This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive).
Policy
Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS
For years the Fringe Theory Noticeboard has been a go-to for a lot of editors when it comes to soliciting help on religious topics. This has caused… problems. FTN seems bent towards a particular kind of skepticism which, while healthy for Wikipedia as a whole, leads to some serious issues with WP:NPOV, WP:CIVILITY, and on occasion WP:OUT on these topics. The most signifficant incident off the top of my head was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics. There’s also been some pretty big issues with FTN regulars editing religious articles not realizing when something is technical/academic terminology when it comes to religious topics, which is playing out right now in the discussion here and which got its start on FTN.
There seems to be this attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile. This definitely comes across as trying to right a great wrong with religion not being treated with appropriate intellectual derision. This is especially the case with New Religious Movements such as Mormonism, Falun Gong, etc.
My concern is that exclusively bringing these topics to WP:FTN and not, say, the religion wikiproject (or the appropriate wikiproject for a given religion) ends up feeling like a deliberate decision to exclude people who may be less hostile to a specific religion and comes across as WP:CANVAS, especially in light of how willing FTN regulars are to throw WP:CIVILITY out the window on religious topics to the point of multiple admin warnings and thread closures. My willingness to assume good faith is pretty low here considering the history of open hostility to (mainstream) religious/spiritual topics when they come up on FTN.
My fundamental question here as it relates to policy is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella? If so, should the appropriate wikiprojects be notified at the same time so as to not basically canvas people who have specific biases but not necessarily a useful working knowledge of a given topic? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation, ie. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Falun Gong, beyond the broader Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science. Canvassing specific wikiprojects or not doesn't really mean much in my opinion. There definitely are POV editors, but most editors in WikiProjects on religion are heterogeneous. I do think there are tensions in terms of whether Wikipedia exists to promote a religious movements viewpoint about its religion, especially theological summaries, but I don't agree a policy change is helpful or warranted here. If there's any policy to look at, it's about sourcing requirements and weighing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation
Keep in mind the incident I was referring to was FTN demanding Falun Gong editors out their religious affiliation when editing pages, which the admins in the discussion came down like a meteorite on. It's not just a question of "Is this religion fringe/y" but this sort of r/atheism open hostility to religious topics, especially when it gets into the theological weeds and not just something which is clearly fringe. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I do remember plenty of action in relation to the LDS/COI fracas, like an enormous amount of activity at ANI ending in sanctions.[1] and a WP:BUREAUCRAT losing their bits. But we're told here the multi-admin "meteor strike" was on FTN participants? Curious. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There can be 'fringe theories' about everything, including religious history and theology. It is trivial for wikiproject pages to transclude FTN if desired so as to provide notifications to followers. Feoffer (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue isn't other people transcluding FTN, it's FTN editors only pinging FTN on religious topics when the editing gets contentious, as opposed to anyone else regardless of their experience in the exact topic in question, which is why it feels pretty strongly like WP:CANVAS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not this again. This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance. The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes and I suggest Hitchen's razor is applied. But, to repeat what has often been said there: religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply; the religious aspect doesn't give nonsense some sort of Holy Shield from Wikipedia's NPOV policy by which it must be accurately described within a rational, knowledge-based context. Bon courage (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance.
What? I was told to bring this here during the last huge blowout about it and hadn't gotten around to it, the current spate of Mormon topics on FTN made me think it's finally time to get around to it. Beyond that I'm a regular at FTN? I'm not "popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance", I'm a regular contributor there who is bothered by the handling of a specific topic at FTN and this is a recurring and ongoing problem, who only brings it up when that problem comes to the forefront, which it has in two separate and ongoing threads.
The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes
I didn't provide specific examples because the main talk page of FTN is right there for all to see and I didn't want it to come across as airing grievances with specific individuals, or make the discussion about, say, Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement rather than the broader issue of FTN on religious topics.
religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply
I addressed this right away in the post you're replying to. The issue isn't the E-meter like content, which are absolutely fringe, but rather people treating core claims of theology as a fringe topic, when it may be a bit fuzzy in a Venn diagram between a fringe topic and a religious one, or even just blanket religious topics being treated as fringe despite them being wholly articles of faith. You've been around FTN long enough to know that there's a contingent that see religion as an inherent enemy and I'm very far from the only person to bring this up recently. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism. If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine. If they say it actually happened that's a problem. There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism.
As I'm far from the only one to raise this specific concern, that sure seems like a mass hallucination then. I (and others) use "r/atheism" as a shorthand for a specific form of "angry at religion" type of persona that pops up basically all over in bursts. It's a shorthand, and it's one where I'm far from the only person using it.
If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine.
What isn't fine is users not feeling that a topic is being treated with appropriate derision, as opposed to just WP:NPOV and addressing WP:PROFRINGE. This comes up a hell of a lot on religious topics on FTN, and while it's not exactly a majority stance it is a present one. A contingent of FTN basically likes viewing the Resurrection of Jesus and the Loch Ness monster as rhetorically equivalent and deserving of the same sort of treatment. Regardless of personal beliefs around either, Wikipedia is not the place to air personal grievances with religion.
There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal?
Well, seeing as FTN handles religious topics indelicately, inexpertly, and with a very gung-ho attitude I think that making sure the appropriate wikiproject is roped in on religious issues would probably do quite a lot. I think the current discussion on cunning folk is a pretty great example of FTN jumping the gun due to a lack of familiarity with the literature on a given topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects do not or should not create Wikipedia:Local consensus. You are welcome to add any relevant WikiProject banners on any talk pages, and notify any WikiProjects you want for broader discussions. It would not be seen as canvassing, because a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV (hopefully true for the WP:TERRORISM related ones). Sure, {{WikiProject Mormon}} likely has more adherents of LDS faith, but also more importantly, people with scholarly knowledge, whether as adherents, critics and other. If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with, but in of itself, notifying any WikiProject you want is fine. Admittedly some projects like WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE COULD be merged, but neither projects are in of themselves "canvassing" when being notified. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with
This is what I think is happening with FTN, though not necessarily very explicitly. "Anti-religion" isn't a neutral point of view, and it can come across as canvasing to go to a place where that's a prevailing attitude while simply ignoring the other wikiprojects that may actually have more ability to contribute directly to the topics at hand.
Essentially I don't feel that
a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV
Anyways, your point begs what's considered neutral/default state, and when it comes to religion, is not an easy one. I find this essay helpful Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability. As someone who was raised extremely religious and now atheist, I am appreciative that Wikipedia has always been a decent source of summarizing the state of literature out there. In some cases, it was not as "comprehensive" as my specific religious theological education, because the sourcing requirements were not up-to par. There are better resources off-wiki if the goal is to provide a religious seminar. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bigger issue is where it relates to New religious movements like Falun Gong, Mormonism, the Moonies, etc. which have a lot less established literature around theology and people tend to be a lot more open about treating with derision. Hell, I've been accused of being crypto-Falun Gong on FTN and I'm an FTN regular... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose some notions are risible, and being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?) Thus yogic flying is as daft as perinium sunning: just because one has religious-y connections doesn't mean it isn't nonsense on toast. Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful. Wikipedia editors are often inexpert; it is the basis of much discussion on every article ever. If anybody want to inform any WikiProject that a discussion at any noticeboard may be of interest they may do so. Indeed that is often useful. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful.
Not sure what the Cunning folk traditions thread has to do with anything. There were only 4 posts by 3 posters (including you and an IP). The initial post by @Feoffer: was clearly on the wrong board -- such a proposal if having too few people for consensus (or if too contentious) on an article Talk page is meant for an RfC on that Talk page, usually with notification of the relevant WikiProjects. The lack of replies on FTN suggests other watchers were generally aware this was misplaced. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the stated purpose of this noticeboard (top of page) is "to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines" and nothing of the sort is in evidence, I suggest this thread is closed as off-topic. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should probably be on one of the other Village Pump boards, since there's not really a P&G change or problem suggested here. It's not a huge deal either way, and the thread is already going, but the procedure to move a discussion thread is easy enough and can be done by anyone. Warrenmck, if you like, you can use the {{Moved discussion to}} template set and simply cut-and-paste this thread to a different pump. (But again, not a big deal either way.) SamuelRiv (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the rest, the question is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella. That's a fine policy question to ask here IMO as it's about WP:FRINGE. But the implied question here is actually "should religious topics be exempt from WP:FRINGE" and the answer is no. Not every aspect of religion has to do with WP:FRINGE, but some do. If someone is applying WP:FRINGE where it doesn't belong, that's the same as any user applying any other policy incorrectly and would have to be dealt with on the user level. If you think users are systematically misapplying policy at FTN, that's an issue for WP:AN and would need a lot of unambiguous diffs. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this could be done at WP:AN, because it’s more of a general attitude thing than a problem with specific users. Unambiguous diffs of FFN misapplying FTN are either easy or impossible, depending on what the remit of FTN is. I definitely agree that religion shouldn’t be exempt from fringe, but there’s a contingent that treat religion itself as fringe.
looking at the threads I’ve been involved in recently on religion:
1. The LDS and Cunning Folk thread, which seems to heavilystem from a misunderstanding that “cunning folk” is the specific applicable academic term which exists well beyond Mormon topics.
2. The Joseph Smith Golden Plates thread. It’s rife with calls that Wikipedia should be outright calling Joseph Smith an active fraud, sources not fully agreeing with that conclusion (though leaving the possibility open) be damned.
3. The Tukdam thread, which did actually call out some issues with that page but also didn’t grasp the language used by researchers working with minority religious communities (and fair enough, that’s esoteric)
Of twenty threads on FTN right now, nine are directly about religion (discounting the tenth which mentions religion but which is really just about racism). Most of these do actually belong at FTN, but the substance of the threads really highlights that “religion is not inherently fringe” seems to be openly ignored by a decent chunk of the involved parties. If half the content on FTN is going to be religious in nature, then it’s not really just about fringe theories anymore, is it? And the lack of civility or ability to handle sensitive topics becomes a prominent issue that could use guidelines for handling so we reduce the amount of inexpert sledgehammers wielded in the direction of religious topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying all the (what you term) 'religious' threads at FTN are there properly, but there is a problem with stuff being raised there improperly. Then there is the vague complaint that you think some people ignore the “religion is not inherently fringe” idea, but with not a diff in sight. This is bizarre. The supposed bombshell 'cunning folk' thread has only four mild-mannered posts (one of them yours) discussing a proposal.[2] Isn't that what noticeboards are for? Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so convinced there's nothing of merit here, why the WP:TEND? I think we're all fairly clear on your perspective that this is a nothing sandwich, but hell even in this thread:
being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?)
Feels sort of like the problem in a nutshell? Wikipedia's policies around civility and bigotry (not necessarily articles, just to pre-address that) absolutely does distinguish "religious belief" among other categories as deserving respect when it comes to civility. The point isn't respecting the beliefs, it's respecting that they are beliefs and mean a heck of a lot to some people, and while "some people" in this equation aren't entitled to ignore wikipedia policies around verifiability and neutrality in favour of their argument, that doesn't mean that they deserve to have their beliefs mocked and ridiculed in talk pages (but let's be real, the more fringe-y it gets the more that'll happen to a degree).
That we seem to have exempted NRMs from a need to handle the same way we do world religions is a genuine systemic failing of WP:NPOV. I can't for a second imagine someone who is committed to WP:NPOV and was themselves a Mormon wouldn't take more than a passing glance at the current state of FTN and instantly nope out due to the behaviour of editors in talk pages and noticeboards, and we need those editors to better address fringe relating to those topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance, FTN seems to have a large number of useful Mormon participants. If there are civility problems, raise them at ANI, AE or appropriate venues (but again, you have provided zero evidence). To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this discussion was a personal attack at you nor was it advocating for a diluting of Wikipedia’s stances around religion. I cannot begin to fathom the tone with which you’ve elected to engage here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a whole noticeboard (effectively hundreds of editors) saying things which are largely un-evidenced (no diffs given) or simply wrong (such as Mormons shunning FTN). You have attacked me with a "why the WP:TEND?" jibe. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you accuse Bon courage of disruptive editing (WP:TEND) without apparent grounds (or with really weak grounds that would equally apply to yourself) does appear to be a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m trying to act in good faith here, it genuinely seemed Bon Courage was basically misrepresenting the initial argument while saying any discussion should be procedurally shut down. It was not intended as a personal attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics" did this actually happen? I remember we had a whole string of issues with Falun Gong members being disruptive but I don't remember admins sanctioning FTN or anything like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing I can find is this related AE request where the filer was TBanned, another editor who was seen as broadly pro-Falun Gong was indeffed, and "editors in the Falun Gong topic area" (not FTN regulars) were "warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views" (not against "insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics").
In the FTN thread linked by Warren, there is a comment by ScottishFinnishRadish that WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing. which isn't exactly "was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics". It's more "one admin saying that it isn't permitted to ask other editors whether they are Falun Gong adherents" which is... sort of close-ish? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just an admin saying that you're supposed to say "Do you have a COI with topic X" without any prompting as to what the COI is believed to be not "Are you a member of topic X? If so you have a COI" which is a pretty common note that admins give. Its certainly not giving COI editors a free pass on COI as long as their COI is personal info (it almost always is)... Which appears to be what the OP was suggesting. COI is not an excuse for outing, but outing can't be used as a shield against legitimate COI concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a lot easier if you refer us to specific example threads here. It's hardly throwing anyone under the bus to link to discussion threads instead of just implying them for us to find ourselves -- and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
Meanwhile, I believe what you have been referring to many times here is the Cargo cult thread (which is where the suggestion of canvassing and referral to VPP is made). I have two notes: first is that I agree that a P&G noticeboard should not be used for canvassing people back to an article Talk page or an RfC (per existing norms, RfC notifications are done on subject-matter WikiProjects, by subscription, etc). Generally with noticeboards like WP:RSN the scope is limited to resolving issues of the P&G, unless/until discussion goes into article content, at which point it is referred back to the article Talk page. The P&G noticeboards I've followed have been pretty disciplined about this, so I'm not sure whether that's one issue with FTN. On a similar note of scope, noticeboards can refer to superceding policy, and FT is pretty much made up entirely of superceding policies (it feels like it could be better as an explanatory essay more than a guideline imo). So if a post there is actually about a RS or OR dispute, maybe it should instead be referred to RSN or NORN? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
To the extent I regret raising this thread. I think this thread is itself a microcosm of my core issue: FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith. Not "FTN needs to treat religious claims as non-fringe" which is a honestly strange read multiple people here have had considering that my initial post specifically was narrowly focused on matters of theology and, as an example:
To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect.
How in any chosen diety's name does any of this have anything to do with a concern raised here? Not once did I call for Wikipedia to treat religious topics as hyper-credible per internal logic, nor did I express any concern about articles "offending religious sensibilities", nor did I make any sort of argument that'd exclude faith healing from the remit of FTN:
should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella?
Faith healing and every single example from Bon Voyage's reply above make specific empirical claims. All of them, without exception. So what I'm left with here is an FTN regular who came in extremely hot for some reason ignoring the fact that I'm also an FTN regular while pretending that my argument was an axe to grind, when my core argument is that FTN handling these topics alone without involving editors familiar with them has lead to some problematic editing, in addition to FTN basically openly vilifying NRMs on FTN. Not once in this entire thread have I said that FTN should leave all religious topics alone, nor, as some seem to imply, have I argued that religious claims should be treated with credulity and handled with kid gloves.
At this point to even engage with this thread I feel like I have to dedicate a fair amount of time to addressing arguments I never made. It feels like people are trying to read some kind of apologetics into my comments which I never intended, and if that's coming across to multiple people then that's a communication problem on my end, but I think that this thread right here has become a perfect example of how complex, loaded, nuanced topics which invoke strong emotions on all sides are not necessarily best handled in a vacuum by a noticeboard which, as much as we'd all love the policy-backed
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
to be true, it doesn't necessarily hold water in practice.
You made an erroneous distinction: "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim". These are not cleanly distinct things. Religious history and theology is rife with empirical claims (Lazarus e.g.), and these are not exempt from "fringe". Your argument is weirdly personifying a noticeboard of hundreds of people with statements as though it were an monolith, like "FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith", with zero evidence. Perhaps the reason you get a "hot" response is because you write accusatory, wrong and confused statements about "problems" which, without any evidence, come across as borderline trolling.This is all seems track back to when FTN addressed your own muddle over panspermia where,[4] instead of grappling with the problems at hand, you perceived some kind of problem with the noticeboard that was solving those content problems. There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others. Instead of taking on the chin, you insinuated there was some kind of issue with FTN ("I do think that there's something very problematic here going on"). As another user observed in that linked thread "Instead of trying to find a solution, you are making accusations while claiming you are not". And so we have this pattern here again. It is a time sink. (It should be noted, if this[5] is to believed, that the OP's editing has been to FTN and ANI hugely more than to anything else in the Project, which tells its own story. I'm thinking WP:NOTHERE.) Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others
Well, seeing as I’m a research meteoriticist (essjay aside) I’m pretty comfortable pointing to that specific example as “strong options, little expertise” on the point of FTN. In fact, I’m far more comfortable pointing to that one as an example of FTN inexpertly handling nuanced topics than I am around any of the religious ones. Theres a reason it was very easy for me to cite a pile of papers which make the case that researchers are using “panspermia” in a way that Wikipedia insists is only pseudo-panspermia. The distinction on Wikipedia cannot pass WP:VERIFY, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at FTN aside, which is why I think the best proposal was bifurcating it to Panspermia (Astrobiology) and Panspermia (Fringe theory). FTN is extremely slow to acknowledge there may be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the noticeboard around a fringe topic. Of course, trying to bring in a bit of nuance with citations didn’t stop people from accusations of being WP:PROFRINGE and possessing a
lack of understanding of specialist terminology
I’m going to be very honest, since your first post here commenting you’ve been fully on the offensive insisting this is some kind of misguided personal crusade. Between assuming motivations/incompetence on my part and some shall we go with routinely characterful reimagining of the posts you’re responding to I think I’m at least going to bow out of engaging with your replies here, and suggest we consider that mutual to avoid gunking up discussions more. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Free energy, Kinesiology, Panspermia. All three have a scientific and a pseudoscientific meaning. One is a disambiguation page, one explains the scientific meaning and has a pointer to the pseudoscientific one, and one explains the pseudoscientific meaning and has a pointer to the scientific one. This is the result of applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You were unhappy with the solution in the third case (my take is that due to your field, availability bias leads you to think in WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT terms). [6] shows you that only a small percentage of readers of Panspermia move to the pseudo-panspermia page, showing that there is a good reason why it was done that way. You were wrong, and you have been blaming the people who were right since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect an article on a religion to describe, e.g., the foundational documents, the liturgy, the rituals, the tenets. Excluding believers would exclude the editors most likely to be familiar with the literature. As long as an editor is neither attacking nor proselytizing, I don't see a COI. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just seems to be an argument against the entire concept of regulating COI editing... COI in general applies to the editors most likely to be familiar with a topic, for example the editors most familiar with Edward P. Exemplar are likely Edward himself, his friends, and his family... But we absolutely do not want Edward himself, his friends, and his family writing that article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally thrill when people who are less hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN and I thrill when people who are more hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN. Generally, I thrill at anyone posting at WP:FTN. Though I may object (sometimes strenuously) to others' positions, I welcome their positions being aired as it helps clarify Wikipedia editorial praxis. I may be singular in this, I understand. Someone with sage observational skills pointed out that I may simply enjoy having arguments more than others. But I have learned things from such arguments and I do think that these discussions have helped clarify matters. Can't there be different strokes for different folks?
Maybe a resolution could be adding a request in the FTN boilerplate that when people start a thread that they notify relevant WikiProjects?
If they're notifying the WikiProjects, then it's a content dispute, and so it should be handled by the WikiProjects, or else RfC. If the intent is that FTN is a general-purpose board for fringe content, then that's the domain of a WikiProject, not a P&G noticeboard. (And just because FT has a separate guideline page, does not mean it automatically needs its own noticeboard; and in a separate point, I'd be interested if there's anything in FT that is not entirely redundant with the extensive RS and OR guidelines.) SamuelRiv (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? All noticeboards except ANI/AN are for content disputes. The stated purpose of FTN is to "help determine whether [a] topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially". There is quite a bit in WP:FRINGE which is distinct, for example WP:FRIND, WP:NFRINGE and WP:PARITY. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to propose FTN for deletion if you don't like the way it is set-up. Others have done so in the past.
I think the consensus has generally been that it's okay to have a centralized discussion board that brings together people who have a general interest in topics that are relevant to WP:FRINGE. WikiProjects have remits which go well beyond that sort of thing.
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing, and it's always possible to post to different noticeboards and projects if you feel that greater participation would help. So if something is posted to FTN there is nothing stopping you ftom adding notifications to projects that you feel are involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate is also relevant, but in a very different way. That's the case in which being the target of something like Death by a thousand cuts results in the community blaming the victim for not being able to tolerate even more "minor" annoyances.
I feel like there is some of that going on above. People aren't reacting here, as if from a tabula rasa, to the exact statements being made. They're reacting to long histories and perhaps what sounds like coded meanings or Dog whistle (politics). So, e.g., maybe you didn't directly say "having a religious belief is automatically a COI" – or at least not in this discussion – but other editors have said this, and you said something that reminded them of the overall climate on wiki. And now you're mad at them for noticing the overall climate, or for assuming that you agree with it, and anyway, how dare they be upset about something that upsets them?
If you haven't personally seen editors claiming that being religious is a problem, then I point out that there are l-o-n-g discussions open at ANI and COIN right now about whether being a member of a particular Christian denomination is a formal COI. Note that I'm not linking them because I think that having anyone in this discussion join them would be a bad idea – too much risk of us providing more heat than light, and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen anyone say that having a religious belief is automatically a COI, I've seen people say that religious belief or affiliation can be a COI and people say that it can't be. Nothing in policy or guideline seems to support the "can't" side while the "can" side is currently consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember seeing anyone claim that all religious beliefs are always a COI. I have seen editors say that having specific, uncommon religious beliefs (e.g., anyone who belongs to this or that 'cult') is a COI for any articles related to that subject area.
ArbCom disagreed in 2010: "For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies."
Editors with a COI are not prohibited from editing pages regardless so not sure if there actually is any disagreement there. The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what context is a COI editor actually prohibited from making edits? Incorrect identification is not an outing concern, so not sure why you would worry more about that than legit outing but OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect identification is a Wikipedia:Harassment concern. Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in. This is bad for Wikipedia, and it is bad for the falsely accused editors. You shouldn't have done that. IMO editors should be strongly discouraged from following your example.
COI editors are officially not prohibited from making all edits, but COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions. However, in practice, WP:Nobody reads the directions, and many of them are told by well-meaning editors that they shouldn't make any edits at all, and some of them are also told that if they do, then they'll be dragged to ANI or COIN for a criticism and self-criticism session. See, e.g., fully disclosed paid editors being told that simple updates for outdated information should be handled through the edit request system because "it's best" if paid editors never touch the mainspace. It is best – if your personal values prioritize purity over up-to-date articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that suddenly took a person turn... These are serious aspersions and that is not my memory of what happened in what ways was the infomation incomplete? I would also note that those allegations turned out to be 100% valid, they were not in any way false. "COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions" doesn't appear to be true, as far as I can see they are not officially prohibited from making any type of contributions in particular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Casting wp:aspersions is "accus[ing an editor] of misbehavior without evidence". You were accused of misbehavior for a specific course of events. I was not a part of this, it was not linked, and I don't really care, but I found the narrative easy to enough to follow that it seems to me that if I asked you both to spell out in detail the factual series of events, you'd agree -- that's why it's not aspersions.
Since the topic of this sub-sub-thread is COI, and the editor brought up this sad tale because it directly relates to COI, I also see nothing personal or uncivil in it. You state there is a factual lie or inaccuracy in the narrative, so that probably should be hammered on your own respective talk pages. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV.
okay, but I’ve been accused of being Falun Gong for my comments on FTN, so maybe nobody should be trying to divine the religion of editors on the basis of their edits?
like don’t get me wrong, if someone is editing a JW article with watchtower talking points that’s definitely an issue, but there’s little value I can imagine in trying to “gotcha” an editor’s faith and if their editing is a COI issue or otherwise problematic that can be addressed. Someone may simply have bad information and be editing on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people's affiliation can be inferred from NPOV edits, then I'd say that's working-as-intended. People can be TBanned for repeated or blatant NPOV on contentious/vulnerable articles without any reference to COI -- that's the whole premise for TBans on stuff like Israel-Palestine (nobody would say that being a national from one or the other is a COI to edit respective articles). Political fervor is quite the driver of disruptive editing -- if that is regulated without COI then why are some here calling for COI for religion?
(fwiw, I'd argue "religious affiliation" is not usually the same as affiliation/membership in a specific church bureaucracy/org that is affiliated with that religion -- so for example one could argue CoS is a church-organization that is affiliated with dianetics philosophy/religion; then an employee of CoS has COI by existing policy. I realize that definition would put a monolithic-monocephalous church in a grey zone, but I'd again say NPOV is sufficient.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am 100% not endorsing any sort of on-wiki assertion or accusation of another editor's religion or political beliefs based on their editing habits (agreeing Warren above). I am saying such blatant NPOV edits can be called out for what they are, as they have been in every contentious topic area. (It's common also to call out poor or undue sourcing, synth, cherrypicking, etc. -- blatant bad behavior be blatant.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with COI editing is it's often not "blatant", but like "dirt in the gauge" of the fine instrument in consensus forming. A !vote in a RfC here, a change of emphasis in an article there, and hey presto! POV achieved! The basic truth is that Wikipedia fails to deal with COIs because of its emphasis on the primacy of anonymity. The two are irreconcilable. Thus: the shit-show continues, and will continue for ever until Wikipedia gets a grip and turns into a serious Project. Bon courage (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COI can be a subtle problem, but so can many other things. Someone attempting a subtle change in emphasis is not necessarily a bigger problem than editors who believe they're always right – and we have lots of those (including me, except that I really am always right!). If I have to choose between an editor who determines reliability on the basis of whether the source says the Right™ Thing and an editor with a secret COI who wants to slightly shift the emphasis of an article, I might not always think that the latter is the bigger problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be to misunderstand, fundamentally, the pernicious nature of COI. People may - on their own behalves - argue passionately in many directions. But when an external interest is exerting influence, the outcome of decision-making will depend of which interest has most sway. It is why serious consensus-making fora (i.e. not Wikipedia) tend to have stringent rules on COI transparency. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A subtle shift in article focus seems like a smaller problem than a big bias in source choice; ergo, I'd choose the editor who spends multiple years pushing for a small shift in focus over the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV and include weak sources with the 'right' POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Editors are wrong all the time, and preferring weak sources to strong ones is of course a common fault particularly in newbies. But here's the thing: editors with a brain and good faith will generally change their mind, modify their position or gracefully concede a point if they are presented with cogent opposition but have no skin in the game. They learn and grow. The COI editor will forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've been assigned, without deviation. I'd rather have an editor corps of messy but correctable human beings than apparatchiks dedicated to shaping content in some particular way so as to advance an outside interest. Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But editors who do have skin in the game, but not of the sort that 'counts' as a COI, don't generally change their minds. They forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've personally adopted, without deviation, exactly like that irritating family member that you never want to hear talking about politics at any family gathering.
Also, paid editors are often temporary: eventually, either we come to a plausible compromise (and sometimes that 'subtle shift in article focus' is actually warranted, though not generally with the wording that the marketing department suggests), or the payer decides to quit throwing good money after bad.
People who feel aggrieved about something will argue for decades about their pet thing. I know one who is still upset that his mother had to pay inheritance taxes half a century ago. I don't know if he would agree that he's a "messy" human being, but I am convinced that if he were editing Wikipedia, he would not be a "correctable" one.
Or we could just have neither editor... Thats clearly the best solution in terms of improving the encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both the tendentious editor and the COI editor who doesn't respect NPOV can be shown the door if they don't change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because sometimes figuring out whether Bad Thing #1 is better or worse than Bad Thing #2 is helpful to people. It can help people develop perspective and prioritize their efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The effect seems to be to excuse one of the bad things, why can't we just say that both are bad and should result in full or partial seperation from the project and which is badder is up to context and personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I also agree that neither is best if possible, I am also always going to prefer an editor editing in good faith to an editor editing in bad faith. Loki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but few people, except blatant vandals, think they are deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse. A paid agent may think they're making Wikipedia more accurate or fairer. A personal POV pusher may believe they're making Wikipedia better by giving a little more respect for an idea they believe. Even the parents who show up at Talk:Santa Claus every December, to ask that we not "ruin" Christmas by telling their kids that Santa Claus isn't a living, breathing magical person think they're trying to make Wikipedia better.
That's why the rule is Wikipedia:Assume good faith: assume that the other person – no matter how stupid, misguided, or wrong they may actually be – is actually trying to do something that in their opinion will make Wikipedia better. To put it more bluntly, when the white supremacists show up with their racist garbage, we assume that they're trying to make Wikipedia better according to their own way of thinking, even though we don't agree that their garbage actually makes it any better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I think COI editing is so egregious, because it's one of the few kinds of editing that is actually in bad faith. Loki (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, imagine that someone works for a big company. In the actual marketing department, no less. This person notices that the number of employees in {{infobox company}} is several years out of date. Imagine that the employee corrects the error.
You didn't provide the piece of information we would need to know in order to determine that... Their intention. It is most likely that their intention was to promote their company therefore their intention was to hurt wikipedia, but unless you provide that piece of the puzzle the question is (perhaps purposefully) unanswerable in a straight manner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The use of wikipedia for promotion unambigously hurts wikipedia, thats why we explicitly ban it (WP:PROMO). Anyone who intends to engage in promotion, advertising, or recruitment intends to hurt wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with him on many COI things, I'm behind HEB here. Correcting an error in order to promote an organization that is paying you to promote them is a bad faith edit and harms Wikipedia.
To see why, imagine that article has three estimates in it for number of employees: one that is too low, one that is correct, and one that is too high. The COI editor only corrects the one that is too low despite being aware of all of them. Is that a good faith edit? Loki (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, see the comment where I've already addressed the biased assumption that more employees is better for a company. (Hint: Layoffs usually result in stock prices going up, not down.)
Also, what if there aren't three estimates? What if it's just one wrong number in an infobox, and the COI editor is merely correcting a simple factual error?
Just because a person with a COI could make an edit that is intended to harm Wikipedia – or, more likely, that is intended to help the company and doesn't care whether Wikipedia is helped or harmed – doesn't mean that every single edit made by that person is inherently harmful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply replacing inaccurate or outdated information with accurate, up-to-date information unambiguously helps Wikipedia.
"As of 2012, the company had 190 employees" → "As of 2024, the company had 165 employees".
"As of 2012, Alice Expert was the CEO" → "As of 2024, Bob Business was the CEO".
Correcting a factual error is not inherently promotional.
Whether more or fewer employees is better (and therefore potentially promotional) depends on how you interpret that. For example, is having slightly fewer employees a sign of good management leading to greater efficiency and productivity, or is it a sign of a shrinking, struggling company that can barely make payroll?
Have you ever heard of a win–win scenario? On those occasions when what's best for Wikipedia happens to match what's best for the company, then Wikipedia is not actually harmed by the company getting what they want.
There are many circumstances in which what's good for the company is bad for Wikipedia, but there are also circumstances in which what's good for the company is also best for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In re Thats true , but every promotional edit they made would be inherently harmful. They could also make other edits but thats not really the point.
No, that really is the point. Exclusively promotional edits are harmful, no matter who makes them. A good edit made by a Bad™ person is still a good edit. A bad edit made by a Good™ person is still a bad edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The win-win scenario is when the COI editor makes an edit request like they're supposed to... If they make the edit directly thats a loss for wikipedia. We don't scrub the edits of confirmed COI editors, your argument would only make sense if we did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Break
the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV
I've definitely seen this habit at FTN, and it was one of the impulses for this thread. If FTN has decided their specific understanding of a topic, collectively, is the "correct" one then attempts to address that are often met with accusations of POV-pushing, attempts to introduce FUD for WP:PROFRINGE purposes, etc.
The example raised above is a pretty good one for this. Wikipedia has a hard deliniation between Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, but this hard deliniation doesn't exist in the literature and "panspermia" is regularly and routinely used to refer to what Wikipedia calls "Pseudo-panspermia". Note that this isn't "the scientific literature is actually down with the fringe theory" but rather "the specific terminalogical bifurcation that Wikipedia is using is an artifice of Wikipedia and risks confusing readers who come to Wikipedia on this topic from credible sources."
No amount of academic, primary, secondary, etc. sources that show that "Panspermia" can and is regularly used to refer to it landed with anything other than a wet thud and accusations from some of the FTN core. Even in the Tukdam thread that's on FTN right now there's a "Well we can't consider that credible source" (which is, to be fair, actually arguable on the sourcing, but not cut-and-dry per WP:RS). There seems to be this attitude of absolute certainty that arises from FTN which outpaces the ability of people whose personal expertise is more rooted around fringe theories to evaluate.
You asserted, with the "absolute certainty" you are projecting onto others It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory”. You were shown the sources to show why this was wrong and had to concede "The Science Direct link you provided is certainly evidence that both terms are used". In such cases Wikipedia need to manage the terminology and use hatnotes to guide the reader, and this is what happened. Consensus was achieved and things improved thanks to FTN. Yet here you are rewriting history and somehow it's the fault of "FTN" that you were in a muddle. It's all very odd. Have you considered the problem isn't with FTN at all, but somewhere else? Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with me personally take it to WP:ANI.
Here is the thread which is being very creatively represented above for anyone who'd like to evaluate it for themselves. FTN's "consensus" on this topic was exactly what @WhatamIdoing seemed to be worried about.
In fact the thread sprawled to here where the issue was resolved. If I took every editor that was wrong about something to ANI I'd never be out of the place (and would have to take myself there regularly!). I think we can all agree this thread has been a waste of time. It was always going to be since there was no evidence and no proposal. Perhaps this can - for all our sakes - be the last time this particular FTN complaint pony is taken round the park. Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Religion is ubiquitous in most parts of the world. While many if not most of the various religions of the world hold beliefs that are not provable by science, they are just that beliefs. While all fringe theories could be categorized as beliefs, not all beliefs are fringe theories. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A religious belief that has no effect on the rest of scholarship is just that. For example, a claim that pure land exists is generally so far removed from physical reality as to be basically just worth documenting as a major belief in Buddhism. However, there are those Buddhists, some of which are more active than others, who claim that there exists a literal Mount Meru that one can actually discover here on Earth. That is a WP:FRINGE theory. jps (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Firstly, it's not true because the policy defines a fringe view as "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", not according to whether the view is provable by science.
Secondly, it's not true because it's goes against common sense. Views in non-scientific fields (e.g., art criticism, history) are never provable by science and can still be classified as mainstream or fringe. It's nonsense to say that since, e.g., fictional characters can't be scientifically proven to exist, then all views about them are fringe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious views are never mainstream by definition, no single religion is that large and they don't generally agree on anything. The field of Religious Studies isn't some sort of free for all, even claims which are purely religious can be fringe. The belief that a fictional character was real would be fringe, the mainstream view is that fictional characters are not real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Religious views are certainly "prevailing views", since 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religious views. Those religious views include ideas that are very widely held (e.g., that humans are different from other animals in some important way; that justice and peace are desirable values; that long-term happiness is something people should seek; that there are good ways and bad ways to relate to others). The belief that justice is better than injustice is absolutely "not provable by science", but it's definitely mainstream. Science might help us understand what actions could achieve specific forms of justice, but science (i.e., excluding the quasi-religion of scientism) can't tell is that justice is good.
When considering not just "the prevailing views" but specifically the "mainstream views in its particular field", we prioritize scholarly sources. For example, most of the world believes in ghosts. The scholars in the relevant fields, using the methods of that field don't. Therefore, "ghosts are real" is WP:FRINGE and "ghosts are not real" is mainstream. There is no limitation here about the relevant field needing to be a scientific one.
Also, let's go back to that fictional character. Othello (character) is a fictional character. What was this fictional character's racial/ethnic background intended to be? There are two mainstream views. Neither are provable by science. Neither of them are WP:FRINGE. A view that "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" might say that Othello was Irish, and this would be FRINGE. A view that aligns with the mainstream views in the field might say that Othello was a brown-skinned Muslim from the Mediterranean coast, and this would not be FRINGE. But the relevant fields are literary studies, theatre studies, and history, none of which are science. Each view on that question is declared FRINGE or not FRINGE without any reference whatsoever to whether the view is "provable by science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been another exchange on FTN in the last few days that I think really highlights my issues here. A user (@ජපස:) removed the entire section on academic study from the Tukdam article. They removed a link to a UW-Madison research group publishing on this topic using brain scans and other methods. He dismissed their papers out of hand as not being justified in the article with
It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.
Which is obviously not how any of this works. We cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university (not just religious scholars playing with brain scans for fun without any idea what they're doing) and an even passing knowledge of the field of Buddhist Studies will make it very clear that scholar-practitioners are the norm in the field. And this is why FTN should tread cautiously with assuming they know the fields they're editing in. "Well the author is a Buddhist and can't be trusted to write about Buddhism" is not a reasonable take, especially in the context of an academic field that both routinely stands up to outside scrutiny of their scholarship and which is typically rife with people who both practice their faith and publish on it in critical, objective ways.
Why are FTN regulars deciding that the religion of authors is enough to justify the removal of entire sections when we're talking about accepted peer-review publications in Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos? Why are we tolerating the dismissal of credible, non-Bealles-list peer-reviewd sources on the grounds of the religion of the author when there's zero evidence whatseover of wrongdoing that could have implicated the study in question or its authors? Wikipedia is worse for this type of editing, incredulity and personal (ir-)religious philosophy shouldn't be dictating the content of articles.
I feel it's an important detail here that the results of the studies in question didn't particularly support wild, fantastical conclusions that warrant incredulity. The claim was "Meditating dead monks are still somewhat alive" and the paper's conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." It feels like the religion of the authors is the whole basis for the objection of inclusion here, which is not at all how WP:NPOV and WP:RS work, but on FTN it can. This is, to me, simply open bigotry, which is something I've been expressing some frustration at here.
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
When a noticeboard starts having its own interpretation of the sites rules and it operates on those, and does so on obscure parts of Wikipeida that may not have many eyes on it, then yes, the official canvassing policy aside if can very much feel like "I want to bring this issue only to people who have the same interpretation of policy that I do." Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on community action earlier this year, Warrenmck is not the one with the heterodox interpretation. A thread at ANI a few months ago ended in a topic ban for a user who was rejecting citations to academically published material about Islam merely on the grounds that the academics were Muslims. Excluding content cited to academically published material about Buddhism merely because the academics were also Buddhists is the behavior and interpretation that's out of step with the community. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I genuinely feel a little crazy with these exchanges here. Between this and the discussion above about how all religions are totally fringe I feel like some of FTN isn't engaging with, well, WP:FRINGE in good faith when it comes to topics of religion, which can result in article quality being reduced, which isn't what any of us want from noticeboards.
It's pretty clear that, while maybe not a huge systemic thing, several editors are using FTN to grind a particular axe. The is probably where things like attacking a credible scholar on the basis of their faith without any evidence whatsoever of impropriety comes from as far as I can tell, because it's certainly not coming from WP:FRINGE or WP:RS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years, I have rejected a variety of publications about Isra' and Mi'raj on the basis of the apologetics of the author. The fact that academics who are arguing in favor of the literal truth of that story are Islamic is absolutely relevant. It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. Not any that would pass WP:REDFLAG certainly. The article text just linked to their research group and press releases! The fact that this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation while claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead is WP:BOLLOCKS influenced by a blinkered religious devotion. It's the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism or Hindu astrology. jps (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead: Except that apparently isn't what the source claimed, or at least it isn't what was in the article text. The article text that you twiceremoved (wholesale, with no attempt at just trimming) stated that the study did not detect any brain activity in clinically dead tukdam (italics added). As Warrenmck said that the conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." What's so 'bollocks' about that? And what's so un-solid about the source, a research center at a secular state university (University of Wisconsin-Madison)? You pay no apparent notice to the secular university setting of the source nor to the utterly plausible results of the research (that no, there is no detectable brain activity from the dead monks); all you offer is your apparent revulsion that the researcher was a Buddhist. It's frankly bigotry, and the way you let it influence your editing is disruptive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that jps has any "apparent revulsion" is unwarranted here. Are we reading the same source? This one appears problematic to me, and the article content being sourced to it should not have relied on such a source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that section should definitely be trimmed but obviously not removed. It's a real and secular study that didn't find anything WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so saying that it existed and didn't find any brain activity ought to be utterly uncontroversial. Loki (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EEG on a corpse was hardly the only thing they claimed to "test". The entire enterprise is an ideological juggernaut that includes things like asking the asinine question as to whether the corpses decay at different rates depending on their status as meditators -- claims which are so ridiculous as to be nearly impossible to operationalize. The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that. The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. jps (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that.
From the research group you removed from the article as a "shit" source:
it certainly looks like It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. may have been a bit off the mark? Thanks for accusing me of "whining" though.
C'mon. I see a list that includes predatory and pocket journals, FrotiersIn, MDPI, and moribund backdoors to avoid peer review by competent scholars. And you were already warned at WP:FTN about promoting Frontiers as a potential WP:RS. These are terrible sources for claims about corpses decaying. This is basically WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. Frontiers in Psychology is a highly rated journal.[7] Their WP:Impact factor is more than twice the average for the field. Beall's List said that "Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine." WP:CITEWATCH says that these journals should be evaluated "case by case", which is significantly different from "anything and everything from MDPI is a terrible source" or "anything in MDPI is basically PROFRINGE". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry is ranked 90th percentile by Scopus[9] and is indexed by MEDLINE.[10] Their impact factor is high for "culture" and low for "psychiatry".
Ethnos is rated 93rd percentile[11] and has an impact factor a bit above average for anthropology.
Religions is rated 90th percentile[12] with an impact factor that would be typical for sociology (I don't have numbers for religious studies specifically).
Frontiers in Psychology is ranked at the 78th percentile[13] and has an impact factor that's double the typical level for psychology.
I would accept a recent review article, within the usual scope of their field, from any of these journals. I wonder if the problem here is less about the source and more about what the source is being used for. For example, the 1991(!) Cult Med Psy article might be more useful for "Some people have a different concept of death than modern medicine!" than for "It is a definite fact that even though his heart stopped beating last week and he hasn't moved or breathed since then, he's still alive". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely get behind an argument that we need to look at what sources are used for. My main interest is preventing some sort of WP:PROFRINGE of the empirical claims associated with Tukdam. There is obvious interest in these subjects from a cultural studies, anthropological, sociological, and comparative religious perspective. The issue I have always had with this particular research group is the attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience, physiology, and even quantum physics(!). There is some shoehorning that I see by the group itself and even more that got laundered into previous versions of our own article text. jps (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I listed Tukdam at WP:FTN, it had been discussed at WT:DYK[14] and transcluded onto the talk page from Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam. Two editors other than myself had supported the removal of the "Scientific research" section. The primary author of the article restored it.[15] Above, it was mentioned that FTN discussions should be linked from relevant notice boards. Issues about Tukdam had already been raised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism weeks before hand.[16] I've added links to both this discussion and the one at FTN just now.[17] If I noticed a problem (a faith-based belief being misrepresented as an evidence-based hypothesis), but I "didn't grasp the language" used by a specialized field, I think posting to a relevant notice board was the correct thing to do. Despite conflicts, do you think that the changes made since the issue was raised improve or worsen the article, Warrenmck? Rjjiii (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the changes made so far have been good, and was quick myself to question Tricycle as a source being... not great in the context of that article. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on an editorial decision being presented as based on the faith of the author. An identical conclusion could have been arrived at in any other way, but it's not on me or other editors to discern if just open bigotry is actually masking an in-depth discussion which warrants consideration. If those points exist, then editors should cite them and not the religion of a given academic.
Even if I wholly agreed with every change made (which for the most part, minus the removal of the scientific studies section which I'm still unclear why you and others are calling for its removal, we do agree on) nothing would change in that lines like
It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.
You're not going to stop my evaluations of religious nonsense by posting to village pump. I'm allowed to make judgement calls in the cause of protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims. jps (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Warrenmck here. Wikipedia isn't pro- or anti-anything, except pro-verifiability and neutrality. Everyone is allowed to make judgement calls within Wiki rules and consensus (which terms as hyperbolic and farcical do not imply). It's also worth examining what is actually notable about these beliefs; that they exist among a community, or that it wouldn't pass peer-review? A majority of the time with any movement/philosophy (religious or other), it's the former. We could do this about almost anything, like Jesus' resurrection or optimism/pessimism. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that often you want to say something like "Some of these people believe ____". Sometimes an article needs to say "____ is not factually true" (e.g., List of common misconceptions). And I would add a third category: "____ was sensationally claimed in the news/has become a common stereotype in popular culture/was a widespread internet meme in YYYY". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the imprimatur of a "research group" was being laundered as a way to claim that there was "serious investigation" into whether or not meditating champions would be able to continue meditating after death and thereby prevent their corpses from decaying. This is pretty WP:BLUESKY nonsense. I do not see how it is at all defensible. jps (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You again removed the section in question, with the edit comment of
Get better sources if you think there is anything here. These sources are shit.
There's a content dispute here, but also a fundamental behaviour and WP:OWN issue. At no level is how you're engaging with this appropriate. It feels like you have far more of an issue with the fact that the research group exists at all, rather than any substantive issue with their findings. UW Madison and their research group focused on this are credible, and they've published their results in journals like Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos. They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Ideologically driven editing has no place here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're turning this into a conduct discussion forum, I'd say the bigger problem is that you're supporting poor content based on a poor source. I don't think of this as being a common issue with your work, and my good-faith guess is that maybe your involvement in this conduct dispute is putting up some content blinkers. You've repeatedly restored, for example, a wiki-voice claim that a named individual "remained in tukdam for 13 days". That's obviously not appropriate. If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinions on the exact verbiage of the section before you changed it a lot recently. I have strong objections to the removal of the entire section on absurd grounds that the source isn't good. Not once have you actually raised a specific concern with the source other than what amounts to "C'mon, look at it" which several of us have and have seen no particular issue with.
If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples?
I frankly think the issues around the sources being rejected due to what appears to just be personal incredulity is pretty much is the cleanest possible example, here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, while I also don't think that line is worth including:
a) I think the idea that a whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line is obviously absurd.
b) The source in question I also agree seems fine. Notably it does not endorse that line.
Like a lot of FTN content disputes I'm not entirely sure why it's even happening. It feels like the "skeptic" side, huge airquotes, has dug their heels into an aesthetic commitment so hard they haven't even actually bothered to look at the source. Loki (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source explicitly endorses that line, saying "Ling Rinpoche remained in the state for 13 days, exhibiting a fresh life-like appearance in the humid subtropical climate of Dharamsala until the thirteenth day when initial decompositional signs appeared." In context, "the state" unambiguously refers to the tukdam state. As for "whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line": what a weird and untrue guess at the motivation for the removal. Which edit summary hinted at anything of the sort? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sentence would benefit from a re-write. For example, consider "This study began in 1995 after a discussion between neuroscientist Richard Davidson and the Dalai Lama about the meditative death of Kyabje Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body did not show visible signs of decomposition until then." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would go even further with who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body was said by monks and other believers to have not showndid not show visible signs of decomposition until then. jps (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source make that claim, or is that your editorialization? Because when I glanced through it I didn’t see the bifurcation in claims you’re making. I can imagine a whole bunch of environmental variables factoring in but you seem very hung up on a form split between what the source says and what you personally deem credible, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask editors to filter papers through your personal incredulity as a standard before editing.
It’s not like the implication in any of these papers is “a specific theology is true!” and in your race to editorialize you’re possibly inventing caveats and conclusions not in the papers in question.
The source begins the narrative with the phrase 'The Dalai Lama described' and follows that description for a while, so jps's paraphrase would seem to be a fair summary and not editorialization. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source: Journals aren't primary/secondary/tertiary sources per se; they're publications in which multiple individual primary/secondary/tertiary sources are published.
All first-time reports of scientific research are primary sources for the results of that research. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good. An article that provides comments on the research would be a secondary source, even if those comments say something like "Look at this huge waste of research money" or "All the experts we contacted thought this was a huge joke" or "Here's more proof that peer review doesn't indicate importance, and journal editors aren't immune to clickbait fodder", and even if that commentary is in a popular/non-academic publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I echo you in emphasizing that a single research paper is a primary source -- if there's no other research coming out, then I'd be very cautious about mentioning such a paper at all or its conclusions (and especially not summarize them more than they choose to summarize themselves in their own abstract and conclusions sections).
U:jps had an odd comment about the credibility of the UWisc group (with sentiment echoed by others) that included The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. This seems odd in that one of the issues of wp:Parity is the relative lack of typical RS that challenge fringe claims; so here a typical RS is critically assessing fringe Tukdam claims, yet therefore this becomes in itself a reason for prejudice against the RS's reliability?
I don't see that objective scientific inquiry needs to be defended (even if the investigator has personal biases, which we all do). Nonetheless, as the EEG paper outlines (as have a couple more I've seen investigating similar stuff), investigating this sort of thing raises all sorts of interesting methodological questions in several fields. Usually the conclusions of these sorts of papers is not the most important part. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evaluation of a claim should be contextual and methodological, absolutely, and that's also why the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me. To take another example, there are a number of null-result papers published in Journal of Scientific Exploration that would otherwise be used to prove certain wacky ideas "taken seriously" which, y'know, isn't true because even those WP:BLUESKY conclusions don't receive notice. To behave otherwise risks us becoming cherry-pickers. I take WP:REDFLAG to be my lodestar. The idea is that you want multiple serious, independent relevant researchers arguing there is a there there before Wikipedia should be going on and on about that kind of "they take us seriously argument".
Shroudies are another good example of this. The amount of ink spilled about what is obviously a medieval forgery is absurd, but the faithful will point to the ludicrous number of "investigations" that start from square one and apply yet another test to the thing as evidence that science takes them seriously. It doesn't.
I feel that this reaction is a degree of defensiveness that is not compatible with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia goes by the sources and not whether the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously by the scientific establishment. Like, the thing you are describing is just not a thing that Wikipedia can or should consider at all. Loki (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are tasked with deciding whether a source is reliable for the claim it is making. If there are few to no citations that notice a WP:PRIMARY source, we typically do not lean heavily on it. jps (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who this is directed towards, but I think this is something of an inversion of my point. The "righting of great wrongs" is typically what I see being pushed by those who are arguing, "hey, this WP:FRINGE idea deserves more consideration." jps (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pack's comment sounds fair to me. We see editors in some areas trying to make sure that readers are "protected from" certain ideas. We're happy to invoke NOTCENSORED for (e.g.) sexual content, or whether Santa Claus exists, but we are less inclined to expose readers to POVs that we don't agree with and that we believe should be considered a "scientific fact/falsehood".
In such cases, saying "This idea exists" is interpreted by editors as "This idea deserves more consideration". In this case, you can look at the facts and come up with several responses: "Huh, those people think meditation happens in the heart, so it was stupid of them to test the brain". Or "Look at the stupid research ideas people spend money on". Or "I wonder why they tried to apply medical technology to their spiritual practice". But the worry from the RGW-ish editors is that somebody might read it and say "Wow, finding out whether dead bodies can still meditate must be a worthy scientific endeavor instead of a candidate for the BMJ's Christmas edition. I believe in science, so now I believe in meditation after death!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not as concerned with reader reaction as I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here. I am hoping to evaluate the worthiness of article text on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. I argue that the proper amount to include for many claims that strain credulity on the basis of a WP:Notability vs. prominence basis is zero. jps (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here
There very clearly is, though. This isn't the only neuroscience group doing work with Buddhist monks, and that doesn't mean that the researchers involved in those research groups are making, laundering, or even agreeing with any theological claims. This isn't a particularly unknown thing among neuroscientists as far as I know, and it speaks a lot more to "interesting brains" than validating any kind of theology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ19:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to go down the hall and knock on the doors of a few neuroscientists and ask what if they have heard about performing EEGs on corpses on the basis of tukdam and whether there is a legitimate research question to answer by doing so. I'll do the same. Then we can report back. jps (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is following the logic. You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. (Various reasons for this -- but even those who consider fringe theories in themselves worth their time may decide ignoring them is a good strategy; others feel they should be positively debunked; afaik there is not an objectively "correct" position given basically identical goals.) That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory. Whether you feel that, ethically or whatever, any scientists should investigate fringe theories ever, is your own thing, but it has and will occasionally happen, and scientists will do it in a certain way, and I don't know how you would expect it to be done differently. And without those occasional RS, the only source of parity (or parody) on fringe topics is from snarky self-qualified skeptic bloggers. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly this. We're obligated to use the WP:BESTSOURCES on a topic, and clearly a study saying "he's dead Jim" is a stronger source than a science blogger snarkily conjecturing "he's dead Jim", regardless of what you feel about the beliefs of the people who did the study or if it was worthwhile to do it in the first place. Loki (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, remembering one particularly well-written informal review, Andrade and Radhakrishnan 2009 made a point that there are very good theological and philosophical reasons for rejecting or debunking claims of empirically-testable spiritual intervention on Earth. (Indeed, once the spiritual becomes scientifically empirical, it by definition is no longer spiritual.) A number of religious authorities have learned this lesson, as have religious scientists. A faithful Buddhist may (or may not) have every reason than any skeptic to want to see the empirical claims of Tukdam disproven. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I think that providing facts (including facts about opinions, spiritual beliefs, perspectives, and errors) is an important service to the world. I do not subscribe to the belief that all publicity is good publicity or that describing the wide diversity of people's beliefs is promoting fringe subjects. I also don't believe that it's Wikipedia's job decide which beliefs are worthy of being learned about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at slight differences of opinions about where we draw the line for WP:NFRINGE. I am just less of an inclusionist and like to be dragged kicking and screaming over the line to articlespace presentation. jps (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's even more odd to me in this whole mess of a discussion is that a lot of the research motivations are clearly independent of the religious or fringe-adjascent claims; it's just a desire for more data on the state of the brain at the moments around death. Couple that with a population eager to probe that specific thing and you have a basis for a fairly ethical approach to a very sticky study subject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all convinced that these are the motivations, but I also don't think the motivations ultimately matter. What does matter is the lack of third-party notice. jps (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like the goalposts keep moving. We can't say this; there's no scientific research. Oh, there's scientific research, but we still can't say this, because we need someone to comment on the research. Oh, there was a television program commenting directly on the research? Well, we still can't say it, because the television program isn't truly independent. Oh, now you've got an article in a reputable daily newspaper analyzing the television program's analysis of the scientific research and that doesn't appear to be written by someone with any personal connections to this subject and which also didn't interview anyone even remotely involved in this? Well, that still won't do, because, um, I'll think of something, but a self-self-published website like Quackwatch would be infinitely preferable to whatever sources actually exist.
A documentary called Tukdam: Point of Death, apparently. The newspaper describes it as "The strangest programme of this week — or of any week for a long time" and provided some analytical commentary (e.g., comparisons to the popular Christian tradition of ascribing saintly values to physical Incorruptibility). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to watch this documentary, but have failed. Maybe because it only appeared on Irish TV? Unclear. If you know how I can watch it, I would be grateful. jps (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't attempted to watch the documentary. I think the newspaper article provides enough information about it to give me an idea of its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely true that one of the biggest complaints of WP:PROFRINGE is that Wikipedians dismiss their proposed sourcing as unreliable. To wit, I don't think I've seen much in the way of reliable sourcing that post-death brain activity is a hot topic except among those religious believers who, as part of their faith, believe that this is a possibility. jps (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability isn't about whether it's "a hot topic". Reliability is whether we trust (aka are willing to "rely on") a source for a given statement. Whether something's a hot topic is a matter for NPOV rather than reliability.
We see this all the time in medical topics. A loussy primary source actually is reliable for a statement like "In YYYY, one study found that pouring gasoline on cancer cells reliably killed them". The problem is that the space in an article should be focused on less stupid forms of cancer research (because even if Wikipedia has an infinite supply of pixels, reader attention does not have a correspondingly infinite number of minutes to spend on reading the article). In this case, if you put "tukdam" into your favorite news search engine, basically all the sources are trying to explain whether it can be proven to exist via modern technology. Ergo it is DUE for the article mention something about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the model of "putting tukdam in your favorite search engine" to test for whether a perspective on a topic deserves inclusion is valid. I think WP:FRIND asks us to consider broader impacts. jps (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: You should put "tukdam" in your favorite search engine and see which independent sources you can find. If your favorite search engine happens to be news.google.com, you should find a couple dozen sources that were not written by any of the authors of the EEG study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is all that I find when I do that:
Big Think starts out with "It’s definitely happening, and it’s definitely weird. After the apparent death of some monks, their bodies remain in a meditating position without decaying for an extraordinary length of time, often as long as two or three weeks." [18]
The only other article is from mindmatters.ai which is a publication by the Discovery Institute(!) I beg your forgiveness that I stop right there.
So one article that starts out pretty miserably is all that I'm seeing, but maybe you're getting better results than I.
So it feels like, unintentionally, the exact situation I’m griping about has played out at full volume here. A subset of FTN regulars has shown up first attempting to shut down any discussion (I can’t help but notice I’ve been told I’ve been “warned” for citing a source someone here didn’t like, and told I’m being WP:PROFRINGE for the same) and refusing to avoid strawmanning, expounded on personal extra-policy values of “not accidentally giving a topic credibility” when the entire argument around that is something failing a vibe check (rather than anything to do with WP:RS) and in general just engaging in WP:RGW behaviour.
The editorial standards several users here advocate for are patently absurd. We are not qualified to evaluate if peer-reviewed publications have subtle implicit biases that poison the data in a way that the referees, with their actual qualifications, at various journals weren’t able to spot. We are being told that any scientific investigation into religious claims must be treated as fringe, even when the results are exactly what would be expected and make no extraordinary claims. We are meant to take it on face value that this entire endeavour is an attempt to legitimize a religion using science, and we must ignore specific and reasonable claims as to why scientists might actually be interested in this and must instead condemn academics for even daring to look at this.
This isn’t policy, this isn’t how Wikipedia works, and this is actively worsening articles. Editors in here have made it abundantly clear that they’re explicitly and openly not engaging with these topics in good faith, which goes back to my entire point posting this here where active derision of topics relating to religions seems to be the only acceptable approach to much of FTN. Given that this has come up with multiple editors, it does seem like there’s possibly a culture problem at FTN that warrants addressing and possibly greater oversight.
I’ve seen this come up time and time again when the actual understanding of a topic differs from the popular understanding of FTN. We saw it at panspermia, where a segment of FTN decided that plain as day sources right in front of them were secondary to their personal understanding of a topic. We’ve seen it at the Cunning folk and Mormonism thread, where editors viewed “cunning folk” as an attempt to whitewash magic and no amount of “this is the term used in academia” seemed to counter those laundering concerns. We see it here again, where the personal incredulity of editors who cannot begin to believe that neuroscientists may have a secular, academic interest in a specific type of brain activity. I can’t help but notice how much of the arguments here hinge on “this research group is taking something seriously that they shouldn’t be” without a single actual substantive argument to back that up. We’re being expected to take those arguments as serious and meaningful when they’re merely an opinion of an editor. In all cases WP:RS instantly caves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is made pretty explicitly with
Do I want to have an article on a fringe topic? I'm not sure I do?
This isn’t improving Wikipedia. It’s making certain topics a nightmare to edit on because as it stands FTN cannot be wrong and FTN users are never wrong in their understanding of fringe. Evidence of a misunderstand is always just another WP:PROFRINGE user trying to concern-troll away good articles with PROFRINGE content and anyone who disagrees is, well, see the first large reply this post elicited.
To me, it seems pretty arrogant to declare that a slightly contrary WikiPhilosophy of your fellow Wikipedians "isn't improving Wikipedia". This is the kind of rhetoric I see in radical inclusionist spaces often, and it strikes me as inflammatory at best and toxic at worst, which feels like a bit of WP:KETTLE irony considering your complaint is largely that you (or those who follow closer to your editing philosophy) are feeling put upon. I should hope that people advocate for approaches because they think they are right. Differences of opinion are likely to occur, and the solution doesn't have to be thesis/antithesis. If you think that you aren't being heard, then maybe consider the massive length of this discussion. jps (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think 90% of this is just common content dispute, with the added complication that Warren keeps describing the policy-based objections to his proposed content as IDONTLIKEIT or "merely an opinion" or lacking in substance. That's pretty typical as well, though it is exhausting. If our goal is to get back to the core concern, which I understand to be allegations of a systemic conduct problem at FTN, I'd suggest that identifying examples where Warren isn't personally part of the dispute might get us some distance from the common content disputes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the policy-based objections to his proposed content—When the purportedly policy-based objection in a particular case was 'the sources were created by Buddhists' and ignores all other context (that the research was conducted through a research center at a secular university, that the reported result was the rather normal 'the dead monk is dead'), and when the general concern is said to be with patterns of objections that on examination boil down to 'the source/author can be connected to religion', I am hard-pressed to see the substance or policy basis of the objection. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries at Tukdam don't seem to haven't gotten much beyond claims like "get better sources" and "This is all WP:FRINGE nonsense claims. Unless non-believers find it worthy of notice, it is not worthy" (the nonsense claim that dead brains don't give off brain activity?). And in this discussion, comments like describing the author as "this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation" and must therefore be unsuitably "influenced by a blinkered religious devotion", or saying that he (JPS) is protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims (the unblinkered, religiously devoted act of saying that... dead brains gave off no brain activity?) For where JPS hasn't hammered at the religious connections of an author, I think Loki has described the situation well in saying JPS seems to say that the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously and that this, somehow, makes the sources unusable for our purposes on Wikipedia. To quote another editor from a recent discussion, JPS continues to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary; the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel becomes a reason to consider the whole enterprise, seculary university and all, as untrustworthy, and this despite our community having a guideline that reminds us that a reliable source can be biased; we just try not to reproduce the bias.Add to that the expressions of pride in being uncooperative with other editors (preferring "to be dragged kicking and screaming", professing to "enjoy having arguments", and taking on a brusque, short tone that doesn't strike me as treating other editors as respected colleagues rather than as ideological enemies), an attitude of behavior that's explicitly contrary to Wikipedia's expectation that we be reasonably cooperative, and Warrenmck's exhaustion seems pretty understandable. All this time and energy gets put into trying to assuage JPS's concern (except JPS is not interested in being assuaged; JPS explicitly would apparently rather have arguments and be dragged kicking and screaming) instead of getting put into doing as Loki brought up: trimming the content to be its best and most relevant, neutral version. Instead, by repeatedly pushing total exclusion of even the notion that anyone checked for brain activity (and found none!), we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel
It’s worth pointing out this sort of conciliatory tone is pretty common when working with minority ethnic/faith groups. It’s a bad look for researchers to get permission to study a topic within a minority community and turn around and (from the perspective of the community you’re working in) insulting them. “Yeah, their religious belief is wrong” isn’t exactly a shining example of research ethics.
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general. Researchers tend not only to take a neutral tone, but I've often seen that if they're in a paper that's going to objectively demonstrate not-X, they will take a tone that is generous and often deferent to the position of X (among other reasons to indicate that they investigated any alternative hypotheses). (My favorite example of this is from papers on dog and cat cognition, which the authors typically introduce with something along the lines of 'It is scientifically obvious that cats are reproduction machines motivated solely by food, with never any objective evidence of emotion', and the paper proceeds to prove that cats do love their owners. 'Further research is recommended.') SamuelRiv (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general
oh, for sure. Just when it comes to minority groups, especially those who have faced substantial hardship, that tone goes into overdrive. When it comes to scientific investigations of spiritual practices, especially when done in cooperation with monastic/preistly/ordained communities it’s best not to make them feel that working with you is directly undermining their own faith/beliefs/identity (etc.) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ03:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for better sources and reverting because content violates FRINGE are both good moves. The sourcing was poor, and FRINGE was being violated. JPS clearly articulated at the FTN discussion and at the talk page at least one way in which the content violated FRINGE, and it had nothing to do with anyone being a believer. Warren reverted to restore the content saying that JPS's reason was just "not liking the research group". I raised REDFLAG concerns, which Warren dismissed as "personal incredulity". I'm not saying anyone's conduct here was perfect, but I have an extremely difficult time seeing W's action as clearing the "reasonably cooperative" bar you mention. Incidentally, "we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle" isn't true for the "checked for brain activity (and found none!)" part of the disputed content. It's been sitting in the article for a few days now with at least rough talk page consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My current opinion is that WP:Fringe itself may be better placed as an explanatory essay, with original P&G sections woven back into their core P&G: Parity under NPOV/DUE, NFringe under Notability, etc.. The role of FTN is overlapped by existing noticeboards, which handle fringe theories and editors regularly without much issue. As a cultural matter, it may be that the referral of editors to FTN, the labelling of their content as "fringe" as opposed to a violation of general policy, itself invites the long often-heated content debates that seem to most often characterize the board.
Closing a noticeboard is a big step, (as would be rearranging a P&G page, but that's the lesser one), and I'd like to spend more time watching there before making a definitive judgement on my own part, but I do see the problems identified, and this is a possible way to try to address them. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if closing FTN would actually help. When a group of editors feels like their interests are served by working together, then it's pretty difficult to get them to stop. We could close FTN and discover that Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism becomes a lot busier, or that coordination is happening off wiki.
What I find strange is that this stems from the Tukdam article saying in wikivoice that individuals where still alive after they had died. No-one should be disrespecting religious beliefs, but the context for such things should be that they are beliefs.
If editors have been making uncivil or disrespectful remarks that should be rectified, editors shouldn't interject their own opinions on other people's beliefs it's not helpful or constructive. Equally editors shouldn't be stating beliefs as if they were factually true. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, at no point have I objected to removing that line. The only thing I objected to was a total section blanking. Me undoing the blanking wasn't a tacit endorsement of the whole text that was there before and I agree that religious beliefs shouldn't be presented in wikivoice and that line was inappropriate there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors restoring content are endorsing it, by restoring it you are taking responsibility for it. Any section with that in was inappropriate, if it had been restored after improvements that would have been another matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted a section blanking and immediately took it to the talk page as clearly it was contentious. That's not out of line. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The section was blanked with "removing WP:FRINGE claims" as the sole edit comment. It is very clear that the entire section isn't just fringe claims and it's very clear that the user in question who blanked it has a significant ideological axe to grind they seem unable to leave out of their editing. Here's the diff. Considering how very blatant the bigotry motivating these edits has been, a revert and the comment on the talk page was appropriate. Re-reading this to pull the diff I actually think an ANI would have been appropriate a while ago for some of the open bigotry and how absurd the WP:OWN situation has gotten but by now I think it'd just be rehashing this argument and go nowhere. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it may be warranted, but I’m holding off. We have here two issues:
1) a possible systemic issue with FTN and religious topics
2) an editor who is openly editing with prejudice as a base, flinging around accusations, and inventing new site policies to get their way in a content dispute
at this point this whole thing feels… weird. One editor is blanking sections they ideologically disagree with, attacking a source for the source’s religion which has nothing to do with the results, going around “warning” editors for citing sources they don’t like, and just moving goalposts over and over to create a specific interpretation of policy that by all appearances is designed to arrive at a specific foregone conclusion.
But the discussion has become “Why didn’t you remove that one line when you restored the article? You restored bad faith page blanking so now you’re responsible for it.” and broader discussions around the article. The problem is so much time has been spent discussing the behaviour of one (or two, to include me in fairness) editors that the entire point has either been lost or poisoned, because whatever issue with FTN I was bringing up here never got to this extreme with “no they’ve got religion so we can’t trust them” as a basis for editing that people mostly just seem fine glossing over?
If I’m the wrong here I’ll own up to it, but “I don’t see a reliable source for the claim that there’s academic interest in this topic” in response to a research group and a half dozen peer reviewed papers is cut and dry not engaging in good faith. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ00:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that other editors are mystified how you think it is a problem to say that these REDFLAG claims have been debunked. Compare:
Homeopathy repeatedly says there's scientific evidence against it.
Hoxsey Therapy says there's scientific evidence against it.
Faith healing says there's scientific evidence against it.
But Tukdam – Whoa, we can't say there's scientific evidence against that. That might make people think this religious belief was a valid subject of scientific inquiry!
I know you support the first three. What's so wildly different about someone claiming that a special person can channel divine powers vs someone claiming that an equally special person can meditate after their physical death? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One very small part of what jps removed was about scientific evidence against tukdam, sort of. That brief bit was outweighed by caveats about the research barriers, wikivoice claims that tukdam is real, and promotional content about the research team. The article is better off now that we briefly summarize a published study, but removing the problematic content was an incremental improvement over the status quo ante. Any supporter of the good bits of the content could have partially restored the good bits, just as jps could have partially removed the bad bits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Comments from jps say all of this content is an attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever and an attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience. He objects to providing information that someone could use as a "they take us seriously argument". He does not want Wikipedia to say anything that supports any claims that there is scientific endeavor found here. He does not believe that there is a legitimate research question to answer, so he does not want Wikipedia to report that people have done the research. He opposes having Wikipedia acknowledge the verifiable fact that these studies were done, regardless of their outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed content started with "Western scientific interest has grown", cited to the self-published website of the research group in question, so many of those concerns are well-founded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my impression that except in the case of violations of copyright or BLP, leaving a page in the status quo ante state is considered reasonable during content disputes. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think it's not a bad call, and I'm a regular at FTN. There's too much of a power user concern, and it either needs to not be a full on noticeboard or it needs to be diluted with people who share a goal of improving wikipedia and addressing WP:NPOV concerns but who can do so without a personal religious views very explicitly dictating their editing. Its function is better served as a noticeboard but the commitment to Wikipedia policies is not as strict as it should be for a noticeboard. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what's being done here is exclusively slandering scholarship as pseudo-scholarship, purely on the basis of the topic and the faith of the author, despite results which are 0% unexpected or WP:PROFRINGE. @SamuelRiv summarized how I see this whole situation best:
You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. [...] That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory.
I think they're meant to be concerned with Pseudo-scholarship, but what we're seeing here is a: at times a majority of FTN is about religious pages and b: FTN is inventing their own conception of pseudo-scholarship and declaring perfectly reasonable academics guilty of it.
See also: the whole panspermia thing
I think there's a lot of "FTN is ____" in here which is a nice ideal but doesn't actually pan out to the experience of FTN. Note I'm not calling for getting rid of it, I just think that FTN by its very nature attracts people who are more on the militant side of skeptic in a way that gets disruptive. I've left it pretty well alone but scroll up and look at the "warning" I received for citing Frontier, then go look at FTN at the context of the "warning" I received coupled with how many times here I've been accused of being WP:PROFRINGE for not damnatio memoriae-ing a peer-reviewed source and tell me if this behaviour is compatible with the norms of Wikipedia or building a better encyclopedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ19:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warrenmck, i can't help but recall this thread from more than a year ago. I could not care less whether otherkin are viewed as a religion or not, but am just hanging out to find sources for a hard-working group who make a positive impact on the project. If you are at such a hair trigger and on such a mission to get others to conform to your worldview then no wonder you are finding it "exhausting".Looking at some of the threads you've pointed to i would probably agree that Stapley shouldn't be dismissed so readily and to take a closer look at the content. But i would probably say that content does not justify keeping the current title and it should probably move to 'folk magic' or similar. I disagree with "the regulars" at FTN sometimes, no big deal.As far as getting Egon Spengler and his UW Madison group's research into the article, well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious. A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis. Maybe try something different because that tactic is one seen probably 2-3 times a day by "the regulars". I shudder to think what some of the content would look like if there wasn't opposition to that view. The test here for such speculative (admittedly so in the papers) is whether or not other researchers take notice. That's pretty objective and from what i've seen mostly applied across the board on a wide variety of topics by "the regulars", but of course no one gets everything right all the time.fiveby(zero) 04:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I’ve also basically been working on rewriting the entire Otherkin article in that time, feel free to check its edit history. Like I said, I’m a regular at FTN and I try tackling a lot of the faith-centric stuff that comes up at FTN because I’ve got a bit of a formal background in religious studies. I may as well edit in a broad area I know, though I do mostly stay out of Mormonism threads since I don’t know it as well.
I’m not just complaining, I’m actively putting in the work to improve these articles. Let me be a little more clear about my frustration with this: I think FTN has one tool, a hammer, and has decided that they’re collective experts on identifying nails. It can simply result in worse quality articles, the reason I’ve brought up the Panspermia example here is it’s a very cut and dry non-fringe case of FTN just deciding that evidence cannot be allowed to counter their understanding.
well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious.
I agree! But what’s happening here isn’t caution, it’s bigotry. It’s very clearly bigotry. I don’t see the benefit to sanitizing accusations of bigotry, because “these aren’t academics, they’re religious believers and we should ignore their output” is bigotry.
FTN is great with quack medicine, UFOs, etc. but the second the Venn diagram overlaps with spirituality or faith there’s this sort of gleeful attitude of taking the religious down a peg, and not just when it comes to editors but apparently authors of research papers. We have an editor in here accusing authors, baselessly, of academic impropriety, using that accusation to edit articles on the basis of open bigotry, and and I don’t know why we’re tolerating that. We’ve seen recent topic bans for that exact behaviour recently.
A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis.
You do realize the source being argued about here rejects Tukdam, yes? It’s at no level pro-fringe, an editor just doesn’t like the religion of the author and is just being disruptive on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very clearly bigotry? That is rather strong don't you think? Wikipedia's purpose concerns readers, information, and knowledge. I take these arguments expressed in opposition to your to be just that: views concerning readers, information, and knowledge; and how WP should work towards achieving that purpose. I have certain opinions concerning these matters which generate a negative reaction to, for instance, new-agers, postmodernists, evolutionary psychologists, and Canadians.Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam? Applying that standard i would feel would lack objectivity and be a little dishonest. I try to be objective and honest but am probably as full of shit as the next editor.I'm sure "the regulars" would benefit from hearing about and adapting to my views on how they should edit, but somehow image that preaching to them about it would likely be an unproductive use of everyone's time. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhists make great academics up to the point they argue in favor of dogmatic religious positions in ways that WP:REDFLAG. Arguing that Tukdam is a physical or biological state is a common position of a very particular set of religious believers and, to my knowledge, exactly one American academic group housed at a secular institution is led by such a religious believer. To be clear, I find it admirable that he is open about his belief in contrast to the mess that we are in when trying to consider Ian Stevenson's undercover connections to theosophy. By the way, there is another research group in St. Petersburg, Russia -- but I haven't figured out what they are all about as the sourcing for their stuff is very obscure. jps (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam?
Because that’s the sourcing standard we actively want on potentially fringe topics? This is the only instance I can think of with FTN actively calling for the removal of evidence against a fringe stance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been around enough, then. We have removed loving debunkings (and accounts) of lots of extreme fringe positions on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. Just off the top of my head, editors gutted the article on modern geocentrism and replaced it with an economic redirect. jps (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn’t a debunking paper. There were perfectly valid secular motivations. That you don’t accept them as truthful is a personal thing and not relevant to Wikipedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the example, but WP:AGF would be gaslighting myself here, at this point. You’ve made it excruciating clear you’ve got a serious prejudice here and you’re using it to inform your editing and I’m afraid I’m tired of pretending otherwise. As other editors have pointed out, it seems like you’re engaging in WP:WGR and accusing academics of impropriety on the basis of their religion in they absence of any actual evidence and constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repeatedly in the face of secular interest in this topic.
If you can’t maintain WP:NPOV on these topics you can’t demand other editors treat your POV as neutral in the face of very direct and explicit claims from you to the contrary, and I’m far from the only person interpreting your statements as bigotry. I’m happy enough to just not engage with you at all if you’d prefer, but I’m done pretending there’s been a fruitful endeavour here (seriously, how many times have you directly accused me of being WP:PROFRINGE now? Or playing admin and “warning” me for citing a source you didn’t like?) or that this hasn’t just been you refusing to hear what people are saying about your behaviour here and pretending it’s just just me with an issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful."
This is measured according to their own (probably wrong) idea of what would help Wikipedia. That means that if an editor believes (however wrongly) that applying a religious litmus test to sources would help Wikipedia, and so they apply such a test, then that editor is acting in good faith. (It does not matter whether the test is pro- or anti-religious.) You might call it "screwing up in good faith", but it's still good faith. Good-faith actions can be harmful.
The opposite of "acting in good faith" is "deliberately screwing up for the actual, direct purpose of hurting Wikipedia". The opposite is not "holds POVs that I find reprehensible" or "espouses views that, if expressed during a job interview, would constitute discrimination against a protected class in my country". That latter point is for Wikipedia:Civility, not for AGF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of FTN’s favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind and openly explicitly running away editors who engage in ideologically driven fringe editing. Yeah, at some point it’s possible to just lose sight of being able to see how someone is viewing their own behaviour, sincerely, as helping build an encyclopedia. I’m only human.
The fact that an admin is cheerleading this bigotry to an extent is appalling, in my time here I’ve come to expect much better from Wikipedia. Maybe I’m just wrong here but I’ve firmly hit a brick wall here and should probably disengage and take a wikibreak. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ21:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's precisely correct. FTN probably does run some editors off. (I've run a couple off myself; discouraging would-be contributors who are net harmful to Wikipedia is not an inherently bad thing.) I don't think FTN is known for saying that these editors intend to be harmful; instead, they're known for saying that editors actually are harmful. AGF only requires us to acknowledge that most harm is a misguided attempt to help.
Compliance with AGF means "I reverted that because it's wrong" or "That's not appropriate content for Wikipedia" instead of starting it with "You intentionally vandalized Wikipedia on purpose!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, bad faith is a very rare problem on Wikipedia. In the context of FRINGE, far more harmful would be (say) a true believer, desperate that the world should be exposed through Wikipedia to their discovery that energy can be derived from a perpetual motion machine. Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the work in question is a primary research result, it shouldn't get more than a passing mention, regardless of its outcome. The only reason we might give it more attention is for FRINGE parity purposes -- if it is the best source we have to contextualize a pseudoscientific claim that is otherwise DUE in the article, it can be used even if it's not at the quality level we normally expect for scientific topics. However, what I suspect @ජපස is concerned about is that this research article really isn't the best way to contextualize pseudoscientific claims because a) it is at least partly sponsored by adherents, and such sources are directly discouraged in several places of WP:FRINGE; and b) using that source actually introduces pseudoscientific claims about tukdam that otherwise wouldn't be in our article, since it actively pierces the veil between religious belief and science that had been maintained up to that point (or at least would be easily achieved by simply removing the in-universe language, without needing any additional sources). By discussing scientific investigation of a religious belief, we're also presenting the pro-fringe position that the belief has any scientific basis at all; if we're going to do this, that position should either already be DUE (i.e. it has had significant secondary discussion by RS that don't debunk it themselves) or the study garnered enough secondary attention itself. But neither of those conditions is the case here, and furthermore the study has a clear conflict of interest in its partnership and predictably tries very hard to legitimize its (pseudo)scientific rationale. That its outcome rejects the fringe stance is irrelevant since the fringe stance apparently isn't even published reliably elsewhere and so doesn't need to be debunked. Also, to address something raised upthread, the "secularity" of UW-Madison is completely irrelevant when the authors themselves are obviously biased -- it's not like academic research on a drug sponsored by its parent pharma company becomes independent just because it's conducted by an unaffiliated university and published in an independent journal. We are contractually obligated to disclose that CoI for a reason. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this response makes more sense to me than JPS's, I also think that it shows the blindspots of Wikipedians in this area pretty clearly.
Specifically: what "veil between religious belief and science"? The religious claim is that a bunch of people who are clearly dead right now are not dead. When people make clearly false claims in matters other than religion it doesn't suffice for us to say that "Some people believe [clearly false thing]" without also saying "but [clearly false thing] is false". I believe that what you're advocating for is in fact WP:PROFRINGE in the guise of anti-fringe. Loki (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is a "veil between religious belief and science" is a Western viewpoint. It's like the one that says it's perfectly normal and desirable for people to separate their personal beliefs from their professional actions (think "acting in my role as a corporate officer, I say let's raise the food prices after the hurricane, because price gouging will make the stockholders rich" vs "in my role as a member of the community, I say let's keep the prices for necessities as low as we realistically can").
Well, maybe it isn't appropriate – at least not in every article – but we're always going to have editors who prefer WP:SPOV over NPOV, and many of them don't even know that's what they're doing. The thing about a worldview is that it's so all-encompassing and all-consuming that you don't even know how it affects you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is explicitly discussed in FRINGE. Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects.This article should be primarily covered as a religious belief, except where it makes claims about scientific phenomena. If the Wisconsin study is the only source putting forth the idea that tukdam is a scientifically testable phenomenon, that position is probably too minor for us to cover in detail. And we should especially not amplify the opinion of an adherent regarding its scientific potential, which is what that study does even if its results are negative. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand: the problem with "debunking" a scientific claim about tukdam is that we only have the one study doing that, and that study is clearly non-neutral and presents tukdam as sympathetically as possible. That is not a good source for disabusing people of the idea -- which we introduce by discussing the study -- that tukdam might have scientific grounding or that the topic is even remotely debatable in science. Non-adherent readers could come away thinking that tukdam is scientifically plausible and "just needs more research done", rather than regarding it in the same way they would transubstantiation: as a purely spiritual concept that has no basis in physical reality. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that someone who is dead isn't really dead is transparently a scientifically testable phenomenon in a way that "Moses split the Red Sea thousands of years ago" is not. Loki (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Vajrayana system itself doesn't actually claim a person is "still alive" or suggest that there is brain activity when in tukdam -- those are positions introduced by the study to rationalize it with science. The aspects of tukdam that should actually be disputed in our article are the claims of delayed decomposition, and yet the study doesn't actually address that and instead assumes the bodies they examined really had attenuated decay. They even credulously propose additional research is warranted:
It is important to note that even if tukdam is mediated by residual electrical activity in the brainstem, this activity may generate signals that are too weak to be detected on the scalp surface or not possible to resolve owing to the limitations of our field equipment. If signal were detected, we would still need other types of data to shed light on the possible mechanisms that link brain activity and external signs of tukdam. Alternatively, if activity (or in this case, lack of activity) in the brain postmortem is not a mediator of the reported lack of decomposition, other biological mechanisms could be responsible. In both cases, we believe that—in addition to lifestyle, medical, and practice history—collecting blood, saliva, and tissue to investigate other potential mechanisms is key. When such fluids and tissues become available, discovery-based science with large-scale metabolomics and whole epigenome arrays can be examined.
Is it really worth diving into the possibility that tukdam is scientifically plausible if our only source for contextualizing its plausibility is one primary study, published in a low-quality journal, by people with a CoI, that uses "brain activity" as its sole proxy for postmortem meditative state and heavily couches its negative findings by noting the study limitations (like that they couldn't even evaluate anyone sooner than 26 hours after death)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that someone who is dead isn't really dead is transparently a scientifically testable phenomenon in a way that "Moses split the Red Sea thousands of years ago" is not They are both empirical claims. I don't understand the distinction unless you adopt the creationist canard, "where you there?" as a means to distinguish between "experimental" and "historical" science -- something which is so outside of the mainstream understanding of these epistemological endeavors as to be WP:BLUESKY pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to the dead body and test if its dead, which is a very simple test to do.
Conversely, while it's unlikely that a miracle happened in the distant past, it's hard to actually prove that scientifically. Loki (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm all on board for debunking pseudoscience, including religious pseudoscience. I just do not think a weak study sponsored by adherents disproving a single claim that the belief system doesn't even make itself warrants more than the handful of sentences it already has in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, while it's unlikely that a miracle happened in the distant past, it's hard to actually prove that scientifically. This is actually a pretty good object lesson for why experience dealing with fringe theories may help in providing context for how we might treat such things at Wikipedia. There is no evidence for any miracle happening in the distant past or right now. It is not "easier" to "prove" (a concept that itself is not exactly a way we approach topics in science) dead bodies are dead than there was no supernatural splitting of the Red Sea. They are both facilely the null hypotheses, and arguments to the tune of differentiating between one flavor of incredulity versus another is what we end up dealing with all the time at FTN even as fringe theories are, by definition, those ideas which are on the borders of plausibility and there is no consistent metric for demarcating which tests are easier or harder to show that.
We often get that kind of Russell's teapot argument in the service of WP:PROFRINGE that says because all that matters is the evidence, if there is no evidence then there is nothing that we can say about whether an idea is plausible. This just is not how the corpus of scientific knowledge works. You don't get to have easy versus hard tests. All are equally unlikely and all suffer from the same problem of being outside the realm of possibility when it comes to the sum-total of our worldview. You don't get meditation after death. You don't get a split Red Sea.
Business as usual. Explicitly dumping the scientific epistemology because it does not support one's views and replacing it by another has been tried by creationists, parapsychologists, astrologers and alternative medicine fans. Probably others too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written by Tawni L. Tidwell. Guest Editor: Tawni L. Tidwell. Are we at the point where we need an WP:RSP entry for these scam special issues yet? – Joe (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for me. Tidwell was a guest editor for publication of a special edition with other Tukdam research? I just matched the name from the UW Madison project site. fiveby(zero) 11:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that she was both the author the paper you linked and the editor of the journal issue it appeared in. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just going to add to my response about WP:SOURCEDEF and remembering editors part of "publication" but i completely missed "special edition". Any epistimological theories about how i could read "Center for Healthy Minds" in the footer and not "Guest Editor"? fiveby(zero) 11:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of "FTN" being used as a collective noun, as in "one of FTN's favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind". As someone who sometimes uses that noticeboard, I guess that's directed at me, too? Because otherwise why not specify who you're talking about? And if you're talking about one or more specific people, that's a matter for ANI, not VPP. Almost 2500 people have edited that page, with nearly 1200 watchers. There are some heavy users, but the top 10 editors have only made about a quarter of all edits. At the end of the day, there's gray area where people may disagree whether something deals with purely theological beliefs or whether it touches on something empirical/falsifiable/scientific. If someone is repeatedly bringing topics to FTN that fall squarely on the theological side, beyond the gray area, then deal with that person. I could be wrong, but I just don't see a consensus to get rid of WP:FRINGE or WP:FTN happening any time soon. Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this should have been an ANI. As I said above, what I came here to raise has never gotten to the extreme it has in this instance, and that’s derailed any fruitful discussion of wider systematic issues.
We both know well enough there’s a cadre of regulars, but the situation in the case that’s come up here has basically removed all ability to look at a wider issue with nuance, though the behaviour of some of the other regulars in here did help make that case a bit. After this situation I’m now of the opinion that FTN should be merged with WP:NPOVN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a recognizable tactic to attack a personified "FTN" as a proxy for this OP's perceived enemies. Textbook WP:ASPERSIONS. So yeah, this may be better at ANI but not for the reason the OP thinks. This quixotic campaign has been going on for too long across too many areas to be ignorable for much longer. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ANI me if you sincerely believe that, since you’re just teasing threats of it anyways. If my behaviour is out of line here let’s evaluate it and if sanctions are warranted they’re warranted. That’s sincere, I know my utter exasperation with you and jps hasn’t lead to my finest edits. You’ve been nothing but openly hostile and dismissive from your first reply here and your insistence that I’m on some kind of quixotic crusade falls flat in the face of me not being the only one seeing the problem here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to "ANI you", but might contribute if you end up there. Nobody else is seeing "the problem" here because there is no "the problem" stated, just a vague meta-complaint about "FTN" (initially framed as a question about religion and scope) that has valency for a small number of other users' various stances. What your basic complaint seems to boil down to is that one or two editors disagree with you on various points and have the temerity to argue their case, perhaps forcefully! There is a fairly broad spectrum of approaches to editing Wikipedia you know, and it is really not an issue if some editors fall outside the narrow band other editors prefer so long as they remain within the broad spectrum of the community as a whole. Bon courage (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're one of the editors who's bound your own take onto the meta-complaint. Hence your statement of "the issue" is different to anything the OP has stated. Bon courage (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Warrenmck saidWe cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university, I don't see how I'm as far off the mark of anything the OP has stated you claim. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A problematic campaign has gone on for too long across too many areas, but it's not Warrenmck's. The troubling campaign is the effort by a small number of editors to decide whether or not to cite sources by applying religious tests to the authors. Moving into the realm of the hypothetical, it could be right to not cite X source; it could be right to leave out Y content; but it isn't right to do so for the reason that Z credentialed scholar operating in an academic setting is [insert personal attribute, e. g. a certain race, religion, gender, nationality, etc.]. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:ASPERSIONS ("a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence"). It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption? Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not 'classic aspersions'. You have not included in consideration quotations provided elsewhere in this thread that constitute evidence and posts that explain the evidence.An author's context includes things like academic training and university posting, and members of the community seemed to arrive at a relatively strong consensus in an ANI thread from this year that considering a relevantly-trained and university-posted author uncitable for [topics related to X religion] solely because of being an adherent of [X religion] was disruptive to the point of being a reason to topic-ban an editor who applied that train of thought to Islam, removing and objecting to citations of university-press-published content about Islam solely because the content was written by Muslims. I think it'd be safe to guess that Warrenmck would agree with me that we're not lining up to defend a proselytizing or devotional publisher like Chick Tracts; the goal isn't to say that no scrutiny should be applied to books printed by "Convert People to X Religion Press". Rather, the concern is with saying that academics don't count as academics if they have a religious background, as in the example It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers, when the religious believers were also trained, credentialed, and posted at a research center of a secular state-run university. I wouldn't consider that a "religious exemption" to the necessary consideration of record and context so much as "it seems bigoted to say Muslims can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Islam even when they have academic postings at universities or that Buddhists can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Buddhism even when they have academic postings at universities". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
jps makes an interesting point. Referring to religious researchers into a fringe/religious topic as just "academics" would be a kind of POV omission in many circumstances no? Devout Catholics on the Turin Shroud? Scientologists on e-meters? Mormons on Joseph Smith? Christian Scientists on animal magnetism? Fundamentalists on the age of the Earth? All seems fair play for concern especially where WP:FRINGE claims are in play. And I agree it's not simple, all kinds of contexts for a source apply too. The "problem" here seems rather the push to deny that Wikipedia editors can raise these concerns and argue their case. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where WP:FRINGE claims are in play: And when fringe claims are not in play? The report at issue concluded that despite what some Buddhists believed, no, monks who try to meditate while dying don't display any post-mortem brain activity—dead monks, in fact, exhibit all signs of being dead. It is one thing to discount, say, a Catholic historian who says 'the Turin Shroud is definitely authentic'. It's quite another to discount a Catholic historian saying things like 'X traditional belief about the Shroud of Turin is false' Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue. But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN. In general claims of something require better sourcing than claims of nothing, if that 'nothing' is just the default null hypothesis. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue: That's good advice.But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN.: Is it? This has been a thread that is, at least in the OP, about worries of there being an attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile without necessarily having regard for whether content is actually 'fringe'. After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents ('dead monks mediate, their brains still work') was not empirically endorsed by the researchers. The source instead concluded 'when he died his brain stopped doing anything'. And yet an editor explicitly considered that non-fringe-ness irrelevant to deciding to regard it as suspect and unciteable (the words used being the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents
I think it’s also fair to point out that in contrast to many articles like this FTN gets involved in, not one editor here is taking a WP:PROFRINGE stance (accusations aside) on the content of the articles, so I’m hard pressed to actually see any fringe editing here beyond what was there at the start with editors uninvolved in this entire process.
I think raising Tukdam as it was written at FTN was reasonable, the article had some sources and phrasing which were inappropriate and I was the first editor to remove some of that content and raise Tricycle as biased in FTN. What follows wasn’t just fixing the article, but the open hostility to the article topic we’ve seen time and time again.
For what it’s worth (for Bon), I don’t see where we’re disagreeing at all and think you’re actually managing to articulate my perspectives a bit better than I can filtered through exasperation Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ18:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption?
If I may, "context" bears much weight here. Just like any other argument you can make in this vein, there is a fine line between analyzing the reliability of individual authors based on their work and what their peers have to say about it, following a complete chain of logical inferences—and skipping that work, going with the latent "vibe" based on the intersection of categories visible about the author (independently if in tandem with the reputation of the relevant institutions). The latter approach amounts to bigotry. Remsense ‥ 论06:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree; it's complicated. And at the other (wrong) extreme I can remember a push at one time to ban any research on COVID-19 if the authors had a Chinese-sounding name. Generally there are factors suggesting a source is reliable that can outweigh any reputation an author might have, but at the same time there are entire large fields of "medical" evidential research Wikipedia puts in the bin no matter how esteemed the publisher or how peer-reviewed the paper because of the field itself (e.g. homeopathy). WP:ECREE is also a factor in this; and the idea that dead people meditate is rather ... exceptional. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that dead people have been scientifically or technologically proven to meditate would indeed be exceptional. A claim that a religion says that a few dead people meditate, OTOH, is no more exceptional than when a religion says that people are mere manifestations of the universe, or that people are being reincarnated through the millennia on a path towards enlightenment, or that people have immortal souls.
AFAICT though, the the objection isn't to the religious claim, but to mentioning that science says that these people are just plain dead, according to every physical measurement they've tried so far. We've got a 526-word-long article that contains only a single sentence about modern scientific research, and even that was removed at one point. These are not difficult claims that require special skills. The religion says part of the body stays warm, so stick a thermometer on it and see if that claim matches reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them.
Look at how my interactions have gone so far in here with the user’s I’m concerned about the behaviour of and ask yourself for a half second why I’d open myself up to more of this. I’m already at the point of a wiki break and am just sticking around now in case Bon decides to ANI me so I don’t get accused of simply not responding to that.
It doesn’t appear to matter what I actually say, what a few people want me to have said gets hot replies and derails any possible discussion, and this entire thread gets derailed. And that’s not in my head. Scroll back up to the top and look at the fixation on faith healing and other things that make empirical claims when my entire thesis was very explicitly about pure theology and a secondary thing of religious intolerance. I don’t thinks it’s even possible to go back to the first point here and the second point I believe has become self evident. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the distinction was as clean as you thought there wouldn't be all this fuss about Tukdam, right? Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy. You can't expect other editors to use it a basis for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tukdam article wasn’t posted when this thread went live and I raised it as an example of the intolerance issue, not the pure-theology issue, though did mention it in the context of FTN being tactless and inexpert.
Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy.
You added the word history there, as history is most certainly not theology. And in what possible way is a belief in something utterly unfalsifiable the same as a claim that can be measured and analyzed? It’s a perfectly reasonable distinction. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added nothing, but copy and pasted the bold bit of your first post to this thread, which I assume was intended to be the main thing you were raising. So all this time you've been complaining editors aren't engaging with your post when you aren't even aware what you wrote? Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the user’s [sic] I’m concerned about the behaviour of ← and here we have it at last. You're concerned about particular user behaviour. So why is that being raised in an opaque way at VPP? Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m genuinely unsure what gotcha you think you just stumbled across. I think you’re so caught up with seeing me as some kind of enemy that you’re not taking the time to read what you’re replying to, a pattern that seems to go quite a ways back in this thread. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ05:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think of you as an "enemy" at all. But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors (maybe me? I don't know) risks exhausting the community. I really really don't think you should accuse anybody of not reading what they're responding to with quite so much 'egg on your face' (above)! Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors
What? Have you considered exactly how many of the things you’ve been at me for in this thread are utter products of your imagination? You pointed out where I made an embarrassing mistake and I immediately owned up to it, but you’ve constantly represented arguments I’ve made any way except by actually assuming I’m not hiding my real motivations. Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith, trying to stop disruptive editing, and dealing with a fair amount of direct and baseless accusations because of that? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ06:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean (which might be that you think a "cadre" of users A, B and C are problematic and need to be sanctioned).
Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith ← of for sure you are. But I also think you're wrong. Wrong about how the WP:PAGs apply and wrong about how the community operates. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean
I think it's important to remember that, in the big picture, Wikipedia's handling of fringe theories is working appropriately; see [20] in particular, which goes into depth on how good our handling of fringe topics is. (See also [21][22] for coverage.) I can understand that it is sometimes frustrating or that WP:FRINGEN can sometimes be overbearing, but I'd be strenuously opposed to any significant changes to how it operates when it is, largely, working. Dealing with the flood of fringe material on the internet is difficult, and Wikipedia is one of the few places that has coverage saying we've managed it properly despite being open for everyone to contribute; WP:FRINGEN is an important part of that. (Also, just from a skim, huge swaths of the above seem to be about disputes between a few specific editors who believe each other guilty of misconduct; that's not an issue for WP:VPP at all, and shouldn't be turned into a discussion of FRINGEN as a whole. Conduct issues with individual editors should be taken to either WP:AE or WP:ANI as appropriate.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point we're making is that we tackle fringe topics well enough, or even in the majority of the cases, without or in spite of FTN and/or WP:Fringe. And at least one of your citations cut to the point:
Steinsson 2023 makes zero mention of FTN (talks about "noticeboards that are frequented by large numbers of Wikipedians" and specifically AN, NPOVN, and BLPN), and only a cursory mention of WP:Fringe, but the bulk of the paper talks about core policies, with NPOV being central -- this may be a methodological choice.
Matsakis 2018 Wired is about Gerbic's Guerilla Skepticism, which has come under ANI scrutiny in recent years. I'm not sure if anyone should go down this rabbithole of stupid internet drama, but here is one dumb blog link. The article also makes no mention of FTN or WP:Fringe, or of any noticeboard or P&G (i.e. the role that noticeboards and policies play in general -- it's essentially praising the administrative supereffectiveness of an off-wiki cabal). My main point is that I'm not going to put much consideration into a puff piece about an off-wiki coordinating group compared to a more objective reading from the previous paper.
Cooke 2020 Wired talks neither about WP:Fringe nor FTN nor any noticeboards.
To continue on FTN, a snapshot of the noticeboard front page: I make the following measurement of its behavior as a content-conflict resolution noticeboard, versus a WP:Canvassing board as OP suggests in the title. Currently, I count 6 threads in which editors on all sides of the dispute were notified of the FTN posting/discussion in a timely manner, versus 4 threads in which they were not, and 4 additional threads which could not be evaluated in this manner. You can check my work on my sandbox. Additionally, in my opinion, on threads in which all participants were not notified and were not present, there was insufficient (i.e. nonexistent) encouragement by other editors on FTN on threads to ping them.
While this is a very small manual survey (slow as I have to check the discussion pages on the individual articles), I believe it reflects poorly on FTN compared to other noticeboards, and lends some support to OP's accusation that FTN is being used a great deal, but not exclusively, for canvassing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like many noticeboards (e.g. BLPN, NORN), FTN does not have a requirement for notification in all cases, though editors are required to notify others if they mention them specifically. If there's appetite for strengthening the requirement, we should probably discuss at WT:FTN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I think, that people are far less emotionally invested in BLPN, NORM, etc. A lot of skeptic editing comes from people who, understandably, view themselves as skeptics in their everyday life. That’s to say it can be a part of someone’s identity in a way that we see with other POV editing but don’t tend to see with more policy-centric noticeboards. This can especially bleed into religion articles as a lot of self-identified skeptics are a little militant in their dislike of religion. I think this is why there’s so much pushback to the notion that a: WP:FRINGE cannot be applied in an openly hostile way to religion (not just religious content being added to articles, which obviously axe) and b: this sort of head-in-the-sand WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT if it turns out some long-held anti-fringe stance is actually more nuanced than originally thought.
Basically FTN isn’t acting like a noticeboard for policy issues, but a wikiproject for people with strong skeptic stances. Therefore I don’t see how strengthening the notification requirement solves the issue of what can beer into POV editing, because I suspect that notifying would just result in business as usual, plus notifications. People can seem to be unmoved by evidence and are quick to throw out accusations of WP:PROFRINGE (see above) for dissent. It’s better off merged into NPOVN, imo. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ17:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv, when you looked down the page, did you get a sense for the proportion of topics that were:
Move the dispute to the noticeboard to be settled there (typical for, e.g., RSN),
Requests that page watchers go to the talk page (typical for most WikiProjects), or
Questions more in the "background information" range (typical for a village pump post)?
As far as I can tell looking now, none are about relocating or centralizing discussion, except the UAPDA thread is interesting where the editor challenged with WP:fringe goes themselves to FTN for advice on how to address it; a lot of the comments there seemed counterproductive until people finally got to the point (it had zero to do with any fringe policies from what I can tell). There are a couple that seemed to try to want to fork a discussion onto FTN, rather than redirect it.
It appears the majority of threats are requesting people comment on existing article discussions (in two cases, the condition of an entire article or AfD).
It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject: a centralized page to seek help from people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter. That's not inherently bad; it's good for editors to bring their health-related article disputes to WT:MED and their stats/math questions to WT:MATH. I'm not sure that I'd recommend merging that to a more traditional noticeboard, though, as it's quite a different style of interaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject
I am less convinced than they are that Wikipedia's handling of fringe topics is working appropriately. I see at least two issues:
1. On issues FTN (one could argue, the greater skeptic movement) doesn't see as its targets, it doesn't do anything, and as a result there's lots of articles on minor religious topics that have wild supernatural claims in them. For instance, see Oven of Akhnai, which repeats a story from the Talmud verbatim in Wikivoice that basically treats rabbis as wizards. Or the recently fixed poor state of Tukdam was also due to this.
2. On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support. The recent arguments over Tukdam are also a clear case of this, as an example of what happens when FTN suddenly discovers something it believes to be woo-y. My other example is EMDR, which claims a therapy that has been recommended by a huge list of WP:MEDORGsremains controversial within the psychological community per an article from 25 years ago and an article that specifically claims there is no controversy that it does work, because it's on the list of skeptic targets, because when it was initially formulated many psychologists were very skeptical of it to the point of calling it pseudoscience.
In a lot of ways FTN operates as Wikipedia's immune system, and in this capacity Wikipedia clearly has an autoimmune disorder. It doesn't react to most things it should, and when it does react it way overreacts. The mere fact that most of the things skeptics look out for are not present on Wikipedia is not by itself sufficient evidence that it's actually working as desired. Loki (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support
This is the biggest issue I can see. It feels like people view themselves as WP:SMEs in “fringe” when that’s not exactly a thing, and sometimes editors assume their own read on complex topics is arrived at from a place of perfect understanding. Panspermia (discussed above) is still the most galling example of this to me, where source after source after source after source was met with “nuh uh” and the way it’s set up on Wikipedia is still potentially actively misreading to readers.
It seems like there's been enough back-and-forth with a bit of analysis in there to boot. I plan to start an RfC in a few hours, maybe attract a wider community input, and just let's close out this discussion for the year or so. The questions I intend to put forward: Close (and move) FTN (to where is at discretion of regulars), and close (and move or downgrade) WP:Fringe (with suboptions by vote). Venue will be here for maximum participation and referral back to this thread, unless people think it is more appropriate instead to be at Wikipedia Talk:FRINGE. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figure that community consensus is not necessary to decide, should FTN be closed, whether its function be placed into a wikiproject or merged into another noticeboard. I think such a thing can just be done. Although perhaps, to avoid having to do a separate straw poll (should closure be the result of the RfC), they'd want people to give their opinions in !votes here. (Maybe if FTN is decided to be closed but WP:Fringe remains, they'd want policies within WP:Fringe to get handled mostly at a NPOVN rather than at NORN, and that's worth saying, I dunno.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting rid of WP:FRINGE would be a mistake, especially considering how much fringe stuff makes its way here. I do think FTN’s remit already falls under NPOVN, and given that there seems to be a sort of consensus on FTN to (sometimes) creatively interpret the policies of Wikipedia in a way that we really should be able to rely on each other as experienced editors to prevent. I’m happy enough to vote, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think it's worth asking just because it's up here, and it closes it out. A RfC can ask two questions. I'll post it in a few minutes. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: @Warrenmck: please stop doing weird extra indentation to partially quote people. It's going to be an accessibilty problem for various users (they may be used to our talk pages formatted unhelpfully as description/association/definition lists, but your behavior is signaling to them that some unknown party has injected a comment before yours, between whoever you are replying to and you), and it's visually confusing for everyone else. No one – literally no one, ever – writes the way you want to on Wikipedia, so please just format your comments intelligibly like everyone else. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not my intent to cause accessibility issues, so I’ll stop, but I’ll die on the hill that indenting quotes generally improves legibility. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the main topic here: After plowing through a lot of this, I find myself generally in agreement with those that do not find there to be a policy or practices issue at stake here. Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism, skepticism, fact-checking, or even basic neutrality with regard to their beliefs is an affront, a wrong, an evil, yet we have to do it anyway. Hand-waving with emotive references to reddit and atheism groups does not demonstrate any kind of actual bias problem on Wikipedia or any bad-acting by anyone in particular, and this is not the venue for that anyway. I see a lot of repetitive complaint and vague accusation or "the sky is falling" stuff from a particular party (who others indicate has been beating this drum for a long time across multiple venues), but there is no concrete problem to solve. Bon)scourage near the top of this over-long thread has it right: when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world ... then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply.
I spend a considerable amount of time in "religion" articles broadly speaking, from ancient mythology and folklore to modern Christian denominations and their organizational history, and there simply isn't a problem of WP leaping onto and bashing theological claims. However, there is a common problem of proselytizers of particular faiths, especially but not exclusively new relgious movements [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism], making claims that amount to some element of their dogma being verifiable fact when it is not, or various purported miracles or powers being demonstrably true when they are not, or extremely dubious mytho-history found in scriptures being verifiable history when it is not, or a particular figure or group being the "one true [whatever]" when others in other denominations make competing claims, and so on. All of this sort of stuff is clearly subject to WP:FRINGE. The fact of whether or not a particular Christian denomination treats veneration of saints as idolatry or not and what arguments their "divines" have put forth pro or con such a viewpoint, is not a FRINGE matter, but simply a matter of reliable sourcing. What we don't have any kind of problem with is WP articles on religious matters being written something like "According to the Church of Utter Salvation, the one true path to enlightenment is through omphaloskepsis, but this idea is wrong because [whatever]." In NRM-related articles with too few watchlisters, we do often have a countervailing problem of cult leaders being claimed to have worked miracles, but this stuff does not last long in our content.
This thread has the same feel as all those perennial complaints along the lines "Wikipedia is doing it all wrong because it won't let me promote [insert outlandish viewpoint here]". The fact is that verifiable reality leans heavily in certain directions (e.g. against "climate change is a hoax", against racial supremacy of any sort, against claims of miracles ever being verifiable, etc.). Wikipedia is not doing it all wrong, and is not broken. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism
Ah, yes, the old promontionalism of “arguing that we should keep in academic sources discrediting a religious belief”. Of course. How silly of me.
Seriously, it feels like half this entire discussion descended into some kind of wild strawmanning where I was arguing to keep WP:PROFRINGE content in instead of objecting to the removal of anti-fringe content. I’ve been accused of everything from being butthurt to summarily described as a WP:PROFRINGE religious believer objecting to the removal of fringe content when that’s clearly not what happened, and I’m very low on faith from a lot of these accusations that many people have actually taken time to read the core arguments and discussions. The status quo of the Tukdam article, which met the satisfaction of many editors I was butting heads with elsewhere, was written in large part by me, and if you look through the article’s history and when it was first brought up at FTN I was quick to remove in-universe language and call out a cited Buddhist magazine as a bad source there. Your accusations are uncalled for.
The fact that this game of telephone has transformed from me objecting to applying religious tests to credible academics publishing utterly mundane anti-fringe findings into me objecting to the removal of fringe content is exactly why I raised this topic here in the first place: an utter lack of ability to assume good faith (in the typical sense, not specific wikiparlance WP:AGF) and nuance around these topics.
My capitalization of NRM, which I typically do so that I can switch to using the initialism further down for people unfamiliar with the term, isn’t evidence of some kind of nefarious pro-fringe stance. If you want to accuse me of promotional/POV editing I suggest you bring receipts. A fundamental issue with how many on FTN engage with religious topics doesn’t mean I’m a bad actor here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish, can we talk about this a bit more? I'm seeing phrases like Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism...is an affront and when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world and thinking the first is an anti-religious stereotype and the second expresses an anti-religious sentiment.
To claim that "religious believers pretty much always" anything is a stereotype. 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religion. If 85% of humans are "pretty much always" like that, then that's normal human behavior. I doubt that if you chatted up your religious neighbors, you'd find that they're "pretty much always" affronted by criticism. My Catholic neighbors have quite a lot of criticism about their church, and they don't seem the least bit offended if people disagree with their religion. OTOH I have seen a couple atheists who were terribly upset about people not sharing their views – but I've only seen this in university students, and I assume they grow out of it.
Who says that religion is forcing itself onto the real world? Religion is a human behavior. 85% of humans engage in this set of behaviors. Religion is part of the real world. Religion should not be treated as some sort of minority or deviant behavior, nor as something separate from the human world. Spirits/angels/ghosts/whatever are not part of the physical world, but religion seems to me to be a human institution. (Believers are cheerfully invited to disagree with me, in whatever ways happen to align with your own beliefs, or to add a caveat like "at least to a significant extent", but I will point out that a List of oldest continuously operated bureaucracies would include the Roman Catholic Church.)
So phrase it more senstively, but the central point remains sound. Our articles about, or intersecting with, religious subjects see continual attempts to promote religious dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faith is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof. Observing this set of problems and being critical with regard to it is not "anti-relgion", it's simply encyclopedist realism/practicality. What percentage of the world believes in a particular category of something isn't really pertinent. A much higher percentage than the religious faithful are those who believe in one urban legend or another (probably more like 99.9%), but this doesn't have any implications for how WP should approach writing about that category of subject. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. For example, Santa Claus intersects with religious subjects, and it isn't subject to continual attempts to promote religious dogmas and stories as established fact.
But I think we could write the same sentence about other subjects, e.g.:
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiousright-wing political subjects see continual attempts to promote religiousright-wing political dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithright-wing politics is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiouscryptocurrency subjects see continual attempts to promote religiouscryptocurrency dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithfinancial bubbles is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiousgeopolitical subjects see continual attempts to promote religiousgeopolitical dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithgeopolitical disputes is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Our articles about, or intersecting with, religiousgender and sexuality subjects see continual attempts to promote religiousgender and sexuality dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faithgender and sexuality viewpoints is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
Taking these points in order: No one (least of all me) said that every fringe, religious, or related topic attracted pro-fringe PoV-pushing equally. Your Santa Claus bit is what's called reductio ad absurdum, admixed with some appeal to ridicule and straw man. Your point about right-wing politics is entirely correct, but has no implications for this discussion. A large segment of the far-right overlaps with a large segment of religious extremists, and a great deal of what the far-right promotes as "truth" is fringe nonsense. That doesn't somehow translate into a permissive attitude (actual or desirable) at WP toward far-right claims and publishers. If anything, we need an elevated level of alterness with regard to it. But it is largely also covered by WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN, as are religio-spiritual claims being advanced as if proven facts, and this is not "broken". Much of that also applies to cryptocurrency, and outlandish claims in that area are aready addressed by FRINGE/FTN. I don't know what you mean in this context by "geopolitical" (a vague term), and it seems to fail as an analogy; there don't appear to be any such things as "geopolitical dogmas". G/S: those areas are very, very well-studied so it also analogically fails. The assertion-and-tradition and burden-inversion involved appear to come from – surprise! – far-right religious quarters; claims from the opposite side usually have a stockpile of reliable research sources behind them, so this is again another area where FRINGE/FTN is doing its job. Really, you're kind of making my point for me: when religion/spirituality veer into making claims that purport to be factual but are not verifiable, then it is in FRINGE/FTN's scope, and is not distinct from any other topic in that regard. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About this discussion
Until a few minutes ago, this page was above 600K in size, which is about three or four times the maximum size that seems to work for people on mobile devices. I split off an RFC a few minutes ago, which shrank the page by a third, but this discussion is almost as big. There also seem to only be a few of us still active in it. I'd like to suggest either:
just stopping and letting this discussion be archived, in which case you're all welcome to leave a note about any last thoughts on my User_talk: page.
If you want the first, then please say so. If you want the second, then no response is necessary (actually, no response would be critically important). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have run its course, but considering how weirdly comfortable people have been in accusing me of being a POV fringe-pushing religious editor I would like to note, in bold, for anyone referencing this thread in the future that much of the meat of this thread was me disagreeing with the removal of an anti-fringe source on the grounds of religious tests for the author despite their being academics at a secular institution and finding utterly unremarkable, anti-fringe results. A few editors (most recently @SMcCandlish, directly above) definitely owe striking some of their comments which contain some pretty baseless accusations, and the voting thread was a mess of people misrepresenting the entire discussion as somehow raised by a religious POV pusher for, again, adding anti-fringe material back into an article. People are of course free to feel however they like about the issue at hand, but people aren’t entitled to construct narratives about other editors and abandon civility in their quest to hunt the perfect strawman.
The aspersions cast here feel pretty significant and I don’t want to be batting off a reputation as a pro-fringe editor for anti-fringe edits. How I (and to a lesser extent @Hydrangeans and @SamuelRiv [seriously, a WP:NOTHERE accusation for a well known and established editor?]) were treated here for dissent feels like a black mark on Wikipedia’s handling of contentious topics with civility.
In the WP:SNOW-opposed RfC growing out of this trainwreck, Warrenmck also urged disbanding WP:FTN. One does not get to (in this thread) support actions that would release a flood of fringe nonsense on WP by demonizing fringe-watching editors as a pack of bigots and undercutting the guidelines and processes they rely on, and (in the RfC thread) try to nuke the venue by which the community handles this, yet then claim that one is really an anti-fringe editor simply because there's a diff somewhere of one supporting removal of a fringe thing. Not all fringe material is created equal, and it's common to scoff at various fringe things while believing or being undecided about others. E.g., I can't count the number of people I know who think anti-vaxxers are nuts but who also believe in astrology, or who think that the idea of space aliens abducting people is nonsense but who believe climate-change is fake and that the 2020 US election was stolen. If one is taking a position that would harm our ability to police the encyclopedia for fringe claims, then one is, as a practical matter, a pro-fringe editor whether or not one is engaging in self-denial about it. It doesn't matter in the least whether one disbelieves in a particular bit of fringe material under discussion in a particular thread, or pays lipservice to WP not promoting fringe material. Actions matter more than words. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how any of this relates to accusing me of WP:PROMOTIONAL, which you did above, and it’s wildly disingenuous to accuse me of wanting to get rid of Wikipedia’s anti-fringe immune system when what I proposed was a merger with NPOVN and I actively opposed the dilution of WP:FRINGE. You’re free to not like that, but this rhetoric that it somehow turns me into a WP:PROFRINGE crusader is absurd and I expect better from a seasoned editor. This complete inability to recognize that we’re discussing a policy difference and not fundamental ideological enemies is sort of speaking to the exact problem I’ve been concerned with in the first place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ03:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been treated poorly at times by a small minority of the regulars at FTN... But jumping from there to throwing the baby out with the bathwater is another thing (I also doubt that simply changing the venue the discussions take place in will decrease the historical conflict between the small s skeptics and the large s Skeptics who frequent it, they're/we're at almost all at the alternative venues as well) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator Recall
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.
This discussion forms part of a debate on adopting a community-based process for the involuntary removal of administrator rights, administrator recall. This topic was most recently addressed at the 2024 Requests for adminship review; more background information may be found in a section below. The question of this request for comments was whether the result reached during that discussion immediately assumes force of policy, or whether it requires further ratification.
Due to the unusual nature of an RfC to clarify the outcome of a previous RfC, participants at times addressed somewhat different matters in their comments, and some cast bolded support or oppose votes on slightly varying questions. In this closure, I shall focus on the key question as identified above, that is, whether we in principle now have a policy on administrator recall, or not.
On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes; that is, there is no specific process that must be followed. The relevant policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Content changes only specifies that "Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements may be appropriate." This, to me, means that this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment; there is no unequivocal policy argument to either adopt the Phase II result as policy or not. The RfA review was also publicized through several standard channels used for important discussions, fulfilling that requirement.
Proceeding to the discussion at hand, it appears at first sight that the bold yes votes significantly outnumber the noes. However, as mentioned above, in this discussion, bold words can deceive. Furthermore, some editors commented on the contents of the Phase II result rather than on whether it carries the force of policy. I have deemed such arguments irrelevant to this discussion. While weighing this is not entirely quantifiable, and I will therefore not state exact numbers, I consider those in favour of the procedure already being adopted to have a clear numerical superiority.
Some of those who opposed pointed out certain discrepancies in the information provided in the RfC statement, in the Phase II closures, and at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. As of the time of closing, many of these concerns have been resolved, see for example the note at the end of this closing statement. Some things remain undecided; in particular, how the 30 day limit should apply when an administrator elects to re-request through administrator elections. While some editors stated that unresolved questions impede the adoption as policy, most thought that any outstanding issues may be resolved through normal editing. Some editors also opined that, while there may be consensus for the individual conclusions of the review, the policy page written on the basis of these will need to be the subject of a separate RfC to adopt or not. Again, I see a majority of editors being of the opinion that the conclusions may be accepted as policy now, with any further issues resolved by normal editing.
In summary, this RfC has resulted in consensus to adopt administrator recall, according to the Phase II result, as policy. Now, the following should happen.
Any further issues regarding the administrator recall policy will be resolved through normal editing.
Please note the following discrepancies between the present RfC statement and the result of the Phase II RfC. The consensus at Phase II was that reconfirmation via administrator elections shall be subject to a fixed 55% threshold. The 25 editors supporting a recall petition must be extended-confirmed users. The result of this discussion concerns the existing consensus as documented at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall, not the summary in the RfC statement. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)15:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The consensus reached there established recall with the following process:
Petition
Cannot be launched until 12 months have passed since the user has successfully requested adminship or bureaucratship, re-requested adminship, or become an arbitrator.
25 editors must support the petition to trigger the re-request for adminship process.
The format allows for discussion and reasoning to be explained.
To support a petition, you must meet the criteria to participate in a request for adminship. You must not support more than 5 open petitions. There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition.
If a petition for a given admin fails to gain the required support, another petition for that admin cannot be launched for six months.
Support statements can be stricken based on the same criteria as for requests for adminship.
Re-request process
A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
The re-request can also take the form of participating in an admin election. (Not clear what the consensus is regarding the need for the election to fall within the 30-day window).
For either a re-request or an election, the following thresholds apply:
below 50%: fail
50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus
60% and above: pass
Background
During phase 1 of WP:RFA2024Joe Roe closed two proposals for recall with the following close (in part with emphasis in the original):
Considering § Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs, § Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki, § Proposal 16d: Community recall process initiated by consensus (withdrawn), in parallel, there is a rough consensus that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRFA) in order to retain their administrator rights. However, there is also a consensus that the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented. Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. The dewiki-inspired process suggested in Proposal 16c was well-supported and should be a starting point for these discussions.
When the second phase began the process was, after 3 days, structured in a way that took Proposal 16c and offered alternative options for certain criteria. This was done in good faith by Soni who had originally proposed 16c. Some editors objected to this structuring at the time and/or suggested that a 3rd RfC would be needed to confirm consensus; Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. Post-close discussion among editors has failed to achieve any kind of consensus (including whether there needs to be an RfC like this). As an editor uninvolved in the current discussions about Admin recall until now, it seemed to me that the clearest way to figure out if this recall process has consensus or not is to ask the community here rather than have this discussion in parallel with an attempt to recall someone. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Survey (administrator recall)
(involved) The question here is simple: did a two-phase discussion that reached consensus in both phases also achieve an overall consensus to implement? The answer is equally simple: yes, it did. The current strongest argument against this idea seems to be that Phase II's formatting didn't give enough leeway for someone to propose a recall system distinct from the dewiki process (while still using that as a starting point). But there was an open discussion, and I don't recall seeing a different idea gain any significant amount of traction. If we really need to go through an entirely new RfC to double-confirm a proposal we've already accepted in principle and fine-tuned, fine, let's do it, but it seems like a waste of community time to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite this, people added additional proposals, and additional options to existing proposals, and nobody complained about the open discussion section being closed, for months thereafter. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) Yes consensus was reached. Naturally new tweaks/discussions will come along. Let's have specific RfCs on those. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a consensus (uninvolved). A legitimate objection is that the process of managing the second RfC may have stymied other possible outcomes beyond a de wiki style process, and this may have been the case. However, RfCs with perceived flaws tend to generate lots of comments pointing this out (as we can already see below) and I'm just not seeing that that in the 2nd phase RfC. The 1st phase confirmed that the community wanted a recall process, the 2nd phase asked for proposals to be developed for implementation and there was a consensus found within that discussion for a specific variant. In the interest of not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, I believe there is sufficient support for the admin policy to be updated based in this outcome, with further adjustments being made as required (or indeed removing it entirely should a subsequent consensus determine that it should). Scribolt (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely-worded question. No, there isn't currently a consensus for this proposal; but yes, I think we should reach consensus for it at this RfC.—S MarshallT/C16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A key challenge in trying to reach agreement by consensus is that interest tends to wane as discussion moves from higher-level concepts to more fine details. One way to address this is to get consensus for a general initiative, obtain consensus for key aspects to incorporate, then work on implementation details. For this specific situation, I think the phase 2 discussion did a sufficient job at taking the support shown during phase 1 and working out agreement on the broad-stroke steps for a recall process. As always, because it's hard to get people to pay enough attention to reconcile specific wording, part of working out the implementation means finding a working procedure that is the central object illuminated from different directions by people's statements. I feel the phase 2 results reveals enough scaffolding to proceed with implementation. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(involved) Yes. There is consensus per my comments in the post-close discussion, as well as per leeky and Scribolt above. Those editors raising objections to the idea of admin recall or the proposals that gained consensus, but who did not participate in the earlier RfCs, should have participated; phases I and II were both widely advertised (I remember them being posted at T:CENT, VPP, AN, AN/I, etc.). I worry that a third RfC will fatigue the community and disproportionately draw the most vocal opponents to the process, resulting in a small group of people overriding a consensus already twice-determined by the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in both Phase I and Phase II. I believe the results of Phase II achieved consensus and should be implemented. I do not see how this contradicts the results of Phase I. As others have pointed out, an actual policy page is still being drafted and might have to go through yet another RfC. Having an RfC on the validity of each step seems like a waste of time. Toadspike[Talk]07:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your question answers itself. "Was there consensus for the consensus"? The answer is obviously yes. Now, if you want to ask a different question, open a different RFC. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't consensus for the recall process proposed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. I'll reiterate a comment I made on the Phase II talk page: taking the mini-consensuses from that phase, then using them to cobble together a process, doesn't translate into a solid policy with broad community consensus. The fact that various aspects of the proposal, even now, are up in the air disproves the notion that "the consensus already exists". Those who are advocating for Wikipedia:Administrator recall need to finalise that page, then present it for a simple yes/no RfC, so that the consensus (or lack thereof) on the policy as a whole is beyond question. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus for this, and I've explained why on the pages where the proposal is being developed. But I think it's unfair to ask this question now, because the editors who support the proposal are still working on it. I therefore think this RfC should be closed as premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that this RfC would be withdrawn, but it appears that it won't, so I feel the need to say why this RfC cannot establish consensus for the policy change.
First, Barkeep49 gets the facts wrong in the statement of this RfC. He says: Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. In fact, he said more than that: I'm really sorry to say this, but reading it all through now, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has trainwrecked... I just cannot see how a genuine consensus can be said to come from a process like this... The only way I can see of salvaging this is to take whatever precise version of 16C got the most support and present it as a straight support/oppose RfC.[23]. Barkeep49 goes on to quote Voorts as having determined that phase 2 established consensus: Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. But in fact, Voorts drew a clear distinction between his close of individual sections, as an uninvolved closer, and his personal opinions about overall consensus, which were separate from the close: [24], [25].
And the bullet-list summary differs in some substantive ways from what appears to be the proposed policy. 25 editors must support the petition. Isn't it 25 extended confirmed editors? Who closes the petition? In fact, this is still being discussed: [26].
Since when are policy pages simply a bullet-list? Are we being asked to establish the bullet-list as a policy page, or are we being asked about Wikipedia:Administrator recall? The latter is beyond any question a work-in-progress. So if it needs to be changed as the editing process there continues, are we establishing consensus for the current version, or for some indeterminate version that will emerge in the future? And if the real purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus against, is that a fair process?
Phase 1 established consensus for some form of process. Phase 2 established consensus for some particular forms of the process, but did not establish whether those forms are actually to be implemented as policy, or whether those forms are the best version to be submitted as a policy proposal. This RfC muddles two different questions: whether the process so far has already established consensus, or whether the proposal summarized in bullet points should now be adopted as policy. And some editors here have been answering the first question, whereas others have been answering the second.
No one has answered the question of what is inadequate with the status quo, with ArbCom handling desysop requests.
The bullet-list proposal would be a disaster for Wikipedia if enacted here. It can't even be launched within the first year after the successful RfA? What happens if an admin does objectional things before then? More importantly, we are in a time when many members of the community are deeply concerned that we do not have enough new admins emerging from RfA, and that we are starting to see backlogs. Many members of the community regard RfA as being unattractive to well-qualified candidates, too stressful, not worth the aggravation. So if any random group of 25 users can force a recall, and just a few can start the petition process, how will that affect administrator morale? Will even more qualified RfA candidates decide against applying? Will current admins become too fearful of angering 25 disruptive editors, and hold back from dealing with contentious tasks, such as AE?
At least we should have a fully-developed proposal for the community to evaluate. Given that there are editors who are working on just that, it seems foolish to demand an up-or-down RfC now, before they have finished, on the theory that this would save them the trouble of working on something that will fail. Plenty of editors want the proposal to succeed, so they are not being imposed upon by giving them the time to finish. And the proposal here isn't ready for prime time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (uninvolved) - There is a super clear consensus to have an administrator recall. Still work to be done om the actual policy page. But to the question of this RFC, Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during the last review? Yes clearly, otherwise the right next step would be to challenge that close. This is not the place to relitigate the RFC or how the policy page is being created. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No IMO the question is unclear but I think interpreted as "was it decided that the deWiki version be adopted?". In shorthand, the main close was a general consensus that there should be a recall process, with the related verbiage in essence implicitly saying that it needed to be developed and then approved. The close on adopting the deWiki version was that there was insufficient participation (in this context) to consider it to be a decision either way. So the next step is to develop a proposal that can get wide support and get it approved. While keeping in mind that the first close says that it's already decided that "we want something like this" and so that question should not be revisited, and "There should not be any such recall process" is not a valid argument at this point. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If this discussion is "Should Wikipedia:Administrator recall be implemented?", my answer is yes. That is effectively what the list of points above effectively are. If this question is "Is there consensus already to implement Wikipedia:Administrator recall?" then my answer is also Yes. I think there was consensus via Phase II to do this. If people believe there isn't, then I strongly prefer resolving the first question right now instead of bunting this entire thing to a second RFC further down the line. I also personally would have preferred a week while editors already discussing the matter at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall could resolve this. But the cat's out of the bag, and nobody seems to actually close this as premature. So I would prefer going through with this RFC instead of alternatives that draw this out for everyone. Soni (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Soni's first question, my answer is unreservedly Yes. Regarding Soni's second question, my answer is a Very Weak Yes. Also, this RfC is a premature mess. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We do not need an RfC to answer the question "Did the previous discussion, with a consensus close, actually close with a consensus?" Just get it done. Details will, as usual, be refined as we go along. If the entire thing turns out, after post-implementation experience, to be a bad idea, then it can be undone later. PS: If there is doubt whether a close of an RfC or other discussion actually reached the consensus claimed by the closer, the place to hash that out is WP:AN (unless it's subject to a more specific review process like WP:MRV for move disputes, and WP:DRV for deletion ones). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The partial trainwreck of the discussion that happened at the Phase II RfC meant that consensus for several critical aspects of the recall proposal did not gain sufficient consensus to enact such a significant change to a core policy (WP:ADMIN). And for my own part I failed to see a consensus on some matters at all, though I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on the matter. JavaHurricane10:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the question here is whether there is consensus for some future version, in which the details will have been finalized. It's whether there is consensus for what it says at the top of this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And my position is that there is (or at least it should be established here) consensus for the form of recall described in the 14 bullet points listed above. Some people in this discussion have queried the precise interpretation of some of the points, so another round of workshopping precise language would not be amiss, but the proposal should continue to move forward on this basis without "going back to the drawing board" because of concerns about a previous RFC. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is consensus to adopt an administrator recall process that includes the characteristics that achieved consensus in RFA2024 Phase II. To my eye, the proposal here successfully reflects that consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"25 editors" is much too vague. Could be 25 IPs? Only logged in editors with some experience should be allowed, and the simplest way is to require EC. Zerotalk02:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. The suffrage requirements for recall petitions are "same as RFA". That was one of the Phase 2 consensuses (consensi?). Phase 1 consensus set RFA suffrage to EC. Levivich (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, confirm consensus. The weight of community involvement and the clear consensus close are sufficient to grant this process the effect of policy immediately. I will say this: I am absolutely shocked that the second phase of the discussion was not better advertised; given the long-anticipated nature of this process and the importance to community functions moving forward, it should have been better attended. And yet, the dozens of editors that did participate came to reasonable and clear consensus conclusions on various facets of the process. Beyond that, we are years deep into repeated derailing of the creation of this function, despite clear community support for some sort of process. There is absolutely no reason why further discussion to clarify, alter, or amend any provision of the process cannot take place after the process is codified in its namespace. But the time has come for the process to exist, and there is nothing egregiously problematic in what was decided upon in the foregoing discussion. With the caveat that, no matter what the community decided upon for the initial procedure, there are bound to be things we can only think to address and adjust after the first community RRfA discussions take place. SnowRise let's rap10:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair enough, if it was posted on CD, which is arguably the single best thing you can do to promote an issue. But I do think spaces like VP are a vastly more reasonable place for posting a notice intended to draw in general community input about the recall of admins, compared to AN, with it's limited traffic mostly constrained to admin activity (or at least as much constrained as any open space on the project). In fact, some may argue (though I'm certain it was lack of forethought rather than intent) that the only noticeboard to receive a notice of the discussion being the one noticeboard with the highest admin-to-non-admin activity ratio is maybe the least optimal way to advertise a discussion that would seek to create the community's first direct means for recalling admins. The CD link seems to have been the only notice well-calculated to reach an average community member: the mass mailer, the discussion link in the closure of phase I, and the watchlist notice, all of those were only ever going to reach those who participated in Phase I. Which is good, but again, probably a lot less than this discussion warranted. SnowRise let's rap17:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there appears to be community consensus to implement an Administrator Recall process as described. I think some of the concerns raised are genuine, especially the potential for abuse... But I doubt the community would look kindly on editors who chose to WP:GAME this new system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (involved). The existence of the pre-voting "open discussion" section, as well as the widespread "find a consensus" sentiment was enough for the consensus found to be valid. Mach6114:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (involved). From the get-go, the purpose of WP:RFA2024 was to reach consensus -- not to workshop a proposal for later ratification, but to workshop proposals and approve/deny them in the same RFA2024 process. In Phase I, Proposals 16 and 16c, the overall proposal for a community-based recall system (#16) reached consensus. On the numbers, 65 editors voted, and it was 43-22. On the proposal for a specific dewiki-like system (#16c), 34 editors voted, it was a 25-9 majority, but this was determined to not be consensus because of the (relatively) lower participation.
We went on to Phase II, where specific proposals for details of the recall system were made. The purpose of Phase II was, clearly, to iron the details from Phase I #16c, not to draft a proposal for submission to the community, but to decide the details, in Phase II. This is evidenced by the many "find a consensus" votes in Phase II (the phrase appears 27 times on the page, in addition to which there are various variations on the theme), which were editors expressly saying they'd rather have a recall system in place with any of the proposed details, than have the proposal for recall fail due to disagreement about some of its details. It was clear that the participants wanted Phase II to end with a consensus for an actual system, not a proposal for a third round of RFC. 93 editors participated in Phase II [27], which is even more than in Phase I.
Both Phase I and II were widely advertised, tagged with the RFC template, advertised on watchlists, and posted on WP:CENT -- they more than complied with WP:PGCHANGE. They had broad participation, and the fact that Phase II ended with a system very similar to dewiki only confirms the budding consensus from Phase I. The fact that the "open discussion" section of Phase II was closed after a few days does not undermine the consensus-forming process in my view; discussion continued, new proposals continued to be made, and some voted against the entire idea of recall. Nevertheless, consensus was formed on various proposals, leading to the system that is now well-documented at WP:RECALL.
So, yes, this months-long process confirmed what we all already knew was global consensus (to have a community-decided involuntary recall system, and to have it be modeled on dewiki's successful system); this RFC will be the third time in a single year that this global consensus will be confirmed. When this RFC is closed as "yes," as I believe it will be, we should put the policy template on WP:RECALL and that should dispel any and all doubts as to whether WP:RECALL has consensus. 100+ editors in 3 rounds of voting is more than enough to establish global consensus. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No. It appears that Wikipedia:Administrator recall is still being developed and that these dot points are the basis for that development. There is a consensus for a recall policy according to these dot points but as has been pointed out above these dot points are not a policy in and of themselves so cannot be adopted immediately. When there is consensus for a barebones policy (the dot points) it is then developed into an actual policy page before a final RfC to adopt it. That's the normal process and should be followed here. So, yes there is a consensus to have a recall process along the lines of the dot points and that is correctly being developed into a policy before final adoption so, no, there is not yet a consensus to turn the wordy version at Wikipedia:Administrator recall into policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it's ready for an RfC for formal adoption as a policy then? I don't think it's appropriate to merge this RfC into that given that the proposal here is a series of dot points that is different to what's at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. For example, I wouldn't support 25 editors as listed in this proposal but would support 25 extended confirmed editors. Other questions have been raised above (for example what if there's a concurrent ArbCom case) and I would encourage editors who have raised those concerns here to take them to Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall for a further discussion and whether or not they should be incorporated into that proposal before it is put forward for adoption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have expressed agreement with this sentiment before, I am also a firm believer of not putting everyone through additional WP:BURO after this. So I'd rather User: Barkeep49 or someone else add a link to WP:Administrator recall to the topic above instead of trying to wrangle a 4th RFC. I'd phrased my !vote above to answer the question I think we should be asking anyway. Soni (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Callanecc and Dilettante's points are accurate and well taken, but this really does come down to a more direct call on community will and BURO. I think the obvious emerging consensus here is that if a version of the policy language has already been rendered which includes all of the consensus elements agreed to for the process, without any glaring contraventions or other issues, then as soon as this discussion closes with a consensus in the affirmative, that version of the guideline becomes policy immediately. Repeating the process yet again for purely pro forma reasons is not necessary, appropriate, or a reasonable use of community time. Let's remember that any version validated can thereafter be reasonably expected to be subject to discussion and further tweaking, particularly in its first months. EDIT: Though I do think one reasonable thing that could be done thereafter would be to advertise every major disputed discussion on the guideline talk page at VPP for the next six months (and having a tendency to do so thereafter, really). It is, after all, a new process that has non-trivial consequence to our administrative operations, so continuing to have heavy community input in its initial evolution here can only be regarded as a good thing. SnowRise let's rap03:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to the pile that says that we've already gone through so much bureaucracy at this point that any more after this would be really out of the norm. If there's consensus here, mark it as policy and work out fine details as they are brought up. If there's not consensus, let's find out right now, and not after more formal RFC cycles. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on principle, but some points still need to be workshopped. How does 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus work for an election? Is it split in the middle? This kind of details should've been made clear before putting the proposal up to a vote. (Edit: looking at the comments below, this appears to have already been discussed) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as the proposal is still being developed. A draft of a full proposal is being discussed at WP:Administrator recall that refines and adds clarification to the closes at WP:RFA2024. All editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. I do anticipate that this proposal will come back for community discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted when this was raised on my talk page, the work there appears procedural. There is no agreement even there about whether or not this is already policy or not. Having editors spend time developing something in detail when the core policy doesn't have consensus is a poor use of time in my opinion. If it does have consensus the details can be worked out and will be made to happen. We have seen that happen with Admin elections coming out of the RFA2024 process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, but the detailed efforts identified a couple challenges with how to implement the close, and I wouldn't suggest that the policy described above is the exact proposal coming from those efforts (although it is in harmony with the closes in WP:RFA2024). While every policy could be further refined, I am of the belief that our community is best served by bringing forward a more complete proposal for community discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be closed. For most people, whether they support admin recall depends very much on the details of the proposed mechanism. For a sensible RfC, the mechanism has to be spelled out (as above) but must not change for 30 days. That does not match reality at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I oppose the proposal, but I think you should withdraw this RfC for now. What people still need (or at least should be entitled to) is to see a full proposal, a proposed policy page, not the bullet list summary you posted here, and to see a rationale for adopting the proposal, prepared by its supporters. And editors are working on those things now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I long ago tuned this out as a TL;DR waste of my time. But curious, is there a consensus that the current Arbitration Committee-led "recall procedure" is not up to the task, and should be discontinued? Or, rather, is there a consensus that both procedures may be used. Can an admin be subject to both an Arbcom case *and* a "community recall procedure" at the same time? Is there a consensus for that? To be clear, I oppose the possibility of simultaneous, competing recall procedures. wbm1058 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058 Nothing in this above would prevent someone from becoming a party to an arbcom case, or from arbcom issuing any remedy. How would you like a blocking condition to work? Perhaps a prohibition on community recall rrfa launching while the admin is a party to an arbcom case? — xaosfluxTalk10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If stripping the Arbitration Committee of the power to desysop isn't part of the package, this whole "recall procedure" strikes me as highly problematic. Imagine an Admin suffering through a month-long Arbitration Commmittee proceeding, ending with an "admonishment" to the administrator, followed hours later by the opening of a "community recall procedure". – wbm1058 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be consensus for 55%. Option C stated the midpoint of whatever passed in the other discussion. Option C won there, which was 50-60%, so the midpoint is 55% which is explicitly called out in the first discussion. Pinging @Voorts: in case I'm completely misreading something here. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside everything else, this part is confusing: A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats. Is this implying that if the admin requests a delay then the admin is responsible for creating it? Why not have the 'crat create it after the delay, same as they would for no-delay? Anomie⚔14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that part at all. I'd rather see the admin start their own RRFA within some short deadline (7 days - with possibly the option for asking for the 30 day extension) -- and if they don't start it anyone can ask at BN to process the desysop. Crats never have to edit, so requiring the crats to create a pageto move the process forward gives them a pocket veto. — xaosfluxTalk14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this RFC's summary of that part of the proposal. As I read it, an admin chooses whether to start an RFA (or stand for election), which must be done within 30 days, and if it's not done within 30 days, crats desysop with discretion ("discretion" such as taking into account whether the petition was entirely signed by obvious sock puppets or had the requisite number of qualified signatories, or to extend the period to 32 or 33 days instead of 30 due to the admin's RL schedule, things of that nature). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option E there is where it says the 'crat should open create the discussion. The other options had the admin being required to say "come attack me" within a certain period of time. The combination of E+A is where we got the confusion here, since E didn't explicitly say what should happen if a delay is requested. Anomie⚔15:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, looks like only 9 of those 30+ voted after E was added. That part, at least, seems like it could use further discussion by people who care. Anomie⚔15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would ever happen, but in theory the crats could just wait 30 days and then decide to revoke privileges without any community input, which seems like a flaw, that part should be reworded to clarify who is responsible for starting the process in each situation. ASUKITE17:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as premature. The page is a mess right now, as several people have posted above. It isn't anywhere near finalized so of course there will be holes and parts where it doesn't judge consensus. When I said "What we need is an RFC to decide whether or not we need another RFC", I didn't expect anyone to actually do it.Sincerely, Dilettante15:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused as to what is being asked here: is this a request for approval of a process? Or are we judging whether consensus was previously formed for it? The latter does not seem to me a good question to ask, as it is sending us further into the weeds of a proposal that has already gotten out of hand with respect to creation and approval procedure. But that's how I read my colleagues' !votes above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need another bureaucratic mess that is another RfC? I think the last one had enough consensus. Ping me if there's anything in particular we're trying to work out and I'm not getting the point of this. I'm trying to take a step back from the more complicated aspects of the project right now but this is important. Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as a confusing, duplicative mess. The specific question in this RFC, as far as I can make out, is asking whether the previous discussion had consensus to implement something following discussion, or whether the outcome of that further discussion needs to be subject to an RFC. I don't think it's sensible to even ask that until that further discussion is complete and we can see the differences between it and the consensus outcome. However, above there appears to be discussion of things other than that question, and no clear agreement about what the consensus of the last RFC was (with the consensus as determined by the closer having changed at least once since the initial close) - other than more discussion of the details was needed (which seems to be happening in two places). I don't think it's possible for this discussion to be useful in any way so it should be closed before it creates even more confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think there might be some confusion about what this discussion is for – it would definitely be silly if it was trying to ask people to assess the consensus of the post-close discussion on talk. This RfC asks the same question the post-close discussion has been focused on: did the Phase I and Phase II RfCs result in a consensus to implement? That, I think, is worth discussing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "25 editors" figure in the initial proposal was qualified as being extended confirmed. Definitely not supporting a process whereby any 25 editors, over the course of a full month, can start this process. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a consensus ... but whether there is or isn't, "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition." needs to be clarified. You can't support more than five open petitions, but then the next sentence says you can initiate a petition without limit. Those two statements need to be harmonized. --B (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition" is entirely accurate. There are limitations on how often someone can initiate a petition (there are cooling off periods, plus the 5-petitions-at-once limit), limitations that were decided in Phase II and are specified at WP:Administrator recall § Petition. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Close as premature comments, I said my piece above and on my talk page about why I thought (and think) it appropriate. I also don't think I hold any particular status other than being UNINVOLVED in this process. So if some other UNINVOLVED editor wants to close this as premature, I'm certainly not going to push back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further background, see wp:Administrators_open_to_recall and the associated categories and pages. (including pages related to some actual recalls) When we came up with this back in the Jurassic Era, we intended it to be voluntary. It's interesting to see that there appears to be consensus that some kind of mandatory process be implemented. ++Lar: t/c15:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
What is a revert?
There is a long-simmering issue when dealing with 1RR, namely there is no policy that covers what a revert is. WP:REVERT which defines a revert as reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. is an essay, and Help:Revert, which is an information page, uses undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version.
First issue is that these two definitions contradict each other. ...typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously and ...which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version are mutually exclusive. Something can typically result or result, and there is a large space between them. Secondly, undoing the effects of one or more edits and otherwise negating the effects is a hole wide enough to drive an article about an 80s cartoon character through.
Normally, this type of ambiguity is par for the course, but we have multiple policies, bright-line rules, and arbitration sanctionsWP:3RR, WP:1RR, WP:CTOP#Standard_set that call out reverts, and can be grounds for immediate blocking and sanctioning.
So I ask, what is a revert? When does something become the WP:STATUSQUO so that changing or removing it is BOLD and not a revert? Where is the line on undoing the effects or negating the effects? If someone adds bananas are good to an article and someone changes that to bananas are not good has the previous edit been reverted, as the effect was negated, or should the banana-hater have the first mover advantage? Should we have an actual policy defining a revert if we're going to have arbitration sanctions and bright-line blocked if you break 'em rules about reverting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A revert is changing anything I don't want changed. Seriously tho, since changing anything is technically a revert, one is forced into examining the exact circumstances, how long since content was added, intent, etc. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rules should be interpretted according to their purpose, which isn't always clear from their literal wording. The purpose of classifying edits as reverts is to identify edit-warring in a semi-rigorous way. It isn't to catch editors out for cooperative editing. If Selfstudier writes "The population of XYZ is 10,000", and I remove it with the comment "I don't like that source", then that's a revert. However, if I remove it with the comment "That's a different place called XYZ, see page 23 for our XYZ", that's cooperative editing. The difference is that in the first instance I was opposing Selfstudier's intention, and in the second case I was assisting with it. Something likely to please the editor whose edit is being changed shouldn't be called edit-warring, ergo not a revert. Encoding this principle in a way that everyone can understand might be tall order, and in my current covid-ridden-and-sleep-deprived state I won't try. Zerotalk15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR is correct to highlight the "restored to a previous version" aspect, which was always broken. Consider add A, add B, delete A, add C, delete B. Possibly two reverts in there but no two versions of the page are the same. Zerotalk15:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be able to point to an edit that was reversed. Removal is basically always a revert, restoring what was removed is almost always a revert, rewording? Depends, but in the case of "A is true" edited to "A is not true", one of those editors is doing something more important than reverting anyway. nableezy - 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there can be a hard rule on when edit B negates the effects of edit A, because there are lots of ways to reword edits, all functionally equivalent to a revert. Unfortunately for the enforcement of the one-revert rule, I think it's also difficult to have blanket rules on when some content has achieved default consensus agreement status, as it's highly dependent on factors such as how many editors regularly review changes to an article. As per English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, the way forward is to have a discussion about what is the current consensus, halting any changes on the contested content in the meantime. I appreciate, though, that has high overhead. The community has been unable to agree upon less costly ways to resolve disagreements. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a constructive and reasonable clarification. I would say that if you can no longer see the edit you're supposedly reverting in the first 50 or 100 page revisions, and there's good faith reason to believe that the editor was no longer aware that they were reverting, it's no longer a revert. Wikipedia:Reverting: Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.Andre🚐22:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some essays on this might be a good idea (then we can figure out which one is most accurate, refine it over time, and gradually push it towards policy, or at least towards being a highly-respected essay with nearly the weight of policy.) Having hard-and-fast rules risks people gaming them, and I'm not sure it's possible, but there's some definite guidelines that could be helpful. I threw together a quick-and-dirty User:Aquillion/What_is_a_revert with my thoughts - note the two questions at the end, which are the points I'm uncertain about (I definitely saw a dispute recently about the "removal -> restore -> add text downplaying the disputed material" sequence somewhere recently, so it ought to be nailed down.) My opinion is that it isn't a revert - this interprets negating the effects too broadly. As the second example on my essay shows, that logic could be used to argue that once I've made an edit to an article, almost any edit made by anyone in a dispute with me anywhere in the article at all is now a revert, because any addition of other information that potentially contradicts or even just waters down the WP:WEIGHT of my addition could reasonably be framed as undoing the intent of my edit. I add something saying "X is true"; someone in a dispute with me then makes a large addition to the article, of stuff that was never there before but which represents a position that broadly diverges from what I added. I accuse them of trying to water down my statement that "X is true" by making it less of the article by percentage and otherwise shifting the balance I established, effectively reverting me. This may even actually be their intent! It's a common situation! But it's not, I think, an actual revert. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your discussion of how things become a lot less clear with 1RR vs 3RR is worth noting. A lot of things become more clear with the repetition, but it's pretty blurry with 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, an observation: the community has imposed a 0RR sanction before, which is not intended to be a complete ban on editing. Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Therefore, a revert is not simply undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits and so either that definition is wrong or the qualifier which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version is important.
My general inclination, separate from that observation, is to construe "revert" narrowly. An edit is a revert if it returns the page to a prior state and it's not if not, even if it's intended to contradict or downplay other information in the article. I agree with Aquillion that the cyclic nature of an edit war is an important piece of the puzzle, and therefore am inclined to say that editing disputes that progress rather than cycle are not edit warring even if they don't usually feel great from the inside. Loki (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea of their being a contradiction and a lack of clarity is illusory, and caused by trying to approach this question as if interpreting a legal statute instead of a WP community body of practice. It is entirely reasonable to state that a revert "typically results" in content being restored to a previous version; the point is that the attempt to change it has been undone. This wording short-circuits a WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:GAMING loophole. For example, if the article says that what today is western Scotland "was settled from Ulster by Gaels of Dál Riata starting at least as early as the 5th century AD", and you change this to say it was the Vikings, and I then, instead of a straitforward automated revert, have it say "was settled by Dalriadic Gaels from Ulster starting in the 5th century AD or earlier", I have definitely reverted your incorrect change [the Vikings arrived in the late 8th century], to exactly equivalent meaning as the original, but not actually restored the article to a previous version of the relevant content. This is important. And everyone already seems to understand it (or will be induced to understand it quite quickly if they try to skirt 3RR or otherwise engage in editwarring by making reverts that are not to exact versions of older content).
Whether a page has a template on it that says it is an essay or information page (a sub-type of essay) is pretty much meaningless (except when an essay conflicts irresolvably with a policy or guideline, in which case the essay should be revised or deleted, or an essay advises something that the community otherwise does not support, in which case it should be revised, userspaced, or deleted). Various essays have the force of at least guidelines, they simply don't happen to be written in guideline language and don't quite serve the function of guidelines (which is circumstantially applying policy through best practices). Essays of the sort that the community takes seriously, and treats as operational, are often describing patterns of reasoning or behavior rather than outlining a rule or how to put that rule into practice. This reasonably enough can include definitions of WP jargon. (Some examples of WP essays that have enforcable levels of community buy-in are WP:5PILLARS, which doesn't even have an essay tag on it, WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:CIR, WP:ROPE, WP:NONAZIS, and WP:DUCK, and there are many others, especially those with the "supplement" tag, another specific type of essay.)
To the extent there is an actual wording problem between the two essays listed at the top of this thread, it is simply that Help:Revert says "results in ... restor[ation] to a previous version", without "results" being qualified in any way. The fix is just basic, noncontroverial copyediting: Help:Revert simply should be edited to agree with WP:REVERT's "typically results". However, a "Help:" page's purpose is to act as a practical instructional summary, mostly for noobs. It is not a definitional document, but a how-to. As such, it is not possible for imperfectly precise wording (pretty typical in "Help:" pages) at the former to magically shortcircuit the higher precision of the latter; WP:REVERT clearly is a defining document, making it clear that a revert need not precisely restore previous content in order to qualify as a revert, but simply undo or otherwise thwart the intent of the change being reverted – to restore the prior meaning.
This is also, obviously, the resolution of the "Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits" pseduo-problem of 0RR. Any time a policy or procedure interpretation results in an impossible scenario, it means you are misinterpreting the policy or procedure. If you improve confusing old language in article, it might technically "undo" or "negate" a poor semantic choice by an earlier editor, but it is not a revert, because it is not attempting to thwart the intent and meaning of that other editor's input. I.e., your innocent copyediting is not a form of dispute, so it's not relevant to reversion and its place in our dispute-resolution system. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this interpretation but disagree with it. I don't like this because this causes the exact problem we're all here about. I would rather have a rigid definition that can be gamed than a vague one that can still be gamed by WP:WIKILAWYERing a vague wording, and wasting all our time in the bargain. Loki (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A response that amounts to "I say I understand but I take a disagreement stance because the sky is falling" isn't much of a response. The problem and its cause, this waste of our time, is one editor claiming the relevant material is too vague and is contradictory, when this is demonstrably not the case, and the community as a whole has no problem with interpretation and implementation of this. I.e., this is a solution in search of a problem. Most attempts to substantively change policy (in the broad sense, i.e. "that which the community acts upon", the templates at the top of pages being largely irrelevant) do more harm than good, because the extant community understanding is not broken and needs no fixing, but changes introduce chaos into the community's understanding and usually induce unforseen-consequences problems due to the very complex interaction of particular wording in one place with particular wording in another. WP:Policy writing is hard. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it is a solution in search of a problem. I've brought it up because it has often come up in my arbitration enforcement. The grey area around reverts is a common issue. That said "do the best you can with what you have" isn't necessarily the wrong answer. It just leaves a lot up to individual admin judgement in an area where there's already a whole lot up to individual admin judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with 'reliable sources' and 'original research'
Dear Editors, I have not posted here before but have been advised to do so by your volunteer Responder.
I wish to request some flexibility in the No original research' policy.
We were recently working on a 19th century lady who has a Wiki page, but about whom only one book has, I think, been published and that book has her date of birth incorrect along with a few other aspects of her life.
But when we tried to change the birth date as we have her birth and baptism registrations from expert genealogists, WIki told us that constituted 'original research' and as the book was published it must be deemed to be a 'reliable source'.
Sorry but I am astonished.
So many publications contain inaccurate material (not deliberately) and if there is only one published source one apparnetly cannot refute it without another. This doesn't seem workable.
The whole matter reminds me of my school history teacher who asked us for one lesson to bring into school different newspapers all published on a certain day. We then had to read the same item of news in all the different newspapers to show us how very different they were according apparnet sources and statements of 'facts'; political leaning; the experience and background of the journalist authors and their own opinions, etc. Specifically the teacher wanted to emphasise that just because it is published and in print - it does not mean that it is true and accurate !
I see that you have tried to address this under your 'reliable sources' heading, and I am not suggesting that the published book deliberately made errors.
However surely there must be provision in WIki for correcting entries which were made in good faith at the time but can now be shown to be incorrect. And if it is a birth and parentage then usually the 'proof' lies in the birth records of the state or country in which they were born and not in another publication. I hope you see what I mean. Stiperstones (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered having an expert publish a paper or article on the subject with the correct information? That is generally the most straightforward way to address this sort of thing, especially so far in the past. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that there may also be a way to use the birth and baptism registrations directly as primary sources, but that is much more context dependent. The birth and baptism registrations might also not be accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another concern, is that the person mentioned in a set of birth and baptism registrations might possibly be a different person with the same name and an explanation is needed as to why they are same person.
Given that you have expert genealogists willing to sign off on the change of birthdates, could the error be noted in a footnote to article saying this problem exists, even if is not suffcient for changing the text of article?
As far as getting it published, an expert might be able to publish the correct information as a short letter or report in an regional journal. They might be able to use the incoorect information in book leading to errors in Wikipedia and other articles using it as source as a justification for publishing the short letter or report as a formal publications.
The advice given at the essay Wikipedia:When sources are wrong is sound, and the specifics of proceeding will probably be best worked out on the talk page.
Sometimes a little IAR can be appropriate in borderline cases, as just one example see the discussion of fumarolic activity in Copiapó (volcano), but that really only holds when there is no opposition to the proposed content.
As an amusing little historical tidbit, in the late 00s there still was still limited sourcing available for Jimmy Wales, and those that mentioned his birthdate simply got it wrong. As a result he spent a good deal of time arguing with other editors over his birthdate no joke.
There have actually been a couple of similar issues involving birthdates over the years, made all the more tedious to work through by periodic WP:CITOGENESIS.
To get a deeper picture of the knots this kind of stuff has twisted normally reasonable people into over the years, and why things are the way they are, you can try to muddle your way through this discussion and this rfc. And if you have an absolute surfeit of time and can tolerate reading lengthy disjointed and circuitous discussions of varying intelligibility you can help yourself to the 81 and counting archives over at WT:V. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for guideline, forgot where it is
I recall a while ago, I found and/or was pointed to a guideline that basically stated cosmetic changes to links or templates should not be done if there is no change in functionality or where the page links (such as replacing a link to an redirect with the link to the target page). Can anyone point me into the direction of that guideline? Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COSMETICBOT is a policy for bots, which includes tools that assist manual editing, and it identifies itself as a general guideline for other "bot-like" purely manual editing. So it might apply with different strength depending on how many such edits someone is doing, how they are doing them, and if/how-much disruption it's creating for other editors working on certain pages. DMacks (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any legal reason we can't have Fair Use images in sandbox articles under active dev?
I'm collaborating with another user on a sandbox draft, and I want to show my thoughts of what an article might look like. I was tempted to upload a fair use image to help facilitate the discussion, but of course, that's verboten here. A question just occurred to me; now I need to find the answer.
Is there any legal reason we can't use fair use images in collaborative drafts before the article goes in Article Space? Or is this some sort of self-imposed superstitious villager taboo we do to ourselves, unnecesarily, as a sacrifice to imagined gods of US copyright law in the hopes our rite will appease them? Is the project actually at ANY legal exposure if we allow fair use in collaborative drafts under active development? Feoffer (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no legal reason we can't use fair use (outside of fair use allowances), the stipulation stems from the WMF's resolution on non-free content, which stresses the need to keep non-free use minimal. On that end, en.wiki has adapted the standard that the only allowable space for non-free content is within mainspace article content, as we have seen non-free used on user-page drafts without ever being converted to mainspace, which violates the need for minimal use. If you are trying to prepare a draft that will use non-free, and want to make sure that the article looks decent with the images in place, its recommended this to be a last step just prior to moving from a draft to mainspace,so that the necessary non-free can be uploaded and queued for inclusion. Or you can use placeholder free images while the draft is in development. — Masem (t) 06:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is available elsewhere online then you can link to that on the talk page so that other editors know what image is being discussed and offer critique, etc. on it. If it doesn't exist elsewhere (e.g. it's something you've scanned) then it is far from impossible that your uploading it to a third party image host for the purposes of said discussion will be compatible with fair use (but do check the image host's terms of use). Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a legal time frame that WMF is forced to store IP addresses of users? It seems the WMF has given them out before and has said to an Indian court that they are going to again. If there is no legal reason then they should be purged after a certain time frame. This would make it difficult for checkusers and sockpuppet admin. We could easily store them in an area that only those groups would have access to. Then the WMF could say that the court would have to subpoena someone from those groups. Thoughts?Music Air BB (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation:Privacy policy#How Long Do We Keep Your Data? states Once we receive Personal Information from you, we keep it for the shortest possible time that is consistent with the maintenance, understanding, and improvement of the Wikimedia Sites, and our obligations under applicable law. In most instances, Personal Information is deleted, aggregated or de-identified after 90 days. and further links to Foundation:Legal:Data retention guidelines, which states that IP addresses will be kept for "at most 90 days" and then "deleted, aggregated or deintentified".
The Sharing section of the privacy policy details when, why and with whom your data may be shared by the Foundation. The "For legal reasons" subsection begins We will access, use, preserve, and/or disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to satisfy a valid and legally enforceable warrant, subpoena, court order, law or regulation, or other judicial or administrative order. However, if we believe that a particular request for disclosure of a user's information is legally invalid or an abuse of the legal system and the affected user does not intend to oppose the disclosure themselves, we will try our best to fight it.Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should knock that 90 days down to 7 days but leave in a limited access area for 90. Only sockpuppet and checkusers would have access to it. What about email addresses? I thought no human had access to those? Music Air BB (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP information (for accounts) is already limited access - only checkusers (with good reason), stewards (sometimes), some techies and some staff can access it. It gets automatically removed from the database after 90 days. That seems a reasonable timescale to me - it's mostly used to reduce abuse of the site, which can be chronic. As for email, if it's in a database and can be displayed to a human, then a human can access it. The people operating a database (in this case the WMF) can access pretty much anything that's in there, with enough effort. They surely have policies and checks in place to prevent willy-nilly access, but it can't really be stopped on a technical level. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF's privacy policy is not something that the en.wp community has any control over. If you want to suggest changes to them you need to do so elsewhere. I don't know where that place is, but the people who watch meta:Wikimedia Forum are likely to. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a shedload of fora I could have posted to including Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) where there seems to be some drama about the WMF take down of an article and doxing because of a court order in India. The article contents are still in a sub-section of a parent article so I don't know why the grand uproar. Just expand that section like a WP:COAT. I doubt many people have Wictionary:Village Pump (WMF) on a watchlist nor the main WMF ones. This page probably has the best input. Music Air BB (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps somewhat ironically, the OP is the sock of a user who has already been subject to multiple blocks. The 90 day limited access was enough to confirm this without any doubt. GirthSummit (blether)16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble locating AfD deletion discussion
How do I find the discussion concerning deletion of Effie Awards? I attempted to search the tool in Articles for Deletion section, but it doesn't yield the relevant result.
I have encountered many kinds of COI editors, autobiographers and paid editors (disclosed and undisclosed) in my time but I've just stumbled upon something that I've never seen before; a page where the text strongly suggested the user had paid someone else to write text for them that they were then posting on Wikipedia. The telling part was that when copying the text they had left in part of the correspondence they'd been having, not unlike when users forget to remove the "Sure, here is a draft Wikipedia page" text from a chatbot.
The page has already been tagged for speedy deletion by @FifthFive because it was in any event autobiographical, promotional and NOTAWEBHOST, but out of mere academic curiosity: is there any area of policy that deals with this kind of thing? AntiDionysius (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is the first thing that comes to mind. AIUI, unless it is a work for hire or you explicitly assign the copyright to me (or release it under a Wikipedia-compatible free license), you own the copyright and my posting it here would be a violation of your copyright. Other than that I don't think there is any need for policy here - if I wrote it and it would be deleted (NOTWEBHOST, spam, etc) then delete it for that reason, if it isn't a copyright violation and it wouldn't be deleted if it was self written then I don't see any benefit to deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re copyright, really depends on jurisdiction, the communications between the parties and (as mentioned) an absence of any express licence, but if it was clear between the parties the text was going to be used for Wikipedia, it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that an implied licence exists compliant with Wikipedia's requirements. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it seemed like it was very clear that the writer was aware their work was for Wikipedia (not that this stopped them from writing promotionally, but anyway) but yeah I can see how those contextual questions would be important. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, yeah - it strikes me as likely to end up being promotional most of the time (why else would you pay someone if not to promote something?) but I'm not suggesting we need a policy to ban the practice as such. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's promotional enough that deletion is better than rewriting, then it should be deleted for being promotional regardless of who wrote it. If it's not that promotional then it shouldn't be deleted, regardless of who wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my limited dealings with COI's, a thought occurred to me that, in working with them, I risk subjecting myself to suspicion of being a COI editor myself (Wikilawyering intensifies). Cheers. DN (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Date redirects to portals?
16 August 2006 points to the current events portal as a result of this discussion. However, date redirects will continue to come up at RfD, some some wider community discussion and input is helpful on whether or not the current events portal is an appropriate target for mainspace redirects. See also: this ongoing discussion for some context.
The second question is easy: Yes, portals are part of the encyclopaedia. As to the first question, portals are reader-facing content and so I see no reason why they wouldn't be appropriate targets for mainspace redirects, given that uncontroversially target mainspace redirects to reader-facing templates and categories when they are the best target. Whether the port is the best target for a given date will depend on the specific date but in general the portal should always be an option to consider. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The portal is definitely not always the best option and it has its limitations, but, as I wrote at WP:RDATE it should be considered and assessed along with mainspace articles. Cremastra (u — c) 01:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5.) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
6.) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
These appear to have been put together by a very small number of editors over a decade ago and hasn't seen much change since then and I feel it's much more lenient than just about anything else. This SNG defines a "label" that has been around for over "a few years" that has a roster of performers as "important". So, any group of people who have released two albums through ANY verifiable label that has exited for more than a few year can end up being kept and this isn't exactly in line with GNG. I believe a discussion needs to be held in order to bring it to GNG expectations of now.
Especially given how broadly the various criteria have been "interpreted" in deletion discussions, the best way to go about it is just to deprecate the whole thing. Rely on the GNG for band notability, and if that results in a heap of articles on ephemeral outfits, garage bands and local acts vanishing, huzzah. Ravenswing 09:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SNG isn't workable in the age of digital distribution. It's very easy to create "an independent label with a history of more than a few years". If someone wants to suggest a way to reform the SNG, I am open to solutions. But deprecation is a simple alternative if we can't. The GNG is always a good standard because it guarantees we have quality sources to write an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was active in AfD discussions when NBAND was pretty new, and it was useful for dealing with a flood of articles about garage bands and such, but I think our standards in general have tightened up since then, and I agree it is time to review it. There is the possibility, however, that revising NBAND may require as much discussion as revising NSPORT did. Donald Albury17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the underlying question is: Is there actual harm in having a permastub about a band that proves to be borderline in GNG terms? Consider this:
"Alice and Bob are a musical duo in the science fiction genre.[1] They released their first album, Foo, in 2019 and their second, Bar, in 2020. Both albums were released by Record Label.[2] They are primarily known for singing during a minor event.[3]"
I'm asking this because I think that the nature of sources has changed, particularly for pop culture, since NBAND and the GNG were written. We now have subjects that get "attention from the world at large", but which aren't the Right™ kind of sources and, while these Wrong™ sources definitely provide "attention", some of that attention might not provide biographical information (which means we're looking at a short article).
For example, instead of getting attention in the arts section of a daily newspaper, they're getting attention from Anthony Fantano on YouTube. He's an important music critic,[28] but I suspect that our knee-jerk reaction is "Pffft, just some YouTuber, totally unreliable". Consequently, we might rate a band that we theoretically intend to include ("attention from the world at large") as not meeting the GNG (because the whole field relies on the Wrong™ style of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that like most other notability guidelines, it is a presumed assumption that a topic is notable if it meets these criteria. If you do an exhaustive Before and demonstrate there is no significant coverage beyond the sourcing to satisfy there criteria, the article should still be deleted. None of the SNGs are geared towards preventing this type of challenge. — Masem (t) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we had to yield to presumptive notability about some random band because it released two albums with Backyard Trampoline Recordings established few years ago and had to do exhaustive search to disprove notability, we're getting setup for a situation where removal is 10x more challenging than article creation. So.. I see a great value in scrapping NBAND 5, and 6. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to WP:SNGs. As Masem said, they're supposed to be a rough idea of gauging notability before exhaustively searching for sources. But pretty much all of them have ended up being used as means to keep articles about trivial or run-of-the-mill subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls listed two criteria but the main discussion seems to be about the 1st (#5). I agree with Graywalls on that. With the evolution of the industry, the label criteria is no longer a useful indicator as it once was and IMO #5 should be removed or modified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that as well. I think #6 has some value still, while #5 is like saying an author who has published two or more books by a major publishing house is presumed notable. Way too low a bar without requiring some level of reception of those albums/books. (WP:NAUTHOR doesn't have that 2-book criteria, of course, just seems like parallel benchmarks.) Schazjmd(talk)13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, in this case, I suspect that an artist that "has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" will in 99% of cases have enough coverage to clear the GNG bar. I'd like to see an example of one that doesn't. Black Kite (talk)13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical
Edit filter graph links broken
Hey all. This was raised at Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#graph_links_broken, but it appears the edit filter graphs, seen at [29], are not currently working and display an internal error. Would anyone happen to have an idea what happened to it? One idea that was raised over at EFN was that the log table may have been messed up by protected variables being introduced, but I'm not sure if that's the case or it's something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggRoll97 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97: I'm about to get on a flight, but a quick look at the tool's error logs shows:
The abuse_filter_log table was deliberately removed from the wiki replicas in gerrit:1077360, pointing to two Phabricator tasks I don't have access to. It's likely to remain broken unless Danilo.mac puts in an amount of effort that's basically rewriting the tool from scratch. * Pppery *it has begun...04:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can not do anything while the abuse_filter_log tables are inaccessible. They were removed from replicas databases because some data in those tables are restricted, se T375751. Danilo.mac (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On mobile - Starting a few days ago, When I go to “recent changes” on my watchlist tab and click on an article, I no longer get sent to a page with the changes highlighted Instead, I just see the current version (without changes highlighted) and must take the additional step of clicking the history button to see the changes highlighted. Is this intentional, or has something glitched? Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: Phab, or phab:, is Phabricator, which is where all MediaWiki bug reports and feature requests are filed. A ticket has already been raised (by Danbloch at 21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)) - it's phab:T378142, as shown at the top right of this section. It's public, so is available to read without logging in there, but Phab doesn't accept anon editing so you need to log in to Phab if you want to comment. Fortunately, this is easy: there's a "Log in" button at the top of the page, and also a "log in to comment" button after the last post; your login and password are the same as for Wikipedia. If you do comment, you're added as a subscriber, and you get an email every time somebody else comments or updates the status. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only on "Recent changes", but also on the mobile version of "Watchlist". And this also happens at the mobile "Watchlist" of Wikivoyage. --FredTC (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing that the reverted tag is showing up slowly. When an edit is reverted, the edit has the "reverted" tag. However, I'm noticing that today it takes some time for it to show up. For example, I reverted two of an IP's edits, but the reverted tag is still not showing up. It will after a couple of minutes. Does anyone know why this is happening? Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 22:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not forcing you to use it, nor am I saying anything along the lines of "your problem is that you have not done this". I offered the CSS rule not as a solution but as a potential visual aid for those who might find it useful - clearly the OP (see below) was interested enough to try it. Others may have done too, I don't know. But you're the only one who complained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear Wikipedians, I request the users who have access to change the name and title of the article to change the title of the article Najmeddin Shariati (TV presenter) to Najmeddin Shariati. Because there is no other person with this name and there is no existing article with this name. thanks 4ipid (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there must be a way around that so we can show what the template outputs on the Template: page while still producing the warning elsewhere. Polygnotus (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my recent quest to fix certain punctuation spacing errors throughout the project, I have coincidentally stumbled upon an inordinate number of situations where a link will occur along the lines of: "Bob speaks English, Spanish, and French"; or "Bob received degrees from Princeton University and the University of Texas". Now, obviously, we are not going to have an article on the combined topics of either redlink, but I am wondering if it is possible to generate a list of redlinks that are in fact combinations of what would be two (or more) blue links. BD2412T20:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gear symbol that you click on to disable Media Viewer has disappeared from all the pages I tested. Is that intentional and if so where do I file a complaint? Media Viewer forces me to go through dozens of clicks in order to get to what I need every time I go to an image page and is a colossal headache as I do this daily. Logging in to save the setting isn't an option for my situation for various reasons (i.e. for daily use of image pages separate from logging in to post this message) and even if it was it shouldn't be required
In my notifications, I got one telling me that a page I visited has data connected to Wikidata, where some relevant stuff can help or whatever. I do not care one single bit about that stuff. How do I stop these notifications and how can I delete a notification that I marked as read? Is Wikipedia tracking me? Nearly but not perfect (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In vertical mobile view in Safari on iOS, I discovered a side table in the article Seaborgium that is cut off on the left-hand side, making the leftmost column impossible to read. This table is built using the {{Isotopes summary}} template system. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when I click on Notices a little popup show up and tells my notifications.
According to it I have 7 new notifications.
But if I press on it says I have no notifications. If I click on all notices it shows an error message: 7ab4ef4a-e38b-462a-ab56-edfdc2d62732] 2024-10-27 04:43:21: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException"
Weird. I have this problem, but they don't work when I click "all notifications". (If you reply to this, ping me - I still get those, for some reason.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem for me the notifications icon shows I have alerts, but when I click on it I get the error message: [2b363018-cbbb-45da-8f73-056cf4cbd0de] 2024-10-31 12:53:02: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException". and the icon greys out. A temporary work around is to go to Commons and click on your notifications from other wikis. Then they can be read, but only on Commons once, then they disappear from Commons. Mysterious! Netherzone (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that I can read them if they get over 30 notifs or so. So now I'm banking a truly stupid number of notifications so that I can at least tell what discussions the most recent ones are for. -- asilvering (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, when I click on my alerts bell at the top, it says "There are no notifications", even thought I can see there are. When I then click on "all notifications", I get the following: "[5aff3dcb-50f3-4b16-9566-60ba693bfa63] 2024-10-27 21:50:42: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException".
Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds just like my problem, just the other notification system.
I have been unable to test that one since I have no new Alerts. It does show my previous Alerts.
I have my global settings to give me a web notification on edit reversions, as well as to show notifications cross-wiki. Indeed, I received a notification for a reversion on Wikipedia on October 1, 2024. However, an edit of mine on Wikimedia Commons was reverted on October 25, and I did not receive a notification. Would this be a bug I need to report on Phabricator or have notifications stopped being sent since October 21, my last notification? The number of notifications are the same on both platforms, which implies that particular cross-wiki setting is working. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was, and I see the notification is there, but I wasn't getting cross-wiki notifications and I rarely go to the commons site so I missed it. After some investigation, it appears to be related to my surfing Wikipedia with JavaScript off. But I also get some email notifications and that didn't happen. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like, when they introduced the nuevo peso in 1993, they used "N$" as the symbol to differentiate it from the old peso that had used "$". But it also seems they may have dropped the N in 1996 or so once they got rid of all the old pesos. Special:Diff/307360806 that changed the template's output from Mex$ to N$ has no edit summary to indicate why it was changed, the user hasn't edited since 2010, and I don't see any contemporary discussion about it. Anomie⚔13:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bug in "birth date and age" template?
The Walton Empey article has this template in the infobox:
{{birth date and age|df=yes|1934|10|26}}
which renders as "26 October 1934 (age 89)" for me here in Ireland where it's 27 October 2024. But his age should be shown as 90, not 89, unless I'm missing something. (Am wondering if it's due to the clocks changing (here in Europe at least)).--A bit iffy (talk)` A bit iffy (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monkbot has been accused of making this edit at de:Reichman University. Monkbot does not, cannot, make interwiki edits. In that diff, the edit attribution is 'en>Monkbot'. That form of edit attribution indicates, as I understand it, that the edit was an import from en.wiki of text last edited by Monkbot. Since Monkbot did not do the import, is there a way to determine who or what did the import?
Check the notablity of this article and after approval then delete the speedy delete template
Hello dear Wikipedians. This article (Najmeddin Shariati) was created once before in an unprincipled manner and without citing reliable references. For this reason, it was deleted under the title of not notablity and fame with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But this time I created it with basic editing and citing more than 20 reliable references from official Iranian news agencies (Because this person is Iranian) that independently covered the news of this person. Please review this article and its references and after approval, delete the speedy deletion template. This person's article is available in Persian Wikipedia, and its notablity and fame was confirmed by the administrators and editors of Persian Wikipedia according to the reliable sources mentioned in it. If you think this is a stub article. Add the stub template to it and let it stay. The final decision is yours. very thanks 4ipid (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the display of diffs in the article history?
In the Article History, "Compare selected revisions" brings up the Diff page. It used to be in two columns (as shown at Help:Diff#how it looks). Now for me in the last few days it has started showing just one column with the changes shown only by color. I don't like this, how can I change it back? I didn't change any preferences or anything. I fooled around with my preferences but nothing helped.
Login failed (3) : Server has reported lag above the configured max_lag value of 5 value after 5 attempt(s). Last reported lag was - Waiting for 10.64.32.13: 33996.650783 seconds lagged
I reported the same problem earlier Special:Diff/1253816940/1253822334, then deleted it because the problem resolved, and now its back. It appears to be Enwiki specific with lag times of 6+ hours (normal should be 0-10 seconds). It looks like a DDOS or misconfig or something. The immediate solution is to simply remove &maxlag from your API requests. -- GreenC04:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also causing my bot which updates the case table at WP:SPI to go down starting around 18:40 Oct 27: CRITICAL: Exiting due to uncaught exception MaxlagTimeoutError: Maximum retries attempted due to maxlag without success. Is there a phab ticket for this yet? Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taavi: Nice, looks good! [31]Waiting for 10.64.16.89: 0.378559 seconds lagged. Was just about to open a phab ticket when I noticed things were working now. :D Thanks so much! Mz7 (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change user name to camelCaps?
My username Thisisnotatest is pronounced incorrectly by screen readers. Is there any way for me to change it to ThisIsNotATest, capitalizing each word "This Is Not A Test" so it will be pronounced correctly? Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many screen readers, including the two most common ones for Windows, JAWS and NVDA pronounce each capitalised word in a CamelCase phrase separately. Screen reader users get used to all sorts of things being mispronounced; I don't think a single username on a website is that high a priority (I'd give it practically a 0 out of 10, honestly). Graham87 (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi friends, do we know if there are any additional conditions to allow a WP:MOVEOVERREDIRECT, beyond the stated "single line in the page history"? In the last 24 hours I've tried to move three articles: two from draftspace to mainspace, and one within mainspace. All moves were to usurp redirects that only had one single line in their respective page history, however they all resulted in an error.
(edit conflict) It states there is a redirect to the old title with a single line in the page history. Was that the case for the moves you attempted, or were the redirects you were trying to overwrite pointing elsewhere? Anomie⚔18:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template parameters question
Sorry if this has no value, but I've recently (yesterday?) discovered that things like {{AIV|=p}} transclude into (which is just {{p}}). Upon some investigation I've found that it appears to be that a |= parameter replaces all {{{|safesubst:}}} instances in the template being transcluded with the provided parameter (that's why it expanded as the emoji template).
Why does this happen? Is this documented anywhere/does it have an use? I've had trouble searching. – 2804:F1...F0:9FE8 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{{x|y}}} means "the value of parameter x, otherwise 'y'". Therefore {{{|safesubst:}}} means "the value of the parameter with a blank name, otherwise 'safesubst:', and |=p is setting the value of the parameter with the blank name to "p". This is why you should use safesubst<noinclude/>: instead to break up the substitution. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)19:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
Later in November, the Charts extension will be deployed to the test wikis in order to help identify and fix any issue. A security review is underway to then enable deployment to pilot wikis for broader testing. You can read the October project update and see the latest documentation and examples on Beta Wikipedia.
View all 32 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, Pediapress.com, an external service that creates books from Wikipedia, can now use Wikimedia Maps to include existing pre-rendered infobox map images in their printed books on Wikipedia. [32]
Updates for technical contributors
Wikis can use the Guided Tour extension to help newcomers understand how to edit. The Guided Tours extension now works with dark mode. Guided Tour maintainers can check their tours to see that nothing looks odd. They can also set emitTransitionOnStep to true to fix an old bug. They can use the new flag allowAutomaticBack to avoid back-buttons they don't want. [33]
Administrators in the Wikimedia projects who use the Nuke Extension will notice that mass deletions done with this tool have the "Nuke" tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. [34]
I want a gadget or custom js that forces me to ping at least one person everytime I reply to a message.
This is because I reply on help desks and patrol newcomer comments a lot and I feel they really need a notification from me as they are new. But I keep forgetting.
In its simplest form the script would check for the "@" symbol anywhere in my reply and if missing prompt me to add one. Of course the option to dismiss would be great. More complicated forms could use regex to check for at least one userpage link.
I would need it for en.wiki, commons and meta. Let me know if it's possible. I am mainly on a mobile device, using mobile and desktop interfaces interchangeably, if that makes a difference. Commander Keane (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request to Move Draft for AfC Review
Hello, I'd like assistance moving my draft from my user sandbox (User:Abuibrahim100/sandbox) to Draft:Admas Pee for AfC review. My account isn’t autoconfirmed yet, so I’m unable to move it myself. Thank you for your help!
@Abuibrahim100 Your sandbox is already is the queue for review. There's no need to move it to Draft:Admas Pee yourself -- the reviewer will do that for you if necessary. That being said, your draft cannot be approved in its current state because it needs citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. All the sources cited are either to companies writing about themselves (which is not independent) or to Wikipedia articles (which are not considered reliable sources since anyone can edit them). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for pages by category and talk page content
Does anyone know how you would search for all of the pages in a certain category whose associated talk page contains a certain string in its source? So, for instance, what search would return all of the pages in Category:Princesses in Greek mythology which contain "WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome" in their talk page's source? – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be done in PetScan. Put that category name in "Categories", then go to "Templates&links" tab, put that template name there with " Use talk pages instead" checked. – SD0001 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of recently (probably last Thursday), the snackbar popup I get from an archived / missing section link has stopped unpopping-up until I navigate away from the page.
For clarity, my other snackbars (e.g. "Redirected from Wikipedia:vpt") pop away normally. It's just the archived section one that persists. Folly Mox (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That popup is generated by DiscussionTools, not the gadget. You can dismiss a popup on Minerva by tapping it (around a link if it includes one). Nardog (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the DiscussionTools notification. It's supposed to stick around until you interact with it. Could you confirm whether it's dismissed if you directly tap on it? (If it is, it's working as-intended. If not, that's a bug we should fix.) DLynch (WMF) (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay everyone; yesterday was exhausting. After constructing a test case, I can confirm that the snackbar disappears properly when tapped. I feel like the persistence is new behaviour(?) but understand why such a message would be intentionally left around until interacted with.Perhaps removing the snackbar once e.g. the editing interface is opened might make more sense: it does look like a bug in the screenshots I posted (to me, anyway).And apologies for throwing the find-archived-section gadget under the bus: I wasn't previously aware that Mediawiki had incorporated the same functionality until reviewing the documentation for my OP above.I guess I was also wrong about DiscussionTools having no effect in Minerva: I don't see the "people in conversation" or "subscribe to thread", but upon reflection I suppose the linkable timestamps that point straight to a comment supplanting the prior requirement of diff hunting must be part of the extension as well. Folly Mox (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile editing and the reply tool don't reload the page when editing and then the popup remains. I don't know whether something could be done to make it disappear automatically on those actions. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Script to highlight new users
Is there a script to specifically highlight new user (non-EC)? I know there are ones for highlighting by usergroup, but I'm looking just to highlight new users. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That script imports many additional scripts, including at least one personal user script of a retired user who would no longer maintains said personal script. I wouldn't use it for that reason, but I don't immediately see any thing malicious in it. The primary maintainer is listed as @Plastikspork:. (Perhaps Plastikspork can work on deprecating that load-in from retired user User:Jerome_Frank_Disciple). — xaosfluxTalk22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific technical reason script-installer is declaring the script insecure is that it can be edited by admins rather than interface admins as a result of being in the project namespace rather than the MediaWiki namespace. And I, back when I was still an admin, was the one responsible for adding someone's personal script to the mix - the script in question is so trivial it hardly needs "maintenance" so that's not really an issue. * Pppery *it has begun...23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general risk is that that account could be compromised, and with the account being unused this could be unnoticed, and then used to insert malicious code which would be executed by others who imported the prior codes. Just like with any imported script, you need to trust everyone who may modify the script. — xaosfluxTalk00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be trivial, but some maintenance might be in order if it can do this:
[[:File:IL CONSOLE USA IN VISITA ALL’UNIVERSITÀ DI PAVIA (28250236188).jpg]] → [[:File:IL CONSOLE USA IN VISITA ALL'UNIVERSITÀ DI PAVIA (28250236188).jpg]]
When using Twinkle to welcome new users, I am unable to add an article input to the Welcome Cookie Template like I can for some of the other welcome templates (e.g., "I noticed your contributions to Article")- it would be great if I could do this so I don't have to leave a separate message. Let me know if I am making any sense.
Are articles moved from userspace to mainspace not indexed?
So, recently I created FoodPharmer in my userspace and later moved to the mainspace. I keep noticing that search engines (Google, Bing) do not show this if you search "FoodPharmer Wikipedia" or "Revant Himatsingka Wikipedia". But the DYK page on him created 4 days after moving the page and his picture uploaded 8 days after (yesterday) shows up in the search results. This makes me wonder, is the article not showing up because it was initially in userspace (not-indexed)? —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for trial: assignment to a small random group of editors to elevated permissions for a fixed short term by sortition.
Test 1: Selected extended-confirmed editors, who have edited in the past 100 days, get AfC and/or new page reviewer, which have backlogs. They still have to read the instructions. (PCR is too weak for a practical experiment imo.)
Test 2: Selected auto/confirmed editors, who edited recently, get bumped into extended-confirmed.
Rules: Any admin can strike for any behavior at any time; one strike and you're out; no extension of term; no exceptions. Also: you cannot refuse permissions, and your editing or sanction history (but not block history) has no bearing on whether you get or don't get permissions. Every admin and editor with equal permissions capable of oversight will have a readily-accessible list of test editors. (It's not difficult to deduce otherwise.)
Numbers: As a conservative estimate for a first experiment, maybe 200 editors on both tests simultaneously for 6 months, depending on the activity level of those in the sample -- if 20 editors substantially increase their activity in response, that's measurable and manageable.
The purpose is to increase engagement by somewhat active editors across the spectrum, and perhaps even motivate requests for permanent permissions and adminship down the line. In that spirit, if a test editor loses permissions in the one-strike rule, it should have minimal or zero bearing on requesting permissions in future. This is a learning and motivational experience. That permissions here are ultimately reversible and have oversight means that, on balance, if an ill-behaved editor now ends up being able to credibly seek permissions in future, this model, should it be causative, was indeed a success.
A high barrier to entry of WP adminship and some permissions, combined with thanklessness of tasks and relatively low social prestige, means that we are probably below rate-of-replacement on adminship, and there are backlogs for areas needing permissions. Sortition, if it results in participation, relieves this burden. It also increases representative fairness and ideological diversity to those who would handle the content and administrative backlogs. (Afaik this is a WP-unique issue.) In Polish Wikipedia the exclusionary effect on new candidates of acquaintancy among admins was studied (Spychała et al 2014 "Does the Administrator Community ... Acquaintance Relation?"); so if a similar phenomenon exists in all permissions then sortition would help disrupt it.
On the effects of granting priveliges/power: In (Sassenberg et al 2014 "Power corrupts: revisited"), the relationship of elevated power and a sense of communal responsibility vs individual corruption (whether one is elevated as opposed to the other) is complex with contradictory results in the literature. In general, if people are in a socially-oriented environment and goals, which I'd suggest epitomizes WP editing, then power would orient them toward the former. However, the review also suggests that the perception of power as an increase opportunity or promtion, rather than just increased responsibility, is a big part of the increased motivational effects, which would suggest that since sortition may lower the prestige of elevated priveliges, it would have a negative effect on motivation; but this seems again highly social-context- and goal-dependent in the literature.
I have trouble imagining us (i.e., those of us who have achieved a measure of power and control in the current system) being willing to give up control over permissions, no matter how slight this might be.
That said, I think that both Test 1 and Test 2 would be worthwhile experiments, and I specifically suggest considering selecting candidates for Test 2 from among those who are nearly EXTCONF anyway (e.g., they have the time but they're short 100–200 edits, or they have the edits, but they're short 1–2 months).
Even if there's an element of power and status to them, the vast majority of what people with advanced permissions do is just drudgery. It seems really unlikely to me that somebody randomly assigned NPP or even admin is actually going to want to use them. And one of the main functions of the perm system is to reduce the attack surface these rights offer by only giving them to people motivated enough to ask for it.
Also, yes AfC and NPP are backlogged, but 'reviewing the reviewers' is also work and there are very few admins doing it. This would massively increase that workload - who's going to pick up the slack? – Joe (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that an editor who receives a note saying something like "You've been given this permission temporarily. Please read up and use it if you want" might use it a few times, at least to try it out. If they have a positive experience, they might request to the perm later through the usual channels.
Giving a perm only to those motivated enough to ask means that a higher percentage of the requesters is improperly motivated. Undeclared paid editors will be more motivated to ask for the permission than an ordinary volunteer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "checking up on whether people did the thing correctly" and "doing the thing" are really different actions. So while I think it's obvious that this would increase the amount of "checking up on each other" work, I'm not sure it's the admins at AfC and NPP that will be shouldering that work, though I'm sure we probably would do so somewhat disproportionately. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite a fan of sortition for filling real-world positions, both where it is used in many countries (mainly for selecting juries) and for some other positions. A few thoughts on its applicability to Wikipedia:
I doubt that many people would devote much time to the task, because they have to earn a living, and paying the people selected would cause many other issues.
Many people would try out their new permissions, but most would drop out.
There need to be clear success/failure criteria. Too many things are tried here, then clearly fail, but continue to be used because of the sunken cost fallacy (I know this is controversial, but I would class draft space as being one of these).
Clear criteria are highly desirable. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that a single metric works (e.g., we don't want to lose these randomly selected editors and we don't want WP:UGLY articles in the mainspace), and it's entirely possible that doing the jobs correctly would result in the selected editors quitting. For example:
Existing AFC promotions have a very low rate of deletion at AFD. (I believe that the normal rate is about 75%.) Given that they're supposed to promote articles that are likely (i.e., 51%, not 90%) to survive AFD, this means that they are underpromoting and overrestricting.
If the new AFC people collectively promote articles that get deleted only 40% of the time, that's a sign that they're doing it correctly (still underpromoting, actually), even though theirs are getting deleted more often than older AFC folks. Thie AFD metric would show success.
But: if each AFD, or the run up to those AFDs, comes with recriminations and complaints about how they're being too "lenient", then the yelled-at editors might quit. The editor-retention metric would show failure.
If the new AFC people collectively promote articles that get deleted only 40% of the time, that's a sign that they're doing it correctly (still underpromoting, actually)Not necessarily. If they promote articles with a chance to survive AfD above 50%, and we assume they are uniformly distributed in probability, the average promoted article would have 75% of chance to survive AfD, or in other words get deleted 25% of the time. If they get deleted 40% of the time, there might be a level of overpromotion going on. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I love people who can math.)
I think it depends on your underlying assumptions about the distribution. If you have 10 articles, each with a 51% chance of surviving AFD, and you promote them all, and all 10 get sent to AFD, then you'd expect five to get deleted – and they were all still correct promotions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely depends on our hypotheses about the distribution, indeed. If the 10 articles range from 51%, 56%, ... up to 96%, then you'd have a lower expectation of deleted articles (2.65 if I mathed correctly). But there's also a hidden assumption in here, in that an article with 96% chances of surviving an AfD will probably not be sent there to begin with, meaning the deletion rate of articles being sent at AfD will naturally be higher than the total deletion rate.All in all, it would be interesting to have more statistics about both the deletion chance of AfC articles at AfD, and how much AfC articles are underrepresented at AfD to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion stats are difficult to measure retrospectively. It might be something that we need to study prospectively. There's also the complication of experience: people submitting articles through AFC are not going to have the same deletion rate as people like you and me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Complicating this, I don't think most AfC reviewers go for "50% likelihood of AfD survival" so much as "I'm more than 50% sure this would survive AfD" - not quite the same thing. I think I'm one of the more lenient AfC reviewers (well, of those among us who aren't socks), and if 25% of my accepts went to AfD I'd be shocked. Also I think people would be telling me to resign. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that you're correct. Just having more than a small number of articles sent to AFD, even if they were all kept in the end, would raise some eyebrows. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also while it's tempting to consider, if this experiment is successful, a radical future proposed sortition of admins, akin to the admin-for-a-day proposed in 2012, but per WMF this is not legally doable, the prohibitive priveliges being rollback and deleted material. That doesn't necessarily have to prevent it; the WMF doesn't set an actual bar for the community review. Therefore, we could have a much lower-pressure, lower-stakes community review of every editor who meets a certain threshold of edits and age to determine eligibility for one day obtaining those rights via sortation, with the sole focus being "is this person likely to abuse rollback or access to deleted material?" (which would almost always lean towards acceptance, since it is automatic, done for everyone, and doesn't directly grant adminship.) Only arguments and rationales specifically related to that question would be allowed and considered by closers when closing such discussions, not general discussions of whether they'd make a good admin in other ways; and they wouldn't require bcrat closures or anything. This would then allow admin status to be granted to those editors via sortition because they'd previously passed a community review on the aspects the WMF cares about. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the prohibitive priveliges being rollback and. Rollback doesn't seem very dangerous. I doubt wmf would put their foot down about handing out that one too easily. Agree that wmf would object to handing out view deleted though for legal reasons. This has been well discussed before. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the WMF cares about Wikipedia:Rollback (which doesn't even get used much, because Twinkle and other scripts can mimic the same effect). The legal problem is viewdeleted. They have consistently said that they want proof that the community trusts the people who have that particular right (e.g., we trust them not to restore copyvios or re-post uploaded revenge porn to another site). The process of community vetting can change, but there must be a community vetting process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(e.g., we trust them not to restore copyvios or re-post uploaded revenge porn to another site). I've never heard that. WMF's stated reason for viewdeleted being sensitive is that they want to be able to say in court that when something is deleted, it is well and truly deleted, and that only vetted individuals will have access to it, rather than it being easily accessible. The vibe I'm getting is to make sure BLP, libel and defamation, etc. stays deleted and that they can argue it is truly deleted in court. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is restoring the inappropriate here or posting it on other websites, then that's not "staying deleted", and nobody could argue that it is, even around the dinner table. We need to be able to trust that admins won't do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, though, my point is that we can have a more lightweight vetting process focused specifically and exclusively on whether someone is likely to abuse the specific tools the WMF is worried about. Whenever alternative approaches to adminship come up, people bring up that WMF concern, and it's easily addressed. The WMF isn't worried about people abusing blocks, or unblocks, or weighing in at WP:AE, or AE enforcement actions; and the (perceived, at least) high risk associated with those things under the current system is what actually makes people reluctant to promote admins and which therefore makes RFAs hard. This is also self-perpetuating in that the fewer admins there are the more impact each one has, raising the stakes of RFA in a way that risks breaking it. The community and the WMF are worried about different things. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is a solvable problem. Also, it doesn't have to be solved in the first iteration. We could test the system on a couple of other userrights, and circle back to test some others later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF doesn't care about rollback. We could even auto-promote users to some "been around a while" group that includes all of Autopatrolled, New page reviewer, Page mover, Pending changes reviewer, Rollback and they wouldn't care. — xaosfluxTalk13:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to do it slightly the other way around - go ask the editors whose sortition perms are about to expire if they want it taken away, and leave it otherwise, so long as they used it non-disruptively. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea about temporary permissions is that you can't build a fiefdom. Do the work for a designated period of time, and then your turn's up, and someone else takes over to do their best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we could do this in reverse. Specifically, I worry that the regulars at ANI and COIN (in particular) see so much bad behavior that they develop a distorted view of the community and its goals. For example, if you see an endless parade of accusations about undeclared paid editing because the complainant believes the content to be 'promotional', then you'll start seeing UPE scammers behind everything, even when it's just an ordinary person, not fully aware of our house style[*], trying to write about a subject that interests them. Could we pick a random set of 'regulars' and invite them to take a break for three months? And invite, say, 10x as many uninvolved folks to step up to take their places?
[*] For example, our house style declares that "offices in 26 countries and as of October 2024 in the process of opening offices in two more countries" is okay, but "offices in more than 25 countries" is culpable promotionalism, and the maintenance cost of the first style is unimportant.
Re-instating this proposal, I want to make the icons look more clear and sleek; I will eventually add on more to the icons (such as good articles, audio articles, etc.) I also want to add region-based letter shackles, so for example 拡 (拡張, Kakuchō) would be the Japanese extended-protection icon, same with 満 (満杯, Manpai) for full-protection.
Agree with others that these new icons look dated. However, if we are discussing changes to lock icons, then I must say the the purple for upload protected is incongruously gaudy. Cremastra — talk — c20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think the gradients or bevels make these icons less clear and sleek, at least in their current iteration. The icons also become less readable at smaller resolutions since the shackle part of the padlocks takes up more space, making the actual symbol inside smaller.
Pretty strong oppose trying to run a geolocation script on every load to try to make dynamic labels here. If anything (which I also don't like) labels should follow user interface language. — xaosfluxTalk17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the differences, I was just suggesting (because I don't really speak any other language you could propose a specific version) Also, I will later add the letters on the shackles.
Oppose making the primary (only) differentiation be color, as that gives out less information then the current scheme and is useless for those without color viewing abilities. — xaosfluxTalk17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xaosflux on this one. Furthermore, the two issues of the old icon scheme (color and "realistic" shading that doesn't look great on small icons), which were the reasons for the change to begin with, are present on this one too.Regarding the region-based symbols, it would make more sense to display them based on the language edition, and, since each language edition already sets its own standards for this stuff, there isn't much more we can do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs(converse)(hedgehogs)14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WIKICLICHE we've been asked to not say this quite as much, due to supply chain issues – if we use them too much we could see a huge shortage down the road. But I hope I'm not generating more heat than light with this comment, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cremastra — talk — c20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never throw the baby out with the bathwater. This will contaminate your greywater collection system. Like other meats, babies are not compostable, so they should be sorted into the landfill waste stream unless otherwise advised by your municipal waste management authority. Folly Mox (talk) Folly Mox (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pseudo-3D shading looks dated compared to the current flat icons. Most modern design systems (including codex, which is the new design system for Wikimedia wikis) are built around flat icons. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for funStill feel like a step backwards. The current "Good article" icon, on top of having less of a distracting shading and being more readable, is in a consistent style with a lot of our other icons. The current "Featured article" icon, although not consistent with the others, is pretty unique and recognizable in design, while this one looks like a generic star.Just for fun, I did once make a "Good article" star in the style of the FA one – not meant for any official implementation beyond my personal script of course, but it's neat to see how it would look like. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not visual improvements whatsoever, unfortunately. They are clear regressions in design, and the current icons are fine. Our system is particular to the English Wikipedia, so it's perfectly appropriate for their design to be relative to the English language.Remsense ‥ 论19:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Color me baffled. By starting with Re-instating this proposal, you make me think you want to reinvigorate some failed proposal. But then I follow your link and see that the proposal led to the implementation of new padlock icons, which; I guess, you mean to reverse. I also fail to understand what you mean by region-based letter shackles; do you mean for articles about, e.g., Japan? Or articles viewed by somebody we're supposed to have guessed might be in Japan? Or somebody with the Japanese language listed in a userbox on their User page? It's English Wikipedia, so I can't see the last two being useful options, and the first one will only lead to arguments and confusion and we've got that already. The current icons seem clear enough to me, although I don't know how to measure "sleek", I guess. In summary: baffled. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)12:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean region-based letter shackles basically like the letters on shackles but different regional translations. (This'll probably not work because of @Chaotic Enby's post.)
So (just to see if I understand it finally), you're proposing on English Wikipedia that Japanese Wikipedia use icons with Japanese symbology, and Spanish Wikipedia use some Spanish-language indicator on the padlock, etc. Yes? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Status quo is fine. It's really cool that you're contributing your graphics skills to the movement though. I'm sure there's some less high profile areas that could really benefit from your skills. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: New proposals are nice but I personally like the style of the old ones better, and flat icons also seem more up-to-date to me. Regional shackles sound like a good idea, but don't appear to be in this proposal, so I'll just say I support those (maybe in the old design-style in my preference). Mrfoogles (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Remsense. The new 3D icons look like something from the early days of the internet. Plus the shadowing makes the icons appear unnecessarily "bulky" (not sure how to say this). Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here as well. It's not about status quo or resistance to change, I vastly prefer the current icons to the proposed replacements. (Admittedly subjective) points in favor of the current icons over the new ones:
The flatter look will render better at small sizes (since these icons are actually shown at a fraction of the size they're displayed in this thread)
Ditto the blockier font
Ditto the thicker shackle arcs
The skinny shackles and rectangular body give the proposed replacements the appearance of handbags, not padlocks
The letter placement is more uniform and precise in the current icons; the proposed replacements appear to have been "eyeballed". IMHO SVG art of this sort is best hand-coded (if not from scratch, then at least as a finalization pass to clean up the code), with all of the dimensions precise and uniform.
I appreciate the effort, and I'm sorry to be critical, but I'm just not into them at all. The current set, OTOH, are actually fairly well-designed and optimized for their purpose, which is an important consideration in designing functional artwork of this sort. It's puzzling to me that anyone would be looking to replace them, as there's surprisingly little room for improvement IMHO. FeRDNYC (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a fan of the proposed icons (see also Nythar's comment), and the current locks work quite well. however, I would be supportive of a redesign of the GA/FA icons (/the various icons of the same style) in a style similar to the current locks. Rexo (talk | contributions) 20:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enabling SecurePoll elections with the electionadmin right
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.
WP:SNOW: unanimous support to have the ability to hold local SecurePoll elections, including enabling the electionadmin right on enwiki. An RFC to determine how the new right should be distributed can be launched at any time; it may be advisable to advertise that RFC on WP:CENT. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) Levivich (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! My name is Joe Sutherland and I'm on the Trust and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation. In the past, your community has shown interest in holding elections with SecurePoll — perhaps you already have through votewiki. We are now looking into making this available to local communities to run elections themselves. This will require the "electionadmin" right to be enabled on your project, which is a right that allows access to sensitive information.
As such, it is likely that you will need to run a Request for Comment (or similar process) to ascertain consensus for the implementation of this feature. To help guide such a discussion, we've put together a Meta-Wiki page with more information about what enabling the right will mean for your community.
If your community does discuss and decides to move forward with this, T&S would like to support you — please let us know via email ( ca@wikimedia.org ) if and when consensus is reached. Thank you!
Sorry, I wasn't totally clear - this would be for future (admin/ArbCom) elections that the community would like to run. The elections scheduled to start soon will use the existing votewiki system. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This isn't a requirement holding for admin elections, arbcom elections (or any other type of elections) but (if I've understood correctly) it will reduce the amount of support we need from the WMF when we do hold them. I agree completely with Sdkb's last sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This would help us host local administrator elections and arbitration committee elecitons that aren't so dependent on the limited bandwidth of the stewards (scrutineers) and WMF T&S (for vote.wikimedia.org setup). By the way, are electionadmins basically checkusers within the SecurePoll tool (being able to see IP information for voters)? So we'd need to make sure that folks that receive that permission are a functionary and/or sign an NDA? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Is there a ticket on Phab to separate election checkuser capabilities from election creation/editing capabilities? This might be worth looking into. The person that sets up polls doesn't necessarily need to be the same person that checks all the voters. And it may make sense to have a division here. For example, someone technical can set up SecurePoll, and existing checkusers could do the scrutineering. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and it looks like any admin can create a poll, but only electionadmins (scrutineers) can edit a poll or view checkuser-like data on voters. This split is a bit odd, as I think it'd be better if admins could also edit polls that they were added to when the polls were created, so I've filed phab:T377531 to explore that idea a bit further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support to help us implement administrator elections in a more practical way for both us and the WMF. However, will electionadmins be a new user group? They seem to combine characteristics of checkusers and bureaucrats, and I'm not sure whether it would work to bundle the right into either by default. On the other hand, Novem Linguae's proposal of splitting the user right could work better, with a technical-minded crat setting up the poll, while checkusers get the scrutineering right. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the code right... yes, electionadmin would either need to be a new user group, or the permissions for it (securepoll-create-poll, securepoll-view-voter-pii) added to an existing user group such as the checkusers. The latter might be simpler than creating a whole new appointment process for electionadmins.
At first glance, I don't see a relationship between bureaucrats and electionadmins. Electionadmins can't grant any user groups, unlike bureaucrats. Again, if I'm reading the code right, any admin can create a poll. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the relationship between bureaucrats and electionadmins, it's more to have the same group in charge of regular RfAs and admin elections, and to decouple checkusers from this additional responsibility. But that might be too redundant, and having any technical-minded admin able to do it could be enough, although it would be a major responsibility to give to any admin and might make it more difficult for potential candidates to gain the voters' trust. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The technical village pump is for questions about how to do X, whereas how to grant the electionadmin right requires a proposal for a policy, so this page is the appropriate place. Since the right provides access to voter information (as per meta:SecurePoll/Local elections § What does the electionadmin right do?), a process is needed to establish who is trusted with this access. The options I can think of are by consensus discussion, by election, or by appointment (which would push the question up one level on how to decide what group does the appointing). Being part of an existing trusted group, such as those with the oversight right or the checkuser right, could be a requirement to become an election admin. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be simplest to grant the permissions securepoll-create-poll and securepoll-view-voter-pii to the checkusers. That way we don't need the overhead of a separate user group or separate appointment process. I think you have to specifically be added to a poll by the poll creator to see its PII, so there shouldn't be any security risk from giving all the checkusers the ability to be added to polls by the poll creator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a major oversight. The admin elections are modeled after WP:ACE but apparently nobody thought about the scrutineers that need to be approved and tooled up each year for ACE. I'm presuming this means the elections are on hold until we clear this up? Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Locally, we have a few options that we could consider if we decide to do polls. First, we don't HAVE to encrypt the database, it doesn't make the votes readily available - but a developer could access them, so that is something to consider (also means not having to deal with key escrow to finalize the election). Additionaly, we don't have to let SP collect private info. We would still have the usernames - it would just prevent using the checkuser info on the securepoll votes. These are all just things to consider if we set up polls - point is that there are options. — xaosfluxTalk13:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Local communities should have the autonomy to conduct elections when they see fit, and not be so dependent on a certain WMF team that has a tight calendar. Also, the inability to conduct separate elections on multiple sites at the same time is a big limitation of the current system that would be addressed by this. – SD0001 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per SD and Xaos above, I think deploying SecurePoll locally so that individual communities can conduct elections in a autonomous and decentralized manner at the tradeoff of some confidentiality is a good idea in general. Sohom (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support An RFC will definitely be necessary to determine who can scrutineer. I imagine we have a few options, the first two I can think of being either assigning the CheckUser group (or perhaps a different set of users?) the electionadmin right, or just creating a new usergroup and having Stewards go ahead and assign it to the relevant scrutineers a week or so before an SP is scheduled to occur, then remove it afterwards. EggRoll97(talk) 03:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have organized Wikimedia elections for affiliate organizations and after trying open processes, have found that commercial software is the only practical option. The Wikimedia community loves democratic process and elections, but has never had tools to support that. Making an option for SecurePoll has been a longstanding community request since at least 2016 when meta:SecurePoll was set up. Bluerasberry (talk)15:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I, Bunnypranav, wish to create a bot that intends to fix Check Wiki errors on the affected pages. For now, I consider focusing only on CW Error #3: Reference list missing, but later am willing to expand on to other errors, especially High Priority errors which can be fixed automatically using AWB. A majority of my AWB edits were fixing this error, and I did not find a single wrong suggestion by AWB
I intend to keep Auto Tagging and RegexTypoFixing on, but OK with turning it off if consensus says so.
I know that there are couple other bots fixing Check Wiki errors (Yobot, MenoBot), but I feel the project can do with another bot. I request everyone to give their opinion on my proposal, and I am willing to accept any feedback (including about my readiness of being a bot operator). Bunnypranav (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf I have posted this here to gain some consensus about my proposal. Also, as some might see me, I can be considered a not ready to be a bot op. I personally think I am capable, but please place your opinions.
@Sdkb I plan to enable Skip if only cosmetic in AWB, so as to skip any edits which are only cosmetic as the ref list has been added, but CheckWiki reports it as not fixed. Bunnypranav (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through some of his contribs, to see if there was a significant risk that "missing reflist" meant "vandal blanking the bottom half of the article", and I found no evidence of that. What I mostly found was newer editors adding the first Wikipedia:Inline citation to those articles. It's rather encouraging to see, actually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Task: When an edit adds an file link without "|(\s*)?frameless" or "|(\s*)?thumb" within it, warn the user and tell them they probably wanted to put a |thumb in. Still allow them to save the edit. Can also scan for every format supported if wanted.
Needs wider discussion but until then, {{EFR}}. The basis for this request is on one accidential removal of a colon. This seems more like something that might be raised at Phab if nothing else, but I don't think we need a filter to warn people to use thumb. EggRoll97(talk) 23:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from VPR. I'm not sure what our standards are for edit filters enough to be able to comment on the appropriateness of one for this. But I can say that I've certainly been guilty of forgetting to add thumb and not previewing, resulting in situations exactly like the linked diff.
Actually, no, I'm not sure if edit check applies. Its project page defines it as a set of improvements for the visual editor, where I highly doubt editors make this mistake. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, true, I forgot that. In that case, we might want a different sort of warning, perhaps akin to the disambiguation link added one. Sdkbtalk02:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea for community wishlist more than anything else. I don't think an edit filter is really the best way to go here. Even on a warn-only, it will be catching good-faith edits, and (temporarily) slowing down these contributions. This isn't to say this isn't a problem, just that edit filters may not be the best way to solve it. EggRoll97(talk) 04:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically a lot of the formulas in maths articles are inline images (see e.g. series (mathematics)). These are generated rather than transcluded, but it wouldn't surprise me if there is some edge case where an image is transcluded inline for a similar purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly articles containing inline images for discussing symbols (which may not have straightforward Unicode character representations), e.g. rare historical letter glyphs or musical notation elements (see Archaic Greek alphabets or Mensural notation, to name just two that I happen to have worked on). Yes, I guess articles like these are few, but if an article requires them, it will require them numerous times. Fut.Perf.☼11:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will be scalable, given the number of potential articles and the number of potential images. What might work would be something in the syntax to say "I am intentionally using this image inline" Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From testing in my sandbox it seems to me that this would work in all cases where there isn't a caption being used as alt text (#10) as that removes the alt text. Glagolitic script#Characteristic uses captions in this manner.
However, when I tabulated the results (Special:Permalink/1253409176) any double pipes were interpreted as table syntax, even inside the file link, so broke things. Which makes things complicated. I'd also like to know if this breaks anything for users of screen readers.
We could also do [[File:Slinky shrewsbury.jpg|inline|]][[File:Slinky shrewsbury.jpg|inline|caption]] for case 1 (no caption) and case 2 (w/ caption). Regex would scan for |inline|. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought is that we'd need to get VE to insert this parameter too, otherwise it would trigger the warning for the next person to edit the source, with the potential for confusion and lost edits. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with both those suppositions, but I don't know if there are other uses than maths articles. However my main point was that good faith reasons for using an inline image, however rare, almost certainly do exist and so there needs to be some provision for allowing them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of templates that use inline images, so be careful. I general I would say, please don't make too many assumptions about how people should NOT use wikicode. People are for more inventive with the syntax than you expect :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the examples. However, I think we all should refocus the conversation onto the |inline| override idea proposed above. With the override idea, editors adding new inline images can see how to stop the message from popping up again and go on on their merry way. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're modeling here – thinking about how a policy/convention could be programmed into editing experiences – is precisely the kind of practice we're intending Edit Check to inspire.
I like and support this idea for that very example you state (geez that was a big image). My one concern related to the warning message encouraging the usage of these parameters, however, is that it needs to be very clear upfront that |frame, |frameless, and |thumb may NOT be used in any combination together since these three are contradictory parameters. When these conflicting parameters do appear together on a single image, it triggers a Bogus/Invalid Image Option syntax error, a Wikipedia tracked error that sprouts a dozen or so new cases daily. I and another editor teamed up this summer and finally eliminated the existing backlog of the 7000+ cases of active Invalid Image Options, and is one of a few error types our little community has caught up with and are keeping mowed down so that it doesn't resprout and grow wild again. My main concern is that if Wikipedia is not clear up front that these cannot be used together, people might think to there is no issue in just adding all the options and being done with it, (a "Heck with it all" reaction) leading to a higher rate of repopulation of this error type. Would stating use only one (to discourage combinations) be effective, or might a second/subcheck message be reasonable on (re)submission in these cases? Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed override for the edit filter above is introducing multiple captions, which is also a linter error. Do you know if there's a way to configure the linter extension so that the override is an exception? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is well beyond my knowledge. Jonesey95 knows more than I do, they might know, but I'd suspect that's more of a question for WMF. If multiple captions were introduced, I'm concerned with how that would work and how are the controls for determining which caption displays. I think the current WP:EIS syntax is fairly straight forward, and people make all sorts of unintended messes with it now. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple captions were introduced, I'm concerned with how that would work and how are the controls for determining which caption displays.
The software currently handles this well: by always only displaying the last caption, as you've probably seen at Thryduulf's sandbox. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming to this discussion late, so forgive me if I misunderstand. I read through it twice, and I don't get it. The proposal is to stop people from inserting File:/Image: calls unless they have thumb or frameless? If that is the proposal, I don't see how it is reasonable. People insert such images all the time and have done so for decades, and things are generally fine. I did a semi-random search for insource:/\[\[File:/ -insource:/thumb/, and I got List of world sports championships, Nephrozoa, Filozoa, Countries of the United Kingdom, Papua New Guinea at the 2015 Pacific Games, PubChem, and more than 100,000 other pages that do not appear to be causing any trouble. I think there may be an XY problem here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not stop completely, give a warning for new additions through an edit filter that won't stop them if they save a second time or include some kind of override. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I frequently edit articles about small towns in Iowa. When the 2020 US Census results were released, the vast majority of these articles had multi-paragraph summaries of the 2000 and 2010 Census results, usually under the heading "Demographics". The 2010 summaries appear to have been made by a bot, which is no longer active. The 2020 Census results have been available for several years now, and no bot has run through these articles and inserted 2020 Census summaries. For a few of the larger cities in Iowa, editors had added 2020 summaries, but for the vast majority of cities, towns and CDPs, the articles only had 2000 and 2010 summaries. So I updated the 974 articles for the Iowa towns with no 2020 summary, manually (I didn't clobber any exisiting 2020 summaries, unless they had fewer than 3 sentences). I spot checked the situation for other states, and found a similar situation. There may be as many as 40,000 articles that have this issue (for example: Northfield, Minnesota).
I think a case could be made that these articles really don't need extensive summaries of the census results. But I don't think many people would think that these articles should have extensive summaries of past censuses, but not the most recent one. Surely the most recent census is the most relevant. Having the summaries end at 2010 makes the article look abandoned.
Before I edited all those Iowa city articles, I made a Python script that called the US Census Department servers' API, to fetch the data, and the script produced a text block formatted properly for Wikipedia. I think it would be useful to to make a bot to update the articles for other states, but there are tricky issues, and I have never made a Wikipedia bot. Is there anyone who would be willing to work with me to make a bot to do these updates? If this is the wrong place to be asking that, can someone direct me to the correct place? Thanks for any info! PopePompus (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PopePompus, you're definitely correct that census data for U.S. cities is a very lacking area.
I'd start by reviewing the discussion here from 2020 — as you'll see toward the end, my view is that we very badly need to be converting this information into template form, rather than copying and pasting it (which is a large part of what has created the mess). I'd then open new discussion at WT:CITIES to get a sense of where current consensus is at. You may also want to look at what information Wikidata has and whether that can be of use. Once you've established consensus there to make changes, bot approvals go at WP:BOTREQ.
Overall, this will certainly be a major project, given the complexity of the information involved and the wide scale at which changes are needed. Good luck! Sdkbtalk04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will just add that a bot created almost all of the articles about places in the US that were enumerated by the US Census in 2000. Many of those articles for years consisted of very little more than the demographic section. I believe that most of the 2010 census data was added manually, generally attempting to follow the 2000 bot-created format. Adding the 2020 census data has been piecemeal, at best. A bot to handle this sounds good, but getting agreement on the format for the data in articles may require some discussion. Donald Albury13:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mass creation of the articles by a bot was a very good thing. At least in the case of Iowa, most of the articles have accumulated non-bot content. Since the barrier to entry for editing an existing article is far lower than creating a new one, it's safe to say that most of the post-bot content would not ever have appeared absent the bot. I agree with Sdkb that a template is the way to go. I had not seen the 2020 discussion he pointed to, and I found that discussion somewhat disappointing, because a lot of the discussion was about details, rather than focusing on what I think are the major issues: Template or not, should old results be retained in the main body of the text, and perhaps most importantly who's gonna do it. PopePompus (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency of the Demographics sections across articles about (Census enumerated) populated places in the US is desirable. Unfortunately, I have no experience with bots, and have fallen into the hole of trying to expand articles about almost 80 species in a genus. Donald Albury14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a bot add this information. Adding the same thing as last time is okay with me, though a complete re-write might eventually be desirable. It looks like Yellowcard has done some work at getting the US census numbers into Wikidata. Perhaps he has the needed skills, or at least is familiar with the format of the database?
(In terms of a complete re-write, imagine that an exact replica would result in these three sentences in the article (in separate sub-sections):
[From 2000] The racial makeup of the city was 95.67% White, 3.29% Native American, 0.17% from other races, and 0.87% from two or more races.
Would it be possible to combine this into a single statement like:
The racial makeup of the city was 88.5% White, 0.5% African American, 1.5% Native American, 1.5% from other races, and 8% from two or more races, representing a decline in <name listed groups with significant change> and an increase in <name other groups> since the 2000 census.
Thanks @WhatamIdoing for the ping. We (a interested user group in the German Wikipedia) have invested a lot of time and effort by extracting the data from the US Census Bureau website/database and uploading it to Wikidata. This is done for data like population, number of households, area, water area, per capita income (which comes from the ACS) etc. The population data is available for the 2010 and 2020 census.
Creating a bot that fetches the information from the Census Bureau's website and creates plain text (!) is a horrible idea to me. The data is available on Wikidata and usable for Wikipedia already (and has been since 2021). The project on German Wikipedia has a bit stopped due to real-life timing issues, but could be restarted. For the German Wikipedia (where article creation by a bot is rejected, for whatever reasons), we use the data in the infoboxes for all US cities that have an article. The data is so reliable that we even have removed the parameters for population and household counts in the infobox - they are fetched from Wikidata no matter what. No manual updating of Census information in the article necessary nor possible any more.
Articles in German face the same issue as in the English Wikipedia - totally outdated, bot-generated and therefore boring Demographics paragraphs. There is a clear consensus that we will not make this mistake again. Data like this should go into the article via templates, not via plaintext. Yellowcard (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors at the English Wikipedia distrust Wikidata, so relying entirely on Wikidata isn't accepted. They worry that vandalism (or innocent mistakes) will go unnoticed and uncorrected. We also have a substantial group of editors who believe that paragraphs are preferable to infoboxes, or necessary in addition to infoboxes. Between them, I think the most likely outcome is plain old paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Idea lab
Fix Draftification with a new template
Draftification has long been criticized as a backdoor to deletion. In New Pages Patrol (NPP), it is common to move new articles that are not ready for mainspace to draftspace. This way, articles that could potentially be suitable for Wikipedia, but are not yet, are preserved. The article creator then gets a chance to improve their article without NPPers breathing down their necks or having it taken to Articles for Deletion. If anyone, including the article creator, objects to draftification, the article should be moved back to mainspace (draftification should be reversed). This is explained by DRAFTNO #6 and #7. No reason is required for the objection.
Problem: However, we also have a rule that drafts that haven't been edited for six months get automatically deleted, under Criterion for Speedy Deletion G13. So, well-meaning New Page Patrollers will unilaterally draftify new articles that are not yet ready for the encyclopedia. The new editors who created the article may disagree with the move, without knowing that they can object. The new users can get discouraged and leave Wikipedia altogether, and after six months the draft is deleted under CSD G13. As this process happens without community discussions, it results in draftification being called a "backdoor to deletion".
Solution: This problem can be solved without changing policy or current practice. We just need to make it very obvious to new users that they can object to draftification. We can also make it easy to reverse the draftication (assuming the new user is autoconfirmed). I suggest we do this by adding a template to all draftified articles. The template would include a big blue button, similar to the "Submit the draft for review!" button at Template:AfC submission/draft, which says "Object to this move". Clicking this button either: 1. Leaves a message on the talk page of the editor who draftified, notifying them that there has been an objection to the move and requesting that it be immediately reversed. 2. Moves the page back to mainspace automatically, or if the editor's account is unable to perform this task, creates an entry at Requested moves/Technical moves to that effect. The latter is better, but also more technically complex. Adding a similar button to Template:Uw-articletodraft, the warning typically given upon draftification, would also be helpful.
Implementation: Once the new template is ready, it can be added to MPGuy's MoveToDraft userscript, which is the most common way for NPPers to draftify articles. It should be placed above the AfC template on all draftified articles.
I would appreciate comments from technically skilled editors, who could create this template (or tell me that it's impossible), from NPPers who draftify articles, and from uninvolved editors who have opinions on the draftification process. Toadspike[Talk]10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea isn't really my own, it was obviously sparked by the most recent RfA. A similar idea was previously discussed here, but that discussion proposed a requirement that all editors have to follow (policy), not a technical solution, and turned into a trainwreck. To prevent something similar, I ask all participants to please focus on improving the current situation instead of debating the morality of draftification as a whole. Toadspike[Talk]11:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying the users who commented most directly on this topic at the RfA: @Alalch E.@User:Onel5969@User:Hobit@User:Fangz@User:Nsk92. I have also notified the NPP Talk page and posted a message on Discord. I am not sure how to notifying all participants of the previous discussion (aside from doing it manually) and I am not sure that is productive considering how many people were involved and how offtopic it got, so I won't do that for now. Toadspike[Talk]11:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The draftification message could be tweaked, but a big button to reverse the move will lead to more AfDs, higher strain on NPP, more BITEY behaviour, and worse editor retention. Draft space is incredibly valuable, and people have some incredibly warped views about the space. If we did something like this then we'd end up chasing away new editors because learning how to make your article meet our complicated guidelines in under 7 days (AfD tag) is not easy for a lot of folks. Draft space gives them the opportunity to work on the content, to receive advise, and to make articles that will actually survive at AfD and allow them to stick around. Really we need to draftify more, and I've taken it upon myself to begin to do so again and encourage others to do. I'm big on editor retention. This is not the way to do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with unilateral draftification is that it can also be incredibly bitey, especially when done for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with any of the reasons why something might be deleted at AfD (although this is less prevalent than the trivial reasons things are rejected at AfC). We should be draftifying fewer articles and not sending them to AfD either but rather leaving them in the mainspace (With appropriate tags where justified) so that they can be found and improved rather than pretending that they don't exist for six months and then deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really convinced draftification is any worse than the alternatives - tagging is *also* bitey as well, and one user tagging an article and leaving it in mainspace could lead to another user seeing it and deciding to AfD. Draftification could be a way to protect an article until it enters a better state. But I think the other part I have an issue with is the lack of clear guidelines. Clearly some people have an issue with draftification and others do not, and people have different ideas what it is for. That needs to be made more concrete. Otherwise just saying "we should use draftification less" isn't going to lead to any positive changes. Fangz (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general sentiment – arguing for more or less draftification does not solve the problem that new users basically can't object to it. Toadspike[Talk]12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I envision a template (possibly one specific for relatively new users?) being something like:
1. Hi, this article has been moved to a draft form because another user thinks it has potential but is not ready for the encyclopedia just yet. REASON:
2. You can continue to work on it while it's not published, though note that if not editted for 6 months it will be deleted. Here are some useful resources.
3. When you think the article is ready you can submit the article to a review, which can give useful feedback. []
4. Alternatively you may return the article to the main encyclopedia at any time and have it be editted while part of the main encyclopedia. See WP: Draft Object. Note however that if other users think there are unfixable issues with the article it may be put forward as a candidate for deletion. Fangz (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view draftified articles should (semi?) automatically return to the mainspace after timeout instead of be deleted. Or at least be re-evaluated for notability. I do not really see the reason for automatic speedy deletion, except as backdoor deletion. Fangz (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't they just improve it in mainspace, without the sting on of an initial rejection and a six month deletion countdown hanging over them? I don't get why you keep presenting this as a choice between draftspace and AfD. – Joe (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that "improving it in mainspace" has its own issues. An article in mainspace has to juggle being of service to the reader to being of service to the editor. This implies formal processes and wikijargon for consistency, unified templates for issues in the article, clear and ruthless labelling of problems and so on. There's a strong tendency for the first experience of an editor to be a very public and humiliating fight against established editors who have a better understanding of wikipedia processes, quickly driving the editor away or getting them blocked. It is also very difficult to improve on this experience as it would imply fundamental changes affecting all sorts of things. Meanwhile improving an article in draft mode allows for a more informal process of communication to shepherd an article towards an acceptable state. Fangz (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little work on page view statistics recently. The median article gets about one page view per week. So if the new article is typical, then it doesn't have to "be of service to the reader", because there aren't really any readers. Editors (especially NPP and RecentChanges folks) may look at a brand-new article a few dozen times on the first day, but once the reviewers leave it alone, most articles just don't have much traffic.
I think the reason we are unwilling to "improve it in mainspace" is because we're scared that we'll forget that it was there, and years later, someone will be embarrassed to discover that an WP:UGLY article has been neglected ever since. We are using draftification and other threats as a way to make otherWP:VOLUNTEERS improve the article to our idea of acceptable quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we're looking at different draft namespaces, but an "informal process of communication to shepherd an article towards an acceptable state" sounds like the precise opposite of our current AfC process. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of a button but I do think the template should be changed. I think having a button suggests it's a default option, but I think a link is okay. Fangz (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But articles aren't inherently "AfC drafts" once draftified. People are allowed to move them back to mainspace themselves, no questions asked, or optionally submit them to AfC. The AfC draft template makes no mention of the first option. CFA💬12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we will ever quit using the inappropriate and legally unsound "publication" language in that template. On this wiki, it's the author, not the AFC reviewer, who "publishes" it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but then you have to specify "move to mainspace" or something and that feels really jargony. "Move out of draft", maybe? – Joe (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that might solve the problem. I doesn't explain to new users how their article turned into a draft, but at least there's an easy way to reverse it. I won't withdraw this for now, maybe others have thoughts. (P.S. you might want to update User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft) Toadspike[Talk]12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the idea lab so no bolded comment from me, but I have mixed feelings. I am in favour of softening the experience for newcomers, but I'm opposed to the concept of draftification being automatically reversible. If a new page patroller reviews a new article and moves it to draft because it's clearly unsuitable for mainspace, the creator should need to do more than just say "I object" in order to move their clearly unsuitable article back again. I've recently proposed that all of draftspace should be move-protected at the semi level (the proposal was not well received - fair enough). This is probably the rule I ignore more than any other on Wikipedia, mostly dealing with spam sockfarms that try to abuse the rule to promote their garbage. Besides, a new user whose submission is quarantined to draft space and they're left with instructions and a list of suggestions with helpful links is already getting better treatment than most editors ever have or will, and if their reaction to that is to rage-quit then they're probably not a good fit for the collaborative environment of Wikipedia anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, you know the joke about "If you ask three people, you'll get four opinions"? I wonder if we ask three NPPers what "ready for mainspace" means, if we'd get four opinions. AFAICT, "ready for mainspace" most often means "contains at least as many refs as the median article, but higher quality ones". All the children in Lake Wobegon are above average, and all the new Wikipedia articles must be, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see it draftification should never be used for subjects which pass GNG, and it should only be standard for things like films/TV series/games which are in the works but have not yet begun production. Subjects with debatable notability should be sent to AFD to the issue can be resolved.★Trekker (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects that pass WP:GNG should never be draftified at all, instead they should be tagged and dealt with using normal community procedures. I agree that films/TV series/games/political events probably best fit the bill for draftifications, but so do potentially notable but underdeveloped articles. Sohom (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is out of step with the present form of Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY, and I don't think it makes sense anyway. Articles that fail GNG should not be draftified, they should be AfDed. Films etc that are in the works should not be draftified merely because they aren't in production, and it's not really a great use for draft space because there's no guarantee that there would be a change of situation to establish notability within 6 months. Articles should be draftified only if the reviewer believes the article can be editted into an acceptable state within the time window. This implies a pass of GNG - i.e. a belief that reliable sources are potentially out there. Remember that GNG is about the *subject*, not about the state of the article. Fangz (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the correct use of draftification is sort of as an alternative version of the WIP template. An acknowledgement that the article is not ready and should be being worked on and will likely have multiple issues, but in a protected sandboxed environment to avoid overly zealous moderation and promotion of misunderstanding for casual readers, and without implying the original editor is the one working on it. For new users it should offer a less formal and jargony process to learning how to improve an article than tagging based methods, because the latter has to balance the need to inform *readers* as well as editors. Fangz (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you evaluate that a article passes WP:GNG, then there is not point in draftifying it, you could just add a {{sources exist}} template, patrol and move on. Alternatively, if you evaluate that a article fails WP:GNG, there is no point in wasting the article creator's time and you should WP:AFD/PROD it.
The only case where you would draftify a article is if you saw a article that a) had a credible claim to significance/notability b) does not meet/prove notability in it's current state c) has been created in the last week or so by a inexperienced article creator. Sohom (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if we're disagreeing or we're having some semantics thing about what "passes GNG" means.
I think then you're pretty much arguing that the draftification process should be removed entirely, and I don't agree with that. It has its advantages. It should not be made a mandatory process by any means but just as some users prefer to work on articles as a draft and then push to the public wiki, it can be a better resolution to certain issues than the alternatives. Fangz (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that we've fallen into a false binary here. The options are not "garbage in the mainspace" vs "auto-deleted as in the draftspace". There are other options (e.g., sticky prods for uncited articles, userification, bold stubbification, bold merging, developing a more consistent and predictable standard for evaluating articles, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a argument to be made that this landscape might have changed a fair bit since this research was done. The latest data that these projects consider is from 2014-2017. WP:ACTRIAL happened after that research was done, and Wikipedia's policies have changed since those times. Sohom (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that things have changed, and I'm never one to turn down a new research project if you happen to be volunteering to do it (I believe that all the necessary data is public), but looking at the overall deletion rate in that namespace, it seems unlikely that the result will be materially different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think then you're pretty much arguing that the draftification process should be removed entirely, and I don't agree with that. I'm sorry to pick on you but this is the clearest example yet of the circular reasoning that has got us into this mess: draftification must be good because we do it, so we must keep doing it because it's good. From literally the moment draftspace was created and people started doing this (before that, the equivalent process of userfication was expressly forbidden without prior discussion), others have been pointing out that the underlying logic makes no sense. Draftification is only for articles that shouldn't be deleted, but it's also only for articles that can't be in mainspace. But since fix good content in place is a part of the editing policy and almost all the community accepted reasons for deletion involve the potential of the article, not it's current state, the intersection of those two sets is functionally zero (apart from some consensus-established edge cases like paid creations or upcoming films).
This is why attempts to clarify and improve policy around draftification—and I've been closely involved in many of them—keep failing. You try to find a solid basis for guidelines and there just isn't one. We really need to stop trying to square the circle of justifying draftification as it is practiced now, and start asking what we the community actually wants to achieve with it and whether what we're doing now fulfils that aim. So far it's not looking good for the send-them-all-to-draftspace-and-the-god-of-notability-will-recognise-his-own camp, because there's not a shred of evidence that it helps improve content, retain editors or manage the NPP workload, and as WAID says above the empirical studies we do have concluded the precise opposite. But that picture could change with more research – somebody just needs to step up and do it! – Joe (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe RoeDraftification is only for articles that shouldn't be deleted, but it's also only for articles that can't be in mainspace. That is the exact reason why draftspace exists in the first place. Imagine you see a article with the following content: Nicholas Carlini is an amazing researcher at Google working on adversarial machine learning. created in the last week or so and sourced to a person's personal web-page. On doing a quick google search, you see that the person exists and is a researcher at said company, however, due to your unfamiliarity with adversarial machine learning topic-area you are not able to immediately identify the person's impact on the field. Do you 1) WP:BITEly nominate the article for deletion 2) leave the content up for somebody to deal with it (and hope that the other somebody will not choose option 1) or 3) draftify the article with a note that more sources are required to prove notability? Sohom (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta None of them. What you do is add a template to the article noting the lack of sources, leave a friendly message on the creator's talk page explaining the issues in plain English, and leave a note about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Depending on what your research found you could add more information, add some sources that might or might not demonstrate notability, remove the peacock terms, etc. Yes, this is more effort than blinding draftifying or AfDing but it is far more important that things get done well than things get done quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta, thanks for creating Nicholas Carlini, whose first version does not contain the hypothetical sentence you gave in your comment above. In your example above, why can't that stay in the mainspace? I frankly don't love it, and I'd immediately pull the word "amazing" out, but what's the policy basis for saying "that article truly can't be in mainspace"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fangz I'm not arguing for the elimination of draftspace, it has it's uses as an optional space where articles can be developed over time so they don't have to meet all the relevant content policies from the very first edit. I'm also not arguing for the elimination of all draftifcation, just the majority of unilateral draftification because, as Joe has put better than I can, it is not a net benefit to the project as currently practised. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a middle ground between meets-GNG-mark-as-reviewed and fails-GNG-send-to-AfD: recently created articles where the sources in the article do not validate GNG, but where the new page reviewer hasn't done a BEFORE search. I think it's perfectly fair (and permissioned within the current draftification process) to say "this recently created article doesn't demonstrate GNG yet, but I'll kick it back to the creator in draft form to put in some more sources." Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean we're either leaving these articles unpatrolled (which is obviously undesirable), or giving new page patrollers the job of finding sources on every article where the original author hasn't, which would be ideal in, well, ideal conditions, but puts the burden of actually sourcing the encyclopedia on a very small group of editors. In my opinion, there should be a way to ask the original author to add sources to show it meets GNG, beyond just putting a "notability" tag and being done with it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chaotic Enby. Drafification is a good solution because it strongly encourages the author to improve the article, and, most importantly, gets it out of mainspace so that it isn't a problem for innocent readers – without forcing NPPers to clean up other peoples' messes. Cremastra (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafticiation [...] strongly encourages the author to improve the article. That's the theory but the evidence is that in practice it very rarely does this. There is also little to no evidence that most pages moved to draftspace are actually a problem for innocent readers rather than being a problem for those who want immediate perfection. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About wanting to ask the original author to add sources to show it meets GNG, beyond just putting a "notability" tag and being done with it, I wonder if it's actually possible to do this in a non-coercive way. The options right now are:
Move article to Draft: space (essentially holding the article hostage, to be deleted if you give up or can't figure out how to do it).
Send to AFD today.
AFAICT a method for "force another WP:VOLUNTEER to improve the article to my standards" option has proven pretty elusive. But if you want to reach that point, I suggest that you take a baby step towards it in the form of getting a policy (any policy, really) to actually, directly, unambiguously say that every article must cite at least one source. Until the community agrees that this actually is a requirement, then we have no hope of getting them to increase the requirement all the way up to "show it meets GNG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a new editor thinks their article is ready for mainspace, they will put it there. They will also happily revert the move. If a new editor is unsure, they will probably ask for help first or use draftspace. Cremastra (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern expressed by Joe and others who support the "backdoor" theory is that new users do not know how to revert the move to draftspace. Do you disagree with that assumption? Toadspike[Talk]19:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most users do not know how to revert the move, yes. I also think we shouldn't hand it to them on a silver platter, because that likely largely annuls the whole point of draftification. What is the solution to this? I couldn't tell you. Cremastra (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't know how, maybe, but more importantly that they don't know that they're allowed to. We have to remember how very unusual our collaborative process is. If an inexperienced editor contributes an article to Wikipedia and then it is swiftly unpublished with a message that there's something wrong with it, they won't think, hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with that, I'm going to revert and/or discuss this with my peer-editors to find a consensus. They'll think that with someone the authority to decide what happens to articles has rejected my contribution, and I'm a mere newbie. At that point they will either give up (the majority) or they'll persevere and get into cycle of trying to satisfy first the NPP reviewer and then a succession of AfC reviewers until they finally give up or manage to write a GA, which seems to be roughly the standard AfC is applying these days Even very experience editors fall into this trap because even though the templated messages try to communicate the full range of options the user has (now at least, after I and others have spent several years fighting for it), it's really hard to communicate that we're all equal and all have a say here within a draft–review structure that implicitly elevates the opinions of reviewers over others. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the most recent 10 articles moved to mainspace with the AFCH script. They are:
That's an average of 372.5 words and 12.6 refs. The median article has 338 words and 4 refs. Compared to existing articles, 53% of our existing articles have fewer than 372.5 words, and 83% have fewer fewer than 12.6 refs. One in six articles has fewer words than the shortest in this list. One of three articles is shorter than the second-shortest in this list.
I think it is clear from these numbers that AFC is expecting more refs than existing community practice, and that they are trying to accept only articles that are already as long as ones that editors have been working on in the mainspace for years.
BTW, during the same span of time, more than 100 pages were deleted from the Draft: namespace. You shouldn't assume this means that more than 90% of drafts get deleted, because deletions are bursty and this is a relatively small sample size, but that's about what I expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Conclusion: I am sadly not surprised at the current state of this discussion. Some of the heated off-topic arguments verge on NOTHERE behavior. I am very disappointed to see this from experienced editors. To those of you who simply commented on the proposal: I appreciate you a lot.
Since the default NPP draft template was changed to Template:Draft article a day before this discussion began, I think my proposal is moot. I don't see how we could improve that template much, but I may raise some minor wording changes on the Template Talk. If someone wants to close this discussion, that's fine; if others wish to continue discussing other things here, I wish you the all best. Toadspike[Talk]21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth also talking about the usertalk notification MTD leaves, which only provides one option: submit for review. Agree in principle we shouldn't trick people into thinking draftification/AfC is mandatory for a typical article creator. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose All it will do is destroy the draft system as it stands and eventualy destroy Wikipedia. This almost happened between 2008 and 2012, before the draft process was available, when Wikipedia was flooded with paid/coi editors and there was no effective system to deal with them. Do folk not understand what draftification is. Every publisher has draft process. It is NOT a route to deletion. That is what the detractors of the system say, many of them who are paid to oppose it and destroy it. It is the one of the core safeguards we have against the complete destruction of Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk11:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is almost entirely evidence free assumptions of bad faith. Please try engaging with the discussion rather than just knee-jerking oppose to changing the status quo because it would change the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not evidence free and I resent the fact that you have said my comment bad faith. Why would I make the comment if I didn't know what I was talking about. I've worked in NPP/AFC since it was created and was involved in some of the early discussions. I now how exactly how UPE/paid editors behave. It would lead to an exodus of editors after the place gets flooded with adverts. It would be free-for-all. The reality is that the editor who posted hasn't thought it through and hasn't looked in the archives to see what the situation was like then. scope_creepTalk16:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Trust me, I was there" is not evidence. Your comment assumes bad faith from those disagreeing with you, and of everybody submitting new articles. Not every editor is paid (and disclosed paid editing is explicitly allowed), not every paid edit (disclosed or otherwise) is bad, not every paid editor (disclosed or otherwise) is attempting to harm the encyclopaedia, not every paid edit (even undisclosed ones) does harm the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true to certain extent, but the majority of editors who create modern biographical, organisational and product articles which make up the majority are undeclared paid editors. They do not have our best interests at heart and never have done. scope_creepTalk16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true (and you haven't provided any evidence, of either your assertion or the implications of it that these articles harm Wikipedia and/or that draftification as currently implemented and practice prevents that harm), that doesn't mean that draftification as implemented currently can't be improved and that any changes to the status quo will mean the death of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If drafts get deleted, that's because their creators have abandoned them. That's what G13 is. Perhaps more effort should be spent encouraging article writers to improve their articles after they got moved to draft (where they can be improved without interference), but draftification is not deliberate, malicious backdoor deletion, and I resent it being characterized as such. Cremastra (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a Double-barreled question? The comment you're replying to said only "route to deletion", and you've turned it into four separate parts:
deliberate
malicious
backdoor
deletion.
I wouldn't personally characterize any of them as malicious, but I think a fraction of them are deliberate. IMO claiming that nobody ever sent a borderline subject to AFC instead of AFD (which has lower standards in practice) would be rather extraordinary. I frankly don't think we're all so stupid that we can't figure out which route is most likely to end up with the result we prefer.
If we characterize AFD as the "front door" for deletion, then it seems fair to describe letting articles expire in the Draft: space as the "back door".
But the original comment is merely that it's not a route to deletion. But if 90–95% all of the articles put on that path actually do end up getting deleted, then is it not basically fair to say that it is one of our routes to deletion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current verbiage of the tag makes it clear to anyone with a lick of common sense, that the article has potential, but in its current form it is not ready for mainspace. Some of the comments here from folks clearly indicate a lack of understanding of what the draftification process is for. If an article, in its current form, passes GNG, then there are only certain circumstances where it should be draftified (e.g. paid editing), but if an article probably would pass GNG, but does not in its current form (e.g. there are not enough in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources to meet the standard), than that is a poster child for draftification. When I was more active in reviewing articles, I created several custom responses, which took the standard message and massaged it a bit depending on the reason for draftification (e.g. UPE, lack of GNG) or a specific topic (e.g. NFOOTY, Populated places). In some instances those messages contained an offer to ping me directly when they felt the article was ready for mainspace. I am all for article creation, but I also care about the quality and reputation of Wikipedia, which is often seen as the punchline for jokes regarding garbage information on the internet. And I would completely disagree with those who say that draftification is not a net benefit. In fact, I think it is one of the most useful tools to helping improve the quality on WP. Is it always used correctly? No. But that's an education problem with individual users, not an overriding issue with the process itself.Onel5969TT me14:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be fine in theory, but it doesn't match the what is happening in practice. Especially given that articles are being moved to draftspace for not being of sufficient quality that are C or even B class. If an article is neutrally written and meets the GNG then there is no justification for moving it to draftspace just because someone might (or might not) have been paid to edit it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Kian Breckin (footballer) – 316 words, 15 refs (moved by the author with no reason given, but it was deleted at AFD last year)
I have skipped redirects, some round-robin page swaps, and a couple of editors moving AFC submissions from User: space to the Draft: space, and tried to include only articles being moved from the mainspace to the Draft: space. I can't get the ORES ratings for these articles, but at a glance, I think that Start and C-class is not an unreasonable description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for providing the list. The issue is, in reviewing those drafts, most are solid drafts, and not " Especially given that articles are being moved to draftspace for not being of sufficient quality that are C or even B class." Although I think a more careful explanation could have been made. For example, the first one would have been better with a "more in-depth references from independent, reliable sources" needed, rather than simply saying "more sources needed", as there isn't a single, in-depth reference from an independent, reliable source in the draft. The second and third examples are the exact same issue. The 4th and 5th examples are properly labeled as covert advertising (both editors have been blocked for it - in addition, the 4th one didn't have a single in-depth reference from an independent source, either). The 6th example, while having 3 sources, none are in-depth, and while it might be a spelling difference on the translations of the 2nd and 3rd refs, it does not appear that the article's subject is mentioned in any of them. The 7th article is not a true example of draftification, as it was moved by the author. The 8th and 9th article have zero independent reliable sources (for the 9th, the newspaper referenced does not have a page number, and the link does not appear to bring up anything in depth about the hack lab). Not sure about the 10th, for the history is a bit wacky, but again, does not look like an example of draftification.
I think this illustrates some of the misunderstanding that folks who don't like draftification make. You look at the list provided, and you go, wow, lots of references, most not stubs or micro-stubs, why in the hell were they draftified? Hell, I did that myself, wondering if all 10 were done by a single editor, who perhaps did not have a firm grasp of draftification. But then you dive into the merits of the sourcing, or the upe issues, and it appears all 8 of the draftifications appear justified.Onel5969TT me20:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969, I wonder if you could explain "the newspaper" in the 9th article a little better. You say that the article has "zero independent reliable sources", but traditional print newspapers are independent reliable sources. Then you say it doesn't have a page number, but the link takes you directly to a scanned copy of the correct page; the cited article [title given in the citation] is in the last two columns. None of that makes the newspaper less independent. Is your concern that the article appears to predate the use of the name in the article title ("De Zanbak" means "The Sandbox")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be the translation, but there does not appear to be anything connecting the group mentioned in that article, with De Zanbak. But even if there is, agf, that still is the only in-depth independent source. Onel5969TT me01:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a new editor includes 5 sources in their submission and it gets moved to [somewhere I didn't put it] because "more sources needed" or "no sources" how many of them are going to take the time to learn that the experienced editor actually meant none of these sources contain what I think is significant, in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and then have the confidence to say "actually, this experienced person with the power to remove my article from Wikipedia is wrong and I'm right, I'll learn how to challenge them and how and where to express my view in a way that the powerful people will listen to me" rather than just give up at some point along that path? And before anyone says it, no, just because a few bad faith editors might be among the dissuaded does not justify the loss of good faith editors. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's the difference between editors who care about quality on WP, and those who care about quantity. But that's why I said that the rationale given could have been better. Onel5969TT me01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a quality vs quantity question?
Or is this the difference between editors who would rather see a page run through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers instead of being unilaterally hidden until it gets deleted without the level of community oversight that we expect from AFD? For example, I'm not convinced that "De Zanbak" is a viable subject for an article, but I think there are several ways that we could address that concern, and I don't see the Draft: space helping. In fact, the only thing that moving that page to the Draft: space does that's different from moving that page to the User: space is: It's far more likely to get deleted during the next year if it's in Draft: space than if it's in User: space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since draftification isn't a "backdoor to deletion", nor is it "hiding an article", it's definitely a question of quality vs. quantity. Draftification, in short, is a quality control measure. These are articles that might be notable enough for mainspace, but simply aren't in good enough shape to be there. But, like other vehicles in WP, good faith editors might disagree on an article's notability, so for example in the De Zandbak articlem, Jay8g (who tagged it for notability), and Jonathan Deamer (who draftified it) might deem it potentially notable, while you, WhatamIdoing, might have simply sent it to AfD, because you do not feel it notable. But that doesn't mean the system isn't working. Perhaps we can tweak the current verbiage in the template to include where resources about where an editor can reach out for help might be added (e.g. AFC or Teahouse)?Onel5969TT me09:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since draftification isn't a "backdoor to deletion", nor is it "hiding an article", you say that as if there is no possible way good faith editors could disagree, but that simply isn't true. Whether either of those things is true is a matter of opinion (and, in my opinion, one that is consistent with the evidence presented). Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No, editors can certainly have different interpretations and disagree on issues. However, in this instance, it is not a matter of disagreement. In order to hold those views indicates a lack of understanding of what the draftification process is. That's not what draftification is, it is, as I've said, simply a quality control measure. It would be like saying, it's a matter of opinion whether or not this person wrote an article about themselves, that can be interpreted as not being COI editing. Of if a an article simply cut and paste the info from Encyclopedia Brittanica, you cannot say it's your opinion that that isn't a copyvio. I mean, I have the utmost respect for you, Thryduulf, and you do a great job on WP. There are things on WP which are subjective (e.g. exactly what constitutes SIGCOV), while others are objective, (e.g. UPE/COI editing, copyvio). What draftification is falls into the latter category. All that being said, we can disagree on whether or not an individual article should or should not have been draftified. You say the evidence presented shows that it was not warranted that those articles be sent to draft. Going through the sources, however, it looks like draftification was justified. That is a difference of opinion. Onel5969TT me14:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion that moving an article to the Draft: space is simply a quality control measure.
It's my opinion that moving an article to the Draft: space is also simply a quality control measure that, compared to the available alternatives of leaving it in the mainspace, sending it to AFD, or moving it to User: space, substantially decreases the likelihood of the quality being improved and substantially increases the likelihood of the article being deleted.
Oh, right: Those last two points ("substantially decreases the likelihood of the quality being improved" and "substantially increases the likelihood of the article being deleted") aren't "opinions". They're objective facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodesia Railways 19th class is not a list; it's a train that was in operation for multiple ranges of time. Even if it were a list, the empty headings and only content being a table is nowhere near start-class, maybe even substub. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
only content being a table have you actually read the page? That infobox is full of content, there are two apparently reliable sources and the table itself has about 20 rows of content. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an idea, and I want to workshop this a bit more, but I think it would be helpful to have pending changes at the extended confirmed level. This could be called "PC2" again (not to be confused with the original PC2) or "PCECP". The idea would be to help enforce WP:ARBECR and similar restrictions where non-extended confirmed users are prohibited from certain topic areas. Under this level, edits by non-extended-confirmed editors would be held for review, while extended confirmed users can approve these edits and thus take responsibility under WP:PROXYING.
I think it would be helpful for pages where (1) parts of the article intersect with a contentious topic, or (2) the article in its entirety intersects with a contentious topic, but not edited frequently. AwesomeAasim16:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it could be useful. It would have to be restricted to infrequently edited pages (likely excluding all current events articles) so as not to overwhelm Pending Changes every time Reuters publishes a new story or an edit war erupts. The big question is: what problem are you trying to solve? Toadspike[Talk]20:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some contentious topics designated either by ArbCom or the community where only extended confirmed users are allowed to participate. However, admins refuse to protect pages where there isn't enough disruption to justify protection. Although, it should be considered that the XCON restriction applies regardless of whether a page is protected or not.
What PCECP would do is essentially remove fears that there "isn't enough disruption to justify protection" while buffering all non-extended-confirmed contributions so they have to be approved, in line with "non-extended-confirmed can only make edit requests". Templates that are specifically for this case like {{edit protected}} break when the page is not protected. AwesomeAasim22:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that the 500/30 rule is specifically designed to keep newer editors out due to extreme amounts of disruption as a rule. There's a good reason why both of the world's main hot wars (the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian war) are under 500/30. And, as has been brought up repeatedly and bears repeating again, high volumes of edits on a given article contraindicate CRASHlock.
But the biggest stumbling block here is that no consensus exists yet for an extended-confirmed CRASHlock. The last discussion about expanding CRASHlock to higher protection levels predates XCP entirely. There would need to be a formal RfC for this, not VP spitballing. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques15:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
XCON protection makes sense for high traffic articles, but low traffic articles? If the edit is minor such as fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, there should be no problem. Fixing spelling and grammar is generally outside of contentious topic areas anyway. From WP:ARBECR: On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including ... the use of pending changes.
I probably would set up abuse filters as well to see if a page is in a category that primarily deals with a contentious topic, and then warn and tag the edit in question. AwesomeAasim16:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see that, but the problem is that a non-XCON edit will get approved on pages that not many people are watching. Pending changes still allows non-XCON users to make these edits, but their edits will need to be approved and they can be reverted if in violation of WP:ARBECR. This is also in line with how pending changes is used on low-traffic articles to monitor (not prevent) disruption. AwesomeAasim18:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron LiuMost low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked. What actually happens is that articles with minimal disruption are usually not brought to WP:RFPP or noticed by a wayward admin. Mach6119:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked.
Seems reasonable. I've always wondered why pending changes isn't deployed more often. It seems a useful tool, and there are lots of pending changes reviewers so very little backlog Cremastra (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing it. People supposedly mistrust it because there was a trial 14 years ago and enwiki admins didn't immediately stop using it after the trial period pending a consensus on the future of the feature? Anomie⚔18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The TL;DR I'm taking away from this discussion is that you're still butthurt over consensus not going your way 12 or 13 years ago, and assuming that anyone opposed to PC shares that reason and no other. I think it's unlikely continuing this conversation is going to go anywhere useful. Anomie⚔18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how consensus works, either. Consensus can be determined by an RfC, yes. But it can also develop just by the way that things are done already, regardless of whether it has formally discussed.
I think about the example given by Technology Connections about "the danger of but sometimes". The LED traffic light is superior in energy savings and much more, but sometimes snow and ice builds up on them, so they are bad. Likewise, XCON pending changes will help with enforcement of WP:ARBECR but sometimes admins might apply this to pages out of policy, so it shouldn't be used again. The correct response would be to place in policy guardrails so that admins don't do that. AwesomeAasim19:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is an RfC from over 13 years ago still reflective of consensus today? I am pretty certain that while some opinions might not have changed, others definitely will have. No one is saying there should be full pending changes. AwesomeAasim18:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might be the only one using this terminology; as it is not in WP:GLOSSARY or anywhere else.
Nonetheless, this is the Idea Lab; it is the place to develop ideas, not to show stark opposition to ideas. That is what the other discussion boards are for; consensus polling. It should be noted that WP:ECP was created originally for the purpose of enforcing arbitration decisions and community sanctions. It was never intended for anything else; it just got used for other stuff de facto. AwesomeAasim18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All these things you think are obvious really are not. You should try explaining yourself better instead of emphatically waving your hands at something random. Anomie⚔18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious perhaps, but it still doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure how using your own special terms of unclear implications to disparage things you dislike is helping communication or community understanding here. Cremastra (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. People mistrust PC because of a bureaucratic misimplementation of an experiment over 10 years ago? (In a noncentralized bureaucracy where dumb shit happens all the time?) The RfC is explicit that it makes no normative judgement on PC, and it seems the !voters are not doing so either. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the 2017 RfC is the last one about any aspect of CRASHlock, to my knowledge. As I said above, there would need to be a new RfC in order to get consensus for extended-confirmed CRASHlock, as PC2 was originally full-protection level and no ECP!CRASHlock question was asked in the2016RfCs, none of which were particularly comprehensive. (The last comprehensive RfC was the 2014 clusterfuck.) —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main reasons editors don't want to expand the use of pending changes are practical: no technical support for fixes (or additional feature development) is on the horizon, in spite of documented bugs; and uncertainty in the community's ability to manage expanded use. There are certainly vocal editors who are wary due to past history, but this has already been a factor in other decisions, and they have accordingly been influenced to be more definitive about how any trials will proceed. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so there's a lot of history here as you are already seeing above, and no one's even gotten to discussing Phillipe's little misadventure yet. Despite all that I actually think the general idea here is sound. And since we are discussing history its worth pointing out that as a practical matter this is actually closer to what the EC restriction was intended to do in its earliest incarnation where it functioned as a softer version of 1RR originally enforced as a bespoke AE remedy on one specific article reverts of non-qualifying accounts did not count towards 1RR.
Times have changed, ECR now tends to be enforced in mainspace with ECP and is applied far more broadly than anyone from then would have envisioned, for better and for worse.
The best use case here is for quiet pages where the history of non-EC editing is largely one of minor non-contentious fixes and improvements, but have caught attention due to sporadic contentious edits, where it can offer a middle way between leaving enforcement to post-edit reverts and preventing all non-EC editing.
As a practical matter the limitations of the extension mean that it really only works-well on low-traffic pages and realistically improvements to the extension aren't coming anytime soon. So use case (2) makes sense, but (1) is a harder sell. Might not be enough of a use case to justify the hassle. Personally I'd have to do some research and think about this a little but the basic idea is sound.
A multi-part RfC asking how ECR should be enforced for existing pages, including based on activity. High traffic pages will need extended protection retroactively as those tend to get the most disruption from ECR violations. Low-traffic pages, not so much, but we can use abuse filters and workshop ECP pending changes for this. Spelling and grammar fixes as far as I am aware are excluded from WP:ARBECR. AwesomeAasim19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - but bear in mind we are discussing CRASHlock (which would require developer buy-in to make XC happen) and an Arbitration policy (which ArbCom may short-circuit). Also note that there would likely need to be a separate RfC consensus to allow XC CRASHlock in the first place; like I said above we haven't had a comprehensive discussion about it since 2014. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano, I do wish you would quit using that made-up word. WP:PC is shorter to type, and when editors use the same words for the same thing, then we're less likely to end up with avoidable confusion ("CRASHlock sounds really bad, but I'm just asking for WP:PC"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR can first just be XCON PC. After extensive edits by non-EC, piling on to PC backlog, then it can just be upgraded to normal XCON. If the disruption is already severe before being brought to RFPP or other venue, then XCON protection can just be the first action. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano the discussions that you linked are from 2016, so we cannot assume the consensus has not changed. Also, I believe that this is a platform for building ideas and new proposals, hoping to bring them to reality while abiding by consensus. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On another thought I am actually wondering if we can just have a two-part RfC as to whether to turn on this feature I discuss. Part 1 would just be about PCECP and part 2 would be just about replacing ECP with PCECP on low-traffic WP:ARBECR and related articles. AwesomeAasim16:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but the second RfC might fail, as it one would have to discuss page wise about the change in protection. Also proving that PCECP is enough for said pages will be complicated, and also have to think about the storming of backlog in PC if it is not enough. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Wikipedia main page would be more educative and with a section riddles, proverbs, idioms, wise saying. You know, a collection from many languages around, their origins, past meanings, reforms, present meanings, examples of their usage in history (past & present), their literal meanings, word for word rendering in english, etc. I don't know, who has better ideas? Let Wikipedia be a fun place too for visitors and readers to always learn more. I'm looking forward to seeing this by the start of next year and in other language wikis. Any and all contributions are accepted. elias_fdafs (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, one person's "wise saying" is another person's "deepity". I don't think having these on the Main Page, especially in a dedicated section, would actually be very encyclopedic. However, like Folly Mox says, a more general concept of showcasing sister project content (a word etymology, a quote, etc.) could be interesting! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with idioms and proverbs is that, usually, they are regional. They are widely used at some area, but hardly mentioned or even unknown in others. For each user that see such a section and says "oh, that's the origin of that proverb" we'll have several who will say "what, was that a proverb? Never heard about it". Besides, explaining their background is just impossible with the limited text in main page boxes. Perhaps DYK may be a better venue to show those articles in the main page. Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overview: This proposal suggests a partial blackout of Wikipedia for users accessing the site from the UK, implemented as a temporary measure to highlight concerns regarding the Online Safety Act 2023. The act requires services to adopt verification or estimation technologies and stricter measures for managing harmful but legal content, especially content accessible to children, with full enforcement expected by OFCOM in 2026.
Why Consider a Blackout? Wikipedia's first pillar is that it is an online encyclopedia with an educational mission. As such, a blackout, even when intended to educate the public about potentially harmful legislation, should only be used in the most serious of circumstances. It must be executed thoughtfully to align with our mission and to avoid damaging our credibility and reputation as a reliable educational resource.
Details of the Proposed Blackout:
Nag Page Implementation: The blackout will not be a complete shutdown but instead will present a "nag page" when UK users attempt to access Wikipedia. This nag page will:
Display information about the Online Safety Act 2023 and its potential implications for free access to information.
Collect user information (such as location) to show the scale of concern, but importantly, this data will not be processed or used further, respecting user privacy.
Provide an option for users to continue to the encyclopedia content after viewing the information, ensuring they still have access if desired.
No Set Date: This proposal does not yet suggest a fixed implementation date. It aims to gather community feedback and observe OFCOM's actions as it defines the specific requirements of the act leading up to 2026.
Rationale: Wikipedia’s mission to provide free, reliable information could be significantly impacted if stringent and potentially restrictive measures are enforced without careful consideration. By adopting a limited blackout (nag page) approach, we raise public awareness while ensuring minimal disruption to access. Such a move would emphasize our role as an advocate for open knowledge and user rights while balancing our educational objectives.
Consensus Requirement: Given the potential impact on Wikipedia’s reputation and mission, this proposal seeks to engage the widest consensus possible before any action is taken. A blackout must remain an exceptional tool reserved for critical issues to ensure that it retains its effectiveness and credibility.
Comments and Feedback Welcome: Please share your thoughts, ideas, and suggestions to refine this proposal. We aim to ensure that any action taken is well-considered, aligns with our educational mission, and maximizes the positive impact for both Wikipedia and its users.
With all due respect, what do you mean "our"? This is your first edit. If this is an alternate account, sock puppets are not allowed to participate in project space, so if you have a primary account, please log into that instead. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah this is my first edit I do kind of mean hour my bad. Even though I haven't edited anything directly I have made suggestions under
sorry about these of AI it was just using as a helpful tool to get my ideas together and formatted well I've got this severe dyslexia and it's a lifesaver sometimes. However I have read for everything and I stand by what it says I wouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles with using AI like this 2A00:23C6:C780:4901:D52A:AFC2:3B4C:1F47 (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't edit Wikipedia like that, especially if you're making a major proposal. If you have a disability, just say so, like you did. No one would ever fault you for that, but we'd want to hear what you, not a bot, have to say. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment behind that remark, but the problem is that there are some people around who would fault people who have a disability, even though there is nothing they can do about it. Such people may be a small minority, but most disabled people have come into contact with some, especially on the Internet. That makes us a bit wary. Oh, and I'm totally against all blackouts - nobody should presume to speak for everyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't sound like an actual blackout. This sounds like a request for a (large) sitebanner.
Warning when transcluding images of a certain size or higher
Since this happened to me on accident yesterday, why not bring it here. When you add an image to an article (specifically using source code), you may be unaware of how large that image will be when you click "publish". That's why I'm suggesting that when adding images of a certain size (let's say... 7,000 x 7,000 px or higher), before you are able to publish it will give you a warning that you are uploading images of a size that may not load properly on certain devices, so that you can maybe go back and either change the image, or something else. This diff is a really good example of why this may be needed. SirMemeGod15:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why that particular image might cause a problem, but how many others would? Do we have figures for how many images would trigger such a warning? These are genuine, not rhetorical, questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I could assume that any image over a certain size could start crashing browsers, like the one I linked. I just need to find out what that size is. SirMemeGod16:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir MemeGod: I don't see why you would want to put the full-size image into an article. You should use the |thumb parameter, and if people want to see a bigger version, they click the thumb image to reach the file description page, which not only shows a larger version, it also offers a selection of sizes to view. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a problem with inactive WikiProjects
Hundreds of the over 2000 WikiProjects present on Wikipedia are either inactive or semi-active. Many WikiProjects overlap in scope, or are so niche that very few users have interest in participating. Even for WikiProjects that cast a wide net, some are inactive or semi-active. Historically speaking, WikiProjects were more active when Wikipedia was much younger, and we've seen more WikiProjects become inactive or semi-active.
Why is this a problem?
Having inactive/semi-active WikiProjects that overlap in scope or are incredibly niche causes confusion for editors who seek to collaborate on a topic, or seek help from others familiar with the topic. Additionally, inactive WikiProjects take up valuable shortcut real estate, shortcuts which could be used for other WikiProjects or policies.
An idea for a solution
This is where I'd like the community's feedback. It is unclear whether the outright deletion of WikiProjects is ideal, or if smaller WikiProjects should be merged into larger ones. It's also unclear if a singular solution can be applied to all cases of inactive WikiProjects.
Merging into subprojects/task forces could definitely be an idea – that way, we can keep the established structure while consolidating it into something easier to follow. Regarding members of the merged WikiProjects, should they automatically be added to the wider one, or just given an alert so they can choose whether to join it or not? The second option seems more natural to me.There is also the broader question of why WikiProject activity is declining. I am far from a specialist on this topic, and wonder if specific things changed that made joining WikiProjects less practical or less useful than it was before? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the proposed parent project participants should decide whether to merge in the niche projects, if the project is completely inactive. At the top of the moribund project page, it could refer people to the relevant active project. And talk page project tagging for dead projects could be removed, or replaced by the parent project. I would say just alert former participants that are not part of the parent already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People who are active on pages don't own them. It's a courtesy to invite them to the discussion, but I don't believe they should get any more say than anyone else. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:WikiProject is not pages. A WikiProject is people. You can no more vote to make editors join a different group than you could tell your classmates who they were required to be friends with when you were all 10 years old.
The reason merges have to be voluntary is because that's the only way they work. We can merge, redirect, and move pages all day long, but if the individual participants don't voluntarily choose to participate in the new "larger" group, then we won't actually have a larger group: we'll have a bunch of people quitting.
I heard a joke about Church splitting (I didn't expect that to be a red link) many years ago that went like this: The church had a fight over whether the new hymnal books were to have a red cover or a blue cover. In the end, 10% of them split off to form a church with red books, 10% formed a church with blue books, and 80% of them got so disgusted that they quit going to church. Maybe this only seems like a plausible outcome if you're from the South, but we don't want any WikiProject participants to get so disgusted that they quit Wikipedia, or even just quit watching the WikiProject pages.
Consequently, we've established a procedure for voluntary merges. Basically, you make an offer and wait a month to see whether anyone objects. If anyone objects, then stop. If they don't, then merge. I'd guess that we've had objections about 10% of the time, so it rarely interferes with the ultimate outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason why there are so many inactive Wikiprojects around is simply that nobody has bothered to do anything about them. I certainly, and probably most other editors, see that as a pretty low priority. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged a few projects I participated in due to scope overlap, including two recently, it's not even that hard to get consensus, but no one wants to bother. If there's a specific project that bothers you just propose it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should get back to that page. @Joe Roe was working on a merge, and we need more template information. The TFD folks have suggested that they'll be generous with their template-replacing bots, but we need to write out a procedure for it, so people know what to do.
@Sink Cat, please consider putting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council on your watchlist. That's where a lot of this gets discussed. In terms of the general concept, I think we should aim for a world in which there are many fewer, but much larger (on average) active WikiProjects, but the whole thing happens one baby step at a time. The biggest challenge is that nobody is doing the work. Just reviewing 2,000 groups to produce a recommendation about how to merge them could be a full-time job for a month, and then each group has to be contacted with personalized messages to explain the idea, name the targets, and ask if they're willing. If someone wants to spend, say, 20 hours/week for the next year doing this, then that would be great, but that's the scale we're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure to whom you are referring when you say "them"? Note the word "council" is a bit misleading: it's just essentially the WikiProject wikiproject. isaacl (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing this – it's possible to get consensus for merges but it's really time consuming and slow. I know I've got a few outstanding because you have to wait 30 days after opening a discussion to action it (sensibly enough) and I'll often find that 30 days later I don't really have time to do it. – Joe (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
filter for removing closing markdown of comments?
By chance while doing some other work on pre 2006 pages, I noticed Bernard Lee, which, due to an IP editor, looked like a stub, despite being listed as a GA. I'm not really sure what the intention of their edit was but they removed part of the comment markdown, causing most of the article to be hidden. Is there some way of tagging instances of this happening via Edit filter or such? I could imagine someone maybe more malicious intentionally doing this that would otherwise probably just blank the page or remove large parts, which is already more or less mitigated by current measures. Akaibu (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two separate things here - an edit filter to detect new edits that result in an unclosed HTML comment. I don't know whether one exists, but Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested is the place to request this if it doesn't.
In both cases a correctly closed comment after an unclosed one could cause false negatives, but I guess detecting <!-- […] <!-- […] --> would catch those? Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea of building an open source ai model trained on wikipedia available free of charge on wikipedia platform as new generations have less attention span and need to get things done fast. I want it open source so that it can be for the community and get inspired by contributors Yassinsamirhegazy (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the contents of Wikipedia are CC BY-SA 4.0, so you can use the corpus to train an AI model if you wish to, assuming you release it under a compatible license. Regarding having it available on Wikipedia, this might not necessarily be a good idea, as AI models are prone to hallucinations, and a model trained on Wikipedia contents at a given time will not be editable like the encyclopedia itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that many Wikipedians more or less distrust AI, and some have been advocating for a ban on any use of AI in Wikipedia. While I consider a ban to be unenforceable, I would want editors to avoid using any AI without very carefully checking and correcting all output from the AI, which might well be more work than just writing content without using an AI. Donald Albury14:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that editors should seek to remain unbiased, but it seems on divisive topics we can end up with one side who manages to tilt the article toward their POV. We can then end up with half of the editors saying "This article is perfectly fine" and the other half of the editors saying "There are big POV issues, here they are..."
The side who are happy with the bias can actively work to prevent any fixes to the page to address the bias, while simultaneously blocking the addition of a NPOV tag to the page.
It seems that if half of the editors are saying "it's fine" and the other half are saying "there are big issues" this is extremely indicative of a POV problem even if there is not consensus that one exists.
So I'm wondering if there should be an exemption to the Consensus Required Restriction and if some sort of critical mass short of consensus should be enough to allow for NPOV tag.
Putting the {{POV}} should never be an end goal. The goal should be to fix the problem, and adding the banner frequently provides no practical benefit at all. Imagine a wildly non-neutral article about an article under the Wikipedia:Consensus required restriction. Maybe it's an article called 2+2. The article says that 2+2 is generally understood to equal four, but there is a significant minority of respectable mathematicians says that 2+2=5. Here's the story you seem to want:
The discussion on the talk page about the tag ends in a stalemate. Because of the 'consensus required' rules, the tag would normally not be added, but because of the newly carved-out exception, the tag can be added.
End result: The article is tagged, but it's still wildly unbalanced.
The discussion on the talk page about the tag ends in a stalemate. Because of the 'consensus required' rules, the tag is not added.
Alice decides to quit worrying about the tag and start worrying about the content of the article. The regulars on the talk page can't reach a satisfactory agreement, so she takes the dispute to a relevant noticeboard or starts an RFC.
Remember: Maintenance tags are not badges of shame. They do not exist to 'warn the reader' or to formally express your disagreement with the article. They exist in a (mostly vain) hope that editors will fix the article's content. If you can fix the article's content without a tag, then everyone wins. If you can't fix an article (tagged or otherwise), then read up on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends… how many are on each “side” of the debate?
If there are multiple editors on each “side”, then I don’t think we can say that a consensus actually exists (in either direction). However, if it’s just one or two disgruntled editors against many, then we can say there is consensus, and that consensus does not require unanimity. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Describing Notability in plain English
The name we use for Wikipedia:Notability has long been a source of confusion. People can guess the basic concept of many policies and guidelines from the plain-English meaning of the title (e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable sources are sources you rely on; Wikipedia:Copyright violations is about violations of copyright etc.), but this one has quite a different meaning. You can have several sources that directly say ____ is a notable musician, and we'll reply that he's not WP:Notable.
I'd like to brainstorm some alternative phrases that could be used instead of "notability", or as a supplement to it, that would be less confusing to people unfamiliar with our internal jargon.
Abbreviation found in comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and in edit summaries, indicating that the article's subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. A subject is non-notable if editors agree not to have an article about this subject. Their decision is usually based on things like not finding enough reliable sources to write a decent encyclopedia article, but it can also be based on things like a desire to present a small subject as part of a larger one.
A characteristic held by article subjects that qualify for separate, stand-alone articles. A notable topic is one that "is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Note that "notability" is a property of a topic, and has nothing to do with the quality of an article, or whether an article exists for the topic.
Words for the concept: criteria, concept, test, quality, qualities, requirements, notedness, guideline, threshold, when to create an article
Words for the result: separate article, stand-alone article, separate page, stand-alone topic, new topic, own page, article creation, article suitability, inclusion
Some specific ideas:
Collapsed list of prior ideas
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article concept guideline
Article creation criteria
Article creation guideline
Article sourcing test
Article suitability criteria
Article test guideline
Article threshold
Criteria for article creation
Guide to which topics should be included as articles on Wikipedia
Guideline for when a topic should have its own article
Inclusion criteria
Is the subject written about in reliable sources?
New topic test
Notedness
Own page threshold test
Page sourcing guide
Primary notability criterion
Qualifying for a separate article
Separate article criteria
Source availability
Source depth
Stand-alone concept
Stand-alone article criteria
Stand-alone topic criteria
Stand-alone topic criterion #1 (#2, #3, etc.)
When to create an article
Feel free to expand the box if you want to see some of the prior ideas. It's collapsed because some research on brainstorming ideas suggests that looking at other people's ideas can reduce the total number of ideas shared. Duplicates are fine!
I had also been thinking about this. The core issue, in my opinion, is that we're trying to describe as "notability" something that is closer to "for someone/something to have an article, they should be well-documented in reliable sources". At its core, the term "notability" carries more of a connotation of relative importance, leading to a lot of newcomers, and sometimes even other users, being misled as to what makes a topic notable. On the other hand, the actual guidelines describing it focus on the existence of reliable sources about the topic, with importance only being used by some guidelines as a proxy for these sources being likely to exist.A word like well-sourced or well-documented would carry this idea better, without the a priori of "importance/fame is what matters" that "notability" carries. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of topics are documented by primarily primary sources (eg like many news event), but we require coverage by secondary sources, so those would worsen the situation. — Masem (t) 21:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although it could still be a first start, and no word can fully convey our notability guidelines either. Maybe encyclopedically sourced could help convey the fact that not any source works? Or, as you employ the term "coverage", we could make the difference between (primary) documentation and (secondary) coverage and call it well-covered? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby: I am still chewing over all this. I fear that encyclopedically sourced could be easily misunderstood and potentially lead to more newbies trying to cite Wikipedia itself. I really don't have a sense of how well people outside Wikipedia and academia understand the distinctions between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I think well-covered does capture the essence of what we're trying to convey without causing more confusion. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that people outside the wiki-verse and academia understand primary/secondary/tertiary "not at all", and I'd say that people in the wiki-verse understand the distinction "poorly". Editors struggle with WP:PRIMARYNEWS, especially when it comes to the question of notability ("But event is obviously important, so obviously this breaking news article is secondary"), and most of them could not explain why Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, the GNG requires secondary sources, but NPROF does not. Both are still wiki-notable. We therefore need a handle for this concept that does not assume the GNG approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I caution against this because as it is used now, notability is not used as a check at new page review, and primarily is a method used for evaluating whether to delete an article at AFD. We should have an advice page with that title about how to make sure you have a good topic and reviewing the notability of the topic is a good starting point as part of it. — Masem (t) 21:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A nod to WP:Structurism as an existing concept. Also a hint that newcomers should add content to existing article, and no be trying to add a new orphan topic as their first contribution.
I'm inclined to something like "stand-alone topic criteria" (to clarify that the point is determining whether a topic warrants a stand-alone article) or, in a similar vein, "when to create an article" (or possibly "when it can be appropriate to create an article", since in occasional cases it can be appropriate to cover a small number of closely related topics that could be notable in the same article rather than separately). I do agree with the notion that notability isn't the best name for this guideline and that having a term that's more like plain English. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like suitable topics or suitable article topics would work. That implies the existence of editorial judgement and that some topics simply aren't suitable. User:Chaotic Enby, this was inspired by your idea of "well-sourced", which has the potential to be confused with well-cited (i.e., the number of refs in the article right now, rather than the number of sources in the real world). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From all the suggestions so far, this seems the most understandable so far. It's short, it communicates that some things are excluded and that there is 'judgement' involved. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this, because (1) it removes the emotional pain of being deemed "not notable", and (2) it avoids the confusion we currently have of subjects that are notable but about which we cannot have a meaningful article. To clarify: (1) AfD and Teahouse waste a lot of time trying to explain to upset people that Wikipedian notability has nothing to do with importance, creativity, or future value to humanity. We could save a lot of trouble by focusing on the objective need for sources rather than the subjective view of importance. (2) Notability is currently only half of the two tests we need to pass: We can't have an article unless the subject is notable and someone's written something about it for us to summarise. We have a lot of guidelines that say "XXX is generally considered notable", which result in unexpandable stubs because although it can be demonstrated from primary sources that two old ladies and a chicken once lived near a railway siding in Ohio (making it a genuine inhabited settlement), there is now nothing there, and no one has ever written anything about it, or ever will. Focusing on what is necessary to create an article would cut to what actually matters, practically, rather than getting tied up in legalistic debates about what constitutes a notable thing. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all too often, we get the argument that we should have an article on XXX because sources exist, even though no one has demonstrated the existence of such sources. Attempts to add the requirement that reliable sources must be cited to create or keep an article have been repeatedly rejected. I would support replacing "notability" with something like "specific topics are suitable for articles if they are well-sourced, NPOV, and meet certain broad topic requirements (i.e., replacements for SNGs)". Donald Albury17:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Albury, do you mean that topics are suitable/notable if they're neutral, or do you mean that articles are suitable/notable if they're neutral? I'm not sure if you mean that you want to repeal WP:NRVE and expand the deletion policy to say that a (deserved) {{POV}} tag is grounds for deletion, or if you mean that citing sources in a neutrally written article must be possible, even if it hasn't happened yet (including for many years). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to express that availability of reliable sources is required, but not sufficient, and that other policies and guidelines also must be met for an article to be suitable for inclusion in WP. Donald Albury18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like suitable much better than notable (and came here to suggest it). It's more accurate, but still gives some flexibility in definition, where something like well documented might be open to misinterpretation / lawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade also deserves credit for this idea, since a comment from him is the source of "article suitability" in the list above.
I'm leaning a bit towards "topics" (or "subjects"?), because "articles" could be argued to exclude lists, and because of the endless problem of "it's not notable because the article's quality is currently too low". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that a lot. On Wikipedia, a suitable topic for an article is one where either sufficient reliable, independent sources can be found or which meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific suitability guideline (SSG)... – sounds both more understandable and closer to how we actually decide whether or not to keep articles, in practice. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw out an idea that I think can minimize disruption, is to consider a comparable situation to the relatively recent rename of of the old Naming Convention page to WP:Article Titles while specific advice of naming for various fields are still at "Naming Convention". In that same vein, if the GNG was moved to its own page (thus sitting alongside the sepearate SNG pages) and what's left at WP:N left there, then renaming that leftover to some of the suggestions above would still allow us to keep the principle of notability via the GNG and SNG while having a better landing page at a more familiar term and to explain the GNG and SNG functions within that. It would minimize a mass edit on p&g pages. The GNG and SNGs can be described as tests used on Wikipedia to measure how notable (real world definition) a topic is within the suitability on an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in terms of providing g a word that is closer to the real definition for our practice related to when a topic is suitable for it's own article, treating the existing idea of notability through the GNG and SNGs as is and focusing on a clear word for the broad concept is a clean solution. Masem (t) 19:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that GNG is about how well-documented the topic is in independent secondary sources, which doesn't necessarily map to real-world notability, and using the latter word for it has been just as much source of confusion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can frame the GNG and SNGs as semi objective, source based tests to evaluate real-world notability, and establih in the top level guideline that one reason to allow a topic to have an article is via demonstrating real world notability using the GNG and SNGs tests. That moves us away from having notability take the wiki definition. We still need a clear understandable title for the top level guideline, and that would also discuss more that the GNG and SNGs, such as the current NLIST advice. — Masem (t) 16:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, basing article suitability on real-world notability is a very iffy definition. GNG (and to a lesser extent the SNGs) provide us with a better foundation for defining what is suitable for our encyclopedia, which is quality of independent secondary sourcing. "This person is important" is ultimately a less relevant criterion than "this person has enough secondary sources to write an article about them", if our goal is to write an encyclopedia (tertiary source, i.e. relying on secondary sourcing). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that several of the SNG do give measure of real world notability based on claims of importance which can be given by a single reliable primary source, the expectation they can be expanded. The key is that with a tiny bit of rewording of the GNG and SNGs are set as the evaluation of real world notability with the expectation of sourcing and coverage required for an encyclopedia, either which establishes one way a topic is suitable for a stand alone article. Masem (t) 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that wp:notability is the operative word for "allowed to have a separate article" and the talisman for the fuzzy ecosystem/process which decides that. It incorporates with wp:notability guidelines, degree of compliance with WP:not (a measure of the degree of enclyclopedicness of the article) and a bit of influences from real world notability/importance. Any term needs to acknowledge this. If one tries to base it on summarizing just what the wp:notability guidelines say, IMO it won't work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And the strongest consideration in it would be wp:notability per the notability guidelines, but the above other factors described above are also a part of that consideration. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to see a more obvious name for the guideline for article creation. Something such as like "Guideline for article creation" would be more obvious. TFD (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. My point was agreeing with the structure/content. If we want this to have legs, we'll need something with an even shorter with a good acronym for it. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural request I don't mean to gum up the process. But there's a risk of having 100 different ideas from 99 different editors, which can make it difficult to reach a consensus. Whenever this brainstorming step is over, I want to recommend compiling them into a list, sorted by some type of subcategory. That way we can slowly funnel our way towards something that can earn a consensus. I believe you'd probably find (at least) three or four types of names:
Non-descriptive (compare WP:NOT or WP:SIZE): inclusion criteria, inclusion test, article creation threshold, etc.
Type of outcome (compare WP:DISAMBIG or WP:STANDALONELIST): separate article, stand-alone article, separate page
Standard of sources (compare WP:RELIABLE or WP:VERIFIABLE): independent sources, third party sources
Standard of coverage (compare WP:OR or WP:COPYRIGHT): significant coverage, minimum coverage, coverage threshold
I lean towards something more descriptive, because "inclusion criteria" just shifts the complaints from "Wikipedia has an arbitrary definition of notability!" to "Wikipedia has an arbitrary list of inclusion criteria!" Newcomers and outsiders notoriously don't read passed the headline, or even twist ambiguity in bad faith to attack Wikipedia with misinformation campaigns. It would help the project much more if the guideline title summarized an uncontroversial standard for our encyclopedia. (Currently: if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. or A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "inclusion criteria" could shift the complaints from "Wikipedia has an arbitrary definition of notability!" to "Wikipedia has an arbitrary list of inclusion criteria!" However, the current name has an additional problem, namely "I have three Wikipedia:Reliable sources that WP:Directly support a claim that this subject is 'notable', so why are you claiming that it's non-notable?" That problem would go away with a name like "inclusion criteria". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have arbitrary criteria, though. All the WP:SNGs are arbitrary. The WP:GNG is arbitrary in what it considers "significant", "reliable", and "independent". Individual decisions on articles are arbitrary in how these guidelines are interpreted and how strictly they are applied. It's better to be open about that than pretend, like too many 'notability theorists' do, that we've come up with a 350 word rubric that objectively divides all of human knowledge into worthy and unworthy. I think most people can understand that to make a large project like this manageable, you have to agree on some boundaries – and respect them, even if they don't agree with them. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except we do also have rubrics, and we also have to work together, so we have found it necessary to define together. There's boundaries, you say? What are they? We have to go about answering that question together. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying. WP:GNG and the WP:SNGs are the boundaries we've arrived upon. They aren't objective, they're arbitrary and subjective, but that's okay. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be more precise to say that there is an element of arbitrariness and subjectivity to decisions, especially for borderline subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, they are not just arbitrary. They describe real world things (sources) and using them for coming to decision (measure), and even more importantly, the rationale for doing so (writing based on what reliable others do). Arbitrary would be no definition, no rubric at all among us. We may suck, but we don't usually just rely on throwing darts or dice to delete articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they really describe real-world sources? Consider "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The basis for deciding this is: Wikipedia editors say so.
Yes, they do, those impacts are sourced, somehow -- you actually do have to prove it to each other. (Besides, you already know, this "independence" is a both matter of degree, and not strictly necessary to be in the definition for all real world sources -- and as a matter of various qualities a real world source might have, we are generally more concerned with trustworthy). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that the usual way of qualifying under the second one ("significant impact") is to write a book that is used in (undergraduate?) classes at multiple universities. But some classes, and some universities, appear to be more equal than others for this determination, which is arbitrary, using the definition as a decision made according to individual personal preference rather than by its intrinsic qualities.
I agree with you that supporters of these two criteria use sources whose independence can often be most politely described as a "matter of degree", and they appear to agree with you that independent sources are "not strictly necessary". (For example, I have seen sources accepted by other editors that were just a few links to class syllabi, saying that the text for the class would be Big Textbook by Alice Expert. In GNG terms, these are mere passing mentions in self-published sources, and would not be accepted for any other subject at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the statement that the WP:GNG is arbitrary. (Or even the additional requirements of the WP:SNGs.) At worst, the application of WP:N requires some level of judgment, based on a consensus of editors applying the principle. But the evidentiary standard for writing an article is based on real, practical, and empirical experience. And it helps our project when the world understands that we write articles based on evidence. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not completely random, but it is arbitrary, in the sense that nobody on the face of the earth except for English Wikipedia editors uses this definition of "notable". For example, I think virtually all people would agree that a YouTube celebrity with twenty million fans was "a famous or important person" -- it is only Wikipedians who have a secret alternate definition where it means "has had three newspaper articles written about them". jp×g🗯️12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different point, and the real point of this brainstorm. Asking for sources isn't an arbitrary standard, but in hindsight, the word "notability" is an odd choice of words to describe it. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think that it is an obvious error that we incorrectly refer to our guideline as "notability", and that we call things that meet this guideline "notable". It is not arbitrary -- there are rules -- but they aren't about notability. No normal speaker of the English language, when they say "notability", means what that guideline says.
If I'm going to be totally honest, it feels like -- whether designed intentionally or not -- the guideline's name is designed to make sure that newbies give invalid arguments during deletion debates, thus ensuring that their autobiographies/advertisements/etc are deleted and they are dismissed, because they stupidly assume that the word means the thing it means in 99.999% of its usage in the English language. For example, the obvious direct interpretation of "Smith is not notable" is:
The speaker's subjective opinion, which you can argue against by saying "Yes he is".
A claim that he is not very famous, which you can argue against by saying X million people listen to his podcast
A claim that he is not very successful, which you can argue against by saying he made X million dollars or has Y thousand clients or employs Z hundred people.
A claim that he is not very unique, which you can argue against by saying that he's the first X to ever Y, or the only Z who's ever Qd while Zing.
We do not accept any of these arguments. If you make any of these arguments, we sneer and ridicule you for being an idiot.
I would propose that the "notability" guideline be called something that does not, in any way, create "two-tier" sentences (e.g. ones where there's an obvious plain English interpretation, and then a second Wikipedian English interpretation where it means something else). For this reason I think stuff like "impactfulness topic criteria" might be helpful, but would not fully solve the issue, as people still know what the word "impactful" means, and would argue that things were impactful, when what we actually meant was impactful, and only a moron would think that meant impactful. It should be something that nobody would ever think to define in terms other than looking up the Wikipedia policy for it. For example: "includability" or "florfbap". jp×g🗯️12:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "sourceability"? It brings the idea of having quality sources, while not being an already existing word, to make it clear that it's a unique Wikipedia concept. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of significant figures
While many people have made contributions to history (many more than could fit in one timeline), it's undoubtable that some people's influence far exceeds that of others. 
Therefore, I think we should have a timeline of the significant figures in history. 
I completely understand that determining how significant some people are is a difficult task. It's expected to take struggle and effort to make this work. However, people deserve to know who made the greatest contributions to the advancement of humanity.
Also, many scholars themselves have written about who they believe are to be the most significant people.
I have created a sketch of this idea at User:Wikieditor662/sandbox. It's far from perfect, but you get the main idea. The people are colored based on the era they were in. The most significant people make it to the overview and those who are not as important but still nonetheless significant (as well as people born earlier so the overview doesn't get clumped) go to the individual timelines (below the overview) along with those in the overview.
I would again like to reiterate that this is something that is going to take effort, dedication, and much debate, but if we do this, then I think it could be worth it. What do you all think?
Kindly, I'm experiencing philosophical opposition to this project. History has been a team effort, and further elevation of the already elevated is not likely to improve genuine understanding of historical processes. The Great man theory correctly fell out of fashion early last century.Having said that, I don't mean to dissuade you from undertaking a project you're clearly interested in, and this seems like it could serve as some kind of subpage of WikiProject Vital Articles. Using the inclusion criterion "listed at WP:VA" is probably the only way you'd ever develop any kind of agreement as to which historical figures to include. That WikiProject has already done a lot of debating over which topics are more important than others.The periodisation scheme is pretty parochial and Eurocentric, and would have to be converted to numeric year spans or whatever schema WP:VA uses (and the section headings would have to be delinked per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS). You'll also want to consider how to handle cases where vital dates are approximate, unknown, disputed, etc. Folly Mox (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Folly Mox on this. I'll add that it might be pretty much impossible to find an actual inclusion criteria, that is, any kind of consensus in reliable sources as to who is a significant enough figure – or even if we can compare the significance of historical figures across times, cultures, and domains. If anything, that page will inform more about our own selection than about any historical truth behind it.However, having it as part of WP:VA, rather than as an encyclopedic article, could make it a pretty useful reference for articles about famous figures needing improvement, without claiming that these are necessarily the most significant ever. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason we aren't or can't scrape and extract basic cite template information (webpage title, domain, visited datetime) at submit-time from bare URL <ref>s? Personally, I use bare URLs all the time as I consider filling out the cite template the most emphatically tedious part of editing WP (as it is when writing scholarly manuscripts) and know that some robot editor will just come along and fix it for me anyway. Since the code already exists and could be done more efficiently server-side, why don't we just pull it into the WP core? Just a small and probably extant idea I had while feeling a little guilty for adding a bare <ref> to a nicely-formatted article with proper tag attributes and template use. Cheers, fellows. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what you are looking for, but there is reFill for bare URLs, and Wikipedia:Citation expander for when the URL is within <ref> ... /ref>. You can save your edit, and then immediately run those tools. As always, the output of any such tool must be reviewed and verified. Donald Albury14:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be looking for this.
Or use the visual editor, or use the ref filler in the 2010 wikitext editor's toolbar. Or maybe even embrace the idea that everyone contributes in different ways, and that WP:CITE means what it says about doing your best to accurately communicate what your source is, and that editors can, do, and should work together on the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but it doesn't always work. It is particularly annoying when I'm trying to cite something that I have accessed through the Wikilibrary (with a long list of authors) and it doesn't work, and I am unable to go to the non-Wikilibrary page for the article. Donald Albury20:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed unfortunate that many websites do not properly mark up their pages so that the automated tools and Zotero etc are unable to extract the appropriate information from webpages. But that is a problem that we cannot really solve. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently (1-2 months back?) I saw a project to improve the automated tools (or maybe just one tool), iirc by adding local code for specific commonly cited websites it consistently gets wrong. Unfortunately I can't find the discussion now, but if someone remembers it (user:WhatamIdoing?) you may be interested. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was about better (more complete, more correct) automated filling of source metadata (author, publisher, title, etc) when a reference is added. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, and the "Edit Check" thread I guessed first had a tangential subthread about better metadata, including adding a local translation layer to Citoid as invoked from the Visual Editor interface, but no one gave the subthread a heading for me to link. I think it starts around here.Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or they do mark them up, but they block our servers. That's probably happening with The New York Times. Properly formatted refs are in their interest, too, but it's likely that all they see is some automated thing or another and automatically block it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've also had the problem using DOI. It looks like WikiLibrary sets cookies on my device (when I go back to a source a day or two after I looked it up with WL, WL immediately jumps in. I saw this happening even when I was logged in with my alternate account, which is not eligible for WL.), so any attempt to reach a link outside of WL gets diverted back to WL. Donald Albury18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers § RfC: Is this rewrite ready to replace the current page?, which only got 8 responses in 3 months, with 4-4 deadlock. In particular, two editors have expressed concern that the rewrite was not persuasive enough, which I attempted to mitigate by expanding the lead with more emotionally-driven prose. I have therefore withdrawn the RfC. There seems to be a consensus that an rewrite is needed, however. While many of the suggestions provided on the RfC and the previous idea lab were added to the rewrite, I am thinking of advertising the next RfC on WP:Centralised discussion, so I would like further feedback for the proposed rewrite: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite.
I would lean towards option 1, with option 2a as a second choice. The less bureaucracy the better, and CUs are trusted enough to use the permission responsibly. They have also already signed the NDA. If we are going to create a separate right, ArbCom is the body which is best equipped to assign (and importantly, monitor the use of) tools which give access to non-public information. Are there other options I am not thinking of? Reasons to pick a particular option? Other comments? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2a with the right being given initially to any current CU or former CU in good standing who asks for it. That way it can be added/removed independently of the CU rights if there is any reason to do so, and allows for any changes in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that ACE scrutineers are routinely granted local CU for the purpose of properly scrutinizing the election, I do not think an electionadmin without CU makes any sense. (I can see the argument for having CUs without electionadmin, however.) In other words, I do not think it should be added independently of the CU right, but removing it would be acceptable. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ability to assign/remove it independently of CU is more important than whether it ever is given to a non-CU or removed from someone without removing CU. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2a and personally, I don't think it necessarily needs to be restricted to CheckUsers. As long as the appointment comes with a vote of ArbCom and has community consultation, it satisfies the WMF's criteria for access, assuming the recipient is identified as well. I see no reason to lock it behind the CheckUser right, though I do think ArbCom is the right choice for who should be assigning it. EggRoll97(talk) 04:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should postpone considering this until phab:T377531 is resolved. Communication from WMF regarding SecurePoll related groups/rights has not been technically accurate. In particular I want to note the following points:
electionadmin group gives access to sensitive data as of today, but this is actually because of a bug. If/when the bug fix is merged (gerrit:1083337), no PII would be leaked – and the ability to setup and configure polls becomes quite low-risk and can be bundled into the sysop toolkit.
The user right which actually does expose PII, securepoll-view-voter-pii, is extremely sensitive! It allows viewing the IPs and UAs of all the voters in a single page. This is a much higher level of access than CheckUser which only allows viewing the data for a user individually, and the use of such access along with the given reason go into logs which are audited by ArbCom/Ombuds for compliance with local and global CheckUser policy. Compare that with securepoll-view-voter-pii which allows viewing PII en masse without any audit trail (phab:T356442).
This idea starts with the presupposition that PII must be collected on these. That is something that can be discussed. Perhaps it doesn't need to be, especially if we are going to keep using manual whitelists for the electoral rolls. — xaosfluxTalk09:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per SD, I think that all admins should have electionadmin right, since scheduling elections seems like great mop work. However, I disagree that the right to view voter private information shouldn’t be given to all CheckUsers. I think that it should, since the users that have accessed the information are already logged (T271276), so there is an audit trail. CheckUsers are also the ones who know about socks, so they seem like a great fit.
Unless we start doing an election a week we'll ever need more than a handful of election admins, so I'm not sure giving it to every admin is necessary. It sounds more like interfaceadmin (of which we have 10) or bureaucrat in that regard (15, and they aren't busy). – Joe (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What benefits would there be in having way (as in perhaps 100x) more people than needed? The drawbacks I can see immediately are: increased risk/attack surface (we generally follow the principle of least privilege for even the most minor rights); increased chance of misunderstandings arising from the lack of clarity over who's responsible for elections (look at what's happened already); increased chance of conflicts when too many people are trying to coordinate one election; increased expectations for new admins from adding yet another bundled responsibility. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee election is run by volunteers who co-ordinate to avoid overlapping work. I'm confident that Wikipedia's collaborative community will continue in this tradition with administrator elections.
Bundling privileges together is a tradeoff: sure, election admins could be a separate user group, with the overhead cost of the processes to add or remove members. That has to be weighed against the risk of someone setting up votes without community approval. I think I agree with SD0001 that it's not a high-risk scenario. There are much better ways for someone who obtained access to an admin's account to disrupt Wikipedia than trying to setup clandestine polls. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm basing my numbers off. The ArbCom election is run by three coordinators, three scrutineers, and a couple of people setting up the pre-RfC. So eight people, and none of them seem particularly run off their feet. We have over eight hundred admins.
I imagine the potential for abuse would not be in setting up bogus elections but in manipulating or sabotaging real ones or (if CU ends up being included in this) doxxing voters en masse. Admin accounts are scarce and valuable enough commodity for it to be worth the effort for some people. But again, we apply the principle of least privilege to rollback and page mover. Why wouldn't we do it here? – Joe (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the arbitration committee election: anyone is eligible to co-ordinate the election RfC and the non-votewiki portion of the election itself. They don't all rush in and try to perform tasks without co-ordinating with each other.
SD0001 suggested that the electionadmin right be bundled with the admin toolset since, after the bug is fixed, it does not require CheckUser privileges. I appreciate that, in your view, the risk is sufficiently high to warrant the overhead of managing the electionadmin right with a separate process.
Regarding the page mover and rollback rights, they remain bundled with the sysop group, though. Since those rights are granted separately, if the principle of least privilege were followed, admins should have to apply for them separately rather than getting them bundled. I've previously stated my support for tailoring permissions with matching roles (see this comment thread on protection for Did You Know queues for example). But I recognize that there is an overhead cost, and there have to be willing volunteers to pay it. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who will have access to the vote details? Unrelated to the other private details who voted, and how they voted should be encrypted and access extremely limited. If that's not the case these won't be 'secure' elections, and voters need to be very visibly warned that their votes aren't private -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creation and setup can be done by 'crats as Joe mentioned. For the PII exposing rights, I do agree with SD's views, I also have another option, this right can be asked only by existing Check Users, and the ArbCom can grant it to the ones who have a respectable experience using CU tools. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to keep in mind, to see SP PII you have to be listed on the specific poll (and you have to be in the electionadmin group to be eligible to be listed on the specific poll). So if we decide to collect the enhanced PII in SP, then it is still limited to only the users registered to the specific poll. — xaosfluxTalk13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the attack vector for users with the electionadmin, a compromised account could add more scrutineers to the poll. Thus the risk would be that everyone in the group with the securepoll-view-voter-pii right could gain access. So for simplicity, I think we should be prepared to accept that everyone with the securepoll-view-voter-pii right might have access. If want to be able to move users in and out of this group on a per-poll basis, then there should be a separate user group for it. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It is certainly possible we could have multiple, overlapping secure polls at the same time on different topics with different admins, etc. — xaosfluxTalk18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So one thing that needs to be considered is, first assuming we collect the PII in SP, is that if a scrutineer wants to be able to further investigate a voter using other on-wiki data, they will also need to be a local checkuser to be able to check those logs. So it needs to be established that those checks are appropriate, and additionally we currently give arbcom exclusive decision making authority on who may be a local checkuser. — xaosfluxTalk18:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Xaosflux above, I believe electionadmin / securepoll-view-voter-pii does not grant every electionadmin the ability to see every voter's data ever. I think it just grants the ability to be added to a poll during setup. There is compartmentalization. So how this would work in practice if we gave the right to all the checkusers is that when we have an election, we'd probably want to pre-pick 3 checkusers to scrutineer the election, add them to the poll, then only those 3 would have access to the data. Right now the way I am asking WMF to set up SecurePoll for us is to let any admin create a poll, and then only that poll's designated electionadmins can edit a poll or scrutineer. phab:T378287. There's 3 pending patches related to phab:T377531 that may change some details of how SecurePoll permissions work. We may have some additional clarity after those patches are merged and have been in production for a few weeks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a discussion of who should have it. The RfC linked above gave this meta page as an explanation of what an 'electionadmin' is, and it says (perhaps contrary to the default in the documentation) that it's a right that allows users to set up elections with SecurePoll. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to local CUs doing scrutineering. For electionadmin (excl PII), I don't see why we don't give it to the Electoral Commission only? They're elected to manage the ACE process. This is distinct to option 2 in my eyes; it would be assumed consensus upon election of an Electoral Commission (perhaps the crats could action the userrights changes). For AELECT, it's trickier but could be discussed in post-trial discussions. For PII scrutineering, I think we should continue using stewards for ACE; for AELECT it's up in the air (and subject to them willing to do it, and the frequency of admin elections being reasonable for them, I'd prefer stewards handling it). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is it really good to require relying on Stewards for local stuff? It just seems more logical to me that we make it all an on-wiki process. I just don't see why not local CU. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, at least for scrutineering. Stewards are happy to deal with it AFAICT and it's been the way it's done historically. Aside from independence reasons, I'd be concerned with local CUs doing election scrutineering with PII because that would give local CUs a dual-purpose. Their purpose atm is tackling abuse, and they're restricted by the Wikipedia:CheckUser policy. In particular, they need cause, and their checks are logged. But scrutineers see all voters', which is a large portion of the active editor userbase, and their checks aren't logged. I find it hard to reconcile this in my head with the restrictions placed upon CUs in our local policy, which become meaningless to my mind if CUs can see most active editors' IPs come ACE/AELECT anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure what @Xaosflux meant above, but the task he mentioned only said that it was a bit too easy (as in friction, not permission) to access the PII, not that it's not logged; in fact, the task links to phab:T271276, which made access logged. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the list of users who can access PII have to be whitelisted by the electionadmin for every election? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to see securepoll data you have to be an explicitly listed admin for the specific poll you want to view; to be eligible to be listed you have to currently be in the electionadmin group. Viewing the securepoll data is logged in securepoll. It is also possible to configure a poll to not collect personal data at all, so just the public list of usernames would be available. — xaosfluxTalk23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the feature mentioned in phab:T271276 and didn't see it in localhost, probably because of some missing setup. It does seem to be logged after all. Nevertheless, it just records that someone saw the full list – there's obviously no way of logging whose PII they happened to look at or take note of. That's more of what I meant. – SD0001 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution CUs having a lot of instant access, if a CU wants to become a PII scurtineer, they would have to apply to it, and a group of trusted users (crats/ArbCom/anyone else that the community deems trusted) can approve it. This perm can be granted/requested per election, and they would be added into the securepoll view PII whitelist. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>10:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, you're proposing we ask bureaucrats to give people the electadmin right. Honestly, since we (probs. justifiably) don't appear to want SecurePoll to be frictionless, I think that's a good-enough idea. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original purpose of the arbitration committee election commission was to be able to decide on questions that needed to be settled quickly to be effective, and thus a community RfC discussion wouldn't be feasible. Community expectations has shifted the role to include more management of community comments. Most of the election management continues to be done by other volunteers. Personally, I don't like continuing the trend of making the commission more central to the arbitration committee election process as I'd prefer that it remain a largely hands-off role. I like how the arbitration committee elections are run through a grassroots effort. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are election admins on votewiki currently decided? It looks like Cyberpower and Xaosflux have had electionadmin for various periods.[37][38] Is consensus needed, or do WMF just appoint people who express interest in helping manage the process? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an election is being configured on votewiki the coordinators have accounts made and are added to the group, then are added to the election, as are the scrutineers. In elections such as ACE, the coordinators are removed when voting begins so they can't access the PII that gets collected. — xaosfluxTalk23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there are non-technical coordinators, they may not get added as they wouldn't have anything to do - in which case the WMF resource generally does all the work. — xaosfluxTalk23:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to split a couple of ideas out in to subsections below. There are a few complicated things that need to be considered. Let's assume this isn't for ACE right now, but for any other use case we decide to use securepoll for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs)
Do we need PII in SP for local elections?
So this is something that is going to be important as to who is going to be allowed to do what, and how they will be allowed to do that. Polls don't have to collect PII. If they don't, they will still collect usernames. PRO's are that if we don't collect PII in the vote action, then the bar of who can administer elections is much lower. The con is that checkuser data of the vote-action isn't collected. Keep in mind the username is still collected - and checkuser investigations of everything that person has done on-wiki can continue as per normal. This is very close to how it is in RFA now, if the only edit/action that wasn't checkuser recorded for someone was their "vote". — xaosfluxTalk14:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of collecting the PII from the voting data, as it's a good way of excluding some socks and catching others. However that's not the really the purpose of having a poll, so I don't see why its collected. Maybe I'm missing something, is there some other reason to collect the data? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of collecting the PII is to detect attempts to circumvent the one person, one vote requirement by one person voting from multiple accounts. This is done by analysing the public and non-public information in the same way that checkusers at SPI do. At arbcom elections struck votes fall into five categories:
Editors in good standing voting twice from the same account. This is permitted and should just automatically invalidate the older vote but occasionally it doesn't happen. Scrutineers strike the earlier vote.
Editors in good standing voting twice with different accounts in good faith. e.g. someone with a valid alt account wanting to change their vote but forgetting which account they used first time, or forgetting that they'd already voted. Scrutineers strike the earlier vote.
Editors discovered to be sockpuppetteers by normal means after they have cast votes. If only one account has been used to vote the most recent vote by that account is allowed to stand, if multiple accounts have been used to cast votes then all the votes are struck.
Known sockpuppetteers voting with one or more accounts discovered to be sockpuppets by the scrutineers. Scrutineers strike all votes.
Editors, not previously known to be sockpuppetteers, discovered by scrutineers to be voting with multiple accounts in bad faith. Scrutineers strike all votes.
Without PII being collected I believe that the first three types of multiple voting would still be detectable, the rest would not. Sockpuppetteers who vote using only one account will not be detected by scrutineers regardless of whether PII is collected or not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last two fall into the using the poll to catch editors who are socking that I mentioned, but should this be something that's part of the poll? I guess the main issues would be a sockpuppetiers setting up accounts that allow for voting, and then never using them again. That would be near impossible to catch unless they slipped up before hand.
Say the was a EC requirement to vote, a malicious actor could setup multiple accounts, use them to make good edits in completely separate areas to avoid scrutiny, and only bring them together within a vote in an attempt to sway the outcome. The normal methods for catching sockpuppets would be ineffectual in stopping that.
CUs who aren't election admins can't see anything more about the vote/voter that a normal admin can, even if they have a reason to look. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the scrutineers, not either of the above. I know that this is somewhat CU procedure and typed my thoughts out wrong :) thanks for the correction Aaron Liu (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
only if the poll is set to collect PII. I don't see any option to turn off PII collection on the page Special:SecurePoll/create. One way to turn that off would be to not grant the user right securepoll-view-voter-pii to anyone. Unless I am missing an option somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems like this feature didn't get off the ground (only hide the voter list from other voters did). Sort of why we are in idea lab though -- if this is useful we could put in a feature request do "disable PII collection". — xaosfluxTalk22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to encrypt the backend poll data?
How people voted isn't available through the securepoll system, but when setting up a poll you can optionally choose the configure encryption. This will prevent vote data from being able to be accessed by system administrators who read the datastores. This provides quite strong voter secrecy. The downside is that cryptography is hard, and will require election administrators to understand these aspects, develop and strictly adhere to secure processes for key management. As this larger idea is about who can be an election admin, if we need this component we will need a way to ensure that such admins are not only trustworthy, but that they are also technically competent. — xaosfluxTalk14:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, you say How people voted isn't available through the securepoll system and encryption will prevent vote data from being able to be accessed by system administrators. So to clarify without encryption can system admins see how people voted, or is that information store elsewhere? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you create a poll, you can choose to optionally encrypt the poll data. This can be done with SSL or GPG keys. If you encrypt the poll, the stored data can't be read by system admins (note, this is not a wikipedia admin, or 'election admin', but the back-end server administrators). Finalizing the poll requires loading the decryption key in to the tallying mechanism. If the poll isn't encrypted it is possible the vote data could be accessed by system admins accessing the raw stored data. In either case, the software doesn't ever produce a voter:choice output. — xaosfluxTalk15:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so the choice that voters make isn't accessible even without encryption, which would suggest encryption isn't needed. What general type of information about the vote data is accessible without encryption? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not available through the poll system (the confidentially risk is only of stored raw data for server admins). The public data is what you can already see on all elections: date of vote, name of voter, and if the vote has been replaced or stuck. — xaosfluxTalk15:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the current poll encryption feature still doesn't entirely prevent an actively malicious sysadmin from, say, modifying the software to do something with the unencrypted data either before it's encrypted or after it's been decrypted to be counted. Of course that's much harder to pull off than just reading the unencrypted database (especially if you don't want to leave any traces) and requires a bit more server-side access, but not impossible. Taavi (talk!) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(no opinion in whether it should be encrypted, just stating some facts) Not all sysadmins are WMF staff. And there are a total of 192 sysadmins, which is much more than you might expect. * Pppery *it has begun...17:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, where's the 192 number coming from? Folks in the ops LDAP group would definitely have enough database access to modify votes in the SQL database, but that's only 65 people I think. Who'm I missing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The first two can modify the running code, and analytics-privatedata-users can also read things from the database (in addition to the restricted group). Taavi (talk!) 04:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that voting choices could be accessed I would say it needs to be encrypted. Obviously this only makes it harder to access the information not impossible, but that is true of all such measures. Account passwords are required even though as a security measure they can be overcome.
This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a WikiProject is using SecurePoll to elect its coordinators, using encryption seems like overkill. For ArbCom elections, on the other hand, I see no reason not to encrypt. For such significant elections, there would be no shortage of volunteers who can handle OpenSSL keys. – SD0001 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning no to encryption. Seems like overkill. "Make the workflow more complicated for every electionadmin in every election" vs "make it harder for a rogue sysadmin to tamper with an election one time or a couple times until they get caught/fired/access removed" seems to be the tradeoff to weigh here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not tampering with the result that is the problem, and reading the vote choices is unlikely to get caught. I wouldn't vote if I knew my vote was so easily accessible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well. WP:RECALL is upon us now, and, while clearly an improvement for community accountability, the first petition is already showing that the system has its limits. To be fair, that is to be expected – we can't really brainstorm a perfect system without any real-life testing, and such a new system should be open to community inputs for tweaking it into a more functional state.
Namely, the issue is with recall proposals that are, from the start, overwhelmingly likely not to succeed. In a case such like this one, where the number of (informal) opposes far outweighs the number of signatories, prolonging the long drawn-out process (the petition being open for a month, and then potentially seven days of RRfA) isn't desirable if the outcome is already pretty much known. I figure there should be a way to cut short petitions where it is clear that most editors are not behind it, a sort of WP:SNOW close, to avoid dragging the admin and the community through a month-long slog.
Of course, the petition itself shouldn't be the final !vote on admin accountability, but only a means to bring up the issue. So, if we go through an opposes/signatories ratio to close it early, for instance, it should be pretty high (maybe 3 to 1?), but still allow a way to cut short petitions with no chances of succeeding. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If each person were allowed to write a single short statement (absolute maximum 2 sentences) about why they support/oppose and no discussion or replies were allowed then a month would be reasonable. A month of what's currently happening at the first petition is completely unreasonable - a week of that plus a week of RFA hell is not reasonable even for someone whose conduct is beyond the pale (and they should be at Arbcom anyway) let alone a month for someone who has just made a few minor mistakes or pissed off a few people.
The Crats should be empowered to close petitions early if the result is clear (either way). Arbcom still exists as a venue should people think that a petition that was going to succeed was closed too early. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the primary point of the petition process to ensure that we don't have frivolous RRFAs? It seems that most of the participants are already trying to skip to a future RRFA discussion that may not even materialize. — xaosfluxTalk14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed an issue, the petition is itself getting a RfA-like amount of discussion before the RRfA even started. Thryduulf's proposal of limiting the conversation to a single short statement per person could make it much more manageable, and cut short the problem by making 30 days long petitions less awful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposes don't formally affect the outcome of the petition, that's what the RRfA is for. From my own thought process (and from what I read from that discussion), opposes can only dissuade potential petition signers to NOT sign the petition. fanfanboy(block)14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why I was referring to them as informal opposes above. But there should still be a way for the community to formally state that the vast majority is not in support of a petition. At least to shut down frivolous petitions in advance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lizardman's Constant means that pretty much all views will be supported by some people, so no, I don't think we can rely on that. It's a complete waste of everyone's time if we only pay attention to the support votes and force a WP:SNOWBALL petition to go to RRfA. Theknightwho (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no drama except what some editors are creating. I don't think an admin is going to quit because they discover that five people think they shouldn't be an admin. Those that oppose the petition can just... not sign it. It'll be over in 30 days. I'm not opposed to shortening the 30 days but I'd rather wait at least one full cycle before deciding. Preferably more than one full cycle. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said elsewhere, we need to reduce the drama surrounding these. I agree that people opposing the petition should just leave it alone. There should be no discussion section and no threaded responses to endorsement; a week of discussion (which is plenty) happens once the petition is successful. Additional discussion only makes the signal to noise level worse and cranks up the heat. —Kusma (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with some of the others that shortening the time makes sense, though I don't think we should be cutting it to shorter than 2 weeks if we started at 30 days. 25 signatures in 30 days does seem really out of wack - less than one signature a day, in a community this large, where RFAs have some 200 votes in a week and we've already got more than 400 votes in the admin elections? Seems very off. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is that many editors (including myself) voted for the 30 days. Now seeing what has happened, I agree it should be shortened. 2 weeks seems like a good number. fanfanboy(block)16:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, we'll have to be mindful of the potential for editors to seek an administrator's recall, who blocked/banned them, in the past. Grudges are always possible as being a core of recall attempts. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think shortening the time period for the petition to 10 or 14 days makes sense. I would oppose allowing snow closes regardless of how unlikely it appears that a petition will pass. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to believe that, instead of tinkering with this on an ad hoc basis with every new petition, we modify the terms of the recall process to be a six-months trial and then -- at the end of that -- evaluate everything that worked and didn't and make whatever modifications are needed in one fell and final swoop. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford The close of the final RfC establishing recall instructed that any outstanding issues may be resolved through normal editing. (emphasis mine), and personally, I am very burnt out by all the multi-step trials and ratification RfCs that sprung out of RFA2024. Mach6116:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is a discussion on the idea lab, so the goal is first to figure out what to change before figuring out how to change it. And also because, even if a user could technically make a WP:BOLD edit, having a consensus behind it is always good. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the petition before it closed, and realised multiple editors opposing it despite it not having any effect. I think it should be possible to run a petition in a closer timeframe to an RfA or AfD. To summarise, petitions could be changed as follows :
Each petition runs for exactly a week.
Any extended confirmed editor can support or oppose the petition
If consensus is reached to desysop after a week (ie: support / support + oppose = 70% per current RfA thresholds) then the admin is desysopped
I think holding an admin to the threat of being desysopped for over a month is worse than what happens at Arbcom. Conversely, if the community is in obvious agreement than an admin has outstayed their welcome and must go, it gets the job done far more quickly without people getting frustrated about when it's going to happen. And furthermore, if somebody starts a petition in retaliation ("Desysop this admin, he blocked me for no reason!") it'll get short shrift and SNOW opposed by the community.
The only issue I have with that is theoretical. Ostensibly, the petition is supposed to create a turnstile sparing an Admin from having to go through the back-and-forth of an entire RfA unless there's some minimum support for that. In other words, ideally, the Admin simply ignores the petition until or if the threshold is met. Only then do they need to ramp up to start compiling, potentially, years of diffs, etc. to defend themselves at RfA. Going straight to RfA means any single, aggrieved editor can encumber an Admin with the significant angst of a full RfA. Of course, that's all theoretical. As we've seen from the current example, the mere act of petitioning creates the angst it was designed to mitigate. So, if we're going to introduce a Reign of Terror anyway, we may as well make it the most efficient Reign of Terror we can come up with, on which basis I'd support this suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other option would be to make it so that the petition doesn't turn into a Reign of Terror to begin with. Which is easier said than done, but a good first step would be to limit back-and-forth conversation and just have it be, well, a petition. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a few concerns on that. In this situation the Admin is being recalled for reasons no one is allowed to articulate to them, but maybe they'll learn them during sentencing (RfA)? I liked The Trial as much as anyone, but I'm not sure how I feel about recreating it IRL. But I'm open to whatever. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't prevent reasons being given, it would just restrict discussion of those reasons. So everybody supporting or opposing the petition would be able to (arguably should be required to) give a single short statement (50 words or 2 sentences have been suggested) about why they are supporting/opposing. However there would be no discussion unless and until an RRFA was opened. There would be no restriction on clarification being sought on user talk pages, e.g. if user:Example wrote "Support because of their actions at the recent AfD" anyone would be allowed to go to user talk:Example and ask which AfD(s) they were referring to if it wasn't clear. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. If the petition can get 25 people to agree (despite all the issues of the discussion section), then the RFA should run. Y'all are Streisanding the current petition and bringing people in. If it was as sterile and clinical as the process laid out was supposed to be, it would more than likely died in a month. spryde | talk20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any petition is going to get significant amounts of attention, maybe not quite this much if they become routine, but certainly enough that it's never going to be "sterile and clinical" under the current setup. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the time is reduced to a week, then the number of signatures needed should be reduced. I also don't understand the point of opposition statements. If it is a petition, then there should just be people signing it, maybe proposing changes to the petition statement. It seemed like a lot of the opposition was based on people not likely the process. There is already a problem with accountability for admins in Wikipedia, because admins are not only well known, but have power to block people, and probably have more knowledge of how Wikipedia works than the poor editors who try to recall them. Admins are pretty safe. Term limits would have been a better solution, as well as temporary blocks for admins. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, we have a sample set of one incomplete case. Ten editors have signed the petition in the first 40 hours. A linear projection would predict that 25 signatures would be reached in less than five days. Some commenters have assumed that the level of opposition expressed to this petition indicates that Graham87 would retain the admin bit in an RRFA. If a case that appears this weak does reach 25 signatures in less than a week, why should we have to wait a month for cases where there is less enthusiasm for signing a petition. I will note that the rate of new signatures likely will decline, prolonging the end, and that some commenters are claiming that many potential signers will wait to the last minute to sign to avoid social pressure, but that is not an argument for waiting a month, as they can sign the petition at the last minute whether the duration is for a week, two weeks, or a month. But, as I said, this is the first case, and my crystal ball is very murky. Donald Albury13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that first recall petition showed some of the warts of the process in a really stark way. Floating 4 significant changes for the community to think about here, either separately or in combination:
1) - The petition process is too long. If these are going to turn into mini-RfAs, then the petition needs to be significantly shorter than a RFA. 24-72 hours is plenty of time to see whether the petition has legs, anything more is cruel.
2) - The petition is too easy to initiate. I know that people will complain about cabals, but I really think it should take an admin to initiate one of these. Alternatively a small group (3 ish) of extended confirmed users works.
3) - We should move from number of supports to number of net supports. If a petition has 1 net support at closing time, it can go through as prima facie evidence that the petition has legs. If the ratio of opposes to supports gets over 2-3 to 1, we can close early without losing many petitions that would wind up successful.
4) - The commentary is too much. Restrict people, both support and oppose, to something very short, like 10 words and 1 link.
Obviously this is idea lab, so please discuss which of these have merit fluidly either alone or in any combination. tweak numbers, break things. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with shortening the petition process (although 72 hours might be too drastic), but I think turning them into mini-RfAs is not the goal. The point of the petition is to see if there is a substantial number of editors wanting a recall election to begin with, not to replace the recall election entirely. And, if you need to get 3 people on board to start the petition, you're functionally making a petition for the petition.For the same reason, net supports shouldn't really be what is measured (as it isn't about whether the admin has majority support, but only about whether some people are questioning it). A large oppose ratio, however, would indicate the petition will likely not be successful, so the early close you suggest could work. Also agree with your idea of restricting commentary, as said above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The old RFC/U process required two editors to sign within 48 hours, or the page would get deleted. These two editors had to show evidence(!) of having attempted to resolve the same(!) dispute with the targeted editor. This was fairly effective at preventing RFC/Us over disputes that just needed a Wikipedia:Third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to constrain the discussion when the petition has started and for the petition page not to turn into a quasi-RfA. That's why the petition signatures and comments should be understood as RRfA !votes. The signatures would begin counting as !votes when 25 of them are collected, and prior to that, the signatures would be null !votes, and only valid as fulfilling a precondition to their collective validity as !votes. A signature is actually a latent 'oppose adminship' RRfA !vote. An "oppose petition" comment is actually a 'support adminship' RRfA !vote. At any point, if the admin does not like the protraction and feels secure about passing, the admin can cut the petition stage short and start the RRfA with their statement, answers and all, without a need to wait for signatories to reach 25. That imbues all signatures with the power of a !vote immediately, regardless of how many there are, whereas the "oppose petition" comments have had the power of a 'support adminship' !vote all along. If the admin doesn't feel secure, they can wait it out, and are protected by the fact that the opposition to their adminship is ineffective until it reaches the critical mass of 25 signatories. It isn't reasonable to think that the admin is unfairly treated by the fact that opposition to their adminship is rendered ineffective until a difficult procedural barrier is overcome; that's obviously a mechanism that protects their status. If they don't feel like they need that protection, if the climate seems friendly to their adminship, they can relinquish it and start the RRfA.—Alalch E.17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should understand them as quasi-votes, since it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to sign the petition because they think a re-RFA ought to be initiated, not because they think the admin should step down. That is, I can easily see someone putting their name on the petition because they believe a re-RFA is the right thing to do, not because they desire for the admin in question to be de-sysopped. But it's true that nothing is stopping an admin from "calling the bluff" and standing for re-RFA before the petition reaches 25 signatories. At this point, frankly, that doesn't look like it would be a bad move for our unfortunate first candidate. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way the process is currently set up, you're right. But I would argue that it should be different (that's the idea I'm presenting): If you do not think that the admin should cease being admin, you should not sign the petition. On the material side, the petition should be presented as: "By signing you are stating that the administrator has lost your confidence"; and on the procedural side: "By signing you are stating that (because the administrator has lost your confidence and provided that he has also lost the confidence of many other editors) the administrator should undergo a RRfA". —Alalch E.11:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't impossible to constrain discussion. We are capable of setting and enforcing a rule that says "Signatures only. No diffs, no explanations, no discussion, no opposes". This might be fairer, since even a few words or a single diff could prompt "me too" votes from people who had no concerns of their own, and a diff or a brief comment could be taken unfair or out of context. It would probably be stressful for the admin, as people would be publicly expressing dislike without any reason.
Editors generally oppose efforts to prevent them from talking about other editors, though, so I doubt we'll end up there. More realistically, we could insist that any discussion happen on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom manages to have strict rules about constraining discussion, and it does lead to more productive cases (read: not a shiftest). I would support a "Signatures only" rule, especially considering the opening comment should already be expected to have the needed context.A talk page discussion would be already lower profile and likely more calm, and ultimately look less like a !vote or like its own mini-RfA. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any rule restricting what can and can't be said on the page needs to come with explicit instructions to this on the page and a clear statement of who is allowed to remove things that objectively break the rules (I'd favour "anybody"). Perhaps accompanied with a "you will be partially blocked from this page if you reinsert, without explicit advanced consensus, something removed." Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could definitely work. WP:RECALL doesn't need a set of clerks like the (much more complex) ArbCom cases do, if the only rule is "just leave a signature" or close to that. Also agree with the disclaimer, and good of you to be thinking of the implementation details already!I'm thinking of having a formal proposal with both the restriction on discussion and the shortened timeframe as independent options. Given how the WP:RECALL RfCs have been criticized for not being well-advertised, it might be good to bring this one up on WP:CENT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion will migrate elsewhere. ArbCom is mentioned as a counterexample, but discussion there is quite free-flowing, only formatted differently to avoid long non-constructive threads... but the stated problem here is not non-constructive threads, the stated problem is comments. That is completely different. "Discuss calmly and with measure" and "don't talk" is different. It will be possible to have an adjacent discussion on some other page or pages. And if you are blocked from the page, so what, what you added to the page, diffs and all, stays in history and can be viewed by anyone. —Alalch E.23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are blocked from the page, so what, what you added to the page, diffs and all, stays in history and can be viewed by anyone.
I agree that a complete ban on discussion will result in the discussion happening elsewhere, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Wherever there are humans, there will be gossip mongers, but gossip whispered between a few people (e.g., via Special:EmailUser) for a few days, or even for 30 days, is not as widely and as permanently destructive as accusations posted on the internet forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That elsewhere could just be the talk page, and it appears that it might just be that. Edit: All in all, "discussion elsewhere" + word limits + RfA monitor function preserved + "five uninvolved signatories first" latch mechanism could all add up to something good. I'm for trying. —Alalch E.22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on who you want to sign up to a petition. If it is only "editors who have independently decided that an admin's conduct should be examined", the only way is to disallow comments from both signatories and opponents. Otherwise many signatories will sign because they are convinced by the arguments, even if they never heard of the admin before. In that case, allowing only signatories to comment will dramatically skew the results and be quite unfair. In summary, allow everyone to comment or allow nobody to comment. Zerotalk02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to raise another issue. We have created a risk-free way for editors to get back at an admin who has sanctioned them. I think that editors who have received a recent (definition?) personal sanction from an the admin should not be a signatory. Zerotalk02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides of this. Perhaps a reasonable way forwards is to disallow someone from initiating a petition if they have received a recent (within the last 3 months?) personal sanction from the admin. They can still support a petition initiated by someone else, but perhaps only if 5 uninvolved editors have already supported. If there is a genuine issue this should be an easy bar to clear but it would make retaliatory petitions much harder to initiate and harder for them to succeed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could make it so that the first five signatures (other than the initiator) must not have been involved with any dispute in which the admin concerned acted in their capacity as an administrator within the last (1? 2? 3?) months. If five uninvolved editors are prepared to sign a petition that suggests it's more likely to have some merit than if no such group of five are? Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say it's day three and there are fifteen signatures. The first five signatories have not been involved in the discussed sense, followed by ten signatures from people who have been involved (they were the greater cohort that was waiting for the special signatures to add up so that they can add theirs; imagine ANI participants). One among the first five withdraws their signature ("I changed my mind after reading the talk page"). There are no longer five signatures from uninvolved signatories. What then? All's good? (Probably not.) Petition has failed? (Probably not.) Monitor halts signature collection only allowing signatures from uninvolved signatories, until one such additional signature is collected? (Probably not.) Monitor notes that the petition will be invalid unless at least one more special signature is supplied during the entire remaining period? (Maybe.) Monitor notes that the petition will be invalid unless at least one more special signature is supplied during a set period, for example three days? (Maybe.) —Alalch E.17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of that scenario. The simplest option would just be a latch - once five uninvolved people have signed the petition is unlocked and remains that way for the duration. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the two main proposals that editors seem to converge on (limiting discussion and shortening the petition timeframe) are essentially independent, I'm thinking it can be best to go for a two-part RfC, with the following questions:
Should input to WP:RECALL petitions be limited to signatures only?
Should the petition duration be limited to X amount of days?
There is also the possibility of having multiple options for each question. For the first one, an alternate proposal of limiting input to to a short statement per person was also suggested, while multiple timeframes for the petition could also be proposed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a RFC like this needs to happen. I think the second bullet point is fairly self-explanatory, but the first needs more thought. On a recall petition, is there value in having a statement from the initiator? A statement from the admin being recalled? Statements from people bringing up new evidence? Statements/signatures from supporters? Which belong on the main page, and which belong on the talk page? If we impose a length limit, can anyone truncate statements to fit in it? Do we need clerks, arb style?
For example, I favor the initiator getting a short statement, the admin having unlimited length to respond optionally (hidden comment in the template that makes a section if they choose to respond), all recallers signature only on the main page, with limited commentary on the talk page, and any list of supporters with limited commentary on the talk page, no threaded discussion anywhere. Any editor except the initiator and the admin being recalled can move comments to enforce length/threading/talk page. This is not about my preference, but more saying that this bullet point can get really complex really fast, and we should think about that now in workshopping. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the feedback! You're right that the first bullet point should definitely be clarified before the actual RfC.In my mind, the initiator would be able to make a short statement, with the rest being only signatures (as the point of the petition isn't to be its own RRfA, but only to gauge whether it has enough support). Regarding the admin responding, I think it (and other replies) should be reserved to the talk page, to avoid it becoming a RfA-lite where the admin has to respond to the claims to not be seen as suspicious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the admin is allowed a right of reply, but only on the talk page, it should be possible to see from just the main page whether they have chosen to respond or not. Regardless of where, everybody who has the right to comment (including the responding admin) should be subject to a word limit, although not necessarily the same limit. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, the initiator is no more or less important than anyone else who prefers to recall that admin, I prefer not creating a "first mover" advantage. So I'd rather just be strictly signatures only, or strictly "Short statement on main page without replies" for everyone.
I can get behind a word limit for the responding admin. I do think it's important that the admin have the ability to present their case in the same location that the initiator does. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that as well, I just end up at "Initiator and all future signatures should be given same weightage" and "Maybe both should be on talk" as my preferences. Soni (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I start with "someone should say why we're all here" and "I don't want everyone piling on with extensive commentary. I will concede that I create a first mover advantage as a consequence of those, but I think that's the best we can do. Either way, I think we can craft a RFC that presents all this fairly without too much difficulty. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, a "first mover" advantage makes sense in that, since they're starting the petition, they are responsible for explaining it. We don't need 25 redundant explanations, but we don't need an unexplained petition either, so it is logical that the creator of the petition be the one to state the case for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The talk page will be open anyway", will that result in all the "pre-RRFA RRFA" stuff just happening there instead of on the petition itself? Anomie⚔07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the discussion to a less prominent place behind the petition, plus a word limit as Thryduulf suggested, would definitely limit the "pre-RRFA RFA" stuff. Not everyone will go through long talk pages, making it less critical to respond than with the "in-your-face" discussion that currently runs in the middle of the signatures. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's mandated that no discussion happen on the petition page, I'm not so sure the petition's talk page would remain very much "less prominent". Sure, not everyone will bother to check the talk page, but knowing that's where discussion is I suspect anyone who would have pre-RRFA RFFA-ed as things are now would. Anomie⚔07:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to start a two-part RFC so soon after we just ended a three-part RFC. Take note of the backlash to the third RFC; a fourth RFC will get even more backlash; a fifth even more. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you really think, three days into the first petition, you've learned enough about this process to know how to change it for the better? There's no part of you that's thinking "it's too soon to draw any conclusions"? Levivich (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share Levivich's concerns here. Now's a fine time to take some notes, but we're 10% of the way through the first use of a process. We might learn something in the coming days, or in a second petition. We might also discover that the RFC question needs to be "Well, that was a disaster. All in favor of canning the idea completely?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I said, above, We can start workshopping the RfC right now, but it's probably best to hold off opening the RfC itself for the moment given how heated emotions are. I do not claim to personally know exactly how to change the process, but we can already start discussing the shortcomings we can see, even if we are not going to open the RfC right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People have been proposing changes all over the place. Why not have a discussion that will hopefully bring up possible problems with proposed changes, even if it will be a while before any RfC should start? Donald Albury19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Author Profile Page
One should exist for Authors to personally fill out a profile. Many book readers would like to know the "about" information about writers that have books published. 91.242.149.121 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the authors/editors of an article, editors already have their own user pages, which are accessible from an article edit history. If you're referring to the authors of books that merit Wikipedia articles, this isn't a place for people to tell about themselves(see WP:AUTO). 331dot (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF
Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin September Issue 1
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation over the first half of September 2024. Please help Translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversationsTalking: 2024 continues
Join Wiki Loves Onam, a photo campaign dedicated to documenting the vibrant and colorful festival of Onam on Wikimedia Commons. The campaign runs until September 30.
The Alternative Text suggested edits feature has now been fully deployed to production on the iOS App for Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and French Wikipedias! This feature, part of WE1.2, is designed to enhance how newcomers add alt text to images, aiming to improve accessibility and engagement. For more details, visit the project page and explore the new feature in the app!
Editors and volunteer developers interested in data visualization can now test the new software for charts. Its early version is available on beta Commons and beta Wikipedia. This is an important milestone before making charts available on regular wikis. You can read more about this project update and help test the charts.
A new draft text of a policy discussing the use of Wikimedia’s APIs has been published on Meta-Wiki. The draft text does not reflect a change in policy around the APIs; instead, it is an attempt to codify existing API rules. Comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome on the proposed update’s talk page until September 13 or until those discussions have concluded.
See the new members of the U4C following the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) special election, a new decision making group that will enforce the UCoC in specific circumstances.
The Language and Product Localisation team is hosting two office hours to discuss this year's plans and gather feedback from event organizers. The first session is October 5 at 16:00 UTC (Europe-Africa-Americas friendly), and the second is on October 6 at 03:00 UTC (Asia-Pacific friendly).
MediaWiki Product Insights: The latest edition includes details about: research about hook handlers to help simplify development, research about performance improvements, work to improve the REST API for end-users, and more.
Hi @Horse Eye's Back, thanks for flagging this. To clarify, the way this tool works requires the user (must be logged in and autoconfirmed on English Wikipedia) to manually select a snippet of text in a source (in this case, a Reuters article) to check against Wikipedia. That text snipped itself is not modified in any wayby the tool (it's not even possible for the user to modify it once they've elected to look it up on Wikipedia via this tool). So I suspect what happened here is actually that the source itself (i.e., the Reuters article) was edited by Reuters after this user found the claim and sent it as a suggestion to the talk page via the tool. There appears to be an "updated a day ago" message at the top of the article, indicating that this may be the case. So I think the user of this tool unintentionally caught some possibly-fishy information that Reuters itself was putting out there and then walking back... Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Court Reporting Portals — including Live Law and Bar&Bench — report that WMF's lawyer was willing to provide details about the "authors" of the ANI article but in a "sealed cover". But the Court didn't accede to such a compromise and wanted it to be filed in public.
Raises a number of questions... Most importantly what is meant by subscriber information? Most of us edit pseudo-anonymously after all and the Foundation doesn't have our names, birth dates, etc and technical info like IP can tell you what device the edits are being made from but not who is making the edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh — IP address is considered as PII (though it doesn't disclose device details; are you confusing with user-agent?)? For example, if the address is from an Indian ISP, the Court will compel it to give up the name of the person the IP address was assigned to, during the timeframe of the edits.
Now, I do not know for how long Indian ISPs retain their IP assignment logs. For a comparison, in most European states, it's about 6-12 months. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah theres a few different bits of technical info, but none actually tell you the author unless I'm missing something. So how does WMF know who the author is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All major ISPs in India require their subscribers to produce personal details like Aadhaar at inception. All ISPs are "intermediaries" and are bound by Indian IT Act. So WMF's disclosure of IP addresses is all that the Indian authorities would need to personally identify editors if they are based in India. Read [39] for further info. — hako9 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't how the court could figure out the name from the technical details and a subsequent investigation... The question is how the WMF has a name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to even if they wanted to. Disclosing IP would be as good as disclosing the name in India. How do you not get this? — hako9 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lawyer probably misspoke because admins do not have the NDA requirement like checkuser/oversighters. The Indian judge/lawyer also seem to have misspoken when they said 3 admins. I think they meant editors. — hako9 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Names" is an imprecise substitute for "Identifying Information". How do you not get this?
These are fragments from an oral argumentation in a court before ~60 y. judges who, going by the literature on Indian Courts, are usually not very technically adept. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know where you are going ahead with this — conspiracy theory territory where WMF has somehow managed to access our IRL Identities / WMF's lawyer being either incompetent or taking the Court for a ride / .. — but this is my last comment on this topic. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are blowing this out of proportion, there are a large number of scenarios in which the WMF might be privy to the IRL identity of an editor. I don't think that it hurts to get clarity on the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI had asked for details of three "administrators" — do note that their usage of administrator might be lax and not correspond to what we understand as admins; publicly available court records do not mention the names of these three entities — who supposedly inserted and restored defamatory content in the article, from Wikimedia. These are the "authors" referred to, by WMF's lawyer. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. But, because of a couple of roles I have filled over the years (OTRS and ARBCOM), I have had to provide WMF with identifying information. The WMF has at least the same access to editor information as do checkusers. If you put your mind to it, you can make it difficult for anyone to identify you, but most editors leave breadcrumbs, and some of us have left a lot. Donald Albury20:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi and Doug Weller, identifying to the WMF did used to require sending them a copy of some ID but that has since changed and you no longer do. I don't remember exactly when it changed but it was after December 2014 when I was elected to the Arbitration Committee, it's possible it coincided with the introduction of the current Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy in November 2018. My recollection is that the copies of the ID were retained only long enough to verify you were who you claimed to be and were then destroyed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I know of WMF and Wikimedia culture, I would not expect WMF to disclose any private information about an individual editor to a foreign court. WMF has a history of sticking to open source values in foreign courts even if it means being blocked for years by that nation's ISPs. I think this would be a great opportunity for someone at WMF to clarify what exactly is being disclosed to the Indian courts about our editors. If nothing private like IP addresses were disclosed, this would be an excellent time to set the record straight. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae I agree about the culture of WMF. But given that Wikimedia retains no private data except IP addresses and UAs (correct me if I am wrong on this point), I do not see what else their lawyer could have been willing to provide only under "sealed cover". And I support the call for WMF to clarify on these issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but twitter/X warns their users before disclosing their IPs on orders of a foreign/local court, when they receive and comply with takedown requests like some mentioned here [40]. If the counsel for WMF has no qualms about throwing wikipedia editors under the bus should push come to shove, shouldn't wmf warn the specific users whose IPs they are willing to disclose? — hako9 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that WMF would have to disclose personally identifiable information (PII) in USA lawsuits since WMF is based in USA. My hypothesis is that WMF would not disclose PII to foreign courts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, notwithstanding the fact that WMF's lawyer did broach a "sealed cover" approach, WMF appealed the order — this time, being represented by a different lawyer — petitioning that the Court must find the accusation of defamation to be prima facie true before ordering disclosure. However, the appeal was not granted and additionally, WMF was asked to take down the page(s) on the litigation. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same lawyer, Akhil Sibal, representing WMF in the main case as well as the appeal. The appeal was a bit pointless. See below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the case at this point is that it is at "ground 0", meaning it hasn't taken off. ANI wants to sue somebody for defamation, it doesn't know who. It can't sue WMF because, under the Indian law, WMF is just an "intermediary", equivalent to a television cable company that just trasmits signals. The people that can be sued are the authors of the content, of which there are probably many. Somehow or the other, ANI narrowed down to three editors who, it believes, can be held liable for defamation. So it is weighing in on WMF to reveal their identities. The court, quite reasonably, agrees that it needs to be done. Unless they appear in court and plead, the case doesn't even begin. So, when the WMF lawyer says, I will provide the information in a "sealed cover", I think he doesn't undrestand what is going on (in fact "clueless" would be more accurate). There are only two ways out. Either WMF reveals the identities of the editors so that they can appear in court and plead. Or, WMF waives its status as an "intermediary", and pleads on their behalf. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are only two ways out." the WMF can also just close their offices in India and tell the court to pound sand. There is no need to operate in India, its not like there are profits to be made. If they block wikipedia they block wikipedia, we get blocked all the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF has told us the information is in the US, that they will only release under U.S. law, and told us what those laws are under which a foreign tribunal could get their hands on the information. I hope WMF thinks the court is already pounding sand. fiveby(zero) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is missing the WMF's argument that the court must first make a prima facie determination as to whether the content was defamatory before it orders the WMF to turn over identifying information they have on editors. That determination really can't be made, when the Wikipedia content is (1) true, and (2) simply a summary of public facts already published elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Chawla did make some remarks in the initial stages, which sounded like he made that determination. But to contest that, WMF would have had to plead, which it has refused to do, claiming itself to be an "intermediary". Recall again an "intermediary" is like a cable company that just transmits signals. Twitter has tried to do something like that a year ago, to contest the blocks the government was ordering. It lost. The judge said that it had no locus standi because it was just an "intermediary". The only people that could contest the blocks would be the authors of the content. If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say. So the people that can be held to be liable are the authors of those sources, not Wikipedia. But that point has not been brought up in front of the court yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the articles hyperlinked to ANI’s page is of The Caravan. When Wikipedia argued that the publication had not been made party to the case, the Court called it a convenient answer:
An article published by say X magazine which is read by a hundred people, you don’t bother about it…it does not have the gravitas that it deserves a suit of defamation. If it comes to Wikipedia, it is not going to have a viewership of hundred, it may have it in millions and then it becomes a cause of disturbance.
Yeah, I noticed. This is probably part of what transpired in the 20th August hearing, which I was asking about a while ago. It did not get reported in the press at that time. The WMF lawyer gives me the impression of trying to bargain with the judge(s) rather than to assert our rights forcefully on legal grounds. My disappointment continues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of our fundamental msision is to bring to the public, knowledge that might be known only to a select few. We cannot be faulted for doing this. We are not producing our own knowledge here, only collating it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but at least for me, there is a difference between "knowledge that might be known only to a select few" and "pushing fringe sources, limited to a selected few (for good reasons), as authoritative to defame someone or something, thereby promoting the fringe source in the process." This issue is not just limited to ANI, but practically applies to all Indian media news channels that do not bash the incumbent government day and night, using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News. Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? Please do a quick check regarding this if you don't believe me. It's not just about ANI. When someone starts using these sources as authoritative to defame something or someone, it becomes difficult to determine who is at fault—the source, the people pushing those sources, Wikipedia itself, the Wikipedia community that allows this, or the person who feels they are being defamed because they are trying to censor "free speech." The thing is, no discussion will result in anything unless all parties are determined that they are right and the other is wrong. Let's just leave this to the court. My comments on this issue end here. DangalOh (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? This would likely be a content-related discussion if it arises, and should be held on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN if it warrants an input from the wider community. – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News Wikipedia has WP:RSN, where the editor community decides collectively whether a source is reliable or not. You can start a discussion on a source there, if you wish to. — hako9 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't... We will in rare instances kick people out of the community for abuse but as far as a new editor joining there aren't any nescessary qualifications (we don't even technically have a minimum age). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else apparently filed a defamation case against The Caravan and lost, in the very same Delhi High Court. That explains why ANI doesn't have the guts to go after them. We are easy pickings, apparently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say There's no motion to dismiss like the US, in India. Cause of action and merit is decided in the pre-admission stage. — hako9 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quashing in a criminal defamation case is a difficult prospect. This is because – to simplify – under Section 499 of the IPC, a prima facie offence of defamation is made out with the existence of a defamatory imputation, which has been made with the intention or knowledge that it will cause harm. This is, evidently, a very low threshold.
Section 499 also contains a set of exceptions to the rule (such as statements that are true and in the public interest, statements made in good faith about public questions, and so on) – but here’s the rub: these exceptions only kick in at the stage of trial, by which time the legal process has (in all likelihood) dragged on for years. What we essentially have, therefore, is one of those situations where the cost of censorship is low (instituting prima facie credible criminal proceedings), but the cost of speech is high (a tedious, time-consuming, and expensive trial, with the possibility of imprisonment).
I, Kabir Darshan Singh Choudhary, am a Senior Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation’s Legal Department. The Foundation is in receipt of your message(s) regarding the developments in India around a defamation suit filed by ANI.
We are currently reviewing the recent order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and will take all necessary actions, in accordance with applicable laws, to ensure that the people of India continue to have the right to share and access free and reliable knowledge in an open and safe online environment. The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to safeguarding the rights of Wikimedia community members and preserving uninterrupted access to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in India. As a standard practice, we do not share specific details of ongoing legal cases that are sub-judice.
Additionally, since this is an active legal case, we recommend caution while sharing, discussing, or speculating on the topic. Please contact ca@wikimedia.org for any trust and safety concerns. Also, please direct any press inquiries you receive to pr@wikimedia.org.
Do we have to rewrite WP:NOTCENSORED now? Currently it reads "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think IAR is about community conduct as well. OA goes beyond that, but can include stuff (like in this case) that can appear like censorship. So I think NOTCENSORED could include something like "For X actions, see WP:OA." Or "or the law of the United States" could have the addition "... and in some cases, other countries." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAR does not apply, as this action does not improve or maintain Wikipedia (unless, arguably, it is a good-faith attempt to preemptively maintain India's access to Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant meta-policy is not IAR but WP:CONEXCEPT. NOTCENSORED exists as a matter of editorial consensus, and the WMF is exempt from that. Whether this was a good use of that exemption is something we'll probably only be able to say some time after the dust has settled. For now, histrionic responses (not like yours, GGS, but some others') help nothing and may risk making things harder for the WMF (and thus all of us), given that the court does not seem to recognize much distinction between the WMF and Wikipedia editors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really unhelpful at this juncture to characterize matters in this way: this is part of a live legal dispute, and it's pretty clear to me that the WMF's strategy is in service of getting content back up. They're taking what they see to be the least obstructive means—the least censored means possible frankly. I'll put it like this: if all of Wikipedia got censored in the largest country in the world on the pretext of WMF violating this order at this stage—I would hold them partially but meaningfully responsible for that because they fell for easy bait and handed them that pretext. It would be a tremendous fuckup. Remsense ‥ 论09:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree in the strongest possible terms, Remsense. This is about much more than the access of one country's population--even be it the the first or second most populous country in the world--and capitulating to such demands increases the liklihood they will be made in the future, sets a highly dangerous precedent for acceding to them, and, along with various other orders of the court in this case (and the WMFs decision to tow the line with them) creates a number of profound chilling effects upon the project (which serves a much wider world than India's population, and cannot do so effectively and with any accodrance to our traditional image of what what our part in the free knowledge movement looks like, maintaining certain principles)--as indeed has been noted by a number of legal and policy experts who don't even have the added benefit of a Wikipedian's perspective.So, no, I don't think the concerns being raised here about what this says about 1) our project's role and the interference of outside parties, and, more crucially 2) the culture and decisions being made by WMF and it's legal team in this instance, are at all hyperbolic. This is deeply, deeply worrying stuff and more or less unprcedented (even considering other office actions over the years), and I'm frankly not sure what I am more gobsmacked by: some of the WMF's decision making in this case, or the relatively low level of response from the community so far. And this is all the more inexplicable because, bluntly, I think the writing may already be on the wall when it comes to India. It's ruling government and high court have become increasingly ambivalent, and indeed sometimes quite hostily postured, when it comes to imporant principles that the free knwoledge movement is predicated on generally, and the operations of Wikipedia in particular. Orders from India's higher courts, and saber rattling about the consequences of not complying with them, are becoming regular affairs. I honestly doubt that the WMF can maintain the dance you refer to above for much longer, and in the meantime it is now unambigously crossing its own Rubicon in respect to the independence of the community in editorial matters in its effort to do so. The people of India elect their leaders, who in turn appoint and regulate the high officers of their courts. If access to Wikipedia is lost in their borders, and that loss is important enough to them, they can make their voices heard. Meanwhile, we cannot continue down this road of abrogating key principles of the movement upon which the basic functioning of this endeavour rely, nor should we take lightly that the WMF seems to be increasingly open to coercion in doing just that. SnowRise let's rap18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they were lying about this then? The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. I thought i knew what those protections were, and must have misread some of the claims made about Wikipedia. fiveby(zero) 05:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the WMF office engage with us here and provide additional details?
I would like to know what our options our. For example, we’ve accepted being blocked in various countries before - why isn’t that outcome acceptable here? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it would be good if the WMF could be clear to the community about what penalties the court threatened, and which of those penalties the WMF believes the court could enforce.
If the only realistically enforceable penalty is blocking, then I think that is a decision that should be devolved to the community and let us decide whether we want to go down the slope of deferring to censorship, or if we wish to continue rejecting it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Obviously it's not blocked everywhere, as I'm making this edit (from the United States) without applying any kind of anti-circumvention measures. Do you have some evidence to support that hyperbolic claim? * Pppery *it has begun...06:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they’re saying the because the WMF has removed the page in response to this lawsuit, there is a global partial block on Wikipedia.
It’s a reasonable perspective, in my view, and asks the question of how much are we willing to let Indian courts control the content that our global audience views. BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one is worried about youPppery, except in a hope you are well and having a nice evening way. Now i see in the X thread below more talk of releasing info under sealed order. This is baffling unless employee(s) there are truly in danger. How many more of these will there be now that everyone knows it works? fiveby(zero) 06:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not the first time the High Court has ordered an online platform..., as far as i am aware this is a first for WP, which they told us they wouldn't, but much more importantly told editors in India they would not. fiveby(zero) 07:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think at least one part of it is the short deadline given (especially given Levivich's quote of the applicable policy). For something easily reversible like hiding the article, it's more practical to temporarily accept the legal orders and then arguing it's invalid after. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an applicable legal order requires changes to on-wiki content, we will only make direct changes via office action if there is a legal deadline and local process is unavailable or unable to respond in line with the legal requirement in time. In the event that we make a change via office action, we will provide an update to the local community after the change explaining the reason.
Today's hearing can be followed here. tl;dr : WMF's lawyer is willing to disclose the sought details in a sealed cover but wants the Court to make a finding on defamation before that and is wary about precedent. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence in the court order uploaded by WMFOffice at foundation:File:October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order.pdf gives me pause: "this Court directs Wikimedia Foundation Inc.– the appellant herein to take down/delete the said pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by this Court within thirty six (36) hours" (emphasis mine). I do hope the "discussion" refers to the article's talk page, and not this and any other related discussions. DatGuyTalkContribs13:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Russian Wikipedia editor this leaves me stunned. We as a community have always thought the NOTCENSORED policy is one of the most important ones, refusing to block pages with valuable information on requests from Roskomnadzor, and now... WMF does this? Well very well (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be beneficial to have a clear list of questions for the WMF to provide answers to. As an initial draft:
The Indian Courts are demanding that the WMF disclose the identity of three or four editors, and according to recent media reports to WMF is willing to do so.
Are these reports accurate?
If they are accurate:
What types of PII would the WMF be disclosing?
Have the editors involved been informed that the Indian Courts are seeking their PII, and that the WMF is willing to disclose it?
What would be the consequences of not disclosing this PII, including:
What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?
What would have been the consequences of not taking down this page, including:
What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?
Why did the WMF diverge from its standard policy of refusing to comply with these requests, such as in Turkey and France?
Are there any additional questions that the community wishes to get an answer to, or changes to these questions, before I start badgering the WMF to get answers to them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like as a community that we take time to make careful and thoughtful considerations about this, which may involve not badgering the WMF for immediate details on a live court case where they are already handling apparently quite serious contempt of court allegations. CMD (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Without details we don’t have the information needed to make careful and thoughtful considerations. Once we have the details, we can consider them and decide if, as a community, we endorse or reject the WMF’s stance. In particular, I’m very concerned about the WMF being willing to disclose PII in cases like this, and I would like the community to have the chance to determine a position on that decision prior to the PII being disclosed. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Ongoing lawsuit, no comment for now" is likely to be the response if any for now, but we'll see. A known Wikipedian said this [43] regarding the ANI-case in early September. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, that is not a position that the community has to, or should, accept in this case, with very clear indications that there has been actual consideration by WMF and their internal counsel to actually disclose personal information of editors. Sensitivity to the delicate position of the WMF in such cases is one thing, but BilledMammal is correct: insofar as these reports are alarming and represent and unprecedented step that has substantial implications for the basic manner in which this project has already operated, we cannot accept the very piecemeal and unreassuring limited statements we have received thus far. The questions BM raises are a reasonable first step in getting some clarity here--and in any event, do not seem to contain anything which would impinge upon it's duty before the court in the current case. The only real potential fallout from their answers is their relationship with the community--and if there is anything that should damage that in the information to be disclosed, it suggests all the more reason we would want to be aware of it. SnowRise let's rap19:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process. Fortunately, the WMF lawyers are smart enough to not make a public statement about on ongoing case (apart, perhaps, from a few obvious platitudes). The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process.
I think the WMF would at least have an idea of what sanctions would be imposed, as well as which sanctions can be enforced on an entity based in America, but I’m not an expert and could easily be wrong on this.
The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me.
Given the WMF is willing to disclose those identities, I don’t see how this is the first step in doing so. Given past actions and focuses, I’m wondering if they are more concerned with protecting the WMF’s Indian revenue stream than editors identities or our core mission. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are unlikely to ever see a public statement from either side regarding this case except for something released by a public relations department with legal vetting. I doubt there is any reliable information about the WMF's intentions but we can see some action: the article and talk page have been deleted and all edits, edit summaries, and user names have been suppressed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given our track record over a great many years, that's an odd thing to wonder. But for the avoidance of doubt: no one at the WMF, no board member, no one at all as far as I know, has brought up the question of "protecting the WMF's Indian revenue stream" - because it isn't in any way a concern that is motivating anyone. I think you already had all the information you needed in order to come to that conclusion, before you started the speculation. Please don't do that, it's not the right way to AGF, ok?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years, the WMF has behaved problematically in regards to its revenue stream and the use of that revenue, and one of the areas it is attempting to increase revenue from is India. Given this, and the unusual behavior we are seeing here, I think some "wondering" was appropriate at the time - the WMF needs to earn back trust in the area of revenue, it can't expect it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of that resonates with anyone who has been aware of the facts, so let me just repeat it - no one on staff or on the board has raised or mentioned or discussed in any way any question about revenue in the context of fighting for editor privacy and freedom of expression. It's literally not true, not even close to true. That's really about all there is to say about it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with our first citizen on this one, BM. Putting aside for the moment that I think substantial portions of the community discussion around how "the WMF has behaved problematically in regards to its revenue stream and the use of that revenue" are ginned-up histrionics more indicative of the desires of certain community members to convince themselves that they are corruption-sleuthing muckrakers, there is just no principled reason, supported by anything outside of wild speculation, that considerations relating to revenue streams have played any part in the decision making on this issue. Considering that you are also getting additional affirmation that they did not from the community member best positioned to know, I'd drop this line of inquiry. It's signal-to-noise ration in the presence of the much more well-attested and profoundly worrying concerns that the community might legitimately have here is just far too low. I otherwise strongly support your call for responses on your enumerated list of inquiries for the WMF above, but this revenue topic is not only an unfruitful line of discussion, it is an active distraction from the real issues of consequence you are trying to reach to. SnowRise let's rap19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like one of those questions is more important than the others, and so it might make sense to just focus on that: "is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise?" –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is unfortunate that WMF is being submissive a wannabe authoritarian regime that is known for jailing people even for the most trivial things.[44]Raymond3023 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It raises a good question of whether the WMF is making some sort of determination that some court systems are legitimate and others not... I would note that almost all of the North Korea and China related editing I do could now in theory be undone by defamation orders from the courts in those countries. The very idea that Taiwan isn't part of China is after all offensive to the "Chinese nation" same for the idea that Kim Jong-Un is a human rights abuser. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course true that in any situation, any rational and thoughtful defender of human rights will take into account various factors about the legitimacy of court systems and about the likely result of various courses of action. Again speaking only for myself, I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone who is thinking thoughtfully about how to fight would realize that doing anything in order to comply with courts in, per your example North Korea, would be pointless and hopeless. There would be no question of "we need to respect sub judice so that we can fight the real fight which is about user privacy and freedom of expression" because North Korean courts have zero chance of acting independently. If the WMF told me "we need to take down this page for now, so that we can preserve our ability to fight for the principles we believe in" in North Korea, I'd be totally unpersuaded. Nothing would change the outcome there, as it wouldn't be a real process.
If the WMF said "we need to take this page down because it offends the sensibilities of the 'Indian nation'" I'd be similarly unimpressed, as I'm sure you would be as well. So, again, don't worry - serious people, acting on top level advice from top people, are fighting the fight in a smart way for the principles that we believe in. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy, I have no reservations about assuming the dedication or the WMF board and legal team to broadly defending the movements principles, nor their competencies in that task, but I'd be lying if I said what we already know about the strategy adopted and concessions made in this case doesn't give me more pause than pretty much any other set of responses I have ever seen the foundation make in response to any challenge to our free speech principles. I have extremely mixed feelings about undertaking the decision to pull the article even temporarily and as a strategic temporary measure to keep options open; I think there is a very compelling argument for not going down that most slippery of slopes. I'm only somewhat re-assured by the knowledge that it is a course that, in theory anyway, the WMF can abandon at any time if they (under their own analysis cost-benefit or bowing to community will if we arrive there) determine that enough is enough. Unfortunately, that is (and this highlights the extreme nature of this situation) not the action by the WMF which commands my deepest apprehension in this complex of issues. Rather, that is the apparent willingness of the WMF (or at least momentary indication of its counsel to that effect) to consider turning over private user data to the court and parties to this case. You of all people need no explanation for how potentially explosive such an act could be, and damaging to the fundamental operation of this project--for reasons too vast to summarize here, even if you did need that information. Maybe I'm not caught up on some particulars here which would otherwise indicate a reason to think that the reports are inaccurate to a degree that obviates reasonable concerns. If so, I'll be relieved to hear it. If not, I wonder if you are in a position to illuminate what is happening in that arena? How close did WMF counsel come to revealing that information, even in a sealed disclosure? What is the WMF's current position on that matter, and what is the current posture of any motion or order dictating the court's current expectation in relation to this information and the timeline to act, do you know? This is one matter I would hold that it is not proper for the community to forebear on demanding answers about, even considering the complex legal situation in which the WMF finds itself unenviably captured by. It goes to fundamental assurances the organization has given to the community time and again about protecting its volunteer's privacy, especially from the overreach of entities as powerful as those involved here and which, frankly, are displaying increasingly worrisome tendencies in both their propensity to request such information and the possible actions which follow from such disclosures. Historically, I have been reassured by the foundations firm commitment to maintaining the necessary bulwark against such intrusion, but the indications and messaging I have seen so far in this situation have me about as worried as I have ever been in my time with the movement--both for the individuals involved here (and any others similarly position in the future) and for the endeavour as a whole. Any insight you can provide would be deeply appreciated. SnowRise let's rap20:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that WMF's legal team is advising they definitely not come in here and officially explain the action to us all. This is breaking news, and there's no particular reason Wikipedia itself needs to have this article live right now. No deadlines, we'll finish writing it after the case is settled. Valereee (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Jimbo Wales
Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. Although I've been around Internet legal issues for a long time, it's important to note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. As you might expect, it's pretty limited as to what people are able to say at this point, and unwise to give too many details. However, I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here.
For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way.
Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nothing has chnaged about our principles. The difference in this case is that the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step.
My understanding is that the WMF has consulted with fellow traveler human rights and freedom of expression groups who have supported that we should do everything we can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today.
I hope these words are reassuring to those who may have had some concerns!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian courts are extremely powerful thing in India. They have the power to scrap the ruling governments, change the constitution and what not. This thing is not related with the government. DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree on a top-line level with the sentiment in the penultimate sentence regarding long term benefit vs short term benefit, my concern would be: is this likely to happen again? We saw with the squabble with the Supreme Court only a few weeks ago regading a victim's name of a crime, now this in the same jurisdiction. Are we setting ourselves up for failure here by showing that we will repeatedly acquiesce to demands—that conflict with our values and mission—from Indian courts that we wouldn't accept from any other jurisdiction outside the US? Daniel (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure wisdom I've heard from lawyers talking about analogous disputes has some purchase here: one has to play ball to some degree. If the WMF throws up their hands, says the entire court is out of order, and declares they will not participate in this legal farce—that is what will make them look vulnerable, because it's handing every bad faith actor an automatic pretext to get the website they hate to shoot themselves in the foot. See also my comment above. Remsense ‥ 论10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but the Indian courts are continually looking to expand their power, influence and jurisdiction. They are often seen as more powerful than the legislature and executive within that country; they share some alarmingly similar characteristics in their conduct and processes with the judiciaries of failed states and military juntas. I expect we will see this conduct continue over the coming months and years with more frequency until a line is drawn somewhere in the sand. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I think there is long-term reason for concern, certainly—I think one has to play ball to some degree, but determining when that degree has been exceeded is a big part of what you pay your shiny expensive counsel for. After that, who knows! — Remsense ‥ 论10:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Jimbo. WMF Legal are in a hard place. Having 48,195,892 "clients" it's impossible for them to give confidential strategy briefings. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comforting in what you do not mention, the anonymity of editors in India is not at risk? If it's not a concern that is great, and i am sure you would have mentioned if it were. fiveby(zero) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like, what? If India wants to block us like Turkey did, well, that's why people invented things like Tor, VPNs, etc. If India's threatening something else to WMF there, get out of India. India can't do anything to someone who's not there. (Unless, of course, the WMF is going to hand over data about editors who are there, in which case I hope no one would ever trust them regarding anything again.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's better for Wikipedia to cease all operations in India than for it to hand over personal information of editors to the Indian courts. Ratnahastin(talk)10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sera, WMF pulled the article to keep the ability to appeal open. They aren't trying to make sure we aren't blocked in India. They're trying to make sure whatever decision is made can be appealed up the line. Valereee (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely understand that. The answer to any such demand still must be "No". If that means they block us, they block us; that's all they can do if WMF pulls anything they may have there out of India. Unless, of course, they want to involve the community in the discussion about what's going on, and we agree that it's better to have it removed for some time so they can do what they're going to do. But otherwise, if having it up messes with their appeal, well—that sucks, but we should not be telling governments "Just make threats, and we'll remove whatever you don't like!". And now they even know how to make the threat—"Remove it right now or we won't let you appeal!". That cannot happen. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they believe that, like in Turkey, if they appeal it high enough, WMF will win, and that will be not only a win for Wikipedia but for free speech in India in general. And having the community discuss isn't really practical when a court order expired two days ago and the hearing is about to open; we could spend three months discussing this. I think temporary blanking is worth it, myself. We can always open an RfC here to get input. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what we should do, but I think we'll need some more information first. To start with (and Jimbo Wales, maybe you can answer this, or know who can), how temporary is "temporary"? If we're talking "Leave it down for a week or two until the appeal's filed", then I don't think people would object to that too much. If it's "We'll have an answer in five years, maybe, if we're lucky, and it might still be no"—I think that would be a very different conversation. Legal processes can be very lengthy indeed, so I think we need to have some time frame more specific than "temporary". SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's 'no' once there's no ongoing litigation, then yes, that's a very different conversation. That would be actual censorship. This is just complying with the laws in a country where discussing ongoing court cases is considered an attempt to influence those cases and therefore contempt of court.
But yes, it would be good to clarify what happens when the case is decided in Delhi High Court, but before an appeal is filed with the Supreme Court. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be complying with those laws. Now, if we need to as a genuinely brief measure to achieve some goal—maybe we say "Okay, this is worth a one-time compromise"; all rules can be ignored after all. But we certainly shouldn't be making a habit of knuckling under to things like that, and I'm afraid we're setting a very, very bad example for other such governments to follow. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a plus one to what Valereee is saying here and additionally that in my view the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has earned some trust that it understands the principles that we are all collectively fighting for and that it is acting competently to advance those principles under difficult circumstances that call for hard tradeoffs. Say what you will about other parts of the WMF, but our Legal team is genuinely top-tier and alined on principles, and I am 100% sure that they detest complying with this order. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 13:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"That would be actual censorship. This is just complying with the laws in a country where discussing ongoing court cases is considered an attempt to influence those cases and therefore contempt of court." Well there's the rub, though. Typically it is only in nations with recent or historical trends towards the public suppression of information reasonably viewed as in the interest of the public that the act of tertiary source summarizing the facts of a legal case, as reported on broadly by news sources, would be considered an act to "influence the case" that is so improper that it can lead to findings of civil contempt or criminal charges. And that's so even where those reporting the news or summarizing it have some degree of involvement in the underlying dispute around which the case revolves. Rather, most modern democracies and free societies have some combination of constitutional and precedential legal authority which provide express protection for such public reporting and discussion. So your argument somewhat relies on a conflict of terms, because this action very much is considered "actual censorship" under the most common applications of the term, and orders of this nature are part and parcel of the active broader discourse of the eroding of freedom of expression and individual rights in contemporary India. SnowRise let's rap21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances of which Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey are vastly different from this time round. At the very least, there is still a legal pathway for WMF and the other parties to resolve the matter. If ultimately Wikipedia has being blocked in India totally, we can argue for the Office action to be lifted. For what reason will we want to the article to be not being written by then?
While English Wikipedia has its own rulebook, and one that is evolved largely within USA's set of laws, as an international encyclopedia, we have to be cognizant that the world is made up of different cultures, and accompanying them, different sets of customs, rules, regulations, and laws. What one may think as censorship or self-censorship for not covering an ongoing legal case, in other parts of the world, it may be more prudent to have the case covered only after the case has ended so that one does not prematurely receive an invitation for a coffee/tea session with the authorities.
In the meantime, we can collect the relevant sources for referencing for the article when the Office action is lifted. At the same time, in recognition of the ongoing archive.org issue, please archive the sources on other archival sites such as archive.today or ghostarchive.org. I just realised that some links I had tried to retrieve from archive.org aren't archived in the last two weeks or so. – robertsky (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to worry about what's prudent when deciding to write an article. If a court orders WMF to take it down, and WMF decides that's in the best interest of long-term goals, fine. But to not write it in the first place because I'm worried a judge might take offense? No. Valereee (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worried about the judge, but instead fellow editors who are in India. Ever stop and think what adverse effects it may bring to the local community/groups there? – robertsky (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already grabbed a copy from an archive site, and saved it offline as well. If anyone has an issue with getting it from archive sites, I'm happy to email them my copy. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I'd hardly say there is zero chilling effect from permitting the government and courts of India to dictate whether articles will be retained. SnowRise let's rap21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but instead fellow editors who are in India" thats the hostage fallacy. Its the same problem with paying terrorists for hostages... You incentive hostage taking, not disincentive it. Ironically what would endanger editors in India the most is setting up a system where the Indian government can use editors in India as leverage against editors outside of India. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jimbo Wales, thank you for that update regarding the page takedown; that is reassuring to hear.
However, of greater concern is the WMF's apparent willingness to share PII with the Indian Courts; in line with Novem Linguae's question above, is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise, and if so what types of PII will be disclosed? BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an entirely reasonable decision, and I'm thankful that Wikipedia is prepared to be blocked in India for the sake of freedom of expression if it ultimately comes to that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales: An appeal on constitutional matters, although usually accepted, could perhaps take years for a final decision because of the seemingly endless pendency of cases in India's Supreme Court. But once the matter is no longer sub-judice in the Delhi HC, the page on ani vs wmf can be put right back up, afaik (correct me if I am wrong). If the appeal is on civil matter (i.e court finds wmf guilty of defamation), editors here won't be able to add the defamatory content (mouthpiece of BJP) back up until resolution in supreme court. Is this correct? — hako9 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You or someone on legal team of wmf will need to explain this to editors here because, they will keep editing cluelessly about the matter and admins won't know what they are supposed to do. I can reproduce the content on the deleted page right now, to a section in Freedom of expression in India. Will there be a staff action again? — hako9 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. My preference, speaking personally, is that people mainly not do that sort of thing just to stir the stew. I don't see the point. WP:POINT. At the same time, I don't think it's necessary to step around on tip-toes nor for anyone to go wild WP:TROUTing anyone who talks about the case anywhere. We are all, or should be, reasonable people acting with kindness towards others. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9: look at Jimbo's statement again above. The reason to take it down for now was so that we can appeal the case and not lose it by default (i.e. get Wikipedia blocked sitewide in India and probably a bunch of other bad things I won't speculate about). This is not a new permanent precedent where WMF will start taking down content on request from India or any another government. Since the purpose was to enable an appeal in an undecided case, let's keep our cool and not jump to conclusions. Steven Walling • talk21:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned about the disclosure of the identifying information about editors to the court. That is irreversible, and should not happen, even if it wrecks chances of appeal, and even if it means Wikipedia is blocked in India for a very long time or forever. I mean that seriously, and with real consideration behind it. I'm also not happy in the slightest with the WMF takedown of the page. If that is a takedown with a timescale of days to a week, I can hold my nose, although it is offensive on principle. If this is a more permanent takedown, that can be reasonably foreseen to last months or years, that would not align with the values of the community as I understand them. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a somewhat different view of it. I don't like the idea of the WMF disclosing personal data about editors to anyone, either. But I live in the US and I know the WMF is subject to subpoena in the US: if a US court orders the WMF to turn over my IP address, etc., the WMF is going to comply. They might appeal, they might ask the court to not require compliance until after the appeal, but ultimately, they're going to comply with a US court order, as they must. So would every other US-based website.
That's the US, but if Wikipedia wants to be a global website, then it's going to have to comply with the laws of multiple countries, not just the US. The EU's privacy laws are different than those in the US; I have rights in the US I don't have in the EU, but if I want to edit here, I have to understand that if a court in an EU country orders the WMF to disclose my IP and stuff, the WMF is going to do it.
Unless we want Wikipedia to pull out of India -- which I don't think we should, like a sixth of humanity lives there -- the WMF is going to have to comply with India's court orders, just like in the US or EU. Same goes for blacklocking the article: the WMF would comply with a gag order from a US or EU court, it should comply with Indian court orders, too, because a lot of people live there and we should not give up those readers (and editors). So I think complying with Indian court orders does align with the community's values, which is to be a global encyclopedia with a global readership. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope WMF decides to defend the personal data of our editors in this situation. Unmasking our editors because a company doesn't like the edits they made would set an ugly precedent. This talk of disclosing personal data of our editors under a "sealed cover" makes me uncomfortable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: That's an appallingly bad argument. The concerns of user-privacy, a no less fundamental cornerstone of community values, needs to be balanced with that of potential loss of readership. It would be a global encyclopedia with a global readership but USA-based-authorship if WMF starts going down this slippery slope! Taking your logic to its rational end, you ought to have no problems with WMF disclosing IP addresses of Palestine based editors upon receiving requests from Israeli courts; what if, upon defiance, Wikipedia cannot reach the Israelis?! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel isn't India. Neither is Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan (all of which have blocked Wikipedia at one point or another). Neither is North Korea, Iran, etc. etc. There are some nations where we shouldn't try to comply with their laws. I don't think India should be one of them. Levivich (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your list. Some people might say that "Levivich distrusts this country" or "TrangaBellam trusts this country" is an useless way of discussing these issues — esp. when these assessments are not corroborated by any reliable sources — but I am certain that you are already aware of that. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You jest but coming up with a list of countries where Wikipedia does business and countries where Wikipedia does not do business is exactly what must be done, and what has already been done. We don't have any offices in North Korea AFAIK. We do in the EU. We've already made that choice, and must continually make these choices. The question here is: which group should India be in? I say in the "yes, do business" group. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends whether they try to impose censorship. The US has very robust protections of free speech and press. Many other countries, not so much. If any other country tries to censor our content, they put themself immediately in the "No business" group. People there can still read and edit the encyclopedia (even if they block it; it's not like Tor, VPNs, proxies, etc., are some shocking new technology), we'd just have to remove any offices, equipment, etc., from that country. And if they try to censor any content, we should almost certainly do so. If they demand giving up data on editors, we should 100%, no questions asked, do so. That applies to India, the EU, or anywhere else. If we need to stick to the US to avoid censorship and protect our editors' privacy, that is exactly what we should do. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: To be clear, when you say And if they try to censor any content, we should almost certainly do so. If they demand giving up data on editors, we should 100%, no questions asked, do so., you mean "do so" as in "stop doing business", right? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now the Foundation is going to disclose editor's personal data to EU, India... Why not PRC? It's another "sixth of humanity" just like India, and I am more than certain the WMF would be happy to return to China if it is given a chance. Why not Russia, or Iran, or Türkiye? Each one of these has huge populations and the WMF would not want to be blocked there and "give up those readers" for such a trifle as editors' privacy, right? Deinocheirus (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should try to keep PRC readership because it is about a fifth of humanity, which is a huge proportion. But China isn't India, there are other considerations, like that China isn't even ostensibly a democracy.
But what privacy rights are you talking about? You don't have unlimited privacy rights in your IP address. Even in the US, that can be disclosed. And all other websites follow the same laws--why should Wikipedia be immune to laws that apply to every other company or website: Apple, Google, Microsoft... Twitter, Facebook, etc., all of them are going to turn over your IP address if they're ordered to do so by the US, or the EU. Why should Wikipedia editors be exempt? Keep in mind we voluntarily give our IP address, user agent, and other information, to literally every single website we visit, so it's not really private.
"Wikipedia editors should be absolutely immune from any legal consequence of their editing" is not a value that I hold. My values are: "we are subject to the same laws as any other user on any other website." We don't have any more privacy rights at en.wikipedia.org than we have at www.google.com. And it would be better for Wikipedia to be a global website than a US website. That means subjecting Wikipedia to as many legal jurisdictions as possible. Russia, Iran, and Turkey are dictatorships. I think it's OK not to do business in dictatorships. India is not a dictatorship, even if its democracy is flawed, so is the US. I mean, I don't think Modi is really any worse than Trump, but YMMV. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you arrive at the fact that Turkey is more of a dictatorship than Modi's India — vibes? VDem (EDI) ranks India at 110 and Turkey at 127; not much of a margin. Of course, I feel that none of them are dictatorships (as indeed do scholars) but flawed democracies undergoing rapid democratic backsliding.
This is what I pointed out above. Your argument boils down to nothing but "I feel India is good enough to do business and hence, WMF must comply." TrangaBellam (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Ironically, in today's edition of NYT, I came across this but yeah, "Modi isn't really worse than Trump". Anyway, we aren't really convincing each other; so, no point in continuing this. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec re Levivich) Gråbergs Gråa Sång was it you who linked the article where an editor commented that they were scared? I keep trying to find it again and can't, Bar and Bench? Anyway i would like this editor to not be scared, or a hypothetical editor in such a situation not to be scared. I am in the U.S. and would not be scared in this situation. I thought having the content and PII stored in the U.S. was a practical if not very global way to help. My values conflict with yours but that's ok, for me at least. fiveby(zero) 15:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, a sixth of humanity lives in China, too. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that we ought be giving them all the user data that they request, nor obeying censorship orders that they hand down.
If a state is unfree, and is trying to exert editorial control over this project, then the best thing to do is simply to:
Refuse to comply with censorship orders; and
Refuse to hand over user data to countries who would use it to violate our contributors' rights and freedoms.
There is no other way to maintain project integrity.
I think that sacrificing some of our editors in the name of "global encyclopaedia" is wrong. What WMF did has created a chilling effects for non-US editors - that at any given time WMF could gave up their information. The United States is a flawed democracy, but it has way better freedom of speech protection that many other countries. It is not the best, but it is not a bad one either! We have articles on numerous scandals of US administration. We have articles on scandals of powerful people - from presidents to movie stars to religious leaders. We have covered scandals on big companies as well. And none ever did what ANI had done - trying to sue the editors. If this case is brought before a judge in the US it would be thrown out in a heartbeat - not so in many other countries.
The question remained - why would WMF agreed to share the PII of the editors? What is their motivation? Is "winning" on Indian court worth sending some of our editors to Indian prison? Or the viewership and the revenue of India is too good to be passed? What if the country is not India, but smaller like Belarus. Will we do the same thing? Or how if these things happened in the US? Will Wikipedia surrendered meekly like what happened in India or fought tooth and nail up to the Supreme Court? I previously believe the latter but now I believe WMF would surrender quickly citing "our legal team forced us to do it, the aforementioned editors better get some good lawyer." ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, I find it extremely concerning that the lawyers would be willing to disclose identifying information to the court. IANAL, but giving this info to a foreign government doesn't seem like a wise move at all. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is probably a smart move to take the article down until we are legally able to put it back up, but I would like to make it clear that under no circumstances can I support giving editors' private information to the government of a country like India, especially considering what has been happening in Canada recently. IANAL, but I believe it would be better to have the site blocked in India than to reveal the private information of our editors without their consent. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, I respectfully understand that the hope is that the WMF will appeal and ultimately win. And I very much hope that the WMF does win here.
But what if the WMF loses this case? Is the WMF then going to restore the page (or permit the page to be restored), and flagrantly be in contempt of the Indian courts? Or are we going to allow this global project's content to be subject to a de facto veto by the laws and courts of India? And, if we accept that the Indian government has that de facto veto, doesn't that place this whole project at a real risk of censorship down the line? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understood it, the (perhaps) main reason the judges got pissed off was that the case is "Sub judice", but that can probably be the case for years to come. I also read today that there are currently two ongoing cases, ANI-defamation and WMF appealing order to release user-info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but if the WMF loses the case, the case is over, so no longer under subjudice and no longer in contempt of court, so there'd be no need to suppress the article, even from the court's point of view? Valereee (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same dilemma, as the reasons the action is being requested would be different. This will weight the decision differently. CMD (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would run into the same dilemma, inasmuch as the WMF would have to make a decision as to whether or not they would comply with India's court order that requires that a particular page's content be edited in some way or removed in some other way. I understand that this decision by WMF legal is tactical in nature so as to try to preserve the opportunity to win on the broader point at the end of the day. But there are big questions here, and I hope the board really does take to heart that we are talking about freedom when we talk about a free encyclopedia, not merely taking about a gratis one. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's only the same dilemma if you consider all court orders to be identical, which I'm sure WMF does not and I hope we would not as well. CMD (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request journalistic help with The Signpost
The Signpost is Wikipedia editors' own newsletter. Like everything else with Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, and it invites volunteer contributors. I am writing to request assistance from anyone who would like to draft the story about this legal issue. I have some notes started at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. Here, a brief objective summary of the events is needed. If anyone would like to contribute other journalism, such as a personal opinion piece on the situation, then please express your interest at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk)15:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a bad idea. If covering the court case is what got us in trouble the first time, I doubt the court would look kindly on us doing it again, even if in a different format. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are talking about an actual incident or just vaguely expressing disdain (?) but if there's a particular thing you have in mind I am always open to criticism. jp×g🗯️05:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am disturbed when free speech is under legal threat. That does not mean we should take a poor legal strategy, such as ignoring court orders while a case is ongoing. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a WMF employee? Because if not the "us" there isn't under court order and has no legal strategy. We are not the WMF. Also note that you are currently ignoring such a court order if it does apply, you are literally discussing the court order right now on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not a WMF employee, but I do view us as in this fight together given that they're fighting for our rights here. Doing things on Wikipedia that are likely to interfere with their strategy and piss off the court is, in my view, a bad idea if you want the WMF to win this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you commenting in a discussion which will almost certainly piss off the court? If you're taking the court seriously you aren't supposed to be having this conversation... You aren't supposed to even mention the case on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't refute anything I've said. An internal discussion vs something intentionally presented as a news report is very different and it's not unrealistic to think that the court would see it as such. And yes, I do think it would probably be better if we keep the discussion about the case itself to a minimum here, but since the discussion is already happening, it's not like my comments in particular are going to be the tipping point for the court being unhappy with us. Not interested in arguing about this with you. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long tradition of covering controversies which involve ourselves confidently, even handedly, and promplty, it is one of our best features and something that even our most ardent opponents will mention as a positive, its a peculiar badge of honor that anti-wikipedia people will refer to Criticism of Wikipedia or List of Wikipedia controversies for evidence of why Wikipedia sucks. I don't see a compelling reason to abandon that tradition, if you want to engage with me in that sense I would be very open to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The principle shouldn't be abandoned; just put on pause until we get a final result in this court case. Unlike previous cases, the judge here doesn't seem to be able or willing to distinguish between actions of Wikipedia editors and of the Foundation (that's how this whole thing became a problem in the first place). Given that, us editors doing stuff that the judge wouldn't like has the potential to cause problems for the Foundation's legal strategy.
After the court case is resolved, whatever the result, I expect that we will fully cover this, and that we will restore the page on this case (even if we lose the case and get blocked in India for it). However, doing so now would make it far more difficult for us to win the case. That's why we shouldn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that we aren't seen as separate wouldn't doing the same thing be the problematic one by that logic? And is an argument to do or not do something in order to seek advantage in a court case the foundation is involved in an WP:IAR argument or is there another policy or guideline basis for it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an IAR thing. In my opinion we should try to make the Foundation's job easier here, because doing so will benefit us in the long-run. (Of course, it wouldn't be IAR if they force us to shut this discussion down or removing coverage of the case elsewhere on the site... but I'd rather avoid things even getting to that point.) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly cannot understand the difference between "violating NPOV to promote the Foundation" and "not posting things that will harm their chances in ongoing litigation" then I do not think there is any point to discussing this further. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fabricate quotes, thats just not what I said... I said temporarily put aside in the context of IAR, which unless I misunderstand is the only policy or guideline on which your argument is based. Doing something to help a group's chances in a court case is a WP:NOT problem, that doesn't change when the party in question is the Wikimedia Foundation and not the The Coca-Cola Company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost isn't part of the encyclopedia. Content policies don't apply to it. Not that any content policy requires us to write about a topic anyways. This is a very silly thread. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as editors shouldn't worry about performance, I disagree with the notion we should adjust our behaviours to assist the WMF's active legal affairs, especially our own syntheses of what would help (with a clear distinction here in regards to settled policies, e.g. fair use). The Foundation has a legal team and contractors who are professionally poised to handle these situations. Once a hammer comes down, if it does at all, then those directions should be followed. DatGuyTalkContribs17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are all fine here, our speech isn't under legal threat. Bluerasberry can write elsewhere and we'll all be able to read about things elsewhere. It is annoying and shocking to see happen is all. I'd like to hear from those whose speech is under threat in the Signpost article. I thought that Wikipedia gave them the best protection they could to do so. From what i'm reading and how it appears that is not so strong a protection as I thought (but most importantly what they thought). Based on Jimbo's statement above and taking it as more reliable, it appears that this is not so great a concern in this case. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between a general discussion about how the community should react to the issue between the WMF and the Indian courts, and publishing an article in something which identifies as a newspaper, covering apparently the same sorts of things as the recently redacted article covered. I know that it's ultimately the WMF's decision what flies and what doesn't fly, and no doubt they'll take the Signpost article down themselves if they deem it appropriate to do so... but personally I do agree with Elli that it would be prudent and WP:COMMONSENSE not to inflame this situation any further by publishing a Signpost article on it now, given the Office Action decision to redact the article itself. Once it all blows over, the Signpost can cover it at will. — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Signpost used its own web server instead of piggybacking a free ride on WMF's servers, this wouldn't be an issue. And they'd be closer to an actual independent newspaper instead of being this website's newsletter. I agree they shouldn't pour fuel on the fire by posting about the case on the WMF's servers. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you'd just have to buy a domain, set up a webserver, then write an application for passing through URLs to retrieve, format and display Signpost articles, and also make it capable of overriding this default behavior for specified titles to fetch the content from its own database rather than from enwiki_p... jp×g🗯️11:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol it's not the 90s anymore, you don't need to set up a web server to have a website, nor do you need a domain (which btw cost less than $1/yr now). Signpost could post its articles on wordpress or substack for free. Takes like five minutes to set up. They have lots of nice templates that do the formatting for you. If boomers can do it then so can anyone. You could even have your own message boards, event calendar, email newsletter. Levivich (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any TLD that costs less than $1 a year, unless you mean some kind of introductory/bundle offer. At any rate, if I were going to sit down and do this I'd want it to be something decent and presentable like, say, signpost.news. jp×g🗯️12:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the one example at hand, the process seemed to be: ANI lawyers notice whatever > They tell judges > Judges get annoyed > Judges order WMF. It won't necessarily become a habit, and the previous article was in mainspace + linked on the ANI WP-article, and so more visible to the lawyers involved.
It will be hard to convince all Wikipedians not to discuss this possibly first-time-ever issue on-WP, but prudent people can always join the discussion on Wikipediocracy instead. I don't think writing in The Signpost is more not prudent than this thread. We as a community don't handle gag-orders well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us would rather have the discussion via messages left in gas station bathrooms than on Wikipediocracy. That aside, I think we handle gag orders well, in that we refuse to shut up, which is a good way of handling them. We just don't handle them the way those who would hold the gags wish we would. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely an appropriate quote, but not in the way you think. If someone's trying to keep me from speaking either my opinion, or any true fact, and I have not voluntarily agreed to that situation (e.g., an NDA in exchange for access to sensitive data in employment), they are trying to steal my right to speak. And I won't take too kindly to that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the editor-in-chief exists to post in situations like this.
Well: I don't think it's possible for a thing to fit fit more clearly in the Signpost than this (what could possibly matter more? the crossword?) At the same time, I would personally prefer to do so in a way that avoids hosing the entire project and everybody on it for no clear benefit. The obvious journalistic response to open direct censorship is somewhere between "NUTS!" and "Aux armes citoyens", which is altogether good and proper.
I would consider directly causing the death of the website we're hosted on something of an anathema to our ability to exercise journalistic integrity; I would consider e.g. having entire articles summarily oversighted with no appeal something of a pointless exercise in boneheadedness and organizational dysfunction for its own sake. Anything which results in these things happening, then, is no good. So what actions result in which outcomes? Well, I don't know. I don't think anybody really has a complete picture of what is going on, hence this vacuous if-by-whiskey post. All I can say for sure is that some emails are going to be sent. jp×g🗯️18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound radical. But hear me out. Since signpost is a newspaper, you report 2 facts. 1) The article xyz was taken down. 2) Jimjams quote verbatim. That's it. No bylines. No explanation/analysis (not that most of the editors here are competent in legal analysis anyways). — hako9 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2024, WMF also took two content-related OAs for two articles at fr.wiki. It is perhaps pertinent to note that in the period from 01-01-2015 to today — which is about a decade —, there have probably been only five OFFICE ACTIONs concerning content per this discussion: the article on the ANI litigation (2024), Lois Lee (2015), two fr.wiki articles (2024), and a Zh.wiki article (2018).
In any case, WMF issued a long statement to the fr.wiki community. I found it interesting because it seemed like an unprecedentedly detailed intervention (not attributing any negative motives, though; it's perhaps helpful) by WMF into content, going to the extent of suggesting how the community ought to write articles, deal with COI requests, etc. They also note that French courts are becoming increasingly sympathetic to the subjects of Wikipedia articles and probably hints that there could be more litigations (and similar OAs?) in the future. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As is often the case, we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in France – which explains the lack of inclusive writing/turns of phrase, for which we apologize. Bet the French loved that lol... Valereee (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet the non-French members of the French-speaking Wikipedia community loved it even more... Like starting of a letter to the ewiki community with "we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in America" (although to be fair they do use the much more accurate "French-speaking Wikipedia community" further in) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the court only seems to care about enwiki, there are pages for ANI on eleven other language wikis (including other languages widely spoken in India) which say more or less the same thing enwiki does but they don't seem to be at issue for the court... Just the stuff on enwiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that creating that page is Blessentmoncoeur's only edit across the entire wiki farm. Probably some LTA making a point, not a legitimate expression of the views of the French Wikipedia community. * Pppery *it has begun...03:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not an LTA but someone who thought it prudent to use an alt account. Can someone give me a correct translation of the username, I don't think "bless my heart" is quite right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a line from Chanson d'automne, by Paul Verlaine. Whoever chose that name probably intended to recall its use as a secret message for the French Resistance during World War II. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. On the one hand, I think this is on the "just to stir the stew" side on Jimbo's comment here. On the other hand, it made me smile. While the en-WP article was live, I certainly hoped it would be translated into Hindi and other languages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
09:31, 22 October 2024 JohnNewton8 talk contribs deleted page Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (Page supprimée de en-WP par WMF à la suite d'une procédure judiciaire + notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement) + création par un WP:FN +) (thank) Is this an office action or a normal CSD? Neither I nor the machine translator parlez-vous well enough to tell. jp×g🗯️11:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement)" indicates it was deleted on notability grounds as it didn't contain sources older than one month. I don't see such a clause in fr:WP:N, but that might be how they operate there. Nardog (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
La notoriété, telle que définie ici, ne peut pas résulter d'une notoriété ponctuelle ou d'un engouement temporaire. C'est pourquoi il est demandé en principe que le sujet puisse s'appuyer au minimum sur deux sources secondaires considérées comme fiables qui lui aient consacré un article ou un chapitre, espacées d'au moins deux ans.
Page supprimée de en-WP par WMF à la suite d'une procédure judiciaire: Page deleted from English Wikipedia by WMF following a legal procedure notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement): Notability isn't demonstrated across time (sources only across one month) création par un WP:FN: Created by a sockpuppet ("faux-nez") Appears to be a regular deletion, but informed by the office action on English Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is a good subject for a The Signpost article, @JPxG. Office actions in history or something like that. I read some of a discussion linked in the long statemant [46], and the WMF lawyer there seems to be saying that it generally helps the legal department when the encyclopedic content is good quality, so they don't have to defend crap in court. I'll try to keep that in mind if I do more edits in the general area. And I think the deleted article was pretty ok from the WP-perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific database query used to start this thread looks only for logged actions (in the sense the community defines that term). It missed the 2021 action as a result of that, since the only logged actions it involved are oversights. I skimmed through WMFOffice's global contributions, and didn't find anything else of note. * Pppery *it has begun...23:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mixed up my frwiki things. The 2021 itwiki & dewiki actions were about a French individual, but had already been handled by the community at fr:Dorcel (and, it seems, also at Special:PageHistory/Marc Dorcel). But then more recently the same statement was reïntroduced on frwiki and led to an OA there, unrelated to the two linked by TrangaBellam. So that makes six total, if we count the it/de/fr Dorcel actions as one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. The WMF took down Damon Dash and DD172 temporarily and Andrew Stewart Jamieson permanently in 2011, for example. I think this is the first takedown since those, though I haven't looked exhaustively. Office actions were much more common in the early days. Those do show up in that query, by the way. And to answer the implied comment in the query you linked to: "but did staff have WMF accounts, then" - the current policy of official actions being required to be staff account dates only back to 2014 (although most staff followed it anyway), and the WMF didn't even exist in 2002. * Pppery *it has begun...05:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's of course not as old as any of us who were here from the early days. I know I felt it when a high school student asked me "What was it like to actually see 9/11 happening?", and realize they wouldn't have. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be good to ask someone from T&S or Comms (@JSutherland (WMF), @RAdimer-WMF?) whether it's something the WMF would like to take responsibility for. If not, I don't see any reason it couldn't be done by the community. Most of it could even be automated: Have a bot list any local edit/action from WMFOffice, plus any metawiki edit/action affecting an account or IP with >0 edits/actions here. Then allow humans to collate related entries so it's not like 10 entries for a single rename. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would they know that it's "Wikipedia editors" who did that? Article content is freely licensed, so those news outlets could just as easily have decided to do that on their own. I know I certainly don't have any control over what any Indian news outlet chooses to put on their website. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're right that it's dangerous though! That's why we have numerous policies and tools to help define and manage the risks. Grappling from first principles with Wikipedia's system. CMD (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mehta submitted ANI has a very wrong understanding of Wikipedia's architecture. He added that a note would be submitted on how Wikipedia functions. Looks like this is a step in an encouraging direction in which the court is learning how Wikipedia works. – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a new lawyer it seems. And he didn't seem to know that the ANI page is locked from "anybody can edit". Indian right wingers often complain about precisely this locking because they can't change the pages to their taste. In any case, I am glad that the court is finally trying to understand the architecture of Wikipedia. But it is important that our lawyer understand it first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wingers (who are ideologically diverse depending on the country and community) often complaint more—mainly because they are systematically silenced or blocked to a greater extent. Most right-leaning sources are either depreciated or, at the very least, extensively defamed (a trend you may have also noticed). In contrast, left-wingers (who share a relatively consistent ideology globally) and their situational allies typically receive a free pass on Wikipedia, provided they aren’t overtly disrupting the platform. Many senior editors (with support from admins) feel no hesitation in doubling or even tripling down on defaming right-leaning pages and sources when questioned about their intentions, fully aware that they contribute to Wikipedia’s declining reliability.
The prevailing left-wing view often assumes that "truth is left-wing," leading to the belief that they are always right. When one sees themselves as the "fact," there's little motivation to consider opposing perspectives. This imbalance has made Wikipedia extremely one-sided and unreliable for political, historical, and certain religious pages, especially those that aren’t assets to the left.
Source? I don’t need a source to assert this; I was just using it as an example. Besides, the person I was replying to can think for themselves, I suppose. DangalOh (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DangalOh I'm not particularly invested in the right versus left propaganda debate, but I’ve noticed that any media outlet that even slightly supports a government tends to receive more citations labeling it as biased. Conversely, there are often few to no references asserting that it is not biased, making it challenging to counter those claims effectively. This imbalance is a consistent issue: when right-wing parties are in power, left-leaning voices tend to be more active in criticizing and highlighting their errors, and vice versa. This back-and-forth dynamic creates a cycle where each side focuses on pointing out the other's flaws, distorting the overall representation of viewpoints. I.Mahesh (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the idea that when the left wing is in power, Wikipedia becomes full of right-wing perspectives. There are more left-wing governments in power in G7 countries, yet Wikipedia still bashes the right wing of those countries day and night. Additionally, it seems that the anti-India bias on Wikipedia is free of any foreign political leaning, which has become very intense recently—perhaps due to the recent developments in India-Canada relations. All I can say is that as long as the USA and Canada continue to be left-wing, there is little hope for good relations with India. Even left-wing Indian governments won't be able to salvage this damage. And don’t forget, whether left-wing or right-wing, Wikipedia will almost always prioritize America first, considering it has to adhere to American laws and rules. DangalOh (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the Indian government is considered right-leaning, it follows that many major Indian media outlets are either right-leaning or neutral. This is evident from their Wikipedia pages, which often face vandalism and scrutiny. The references used on these pages typically come from a limited number of sources, which tend to be either left-leaning (citation needed) or neutral or out of country whatsoever.
The issue seems to stem from the fact that when one media outlet accuses another of being right-wing, the right-leaning outlets rarely support their counterparts or other news channels. This lack of mutual support makes it difficult to find sources that can substantiate claims of bias in a balanced way. As a result, we struggle to find reliable references to counter the prevailing narratives. This is purely my observation and may not be factual. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DangalOh That's wrong about the G7 countries. Italy is right wing, France neither left wing nor right wing, the UK Labour party is not actually left wing at least as it stand now. etc. Check them. Doug Wellertalk14:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, we can debate whether UK labor is left or right, etc., and how Wikipedia still targets the traditional right, but let's discard all this and delve a bit deeper. To be honest, the only country whose political ideology at the center is relevant is the top boss: the USA. If the USA is left, the G7 is left; if the USA is right, then the boss is always "right." The same goes for NATO's ideology, as well as any other major organization in which the USA has had an unfortunate stake. Wikipedia also can never go completely against the top boss, no matter how much it bashes the USA's right wing. Think about it. regards, DangalOh (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that the majority of left-wingers often see them as centrists. If by "actual" you mean "extreme," then the "actual" left wing is anarchism (which is the same for every country), and the "actual" right wing is cultural fascism (which depends a lot on a culture's tendency toward fascism and varies for each culture and country). On the other hand, some forms of left-wing ideologies are much more prone to dictatorship; for example, various communist regimes. Even the Nazi Party, officially known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, labeled itself as a socialist party. However, despite some early socialist rhetoric aimed at attracting workers' support, the party fundamentally rejected core socialist principles and aligned more closely with fascism. So, "actual" doesn’t mean anything here. If you think the Democratic Party is not left-leaning/aligned (which was the word I originally used), then I don’t know what to say anymore. I can say a lot about that party, but that wouldn’t be appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page, and people will come asking for evidence when they are the ones who disqualified that evidence. So, yeah, "actual" doesn’t mean anything here. Anyway, it’s best for me to skedaddle out of here. DangalOh (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case I was not clear: you asked, “When was the last time?” and I answered that it’s right now and how “actual” doesn’t mean anything here. I also said that if you fail to see this, then what’s the point? By asking such a question, you showcased your firm belief that the current government is not left-aligned. Centrist was my assumption. I don't know what you consider it to be. Good day! DangalOh (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am outspoken, Valeree, but you just need fair observational power and the "right" intent, and you will discover that evidence is all over Wikipedia. From the sources depreciated or considered marginally reliable to the frequency with which the same editors target the same types of pages with the same POV, and the pages that have recently been attacked again, etc. Those with proper intent and good observational skills will definitely see through it. I am not going to fight for this lost cause; I have seen how this unfolds. I have presented my views, and now I will leave. DangalOh (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the same editors target the same types of pages with the same POV and
Many senior editors (with support from admins) feel no hesitation in doubling or even tripling down on defaming right-leaning pages and sources when questioned about their intentions, fully aware that they contribute to Wikipedia’s declining reliability
Some good intent editors have already noticed this, and some are currently acting on it. I don’t feel the need to reveal the names of editors or admins I consider problematic and totally biased. I still intend to be on Wikipedia rather than make direct enemies because I truly believe that with the right approach, even enemies can become friends. We all are human after all. And as i said earlier, I have seen how it goes if you directly challenge authority. Vague or not, I am not fighting a case here to win. My job was to make one or two people aware, no matter the outcome. My job is done. Now I leave. Farewell, Valereee! i like this name for some reason. DangalOh (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia collects news articles and presents them in a particular space, then how is it any different from Google, the judge asked.“Google does not add its own version to the index,” answered Kumar “It will not characterize what the statement is.” He also planned to show that some of the offending statements were not borne out by the source material.
The Judge needs to be informed that the correct procedure is for ANI to come and raise such issues on the article's talk page and convince the involved editors that there is a genuine problem. It is not the court's business to butt in and start making editorial judgements for us. And the court should also be made aware that ANI has not made use of the available grievance redressal mechanisms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not foregrounding the public standing of editors brings a kind of egalitarian rigour to Wikipedia that even academic publishing does not have. To expose editors by court order would disturb a delicate balance. And when editors play safe, powerful interests get away with murder.
Honestly this is outrageous. People should not have to worry about being sued for adding information to an article and the WMF should not be aiding in India’s backsliding freedom of speech. Galobtter (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Foundation has terribly failed the volunteer editors. The case could have been dismissed as useless if the Foundation had consulted a better councel who knew how the Wikipedia works - and how ANI's suing Wikipedia was technically/logically/practically wrong. Hugely outrageous. Regards, Aafi (talk)16:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this - the judge doesn't understand or care about how editing here works and is totally ignoring that this is from other sources. This is purely an intimidation tactic from ANI, trying to silence critics they can because they know that the news sources we're citing can't be silenced. Despicable behavior from them and I'm profoundly disappointed in the judges involved for allowing blatant lawfare like this to continue. Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Participating in the court proceedings itself meant that Wikipedia was going to submit to their outrageous demands. Should have never bothered, honestly. Ratnahastin(talk)17:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to participate in the proceedings would have left the Foundation in contempt of court, which would probably lead to a worse outcome for the Foundation and all editors in India, than would trying to fight the charges in court by legal means. Donald Albury18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree in part with your comment - people should not have to worry about being sued for adding information in good faith that is backed by reputable reliable sources. These edits were absolutely made in good faith and there are highly reputable sources making the acusations. ANI isn't going after them though, but going after what appears to be an easier target. WP is in an unpleasant situation where they can't win right now. Ravensfire (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see WP countersue ANI for defamation and drag them through discovery hell for the mis-statements, deceptions and lies they'd made in this process. Turnabout is fair play, right? Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising, per this (PDF warning) — The three editors(Defendants 2,3 & 4 ) in question are also defendants in the lawsuit, Defendant 1 (WMF)'s senior counsel submitted that they no connection to the three other defendants, therefore court ordered disclosure of their subscriber details to issue summons/notices to them. Ratnahastin(talk)17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, check the page 2, 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant nos.2 to 4 are claimed to be the ‘Administrators’ of defendant no.1. sounds familiar? Ratnahastin(talk)17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The names mentioned in the order all turn up as advocates when I did a google search, several for the same firm. Absent a self-declaration from an editor here, about all that Wikimedia can provide for a given user name would be the associated email address and a list of IP's used for certain edits. ANI could then ask the court to force the relevant ISP's to take the IP information and convert it into subscriber information. And then it gets interesting - let's say I'm very determined for my security, I use a throwaway email from a provider that doesn't log anything, and I use a public wifi signal from a nearby McDonalds. It could be extremely difficult for ANI to determine anything past that if I really was good about isolating what I used to edit vs anything else. (That's not an approach that I follow, I'm not worried about something like this happening to me as I don't make edits that would trigger legal liability for me in my home country, and if a court in India tried to get me to do anything, it would be a good laugh.) Ravensfire (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By agreeing to identify editors of the page, no matter that it's under cover, the WMF has caved in shamefully. They have done a massive disservice to our readers and endangered editors who happen to work on any article someone litigious disapproves of. There is no excuse. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true. If editors are self-censoring their edits it would be very bad for their project. American and European editors have better protection, but many other countries have "less than dependable" courts where if you go against the "big guys" you can automatically lose no matter how good your arguments were. I honestly didn't understand why WMF caves in - is it because Indian traffic and revenue is very good? ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is depressing. It would have been better to just be blocked here than to do this. We all know what happens to those editors now; they are cooked; ANI or the government's other minions will go after them. Such an awful thing to do to comply with this order in Mudiji's India, where the press freedom index stoops at an all-time low, where convicted rapists share stage with the ruling party and are garlanded, opposition sits in jail denied bail in corruption case while the money trail leads to that of the incumbent government, Wangchuk is detained for peaceful protest while a murderer and rapist is yet again granted bail before elections, and this is barely just scratching the surface. Definitely not Nehru's India anymore. I have nothing more to say. My condolences to those 3 editors. Lunar-akaunto／talk10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that the three editors in question are from India. But how would you or ANI know where the editors are from? What if the three editors in question are from the United States or Europe? What can ANI or the Indian court possibly do to them? Nakonana (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can still be sued and can take part or ignore the proceedings as they wish. If the Indian courts award damages against them, ANI can seek to enforce that in the defendant's home country. "Under U.S. law, an individual seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must file suit before a competent court. The court will determine whether to recognize and enforce the foreign judgment." [58]. Similar arrangements apply in most other countries. Nthep (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nthep, while that's generally correct, there's specific legislation pertaining to foreign defamation judgments. [59] Basically, US courts may not enforce foreign defamation judgments unless the foreign judgment would have also passed muster under US First Amendment jurisprudence. So, the chance of a US court enforcing such a judgment from India is quite remote. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how much would that person have to pay in legal costs, time, and stress, in order to obtain that dismissal in federal court? I'm confident the WMF won't be footing the bill. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The act provides that if the foreign party loses, they pay attorney's fees for the person they're suing. So, they thought of that too. It was passed in response to "libel tourism", where people would sue US citizens or entities in some other jurisdiction with much looser libel/defamation laws, and then try to bring that judgment to the US. So, they still can try—but if they lose, they're paying both sides' attorneys, so they better be very sure they've really got a winner before they go forward with it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that it falls under Raise significant freedom of expression questions that affect the Project's ability to be a neutral source of information, such as true and verifiable statements that are censored under local law in the Legal Policies but it's up to the Foundation to make that determination so they should really prepare a statement to that effect it if looks like it might be required. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these three editors are in the US/EU or some Western countries like Canada or good Asian countries like Singapore or Japan they are lucky. But what happens if they are in India? Or Nepal? Or Egypt? Or some other country that have questionable court system? They are toast and WMF should be blamed for that. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good Asian countries like Singapore or Japan The judiciary in Singapore is no doubt robust, but the laws that Singapore is derived and adapted from its British colonial days, aka from the colonial Indian set of laws. Yes, there have been changes to the laws here, but my vague recollection is that it is not too far off from India's. – robertsky (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many people who have made edits in sensitive topics around the world (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, China, Iran, etc.) believed they personal data was protected by U.S. law and the judicial system, but the Foundation misled them. In my opinion, the enwiki community should discuss a strike (blackout). Iluvatar (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Betrayal by WMF? Shocker. Jimbo needs to drop his big stick on the table and impose his will from above to save this encyclopedia or let it become a tool of propagandist, government agents and others with less than pure motives(more than it already has become) because the good people will be risking imprisonment and worse. Europe has already seen laws constraining free speech and most of the worlds population lives in places openly hostile to full freedoms of speech and expression. Slywriter (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is just talking emptily about the empty article. The removed article is not the main concern - the main real concern is how WMF agreed to hand out PII of its editors. Articles can be restored, three editors that are caught with Indian justice system is more dangerous. The fact that Jimbo and WMF failed to recognize the danger for three editors showed how out of touch they are. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia told the Delhi High Court on Monday that it is willing to disclose to the Court in a sealed cover the basic subscriber information (BSI) details about users who wrote/ edited the page about news agency ANI [Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors. - taken verbatim from the article. While the information wouldn't be given in public domain, ANI would get "some" information on the editors themselves.
Can someone explain to me what kind of data will be shared? As I pointed out in the talk page, I am disappointed at WMF for choosing to disclose user data to the Indian court where they can be subject to punishments or other legal problems. Wikipedia forbids VPN in their quest to prevent vandals, while at the same time failing to protect the privacy of its editors. Can someone in the WMF provide more details on this case? Should other editors be worried about their safety? ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)15:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has consented to provide the Indian Court with the basic subscriber information (BSI) of users who created or modified the page regarding the news agency ANI in a sealed cover. This might imply that Wikipedia will probably reveal the IP addresses of the editors who contributed to this article.
To be honest, Wikipedia's failure to secure the identities of its editors disappoints me. In addition to refusing to safeguard editors, Wikipedia prohibits access to VPNs that can do so.
What about the editors who are in India, even if the majority may not fall under the purview of Indian courts? I hope WMF has the answers to that query. The "tough things" will no longer be edited by editors if this doesn't happen.
In addition to refusing to safeguard editors, Wikipedia prohibits access to VPNs that can do so. inappropriately conflates two separate actors. The Wikpedia community has prohibited VPN use (in most but not all cases). The Wikimedia Foundation is disclosing user data. * Pppery *it has begun...16:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is not VPNs, as such, that are prohibited. It is open proxies that may be blocked. For users subject to government interference with their ability to edit Wikipedia, there is a process for gaining access though secure proxies. Donald Albury16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that we assume that WMF will safeguard our PII, which it turned out that they didn't. The process to be allowed to use VPN is for editors that have problems on where they live - but the situation is more complex than that right now. India is not one of the "closed countries" and yet the companies there are using the law to censor free speech. This problem is not unique in India. Freedom of speech isn't a guaranteed right on many countries, and many countries have questionable court system. Despite their problems the US and the EU still have the best justice system.
How is there in a budget of 9.3 mil no money for something as elementary as a liaison function that does something as simple as reacting here or wherever saying "We are in contact with the affected editors and they have agreed with our course of action. Also, while we can't share details we have a plan that ensures no editor is ever thrown under the bus." In other words, someone who ensures editors that WMF is working for them and that we can risk editing, no matter what topic and what country we are in. EVERY time the foundation intervenes in some way it's the same shitshow of inept or no communication. --SchallundRauch (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems to be that again indeed. I certainly hoped they learned their lesson about that last time, but it seems they did not. We may need to force the issue again. I really hope not; that was a really awful and painful process for all involved, but it seems that's the only way we get anything out of the WMF besides corporatese say-nothing bullshit. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF disclosing editor identities to a non-US court fundamentally changes the amount of risk involved in being a Wikipedian. I'd support strikes/blackouts/targeted breaking of things to ensure that WMF understands this. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 100% certain that any type of PII has been or will be released even under 'sealed cover'. The information in the article is very limited and We can file an affidavit (to show steps have been taken to serve notice) does not mean necessarily that the redacted information will be PII. They may be simply redacting how service was effected. Bar & Bench seems to think so however, and they probably have access to the full transcript. fiveby(zero) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support such actions as well. If we are truly a "global community" the community of editors should be responding harder than WP:FRAM simply because three of our fellow editors are in risk of facing Indian court of law, which is not known for being unbiased or valuing freedom of speech. And WMF way of handling this is typical of large companies that wanted to protect itself instead of handling it like community of editors. It's hard to act on good faith towards WMF after what they had done. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)06:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also very much support drafting a community response. Taking the article down, I disagreed with it but I can understand them wanting to fight the bigger fight. But endangering editors is blatantly unacceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which may have been enforceable under U.S. law. Treaties have full force and effect of law. Here's a paper discussing the French MLAT and electronic evidence[60]. Looks like it may only concern criminal matters? Not fun reading. Probably worth asking if the privacy policy is still valid. fiveby(zero) 12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i'm looking at the box to the left of that section as an explanation of what WMF consider's "legally valid" which is "Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and applicable US law." All the while wishing i did not have to read any of it. fiveby(zero) 14:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would this mean that WMF doesn't even have the IPs of anyone who hasn't edited in however long, ditto the email addresses of anyone who removed them however long ago? Valereee (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which it looks like is the same 90 days checkusers have access to for IPs, and for emails, immediate deletion. The exception would be an active order to retain information currently in the system. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but I find it unlikely that provided e-mail is "thrown away" (mine has never been afaict) even if people stop editing for years. If I actively delete the mail from my user-profile, perhaps it's forgotten/deleted from internal logs, but if they throw away my e-mail I can't reset my password, for example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you wouldn't be able to reset your password if you delete your email from the site, unless you add it back in, in which case they have it again until you delete it again? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the BBC said, "The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to share basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it's not clear what that would be." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the information ANI has access to -- the user names and their edit history -- would be the information WMF has, if the editor hadn't edited in the three months previous to whenever the case was filed (July, I think) and had deleted their email before then. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the lawyers were untruthful in saying "Based on information available to us, we can effect service." But ya never know with lawyers. Does not necessarily mean that information is available to them through stored data covered under the privacy policy. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales, any chance you or a WMF-representative will tell us at some point (soon if possible) "The user info turned over to the DHC was as follows: x IP-adresses, y mail-addresses and z personal names."? I don't know if this has actually happened yet, but per what we read it seems it will soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, we still don't know. I hope the WMF realizes the enormity of this unknown factor from our perspective, and that they're going to need to provide a response very, very quickly. I would not blame any editors based in India if they were to stop contributing for their own safety until then, and I would not be surprised if editors from other countries were soon to follow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are in contact with the affected editors and they have agreed with our course of action. By doing so publicly, if they did, they can't deny in the court that they have no contact with the three editors or not representing the editors by association. – robertsky (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't they need to contact the editors in question to be able to serve them in the first place, which they're promising to do? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that ANI has requested that Wikipedia serve the editors, I don't know if that was agreed to or not. Even then, good luck to Wikipedia. They *might* have an email address, definitely some of the IP's used by the editors and would then require a subpoena of the ISP to get subscriber information. I think that generally it's up to the plaintiffs to do all of that legwork. And on a strongly security concious editor using public wifi or VPN to edit, good luck with that. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subpoenaing ISP is trivial for a company as large as ANI. The problem is that editors (me included) feels like I didn't need an VPN/public wifi to edit anything, trusting that WMF will provide some degree of protection. If WMF suggested that VPN/public wifi may be necessary for "tough" edits they should make it known. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)02:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, going by news reports, WMF has expressed its willingness to service the editors ANI sued; by "service", I understand (from Google) notifying the real life person(s) behind the account of the legal proceedings against them.Now, the best-case scenario is that WMF has IP address data for the 90 days preceding ~September and email-IDs for all the editors. If I further assume that all the IP addresses trace back to Indian ISPs, will WMF's lawyers be able to compel (1) the ISP to disclose subscriber details and/or (2) the email service provider (which can be based outside of India, too!) to disclose their logs, followed by (1)?Also, what if the IPs are not from India? As far as I have been given to understand, European ISPs cannot be compelled to give up subscriber details just by citing an order from a foreign court and one needs to go through a lot of hoops. So, is WMF indirectly disclosing — by accepting to service without any additional disclaimer — that the editors in question have edited from India?I am not acquainted with how Indian law works; so, please feel free to point out inaccuracies in the post. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 June 2022, a statement from WMF stated,
In addition to arguing that the Russian government’s request to remove information from Wikimedia projects constitutes a violation of human rights, the Wikimedia Foundation appeal contends that Russia does not have jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation. Describing Wikipedia as operating inside of Russian territory mischaracterizes the global nature of its model. Wikipedia is a global resource available in over 300 languages. All of its language editions, including Russian Wikipedia, are available to anyone in any country around the world. — https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-foundation-appeals-russian-court-decision-on-removal-of-wikipedia-information-related-to-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/
Wikipedia is blocked in many regions, but following such orders contradicts its core values. If an editor follows all Wikipedia guidelines to create or edit a page, yet the page is deleted or their identity is disclosed, it raises concerns. Today it may be one authority demanding control, but soon others could follow, aiming to influence Wikipedia’s content and compromise its principles. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giving in to these threats does not make them go away. It gives every organization and government more leverage to make similar threats in the future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to multiple editors, including Tazerdadog and Thebiguglyalien, the WMF caved unnecessarily—en.wiki, or even all Wikimedia wikis, being banned in India would have been a salutary demonstration of the principle that the encyclopaedia is written independently of the WMF and reflects published sources without regard to the preferences of either official or political bodies. It would have occasioned outrage in defence of Wikipedia, respect for the WMF, and probably a wave of protest editing by the Indian diaspora and by the internet-savvy within India. By instead giving up and thereby sinking to a level below that of the most venal newspaper owner, it has endangered all its volunteers who work on even remotely contentious topics, even to fix typos and template errors. The organisation has demonstrated yet again that it does more harm than good; the only thing that can be said in its defence is that it has only implied it works for us, the volunteers, when asking for money in its advertising banners. I suggest we run a banner of our own under all those advertising banners, something to the effect of: We, the editors of English Wikipedia, disavow the above ad by the Wikimedia Foundation, which offers no support to its editors. Your donation is not needed to keep Wikipedia running and would be better made elsewhere. with "no support" linking to an archived report of the WMF's decision to identify editors; and "not needed" possibly linking to WMF's latest financial statement, showing their more than healthy financial state. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give the WMF a few days to explain precisely what they have decided to disclose and why. If they have disclosed personally identifying information in a way that is not required under United States law, or if they fail to comment on this at all, then all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. The WMF had a positive track record on community safety and support for the principles of the free knowledge movement, and it was on this one point where I still had confidence in the organization. That confidence is quickly eroding. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted by email JSutherland (WMF) to tell him that we need more information than we've gotten, and that the current "But legal reasons!" stuff is not sufficient to involve the community in the conversation. (And to make clear that we know that attorney-client privilege binds only the attorney, and that WMF, as the client, may talk about it all they like and may also authorize their attorneys to do so if they want to, so the lack of communication is by their choice and not legally mandated.) I think we should wait until next week to see if there's any further response from WMF, and if there is not or that response is unsatisfactory, we'll need to discuss next steps at an RfC. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it had eroded completely. Beforehand I saw WMF (with $170+ million donation and almost zero labor cost for its main work) as an organization that will do its utmost to defend freedom of speech, but now I saw WMF is just looking to protect themselves. Letting three of our fellow editors to be attacked by a large news organization because of their edits (which is not vandalism!) showed WMF isn't the beacon of free speech. Today we gave up three of our fellow editors for ANI vs Wikipedia, what about next month if we got Trump Organization vs Wikipedia? What about next two months when we got Russian Today vs Wikipedia? Or the next three months when it is The Guardian vs Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia concede again? As I outlined before, the outrage from the community SHOULD be greater than WP:FRAM. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: I know you have some axe to grind with the WMF but you're totally wrong here. You should read the transparency reports; WMF is one of the best organizations when it comes to protecting user privacy, both by convincing people to not sue Wikipedians and then also standing up for them in court (I still remember when someone tried to subpoena my data; they didn't get it). Your read of the situation ("a wave of protest editing by the Indian diaspora and by the internet-savvy within India") seems entirely out of touch with what's actually happening in India.
Whatever may have been true in the past and whatever organisations you are comparing WMF with, this is kind of Exhibit A for its not being true that WMF protects editors' privacy. I admit the decision to cave in surprised me. I hadn't thought even the WMF would be so craven. While I'm editing here, it occurs to me that we need warning templates, immediately. Placed by a bot on all articles pertaining to India. Something like: Warning. Indian topic. The topic of this article pertains to India. Editors should be aware that editing this page in any way may lead to the Wikimedia Foundation disclosing your IP and other personally identifying information in response to a lawsuit in an Indian court. Readers should be aware that this article may be outdated or otherwise inaccurate, or in need of copyediting, because of good faith editors' reluctance to have their personal information revealed.—with a link on "disclosing your IP and other personally identifying information". If someone else has made a similar suggestion, I apologise. This whole thing makes me sick; I only came back to this discussion because I was pinged. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A warning banner for Indian topics is the bare minimum here - Wikipedia (the community) has a duty of care to its users and editors - if WMF has failed to protect its users and editors then it falls on the community here to provide that warning.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be located in the United States - outside Wikipedia we still got the First Amendment backing us up. Even if Wikipedia handed over your IP they will have to go to your ISP which may not honor such request. Even if both honor that request you can sue Wikipedia and your own ISP for infringing on your First Amendment. There are people like ACLU or EFF that may take your case pro-bono. The media will take your case - billions of dollars of Wikipedia donation will go away once your case went viral. And even if the case went to trial, the barrier of First Amendment is very hard to overcome. Any sane judge will threw the case out of the court and award you money. Bottom line - WMF will lose even if they handed out your data in US court. Not so in other country's court.
The question is why WMF acted correctly on your case but not on these three (possibly Indian) editors? I hate to "wonder" but the cost of handing over the data in India might be smaller than the cost of getting out of India. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More detailed coverage
In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India’s tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice. During the trial, Wikimedia did something that it reportedly hasn’t done anywhere else in the world. It took down an English article after the Delhi High Court ordered. And now, it has even agreed to disclose the basic subscriber information about the users who wrote or edited ANI’s Wikipedia page in a sealed cover to the court.
Too early for something more elaborate as there is a lot we don't know, but maybe it's worth signing on to a really basic statement of principles on behalf of the English Wikipedia community. Perhaps something like this:
In response to the ongoing case Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation in India, during which the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the release of Wikipedia contributors' personally identifying information under a "sealed cover" and removed a Wikipedia article about the case itself, the community sets forth the following principle: In cases where defamation or non-criminal lawsuits are filed concerning the content of Wikipedia's articles, the Wikimedia Foundation should refrain from releasing any personally identifying information about users whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies, under a "sealed cover" or otherwise. The community expresses deep concerns about the precedent doing so would set, allowing governments, companies, and individuals to use legal mechanisms to intimidate or penalize good-faith contributors engaged in advancing free access to knowledge. Preserving the safety and privacy of the volunteers who make Wikipedia possible is of existential importance, and no cost is too great to uphold this commitment.
I'm not sure what you're asking for, is it that the WMF should just not follow the law and court orders? "no cost is too great to uphold this commitment" sounds really nice, but I don't think that's actually true. I say that as someone who is as pro-free speech as they get, but Wikipedia is not somehow above the laws of countries, and saying you've complied with "Wikipedia's policies" isn't really a substitute for actual defamation law.
It's worth pointing out that Wikipedians have already made it clear that privacy is not the absolute most important thing given our de facto ban on VPNs that was mentioned above. Fixing that seems like a better stand to take first. Legoktm (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the WMF should just not follow the law and court orders? – If the WMF's headquarters is outside the jurisdiction of that law, and the court order would involve divulging the personally identifying information of editors? Then yes, that's exactly what we want. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the proposed statement says though, it says nothing about jurisdiction. Moreover, pretending that the WMF or even Wikipedians only have legal exposure in the US is ridiculous, we've already seen Wikipedians get arrested in France and Saudi Arabia. Why is the WMF spending time complying with the EU's Digital Services Act? And so on.
I won't pretend that I know what's the right course of action here, I do think y'all are jumping down the WMF's throat without realizing that this is part of a bigger picture and the answer isn't as simple as "just ignore the Indian government". Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF cannot control whether some governments want to arrest editors. But they can certainly refuse to help those governments do it. And since WMF is not an Indian organization, it really is as simple as "Pull any WMF assets out of India, and then ignore the Indian government." SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide what "bigger picture" you think WMF is pursuing by sacrificing three of our fellow editors to Indian court of law? If WMF sacrificed three of our editors today, what will keep them from sacrificing Chinese or Russian editors next? What will keep them from sacrificing editors from Belarus, Georgia, or Moldova? Or what will keep them from sacrificing American editors? I am quite sure those three editors that are scared for their lives today will prefer WMF to be blocked in India rather than facing the biggest media company on some trial. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: I had a bit about jurisdiction/countries in there, because yes at the end of the day they'd be in a very different position in the US, but I removed it to aim for a general principle. The intended subtext is basically: "We would prefer you risk being blocked in a country that demands you betray volunteers' privacy for actions in accordance with our mission and policies." — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to whom. I assume "in a sealed cover" means only the judges can see it for the moment, but I wonder under what circumstances they could disclose it to the plaintiff and how likely that is. Nardog (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites: The Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the release of Wikipedia contributors' personally identifying information under a "sealed cover". I would not be confident in saying that based on the information available to us. There are also statements above which would tend to contradict. fiveby(zero) 15:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the phrase 'whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies'. If someone violates Wikipedia policies, they can be blocked or banned, but they do not forfeit their expectation of privacy. PRicoNMI (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki for Human Rights is organizing a call for South Asia, East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific communities to discuss the Future of WikiForHumanRights on October 24 at 10 UTC.
Campaign Events tool: a call with the Indonesian communities will be hosted on October 25.
Tech News: In issue 2024/42, read about the removal of the Structured Discussion extension (also known as Flow), work on making text searches easier, and more. In issue 2024/43, read about improvements to mobile app navigation, temporary accounts pilot details, the Content Discovery Experiments, and more updates.
MediaWiki: The latest monthly MediaWiki Product Insights newsletter is available and include updates on Wikimedia’s authentication system, research to simplify feature development in the MediaWiki platform, and more.
CampaignEvents extension: The CampaignEvents extension provides tools to create, manage, and promote collaborative activities on the wikis, such as edit-a-thons, meetups, and more. You can visit the Deployment page to learn how to get the extension on your wiki.
New Content Translation feature: Translators using Content Translation on wikis with mobile support can now customize their article suggestions with 41 filtering options. This feature helps translators find relevant articles based on their interests for translation.
Temporary Accounts: Temporary accounts will begin rolling out on October 29 to production wikis with an aim to do a complete deployment by May 2025. You can see the deployment plan and timeline on the project page. As we rollout this change, it is likely that some tools (gadgets, user scripts, templates and bots) will be impacted by it. We have a developer FAQto help developers with making necessary changes to their maintained tool(s). Please let us know on our talk page if you have any tool in mind that may need updating or if you need help with updating your maintained tools.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
I know this will be completely ignored especially considering corporations who don’t care at all about user’s privacy like Google but I will say this anyway. I want all the edits I have made reverted. I want everything I have added onto Wikipedia removed.
I believe it is my right to privacy and just as people are allowed to add content to Wikipedia they should also be allowed to remove content they have added. 92.9.187.249 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you edited Wikipedia in the past, you were informed in writing with each individual edit that you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. That was a legally binding agreement that you accepted with each edit. Accordingly, you have no such right and no basis for making this request. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. The good old terms and services trick. Well, I am not surprised. Well then, you continue editing Wikipedia if it makes you feel good but as for me well I am getting out of what I consider a digital rubbish can set on fire. With that being said safe travels fellow internet surfers. This is me finally signing off from this site once and for all! 92.9.187.249 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "trick". It is a legal agreement that you voluntarily entered into every time you made an edit, and it is essential to the success of the #7 website on earth, with page views exceeding ten billion per month. I hope that you find a hobby that will be more satisfying to you. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to minimize the licensing issue, but there's also a practical side to this. Let's say you created an article some time ago and over the ensuing years, multiple people continued to edit it. A good example from my own editing might be The Lincoln Project. I created it four years ago but at this point only 7% of the text is mine. Even assuming we wanted to revert everything I wrote, how could we possibly unravel that and leave anything coherent? RoySmith(talk)23:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This being an IP address, we have no way of knowing who was editing from it when past edits were made. For all we know, the person making this request only just gained access to this IP address today, and is actually asking us to remove someone else's work. BD2412T01:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the IP regrets not the edits, but the fact of not logging in (and thus exposing the IP address). I clicked through a handful of edits, and they seem to be quite ordinary, with no obvious privacy implications (e.g., punctuation fix). If hiding the IP address is what's actually wanted here, then it is conceivably possible that this could be accomplished somehow (e.g., Wikipedia:Revision deletion) without actually removing the content itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the IP was upset because of this filter action; OhNoitsJamie almost immediately implemented the IP's changes, but perhaps the IP did not notice this? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇04:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting problem in that the inability to apply the 'right to disappear' might be a problem for EU editors. Reverting 360 edits is trivial compared to some 'right to disappear' actions needed; for instance, a person participating in a Clinical Trial asking that all information about them be removed from all databases - completely non-trivial, and completely doable via approved procedures at pharma companies. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that you agreed to this. If you want everything reverted, why did you add it in the first place? I am agreeing to the following terms by sending this message:
By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Which means that once it is put, you can't take it back, the word irrevocably in the legal terms is what is stopping you. Also, you have an IP address instead of an account, which means that again, you may be removing hundreds of people's work, and they might actually want that. Hellow Hellow i am here16:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even when people agree to something, they sometimes come to regret it later. That's okay. They're stuck with (most of) it in this case, but it's okay for them to be sorry about their past decisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If "irrevocably" wasn't in the legally binding contract, I would be on their side. However, it is, and so once you have added it it is too late to remove. Hellow Hellow i am here17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And while if a company has your personal information they must delete it at your request, you gave the Wikimedia Foundation no personal information, and instead research, or fixed typos. To follow up, it is ridiculously hard to undo your edits if someone already edited over your edits. Hellow Hellow i am here16:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, this IP address has created several articles, which would be deleted (the creation of an article is an edit) which means that every created article by this IP address would be deleted, which is something us Wikipedians won't accept. Hellow Hellow i am here17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's request as originally worded violates Wikipedia's Terms of Use and would be pragmatically impossible to implement in general for reasons others have pointed out. But it is interesting to explore how far their request could accomplished, especially in light of the GDPR. There's a page at Mediawiki:GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and MediaWiki software that discusses some of the issues related to deleting a user's contributions and their IP addresses. A hyper-liberal interpretation of the GDPR and what private data means would make using Wikipedia impossible. For example, the OP's interpretation where all content they've added somehow involves their privacy is absurd: a typo fix in an article, for example, does not have anything to do with privacy and is not private data. WhatamIdoing's suggestion that their IP address be hidden in histories, etc., is reasonable and doable. But this redaction cannot reasonably for practical purposes extend to mere mentions of your IP address everywhere, for example, in comments by others. And the comments that we don't know if the same person made all the IP edits is a good one. Imagine if a handful of our most active editors decided to do what the OP wants, it would eviscerate Wikipedia. I am not versed in EU law but would surely hope the nature of collaborative websites are factored in to how the GDPR is interpreted by the courts and some technical common sense would prevail. Plus, I don't see how a GDPR right to disappear would overrule the legal agreement you made every time you made an edit. Without further clarification, we don't know what the OP wanted or why but it is an interesting topic to see how a "right to disappear" could actually be implemented and to what extent. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This month, the Wikimedia Foundation will be relaunching the Community Safety survey on your wiki. This survey occurred in 2021 and 2022 to monitor safety sentiments on large Wikipedias. The survey used the QuickSurveys extension. Users were asked one question: “In the past 30 days, have you felt unsafe or uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)?”
This year, we will be adding a second question to the survey. For those who answer “Yes” to having felt unsafe or uncomfortable, they will be asked to select or write in some reasons they have felt unsafe. Users may permanently dismiss the survey, otherwise, the survey will show up once each quarter to a random sample of logged in editors.
The goal is to use this anonymous survey to monitor users’ perception of safety as they contribute to Wikimedia projects. Data will be published on the Community Safety reports page for administrators and interested community members to review and support their own work. This project is led by the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team, with research support from the Research and Trust and Safety Product teams.
Arbitration committee 2024 election: nominations to start on November 3
The nomination period for the 2024 arbitration committee election will start on November 3. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to talk to them now, well in advance of the election. For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to move it where you will; I don't particularly see rewriting documentation as a technical issue, but if you do please feel free to pursue this as you wish. - Jmabel | Talk02:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and removed that section. I don't think it's needed anymore. All modern browsers now show the printable version when you print the page, without having to us the "printable version" link --Chris07:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like the wiki software does consider and would treat this name as a non-existent and thus legitimate possible name of/for an account.
I do see two problems:
If now some one else/new would create a (second) account with this name, provided the wiki software would allow it, there would exist, via certain links, an old version with the same name.
In the history of all pages which were created or edited by this original account the original name of this account is existent, therefore this name must not be allowed a second time as an account name.
So, as I see this, something should be changed, probaly only on the technical ( not the rule ) side.
I remember, on advice from another admin, creating a doppelganger account on my old user name to prevent usurpation. My account was renamed in July 2008 (at least, that is when my user page was moved), but the current account with my old name was created in November 2009. That was a while ago. Donald Albury18:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That used to be common advice, before antispoof. It is still useful to at least have a redirect from pages in old signatures/lists to current pages. — xaosfluxTalk13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the notablity of this article and after approval then delete the speedy delete template
Hello dear Wikipedians. This article (Najmeddin Shariati) was created once before in an unprincipled manner and without citing reliable references. For this reason, it was deleted under the title of not notablity and fame with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But this time I created it with basic editing and citing more than 20 reliable references from official Iranian news agencies (Because this person is Iranian) that independently covered the news of this person. Please review this article and its references and after approval, delete the speedy deletion template. This person's article is available in Persian Wikipedia, and its notablity and fame was confirmed by the administrators and editors of Persian Wikipedia according to the reliable sources mentioned in it. If you think this is a stub article. Add the stub template to it and let it stay. The final decision is yours. very thanks 4ipid (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe, Have you considered the value of a custom reason in these cases? The draft now has two identical messages at the top, neither of which says anything about interviews. (Interviews are usually reliable; the point of WP:Interviews is that when the subject is being interviewed about himself, his answers – but not the introduction, questions, or other content that came out of someone else's mouth – isn't independent. If you are interested in this subject, then feel free to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Can we please settle on some guidance for interviews?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding copyright, spoiler, summary
In Japan, police in Miyagi prefecture recently arrested members of a company which post spoiler of copyrighted shows onto the company's website, and try to earn ad revenue.
Copyright holders and interest groups claim they permissionlessly transcribed character names, dialogue, actions, scenes, and plot which reveal the whole view of the story to an extent beyond quotation and is obvious copyright violation, damaging rhe right of copyright holders as it will lower the desore of people paying proper price for the content and lead to people not actually watching the movie itself.
Given that while Wikipedia is a nonprofit site, and sunmaries of fictional works on Wikipedia usually wouldn't include direct quotation of dialogue of characters inside performance, many such articles still include very extensive summary on full plots of the fictional works they are describing, and all content published on Wikipedia unless otherwise specific should be reusable for profit, is there any risks that summary section of articles currently included in Wikipedia could be deemed copyright violation? C933103 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The law is quite clear in making a distinction between plot summaries (even including spoilers) and the like, and actual copyright violations such as extensive transcriptions of dialogue. We are at no risk. --Orange Mike | Talk12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103, I would prefer that articles included "full plots of the fictional works" but not "very extensive summaries". When I run across them, I try to take a minute or two to remove overly detailed content.
That said, what I really dislike, and what might actually be a copyvio problem, is a "plot summary" that is just a word-for-word copy of the publisher's marketing blurb. They're unlikely to complain (free advertising!), but it's IMO a disservice to the reader, and would be IMO undesirable even if the publisher had formally dedicated that text to the public domain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on the first point, often a more concise plot summary that succintly outlines the work's story is a lot more useful than something that is painful to read since it's weighed down with details only superfans are interested in.
That is what I would like to believe that the law is clear enough, but screenshot provided by relevant party (which is censored so text cannot be read) seems to indicate the website they arrest the operator this time do not actually publish dialogues of the original work line by line, instead look like a prose style description of the original work. So I am not sure about the degree of violation on that website that lead to the conclusion of that website is considered a transcription of original work and thus copyvio. C933103 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most countries, ordinary copyright violations are a matter of civil law (i.e., not criminal), so the police aren't involved and nobody gets arrested. However, it is sometimes more complicated than that; for example, if someone breaks into a computer system to copy the author's original files (=a crime) and then posts them on the internet in violation of copyright law (=a civil tort), then the police could arrest the person for breaking into the computer system, but not for the copyright violation. Also, a creative lawyer could suggest others: perhaps the circumstances suggest fraud, or perhaps it's computer piracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done [3] jps (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Fixed here. --Ahecht (TALK
(which is just {{p}}). Upon some investigation I've found that it appears to be that a 
White
Silver
Blue
Pink
Gold
Red
Green
Skyblue
Purple
Turquoise
Black
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested § Warn on inline image usage. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Needs wider discussion but until then, {{EFR}}. The basis for this request is on one accidential removal of a colon. This seems more like something that might be raised at Phab if nothing else, but I don't think we need a filter to warn people to use 
Moved from WP:VPT
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
