission sent to OTRS would be a ridiculous standard. We wouldn't be able to illustrate 99% of BLPs. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    Only if the picture looks like it was taken in a private place. Many of the good BLP picks we have are clearly public locations; for example, most of the photos that we have from Gage Skidmore (whose works are frequently used here) are taken at conventions like San Diego Comic Con - a public event and thus there's no expectation of privacy. --Masem (t) 16:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 It's really unfair of me to cherrypick one picture and ask you about it, but take a look at File:Ijii.jpg (NSFW). It's in use on two projects. I assume it isn't a selfie, since it says it is a crop of another user's upload. You say images can be deleted "if there is reason to think that the subject did not give consent". I think this is completely backwards. Unless there is a reason to think that the subject did give consent, images like this should be deleted. I believe that is what the board intended (at least I hope it is) but maybe Jimbo Wales will correct me. We don't presume that people hold the copyright for images, we ask them to assert that they do. I'm not saying that this should necessarily be the case for every image, but I think we should be more careful with images like this, that are usually taken to be shared privately. Should this image be deleted due to lack of consent? Mo Billings (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Based on the commons deletion discussion for the original (non-cropped) photo, I believe that Ijii photo should also be deleted (the original had questionable free-ness, so the crop will be too), and nominated it there. --Masem (t) 16:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I wrote replied here, I would think that we should be focusing on consent on images (of a person in a private location) that are either the own work of a WPian/Commons user, or if from a prior published source, there is clear concern that the image did not have consent. That is, say I found a free picture on flickr, from a photographer with a high reputation, of a person in their home setting; this is not the photographers only such "in private" photo, and they have not had any issues with consent that we know about from other people they took photos of. It should be taken of in this case that the photographer had worked out consent and thus should not be an onus on the uploader. On the other hand, if I am grabbing a "in private" photo from a flickr account with no established history and perhaps sketchy images, that's where I'd probably need to make sure that there was consent there. And obviously for our own works, we absolutely need to be able to supply that consent if its an "in private" image. --Masem (t) 16:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Mo Billings: If you have suggestions or think some files should be deleted I think there are better places than to list all the files here on Jimbo's talk page. Also you do not need to ping me every time. Just comment in the DR and someone will have a look and either delete or keep the file. --MGA73 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not a list, just a single example for discussion purposes. It's not even a very good example, because it should have been deleted when the source was deleted. I think what you are saying above is that an image like this requires some assertion of consent from the photographer/uploader. It that right? Mo Billings (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 I guess I need to ping you if I want an answer? Mo Billings (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Some comments: Firstly, Commons has a policy regarding photographs of identifiable people, see c:COM:PEOPLE. Uploads in violation of this policy are frequently deleted at Commons. Please note that country-specific consent requirements are considered per c:COM:CSCR. There is also some leeway to consider the deletion of a photo out of courtesy if the depicted person objects, the photographer agrees with the deletion, and if we have or get an alternative photo. It is not uncommon that such negotiations take place through the support team. Secondly, we have also a template that allows to indicate consent: c:Template:Consent. It is a valid point to ask for the inclusion of this within the upload form. However, the upload process is already quite complex to sort out the copyright status and to direct to the proper license tags. Many newbies are already struggling with this or simply skipping the relevant questions and prefer to claim the uploads to be their own work even if it is not. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@AFBorchert:When you say uploads are "frequently deleted" if in violation of COM:PEOPLE, do you mean that images of identifiable people in private settings are deleted because there is no evidence of consent? Or do you mean that images are deleted if they are in violation of teh country specific rules? Those are very different things. Mo Billings (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I hope the discussion here been helpful. Will you ask the board to revisit the 2011 resolution and consider if enough has been done? Thank you. Mo Billings (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Masem - if you get a chance, will you look at my proposal and resulting discussion for the Release Generator? Maybe if we combine efforts, we can recruit a tech to fix some of the worst issues. I've been trying to get modifications made in an effort to reduce some of the Otrs backlogs and repetitive time sinks but quite frankly, a root canal is a breeze in comparison. Atsme 💬 📧 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talkcontribs) 15:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fandom in Wikimedia

"In 2004, Angela Beesley and I established Wikia (now Fandom), a completely separate organization unrelated to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation". I wonder, can we incorporate Fandom into the Wikimedia Foundation, and make it a project (such as Wikipedia or Wikivoyage). I mean, Fandom is the same style as these projects, so I wonder if we could include it there. Fandom is basically a more detailed Wikipedia about certain topics, like say Harry Potter or Star Wars, so I think it's a valid inclusion in Wikimedia.Crocusfleur (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fandom is for profit, Wikipedia is not. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Crocusfleur: Miraheze is basically "Fandom run like WMF" (though will obviously not be integrated, mainly because it is run by a WMF-banned user). Something similar would be cool, though, not likely to happen. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Who is the "WMF-banned user"? Crocusfleur (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Crocusfleur: User:John F. Lewis. ("Miraheze celebrates three years!" says "John and Southparkfan have created a really good wiki hoster!"; Miraheze Volunteers says his IRC username is JohnLewis, which is also his Wikipedia username.) Kleinpecan (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Just want to say that you are a really good person and a general thank-you for the founding of Wikipedia! I love the quote "We make the internet not suck" and I have it on my talk page. Hope you appreciate this! SneakingPastInfinity (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The tragic case of User:CejeroC

Jimbo, please look at the sad story of CejeroC. This editor has made 8750 edits since January, 2019. All their edits are to film or TV articles, many of them about old, historic films. All their edits are are to articles or drafts. They have never made a talk page edit. They appear not to know that talk pages exist. Significantly, all their edits are with the Android app. Most of their edits appear productive. However (and this is a bit obscure), they have been "inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles" , and that parameters is "for animated films only." Repeated efforts to communicate with the editor have failed because they are using the horrible Android app which is an impediment to collaboration and communication among editors. Now, the editor has been blocked indefinitely because no one has been able to explain the technical problem to them. How sad to lose a mostly productive editor over this!

I do 99% of my editing on Android smart phones without problems because I managed to figure out that the desktop site works fine on smartphones. I write good articles. I help at the Teahouse and the help desk. I am an active administrator and do all that with the desktop site on a smart phone.

Why, after all these years, is the WMF still offering the Android app which simply does not work properly? Why not just shut it down and rename the desktop site something like the "fully functional site" or the "one and only site"? Why is this rolling disaster allowed to continue? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 Atsme 💬 📧 18:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Totally agreed. The mobile app is, to put it kindly, awful for editing. As an experienced user I know what I'm missing out on, but most new users wouldn't. Why even allow edits if you can't do simple things without leaving the app? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
+1 I had that app installed for at least fifteen minutes, before thinking "sod this for a game of soldiers!". William Avery (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Messed up but true, and needs to be addressed. Here is the noticeboard discussion: a freaking travesty that didn't need to happen! jp×g 18:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
As the person who initiated that discussion, I don't think any of us wanted it to go the way it did. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, there's no way to get the attention of an editor who cannot or will not interact with their Talk page or predictably with other pages short of blocking them and hoping that gets their attention to the point that they'll try to figure out what's wrong. It sucks that a block was the "best" option available to stop their disruptive behavior. DonIago (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
And CejeroC won't even have been able to read the ANI discussion, as the Android app currently displays to the user a version of ANI from September 2020... Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Would it be possible to permalink them to the discussion? DonIago (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It would be possible, though if they were reading their talkpage, they'd have almost certainly have responded in some way already. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of clarity; I mean that if I was in Cejero's position, I'd like to think I'd eventually try logging in on a desktop, and at that point being able to see the conversation I missed out on might be helpful. If we can't help them in the present, we can at least give them a link to what they missed. Just a thought. DonIago (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, as a frequent mobile editor (albeit one who uses the "true" mobile site), my esteemed colleague is right. I have tried to use the Android app, but it is simply not built with editors in mind; rather, it is built for readers. Attempts to peruse the noticeboards (such as ANI) return cached versions from months and months ago. Attempts to communicate with editors are incredibly laborious. As Cullen has pointed out, the app is causing otherwise-productive editors to be blocked: not because they don't want to communicate with others, but because they cannot.
At this point, the app is more trouble than it's worth and is in serious need of an overhaul. Action is needed, Mr. Wales. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree fully - there are multiple issues with the mobile apps (e.g. this one recently about ridiculous suggested edits) that the WMF appear to not feel are worth prioritising. I am acutely aware that developer time is a finite, scarce resource, but surely an issue that is leading to otherwise productive editors being blocked because we cannot communicate with them deserves immediate attention? There are large parts of the world where mobile devices are people’s only way of accessing the Internet - we risk excluding a whole tranche of people from becoming Wikipedians if these issues aren’t resolved. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If this isn't something to spend developer time on, frankly, what is? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Firefly Are you sure the content of the edits is actually suggested? We had a similar discussion on Commons, where c:Commons:Suggested Edits was created to clarify that the feature only suggests the pages to edit, not the edits themselves. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
+1 to the concerns, the status quo is not acceptable. I think we need to seriously consider a community ban on editing from the Android app if it makes it impossible for editors to receive feedback. That would hopefully force the WMF's hand, and if not, will fix the disruption. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
According to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, the iOS app is equally flawed. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Black Kite, equally? From what I've seen, the iOS app doesn't even give editors notice of the reason if they're blocked - it's much worse than the android app in that situation. It's a failure on the WMF part to corral the developers of the apps to ensure they have basic functionality. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixing the problem will take a long time so the correct procedure now would be for the WMF to remove the apps (Android + Apple) from distribution and to work out a way (with an update?) to disable the apps that are currently used. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
That seems a little far. If the issue with the app is the editing aspect why not just disable that while keeping the viewing? PackMecEng (talk) PackMecEng (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If the WMF is capable of such a change, that would be better. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, PackMecEng and Johnuniq. I believe that it is very wrong for the WMF to offer any app, site, portal, tool or anything else that does not offer a fully functional editing experience. Especially because the desktop site works perfectly well on modern smartphones, and it has for quite a few years, for both reading and editing. The Android mobile app is a terrible solution to a problem that does not exist in 2021, although it may possibly have been a problem in 2010. So, we have good faith editors being encouraged to use an official Android app that is an impediment to collaborative editing and also does not improve the reading experience. How can that possibly be a good idea? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It would actually be very trivial to disable mobile app editing through the edit filter. If you could use the edit-filter "warn" system to notify app users to check their talk pages that would be even better, but that's broken in the app as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
True, but the apps are so flawed that they don't even display custom filter messages. On iOS it's possible to to send a short plaintext message with no links, by creating a page like MediaWiki:Mobile editing from the app has been disabled. Please use the website. and using that as the filter message. But all Android users will just see An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, or potential vandalism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only neutral, notable content belongs here. and that's that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I edited my comment just before you posted to mention that we couldn't use the warn system, but of course I didn't consider they wouldn't know why their edit was blocked either. Doh. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a dumb suggestion, but seeing that User:CejeroC is redlinked, would it help to edit the user page with '''Important notice:''' Please read [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#The tragic case of [[User:CejeroC]]]] ASAP! or similar? nagualdesign 00:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
..I made the edit. nagualdesign 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Can't do any harm, athough they've almost certainly got push notifications turned off or else they'd have at least known that their previous messages existed. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Good idea and very helpful, thank you //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, Appgate. I'm honestly starting to think we should go for the nuclear option and indef every app user on sight (or edit-filter disallow, which is slightly less attention-grabbing a proposal but in practice more useful), because I don't think anything short of it will get the WMF's attention. This has been extensively discussed on plenty of places the WMF very well sees, and there's no possibility at this point that the silence is overlooking it -- it's an intentional "this is a low-priority issue". (Nine hundred million readers, 5,000 editors.) Vaticidalprophet 10:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be something if the WMF (which the public erroneously "sees" as a name for Wikipedia, especially when it's fundraising) had more actual Wikipedia editors in their top administrative positions. Editors who officially would be encouraged to edit articles and interact on talk-pages for two or three hours every workday. Then these type of problems could be discussed by several WMF higher-ups in real time. As it is now, they don't even seem to read or want to join discussions such as these on Jimbo's talk page. With the type of cash WMF has flowing to it they should even consider hiring half-a-dozen or so regular editors, in addition to their current staff, to be open to editor input. Wonderful people like Katherine Maher uplift WMF, and it will miss her greatly. But even she wasn't a regular editor, and thus missed the opportunity of really merging Wikipedia culture and concerns with WMF. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
This is very much the case. I guess the problem is that the WMF isn't really chosen by us, so we don't get a voice there. If a member of the board came from enwiki (ideally, previously an admin at least) then I think we'd see a lot more of our issues addressed. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd nominate Jim in a heartbeat. nagualdesign 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I say we go with the other nuclear option and rip, shred, and burn the Wikipedia apps. h 13:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As one of the editors who had to deal with this particular mobile editor, I can attest that the Mobile Apps have to go. It was a shame to see such a dedicated user get indeffed just because they were editing on a platform that rendered it nearly impossible to communicate. Wikipedia is a collaborative space, and the mobile apps fly in the face of that. Padgriffin (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The apps are bust, and the current situation with the mobile apps isn't acceptable. WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU should be picked up by a WMF engineering team and a clear plan laid out to fixing the issues and with (ideally) a timeline. Can you imagine spending years contributing to a site, for free, and in your opinion doing everything correctly with no objections you're aware of to believe otherwise, and then waking up one morning and being indeffed, without even a rationale (via block message) given? Just a message saying "You have been blocked from editing."? You'd not only be pissed off, you'd probably never contribute to this site again. The iOS app is a great reading experience actually, but the editing experience is unbelievably problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have never used a mobile app for Wikipedia to my knowledge. But that said, if the above is true, then that sounds like the simplest solution - unless/until all the features someone who edits should be able to use/experience are fixed/resolved on the app, just remove the ability to edit from the app(s). Sounds like the best of all worlds. Readers still get to use an app that apparently works for them, but editors will need to edit in other ways unless/until a decent editing interface is presented. - jc37 19:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Why can't Template:Infobox film be coded to ignore (and not display) {{{color_process}}} unless the template is transcluded on a page which is in a subcategory of Category:Animated films? wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • It probably can, but that's not really the issue here. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So, a question - where would the inevitable RfC need to be located? Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the mobile app? WP:TECHPUMP seems appropriate to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
No—WP:VPT is the wrong place for an RfC. Put it in an RfC subpage such as in this example. However, it must be drafted for at least a week before allowing any votes. If it is not properly drafted, the proposal will fail and the problem will never be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
But does the community have the capability to implement the consensus without the cooperation of the Foundation? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
That depends on the question. We can't do anything about the app except hold an RfC demanding/requesting/pleading for action. We could indef all app editors. We could possibly make an edit filter that disallowed edits from app editors. You might ask at WP:VPT about the technical possibilities, but hold an RfC elsewhere, particularly if it would need to be a central RfC that was widely publicized. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC or disabling the Content Translation tool. However, I think the main purpose of an RfC at this point is to raise a very visible "look, can we have an actual timeline when is this going to be fixed - it's simply not viable for it to continue like this" and only if there is a negative response from that will we get to a point at which the community needs to consider any action. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies; definitely intriguing. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)