I write here on advice of Sameboat - 同舟. I have posted this question on Jimbo's talk page as well. The matter started with the conversation on wikimedia-commons irc last Tuesday. You can read it. The people involved consented for the conversation to be made public. I am natbrown.

I was working on this page of my wiki http://wikitranslate.org/wiki/Russian_verbs_of_motion I had to find different images for Russian verbs of motion, so I was searching for "roll over" etc. That's how I found the file.

Have a look at this as well http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100228142216AAwVb6u The best answer to this question: "Does any one know how to complain to wikipedia? I am very disappointed by their service, who would i email/write to?" is:

• Did your child see some naughty image you wish they hadn't? Just add Wikipedia to the list of blocked sites on your net filter and have a talk with your child.

Is it what you want people to do? 60% voted for this answer.

I know that the ordinary teachers in the schools are not so computer literate. Many schools allow children to use Wikipedia at school. Facebook is banned. Youtube is banned. Shall Wikipedia be banned as well? When teachers work with the kids they have a lot to think about. They have to think more about kid’s welfare and not to be frightened that some images from Wikipedia would hurt the kids. I didn’t know that Wikipedia hosts such images, neither my husband did. He was as appalled about it as me, if not to say more. He couldn’t look at them; he can’t even speak about it. My case is that a lot of people even don’t know about it. So some teachers at schools think that Wikipedia is safe. As I can see now it’s not.

I don't think that it can be fixes in the "category system", they should be on a separate site, you may call it "Sexual Education Wikipedia", but it should be separate. I think that I have been harmed by the immages. I am over 50! What about a small child, a young girl or boy? I write for them, they can't write yet :) Some people who are very hurt can't write English at all, I can write in bad English, so I write for them I think that I these images shouldn't be in a different database. It's adult content. What should a school teacher do if a child in school will find such an image? What if this child is 8-9 years old and his parents had no chance to speak to him about the matter? We should give a chance to the parents to speak to the child first. Don't take this chance from the parents.

Me agument is that Wikipedia is a charity in many countries. A charity shouldn't hurt. If it hurts, it's not a charity. If you tell me that you do something good to me, but I know that you hurt me, I will tell you, thank you very much, I don't need it.

• Your policies don't reflect what general public expects from Wikipedia. I may not know what all your policies are about, I might not know all the English words you use to discribe your laws, but the image shows it all, you don't need to know so much words to understand it.
• I was personally hurt by Wikipedia's images. I didn't expect Wikipedia to have these kind of images. I was working on a lesson for a Russian students and was confronted by an "educational" video of a man masturbating. As you are surely aware children are able to use computers at a very early age, is this the type of "educational" material that Wikipedia wants them to be confronted by?
• Wikipedia is a charity and is supposed to work for public benefit http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_essentials/Public_benefit/default.aspx. I think that those images can make serious harm to your most vulnerable beneficiaries i.e. children and this is without question a very serious matter. I don't believe that these images are in any way for the public benefit and to say they educational is extraordinary. It could be argued that a porn site is educational but is that what Wikipedia hopes to become? I expected Wikipedia to have more integrity.

I have opened the group http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745 You have to be over 18 to join the group.

I will wait for the outcome of for this week's board meeting of Wikipedia in San Francisco and if the outcome is not satisfactory, I feel it my duty to contact both http://www.irs.gov and http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ about the matter. Natkabrown ( talk) 10:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this makes a very good point for expanding WP:Schools and giving more visibility to General disclaimer and Parental Advisory. If this woman couldn't find the advice, she has a point that it should be easier to find it, since Wikipedia policies about questionable content are not obvious and diverge greatly from other generalist public sites. The content guidelines are not going to change, but we should strive to make people using Wikipedia more aware of them. Diego ( talk) 11:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What you are calling "pornography" is not actually pornography, as was pointed out in that IRC conversation. There is already a discussion about personalized image filtering. Wikipedia (or to be precise Wikimedia Commons) won't change their policies, because it is impossible to cater to what different people find offensive. The best is to wait out until WMF rolls out content filtering. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 15:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I support self censoring and the ability for schools to do the same. People are going to see images they don't think are appropriate otherwise and many get into a tizzy like this one. It is not right to shock people if one can avoid doing so, and yet on the other hand education will always involve things that shock some people, so we need better controls so people only get this sort of thing if they are ready for it. Dmcq ( talk) 15:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised at the cavaliar way natbrown's concerns are being treated. The truth is that Wikimedia has far too many entirely unnecessary pornographic images that add nothing to the reputation and credibility of Wikipedia. It's out of control and needs to be gripped. I don't buy the arguments that there is porn elsewhere on the internet or that it's impossible to cater for what people find offensive. Porn has no place in a reputable encyclopaedia and it is possible to set a standard that most people would find acceptable. That's what governments do all the time, tough though it is. However, the dominance of male editors on Wikipedia (I am one BTW) probably doesn't help in reining this in to a sensible level. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to take a step back and address the definition of "pornography" before your comment can mean anything here; the comment that yours follows already questioned its application to the image being complained about, as would I. I don't think it's a helpful label anyway, so perhaps you could specify what you mean: any image containing nudity? Any image regarding human sexuality? Or something narrower? postdlf ( talk) 20:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to define it at all - by your response clearly understood the subject area. Whether we call it porn or something else we need to draw a line somewhere that is acceptable to the majority of our readers and, I would say, is sensitive to those who are vulnerable like children. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 07:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need to define pornography (and I think that was Postdlf's point too, that any definition will be lousy). What you failed to understand is that we have drawn a line already, it is just not where you want it to be. And how exactly do you propose to determine what is acceptable to the majority of readers? Maybe through a reasoned debate where anyone interested can participate? (wink, wink). Diego ( talk) 08:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been done to death on Commons already, and with no clear consensus achieved. You can all start reading if you want to see all the arguments pro and con. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 20:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

natbrown, what you are seeking is parental controls. There is an Wikipedia article on that matter, which include external links with guides that explain how you can do this on your computer. Many schools for 8 year old kids are already using those, and if your school are not blocking the offending images already, you should only need to inform your schools administration of the specific images in question. By using personal blocks you can remove what is offensive to you without having to change the opinion of the whole Wikipedia community. Belorn ( talk) 09:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Except for, these don't work: a) if you don't expect objectionable content, you won't see a need to filter. There is no way of knowing that stuff like this could be found on wikipedia when the warning link is small-print at the bottom for hardly anyone to see. b) personal filters need to be customized, e.g. you need to look at an image, mark it for filtering, then it works. But then you've already looked at the image. So you need to see an image in order not to see it again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone do not whant to do this themself because it is too much work, then there are companies that sells this as a service. Its like a car, you can either assemble one yourself, or you can go to your nearest car seller and buy one. There is always 3 options in cases like this, a) you can walk (ignore the images), b) spend money and buy a car (buying a service that protect you from offensive images), or third try to change the world like demand free transportation from the goverment (in this case, ask wikipedia to self-censure). Belorn ( talk) 14:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yepp. Option 3 is the goal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Break - debating editors behavior around the proposal

Hm, "I will wait for the outcome of for this week's board meeting of Wikipedia in San Francisco and if the outcome is not satisfactory, I feel it my duty to contact both http://www.irs.gov and http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ about the matter". Is that supposed to be a legal threat? Also Wikipedia is not censored. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you we shouldn't bite newcomers and contacting the government is not a legal threat. Diego ( talk) 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on where the supposed biting took place? -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 12:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously chilling speech, which is the prime reason we have WP:NLT. If Nataka persists in such rhetoric, a block per NLT would be appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 13:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer at Saddhiyama talk page to not derail this thread by commenting on editors behavior. I'll ask you to continue there to avoid any likely biting. Diego ( talk) 13:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys are acting like morons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Here's how: No matter what the policies are or say, here is someone approaching you with a very legitimate concern. No matter how "firm" you think your response should be, you need to step away and look at your own behavior. You are right now the face of wikipedia to someone. And all you can do is slap some policies around and talk in coded abbreviations, and the first answer is basically, "we're not gonna do anything about your complaint, you are some stupid old fart, go away". Has anyone here got any clue about public relations? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect most editors have a clue about editing articles, which is after all the real face of Wikipedia, and not much about public relations (and rightly so). -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe then most people shouldn't be responding to concerns like these. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If such concerns entails a serious risk of influencing the articles in a very negative way, then yes, everybody should respond to them. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 14:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If they have no clue on how to answer the concerns properly, then they should not. ANd you just said that most people here indeed do not have a clue how to answer properly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree if they have no clue on how to answer concerns properly, then they should not. But that has nothing to do with public relations. A reply that raises the issue of the possible implications on this encyclopedia of a posed request is indeed a proper answer. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 14:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't even know the difference between proper and correct then we can't even talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I believe we do keep sexual material that is unlikely to be of any educational use. Some of it is truly embarrassing – stuff like this ( permalink). (Note the OTRS ticket from a schoolteacher that sparked the deletion discussion.) Secondly, there should be a filter. If I am searching Commons for "drinking", the first search result should not be a photograph of a porn performer drinking her urine. If I search Commons for images of a toothbrush, my third search result should not be one of a toothbrush used for masturbating. People like Natka should not be coming across stuff like this by accident. This is a known problem; for more examples, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems -- J N 466 09:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The useabillity of the search function should be improved. Sites like StackOverflow uses tags to help steer the search results, and commons might be able to use categories for the same use. Belorn ( talk) 10:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • One thing that became clear in the earlier image filter discussions is that there will be no category-based tagging system. -- J N 466 06:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• I believe any pictures which could reasonably be claimed as offensive should have a valid educational use, and the way to show a valid educational use is by having a reliable secondary source mentioning them or an article using them (and they should have cites anyway). We shouldn't be keeping pictures just because people say they are educational without any sort of proof whatsoever, In English Wikipedia terms we should remove offensive original research from commons. There will be plenty enough left to offend people like the OP but some stuff that is just stupid vandalism is being kept because there aren't straightforward ways of deciding if something is educational. Dmcq ( talk) 11:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, Commons does not prohibit original research. The English Wikipedia is not able to impose our local policies on separate projects. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But you still have the non-trivial problem of defining what could reasonably be claimed as offensive. Your suggestion would end either in most images being required to prove educational content, or introducing another systemic bias for the majority culture of active editors at any point. An it still doesn't solve the problem of people finding offensive images with an educational content, so what would that be good for?. Diego ( talk) 12:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

the systematic bias-thing is complete nonsense. There is no culture on earth where jerking off in public without restrictions is accepted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice trolling Continuum fallacy. How about showing breasts in public? Diego ( talk) 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

See thread-heading and stay on topic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment is on topic. As I explained above, you can either select the criteria of one particular culture, which is systematic bias, or you can merge all criteria from all cultures, which could potentially open most of the images to censoring. What do you mean by thread-heading? Diego ( talk) 14:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The thread heading asks about a man masturbating. There's nothing about breasts in it. And considering what's unacceptable in all cultures actually narrows it down to a very small number of images to be discussed, not all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering what's unacceptable in all cultures doesn't solve the thread heading problem, which is finding images unacceptable in the particular culture of each reader. Diego ( talk) 15:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No. This is indeed about what's unacceptable in all cultures. But we can't even talk about that without having the "Oh fuck! Censorship!!!"-crowd cry doomsday. This is absurd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The actual proposal you are replying to specifies "any pictures which could reasonably be claimed as offensive", not just male masturbation. And since you want to limit censorship to images "unacceptable in all cultures" (rather than in any culture), I note you've also not submitted any evidence that images of masturbation actually are offensive in all cultures. Masturbation#Rites of passage discusses some cultures where children are encouraged to masturbate and public masturbation is used as a rite of passage into adulthood; I wonder whether videos of masturbation would be offensive to them. Anomie ⚔ 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. Go to Papua New Guinea, film the ritual, upload it. That's educational. Not some random dude jerking off for the sake of... iuno. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the case. There is a big difference regarding personal public actions and published information (the difference between you actually "yanking out your hard cock" and published pictures of someone doing the same). By your equation of the two you basically restrict information on Wikipedia to what is socially acceptable ("in all the cultures of the world" no less) when two persons meet each other, and seriously diminishing the scope of Wikipedia. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to change your proposal from "unacceptable in all cultures" to "must be educational", please do so clearly. As it is, your reply seems to be a non sequitur. Anomie ⚔ 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. Anything must be included and slapped onto people's screen without proper warning. And the only reason why kiddie-porn is not allowed is because it's illegal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• • For Wikipedia, yes, sexual material should be for educational purposes. However, the OP was upset about files on Wikimedia Commons, which hosts any free file people want to upload. I'm not going to push for modesty limits on Commons, and I doubt the WMF is going to approve of such a thing. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As by Commons:Scope, files need to be educational, with educational being defined as: "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Reading further in that article, espacially the section that talks about pornographic images I think its quite clear that removing all pornographic material would work against the goal of the wikicommons project. Belorn ( talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Commons files also need to be educational and there is quite a lot of educational material that people consider pornographic or offensive for other reasons, e.g. promoting bigotry or showing how to make weapons or poking ridicule at revered figures or a whole host of other reasons. Commons is not a general photographic library. There is no culture bias is requiring some citation showing why a particular type of photograph is educational and deletions are covered by a deletion discussion as on Wikipedia. What I'm saying is the subject of anything in Commons should be verifiable as of direct relevance to a notable topic. There is a culture bias in that the computers are operated in America so the requirements should be applied more stringently for those things that might cause trouble with the law there but I don't think overall that would be a large bias. Dmcq ( talk) 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you have File:Tutnum2.jpg on your userpage. That has no direct relevance to any notable topic. Nor do many of the images in commons:Category:Icons, for that matter. OTOH, an image of a man masturbating could be considered to have direct relevance to our article on Masturbation. Anomie ⚔ 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons files do not have to be of direct relevance to a topic. They merely have to "provide knowledge" or "be informative," which can be as simple as an image of a flower in a field. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 16:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a special dispensation in commons for some images used in the development of the various projects in Wikipedia plus as they say a long standing one allowing people to put in an non-educational image for example a picture of themselves for use on their user page. Dmcq ( talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The link to the commons scope should e commons:Commons:Project scope. Aside from those exceptions files there it specifies "Any file that is realistically useful for an educational purpose, which means that it is broadly speaking "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Being used in an article is evidence of being educational, otherwise evidence of an image being educational if it isn't obvious may be required. An image of a flower in a field may or may not be retained, even though one flower in a field is used in an article it does not mean all pictures of flowers in fields are educational and must be kept. Dmcq ( talk) 23:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: RTV users are to be treated as banned users

Alternate alternate proposal: RTV users are blocked

Not sure how I feel about this concept as a whole, but it's worth it to float something a bit less complicated than Sven's proposals. So, another possibility:

1. Editors who RTV are granted the privilege and renamed. Username is blocked.
2. Returning RTV users are expected to reclaim their old account through standard channels, including re-adopting their old username and/or very clearly linking the old account with the new one.
3. Returning RTV users who return without identifying themselves, either to the community (standard) or to arbcom (privacy/safety-related) are considered to be evading a block, and dealt with in the standard manner the community uses for block evasion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as easy and obvious rules, but I prefer "User is blocked." rather than "Username is blocked." Bulwersator ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons noted above. I see no reason why vanished users should, in general, be treated differently from those who retire without vanishing. If a productive editor vanishes, then returns a couple of years later intending to continue editing productively (either openly or under WP:CLEANSTART), why not let them? If there are existing blocks or other sanctions, of course these should continue to apply - but that goes regardless of whether the editor is vanished or just retired. Pfainuk talk 19:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  If you vanish, it becomes harder to find the old account, and thus harder to identify patterns of abuse. If someone who is vanished wants to come back under a new name, that's possible. First, they make a request that the old account is unvanished. Then, they leave the old account to rot and come back under a cleanstart. That's perfectly legal, you just can't skip the step of unvanishing the old account. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: I will note that it is unofficial practice that if someone has their account renamed to a random string of characters per RTV and then resumes editing, a crat (or admin) will usually block their account until they agree to a rename or to stay RTV'd. MBisanz ^talk 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  I would support this unofficial bureaucrat practice to become codified into a guideline. (Isn't "common practice" how most guidelines are initially adopted anyway? : ) - jc37 20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm happy with that - random strings of characters aren't permitted as user names with good reason - but presumably this does not still apply if the editor comes back under WP:CLEANSTART or through a new account with full disclosure? Pfainuk talk 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support At least in spirit, even if to simply acknowledge that RTV and CLEANSTART are incompatible. A user can do one or the other, but should not be entitled to both. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Tentative support A better proposal than the other two. I like #1, #2 is doable for normal situations if a good privacy workaround is in place for those who leave due to harassment, #3 may need some refinement to not be too big of a bat. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a common-sense approach with deals with returning users using existing channels and principles.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support returning vanished editors should, at the very least, inform ArbCom of their return. It would definitely limit problems in the future. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support This option seems to be reasonable. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose With same concerns as above. Knee-jerk solutions do not work, and generally are more deleterious than the problem they are itended to solve. Collect ( talk) 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I note that RTV is supposed to apply only to users (a) in good standing - a banned user is not in good standing -- and that include changing username (b) "courtesy vanishing applies only to cases of permanent departure" -- Iantresman ( talk) 08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support.  Sandstein  12:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose there are plenty of RTV editors who would be an asset if they returned. We need to differentiate between people who we don't want back and those who we would welcome. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, and the steps as I outlined them allow a route back for returning RTV users. They do not, however, allow for returning RTV users who attempt to CLEANSTART while still under RTV (as per our RTV guidelines, "It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity" - one can either vanish or have a clean start, not both concurrently). The goal here is to prevent RTVers using RTV as a extra-powerful version of clean start that lets them not only obtain a new identity, but also erase the old one from record. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 20:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Unless the user talkpages have been deleted there is little practical difference between someone exercising RTV and someone getting a username change and then exercising Cleanstart. In particular if vanished user ***** starts editing it is extremely obvious that they are a returned user, and if they haven't already requested it hopefully the first admin to pass by will check that their talkpage has been restored. By contrast if user:random new name turns up and starts editing productively it is not always obvious that they are a returning user or a completely new one. So blocking the vanished account achieves nothing meaningful or useful. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sigh... talk pages really shouldn't be deleted in the first place, per Wikipedia:RTV#Deletion of user talk pages. And yes, there is a massive difference, RTV is the active hiding of the user; it becomes noticeably harder to search for the user's old contributions because in most cases the user is moved without a redirect. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Fluffernutter gets to what I was going for, albeit in a way that's more diluted than I'd like. I still think that it leaves open a window of choice, the "expected to", and that if you give any room for the process to be screwed up or abused, it's going to happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support RTV was always intended as a way for a user to make a total break from Wikipedia; WP:CLEANSTART is for those who want to continue editing Wikipedia without the baggage (exempting abusive behavior) associated with their current account. Using RTV to avoid scrutiny is effectively socking, and should not be tolerated. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose While I agree with point 1, and have been doing so for a long time when implementing RtV, I disagree with the latter two points. As I have stated elsewhere, I do firmly believe that an RtV means a complete and total withdrawal from Wikipedia, with no intent to return. I happen to believe that it is used too frequently, and retirement and courtesy blanking of talk pages should be offered much more frequently. Regardless, I appreciate the fact that after months or years, people may change their mind. The way points 2 and 3 are worded now, they prevent someone from turning over a new leaf by forcing the person to re-link the account, regardless of how much time has passed and how much the person may have changed. Having been burnt by implementing RtV, being assured that the person was truly leaving, and having them come back within a few months, if not weeks, I understand, sympathize, and empathize with the frustration that many of us feel here, in that RtV is being abused. However, I also (perhaps naïvely) believe that people are more good than bad, and should be afforded opportunities to demonstrate growth and maturity. What I would rather see is some measure of the following:
  • RtV be made more difficult (but not impossible) to implement, with retirement/userspace deletion/user talk blanking be the preferred option.
  • Someone who insists on RtV must be made to realize that it is intended to be permanent, and that violation of that understanding may be met with linking to the previous account without recourse.
  • Renamed user account is blocked as a matter of course (Vanished users are not supposed to be editing).
  • Return of the editor before a significant amount of time (six months, a year, both of those pretty much eternities in cyberspace) will be met with the choice of "undoing" the RtV, if even by openly linking the former and subsequent accounts. Refusal is met by indefinite blocking. Accounts may be linked after block.
  • A user who regrets the vanishing may appeal to ArbCom at any time prior to returning, and accept some form of "undoing" the vanishing. This should act as some deterrent to abuse of RtV whilst allowing those who have truly changed their minds to resume editing Wikipedia. No user rights are to be restored. This is not the resuscitation of the old account; this is a new account which is required to take the name of a retired account so that continuity of behavior and style can be maintained.
  • A user who regrets the vanishing after a significant amount of time e (six months, a year, to be determined) should be allowed WP:CLEANSTART in that they can start a new account. If they manage to edit for a reasonable length of time without being "linked" to the original account, they have ipso facto demonstrated a significant change in their behavior and should not be forced to link the old account for no reason other than they are returned users.

  Obviously, there is much which can be improved in the above, but I think it better than the suggestion here. Also, as always, I reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by valid and persuasive arguments. -- Avi ( talk) 04:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - pretty much per Avi and WSC above. — Ched :  ?  10:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per Avi's description of RTV as a self-ban on ArbCom page. A good side effect of this proposal is that users who "unvanish" using another account would be clearly engaging in WP:BLOCKEVASION, so actionable. On the other hand, self-bans are not community bans, so for the peace of mind, I propose adding the text from the following section. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 19:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is built upon anonymity. The only time that we really need to know about the return of a person is 1) if they left under a cloud and 2) if they run for adminship or another position on WP. If they run for something there needs to be disclosure. I mean face it, how many of us haven't considered dropping off wikipedia with thoughts to return with a CLEANSTART? I would even go so far as to say if the new account is created 2 years after the old one was retired, that it can be evaluated on its own merits with no disclosure required.--- Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Are you opposing the Alternate alternate, the clarification, or both? :) I think that there may need to be some refactoring. May I trouble you to comment on my suggestion above? -- Avi ( talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed it was in the wrong place. Moved.--- Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification proposal

“

If the vanished user changes their mind, any administrator may unblock the vanished user upon their request, provided that the deleted talk pages and log entries are restored. The unvanished user need not necessarily be renamed back, however redirects should normally be added from the old account to the new account and treated as normal username change thereafter. Note that unvanishing allows the user to later proceed to a WP:CLEANSTART if they so desire and abandon the unvanished account. What is rescinded upon unvanishing is the promise to never return; a "clean start" does not guarantee that old and new account won't be connected, particularly if their behavior and interests turn out similar.

”

Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Any user can have their userpage deleted on request, the only extra deletions re RTV are that sometimes we delete the usertalkpage, and obviously if that has been deleted then it needs to be restored when an RTV ends. I'm not sure what logs if any are deleted in a RTV scenario. Ϣere SpielChequers 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point about WP:CSD#U1 being available in non-RtV situations, so I've added the word "talk" to clarify that it's referring to "deleted talk pages". As for the log stuff, I vaguely remember from a discussion on a particular user that the user rename log entries are suppressed as well on RtV. I could be wrong about that. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 04:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The way I understand it (and the way I have acted) is that it is up to the discretion of the bureaucrat and whether they think the circumstance warrants revdeleting (and in cases of danger, potentially contacting the oversight team) the log actions as well. -- Avi ( talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support seems reasonable. Protects from abuse and still allows users to vanish/reappear within fair parameters. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the WP:Publicity photos page is inactive and only retained for historical reference, several current policy articles link to it. It seems that the pages that link to it (and probably their content) should be changed, but I do not have the time to do this. Is there a specific project that takes care of this sort of thing that I could request addresses links to the Publicity photos page? Thank you. — Zach425  ^talk/ contribs 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) The Wikimedia Foundation has an issue with which it could really use some help. It occasionally gets letters from trademark owners who are unhappy about the way their trademarks are represented on Wikipedia. I have never really in my volunteer role worked much with trademark questions, and the only guideline I know of dealing with trademarked terms and how to handle them is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. What I haven't been able to find is any guidance on determining when a trademark has been genericized, or what to do when a term is assumed to be generic but is also trademarked. (For a few examples taken from the List of generic and genericized trademarks: Dumpster, Rollerblade, Frisbee. These are not examples of products about which we've been contacted, just of some trademarks that according to that list are or may be in danger of becoming generic.)

Does anybody know if there is a policy or guideline anywhere setting this out? Or has this not been settled? If there isn't a guideline or policy on it, any chance the community might be able to create one and that some very kind person might spearhead that? :D Not only would it be good for editors to know how to write about these (potentially) trademarked items, but would give the Foundation something to point to when trademark claimants contact them with concerns about articles on Wikipedia to say "This is their practice on determining/discussing this, and this is why your product does (or does not) meet their definition." -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have anything close to that, and as far as I know, the only entities that can determine when a trademark has gone generic is the various legal systems. The problem is that often in reliable sourcing there were be implicit generalization of trademarks (how many times have you seen "photoshopped" without the Adobe mark?) even though there's yet to be a legal affirmation the term's been generalized.

What would make the most sense is to create a new guideline (perhaps policy?) on trademark generalization, and provide a casebook of specific examples (possibly figuring out how to work in the second table of List of generic and genericized trademarks) that we as WPians should avoid in editing, incorporating any specific trademark complains the Foundation has received. WP itself should not be in the act of promoting generalized trademarks that have not be affirmed to be generalized by courts. -- MASEM ( t) 14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What does wikimedia's legal bod have to say on this? I vaguely (and possibly incorrectly) recall that trademark holders have to defend their trademark or face losing it, which might explain some of the letters. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not as far as I know misusing the trademarks. By way of example, if we were selling throwable disks and calling them frisbees, we'd be in trouble. If we merely (from the POV of the trademark holder) misapply their trademark, we're doing no more than reflecting the common parlance. The mark is only protected in the matter of trade; and we are not trading in whichever domain the trademark exists; and so on this basis, I'd make a starting assertion that we don't have a problem, even if the trademark holder does. (That's not to say that some policy or guidance would not be welcome, but merely to speculate on what the guidance might be.) -- Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's more the issue of using a trademarked term to describe a broader class of products inappropriately, that the WMF is concerned about, as opposed to using a trademarked term about a company or its products in a competing way. That is, if we have articles that say "Red eye in digital photos can be photoshopped out", we likely should be changing that to "Red eye in digital photos can be removed with a digital photo editor program." If WMF is getting letters about trademark misuse, we obviously should abide by that, barring the exceptional case (eg we have a section on "photoshopping" on the Photoshop page due to the colloquial use of that term, so we have to mention it in that context). -- MASEM ( t) 14:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that what they're hoping for is simply a clearer statement of how the community might determine these things. To pick a pretty obvious case, kerosene. Thoroughly genericized trademark, and treated that way in the article. Band-Aid is treated like a kind of hybrid; the trademark is first, and reference to genericization (is that a word?) is second. Clorox is treated solely like a Trademark. Does the community require a reliable source to indicate that the term is being used generically? Examples of its being used generically?

What with the whole "non-disclosure agreement", I can't discuss specifics that haven't been publicized as to people contacting us, but I do know of a case on Wiktionary that has been disclosed: wiktionary:pycnogenol. The owners of the trademarked version of the drug were unhappy with the article, but there are plenty of examples now in the definition of the use in its generic form, which is what Wiktionary looks for. Since WMF does not control content, being able to say to somebody like that contacting us about an article on Wikipedia, "This is the community's practice here" would be helpful, in the same that being able to tell subjects of biographies about WP:BLP is helpful. Obviously, though, the latter is far more frequent. :D -- Maggie Dennis (WMF) ( talk) 15:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(Trademark attorney hat on) If we avoid using genericised trademarks, it should be because such terms are unencyclopedically informal, not because someone is sending us letters. We have no legal obligation to avoid using genericized terms, but we have an editorial obligation to our readers to avoid confusing them by carelessly implying that Photoshop or Xerox or Kleenex are the "best" or "correct" vendors from which to obtain a specific product or service. As for when a mark becomes genericized, that is a function of language, and is no different than the process for determining that any other word has entered the lexicon. (Trademark attorney hat off) Cheers! bd2412 T 15:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On the legal side, if there is yet an establishing case to show the trademark lost, I think we should request those wishes (as well as those that have yet to say anything directly to WP) to remove the generic use as a good faith gesture, even if the letters sent aren't including any immediate legal action. This is, of course, in addition to the editorial obligation. A hard mandate requiring a scrub of all such terms? No, but the type of thing that should be thought of in prose check as articles improve or are assessed.

We do know that the common/colloquial genericization of a trademark will always precede the legal determination, but I do believe that we should definitely use the legal determination as the metric to when to use a trademark in a generic fashion, barring use in direct quotes and discussing the genericization itself (as done with photoshopping). I can see this the type of thing people would edit war about, and the hard line of the legal determination is a much easier metric to set than "when did such and such a term enter the slang". -- MASEM ( t) 16:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I encountered just this issue just yesterday. (See here and here.) Clearer documented guidelines on this issue would be very helpful, as the [[ MOS guideline doesn't really cover it. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say (again, as a matter of editorial, not legal, policy) that we should avoid using genericized trademarks unless we are quoting or paraphrasing reliable and disinterested sources which use the same terminology. I think that adopting that as an editorial policy is something everyone here could live with. Incidentally, I don't think any of the sources cited in Magic carpet (ski lift) would meet that standard; frankly (to veer a bit off topic) that article should be merged into Moving walkway, since the subject matter covered is just one of those moving up an angle on the snow. bd2412 T 16:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have drafted User:Masem/Trademarks, but obviously leaving it open for suggestions and improvements. I propose that once we've set this down, move it to WP:Trademarks and WP:TM (which I think goes to the MOS/TM presently). -- MASEM ( t) 16:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern with that phrasing is that most trademarks that become generic never have a single concrete legal determination made on that point. It is extremely rare for a court to rule that an existing mark has gone from being protectable to being generic, even when the general public use of the term would establish an iron-clad case of genericness (the key case on the matter, Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., was one where the asserted mark was deemed to never have been registrable). This is because genericness almost never arises except as a defense to a lawsuit brought by the trademark owner pressing a claim of trademark infringement (or at least in a declaratory judgment action following a threat of such a lawsuit). In any case, courts will avoid questioning the validity of a mark if the dispute can be resolved by addressing infringement itself (so, for example, a court would be likely to say that a party using "PictureShop" was far enough from "PhotoShop" to avoid infringing, without determining whether "PhotoShop" is a valid mark). From my personal experience, lawyers can usually see the writing on the wall, and will settle a case confidentially if it appears that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of invalidation of the mark. For this reason, the vast majority of generic marks are likely to pass into genericism without there ever being a specific legal decision memorializing this event. Instead, what will happen is that the owner of the mark (e.g. "escalator" or "pain-killer") will see that the fight is lost and (if they are able to stay in business) will rebrand their product with a new and decidedly non-generic mark. bd2412 T 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the logic still applies. Taking the two tables, we should avoid any term in the second table used in the generic sense, while words in the first table which all appear to have some known generic trademark legal case somewhere, should be considered carefully (but, like, I have no idea what you'd replace "escalator" with). -- MASEM ( t) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy with your proposed wording, Masem, though I thank you for taking the initiative. Bluntly, somewhat per BD2412's post above, I have no interest in the wish of the trademark holder to defend the trademark. There's no legal obligation on Wikipedia to avoid using genericised trademarks; there is merely (adapting BD2412's words) an editorial obligation to our readers to avoid genericised trademarks where better terms can be employed. In your proposal, there's no hint of that ethos. Instead the proposal's presumption is against the use of genericised trademarks, fullstop: "editors should replace such words with a different descriptor and avoid the trademarked term". I'd favour wording rather more along the lines of "editors should exercise care when using genericised trademarks, and consider whether alternative non-trademarked words or phrases can be employed". (I also have quibbles about the wording of the Genericized trademarks paragraph 1, but they are less important than the advice we give. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Tagishsimo and with BD2412. There's no legal concern here, even in the absence of a court case regarding a particular mark, and we're certainly not going to put a burden on our writing that we don't have to. postdlf ( talk) 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, no, criticism is fine; that's why I made the page to gain input, and that change seems fine, if we're sure we don't want to absolutely remove the use of still-trademark-but-leaning-towards-generic terms. The only reason I've written in the legal aspect is that sets a line where we know the term is no longer trademarked so caution isn't as necessary as with those still on the cusp. -- MASEM ( t) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I would turn the proposal around and say that, in order to avoid creating the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing specific products, we should avoid using terms that are presently associated with those products where a generic term is available, and provide Photoshop and Xerox as specific examples. bd2412 T 00:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's one way to do it, or at least a practical and neutral reason why to avoid generic TMs, but I do wonder if that excludes terms that are trademarked that your average editor may not recognize as a trademark to start with ("Dumpster" as one such case). -- MASEM ( t) 00:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dumpster" is no longer a registered trademark for garbage containers (although it is registered for the hoisting equipment used to empty them). Dempster's U.S. Registration #0785783 died on a technicality in 2005, when the affidavit of continued use was executed by the wrong party. The usual solution to such a quandary is to just file a new application, which goes through the examination process all over again. I would bet that they knew they'd never survive a fresh application. There may be some marks out there for which registrations are still in effect despite the name of the product having come to be used generically, but such occurrences should be pretty rare. bd2412 T 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm involved in one of these heated trademarked term vs generic usage debates onwiki, and have been for many years now. One of the problems that arises (and has in my case) is that a trademark may be a generic term in one country while trademarked in one or more others - under US law, for example, the doctrine of foreign equivalents doesn't recognise English-speaking countries, so a generic term in an English-speaking county can still be a trademarked term in the US. This creates a nasty grey area, whereby WP's international perspective means that it is difficult to show both the generic use in some countries and respect the trademarked use in another, especially where the trademarked term is the only way of identifying the generic type. I'm not sure how we are going to manage non-universal trademarks, but that would be an area where I'd hope that a guideline might help. - Bilby ( talk) 04:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't WP:ENGVAR provide the answer? We don't need to consider TMs in all jurisdictions, just what is the appropriate term to use for that article, based on the variety of English used and the usage in reliable sources. postdlf ( talk) 13:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you go by the advice BD2412 put forth: we avoid using trademarked terms generic to avoid giving the appearance of endorsement for the specific product, then it doesn't matter on the international discrepancies; if you know its a trademarked term somewhere in the world, simply write around it, with an appropriate amount of IAR. -- MASEM ( t) 13:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

BD2412 didn't address the issue of international variance, so I can't say that's his advice here, nor does it make sense to defer to brand name status just because it's still a brand name "somewhere." If we're writing about an American topic for example, we're not going to avoid using " aspirin" just because it's still a brand name in other countries, and say instead "acetylsalicylic acid". Or even to a more trivial extreme, if it turns out that Botswana (i.e., "somewhere") still recognizes "elevator" as a trademark even though the rest of the world doesn't... postdlf ( talk) 13:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's where I still think IAR is the best use to apply to these cases, aiming for clarity over tip-toeing around fractured trademarked cases. (Though while there's probably times that people use "aspirin" for "acetylsalicylic acid", there's probably times they're using it as "pain killer", in which case one can avoid the the word). -- MASEM ( t) 13:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can't necessarily be written around. In my particular case, there is only one term that defines the subject, which is the generic term used in the subject's country of origin. However, in other countries that term is trademarked. The subject can't really be discussed without using that term, as nothing else adequately distinguishes it, but we have constant arguments from those acting on behalf of the trademark owner that we shouldn't use the term because they own the trademark outside of a small number of countries.

I'm not trying to throw a spanner or anything, but if a guideline could help clarify this it would be great. If, however the guideline precludes or recommends against using a term because it is trademarked in some (or indeed many) countries, pointing to IAR won't satisfy those arguing that it shouldn't be used except in relation to the trademark owner. - Bilby ( talk) 13:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What article is the one that this is a problem on? It sounds like this fits as one of the called-out exceptions, but I'm not seeing it in context to assure that. -- MASEM ( t) 14:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like the endless Ugg boots dispute to me. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly where I can't even imaging trying to define policy for an isolated can, and let IAR do its thing - as long as its perfectly clear that there's a non-trademark use and a trademark use of the same word, which is what that article seems to do right now. We're not here on WP to debate and settle the trademark issue, we just need to write around it, acknowledging it exists since there's zero alternative on the generic term ("Ugg boots") vs the trademark "UGG"). The advice others have suggested since plausible here. - MASEM ( t) 12:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It was ugg boots. Sorry, I got caught up in a different issue. The problem with IAR is it works for us, but falls down completely for those outside of WP, which is what I assume this proposal is for. If I say "IAR, we need an article on ugg boots", the large number of people who come here to defend the trademark aren't going to care. IAR is not a means of achieving consensus. :)

The hassles is that what you describe is that the article does do, but that doesn't stop ongoing edit wars, trips to WP:FRINGE, accusations of COI editing, and ongoing attempts to change the article to be about the trademark only. IAR can't help there, and a policy that relies on IAR to solve these problems is likely to worsen the situation, rather than help. - Bilby ( talk)

I pretty strongly oppose Masem's page. We need to go in the opposite direction completely. Obviously if a large portion of some user's edits involve converting generic terms into trademarked versions, that user is being disruptive and needs to be shown the door. In most all other cases, if someone just adds the trademarked version in, it's because that person subconsciously associates the product by that trademarked name over the generic name. Now there might be people who have odd associations, and if a generic name is used significantly more than a trademarked name in common parlance, the edit will likely be changed over time. However if it dosen't change, that means that the other people reading the article, if not also subconsciously associate the product by that trademarked name over the generic name, don't find the trademark out of place. TLDR A policy is not needed, let editing over time decide. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If we were more casual, like a blog, sure, but we're an encyclopedia. We're looking not only at the short term issue but the long term. For example, right now "photoshopping" makes sense because there's the Photoshop product. What happens in 10 years? We'll still have digital photo manipulation, but will Photoshop even been such a tool? If the term "photoshopping" hasn't dropped to a generic trademark, then the term's not going to make any sense to future readers, but "digital photo manipulation" will. It's about precision and professionalism in writing in addition to other aspects identified above. -- MASEM ( t) 17:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not a problem unique to trademarks, because any language pertaining to (or originating from) technology may change relatively rapidly. How much longer before "airbrushed" is a completely obsolete word? "Photoshopped" has replaced it in many instances because "airbrushing" is now done digitally. That "photoshopped" may one day be obsolete as well is not necessarily a sign that we used the wrong term at the time, but that it may no longer be representative of whatever the dominant technology becomes. Though of course the terms become separate from the originating technology so even once the tech is obsolete the term may not be. I'd imagine more people know what the term "airbrushing" means than those who actually know how an airbrush works or what it looks like, and people may still use "airbrushed" even when it was done by computer. postdlf ( talk) 12:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it still is the fact that "airbrushing" isn't a term burdened by a trademark, and thus if used is non-endorsing of any product, while "photoshopping" is. Furthermore, when we are talking precision, "airbrushing" is the specific, physical act of altering a photo, and there's no effective alternative word. "Photoshopping", on the other hand, has become broad and nebulous to replace "digital photo manipulation", and thus can be replaced in most cases. -- MASEM ( t) 13:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Language changes, generally, and it is possible that to someone reading this encyclopedia in a hundred years, it would come across like Shakespeare does to us today. Wikipedia will inevitably need to update articles as language changes in the future. The question is, in the language that is in use here and now, how do we express ourselves. I would say, first, that we should not say that something was photoshopped (or xeroxed) unless RS points to Photoshop being the program used (or Xerox being the machine used), because otherwise we are making an unsupported assertion of fact; and we should not say that something could be photoshopped (or xeroxed) because that implies that Photoshop (or Xerox) makes the best or only product usable for that purpose. As for names that are generic in some places and trademarks in others (like greengrocer or perhaps aspirin), I think it is sufficient for our purposes if the term is generic for the majority of the world's speakers of the language in which it is being used. bd2412 T 17:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally would be very reluctant to abandon genericized trademarks that are becoming widely accepted as words, by our editing and reading population, simply because the courts have not affirmed that particular transformation in the language. The courts don't rule what is and is not an English word in common usage. They do not place anyone at legal risk, because they are not trademark infringements - they just freak out trademark holders because they're trying to hold back genericization from happening. Yet by the time it gets here, it's generally already widespread in many, many other sources, including highly reputable ones like scholarly publications and news media. Dcoetzee 12:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the complaints will come more from the borderline ones, which are going to be the hardest ones to define. North8000 ( talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that there is a place between the two of these which could be legitimately used.

Imagine someone who used their real name as their username. They no longer want to edit with that username. (For privacy reasons, let's say.) But they still wish to continue to edit. They don't do a rename because that would directly associate their realname with whatever new name they wish to use. So they create a new name and continue on doing what they did before.

This would seem to be RTV, yet by starting a new account, they could be accused of aborting their RTV. This isn't a clean slate, because they're still editing things as they always did.

I think either a.) definitions at RTV and clean slate need modification or b.) something "else" needs to exist on the policy level for situations such as this.

Personally, I think that this falls under RTV (and historically, I believe it did). I would think that the simple definition of RTV is: The user abandoned the account, never to return to editing using that account. But RTV should not by its nature preclude returning to editing using some new account.

Regardless, this needs fixing, and I would welcome ideas as to how to fix this. - jc37 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This can be fixed through contacting ArbCom. A WP:CLEANSTART could be granted without revealing the original account (and I seem to recall this has happened before). — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 20:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but not as I can see on the pages themselves. So something somewhere needs editing if this is the case. - jc37 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It happens so rarely that it's more of an IAR issue than something that needs formalized. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What jc37 describes is not RtV, it's simply a WP:CLEANSTART (attempt). RtV means self-ban, the user promises to never return, period. As with most things on Wikipedia, RtV should be undoable too. See my concrete proposal above. "Clean start" does not guarantee that the accounts won't be connected; diligence is required on the behalf of the editor doing it. Demanding that someone editing under their real name first and then switching to a pseudonym never be connected if they edit exactly the same articles or behaving the same way is absurd in cases where both accounts are involved in the same disputes. We had something like this on ANI recently. If I may quote:

Basically, if you want to edit Wikipedia under your own username, you're taking a risk. If you later decide to edit under a different account and in a similar manner than before, you're practically telling people who you are. We explicitly warn people about such things in our policies. We can't just turn a blind eye, otherwise a person could make themselves effectively immune to sockpuppetry charges by claiming a username that is the same as their real life name. We try to respect editors' privacy, but editors must take efforts to maintain that privacy
—  User:Atama 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A "clean start" presumes that the editor is trying to distance themself from prior edits which have been frowned upon by the community.

What I'm talking about is the leaving of an account due to privacy issues or for that matter, safety issues.

We advise again and again, but well-meaning editors who start out AGF of the internet community can find out that there is some not-so-good individuals out there. And if they make a decision to "start over" with a different account name. We should support that, not wiki-lawyer it. Indeed, I can think of one example of privacy issues where other editors wiki-lawyered it to the point where it became impossible for the individual to even use the new account name due to widespread "outing" through multi-discussions all over Wikipedia project pages and talk pages.

And by the way, this isn't an idea in a vaccuum. I have seen LOTS of examples of these sorts of things to various degrees over the years here. To much drama, and in my opinion, disservice to editors in good standing. Holding an RFC about an editor while the editor is trying to disappear into a new name for privacy reasons (or because they are a minor, or or or), very much defeats the purpose.

And by the way, the confusions above suggest to me that WP:IAR isn't enough for these situations.

Sorry, but Wikipedia concerns about socking are dwarfed by any editors wish for REAL LIFE safety and or security. And seriously, as noted above, it's not like any wiki-wise editor who is accustomed to spotting socks won't be able to easily identify should problems arise. But if they're editors in good standing, there shouldn't be any need for concern.

This confusion and ambiguity should be addressed. - jc37 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There's really nothing to address. RTV is for people who want to never edit again. CLEANSTART is for folks whose reputation has been marred, and want to give it another go. What you're referring to is people who want to start over with a new account name... which they can do right now. Hell, I did this. Says so right on my user page. I quit my old account, and started this new one, to avoid issues with potential outing and having unpopular edits being dragged back to my meatspace life. Folks who want to do this for privacy reasons would likely leave this off, and contact ArbCom if questions about their new identity come up.

Just like witness protection, once you've quit your old account, it's best to not go right back to editing the same articles in the same manner, or people will notice.

Simply put, you're adding a process where one isn't needed. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 19:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

'A "clean start" presumes that the editor is trying to distance themself from prior edits which have been frowned upon by the community' and 'CLEANSTART is for folks whose reputation has been marred, and want to give it another go' are incorrect statements; it's only one clean-start rationale (privacy being the main one). I'm highly skeptical that many editors who exhibit severe enough problems that community disapproval is so strong they feel compelled to abandon a username, are actually going to be magically successful as cooperative participants with a new account. It's like suggesting that a junkie's going to kick the habit and never turn back, just by moving in with her uncle a few towns away, or that a wife- and child-beater is going to be a different person and not engage in such behaviors if he starts a new family. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many, many very valid reasons to delete a free image rather than move it to Commons. Why on Earth would "orphaned" be one of them? It makes sense to say that there is no conceivable use for an image, or that we have higher quality versions of the image, or that it isn't free. The fact that is currently not in use in an article should have no bearing. Granted, if the image is in use in several articles, then the other reasons aren't valid. Wikipedia:Files for deletion is clogged down with "orphaned" images, and always has been. The pages get little traffic, and for some bizarre reason all discussions default to Delete. Yes, there are many orphaned images that should be deleted, but never because they are orphaned. Orphaned should never be a reason for deletion and we should change all relevant pages to reflect that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned images are not serving a purpose on Wikipedia, as such they are candidates to move to Commons. There is nothing preventing orphaned images from being moved to commons (assuming appropriate licensing and source info is present), with sufficient access even the deleted images can be moved to commons (almost nothing is every really gone). Maybe a start a project to move these orphaned images to commons, it will require a significant number of volunteers, unless you are able to do them all yourself. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

JeepdaySock we have 150,000 files that are in use that need to be moved to Commons, and another 150,000 orphaned files that aren't in use and haven't been deleted and need moving over to Commons. We don't have time to move deleted images.

As to the matter at hand, being orphaned in and of itself isn't a rationale for deletion. I do send files to FfD on a regular basis, and while I mention that the orphaned ones are orphaned, I pair it with 'no apparent encyclopedic value' and/or 'unidentified'. There are tons of orphaned files that could conceivably be used in the future, and those don't get listed for deletion. What gets listed are the useless files, of which we have thousands. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes looking there a reason is always given as well as orphaned. Orphaned is given because in use is evidence of educational value and overrides most reasons for deleting. The other reason is the particular reason for deleting. Dmcq ( talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point, being orphaned in and of itself is a rationale for deletion, according to our policies. "Orphaned" still listed as a valid reason for deletion at WP:FfD, and "unused" at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. I believe that most image deletions are valid, but it would be helpful if our policies were valid as well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So I hear you saying that even though, most orphans should be deleted for a number of reasons, there may be a few that somebody might want to use some day, if they happen to be searching Wikipedia instead of Commons for an image, so we should not delete them just because they are orphans. Seems to me a better approach would be to move any orphans that might be of use someday to somebody to commons, the problem being as Sven Manguard has pointed out, is there is insufficient human resources to address the move to commons for the images that are being used. Commons is the place for images, Wikipedia is the place for Encyclopedic content, having orphaned images on Wikipedia is like having a random bottle of high quality perfume for sale in the plumbing section of a home improvement store, no doubt someone might have a use for it, and is probably looking for it, but if the item is not in the correct location (commons) and is not marked to be found (category) how is a benefit to anyone, particularly if it is grouped with a bunch of junk that no one wants? By all means I encourage you to go and follow up on your desire, to preserve those valuable orphaned images, If you really care about it, start a project to rescue them and move them to Commons. But asking to change the policy so others will be obligated to, in this situation is most likely going to be unsuccessful. You may also want to to review Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files #4 JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, most orphans should not be deleted; most orphans should be moved to Commons and properly categorized. I really don't have any idea what you are talking about, other than that you are being incredibly patronizing. I've personally moved over 1100 files to Commons, most of them from ENWP, some from Flickr and other WMF projects. By your responses it seems that you do not understand the processes involved, or the topic I have posted about. Nobody is discussing requiring anybody to do anything. I am requesting that "orphaned" be removed as a valid reason for deletion, as it is clearly not a valid reason. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no duty to save any of the stuff unless it can be shown to be educational any more than any of the other meandering drivel loads of people stick into Wikipedia without citation and gets deleted. People do check whether the stuff should really be deleted as it really has no reasonable education use or is just a bad copy or something like that. But we already have enough problems with people thinking Wikipedia has a duty to save every last silly or offensive picture without making i into a guideline. Dmcq ( talk) 12:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• sigh* I never implied anything about making a guideline. I am talking about removing two words that nobody pays attention to from existing policy; "orphaned" from WP:FfD, and "unused" from Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What the OP is getting at I think: Commons does not itself delete orphaned files unless they are out-of-scope or copyvios. Out-of-scope does encompass low quality images that are entirely redundant, but that's as far as it goes, they're very reluctant to delete even if the educational use is quite theoretical. If enwp is more aggressive in deleting these files, that may lead to a peculiar inconsistency where a file may be uploaded to Commons and kept, but uploaded here and deleted, which is to be avoided. Of course there's no problem with delaying their move to Commons, so more important files can be moved first. If they're not being more aggressive that's fine (and I agree policy should not suggest that "unused" is by itself a reason to delete a file). Dcoetzee 12:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"removing two words that nobody pays attention to from existing policy; "orphaned" from WP:FfD, " would also require changing policies like Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY#REPOSITORY, While I grant that some orphaned images may have some value, Wikipedia is NOT the place for them to be. If they are not moved, nor deleted, then Wikipedia becomes their repository, for eternity to no-ones benefit. These are images not being used, that have been abounded by their uploaded, or taking advantage of Wikipedia's less stringent image deletion approach. As best I can tell the suggestion is to not delete images that are orphaned where they meet the requirements to be posted on Commons. If they don't qualify for commons (i.e. fair use) and they are orphaned on Wikipedia, where is the benefit to the anyone to keep them here? No one is even pointing at a group and saying we should keep these photos because, the argument is about replacing Commons as the location for keeping orphaned images. Why? as best I can tell the rational is to not delete them is it is to much trouble to move them to commons, and there is insufficient resources to move them. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't care, thought I do lean towards deletions according to some, I am merely point out why the sugestion to change is unlikely to be successful. RE: the opening question "There are many, many very valid reasons to delete a free image rather than move it to Commons. Why on Earth would "orphaned" be one of them?". JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Okay, I'm just going to be angry for a second, since it's abundantly clear to me that some of the people here haven't actually ever spent enough time looking at files to know what they're talking about.

1. We already have a process for moving these files to Commons already. There is a group of people that work on it, and we hold discussions on improving the process on a regular basis.
2. While simply being orphaned is a deletion criteria, it's not one that is, by itself, used. It is mentioned at FFD that files are orphaned, but always in the context of another more concrete reason for deletion, such as it being unusable, unfreee, or unidentifiable. Really, go check FfD for yourslef.
3. Files default to keep because participation is limited in FfD (only a tiny number of people work in the namespace itself with any regularity, even less work in FfD), and the vast majority of FfDs filed are good FfDs. FfD can reach 100 filings in a day, and it makes no sense for someone to go in and agree with all of them. The system works.

Please, in the future, make an effort to talk to the file workers before you start complaining about file work. It's a highly specialized field, and there are good reasons for why things are they way they are. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If the conventional practice is to consider "unused" or "orphaned" to be an inadequate rationale (i.e., you should normally pair that reason with another, more substantial reason), then perhaps the policy pages should actually say that. It's not helpful for Wikipedia to have "unwritten rules" that might accidentally confuse or trip up less experienced users. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be the devils advocate here, by the same rational as WhatamIdoing and looking at Wikipedia:FfD#February_2 & Wikipedia:FfD#February_3 Unencyclopedic would also be an inadequate rationale (i.e., you should normally pair that reason with another, more substantial reason), it is always used with orphaned. As is "Low quality" used in combination with other reasons. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My experience of FfD is less happy than Sven Manguard's. Take Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_26 as an admittedly bad but not at all unique example. Hosts of free files were nominated as "Orphaned/Unused, no foreseeable use". A high proportion were saved by other people pointing out that there was not only a foreseeable use but a very real use. Sometimes the file was actually in use, the "orphaned" claim was false, and on these occasions the "unforeseeable" was absurd. The Fbot bot is (was?) frequently tagging as "orphaned" erroneously, nominators were not examining actual usage and were giving a "boilerplate" second reason for deletion. As for "files default to keep", that does not describe actual practice. WP:FFD says "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised". Deleting files with unopposed nominations is absolutely standard practice. Now, I couldn't bear looking all the way through that same day of FfD but I couldn't find any files that had been kept and the one's deleted after moving the Commons (good!) were those to which someone had objected. The rest of these free files are still stored away but we are no longer able to look at or listen to them. Thincat ( talk) 11:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Those looked like reasonable nominations to me. Other people pointed out actual uses in some cases where it wasn't obvious and they were kept. The idea of keeping every last bit of that stuff reminds me of stories of people who've kept every egg-box and newspaper and tin can and can't throw them away and they have to crawl through holes in the rubbish in their houses until it finally falls over and kills them. Wikipedia is not a repository for such stuff and it makes finding good stuff hard if we keep it. Who's going to spend their life cataloguing it properly? Dmcq ( talk) 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And of course Wikipedia has an article about it Compulsive hoarding. The story of the Collyer brothers is what I was thinking of. Dmcq ( talk) 12:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What? You can't be serious! Was Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_26#File:Etobicoke.ogg a reasonable nomination. It was very sensibly in use at Etobicoke and Etobicoke Creek. It was neither orphaned, unused or of no foreseeable use. There are so many dreadful nominations and deletions that is is difficult to see the detail clearly. Thincat ( talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That ogg file is on commons and the uses in the articles you mention use that. Why would we want to keep a copy on EN? older ≠ wiser 12:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

But at the time it was nominated for deletion (not tagged for move to Commons) it was not on Commons. If Calliopejen1 had not intervened it would have been deleted and not moved. Look at the next nomination, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_26#File:Invention.ogg. There was the identical nomination, Calliopejen1 thought "neutral", and it was deleted. The default at FfD is "delete" even when the nomination is wholly specious. Thincat ( talk) 12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So the reason given was invalid because it was in use, if you feel strongly complain to the nominator for not checking. However that a reason given by a nominator did not apply for a particular nomination does not mean one should remove that reason for nominating in general. Dmcq ( talk) 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I complained about other files here and was politely received but here was deleted as "remove rude message" [1]. The matter was also discussed here. The problem is widespread and general, not particular and is not restricted to one one two editors. Thincat ( talk) 14:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the root cause of the issue that Thincat brought up isn't 'orphaned as a deletion rationale' but 'drive by deletion nominations'. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus there seems to be a problem there with some files in use not being marked properly as such which excuses the mistake an editor made when they said some files were orphaned when they were not. Files can be recovered if there is a mistake so there is no point getting het up with someone who is trying to deal withthe huge number of rubbish files around when they delete something. Dmcq ( talk) 18:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At WT:Manual of Style#Wrapping this up: We clearly have a consensus to move forward, a loose poll has been opened on how to better express MOS's section on animal names, which has had a consensus for some four years now against capitalization of the common names of species (as in "Johnson had a Rock Pigeon but it was eaten by his Ball Python, who choked to death on it, so he instead got a Dog and two Goldfish.")

WP:WikiProject Birds has long held that such capitalization is actually proper in ornithology articles (as in "The Rock Dove (Columba livia) or Rock Pigeon, is a member of the bird family Columbidae..."). Many have disagreed with this position. This perennial dispute, which has graced WP:VPP, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WT:BIRDS, WT:TOL, and many other talk pages over the years, is not really at issue in the discussion in question (despite much noise about it from both sides, including myself, because I'm easily distracted into side arguments). The proposed tweaks to MOS wording actually explicitly acknowledge this local consensus on ornithology articles, but also acknowledge the fact that it is and has been controversial. For at least seven years running, it has been one of the most hotly debated, recurrent style topics on the whole system, and it is normal MOS practice to annotate when something within its scope is subject to extended controversy. (Note: It is clear that the capitalization practice is the most common in ornithological journals and bird field guides; that is not at issue.)

The main point of the proposed rewording is to reduce inconsistency, confusion, and editorial strife by tightening the MOS language a bit, and then ensuring that related sub-guidelines like WP:MOSCAPS and WP:FNAME stop conflicting with MOS on the matter and sowing confusion, which has been happening for the last several years (in some cases, their wording has also directly contradicted policy; basically, it's a mess). Due to confused and confusing guidelines, combined with the widespread example of (perhaps properly, perhaps not) capitalized bird names in prose and in article titles (over 10,000 bird articles), many, many animal names of all kinds all over Wikipedia have been improperly capitalized, especially over the last 2–3 years, from Przewalski's "H"orse to "B"ottlenose "D"olphin to even "L"ion, at one time or another, with bitter feuding and editwarring about it. Thousands and thousands of cases of this improper capitalization of common names remain to be cleaned up in innumerable articles. Without the MOS and related guideline synchronization, the problem is only going to get worse.

The intent of the proposed changes is to calm this situation down and provide a stable, capitalization-free default (for which there is already long-standing consensus), while neither telling WP:BIRDS it "has to" stop capitalizing, nor pretending that their practice has wide support on Wikipedia outside that project, or should be emulated in other categories of articles. The goal is stop the rampant spread of willy-nilly animal name capitalization, and finally provide consistent style guidance on animal naming. There is a clear consensus at WT:MOS about this, but not about the wording of the improvements to the section.

General input from editors other than MOS regulars and the participants of the birds project would be very helpful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: There is a "Discussion" subsection at the poll; please direct discussion there rather than forking a new discussion here at VPP. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also the case of certain breed societies for domesticated animals, where the generic name (pony, horse, cow, pig, etc.) is capitalised within specific breeds. For example, Welsh Mountain Pony. It's obvious to horsey people that its name isn't just "Welsh Mountain", because that would seem to imply a large geological feature, rather than a specific type of equine. I think it may be sensible to go for something along the lines of what's in common use amongst specialists / experts / those in-the-know, in each individual field. Or paddock, or barn, or aviary ... Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 13:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that a file should only be uploaded to the English Wikipedia either when its content is copyrighted and is intended to be used under the "fair use" doctrine, or it is public domain in the US and not in the country of origin. In both these cases isn't it true that the uploader must actually be in the US at the time of upload? It seems to me that uploading files with content that meet these criteria would be illegal in most countries outside of the US, and therefore uploaders outside the US are not actually eligible to upload to the English Wikipedia. However, all uploads performed from outside the US should be eligible for upload to Commons, so shouldn't they therefore be automatically redirected to Commons? (I'm assuming one can determine the country of upload origin based on the IP address of the uploader.) -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 02:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, if something is going to be used for fair use, the being in the US or not wouldn't have anything to do with it. As for PD in the US, it's always possible it's also PD in the country of the uploader but not its origin -- something published in England where the author died less than 70 but more than 50 years ago is PD in Canada, for instance. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 03:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are correct about fair use. It is my understanding that fair use is only legal in the US, so someone who is outside the US cannot legally upload such a file. Besides, very few files qualify for uploading to the US site, and for the vast majority of users who are outside the US, those files which should be uploaded here cannot in general be legally uploaded. Actually, since it is a problem that too many files are being uploaded to the English Wikipedia that should really be uploaded to Commons, it seems to me that all upload requests (from the English Wikipedia Toolbox) should be automatically redirected to Commons. Uploads to the English Wikipedia should be presented on the Commons upload form (or Wizard) as a special case, a limited option spelling out the two types of files that should be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, which perhaps would also have a warning that most users outside the US may be violating the law, if they upload these types of files, and would present a link to an English Wikipedia process or form for uploading these special cases. (The case you mention is an exception, but those users could also use this link.) -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 03:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're conflating laws that affect Wikipedia (i.e., U.S. and Florida) with laws that affect Wikipedia contributors. Not the same thing. If the mere act of uploading a copyrighted image is forbidden by the laws of the uploader's country even though it is for a legal use by Wikipedia, that is solely the uploader's problem, not Wikipedia's. Similarly, I could live in a country where it is illegal to post negative information about my government, but obviously Wikipedia has no obligation to remove such content or to block me from contributing to my country's article and bears no consequence for retaining that content. I'm sure we could think of a million other analogous examples. postdlf ( talk) 04:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Not Wikipedia's responsibility, so it is not necessary to point it out. But it still seems like we need to do something to reduce the number of files going to the wrong site. Perhaps I was coming at this a bit from the wrong angle. I still think it might help to redirect everyone initially to Commons and make uploads here an exceptional case. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 05:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It can make sense to upload directly to Commons. Files on WP are regularly transferred there by others, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/March 2012. While accepting the principle behind these moves, I find the activity sometimes disruptive because the moves are done on a very large scale without careful individual consideration. Files that were OK here can, after transfer, get deleted from Commons. Commons requires either a free licence or public domain status in US and source country [2]. WP only abides by US copyright [3] though I sometimes see gestures towards being respectful of non-US copyrights on ethical grounds and/or arguing that the US courts are respectful towards foreign copyright. There does indeed seem to be a lack of warning about infringing one's own (non-US) law. Paradoxically, I have found a problem that old UK material, now PD in the UK but (probably) never published in the US, cannot be uploaded at all because it has become non-PD in the US. Thincat ( talk) 11:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To quickly address this point - "fair use is only legal in the US". The specific fair-use provisions we cite are an artefact of US law and are not in law in that form elsewhere. However, many countries have provisions broadly analogous to the US "fair use" concept (see, eg, fair dealing), and the uploader can be assumed to be invoking those, where relevant, as well as the explicit US fair-use statement. Barring non-US fair-use uploads would probably not help much, in this regard. Shimgray | talk | 12:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I recently posted a new discussion at wp:VPI#Admin Portal, but due to low traffic, it was suggested that I post a notification on the policy and proposal VPs. I am a newish user, so if this post is a violation of any VP rules, please remove it--I understand. Vert3x ( talk) 14:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

NFCC policy #9 says that non-free images aren't allowed outside content pages and specific limited administrative pages dealing with them. It doesn't say anything about how they should be handled or best practice. Sometimes deletion might be needed, perhaps sometimes it isn't and just removing (via editing) is enough. This RFC is to ask for users interested in NFCC to help draw up brief guidance in WP:NFCC for appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach policy #9.

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My original edit to Light-emitting diode was reverted by User:Wtshymanski. I found the edit summary to be incorrect in its characterization of my source (I saw nothing in the source about a press release, and "not from a publicity department" would be a good thing rather than a reason to revert an edit). So I reverted the revert and was reverted again. The edit summary this time was clearer on the Wtshymanski's objection--the event wasn't important enough, which may have been justified--but it seemed to indicate Wtshymanski objected to the reliability of the source as well. The source was a reporter who had worked at the newspaper for many, many years, so I asked on Wtshymanski's talk page what made him the authority to deem this reporter an unreliable source. I confess that I violated WP:CIVIL in my wording, but I felt perfectly justified in my edit and Wtshymanski seemed unreasonable. Wtshymanski reiterated the lack of importance of the event here but indicated willingness to add the edit to Cree Inc.. I indicated a willingness to compromise and Wtshymanski blanked his/her talk page. But the edit summary for Wtshymanski's response to me was "Wikipedia is not for press releases". I don't see where I've done anything wrong, and Wtshymanski seemed happy to let me put the edit in Cree Inc..

So I didn't use a press release as a source (though the reporter might have), and the only justified objection to the edit seems to be the importance of the event. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I took the content issue to Talk:Light-emitting diode but since this could happen again, I sure would appreciate a comment about press releases. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the sections of our verifiability policy is titled Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and is relevant here. Your edit states that Cree's new LED "delivers twice as much light for the same price", which I would qualify as an expentional claim. Accordingly you would need multiple high quality sources to back it up. The source you give is barely one step up from a press release, the guy is obviously just repeating what he heard from the PR guys. Yoenit ( talk) 00:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I even thought of that later. So we wait and see if those appear. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry is not classified and categorised properly. Is it a policy, a style guideline, an other type of a guideline, an essay or what? It should be marked appropriately at the top and put into at least one category. It was part of the MOS till June 2011. [4] Some material about how to write lyrics in Wikipedia (style matters, use of templates etc.) should be added in any case. I've been thinking about doing it myself, but would rather see someone else with more experience in this area to do it, taking Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Lyrics into consideration. -- Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any clear procedure regarding renominating articles which have been previously nominated multiple times. When the community is split on whether a particular article should exist, some editors may in good faith wish to renominate an article, despite it having survived mutiple previous nominations. However I really think they should acknowledge the previous nominations in the new nomination, and briefly explain why they think consensus might have changed. It doesn't particularly matter what the reasons are; passage of time, a new group of editors coming to the article for whatever reason, recent discussions on the Talk page would all be fine.
I personally think failure to acknowledge the previous nominations and give a plausible reason why consensus would have changed should be grounds for a Speedy Keep. Without this, we have the situation I am currently in, where there is a new nomination for an article four months after the previous nomination, raising exactly the same issues as the previous nomination, and leaving me with the prospect of having to devote hours of my time to fighting the case again on AfD, Deletion Review, various noticeboards and various users' Talk pages. This is dispiriting, to say the least. I would much rather spend the limited time I have available in improving articles. Also, without such a procedure, it becomes at least theoretically possible to nominate an article as many times as it takes until the planets are in the right conjunction (enough of the "right" editors are on holiday, for example).
One proposal by a different editor to myself was that multiply nominated articles should have an "exponential backoff", presumably along the lines that the more times an article has been nominated and survived, the longer should go before another nomination is considered. I'm not sure it's necessary to have anything as formal as that, however I do think it would be helpful to establish the principle that there should generally be a decent interval before renominating a multiply nominated article. Otherwise it seems to be a massive drain on the community's time to re-fight the same battles, when we could be making constructive edits. -- Merlinme ( talk) 14:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It likely can be enforced without changing policy; if the mass of editors feel that the AFD nomination is essentially the same as a previous one and fails to address anything new, they can pile on the speedies to close it. But its difficult to create an explicit process for this because there are times where a new nom , essentially re-iterating a previous one and ignoring any resulting changes on the article, could be valid. -- MASEM ( t) 14:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But the Speedy Keep criteria do not currently allow this. If any editors vote Delete (and presumably some will, if it's something the community is split on), then it apparently does not meet Speedy Keep criteria. In the case I'm talking about, an admin closed the discussion essentially as a "Speedy Keep"; they were immediately taken to Deletion Review, where the current opinion seems to be that it did not meet the Speedy Keep critieria (although there is some support for using WP:Common sense. My suggestion is essentially that the Speedy Keep guidelines should be updated to take into account the circumstances I've described above. -- Merlinme ( talk) 14:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

{edit conflict)

No Masem, the problem that triggered this discussion is a technical one... strictly construed, none of the current criteria for speedy keep are a perfect match. Section 1 has two elements, but only the first one was met (nominating editor merely pointed to policies with a WP:VAGUEWAVE and did not build an argument). However, two other editors said "delete" and, regardless of the strength of their arguments, this alone was enough to deny Speedy Keep. One of the DRV editors opined that their job is to strictly apply the criteria, which contradicts the wiki rule that common sense ought to triumph over the letter of the law. To the extent DRV has declared itself a sacrosanct, strict constructionist WP:SNOW-free zone, then I agree we need to change the DRV guidelines. To test whether this is the case, I asked the DRV editors in the case to offer up a hypothetical where some article does not qualify for speedy keep, and yet the DRV can be closed early using simple common sense under WP:SNOW. To be fair, its only

been a few hours since I asked that, but as yet no such DRV examples have been offered. To address the problem I have a.......

PROPOSAL As a precondition for renominating an article for AFD within 6 months of any prior AFD decision (as measured from the closure of any related DRV or appellate proceedings), must an editor (A) provide a link to most recent AFD and any related DRV/Appellate proceedings, and (B) set forth a new argument that was not raised in the prior 'round, including both relevant facts and links to policies on which the new argument is predicated, AND (C) unless some subsequent "delete" response fulfills these preconditions prior to closure should the nominator's failure to do so constitute a new criteria for speedy keep? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has pointed out that a modification would be needed, to accomodate the renominating editor who simply doesn't know about a prior case. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please see WP:DELAFD for existing policy on renominations, which should be adequate. For this specific case it is also very important the previous discussions were not closed as keep, but as no consensus. Any fixed time limits between nominations are wp:Instruction creep and very easy to abuse. (start a bad-faith nomination yourself, get a speedy close and BAM, 6 months deletion immunity for your article.) Yoenit ( talk) 15:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

False and abuse-proof. Any good faith subsequent nomination, armed with facts and policy not previously raised in my bogus nomination, would comply with this new criteria. Assuming there were no (alleged) obstacles, the subsequent good faith AFD would have to take its course. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yoenit, are you seriously suggesting that someone would try to get "six months deletion immunity" by raising a bad faith nomination for their "own" article? I would hope that we've not become enough of a bureaucracy that would be allowed to pass silently. I would personally expect someone to be censured for abuse of process for doing such a thing. In any case, my original suggestion didn't have a fixed time limit, just a general principle that people wait a reasonable period of time and/ or come up with valid reasons. NewsAndEventsGuy suggested six months, but he specifically stated that, as with my proposal, it would be possible to renominate the article within the time limit, you'd just have to come up with a good enough reason. -- Merlinme ( talk)

That's not what he said: he said if User X AFD'd User Y's article and it failed, the proposed policy would then suddenly give User Y's article 6 month immunity.

The question that needs to be asked is this: Why does a second (or third, or fourth) AFD that otherwise mirrors a previous AFD attempt need to be closed out quickly? In seven days, the AFD will close in process and assuming the same arguments will close the same way. That doesn't harm anything and avoids instruction creep. I do agree that if it is a single user persistently trying to AFD the same article with little to no new arguments for its deletion, that's behavioral and a problem to solve with an RFC/U. There's also the fact that putting a new AFD shortly after the last one closed is a bit bitey as well, but if it is a different editor, they may not be aware of that (though our DP does suggest reviewing past AFDs to make sure that you aren't rehashing the same points). -- MASEM ( t) 16:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, exactly. Should it be more formally stated that renominations must consider previous nominations? In response to "That doesn't harm anything", it's certainly harming my ability to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia, and sucking up huge chunks of other editors time as well. If it's two weeks' of my time every four months, that's 1/8 of my time on Wikipedia, spent refighting the same battles. -- Merlinme ( talk) 16:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it can be required; looking at previous AFDs should be part of WP:BEFORE, but it can't be a requirement for making the AFD. An example scenario: editor X has AFDd the same article three times with slightly different reasons but each time the AFD closes as a no consensus keep (and lets assume this was in good faith and done over several years, not within weeks of each other). So the third AFDs closed, and X goes onto something else. User Y, with zero relationship or interactions with X, sees the article, believes something is wrong pretty much matching what X said was wrong, and AFDs it, say, days after the previous AFD. Y has done nothing wrong here in the larger scope of things, just that his timing on the article was rather poor, and yet this is what you seem to be asking to assert is a bad nomination. Instead, I would expect editors at the AFD to point out the recentness of the AFD, that the reasons haven't changed, and thus a "snow" close should be done. It may take a few more days than the desired "speedy" but as long as editors pile on that there's no reason to re-run the AFD at that time, as well as gently advising Y to review BEFORE before their next AFD. -- MASEM ( t) 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Masem, you are not an editor being asked to repeatedly spend your free time answering redundant AFDs instead of improving the project. When you say "That doesn't harm anything" you could as easily say "That isn't disruptive except for the parts that are." See also, WP:NOHARM. There is no reasonable basis to believe that "no consensus" will magically convert to "consensus" in under six months time without some change in fact or policy, or at least some new argument not previously articulated. The "no consensus" argument would seem to advocate discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss-and-discuss instead of improve NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If your article is being repeatedly sent to AFD but kept (particularly if its "no consensus"), that probably indicates that there's an problem with how your article appears to other editors and readers. Common case that I see is the claims of notability: the AFDing editor states there's no sources, other editors in the AFD point out several sources listed in the AFD but don't add them, AFD is closed as keep; until those sources are added, people are going to see that article and go "fails WP:N, AFD" (though I note that WP:N points out that sources don't have to be explicitly defined in the article immediately, but they should ultimately be included as inline cites per WP:V). Or if there are sources but they are blog-like and no other major RS sources appear, people will continue to look at the sources and question whether they are really appropriate. Once those issues are dealt with, AFD will likely not reoccur. -- MASEM ( t) 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But there's no such thing as a "Speedy No Consensus". If one other editor votes Delete, then according to the current guidelines, the whole process should be followed again. What you're describing does not describe the controversial case I am talking about, where there will not be sufficient support to close either as "SNOW" or as Speedy Keep. If it was days, perhaps there would be. But how about four weeks? 6 weeks? Three months?

I recognise that until consensus is clearer, we will have to go through the process occasionally. I am asking how often that should be, and suggesting that it should not be too often, unless there is good reason to believe the outcome will be different. -- Merlinme ( talk) 16:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• If there are previous nominations that resulted in Keep, discard all their previous Delete !votes and consider all their Keep !votes instantly included in the new AfD. ( Ha ha only serious). Diego ( talk) 15:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the humor, but dislike propagating the false impression that "keep" or "delete" constitute voting. The process is not about voting. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is why they're called !votes, or not-votes ('!' is the NOT operator in computer science). Anyway, my comment is not (just) a joke. Deletion discussions can be used in the same way, but in reverse. Diego ( talk) 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• This logic doesn't apply to the incident which produced this thread. The article in question was nominated for deletion having been previously nominated a number of times, however the previous two AfDs had both resulted in no consensus and the last AfD which had any other result took place nearly three years ago. I agree that if the community comes to a decision regarding whether an article should be kept then a renomination should either take place some time later or contain new arguments not put forward previously. In this case though the question of whether consensus could have changed is irrelevant because there is no consensus that could be changed. Hut 8.5 16:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But in the absence of any new arguments, why is there any reason to believe the result, after a couple of weeks of heat and light, would be any different? I don't mind if it's a "Speedy No Consensus". I just don't see why we have to refight the same battles again and again. -- Merlinme ( talk) 16:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that a new discussion could come to a different outcome, especially if the old one was close. A new discussion might attract a wider audience or at least a different audience. If the existence of the article is a long-running contentious issue then there is some value to settling it one way or the other. Hut 8.5 17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, I just think the nominator should advance some reasons which clearly state why they think it will be different this time around. "Has recently featured on noticeboard x" or whatever is a valid reason. What I object to is the failure to even mention the previous recent nomination. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not "fine", because it absurdly assumes culture war debates are ammenable to being "settled one way or other" which in turn ignores the fact that consensus can change. By making room for truly new arguments, while limiting culture warring to twice a year, preserves both NPOV and minimal disruption to the project. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the situations / solutions being described by Merlinme and NewsAndEventsGuy is that while we can apply them to probably likely "abuses" of repeated AFD by the same person or group of editors, and legitimate renoms at AFD by completely separate people. We can't block the latter action to deal with the former.

If it is the case of the same people(s) nominating the article at AFD over and over with little change, and every time they are clearly rebuffed and the article Kept, then that's a user problem, not an AFD problem.

If it is the case that separate people keep nominating the article, that likely means there's a problem with the present version of the article that keeps on having it go to AFD that previous AFDs have not corrected. One needs to recognize there is no deadline, but at the same time, if an AFD is closed as kept pending sources addition (for example), then you'd better add those sources - they don't have to be formatted exactly or perfectly. You just need the quick fix to prevent AFD from re-occurring. Granted, there are some articles that are AFD do to a contentious subject that some don't feel should be a topic but AFD shows differently. That's a difficult to show in the article itself, even if there's a talk page header point to the N times that has been rejected at AFD before.

What this basically comes down to is that IAR should be the applicable rule here. In the latter case, a new editors puts to AFD an article that's been there before for the same reason and kept, and there's clearly - though not exactly - !voting towards a snow closure, we should allow that to happen. In the former case, if it is a single editor or group with a known grudge, the same thing should apply, even if there's a handful of delete !votes in the mix. -- MASEM ( t) 20:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

False. Your argument seems to have two main parts. First, you refer to cases that are "Closed Pending", but such cases are not actually closed, as in dead-done-buried-over-finished-----closed. This proposal only applies to cases that really-really closed. Your other main argument seems to be what you call "legitimate renominations". Let's take a close look at all nominations and assess their "legitimacy"

Target for this proposal	Renom Type	Is renom "Legitimate?"	Would this proposal apply	Can case proceed
	Editor not in good standing	No, obviously	No	Probably not but in any case other policies apply
	Renom occurs more than 6 months since last closure	Obviously legitimate	No	Yes, proceeds as usual
>>>	Renom by editor less than 6 months since last closure but raises NEW argument	Obviously legitimate	Yes	Yes, this policy always welcomes new arguments
>>>	Renom by editor less than 6 months since last closure with redundant argument	No. Although some may say that any culture war or ideological argument by a new editor is always legit, common sense says they are disruptive because - absent new facts or arguments - there is no reasonable expectation there will be any other outcome such a short time after the prior case. If the renominating editor knows of the prior case, they are essentially saying, "phooey, I missed the prior WP:BATTLE" and, being based on redundant arguments with no reasonable expectation of a different outcome, these repeated dead-end arguments are not "legitimate". Note: if the renom is based on substantive changes to article text that is a new argument so see prior row in table.	Yes	No, this policy is designed to minimize the disruption caused by culture war and ideological battles

• An example of this can be seen in the now a bit old WP:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Marines_(2nd_nomination), where the second afd was started around 2½ week after the first one finished. One can see in the first few pages the multiple comments all saying this was wrong, including the person who initiated the afd, but since the discussion was started, noone wanted to close it. Now if I was a new editor to Wikipedia and I saw a second afd started that close to the first, my view of Wikipedia would not be good. Instruction creep is a valid argument against fixed time limits, but there is real damage if new editors thinks that he who shouts afd's long enough will always win. If the afd policy would give some guidlines on what to do in cases like this, we would save both time currently been spend discussing it in the afd, and new editors would not feel so helpless. Belorn ( talk) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose enshrining fixed time limits in policy, per WP:CREEP. In general, I agree that where an article received a significant level of discussion at AFD, it should not be renominated again shortly afterwards (what 'shortly afterwards' means is subjective, of course), and most such renominations should be speedily closed. But it's quite possible to imagine exceptions, where an article is renominated after a recent discussion for good reason: e.g. where it's suddenly discovered that most of the editors who commented in the last AFD were sockpuppets, or someone shows that the references which got the article kept are actually false. As such, a strict rule against early renominations is a bad idea. In general though, where there aren't such newly discovered good reasons, it should be discouraged; and in fact common practice at AFD does seem to discourage it, as it's not uncommon for AFDs to be speedy closed for that very reason. Robofish ( talk) 15:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

False. Being examples of new arguments this proposal would welcome each case you envisioned, and this proposal addresses cases that can not be speedily closed because tow editors say "delete" (regardless of strength of argument) thus taking WP:SK off the table. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at how complicated the proposed direction is good. This is a clear example of WP:CREEP, and there's likely a simpler solution. Namely that if the issue is that *one* delete vote blocks a large number of speedy keeps, IAR needs to apply (remember, AFD is not a democratic process). That's the simplest solution to nix inappropriate, short-term re-noms. -- MASEM ( t) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree WP:IAR/ WP:SNOW should apply, it appears that DRV sees things otherwise. Some DRV editors have opined their job is strict construction of WP:SK and in the case that brought me here, no one has (so far) provided an example where DRV endorsed a SNOW early close despite two delete votes from editors in good standing. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• No consensus means there's no agreement on how to handle the article at this point in time. If there's no consensus on a dispute, then it's inevitable the dispute will be raised again. Often, re-nomination without any improvement between nominations is taken as evidence that we WP:CANTFIX the article. I'd personally like to see us handle "no consensus" better by making "merge" more of an option at AFD (Articles for Discussion vs. Articles for Deletion). But most people regard that change as too inconvenient. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between truly policy-violating articles under WP:CANTFIX (which I want to believe are ultimately deleted), and redundant WP:VAGUEWAVEs to policy designed to rationalize culure war or ideological nominations that are, if truth be told, predicated on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT or similar claims. The difficult challenge to our intellectual integrity is to tell them apart. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we're actually pretty good at telling apart 80 or 90% of the cases. If there are lots of third-party sources you'll find that a re-nomination won't happen, or will lead to a speedy keep. The water gets muddy when there are sources, but most are press releases, some are single-sentence "trivial mentions", and so on. Sometimes those muddy waters end up in a clear keep or delete after some discussion and inspection. But other times, these would be ideal candidates for a merge. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- Current practice is to treat each individual case on its merits, and this seems to work well. Besides which, AfD is a contentious area and the primary location of the long-standing inclusionist/deletionist feud. I do not like the idea of setting up a policy that restricts the community's ability to decide individual cases while exclusively benefitting one side of that disagreement. Reyk _YO! 23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the most interesting response so far, IMO. I had not encountered this concept before, so for any other editors like me, here is background... Deletionist and Inclusionist NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Reyk clearly gives the present situation after no consensus--the situations are so various that no actually fixed rule is suitable, The appropriate length of time depends on the reasons for the lack on consensus. If it's a true inability to decide, perhaps because of lack of evidence, it might take a long while until there's a decent chance there would be firm consensus; if the debate was simply messed up hopelessly by canvassing, a rapid fresh start is usually sufficient. But after a string of keeps, our tolerance for repeated deletions is, properly, much lower than it was a few years ago. This is I think due to exactly the factor Reyk points out: the need for balance--in the past where multiple successive renoms after keep were usual, the randomness of many discussions with low participation made it possible to delete almost anything for which there was less than overwhelming keep support, by simple probability. My personal rule of thumb after repeated keeps is that the period should start at 6 months for the second, and double subsequently, much as we do in blocking. However, rarely is the situation so simple--typically there will be one or more non-consensus among the keeps. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony in an attempt to make policy about speedy-closing deletion discussions that don't acknowledge multiple previous deletion discussions and advance new arguments... that itself doesn't acknowledge the many prior discussions on this subject or advance new arguments. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did look at the examples in the FAQ of failed policy proposals (there were two listed). What distinguishes this proposal is that those other ones would slam the door on fast renominations across the board - both the legitimate, the culture war, and the bad faith - it doesn't matter they would have all been barred. In contrast, my proposal holds the door wide open, and welcomes fast renominations that advance new arguments. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Such as what? I'm perfectly happy to look at archived discussions if you think they're relevant. No-one has mentioned them up to this point though. -- Merlinme ( talk) 14:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's some of the more substantial ones: 1 2 (continues here) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. -- 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 16:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, and none of them squarely address the current proposal because...

*1 2 4 6 7 Would have barred ((ALL)) renoms within x months, whereas the current proposal allows renoms based on new arguments;

*3 Its clear they were talking about a proposal but just what was proposed is not revealed by that link; therefore it can not be evaluated;

*5 is irrelevant because the proposal that was made (if any) is made implicitly and is therefore too ambiguous to analyze;

*8 and 9 are irrelevant because they ask questions, and do not set forth a specific proposal;

*The current proposal is different because it always welcomes new renoms based on new arguments; it just requires a time-out before rehashing prior arguments. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a quick look in the archives- interesting. Previous discussions have been against a fixed time limit or a numerical limit on nominations; I can understand that. If the point is to avoid rigid rules, then I think my proposed updating of the guidelines is sufficiently flexible to allow for exceptions. Several editors in previous discussions seem to have suggested that such a case would "obviously" be SNOW closed or Speedy Kept, so no new guidelines are needed, but that has specifically not happened in this case; the closing admin was immediately taken to Deletion Review, where there is some support for re-listing. It could be argued that this is a failure of Deletion Review to WP:Use Common Sense, but either way, I think clearer guidelines are needed to handle renomination, such as the change I've suggested below.-- Merlinme ( talk) 16:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now had a look at the provided links (as opposed to my own archives search). There's nothing there which makes me change my opinion that clearer guidelines would help. I'll note in passing that WP:NOTAGAIN (from the essay WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) seems to provide some support for the idea that renominations should address previous deletion discussions. My suggestion is essentially that this should be formalised in the guidelines, with nominators expected to explain why they think it's worth discussing this article again. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This proposal fails to realize a few things. For one, if something is closed as "no consensus", it seems perfectly reasonable to renominate it in far less than six month's time. For another, it's quite possible that circumstances can change and/or completely different rationale can be used. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: modify text of "Carry out these checks"

Change the text: "4.Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with." to: "4.Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If the article has recently been nominated and the result was "Keep" or "No Consensus", your nomination should acknowledge this and explain briefly why you think the result would be different this time." -- Merlinme ( talk) 10:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointless? As my mother-in-law likes to say, "Locks are to keep out honest people". IMO, editors making emotional, or culture war, or IDONTLIKEIT, or harrassing repeated nominations that are unlikely to result in a different outcome won't see this, and their behavior would not change if they did. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I still think it would be worthwhile to say that they should (else why do we have guidelines at all?). Also, it would presumably give added impetus to moving to an early close if the guideline was not followed. -- Merlinme ( talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Merlinme in this. None of the existing policies will prevent a problematic editor from misbehaving; policies exist to give the community the possibility to keep those editors in check. In this case we're arguing that an AfD without a valid rationale can be speedely closed even if it has some 'delete' !votes, as long as there's consensus that those !votes don't provide any reason based in guidelines. Diego ( talk) 13:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in this subsection about speedy closing, it's just a suggestion to tweak the educational how-to text at WP:AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone actually object to this? If so, could you explain why please? It seems a common-sense approach to me, not imposing any arbitrary limits, but requiring renominations to at least acknowledge recent arguments and give reasons why they wish to re-open the debate. If there's support for more radical measures they could be in addition to this, but I think my proposal can treated separately, essentially as a helpful clarification to guide the renomination process. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mer, please explain how your suggestion constitutes a requirement? It reads like (still more) helpful suggestions, does not warn editors about potential consequences if they do not do it, and gives the rest of us no authority to impose enforcement actions. While it sounds nice, it strikes me as neighborly advice, nothing more. Also, I think you should ask this question on the WP:AFD talk page, too. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a requirement, it's an additional piece of guidance which would provide additional ammunition for an early close if editors blatantly ignored it.

As the only editor who's disagreed with this proposal wants something stronger, I'm going to assume there's at least tacit approval, and will discuss on the AfD pages. (I assume this is what you mean, NewsAndEventsGuy, as ADF (Australian Defence Force) is a link to the Military History Project!)(Link was fixed) -- Merlinme ( talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fact I don't think it will help a whit does not mean I am opposed (I'm not). No need to apologize, we know each other enough I know the assumption was an innocent mistake NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, no, no, no & no! Look the original proposal got thrown out and this looks like a case of the original proponents continuing the argument beyond consensus by changing the form slightly in the hope that you exhaust or outtalk the opposing editors. Sorry, but that isn't how we form a consensus round here and you don't get to change policy that way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(A) That's a mighty warm assumption of good faith you got there;

(B) When you say "proponents" (plural) sounds like you are including me, when in fact I simply said I'm not opposed. In consensus, "not opposed" is not the same as being an advocate;

(C) Beats me how one goes from a suggestion to modify the text in the neighborly how-to advice article and inflate its impact into some sort of dramatic but backdoor change in policy for speedy-keep. This would be a good time to re-read my paragraph (A) above. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a substantial objection to make? If so, what is it? I'm happy to discuss the change; as far as I can see at this stage no-one has objected (despite clearly flagging what I was going to do). -- Merlinme ( talk) 14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Since this is general advice rather than explicit instructions, a good deal of IAR can be used; editors that repeatedly ignore it in a disruptive manner can be handled in RFC/U/WQE cases. -- MASEM ( t) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a recipe for concentrating on process rather then content and will be a wikilawyer's delight. This is a really bad idea but I already expressed my view at AFD. It flys in the face of CCC and doesn't allow for changed standards or bad previous closes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose essentially per Spartaz. The idea behind this proposal is to make it harder to renominate an article by making the nominator rebut the previous discussion. This contradicts the spirit if not the letter of WP:CCC: the community can (and does) change its mind without any change in circumstances and previous discussions don't have any hold or even much influence over subequent ones. In the case of articles where the previous debate was closed as no consensus the argument for this is even weaker since then there is no standing opinion to be overturned. It is of course possible to be disruptive by renominating articles that have been kept, but such incidents should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and hard-and-fast rules (and yes, this is phrased as a rule rather than as general advice) are just going to create unneeded bureaucracy and wikilawyering. I should also point out that this rule won't actually stop people from disruptively renominating articles unless it is interpreted to mean that the nomination can be quickly closed or the result overturned if the nominator didn't follow it, which would only increase the potential for wikilawyering. Hut 8.5 13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's try looking at this in a different way. Is there a simple way for a nominator to demonstrate in their nomination that they have actually read and considered previous nominations, as the text already suggests they should? -- Merlinme ( talk) 13:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggestions at WP:BEFORE don't have the status of policies or guidelines, at least partly because it isn't possible to enforce them. It is of course possible for a nominator to include a statement in their nomination to the extent that they have read previous discussions and that their objections, but such a statement doesn't mean they did adequately consider previous nominations and requiring nominators to include a statement of this type would be unnecessary bureaucracy. Hut 8.5 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If we agree that WP:BEFORE is unenforceable and essentially a guide to best practice, why would it be bad to say that best practice is to acknowledge previous nominations and explain why you want to re-open the case? I'm happy to discuss the exact wording if it would be helpful. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Because, and I think I have said this several times and you are not listening, BEFORE is constantly being used as a club to rubbish nominations on process without considering the content. AFD should discuss content not process. AFD is to determine our inclusion threshold not to wikilawyer over process. You are clearly not listening so please just accept the fact that you are a lone voice continuing to argue for this and that you are not gaining traction in your arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you calm down and stop being so bitey please? No, you haven't said these things several times. You've barely said anything at all except to be rude.

The only other editor who has stated that they think this is not a good idea is Hut 8.5. Those who've made comments broadly in favour of the suggestion: Masem, NewsAndEventsGuy, Diego Moya, jcgoble3. So could we have less of the "lone voice" please, as I make that five in favour, two against. Now, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and with two editors strongly opposed and other editors not feeling so strongly on this, I can't claim I have consensus, and don't intend to do so. I would, however, appreciate it if in future you assumed rather more good faith than you have apparently been capable of doing so far. -- Merlinme ( talk) 13:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mer, I am not, and have never claimed to be, in support. Consider my thumb sideways. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but anyway it's moot now, as the proposal's dead. I still object to the manner in which Spartaz went about disagreeing with my suggestion, though. -- Merlinme ( talk) 14:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not really very accurate as you know since a parallel discussion has been on-going at WT:AFD and I have expanded on my thinking there on at least 3 separate occasions. Oh look someone else disagrees. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at your edits in detail shall we? 1) "No no no no": asserts no consensus, doesn't actually advance an argument against the proposal. 2) Repeat no consensus. 3) Advance an argument that it will increase focus on process (fair enough). 4) Invoke Consensus Can Change and abuse of BEFORE (fair enough). 5) The change is meaningless. 6) Find an essay and add it somewhere else (fair enough). 7) "I think I have said this several times and you are not listening, BEFORE is constantly being used as a club to rubbish nominations on process without considering the content." You'd actually mentioned BEFORE once previously, by my count. In general, you've responded to my suggestion with the tone of someone who knows far more about it than I do and doesn't have the time to even discuss it. Which may well be the case, but it still comes across as rather bitey. Anyway, if or when I have time I may look at adding it to an essay, as you suggested. -- Merlinme ( talk) 10:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- I see this as a lot of instruction creep. I don't see a blanket rule like this being feasible because there are as many types of repeat nominations as there are repeat nominations. Nor do I like this talk of "extra ammunition", as though AfD nominators are an enemy that needs to be fought, and as though WP:BEFORE isn't already used as a weapon to attack them. Reyk _YO! 13:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the real issue

Which is that repeated AfDs are intended to eventually get a subset of editors who will !vote Delete by wearing out the others who did not so !vote. The solution is to simply require that the full set of previous !voters be notified of the new nomination.

Any AfD nomination made less than 6 months after a previous AfD discussion for the same article shall be made known to all the editors opining at the prior discussion regardless of their position in such a discussion.

Thus making the value of using additional AfD nominations in order to seek the "favourable to deletion subset" moot. And in compliance with WP:CANVASS as well. Collect ( talk) 19:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's stll an easier solution: remind closing admins that they should review the past AFDs, and if the reason the new AFD nom is not significantly different from the last, consider the cumulative effects of all votes involved particularly when we're talking close nominations. This implicitly gives voice to all those that already !voted in the previous case.

And of course, at some point we need to trout the repeat nominators if they aren't suggesting anything significantly new to use. -- MASEM ( t) 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And of course, we also have the issue of inclusionist editors block voting keep on non-policy based grounds to deal with as well. Any admin snoutcounting deserves a good trouting at DRV and it should always be the case that arguments by assertion carry no weight and policy based arguments and "sources win prizes" should carry the day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As for "arguments by assertion" vs. "policy based arguments and sources", here is what Spartaz wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 25#María_Viramontes, regarding the list of sources at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes#Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability?.  Spartaz's edits assert not looking at the sources, assert that these were "poor source"s, and the evidence given that these "aren't good sources" is, "you would have brought them further".  I don't know what "brought them further" means, but it appears that the determination of WP:GNG was affected by something I did or didn't do, which is not a policy-based argument.  The edits also assert that this argument is "clear".  Spartaz, instead of considering whether these edits deserve a trout, would you answer the questions at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes?  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What a load of irrelevant bluster. Stop moaning about a past argument where you didn't get your way; it has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Neither does your vastly overblown sense of entitlement. You seem to think, because Spartaz has not indulged your irrational demands for answers to your pointless questions at a long-settled AfD, that he cannot express an opinion on other issues. Well, guess what? Nobody cares. Reyk _YO! 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"irrational"(x2), "bluster", "no bearing", "moaning", "long", "vastly", "overblown", "pointless", "indulged", "stop", "demands", "guess"—lots of inflammatory words.  At least one person cares, as that was work invested to discourage Spartaz and others from taking a look at the list of sources.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. You know how double quotes work and have demonstrated this ability by picking words out of my post. You must be so proud. I assume you think there's some point to doing this kind of thing since it's something you do often, but it's a complete mystery to me. Here's some more quoted words for your collection: "stop" "changing" "the" "subject". BTW, irrelevant and irrational are two different words. Reyk _YO! 01:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating, you need to go get a life. Its perfectly normal when faced with a laundry list of sources for the poster of said list to be asked to identify the best two or three for evaluation. Since that's all we need its a good way to save user time. Since no-one bothered to identify those sources I think its perfectly reasonable to discount them. Sorry, but no-one has a right to win an argument by posting walls of text to drive off other users and if you can't make a point succinctly its probably not worth making. Or is this part of your ongoing griping because we wouldn't let you continue your arguments at AFDs after they closed? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Recently, an editor tried to spin-out a fictional character article from a fictional character list. I reverted it, thus re-merging the spin-out back into the list, in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT / WP:SIGCOV.

That editor accused me of deleting the article. In the interest of disclosure, I didn't look closely at the article and quickly reverted the spinout. But I did re-add some information back into the list, and I did invite him to add further information to the list. Instead, he took the issue to the article rescue squadron.

My goal is not to dispute what to do with the article. The process around this article has already become needlessly dramatic and it doesn't need more drama.

I'm here to ask the community about our policy on the appropriate use of the newly created rescue list.

ARS recently saw their rescue template deleted from a consensus that there were systemic problems. I honestly don't know if the community would consider this use of the new "rescue list" to be kosher or if it's slipping towards the problems that got the rescue template deleted. So I thought the best thing to do is to just ask. I'm okay with what the wider community decides.

The rescue list is currently used for articles at AFD. (I guess that could include prods and speedy deletions, but those processes are so easy to contest that it makes the ARS kind of redundant.)

A few ARS editors recently expanded the scope of the rescue list. [5] [6] Should the rescue list be used for content within articles, merges, and disputed spinouts?

Thanks everyone. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I accused you of eliminating the article, which you did, by putting a redirect back there. And as I clearly stated on your talk page and on the ARS discussion for this, every single Wikiproject there is list the deletes, merges, and redirects for things related to those projects. I clearly listed that having millions of search results for "Avatar" and "Ultima" made it hard for me to find what I was looking for to prove it was notable on its own. So I asked for help [7], hoping someone can think of a better way to sort through all the results and find what I'm looking for. Three long term and active members of the ARS discussed this, saying asking for help working on an article like this was fine. Dream Focus 16:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I still take strong issue with you characterizing a merge of an article as the elimination of an article. But let's see if the wider community thinks this is an appropriate use of the new rescue list. Seeing as there's been a recent controversy with the rescue template, we need to be 100% sure. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Semantics again? Fine. Instead of saying you eliminated the article from easy viewing by putting a redirect there, I'll just say you prevent people from seeing it. Honestly now. I have no idea what you are getting all worked up over. The article isn't there anymore, its a redirect. Dream Focus 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not just a semantic difference. How are people prevented from seeing the content? Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They aren't seeing ALL of the valid content. [8] Dream Focus 16:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All verified content. Anyway, this isn't about the article. It's about process and policy. Shooterwalker ( talk) 17:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Merging w/ redirect is not deletion, so the need per ARS' charter is not as significant as if it were an AFD. But that doesn't mean that in a discussion about the merge that ARS can't be notified to see if there are sources that better justify the separate article over the merge. -- MASEM ( t) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please consider WP:Civil and reply to each other with civility and assuming good faith (WP:faith]]. Above all, avoid WP:Edit warring. Two reverts are one to many, and three reverts violate the wp:3rr three revert rule. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No dispute here. You won't see any civility from me. Nor any additional reverts until this policy discussion unfolds. Shooterwalker ( talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree per Masem. In a discussion between having the article, or merging it back into a list, there does not seem to be a problem to me in inviting the ARS to get involved to see if they can come up with RS to V the N of the article topic. I think we should do all we can to support the creation of articles, and we should not arbitrarily close of an avenue such as ARS merely because we're not dealing with AfD or PROD. I respect that you're trying to head off discussion on the instance which precipitated this discussion, but I take it we're talking about Avatar (Ultima). Seems to me there's enough information and enough hints of notability on that page to warrant a new article. Insistig that it stays in the list stymies development. Shelling it out into an article at least provides a forum for additional work of the sort ARS purports to be interested in. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The ARS rescue list can be used for any and all content to be considered for rescue, in my opinion, including Files for deletion, Categories for discussion, Miscellany for deletion, articles proposed for deletion, etc., as this is historically what ARS covers. It's imperative that people simply follow the instructions for posting, and include their rationale why the content should be retained on Wikipedia. See Articles & content for an overview of the content that ARS covers. Why is there a sudden interest in limiting freedom of speech in a public discussion forum? Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's a process/policy issue. I think the analogy would be taking a merge dispute to AFD. Would shutting the AFD down be a matter of process, or would we be limiting free discussion? Every process is different. The more clarity we can have on how the rescue list is used, the fewer disputes we will see down the line. Shooterwalker ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's analogous to saying that the article proponent should not be allowed to develop the article whilst an opponent is trying to shoe-horn it back into a list. Or should not be able to solicit others to do so. How does that help? Seems to me that if there's a segments of an article hovering around the cusp of being articles in its own right, we should do all we can to push it forwards, not all we can to pull it back. That latter, bluntly is what you appear to me to be arguing for. Again: how does that help? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, note that there is significant precedent for WikiProjects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 03:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• merges shouldn't be deletes, but in practice they usually are, and redirects are almost always intended as deletes--the only difference is that any editor, not just an admin , can reverse them. Probably we shouldn't have such as strong focus on individual articles as designators of importance, but just as convenient ways to organize content--but nonetheless, we do have that distinction, in the general way the public looks at it, the general way most Wikipedians look at it, the universal way article creators look at it, & the way Google's ranking algorithms look at it, so it isn't that surprising to find it enshrined in WP:N, Given the functional identity of the three processes, probably the increasing custom of using AfD to get consensus on any of them is reasonable. The effectiveness and use of AfD is that of the people who respond to their suggestions that an article might be improved to increase its capability--the results will of course be variable--variable in whether an article listed is actually improvable, in whether it does get improved, in whether the improvement is enough to warrant keeping it as a separate article, and finally in whether it does in fact get kept. Different people here have different perceptions about the rate worthless articles get kept to the rate at which worthy ones get deleted, but there are certainly errors in each direction. What will help the situation is greater participation in working on articles, rather than in meta-debates about whether to work on articles & how to organize to do so. I've rescued a number of articles at AfD, , and I strongly support the efforts of the people who do use it a base for working, but in my own work I ignore ARS banners, for I know myself what I am most likely to do effectively. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Why not? - Surely it's OK for editors to ask for help, whether from the the ARS or elsewhere? Given the degree of biting, personal attacks, and incivility I've noticed on Wikipedia, and the contrasting friendliness of ARS members, it's not surprising that the ARS should be increasingly sought out. As long as the ARS can cope (and that's for registered ARS members to decide), it seems completely reasonable for articles threatened by merger to go to the ARS list (merger is, after all, essentially a reversible deletion). If this gets forbidden, the result could well be to bounce the articles to AfD for a keep-vs-merge discussion, which will just clog up AfD. -- 202.124.72.226 ( talk) 13:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I find this attempt to expand ARS activities to redirects and merges rather troubling. While they may not like me raising issues about them, the fact is that there are plenty of people who strongly believe this group, with good reason, is essentially just a group for canvassing keep votes at deletion discussion. Rather than defer to these concerns a little, it seems some of the more partisan members are doubling down with this list based on a very "inclusionist" POV that says merges and redirects are essentially just deletions. As someone who always tries to see if a merge or redirect of a non-notable article is appropriate before voting delete, and often merging much of the important information over to the other article in question, I find this notion offensive. Merges and redirects do not lead to the loss of information as the edit history is preserved in full. Also, a merge and redirect are not one and the same. Redirect usually implies the article does not contain any significant new material, while a merge does. In some cases a merge is clearly not appropriate and should be opposed, but there is no reason to think ARS will limit itself to just those cases.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems to me that the main issue here is WP:MULTI: the principle that discussions should be centralised. Merger discussions usually take place on the talk page of the article being merged, and while ARS members may have something to add that discussion, they should take care not to fragment the discussion about the merger. I don't think that this is a particularly ARS-related problem, because similar risks of fragmentation apply when a merge discussion is flagged up on a topic-based wikiproject. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, all articles have only one article title. However, some topics may have two or more legitimate names, such as a war with a certain name in one country and another name at the other country. Thus, some articles may use one name, and others would use the other. Of course, the article must settle for one of the options as the title, but is it acceptable if a user starts to edit all the articles to force an uniform usage of the selected title, erasing all usages of the alternative title? Cambalachero ( talk) 03:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, as long as the alternative article titles being unfortunately erased are supported by reliable sources. dci | TALK 04:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would add that when combining per {{ merge}} I usually convert the smaller article to a redirect to the larger article, which generally gets all the verifiable content from the smaller article. Keeping in mind WP:NPOV articles should cover the subject from a neutral prospective so there is no need for two articles with different point of view (i.e. both reasonable nomenclatures should be included). Jeepday ( talk) 11:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Did you mean that even in the original article mention of the other names is missing?  That seems to be essential to get alternative names listed in the lede of an article.  For example, in the article (now deleted) on Kippax Uniting Church, I wrote, "Other names used to refer to the church are: Kippax, Kippax Church, Uniting Church, Kippax Uniting, Kippax Uniting Community Center, and Kippax UCA; and two older names are Central Belconnen Uniting Church, and Central Belconnen Methodist Church."  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a policy on personal attacks directed at Wikipedia users and their edits on-wiki? I think we should block users if we are 100% sure thatthe off-wiki poster and the Wikipedia user are the same person. Paolo Napolitano 10:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh give it up. VolunteerMarek 11:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a policy against this. While such attacks are uncollegial, it's not really in Wikipedia's remit to police external websites or real life. -- He to Hecuba ( talk) 13:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 14:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is a policy against personal attacks, both the policy mentioned by the IP, and WP:CIVIL is clear about this. It is also clear what actions can be made, and where ( 1, 2). This question is also more suitable at the WP:Help desk than here. Belorn ( talk) 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't one that I am aware of, and there really shouldn't be. If people want to rant, off wikipedia, that should be their business. Could you imagine the abuse that a policy like this would incur? Most of the editors here are "volunteers" who have little or no time to go " Witch Hunting through blogs, in attempts to enforce some unenforceable policy. Wikipedia policy is for Wikipedia space, not the entire internet.-- JOJ ^Hutton 23:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Which damaging edits on this site would this policy be designed to prevent? Or are we to give the farce and accept that blocks are not merely preventative? Kevin ( talk) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What should be done when there is a move request on an article, an admin close it, but many people protest against the closure? Is it acceptable to open a new move request with a RFC, or should people accept the closure as it was done? Cambalachero ( talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, consensus can change, so if there are multiple users who want the article moved back another discussion can always be initiated, especially if there wasn't much input into the original request. -- He to Hecuba ( talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I maintain copyright over a large amount of material that was written in the past. If I use that material in articles here on Wikipeida, do I need to make some type of registration of my fictious User Name with the US Copyright Office? (I am a US citizen.) I ask this question under your policy section, rather than a simple help directory, because some of this material is recognizable to peers, but I want to remain an anonymous donor /contributor. It seems to me that if one of my peers ever complained that copyrighted material has been transferred to your foundation without proper licensing, I would have to disclose my actual identity. What is Wikipedia's policy for complying with Title 17, yet users use fictitious names? Petaaclu ( talk) 04:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the technicalities here, but if you've published this elsewhere under your own name, and you post it here under your alias, it is entirely possible that people will make the connection - we can't prevent this happening, and effectively your identity will already have been disclosed. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to do anyway. The material will have to be cited to a published source if you are going to use it, and the citation will presumably include your name. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

WP allows editors to have more than one account if they have a good reason. See WP:Multiple Accounts. Perhaps you could use a new account in your real name just for the purpose of uploading your content after you license it to the Foundation. There's a page about who handles donated content at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. Or you could use a separate account with an alias or ask another editor to load it for you. The donation can't be completely anonymous--your real name will have to go to the foundation as part of proving that you have the right to make the donation, I think. It seems like the alternative would be to paraphrase your previous writings and to cite the same sources that you used the first time, rather than citing yourself.-- Hjal ( talk) 04:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy is right, there's no way you could republish this material under your username without connecting it to your real name. Even if you didn't want attribution, referencing sources is a requirement, and moreover anyone could search for the original materials and discover their author. The only way you could avoid disclosing your identity is if these works have never been published before, so nobody can connect them to your real name. You could submit them under another account, as suggested above - your later edits in the same area would suggest a connection but it wouldn't be conclusive. Dcoetzee 04:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A relevant page is WP:Donating copyrighted materials. If I understand it correctly, a copyright holder should license the work for reuse under the appropriate free license, rather than transfer any rights to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not sure if this affects your privacy concerns. Flatscan ( talk) 05:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple solution: Upload all the files you want to donate to something like Flickr or Picassa, using an account that isn't connected to your name. Then email permissions-commonswikimedia.org and ask one of those users to upload the images to Commons for you, and tell them to please use "Anonymous donation" for the source. The images would all be given OTRS tickets, so people in the future would be able to check that the donations were, in fact, valid. OTRS tickets are confidential. Please note that even if you don't want to identify yourself as the source, the photographer him/herself will probably need to be identified, and an approximate date that the image was taken will also be needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will read and digest all of this. That was a nice "Welcome"! Petaaclu ( talk) 16:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

While making a spelling correction to Gaza War, I was reminded of the 1RR rule on Israel/Palestinian issues. Do we really enforce the 1RR on bots, e.g. if someone reverts the bot and the bot reverts back, do we block the bot? I can't remember ever seeing this addressed, and I virtually never edit (even for spelling fixes) in contentious areas, so I virtually never encounter or witness any of the effects of ArbCom rulings. Nyttend ( talk) 06:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While it might depend on what specifically the bot was doing, in general I would hope people would use common sense. Most bots, especially bots that will repeat their edits if reverted, are making edits that should not need to be reverted in the first place, which implies that someone reverting these edits is either confused or being disruptive.

And on the other hand, if a bot is continuing to make a bad edit, the bot should be stopped (via fixing whatever error is attracting the bot, applying bot exclusion, blocking, or using any other shutoff method the bot supports) regardless of any 1RR restriction on the article. Anomie ⚔ 14:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Notability (organizations and companies) about including some criteria to assess the cases in which critical reviews of restaurants are significant to assert notability. You may want to step in and comment. Diego ( talk) 13:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Caution:User talk:67.70.147.72 These 3 computers ( 2 in first floor and one computers in the second floor in the office of direction) are connected in the Centre Étienne Desmarteau at Montreal , Canada: it means that several users can write on these computers. I do not want to be implied and involved with this IP community address. In the pass , I have some very big problems with many people in the same IP im Centre Étienne Desmarteau ( see french wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2 )

Attention: l'adresse IP 67.70.147.72 est une adresse communautaire de 3 ordinateurs. Ces 3 ordinateurs ( 2 sont situés au première étage dans les vestiaires des équipes et un ordinateur est situé au deuxième étage dans le bureau de la coordination de l'aréna) sont reliés au fr:Centre Étienne Desmarteau  : Cela signifie que plusieurs utilisateurs peuvent écrire sur ces ordinateurs. Je ne veux pas être impliquée avec cette adresse communautaire. J'ai eu suffisamment de problèmes dans le Wiki francophone avec l'utilisation communataire d'une même adresse IP du Centre Étienne Desmarteau par plusieurs utilisateurs (Faux-nez http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Genevieve2). -- Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève ( talk) 21:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There are several requests at the Original Research Noticeboard which are going unanswered (including one, for the sake of full disclosure, which I made), even though some date back a couple of weeks or more. Some attention from knowledgeable users would be of assistance there. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Today a user is seen writing about Fan Tai Shui in a living person's article [9]. Literally it's almost like saying "because the person's constellation is bad this week, he won't do well this time." Even though it is sourced by "reliable" paper, I do have my concern on the content itself and seriously don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Is there any policy/guideline other than WP:NOT would justify the removal of such commentary from biographical articles? -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 06:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The link you give seems unconnected with Fan Tai Shui - are you sure you have the right one? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Link fixed. Should be in the section "Practices and Beliefs" - Fan Tai Shui (犯太歲). -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 07:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The source cited for this seems to be in a Chinese script, which I can't read. However, if this is the original source for the 'astrological or occultic content', there seems no reason whatsoever to include it in any article unless it is discussed elsewhere, per WP:PRIMARY. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The source, Oriental Daily, did not cite any third party astromancer (or Feng Shui professional) for the Fan Tai Shui claim, but there's not only one source claiming Henry Tang is being "Fan Tai Shui" this year (those are, of course, Chinese source.) The point is, even if the source is secondary or tertiary, they are still too unscientific for biographical articles unless the person in question is indulging into such belief. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 08:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Not a Crystal Ball seems particularly relevant to this case, for some reason... Diego ( talk) 08:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see how why crystal feels applicable but the policies I would cite as directly useful on this are WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and possibly WP:BADIDEA. I'd also point to the essay, Wikipedia:Relevance of content).-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed the content guideline WP:Belief. I've to say it's not WP:BEANS because the problem already exists. So please take a look. -- Sameboat - 同舟 ( talk) 02:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have only just found the template - Template:Example farm. I have never see this before so went to check how many articles connect to it - it seems there is a varied number of articles and contents have been flagged by it.

However I'm not convinced it is needed, so wonder if the community would be able to discuss whether it is worth keeping this template? There are numerous templates which advice editors "this section might need tidying up a bit". If we are accepting very specific/finer templates with good justification, fine, I've no problem with that. This seems to be oddly over-specific, maybe even to the point of nit-picking. The emblem is not exactly helpful - a simple warning "!" gives little indication to the desired effect.

So simple question - should this template be modified or kept at all? I am not sure..... doktorb _words ^deeds 18:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you were to bring this up at TfD, I would !vote keep. I think specific maintenance tags are an asset to the project; they allow editors who enjoy doing a very specific kind of maintenance to find articles that need their attention. If you don't like the graphic, create a new one and improve the template! Livit⇑ ^Eh?/ _What? 19:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The place for such a discussion would be wp:Templates for discussion, not here. I agree with Liv though, this template serves a purpose and should not be deleted. Yoenit ( talk) 21:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that when the Republican nominee for President names his running mate, that person's article should be at least semi-protected as soon as the announcement is made. In 2008, immediately after the announcement about Governor Palin, someone changed her article in ways favorable to her. The purpose of this was clearly to influence the large numbers of voters looking up that person. In order to prevent a recurrence of this, it appears to me that article editing should be members only, at least, for a week or so after the running mate is named.
Robert 19:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil ( talk • contribs)

Per standard policy we do not protect articles pre-emptively, but these articles will probably get Semi-protected shortly after such an announcement due to increased vandalism. You can also be certain a lot of experienced editors will pay attention to these articles after such an announcement. Yoenit ( talk) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_respect_to_the_copyright_of_countries_with_which_the_US_does_not_have_copyright_relations.3F. The discussion concerns our treatment of works authored in countries that have not signed international copyright treaties. Under U.S. law, with some exceptions, works first published in non-treaty countries (such as Iran, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Iraq) have no copyright protection in the U.S. and are the equivalent of public domain. Some discussion participants argue that Wikipedia should treat these works as PD, and others raise some practical and ethical reasons for treating them as non-free and requiring fair use rationales. The RfC has had limited participation so far, and more eyeballs and opinions are welcomed. Nathan ^T 17:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A recent incident of article tagging by Kumi-Taskbot, which is my bot, has prompted me to request clarification of Wikipedias policy on tagging articles. As far as I know and have been told, any WikiProject can tag an article they feel is in their scope. Recently however I have been told that several articles my bot tagged, some that fell into WikiProject Connecticut, some where redirects, some were other things, etc. do not fall under the scope of WikiProject United States. As I informed the users, as far as I know, Connecticut is part of the US. First let me clarify that I wasn't tagging every article in that project but a few that started with United States, US, U.S. and American and after I cleaned out a few thousand that did not apply to the US. Then I had an Administrator send me threatening messages indicating that I would be blocked if I didn't drop the issue.

In coming here I'm not asking for action against the admin or the editors. What I am looking for is some clarification on some issues:

1. What project may tag an article? - As far as I know any project can
2. Is it appropriate for a project to tell another project that it cannot tag articles in that projects scope? No
3. Is it appropriate for editors not members of a project to tell a project what its scope is or should be? No

I beleive I know the answers to these questions and my answers follow the questions above but I would like to discuss this with other editors in case I misunderstand. -- Kumioko ( talk) 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Where you are getting complaints I am guessing is that most people consider for example a state project to be a sub project of the country project and in most cases both projects are usually not tagged, only the more specific one to avoid redundancy and talk page clutter. However I am not commenting on the actions of the people you are alluding to. To use another example of articles I edit in, we tag ice hockey articles with the ice hockey tag and not the sports project tag because the ice hockey project is a related sub project of sports. It is just like categories in a way, you don't put the article in the sub category and the parent category. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The question you should have asked would be "why would you want not to tag an article", which Dj answers and which is probably the reason you were asked not to tag those articles. (On an aside, I disagree with Kumioko's 'bot' edits but don't care enough to ask him to stop, nor do I feel involved enough to do so.) -- Izno ( talk) 19:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Djsasso - Several of the projects have stated that one project or another should not tag there article for X reason. My tagging was the recent one but I have seen this numorous times. ::Reply to Izno - Could you clarify which type of edit. The bot does quite a few different things.

There are differing opinions but as I see it the Connecticut project and WPUS are seperate and as such oth tags should be allowed. Just as the ACW or US task forces of WPMILHIST are on the same pages as United States, the individual states, WikiProject US History, etc. One project or editor should not be telling another project or editor that they cannot place their projects tag on an article. It completely violates Wikipedia's rules against article ownership. I agree also that there is no reason to fight over who tags an article or not. The more coverage an article has the better. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you run separately the Connecticut project would be a defacto sub project given its topic area. We also try to avoid overlapping of scopes to avoid duplication of work and clutter. Tagging say an article with both the US history wikiproject and US wikiproject is highly inefficient and is a mess. If people are interested in both they just join both projects. There is no need for two separate tags in cases where every article that would be in one project will also end up in the other project. In fact its highly discouraged to have two wikiprojects that cover the exact same scope. So you would not tag articles as being in the US wikiproject since its already in the US History wikiproject which is a defacto sub project if not an official one. I believe people told you all of this waaaay back when you first began to reignite that project and started to tag articles for the US project. - DJSasso ( talk) 01:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that your argument is Utopian and not very realistic in the realm of Wikipedia. Frankly you logic makes no sense. By your logic, WikiProject Illinois shouldn't tag articles in WikiProject Chicago, Chicago shouldn't tag articles in the Chicago Bulls task force. Using another example, Indiana shouldn't tag articles in WikiProject Indianapolis and Indianapolis shouldn't tag articles in the Indianapolis Childrens Museum project under GLAM. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Yes WikiProject Illinois shouldn't tag articles that are in WikiProject Chicago (again what they should do is a joint banner). And the Chicago Bull task force is a task force not a wikiproject so they have the NBA project banner and the Chicago banner which is completely fine since one is from the sports tree and one is geography based. And as for Indianapolis and GLAM the two are separate project trees. One is museums based and one is geography based. Your situation is two tags both based on geography. - DJSasso ( talk) 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• The section header and original post were misleading in that this is not about article tagging, but article talk page tagging.
• Lots of banners at the top of the talk page are annoying. I wish that WikiProject banners were collapsed by default. Also, multiple overlapping projects tagging in parallel looks, and probably is, disorganised and inefficient. I would hope that everyong involved would expect some effort at co-ordination between WikiProject Connecticut and WikiProject United States. "I wasn't tagging every article ... and after I cleaned out a few thousand that did not apply" makes it sound like you are tagging without enough care. Does the WikiProject have a clear policy on what gets tagged, and are you folloiwng it? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You would be incorrect in assuming coordination between projects. Several projects are not very willing to work with other projects and in fact tend to run off anyone who isn't a regular. Another problem is who gets the right to tag an article and who has the authority to tell the others they can't? Take for example Barrack Obama and the pile of banners on that page. I would argue its better to have one US banner with the others in it than to have 20 different US related banners all trying to get their piece. But we are die-gressing from MY point in this discussion. Does a project have the right to tell another project they can't tag an article or do they not? -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to focus this discussion on what most profits the project, i.e. Wikipedia, instead of trying to debate which 'right' projects have? JHS_nl ( talk) 10:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that some projects (I am trying hard not to name names) will remove or run off anyone not in their group who tries to edit an article in their scope. If for example they have an article like Barrack Obama tagged and another related project tags it they say they are out of scope, start harrassing them and in most cases the editor simply gives up (and frequently leaves Wikipedia) in frustration. I have been here for several years and seen it many times. Frankly I am getting a bit tired of these project being allowed to do it. So I raise the issue here. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects don't have rights, wiki projects are just a group of editors who like to edit a common topic. As JHS mentions, it would be much more beneficial to the project to discuss how you can help to streamline your process with those that already happen on the wiki instead of going on about the rights of one project vs another. As I mentioned above, there has been for a long time general consensus that you don't tag an article of a wikiproject with your project if that project could be seen as being a sub-topic of the project you are tagging. Which is why you don't tend to see the Sports project tags on every basketball article or hockey article to use the example I used above. Only the project that is most specifically applicable tends to get tagged. Tagging very generally which is what you seem to be doing actually makes things worse in that all you are doing is creating one big mess of articles with one minor thing in common which makes it harder for people to actually help the articles than being in more specific projects. - DJSasso ( talk) 15:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they may not have rights but they seem to exert a lot of influence and no one wants to stop them from doing it. Which is why I bring the issue here. Regardless of personal opinions about scope, if WPUS wants to tag every article relating to them, such as WikiProject Biography tagging every bio, they should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean they remove other projects banners, force them to merge, or whatever other meritless arguments exist. The bottom line is any project can tag the articles they feel are in their scope and shouldn't be forced to redefine their scope because other projects bully them into doing so. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well one of the reasons we have the WikiProject Council is to try and make sure that different projects don't have a scope that overlaps another project. So that we don't have these sorts of issues. Because it really makes little sense to have tags for two projects that cover the exact same scope which is what the case is above with the state vs country situation. WPBiography is a very different type of project so not really relevant. And remember just like everything else on the wiki a WikiProject doesn't own their scope. If community members whether they declare to be a part of the project or not come to a consensus that a projects scope is too large then the scope can be changed. - DJSasso ( talk) 21:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As much respect I have for the Council they have little power and I don't think I have ever seen them step in to resolve a problem of this sort. Its a good place to ask questions about a project, clarify some policy and ask general questions but not so good at enforcing the policy. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the overlapping scope issue. First let me again clarify that I don't agree for several reasons but assuming that its correct for a moment, which project overlaps the others scope and who tells the other project they can't tag it. For example, Should WikiProject United Stats take control and tell Connecticut they cant tag an article or the other way around. This point is made even more clear in things like WikiProject Aviation & the Military History Aviation task force, WikiProject US Presidents & WikiProject Presidential elections, City and State WikiProjects and the list goes on. So, it really boils down to whether a project can or cannot tag an article and who has the authority to say that a project cannot tag an article. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already told you how that is handled. If the topic is a sub-topic of the other then the one that is the sub-topic gets tagged. That is a very commonplace general practice and quite entrenched through the wiki already which means there is consensus by silence that that is how it works. So in your example Connecticut would be tagged and the US would not be. Yes there are cases where those such as yourself try to push both tags onto articles, one good example I can think of is the Chicago project and Illinois project a couple years ago. And just like your situation that is a bit ridiculous to have both tagged. A combined tag again would be the best option but if the two sides aren't willing to do that then generally its the more specific tag that gets put on the article. Task forces are a separate issue because they are still the same wikiproject and are usually just a parameter in the parent projects banner. - DJSasso ( talk) 12:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess this is something we are just going to haev to agree to disagree on. I personally don't think its bad to have more than one projects banner. Different projects have different members. Different project concentrate on different issues. I also think that by forcing WikiProject United States to "ignore" any project in the scope of another subproject completely destroys the project. Every single article will fall under at least one other project, in some cases multiples. As I stated before though this is really off topic but it does highlight one important point. Knowone wants to be willing (other than me it seems) to tell a project they don't have the right to tell another project they can't add their banner to a project. I see a lot of symantic arguments but no clear yes or no. Eithe they can or they can't. It seems though based on what I am seeing, projects do have that power and can indeed tell another project they cannot tag an article. This is truly disappointing and a real shame. -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem you are really having is that you seem to think that WikiProjects own their project and they don't. Just like anything else on the wiki you require consensus of the community at large. So yes people outside your project if there are enough of them to form consensus can tell you that your scope is too large. This is why projects like the Canadian one only cover the topics that don't fit in any of its sub projects (generally just federal topics) and why each province is run as its own WikiProject. An overly large scope is a bad thing. - DJSasso ( talk) 15:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Again thats an opinion. WikiProject Biography has upwrds of a million articles, MILHIST has nearly the same as WPUS, I don't see anyone screaming at them about scope. Nor do I see anyone beating WikiProject History into the ground about theirs. I am not trying to say that WPUS should overrule the other projects, only that they should be allowed to add their banner too. If I followed the opinion you have theres no reason for the project to exist because all the articles fall into a subproject, many of which are inactive. Even for federal projects there are at least 8 that would cover those, MILHIST US, ACW, ARW, USGOV, USPresidents, US Governors, US presidential elections, US State Legislatures, US politicians (defunct), Superfunds, WikiProject Washington DC and several others. And what happens when US presidents and presidential elections tries to add both banners? Which one takes precedance. This is why I think that you idea of the subserviant banner system doesn't work. Projects need the ability of tagging the articles in their scope. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing scope with number of articles. The two are different things. WPBiography's scope is exactly one set of articles. Biographies. Whereas what you are suggesting is the scope of WPUS is every article that has remotely ever thought of being related to the US even though they don't have any relevance to the nation as a whole. That is a big difference between those two projects. While biography has a large number of articles it has a small scope. WPUS on the other hand based on what you suggest has both a large number of articles and a large scope. - DJSasso ( talk) 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As an editor who participated in the WikiProject United States/WikiProject Texas collaberation discussion I gave my viewpoint (that more projects looking at an article is a good thing, but to let the individual projects retain their individuality). As an editor who was representing Wikiproject Dallas-Ft. Worth, we came to an agreement that WPUS could add their banner to the most important/highest graded articles, but that we did not want to have our banner removed in favor of the WPUS banner. Kumioko gave plenty of time for discussion and comment, by approaching the affected Wikiprojects. The upper limit (IMO) for Wikiproject banners is about 5 collapsed. any more than that and the header for the talk gets too long. Hasteur ( talk) 20:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the right mindset. Of course it's OK in some cases to have an article in both the large and the specific wikiprojects, but that's not the general case. See for example Obama - it's correctly classified under Wikipedia:WikiProject United States and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections because it's of direct relevance to both at the highest level. On the other hand Iowa Basketball Exposure League doesn't need to be under both WikiProject Iowa and WikiProject United States, because it's not of direct relevance to the country as a whole. But that call is not one that can be made by a bot. Diego ( talk) 16:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well just so that you know, there are more than 100 US related projects and not only do I not agree but it would be impossibly difficult to filter out 100+ projects when tagging articles from categories or other things. Additionally, even then there are so many projects that nearly every articles falls into the scope of one or more of these. This essentially ensures that WPUS won't be able to tag anything. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on, don't indulge in victimism; you have at least 22 articles that can be directly tagged by the WPUS wikiproject. Every other article with less than Top importance for the U.S. should likely be classified under the most relevant subproject instead. Diego ( talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic

Again we are veering off topic. The question is simple. Either a project can tag an article or it cannot. Most of the comments here are not on topic so I broke out this new section. Does a project or editor have the right to tell a project it cannot tag an article? If neither, then who has the authority to tell that project that they cannot? The questions are simple, the answers should be as well. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that you're in the wrong mindset if you need to ask that question. WikiProject Computer science and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing faced a similar situation. The solution? They created a combined template that tags the article as of interest to both WikiProjects; a single parameter in either template will also flag the article including it in any of the related task forces.

See, the solution was simple and in your face, but you needed to approach it by trying to find a compromise. Always remember that Wikipedians are mandated to colaborate and must participate in a community; asking questions in a confrontational way should be avoided. Diego ( talk) 07:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're misreading the problem here a bit. The problem is not my compromise, but the failure of other projects to compromise. Some will flat out refuse to use this idea, and some will not even allow other states or projects to tag the articles and say that they are out of scope. The template switch thing is an interesting idea. I'm not sure if all the projects will go for it and it's not needed in all cases but it's definately interesting. There are several reasons why it may not work for all such as several of the parameters aren't recognized by some of the templates so the templates would need to be modified. Some templates don't use the bannershell template. Some projects just flat out refuse any sort of ideas of collaboration and revert or run off any attempts to do so, frequently in less than friendly ways. It would also require double work in many cases, requiring 2 templates to be updated instead of one. I do like the idea though and I am probably going to look at doing that with several of them. Particularly some of the state and national projects.

So again, I am left asking the original question, who has the right to tell another project they can't tag an article. Everyone seems quick to point at me and say this isn't a problem but the fact is this is a huge problem for certain projects (I's still trying hard not to name one but there are 2 that immediately come to mind). -- Kumioko ( talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Some projects just flat out refuse any sorta ideas of collaboration"... and that's what shows that you're in a battleground mindset. Projects don't revert articles, editors do. If you find opposition from some particular editors to a proposal and it is creating disruption or hurting your project's operation, that's a reason to call them out on their refusal to collaborate, in the worse case by reporting them to mediation or user conduct. Of course this would imply that the tagging is really needed to help your operation; in the case you explained I fail to see how a bot creating automatic tags for articles already categorized is helping the project. But that's something to debate with the people affected by the changes.

I can hardly believe that in a whole project nobody is willing to work out a compromise, except for maybe a really small project. Even in that case forbidding someone to edit one way or the other should be a last resource, and an outright ban affecting all Wikiprojects if this was a systemic and community-wide problem. The template I explained above shows that this is not the case since other projects have reached a working compromise, as expected of us all. Thus, the solution you want to this problem is not appropriate and would only help to create open wounds and resentment.

Maybe a compromise doesn't even require a complex technical solution; the WikiProjectBannerShell template can be used to group and collapse several Wikiprojects together in a talk page. Maybe that could be enough to satisfy the other project's concerns; but how would you know if the only solution you accept is to win the dispute? In any case, I don't think that one incident between two wikiprojects should be solved with a solution that affects all of them. Diego ( talk) 13:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't necessarily with the entire project but with 3 or 4 very active members of them. Typically its the same 4 people that always reply and the other members just go with it cause they don't want the hassle of geetting involved in the mess. I have received emails from some in the past stating that they simply don't have time to argue about who does or doesn't have the right to tag. Again though you are assuming that a compromise is desired. They don't want to compromise they want things their way and will not compromise unless its something they want. We even have projects now telling users they can't add infoboxes or other templates to articles in their scope.

In the end it seems as though my original fears were correct. The project schema has developed to a point where the projects themselves determine what should and shouldn't happen. The comments I haev seen on this discussion just prove that no one (besides me it seems) believes that projects don't have the right to tell another project they cannot tag an article. It's truly a shame, and I believe that this is why a lot of users are choosing to leave Wikipedia. Just my opinion there though. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If your problem is with "the same four people" then it's not a problem with the structure of WikiProjects. What you really need is mediation to resolve that particular dispute. A community-wide discussion at the village pump is premature if that problem is not seen throughout Wikipedia. Diego ( talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well this looks like the end for WikiProject United States and more than 2 years worth of hard work. What a shame. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be. It just means you should shift your focus to other aspects of helping those articles and your project. That being said you were warned back two years ago that a project that tried to incorporate every article that even remotely related to the US would be unworkable and that you shouldn't try to do that. I believe it was suggested that you just make the project a noticeboard setup so that people from all the various US projects could come to a central place to discuss issues. Instead of being a project that tags articles. - DJSasso ( talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And here we are 2 years later, thriving, continuing to grow and continuing to do good things. Seems sorta silly to stop that train now isn't it? -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, I see the exact opposite. I see a project of essentially one user that is growing by getting other inactive projects merged into one project which is really just as inactive except for the tagging you are doing. Your project as far as I can see hasn't done anything worthwhile yet. All you have done is create a massive list of articles related to the US. Looking at your talk page there has been no group improvement of any articles or anything. So no I don't think you are currently doing anything worth while that wasn't already happening prior to your arrival on the scene. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am a member of WikiProject United States and several other WikiProjects. I have tagged articles for all the WikiProjects I am in at one time or another. In general, I despise WikiProjects (despite the fact I am in them); I think almost every WikiProject POV pushes too much in favor of their project. However, I don't see any reason why WikiProject United States can't tag as many articles as it wants. If WPUS is improving articles and other projects aren't, those projects should yet WPUS tag and improve articles. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well I think that is part of what people are upset about. I can't remember who said it. But someone asked if WPUS actually does do any article improvement as a project. All that person had seen was tagging and I have to agree the only thing I ever see WPUS (and by that I mean Kumioko since really he is the only active user in the project) doing is tagging articles. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for everyone in the project but I personally have over 1000 edits in every namespace except Template (about 750) book and book talk. I have about 120, 000 just in article space alone. These are not including my bot. For proof here are a couple links to my contribs. In this you'll see fixes to persondata description, Cleanup of talk page templates, fixes to templates, portals, files, coordinates and a variety of other things.

• Example 1
• Example 2
• If you keep scolling you'll find more.
• Tomwsulcer did a massive expansion and rewrite to Lobbying in the United States, Wall Street and several others.
• There are a lot more, these are just a couple examples along with the edits done by Purpleback to show the absurdity of the statement.

Just because a couple of jaded editors say that something is true doesn't make it so. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So assuming what you say is true...some individuals have done some improvement to articles. What has the WikiProject done other than tag articles. The point of WikiProjects is to collaborate together on stuff. I don't see where anything like that is done, except collaboration on how to merge more projects into yours. - DJSasso ( talk) 17:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso, wide-scope projects are useful as a way to notify people interested in the topic. Watching the talk page of those wikiprojects is a good way to be updated for articles where feedback is requested. Of course for that purpose there's nothing that requires articles being tagged into the project; tagging should be done only to collect articles that will require direct action by the project; people interested in a particular sub-scope will follow the subproject instead, and articles in the topic are already included in the category system so including them in the Wikiproject is redundant. What the U.S. Wikiproject should be doing is providing a prominent link to Category:United_States, not tagging all articles included in that category or its subcategories. Diego ( talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree which is why I mentioned the best way for a project like this to function is as a Noticeboard format so that people can watch the talk page to see what is happening and what needs feedback. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And of course maintaining and classifying the list of all U.S.-related WikiProjects is a really good thing, and something that adds value to the U.S. project and all the linked sub-projects. Maybe the projects efforts should be dedicated to improve and expand this list? I can see this high-level view being useful in a way that an all-inclusive list of articles could never be. Diego ( talk) 18:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In regards to tagging and WikiProject Texas, I recently involved Kumioko in helping beef up the Texas project, and plenty of notice and request for feedback was given on the Talk page.

• If a project is a coordinated team effort, the Texas project has been ding-dong dead about as long as I've been actively editing on Wikipedia. It's a sad joke to call it a project at all. There is no teamwork going on. Nobody is monitoring, and nobody knows who is doing what. Being part of WPUS could only be a plus. Editors are out there free editing and creating articles on Texas, with no involvement with the project. There is no head of the project, certainly not me. But Texas has been long abandoned.
• The decision was made (primarily by me) to have the Texas project as a whole join WPUS, and Kumioko started tagging this weekend. Coincidentally, he had to abort the bot before it was finished. You can read on that project's talk page how things progressed before the bot ran. Very few people had any comments beforehand.
• Hasteur had some comments re DFW project , and did some follow up by individual tagging at DFW - so the bot would skip that project.
• The only complaint that came after Kumioko's bot started running was one editor associated with the Houston projects. Kumioko had agreed not to bring the Houston under the WPUS umbrella, and the bot - as far as I can tell - left the Houston banner and WPUS banner separate. The editor who complained was not specific enough for anyone to know what, if any, articles were involved. In a random check of Houston articles, I only found the Houston banner separate and unto itself. Maile66 ( talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note Kumioko is currently blocked, and will not be able to respond until the block expires. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We have to remember a wikiproject is a group of editors: not a group of articles. Also note that one of the main purposes of banners is advertising. They help recruit new members. From that perspective it is in the best interest of a project to tag a number of articles. Why don't we consult the guide and its subpage for answers:

WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes

(emph. mine) Technically, per the guideline, the wider community cannot change a wikiproject's scope. Changes to a wikiproject scope should be debated on the wikiproject talkpage.

A group of editors cannot be forced to support any article that they do not wish to support, or prohibited from supporting any article that they wish to support

WPUS may tag any article it wants. If an article's inclusion is considered problematic, it should be brought to the attention of the members on the wikiproject talk page. Article inclusion/exclusion is determined by consensus on the wikiproject talkpage. If WPUS, by consensus, agrees to exclude articles tagged by state or city wikiprojects, then it is their prerogative.

No project can control another project or other editor: No project can demand that another project support an article, change its scope, quit working on an article.

No other project, state or city, can remove a WPUS banner if WPUS determines by consensus that the article is within their scope. Essentially the desires and opinions of editors outside of the wikiproject regarding article tagging are irrelevant. The wikiproject determines its own scope, and no editor or project can tell them what they can or cannot tag. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 01:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That may be likely true in a moral sense. But, since anyone can join any wikiproject, the distinction is moot. What matters is if interested editors have found a consensus on which class of pages should be tagged for the project. Whether the discussion happens inside the WPUS talk page or anywhere else makes little difference. Diego ( talk) 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please place a link to the policy supporting your position on the talk page.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS might be a good starting point. Wikiproject US can decide whatever it wishes, as can any other project. The problem comes in when projects disagree, and that's where you need to be talking to those other projects to make sure that what your project is doing does not disrupt what their project is doing. There are examples in this very discussion about how different projects can properly coordinate, either through shared templates, hidden categories, or whatever. I'm unclear as to why that coordination is a problem here - it feels very much like WP:US is attempting to force itself on other editors, and that seems problematic. But maybe I'm reading it wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Lionelt:Note that while "WikiProjects have sole and absolute authority to define their scopes", this authority doesn't extend to tagging articles; on the contrary, the guide has a warning against overtagging.

Though I was assuming that any member can in principle join any project they wish, this doesn't seem to be encoded in policy; the closest guideline I've found is Inappropriate exclusivity stating that the definition of a "real" member of a project is usually innacurate. Other guidelines that I've found directly relevant to this issue:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Violating_policies: "Policies, guidelines, and articles belong to the whole community, not to WikiProjects or individual editors. WikiProjects may not demand that editors abide by the project's "local consensus" when that conflicts with the community-wide consensus."
• Wikipedia:CONLIMITED#Level_of_consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights: "Disputes may arise between projects or outside editors over formatting, such as the preferred system for organizing an article or the contents of a template.", "In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. If you need the cooperation of another project, approach them in a spirit of cooperation and look for appropriate compromises."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging: "Overtagging is disruptive - WikiProject banners should not be used to duplicate the category system or portals."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging: "Tagging articles can distract new projects from more important tasks. (...) 2.Project banners on the talk page should not be substitute for, or simply duplicate, Wikipedia's categorization system. To correctly identify an article as being related to a topic, place the correct category in the article itself. 3.The presence of a project banner indicates to readers that the article has been, or will be, developed by members of the project, and that questions about the article can be directed to members of the project. When the project does not expect to support an article's improvement, it should not add the project's banner to that page."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Identify_the_best_structure: "WikiProject - This format is best for topics with thousands, or at least several hundred, of pages in the proposed scope. You'll still want to investigate any related projects, because they may already have a task force covering the same topic."
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Inter-project_collaboration : "There may also arise situations in which it is beneficial for an article to be actively collaborated upon by multiple projects."

Diego ( talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly WP:LOCALCONSENSUS clearly indicates that WikiProjects cannot override the wider community. Once you have issues with the rest of the community you do have to begin to discuss the situation and come to an consensus that involves all parties. At the moment as Ultraexactzz mentions it does seem very much like WPUS is trying to swamp smaller projects and force itself onto everyone. As I have said since WPUS was reactivated a couple years ago I would 100% support a merging of state and country tags since that would stop a lot of the problems. I think this should be a discussion held in a neutral wide open forum so people from all involved projects can speak for a broader viewpoint. It would also still allow each project to remain separate. However the methods that have been used up to this point do appear that Kumioko has been sneaking in the back door gobbling up projects one at a time with little community discussion when things would probably go a lot smoother if he did it in a more open manner. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this topic has been open for a few days now and parties have had a chance to comment, wether I agree with it or not, I think that the consensus is that the community can now determine the scope of a project, that members of a project can be overruled by the broader community and that WikiProjects can no longer, if they ever had the authority too, set their own scopes and tag the articles in them without first soliciting opinions from the community on whether that scope is appropriate from editors or projects outside that project. As an indirect result this seems to give some teeth to WikiProjects being allowed some ownership over articles and will have the effect of preventing "too many banners" from being on an article, will prevent unknown users from vandalizing or innapropriately expanding articles, and will ensure that there are a limited number of places where questions about a topic can be addressed which will simplify users ability to get answers and the consistency of those answers. Of course there are also some significant drawbacks to this new policy enhancement as well but those were discussed in the discussion. I am going to leave a note at the WikiProject Council page abou tthis new change so that somone can update the guidlines as appropriate.-- Kumioko ( talk) 15:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you had read the links above you will see that the guideline does already state all of this so no change is required. The guideline is just that. A guideline. Guidelines are never set in stone, they are just best practices in most but not all situations. This doesn't cause ownership, it prevents it....in that it stops WikiProjects from running roughshod around the wiki saying you aren't part of our project we can do what we want. The guideline already states wikiprojects don't own their scope in that it says anyone who edits the articles that fall into a wikiproject are already members of the wikiproject and thus have a say on its scope. - DJSasso ( talk) 15:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My responses to the comments and accusations on this page

Due to my block, and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussion I have responded to all comments left in the last day on my talk page. I doubt anyone wants to continue this discussion or solve the actual underlying problem of inappropriate article ownership that caused me to come here in the first place but if you do please do so there. -- Kumioko ( talk) 11:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The detagging has begun

Apparently seeing the discussions here and in other locations I haev recently seen several busily removing banners from "Overtagged" articles. Some with the heading of things like "Remove WPMILHIST tag per WP:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging "When the project does not expect to support an article's improvement, it should not add the project's banner to that page". Irregardless of the fact that there was only one other banner (for WikiProject Biography) on several of them. This was just 1 example of 15 that I counted so far. I'm sure glad that we are clarifying these policies so we can start "cleaning" up these overtagged pages (emphasis on the sarcasm there). -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And you have a link to such an example? - DJSasso ( talk) 20:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure plenty. I saw about 5 or 6 more (This time a couple of the removals were BIography)But everytime I try and submit something I get blocked so maybe I'll just forget I said anything. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So really you are crying wolf then since you won't provide any diffs showing people doing this. - DJSasso ( talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey the last time I turned somebody in I got blocked. No body really cares what I have to say anyway I'm just the a-hole that tried to force everybody to join WikiProject US. -- Kumioko ( talk) 22:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what, fine, for the sake of not being called a lier and having everybody think I just went cookoo heres 1, there are at least 5 editors and 25 articles so far but here is 1. Talk:Amos Humiston. As far as I am concerned these are all directly caused by these stupid discussions and this BS. -- Kumioko ( talk) 22:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think its funny, you try and call me out. Make me look like a lyer because I didn't give you an example that I didn't think you would do anything with anyway. Sure enough. 3 hours later, still nothing and Ive seen another 20 articles with the same issue. Someone deleting WikiProject banners for different reasons like the one above. BTW if your wondering why I see so many I have 22, 000 articles on my watchlist so I see a lot of changes to a lot of things. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course nobody should remove a WikiProject's banner just because he personally doesn't want it to be there. The choice to tag or not tag is 100% up to the members of the WikiProject. But it appears that the user in this particular instance is actually a participant of the relevant WikiProject. If that group doesn't want to support the article and/or consider it to be within their scope, then they have a right to remove their own banner. (It might, of course, be worth pointing this activity out to the MILHIST folks to make sure that it represents their overall desires/isn't just a mistake by a single individual.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There were a lot more by several editors I just gave this one as an example. I saw tags for the following project being removed at minimum. WPUnted States, several state projects for different reasons (some because WPUS was there or vice versa), MILHIST, a few cities because the state was there or vice versa and some even removed the Biography banner. The reason I see so many, frankly is because I have about 22000 articles on my watchlist. I sometimes see banners being removed but not the volume of the last few days and not in such proximity to a discussion like this one. It doesn't matter a huge amount to me at this point but just saying what I saw fro anyone who might be watching. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If a WikiProject doesn't consider the articles within its scope; it's their choice. Most WikiProjects are clamoring for more editors to tag articles created within their (apparent) scopes, but hey some others go the other way. If the article is being deleted or promoted, WikiProjects not tagged will likely never receive notice, but heck they didn't care anyway, right? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I likewise don't see a problem with people from a particular WP detagging for that project, but having others presume to do it for them is an issue. Mangoe ( talk) 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that a project can choose to detag just as they can choose to tag. It seemed as though there was a sudden explosion in tags being removed for a rew days but now it seems to be tapering off. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My bigger concern, of course, are the voices at WT:COUNCIL that are asserting that certain projects should not be permitted to tag articles in the first place, because (to use an example given there) anyone who wants to keep track of articles related to the United States should be happy enough looking through individual lists for 50 states plus however many city-based and non-geographical projects exist. Even assuming that WPUS's scope is exactly identical to the sum of these ~100 projects (which I frankly doubt), it's a silly burden to be imposing on those volunteers, especially for no bigger benefit than making the talk page look prettier. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I have tried to make that point several times myself. Unfortunately it seems more and more that the general community favors article ownership over Projects being able to set their own scope and tag the articles in it. Not trying to be snarkey, but that does seem to be the current trend. I fear that unless we start to set the tone and actually start enforcing the policy against article ownership and doing something about that, then there is no point in having a project if any other project (and frequently multiple projects) can simply tell them that they can't tag whatever articles are in their scope. -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion about trademarks with no real resolution. Certainly there should be some sort of guideline/policy page, so that we can operate consistently, and so the WMF has a page to point people to when they come complaining. Masem started User:Masem/Trademarks, but there was not much support. Several people in the previous discussion were of the mindset that we should make no attempt to protect trademarks in any case. I find this in stark contrast with existing policies on copyrighted material. We could conceivably get away with filling every page on Wikipedia with non-free images, and it would greatly increase the educational value of those pages. Wikia does this to the extreme, and many companies actually pay Wikia for the privilege. We don't do this because we err on the side of caution; not for fear of legal action, but of causing damage to the copyright holder. I don't see why trademarks are any different.

For a specific example I came across: Tofurky is branded product with an active registered trademark. Tofurkey seems to be "what some people call that type of thing", with no references, and links to competitor's websites. Clearly this is damaging to the trademarked product; shouldn't we at least have a page to point to in a AfD/rename discussion? Most uses of trademarks in a generic fashion are simply OR, and can be easily avoided. Allowing our articles to actively damage trademarks because we have no obligation not to do that is a terrible way to operate, and in most cases there is little-to-nothing gained in the process. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. Unlike copyright, the statutes creating trademarks impose a positive obligation on the part of the trademark user to actively maintain the trademark in use, to monitor its use to prevent use by others or in a generic manner, and to pursue trademark violations (thus the "cease-and-desist letters" so dreaded by fan fiction writers and others). The burden is on them; whereas no such burden falls on the copyright holder. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not a problem to be solved here. The Tofurky article says it is a brand. Says it is a trademark. Where, there, is there an issue.

As noted, we are under an obligation not to misuse other people copyright. We are not under an obligation not to use genericised trademarks. So per DO, your analogy is false. And you are, I think, flogging a dead horse. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I will point out that the original trademark discussion came from a request of the Wikimedia Foundation for us to set some advice on trademarks due to letters it has gotten from trademark holders. Yes, it's not the same type of thing as the non-free media resolution that set NFC policy, but this isn't an issue to sweep under the rug. -- MASEM ( t) 21:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, the reason we avoid using non-free content isn't because of fear of "damaging" the copyright holder. It's because we want an encyclopedia that people are free to reuse, even for commercial purposes and purposes for which "fair use" doesn't apply. Anomie ⚔ 21:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Where did you check that, Anomie? If we were calling the enctclopedia the Ford Wikipedia, then sure, we'd have a problem. Writing an article about Tofurky is not a problem, at all, fullstop. Using a genericised word is not, either, a barrier to any sort of reuse of our content. Again. where is the problem? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Tofurky (TM) /Tofurkey (not TM) is not what the trademark discussion was covering. Competitors jumped on the "Tofurkey" word (which doesn't appear to have been trademarked) and thus as sources give it, that's a legit term for calling their products. As long as we are not calling any tofu-based turkey product "Tofurky" (TM), we don't have an issue. Even if the Tofurky brand holders are fighting to "reclaim" the spelling variant, we have no other way to reference the off-brand variations. So this isn't an example where trademarks are a problem.

The problem is when people are using genericized trademarks (which still have apparent legal standing) to mislabel competitors or used in a generic fashion (calling all bandages "band-aids", calling the act of digital photo manipulation "photoshopping". These are cases we can elect to chose to avoid to avoid that trademark issue, and what the WMF appears to be encouraging us to do. -- MASEM ( t) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And per the last discussion, we would avoid those two terms because there are better terms. Band-aid is not a good term for a bandage or a sticking plaster. Photoshopping is a colloquial term for digital image manipulation. I would hope we do not use those terms because they are poor terms, not because they are someone's trademark. What are we hoping to achieve from this second discussion that we did not achieve in the first? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

wmf:Mission statement is a good place to start: it's all about free content, nothing about protecting copyright holders from "damage'. Not sure if the rest of your comment was directed at me, as I expressed no position on the use-of-trademarked-terms issue so it wouldn't make much sense if it were directed at me. Anomie ⚔ 01:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia has absolutely no legal obligation to respect trademarks, I still think we should have a page very clearly specifying the community consensus on this issue, so that beleaguered OTRS workers can point them to it. I've drafted a new proposal at Wikipedia:Use of trademarks and would like to get feedback on it. Dcoetzee 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The line Using trademarks as ordinary words is acceptable where such use is already widespread in reliable sources and/or in common parlance. is what's going to be the trigger point here I think. At least, to me, I disagree with that. We are trying to write something professional here, not a blog or a mass-market book. As a professional work, if we can replace the trademark work with a non-trademarked one without affecting the meaning or intent of the sentence, we should (not must) do so. Eg, we should never use "googling" or "photoshopping" ever, except when quoted or discussing these as the neologism. It's the type of thing that we shouldn't aggressively enforce but should be the type of thing checked when reviewing prose. -- MASEM ( t) 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I revised it to read as follows:

"Using trademarks as ordinary words is acceptable where such use is already widespread in reliable sources and/or in common parlance, but depending on the situation may be poor style, either because the trademark is too informal, or because it is misleading (e.g. "photoshopped" may imply an image was created in Adobe Photoshop, when in fact it was created using a competing product). Good editorial judgement should be exercised. The use of trademarks as words which are not already used as such is coining a neologism, which is generally considered poor style; Wikipedia should not be leveraged as a mechanism to attempt to genericize specific trademarks."

Thoughts? Dcoetzee 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Much better, satisfies my concern. "Good editorial judgement" is exactly what I would call for this. -- MASEM ( t) 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's for the beleaguered OTRS people, then I'm all in favour of a page they can point at, and I think yours is a very good start but not the final word, Dcoetzee.

I don't think the image is a good idea. It either conflates or overlooks the copyright question on images of logos ... which is to say there are other considerations w.r.t. logo images which we don't deal with on the trademark page. Using an image as a worked example of a trademark issue is a poor choice when we have available options which are solely concerned with trademark and have no copyright dimensions. I'd suggest replace it with some sort of quote box, with a (manufactured for the purpose) quote which includes the use of a trademarked term; with a caption explaining that it's fine for us to use the term from a trademark perspective, but it is more than likely to be a matter of poor style to use the word.

I'm not sure I'm convinced by the admonitions to content re-users. I'm having some difficulty imaging a scenario where a re-user would find itself in legal hazard w.r.t. trademarks. I'd prefer any warnings to reusers to be posted on a re-users page.

There are a fair amount of wording changes I'd like to see, but which I don't have time to go through now. I'll look in again early next week and if this is still live then, will provide more comment. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I removed the logo image for now (I just placed it because it was easy). Another example can be constructed if necessary. The warning to content reusers is largely copied from commons:Template:Trademark, but I agree that it's not very plausible that a content reuser would misuse a trademark in such a manner and the current warning is too strong. Dcoetzee 02:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Instruction creep, and a poor example. The existing language is , properly, much more inclusiv eand permits flexibility. And "photoshopped" is now the common english term for the process and I think is the one I would prefer in the context of news and publicity pictures. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a common slang english term in casual speech, but Adobe still had the trademark on the term, actively fights against it, and we can be more professional in our prose by a simple, more-descriptive replacement without endorsing the product. -- MASEM ( t) 02:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What the company considers the trademark is not decisive. They can be expected in cases like this to fight it long after it is a lost cause. What people use is decisive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We have what I suspect to be an young editor whose only mainspace edits are to insert his name, and the rest has been to do interesting things with his talk page. I'm unsure of how to proceed, since I don't really want to outright block him, but I also don't know how to talk to kids. Any advice? -- Golbez ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd just use the uw-socialnetwork template. After a while, he should get bored and leave, or head into article space. If he causes problems with article space again, standard vandalism warnings until he earns a block. Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would never use just a template in a case like this--in fact, i would never use a template at all, but write a personal explanation to the same effect. It's much more likely to be taken seriously than our boilerplate. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If they're old enough to edit a user page they're not as difficult to talk to as you think. Just explain the situation carefully and with patience, and they should get it. Talking to kids is much like talking to adults. Dcoetzee 17:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think Nikkimaria's removal of his contact info was quite effective in stopping him. :) Nageh ( talk) 19:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To make it easier for people posting questions, why not make it easier for them by having two columns. The left hand column can be reserved for those that have the knowledge to answer the question being asked, whilst the right hand column can be left free for those that just want to speculate on subjects on which they know nothing. As things are at present it must be very confusing, difficult and frustrating for the Original Poster to read through all the good and the gibberish and so separate the wheat from the chaff. -- Aspro ( talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see with is that it is the people who know something about what they are talking about who are most aware of how much they don't know.. Dmcq ( talk) 23:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: the Dunning–Kruger effect. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well now that Category:Wikipedia policy has been renamed Category:Wikipedia policies is there some robot going around changing all te references? I've just reverted and fixed a change to WP:POLICY to just remove the reference the old one because ' Role: how can these policies be found on a red-linked page?' Dmcq ( talk) 09:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked User:Armbrust, who instigated these 8 (pointless) moves, to fix the redlinks. Fences& Windows 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot actually see any discussion or consensus there Wifione. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme Bartlett here. There was less 48 hours for people to comment on such change. I did not have a chance to role around my watchlist in time to comment on this within that time.

The community has entrusted enwiki administrators with the trust to use the correct judgement when closing requests for permissions. People who are not currently active administrators do not have the trust of the community to do so. While I do trust User:Mlpearc, have not had much interaction with User:FastLizard4, and User:Deliriousandlost who I trust to close RfPs correctly, who are currently the only three non-admins on the project admins list, the community has the decision whether these people should be allowed to close such RfCs. Also tool administrators are only (now) elected by identified to the WMF tool users, not by the general community. I also would be hesitant to give this 'ability' out as i'm not sure every tool administrator would (as in i'm not pointing any fingers as to who) close such decisions correctly. So we need a bigger comment time, and scope of this to be broadcasted before we make such a change. Reverted the change in policy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Amended 20:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I too disagree with the closure, and don't see the value in adding users who would anyway have to thru an administrator to implement their decisions. This is a solution in search of a problem, I don't see a substantial backlog in requests that needs this measure. Granting users based on their unelected role in an indipendently project the power to grant on-wiki rights (even if thru others, given there is no proposal here to have a special grant-account-creator userright implemented) is something I'm not necessarily against in principle, but that surely would need much wider input. Seems to me a complicate solution for a problem that just isn't there. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Thank you for your confidence DQ. In my opinion, (even more now considering the new requirements) who better to judge the need for, or the competence of users asking for the ACC bit than ACC Administrators ? Mlpearc ( powwow) 19:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Mlpearc, for that is (Non-administrator comment) great! I would more propose that tool administrators can deny the acc flag (and enwp admins will hear such comments and should follow them of Tool admins), but not granting (limitation of the mw atm)... In my eyes it is exactly as snowolf described: no problem, nothing to solve! mabdul 20:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point to this. It seems to assume there is an urgent need to remove rights from someone and none of the 18 other admins are around to remove the rights of someone. If it were related to ACC any of us 21 could just suspend the account of the hypothetical person who is being bad. If someone is being bad, creating 40 accounts for themselves outside of ACC, then that is a quick note to any admin and it can be promptly dealt with. The last time anything like this happened was before Alcatraz was a prison and certainly not in the time it has been a tv show.
Now if it is a matter of ensuring someone who shouldn't have the account creator right prior to need and demonstrated competency doesn't get it via an admin who is unfamiliar with things or of being able to grant it to someone in a more timely manor this is still excessive for 3 people.
This all would be more practically served by requiring approval in the RfP from an ACC admin before granting right or not. All that would mean is a change to the template. For the currently 18 who are admins in both places they could just do it all at once as has been the normal. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh my I have no issues with the consensus here. Good to see that discussions at least took place. It wasn't an RfC typically that I'd opened; but like I said, thankfully the comments came in. DQ has already reverted the updation. So unless there are other opposing comments, we could consider this discussion closed with a decision 'back to long-standing standard procedure'? Wifione ^Message 03:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all. I've started a discussion here as to that subject. dci | TALK 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on for shortening the length of time for PUF from 14 to 7 days. It is at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files#Proposal to shorten discussion time. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 20:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that Wikipedia has or has never had a Wikipedia policy or guideline about newcomers. In an attempt to create the page, I kept it in my sandbox. The page is a stub, I even put the stub label on it. So the link to the page is here and I hope I can review it over with someone on my talk page.

The #1 Awesome Guy ;) ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

Try Wikipedia:Introduction. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 00:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See also the fairly new Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is designed as a more welcoming, friendly way to introduce Wikipedia to new users. -- Jayron 32 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 00:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a general concern over uses of transclusion that are opaque and make general editing unnecessarily frustrating for individuals.

One of the real strengths of the wikimedia software is that the markup language it supplies is supplies is very, very simple. It is much simpler than troff, or sgml. It is so simple the basics can be explained to someone in a single session.

Currently, however, transclusion is not well supported. If not used carefully transclusion can produce opaque and frustrating situations where the standard mechanisms for editing pages fail. They fail in ways that are extremely frustrating and erode the project's general expectation of simplicity.

Today I encountered Template:cathead patrol vessels of, which, incorrectly, assumes all patrol vessels are naval vessels, when some are fishery patrol vessels, customs patrol vessels, environmental patrol vessels, constabulary patrol vessels -- ie non-naval vessels.

I tried to fix Category:Patrol vessels of South Africa, using hotcat -- and couldn't at first, because the errant categories were being transcluded into the category.

At the risk of jumping ahead I will state how I would like the WMF software to support transclusion. Currently, when we want to edit an article, image description, category, we look for the edit button next to the closest subsection heading, and click on it. That isn't always convenient. If that edit button is to a high level heading, followed by some lower level headings, the whole shooting match gets included into a single editing box.

I would like the WMF software to support an alternate way of selecting the text to edit. I'd like to be able to sweep my mouse across a section of the screen, selecting it, and then indicate I wanted to edit just the text that rendered into the stuff I selected. And, importantly, if the text I selected made use of transclusion, I'd like the WMF editing software to show me the text of what was being transcluded, or to allow me multiple editing boxes, so I could edit what was being transcluded.

Way back in 2007 I tried to use transclusion in article space. An administrator surprised me by closing a deletion discussion over a template I created in a naive attempt to include an image with the same caption in all the articles where it was used. The administrator was patient, and offered solid reasons not offered in the discussion as to why the use I made of transclusion was problematic. They convinced me, and I went and fixed the other template I had naively created to include another image. created, which represented exactly the same problem.

Another contributor, who continued to see value in the use I had naively tried to make of transclusion created some templates of his own. In doing so he exposed further weaknesses to this approach. His templates included a section heading, and a paragraph of text.

The section heading he transcluded added a considerable burden to editors. Although I understood what was going on, it was a burden for me. It was a level 2 heading, and it made editing text that followed the transcluded paragraph very difficult. One had to edit the section prior to transcluded heading.

Eventually he learned enough about the interaction between the wikimedia markup language, and html, that he could add a second edit button.

I didn't use his template, although I recognized how useful it was to those who knew how it worked. But since practically no one would recognize the implication of this use of transclusion it should not be used until the WMF software has a clear simple way to edit both the non-transcluded text and the transcluded text.

Similarly I would question whether invisible templates should ever transclude categories, because of its opacity.

Templates that transclude a nav-box and a category of categories are a separate issue.

The kind of transclusions I have discussed here are possible. I think we need to discuss whether they are a good idea.

Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 19:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When you consider an abstract subject like " Notability Policy", do you ever think about the completely different problem of " Editor Retention"? The two seem distant, but they're actually closely connected, as I learned this week.

I wanted to learn about a subject, so I did what I always do-- I looked in Wikipedia. But we didn't have an article on it. After I was done learning, I decided to add that information to Wikipedia, so that the next reader in my place won't have to through the same work I did.

Now I'll be the first to admit-- it wasn't a fascinating article-- most of history isn't that exciting. I wasn't passionate about the article, but I never imagined that it would become the subject of a deletion.

I sincerely believed it was a good-faith topic that would non-controversially improve Wikipedia. So when others disagreed and felt my time did not improve Wikipedia, it was a surprising emotional experience.

You see, my time is surprisingly valuable to me. I have family duties, I have work duties, I balance them all. I gave Wikipedia a gift of my time. I gave it a little piece of my life.

If Wikipeda keeps my gift and improves it, I will be vastly more inclined to donate even more of my time in the future. But if you take my hand-made gift and visibly throw it in the trash, I will have a different reaction.

I probably won't feel very welcome here. I may feel "Wikipedia" doesn't like me or want me. I may not feel very open to giving Wikipedia any more time, thinking "Why waste my time on things that just get deleted?!"

(I'm not the point. I'm just one person, not an important one, and I'll probably keep contributing anyway.)

We need to be aware-- delete !votes have a very real, lasting emotional consequence that cripples editor morale. Make sure you realize that. Make sure you remember that "Delete !votes" carry a cost to our mission.

We must have deletions-- bad-faith contributions, illegal contributions, vanity article, etc. But when good-faith people are trying to do good-faith things, deletion is a very insensitive tool.

Please try to remember this in the future. You're not just deciding on whether to keep a single article-- you're deciding on whether to keep authors. HectorMoffet ( talk) 03:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here Hector. I think the situation that you have run in to sums up a lot of the problems that we face with new editor retention. Honestly, I was already planning to use you as an example of this problem. For others: take a look at HM's past contributions. As a new editor he added a solid number of articles and general editing, including some stuff that we had been missing for an astounding period of time (like, the Oakland Police Department article had no controversy section before he started editing.) Some of the articles he put up fail our notability standards, but absolutely none of them had any neutrality or verifiability problems. His talk page was spammed with repeated templated CSD/prod/AfD notices, with very very little actual human interaction at any point in the process, and some people taking very unnecessarily aggressive positions in discussions with him. (I'd view the recent post by someone on his talk page in response to his comment on an AfD about the effect of deletion as a good example of this.)

If we treat new editors like this, it's no wonder they go away. Kevin ( talk) 05:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless somebody called you an ass or a moron at AfD, you seriously need to grow a thicker skin and stop whining. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure calling a good-faith commentary "whining" is a productive way to respond to this discussion, Seb az86556. It would be better if more diplomatic words were chosen. If you disagree with the premise of the post, there are ways to indicate your disagreement which are less insulting. -- Jayron 32 06:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree with your post. This is the same attitude that won't allow us to fail kids in school because it "hurts their feelings". The only reason for complaints is personal attacks. If someone votes delete, tough shit, you need to be able to suck it up.

Why is this on the page to discuss policy, anyways? Is this supposed to lead to a policy that makes it a blockable offense to vote delete anywhere just 'cause it might hurt someone's feelings? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the Sithian comments, I think it's my job to answer why here at VPP-- because I was commenting on the Notability and Deletion Policies. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayron's right. You've been around; you should know better than to be so obnoxious when you disagree with someone. You can make your point without being disrespectful. -- JaGa ^talk 06:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Seb, You're apparently not receiving the message I am sending, so let me restate it. It isn't what you are trying to say that is objectionable. It is how you are trying to say it. You can give a child a failing grade without belittling, berating, or telling the kid "You fail, tough shit, now stop whining". It isn't that you disagree with the premise of the post. You are quite right in doing so. It is the manner in which you express disagreement that is problematic. Please choose different words the next time you disagree. The English Language has a vibrant and large vocabulary, it is quite possible to express disagreement, even vehement disagreement, without being insulting or belittling to the person you are disagreeing with. -- Jayron 32 06:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We owe politeness to the people who try to work with us in good faith, whether or not what they do is finally accepted. We owe more than politeness: we owe an effort to understand. Our typical way of dealing with unsatisfactory articles is very abrupt, with notices worded as if they were written by the lower levels of a particularly burocrat-ridden country. We've all encountered institutions which try to avoid being questioned--in the RW, they tend to do it with a bland imperviousness, but we use a crude bluster; it's certainly more forthright, but it probably gets most people even angrier, or at least more willing to express the ir anger. The first step is to delete every template notice we use for deletion,and require people to write personal directed explanations that show they have made an effort to understand. True , some of our people cannot adequately do this--they should leave communicating with new editors to the ones who can, or can learn. We may be a collection of anti-social nerds, and satisfied with our own primitive ways of dealing with each other, but the rest of the world isn't, and it's the rest of the world we have to deal with. (I make no claim to being much better than the average here; I think I do try harder, but there is so much promotionalism and utter trivia to deal with that I keep desperately trying to catch up with it, usually resorting to semiautomatic tools and prebuilt notices.)

A policy page is exactly where to discuss it. (anyway, all complaints should be heard, telling people to make them elsewhere is the classic way of rejecting outsiders.) The goal of policy is to make an encyclopedia , and the key requisite for making an encyclopedia is to keep attracting new editors. We're not acting like teachers, we're acting like bullies--like children who get to be teacher for a day and can be as arbitrary as they please within our confines. They're usually much more arbitrary than the actual teachers. Our principle is , after all, that everyone can edit; some have limitations, and the goal is then to teach them. What they can't do well enough today they can perhaps do tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am all for manual notification, but the OP was complaining about delete-votes as such. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it sounds like mere complaining-- but really, we're trying to trying to help solve an equation. Editor retention is plummeting, we must know why. I posit, based on recent personal experience, that our Deletion Policy/Notability is major contributing factor. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That — sounds a whole lot different from your original post, and is certainly something worth talking about (Lemme translate your original post to my ears: "no matter how polite you are, no matter how reasonable you are, from now on, whenever you vote delete, please be ashamed and feel horrible for hurting someone's feelings". That's the essence of your original post.)

Now — what do you propose could be done? (I'm seriously listening now) DGG's idea of forced manual notifications is great. Any other ideas? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you heard a call to be ashamed-- voting delete is a regrettable but sometimes necessary duty, and I tried to acknowledge that in my first post, but am happy to do it in more detail here.

I don't know that I am the right person to generate the "solution". I feel more like my job was to pull the fire alarm and point out that there's a problem. Wikipedia has respected leaders who will probably be the ones to fix this trend.

But since you ask:

I think "full deletion" should only be for bad-faith content, illegal or libelous material, BLP concerns, etc. I believe good faith article fragments should be preserved in "half deletion"-- a namespace visible only to logged in members.

Pages would have disclaimers, perhaps remove Wikipedia logo from the page, etc. There, wikipedia authors could collaboratively work at their own pace, without their work being considered "Formally Part of Wikipedia". -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there aren't really any leaders, or if there are, then you've just become one by starting this discussion. In any case, there is the WP:INCUBATOR, but it seems there is some weird criteria which says material must go through AfD before it can be put there. Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that can be changed. There should be some place (other than your own userspace) where nobody can pounce on stuff for a while. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What's about moving the information to a larger-scale article (like Oakland City Council or smth) rather than deleting it? And, indeed, what about the initiave to encourage manual notification?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the situation in general. Sometimes you just can't move it anywhere else. So then what? It might actually be good to have something like WP:Fragments or whatever, where people can "park" their stuff for a limited amount of time (has to have a limit otherwise this becomes a webhosting service and junkyard). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why we need Articles for Discussion. Many AfDs currently lead to redirections or merges, and many more are closed because editors saw the serious problem and found sources or added content, fixing the problem. "Discussing" an article will help editors learn better than "Deleting". They will feel less like they have to defend their article, because the name of the venue alone will make them feel less attacked. I don't think AfD is an attack, but for the uninitiated it can sure seem that way. To go back to the school analogy used above, even the dumbest kids get parent teacher conferences before they get held back. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very excited about Seb's suggestion for wider Incubator use. Votes to merge, rename, or incubate all feel positive. True Deletion feels unnecessarily harsh when applied to good-faith contribution that doesn't present legal/moral problems. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 08:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of "articles for discussion". I've seen far too many articles tagged for deletion where the tagger clearly didn't understand the topic, nor took much time trying to determine notability before slapping on the tag. Pfly ( talk) 08:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It still wouldn't solve the problem; maybe it wasn't that way when wikipedia started, but in 2012, placing something into article space means "This is ready. It's not perfect, but it's sourced, proofread, spellchecked — have at it." So there are only two options: either you mess around it on your own (userspace) or you throw it to the wolves (mainspace). What's needed is something in between. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing to solve all the problems at once. It would be great of course if we could keep 100% of new users, who from the very beginning would know how to write notable neutral articles, and if we could continue grow exponentially. However, this is not the case and never will be the case, and we should concentrate on what we can do in little steps to increase the retention. Start manual notification and explaining the policies to newbies is one such step. It will not solve 100% of the problems but if it solves 1%, we should be happy. Less tagging and more correcting the articles would be another step. Having the name "articles for discussion" and expanding the merging/transfer practice is another one. And so on.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Articles for Discussion" seems great to me. A "Manual Tagging" campaign would be nice. But it really is about the actual deletions. It doesn't matter how nicely or politely you tell me you're going to actually DELETE my work-- you aren't going to improve it or move it or incubate it, you're going to put in it a black hole and wipe it from the face of the project. That is the issue, and only Seb's solution address that bigger problem. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 08:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• What nonsense Sorry, this entire section seems completely wrong-headed. This is classic 'a prize for everyone' thinking, typical left-wing 'we're all winners' nonsense that gets banded about every so often. The AfD process is clear. If your article is not good enough, it gets amended. If your article is of a non-notable subject, it gets deleted. "It hurts an editors feeling" is precious and pathetic. doktorb _words ^deeds 08:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That was my point, too, but we've moved beyond that. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, Doktorb, can you do me a favor? Intentionally avoid ever talking to a new editor. If you ever have something that just has to be said to a new editor, drop me an email and I will do it for you in a constructive manner. The English Wikipedia has significant problems; our new editor retention rate is shit, and our old editor retention rate is hardly stellar either. We do not currently properly understand why we are having the editor retention problems that we are having. We need new editors, and we need to retain people who are currently editing. This thread was started by a new editor - whose contributions were all NPOV and verifiable - explaining why his experience so far has been negative. He went out of his way to type up his thoughts and find a place to post them - and thoughts like these are important, because they can cast light on our major editor retention problems. (And make no mistake, this is exactly the type of editor we need to retain.) It beggars belief that you would respond to a post like this calling it precious and pathetic. Please - seriously - if you cannot respond in a more constructive way to posts like this, then never respond to one again. Kevin ( talk) 10:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I think we perfectly understand much of our current retention problems; every new editor that cares to comment is saying the same thing, that we're wp:BITEing them into oblivion. The problem is that many editors simply don't care about that one policy and treat the Wikipedia:Civility pillar in a pure "didn't hear it" way. We can't prevent that attitude from some people, but we can build mechanisms around it so that it doesn't hurt that much. Diego ( talk) 10:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) There's an editor retention mini-epidemic, there's an openness initiative. This is the kind of thing we are supposed to be thinking about.

It's not about "We're all Winners"-- not in the slightest. It's about welcoming Special Ed kids into their own program or expelling them from your school as morons who can't learn.

No one is calling for an abolition of quality standards, but complete and total deletion should be like expulsion-- rarely accidental. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Doktorbuk, please refrain from making a political interpretation in this discussion. I don't know why Americans always connotate completely unrelated things with attributes they associate with the other side of political parties, but left-wing nowhere implies a 'we're all winners' attitude, at least not on a global scale. Typical American black-and-white thinking. Nageh ( talk) 10:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony inherent in this remark? Your assumption about his nationality is wrong anyway, if you bothered to check his userpage you will see that he is British anyway so take your nationalist insults elsewhere. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I was criticizing the completely unwarranted connotation of an unrelated attribute with one having a political meaning, something which is overly widespread in the U.S., just as is this black-and-white thinking ("you are either with the U.S. or you are against them" -- G.W. Bush). My assumption on the previous poster's nationality was wrong, but please do not make any false interpretations and falsely accuse me of nationalist insults. Thank you. Nageh ( talk) 23:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to look under the surface of that highly offensive remark for nationalist insults, they are right on the surface for anyone to see and if you were not intending to steryotype and insult Americans then you should strike out those portions of your remarks. We're not all G.W. Bush worshipping robots. Perhaps you've heard of some of these other people, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, and oh yeah, I almost forgot the new guy, Barak Obama.. That you would choose to hurl such an insult in the middle of a discussion about hurting other people's feelings is puzzling. Perhaps you were not aware that people who create Wikipedia articles about subjects of marginal notability are not the only people who have feelings. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I deserve the right to criticize the unwarranted connotation above, and I will continue to do so. Even my American friends who have this black-and-white thinking will be criticized by me, and they are still my friends. And I will criticize any other person for such thinking. But just to make it plain clear: This is an international project, I contribute to this international project, and I respect every individual here no matter what nationality, but I do not respect and unwarranted connotation like the one above. If you prefer to interpret my reply as nothing but a national insult and then go on with another snide response so have it. Thank your for your contribution to this discussion. Nageh ( talk) 10:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC) PS: Saying that it was typical American thinking was inappropriate, indeed. As you feel strongly about it I have struck it. Nageh ( talk) 10:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - User Seb wrote above that in 2012, placing something into article space means "This is ready. It's not perfect, but it's sourced, proofread, spellchecked — have at it." That's true, but means that Wikipedia is no longer a wiki; not in a way that matters and that makes it a good tool to retain knowledge (and editors). (Seb's analysis is incomplete, though; a new article also means that the topic is notable, and notability is a big culprit of this throwing away piles of new verifiable and well-written content together with all the spam).

Problem is, many editors have very good reasons to wish to delete new content, and the guidelines supporting it have huge consensus achieved together with the editors wishing to retain content. All that is irrelevant to the fact that the wiki approach of "quick draft first, cleanup later", which made Wikipedia a huge success, is gone. This means that the encyclopedia is now, broadly speaking, a finished work; there will be some small growth and lots of ongoing tweaking and refinement, but no filling in the gaps - since the gaps are systematically cut out because of their initial low quality (that can't be fixed with time, because they are cut out).

I don't think this can be fixed by changes in policies and guidelines, since current consensus is strong. I still have hope that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees will create new tools to overcome it, such an incubator environment that works (the current one doesn't), since this is one of their priorities. The system won't change from within; a systemic change is needed so that this dynamic is turned around.

That said, the proposal of renaming AfD to "Articles for Discussion" would be an improvement. I wouldn't remove automatic tags, at least not on the first level, because many editors are using them through bots and other automated tools; and the tag wording is still much better than what such individual editors could come on their own. And I'd help with getting the incubator into shape to serve its purpose better than now. Diego ( talk) 09:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So what is the rationale for having only stuff in incubator that has gone through an AfD? Do you know? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe -- though am not sure and need to crash for the night -- that the idea is that articles that need incubation that haven't been afded should go through the afc process. Kevin ( talk) 10:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why being AfD'd is a requirement for incubation; but I don't think that this is an obstacle. The problem is that being incubated should be the default result for most of the deleted articles (i.e. anything without copyvio or BLP problems), but now it is a rare event instead. Having articles created and patrolled in the mainspace first is a good thing. Diego ( talk) 10:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support increased use of the incubator if the software prevented inbound links. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. With all respect, and while I appreciate the original poster being outspoken on the issue, but going at full length how valuable the contributor's time is and that we do not appreciate his gift hurts me as a long-standing contributor who is putting considerable time and efforts into making contributions that are worthwhile and of quality. It implies that the time of regular editors is less worth than his, and we should just keep his contribution because it hurts his feelings otherwise. Everyone here has had the experience of getting something deleted or reverted, and any dispute triggers emotions of some sort. Being criticized is a normal part of life, and should help you to learn from your past mistakes. If you don't feel that you can take any argument that doesn't flatter you I'm sure you wouldn't be able to interact with people at all. What exactly are you criticizing in the deletion process? Any AfD is having a discussion, and people do need to come up with relevant arguments for deletion if they don't want an article to be kept. Adhering to our policies and guidelines is our basis for creating an encyclopedia of quality that readers enjoy to read. Think about it. Nageh ( talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He's created probably half a dozen articles to-date, all of which were verifiable and npov, but some of which fail the GNG. His talk page has thirteen templated deletion notifications of various sorts, and he had almost no positive interaction with any established Wikipedian. He handled himself quite reasonably in the articles/category that actually went all the way to AfD, I don't think this is at all him being unable to take criticism. I would encourage you to look over his contributions and his interactions with other Wikipedians and think how you would feel in his place. I think 95% of brand new contributors in his shoes would leave and never look back - and the fact that this is a very common experience for new ENWP contributors is something we need to figure out a way to better address. Kevin ( talk) 10:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

@ Nageh: With all due respect, I think you're missing the essence of the matter out of your own need to feel special. Nobody is saying that experienced editors' time is worth less than newcomers; but you are not entitled to feel that it has more value either only because you have more experience.

The point is that the current AfD guideline is not the best way to deal with newly created articles, because it has two deeply negative side effects with its positive cleanup: first, that newcomers won't stay the needed time to learn how to make polished edits, because they are being systematically approached in an unfairly and unhelpful way; and second and even more important, that good faith edits are helpful and productive even if they don't comply with the current guidelines, because a bad initial state can work as the seed by which other editors improve an invalid article into good shape. Wikipedia has never been about perfection; the AfD process has its place, but its extreme result of full deletion should be reshaped in a way that doesn't conflict with these other two main concerns. Diego ( talk) 11:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My own need to feel special? Feel that [my own contributions] have more value? This is probably the worst misinterpretation of my edits I have seen in quite some time. Just how did you read this between the lines? I was trying to explain how the OP's post came across. Note that the personal response by the OP on my talk page was much more rationale than yours. And no, in this sense your post was not respectful, and just because I am so special and my feelings are more worthy, would you please apologize?

Regarding the negative side effects of the deletion process you mention, please note that lack of polish and need for cleanup are not valid arguments for deletion of an article in the deletion process. If an article is deleted on that basis the closing admin is to blame. What are good faith edits? Edits on your favorite startup band in the town? Obviously, this seems to be an issue about the notability guideline. See my post further below, where I reply to the OP's post on my talk page. Nageh ( talk) 14:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing seems to have actually been deleted yet, so it may be time to warn all those people that tag things for speedy delete that are declined. Once they hit say 10% bad nominations then we block them or ban them from speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. We only block people who are being disruptive, and 10% is nowhere near that. It's about what you'd expect from the occasional forgivable error and honest differences of opinion with other editors. How would you feel if we applied your idea to PROD declines? Start blocking or topic banning people once they hit 10% of declined PRODs that are later deleted at AfD? You'd oppose that idea loudly, and rightly so. Reyk _YO! 12:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

10% is a huge error rate for speedies. Speedy noms should be beyond-a-doubt, and they should be checked by the deleting admin. Errors in prodding are more acceptable, since there's time for errors to be fixed. And errors in AfD are relatively harmless - or should be. Rich  Farmbrough, 13:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

There is a balance that has to be made between the nature of a wiki that allows for instant gratification (an aspect of the web ever since the start of the Endless September) verses the fact that there's a body of 10 years worth of discussions and the like summarized into policy and guidelines that guide the direction of the work (including, at which point is a topic appropriate for a stand-alone article)

A new editor cannot make a new article without jumping through several pages that point to these discussions, but there is zero requirement for them to read them, and in the case of an editor aboard for instant gratification (seeing their work immediately published), they're not going to stop to read them.

Yes, it can be argued that's a problem to wipe contributions of new editors, but we have to be realistic. Just as we have the standard disclaims about profanity, nudity, and the like for the general reader (thus pushing aside any complaints about those aspects when a reader is shocked by them), we have to recognize that new editors that contribute without spending the time to understand how things work are going to be "hurt" when their contributions are removed. But that said, we can always improve the communication when we do remove that. As pointed out by the OP, its very easy to fall into the trap of just using automated messages to communicate when an article is at PROD/AFD, and thus makes the process seem inhuman. Particularly for new users, it would be better if when we use such nomination tools to make sure to craft a useful message, or even avoid the automated tools as long as the message is delivered in a non-mechanical way. There's improvements that can be made. -- MASEM ( t) 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the nature of the beast. We are expecting newcomers to assimilate "how things work" by reading lots of disorganized walls of text, instead of actually working and making honest and harmless mistakes. The way to improve communication is not to place more user-friendly messages (though that would help, and is required by policy) but to create a user-friendly process from the beginning. AfC is a good atempt, but we have nothing similar for the process after article creation. What we need is a newbie training boot camp; instead we have a newbie firing squad. Diego ( talk) 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Newbies should be required a period of supervised menial, hard-work tasks such as patrolling new pages and speedy deletions, and having them classify them as "compliant" or "non-compliant" with policy; and scoring them on how well they performed. Diego ( talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

At one point, I though there was a vastly different edit-page header when an editor created a new page, but now at least what I'm getting is a 5 line, black-on-white box that looks like regular wikitext above the edit box. Oh, it points to the right places, but it is so easy to overlook. I wonder if it is possible to create a new class of user "newly-autoconfirmed" which has all the same privledges as "autoconfirmed", but displays a different, bigger edit page header that is short but very explicit on what your first new page should have. This would be similar to "hot tips" in many applications, displaying useful tips until the feature is dismissed by the user. "newly-autoconfirmed" would automagically transform to "autoconfirmed" after, say, four weeks or if the user hit something in their preferences (with the acknowledgement that they can find more information on policies and guidelines). It's basically the same idea behind what our "upload file" tool is meant to do, though in that case allowing an advanced user to bypass the entry form.

As to the PS, if this was before the Endless September, we'd be enforcing a lurk-and-learn period with a much longer period before auto-confirmation. Unfortunately, the expectation that "anyone can edit" sorta requires us to ditch that. -- MASEM ( t) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean something like the article wizard? It already exists, the problem is that it's the alternate creation tool; it should be the default, with a big call-to-action button, so that only knowledgeable editors look for the current simple creation page. Wikipedia's usability is deadly bad. Diego ( talk) 14:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, well you could lurk and learn on WP for ever. I think there's a few points, though, to problems for new editors - and the fact that they are new (and need to learn) is only one of them. There is an assumption that if someone edits and goes away the community has failed, and some strong counter arguments to that. The important things are, firstly to do the common sense (and easy) things to improve editor retention - don't bite, simplify markup, have good help systems, have mentors, nurture and cooperate. The second is to actually make some less naive measurements about editor actions and understand the type of people who become "Wikipedians" or at least "occasional editors" instead of going away, and who we want. We have, for example, used a "be nice to vandals" philosophy for years (three nicely AGFing worded templates, then a short block, etc...) with, as far as I know, no research into the cost/benefit of doing this rather than, say, an un-templated indef block, freeing people up to help constructive new users. I prefer the gentle approach - but I have no empirical grounds for doing so. Rich  Farmbrough, 14:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

• The general gist of the proposal is misguided, IMO. New editors come here without much familiarity for what the threshold is for our notability and sourcing guidelines and tend to try creating articles on neat things they heard about or local games they like, i.e. the epic cluster-fuck that surrounded the article on "circball". Instead of coddling and incubating and all that, new editors should be steered away from the "I Can Make an Article!" mindset and towards "I Can Contribute to Existing Content!". Work up stubs into full articles. Find sources for unsourced articles. Locate free or fair-use images for articles that lack them. Once they get a handle on things, the the "but everyone in my town had heard of this band they're awesome!!!" mentality may subside. Tarc ( talk) 13:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, this is a good point, maybe this is something that can be tweaked in {{ Welcome}}. Having said that, of course, if someone comes here to document lesser-known Seattle record labels, they aren't necessarily going to want to spend their time working on nineteenth century postage stamps. Rich  Farmbrough, 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC).
  

  Though, in your example, there are plenty of other record labels and bands to work on, and by working on those they would become familiar with the specific policies and guidelines that influence that area (eg such as the notability guidelines for music). And what we need to be careful about there is scaring contributors there when they add something well-meaning but, say, without a citation. -- MASEM ( t) 14:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on a post by the OP on my talk page, it seems it is all about the notability guideline and deleting articles based on this ground. Let me say that WP:N is probably the most contentious editing rule when it comes to good-faith article creations by newcomers. Indeed, this is a far bigger issue on the German Wikipedia than here, and does result in discontent among new contributors. Nonetheless, it is obvious that we need to draw a line between what content is notable and what is so non-notable that it needs to be deleted outright, though that line is already more on the inclusionist side here (for good, IMO) than on the German Wikipedia. The problematic article is that which falls just below the notability threshold (as perceived by the tagging/deleting person). The important questions here seem to be: What is the best way to deal with the article? Should we speedy-delete or PROD it? (Obviously not.) Tag it for AfD? I think that is a fair outcome when you feel that an article might not be notable though the OP seems to be complaining about this. So should it be moved to the article incubator? Would that help in improving an article such that the notability of its subject can be asserted? How would we determine whether an article should go to AfD or to the incubator? And if no one can come up with a conclusive decision on that question, why is AfD is not the appropriate process for this? Maybe I still don't understand what the OP is trying to achieve? Nageh ( talk) 14:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree completely with the OP; having your contributions be subject to an AfD can be an emotionally charged experience, and we therefore need to be more dynamic in our thinking with respect to verifiable NPOV articles that merely fail to meet some notability threshold. We have other options beyond keep/delete, and even beyond the incubator. We have WP:Userfication. If there is good information that fits into a wider explanation of a topic, we can merge content into an appropriate page. At worst, if there is no place for material in Wikipedia, we can suggest other wikis or other websites where the kind of work at issue can be preserved. At the same time, if an editor has written an article on a non-notable local rock band for instance, we could make a point of asking if they'd be interested in helping to improve an article on a notable band from the same region. bd2412 T 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  There are lots of ways to be nicer to newcomers, and they should be implemented. Still, this doesn't solve the problem that somehow a decision needs to be carried out whether an article is indeed notable enough for inclusion or not. Simply moving the article to the incubator or the user page doesn't solve this problem, as far as I see it. Nageh ( talk) 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  ( edit conflict) True, but it won't happen as long as the 'D' in AfD stands for 'Deletion'. That mindset to suggest alternate outcomes (merge, userfy, incubate, transwiki) should be encouraged. Anyone else feels that it's time for a new AfD name-change proposal to "Articles for Discussion"? I have seen the idea being debated at several policy and project talk pages recently. Diego ( talk) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  A possible idea on this is to have some means of showing to logged in editors that an article has been created by a new user (say, less than 1000 edits) and is less than 3 months old. This doesn't prevent them from being deleted but maybe will help those that are questioning its notability (even after doing a BEFORE search and coming up empty to help out) to go "huh, maybe not a good idea to rush them but instead drop {{ welcome}} and other guides on the user's page and this talk page". As long as the article doesn't immediately qualify for the CSD and otherwise not a copyvio or immediately against policy, there's no need to rush to AFD for these newer ones. Of course, for experienced editors, or after enough time has passed, that's different. It's just at this starting point that we should avoid the mad rush to AFD. -- MASEM ( t) 14:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  That would be great, but how do we get from idea to practice? Proposing changes to a policy is already hard enough; something like this that would require code development is nigh impossible. Diego ( talk) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Most of this could be done with bots that run to tag such articles and then remove tags when the time's up. No backend coding required. Its then a matter of making sure established editors know not to bite newbies that have this tag. -- MASEM ( t) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's not just a matter of changing the name. "X for discussion" means "this is a fully merged, one-stop-shopping, zero-alternatives forum for deletion, renaming, and merge discussions". In short, rather than "let's change the name", your proposal is "let's get rid of WP:Proposed merges and WP:Requested moves and do everything in one absolutely ginormous forum."
  A more sensible solution IMO would be for people like you to show up at AFDs and trout editors who have nommed something for deletion when it ought to have been boldly merged. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've long believed that the real solution to this problem of non-notable personalities in any profession is to set up more dedicated side projects which would have much lower notability criteria than on the main wikipedia. A classic example of this at the moment would be Wookieepedia, a dedicated Star Wars wiki. We'd have for example, a dedicated one for actors and others in the film industry (a kind of IMDB plus), one for politicians, which would include lesser local officials and so on. The advantage would then be that articles judged not good enough for here could be transferred to the relevant side project where their creators could work on them happily, while here on the main wiki we would still retain higher standards. Valenciano ( talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We have Wikia as the closest match to that (not a true sister project, but close enough, where any manner of topic can have a dedicted, drill-down wiki) The probably is visibility. Wikipedia is huge. That's why people want to add articles to it. -- MASEM ( t) 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikia is a for-profit entity, while WMF is non-profit and governed by consensus and democracy. Some writers are vastly more comfortable writing in the WMF model rather than the Wikia model. Neither may be morally superior, but one inspires me, the other does not. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 12:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Valenciano is right that this should be the preferred approach to articles clearly lacking notability but otherwise verifiable. I don't know why this isn't done more often; maybe a wikiproject or task force should be created to identify recurring topics at AfDs (restaurants, garage bands...); they would commit to move failed articles to the most appropriate commons or non-commons wikiproject. Diego ( talk) 14:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Stuff often(?) does get moved to Wikia, but the problem with a lot of deletion as failing GNG is that it is generally good material that could be merged. Sure "my cousin's new band" is WP:NOTYET, to say the least, but NN council members should be merged to the council. NN artists might have a place on a record label page - just as artist's "own label" articles which are often deleted should be merged to the artist. This is all part of respecting other's GF contributions. Rich  Farmbrough, 14:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

One factor in all this is the general attitude that many on WP (old and new) have is that "redirects and merges are bad" and/or "every topic should have its own article". We're maturing, and we should recognize when information is better structured by putting minor topic that might even pass notability guidelines into an established larger article where the information, together, is more comprehensive. "Redirect and merging" should not be equated with "Deletion", and the idea of building out information in an existing article before creating a new one is good advice to give to newer editors - less likely they will see their work deleted that way. But everyone has to be aboard the idea of using redirects and merges wisely to make this effective and osmosis that idea to newer editors. -- MASEM ( t) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to remember everyone about my brand-new essay WP:SNOWFLAKE :-) </shamelessPromotion> Diego ( talk) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the original poster. Deletionists are a plague on Wikipedia, and the reason for its decline since 2007. Provided that an article has one valid reference and one valid fact we should keep it - yes, sometimes by merging, and maybe we could slap a notice in it about its incompleteness, but keep it nonetheless. Exaggerated deference for "living persons" should be rolled back to pre-Badlydrawnjeff standards. If there's anyone who should be getting templated with automated nasty messages, it should be the people who seem to take an unhealthy pleasure in trashing sourced content and newbie editors alike. The problem we have is that as more and more good editors have been driven off, the deletionists become bolder, more numerous, and have less need to hide objectives such as to oppose "left-wing nonsense". The problem we have here, ultimately, is one which has faced many communist systems (in a broad sense, e.g. administration of public lands and Indian reservations in the U.S.) - once a central pool of valuable assets is set up, there is more and more incentive for people to set themselves in control of it in order to bend it to their individual will. If we cannot find a way to restore and uphold the rights of individual editors much more clearly than we have, Wikipedia must ultimately degenerate into a series of Leninistic purges. Actions we've seen recently against administrators like Cirt, Fae, and Will Beback - accompanied at times by off-wiki harassment campaigns meant to break their resolve altogether - are the beginning but certainly not the end of this. The time left for Wikipedia to recover is growing short. Wnt ( talk) 15:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yet another ho-hum "deletionists are Nazis" sentiment, why am I not surprised? No, we should not rollback to 2007-era standards for BLPs or thresholds for notability, that'd be like telling a police station that it'd be ok to go back to a Wild West style of law enforcement. Weeding out bad articles and preventing cruft from taking their place makes the project better. Tarc ( talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • THe point missed here is that since 2007, wikipedia has graduated from "that internet encyclopedia that you can't trust" to a third party resource of research papers, personal histories, etc. Quantity has been replaced by quality. This was inevitable as the number of topics lacking articles dwindles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Who sais the number of topics lacking articles dwindles? There are people born every day, inventions created every week and scientific investigation published every month. There is no lack of new topics, but our threshold is much more strict than it was for the first batch. Those could be enhanced with time, the new ones often don't have a chance. Diego ( talk) 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Honestly, I am surprised you are even asking, because this should be self-evident. I'll give you an example: NHL hockey players. When I first joined this project in late 2005, I would say that no more than 25-33% of current and former players had articles. The rate of newly notable NHL players remains roughly steady from season to season, but we cleared that backlog of notable players without articles a couple years ago. The creation of new articles has become a secondary goal to improving the existing articles. That was not the case a wiki-age ago. Reso lute 16:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Tarc makes a good point that notabilty standards need to be maintained, but Wnt is also correct: speedy delete is often used in a quasi-fascist manner. I've seen new articles (created by newbies) tagged in 1 minute and deleted in under 5. That's crazy. On a few I had even found valid sources but the article was deleted in the interim.

IDEA - Why not slow down speedy delete to 6 hours (or, hey! ONE HOUR) so that experienced editors have at least a chance to work on it? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Several comments 1) Please remember, all, about not biting the newcomers. Some people seem to treat Wikipedia discussion pages like this as just another online forum where you get points for being nasty to others, and several people have posted here in that vein. If that is how you feel, please go to some other non-Wikipedia forum with your sneers and put-downs. WP:BITE is a "Wikipedia behavioral guideline" and a "generally accepted standard," and as established editors we are expected to follow it. 2) I really, really hate the way some people pounce on brand new articles, tagging them for speedy deletion just minutes after their creation. I would like to see a guideline that an hour has to pass before an article can be tagged - except in cases of attack articles, blatant nonsense, and other hopeless material. 3) In many cases it is possible to work with the person so as to get their work into a form that will be acceptable to Wikipedia. For example, if the subject is not suitable for a stand-alone article, they could be pointed to an existing article where the material could appropriately be added. In the current case, the user created a lot of very careful and neutral articles about city council members in a large city. It looks like almost all of them have now been prodded or AFD'ed (btw I am appalled at the level of discussion at that AfD; most people simply said "city council members are not notable" rather than evaluating the individual member for notability as required). I have suggested to him at his talk page that he salvage the information and combine it into the existing article Oakland City Council. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually that at-least-one-hour guideline would make sense inside WP:BITE. Diego ( talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone else remember when we suggested that new users have to build up a few mainspace edits before they create an article? I still think that's a good idea. New users want to feel like they get it. It's like a game. If you lose the game on the first level, you'll probably never play again. We can't coddle them and let them create bad articles just because we feel sorry for them. But we can direct them to the first level of Wikipedia, which is to expand an existing topic. That leads to greater likelihood their contributions will "stick", greater likelihood they feel good about themselves, greater likelihood they stick around, and greater likelihood they actually WILL get it when they finally create an article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have always liked that idea. I suspect that most of us here (established editors) began our Wikipedia careers by tweaking existing articles. A few such edits would make you much more likely to understand what Wikipedia is about and what a Wiki article looks like. When a person's very FIRST Wikipedia edit is a brand new article, we are all just asking for problems IMO. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can convince the WMF... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's never ever a bad idea to be reminded that we shouldn't bite the noobs. That said: I am generally regarded (included by me) as a deletionist; but part of the reason for this is the simple fact that Wikipedia has become the go-to website for spammers: for every goddamned shameless corporate publicist (pardon me, "public relations professional"), self-published author, "social media director", manager of unsigned rappers, unscrupulous campaign consultant for obscure local politicians, hoaxster, Search Engine "Optimization" mercenary, and egotistical 11-year-old who wants to publicize his YouTube video so it will go viral and he'll get on Tosh 2.0. Hector, it has become clear, acted in good faith; but we can't let that fact blind us to the fact that sometimes doing New Page Patrol is (as I wrote to Jimbo one time) "drinking from the Magic Firehose of Sewage"! How do we separate the scum from the Hectors? -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a question ... if I understand the premiss of the thread correctly, we are concerned about loosing lots of new editors because they have had their work deleted. The AfD process has been in place for years now, and during most of that time it did not result in a mass exodus of new users. Sure, there were always a few disgruntled users who got upset when we decided that their pet topic was not really notable enough for inclusion... but that was always a fairly small percentage of new users. Has something changed? Are we really finding that lots and lots of new users are quitting after an article they worked on is nominated for deletion? If so, I have to ask why this change has occurred, and (perhaps more importantly) why it has changed now? Are our new users more sensitive than they used to be? Are we being harsher in how we nominate articles than we used to be? Are more articles being nominated? Blueboar ( talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, with 3.8 million articles in here, it's harder to find a subject that's genuinely notable and that appeals to new editors. Few new editors want to write about 1930s state senators and other dead people; too often, they want to write about obscure new bands they like, internet memes that have gotten 30,000 views today, and other stuff that adds to our recentist bias if left unchecked. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly its reasons like this I stopped uploading images. I have a lot of free media available to me that are from Government sources but when they started getting deleted for one reason or another I found that it was no longer worth my time to do anymore and moved onto other things. I recently had a similar experience with working on WikiProject United States but thats another matter. So although I never had the experience of having an article deleted I have seen this first hand. It doesn't just apply to Article creation either, it applies to multiple facets of Wikipedia. Personally the notability rule has always been a bit of a dubious one to me personally because the whole reality of notability is how does it affect me and do I have enough standing in the community and understanding of the rules to justify it being retained. For example, I personally think all Medal of Honor/Victoria Cross receipients are notable others may not. I could personally care less if we deleted every Soccer/International Football player article but to others this is a big deal. I personally think that we should be paying less attention to notable and more attention to Verifiability and references. There are plenty of topics that are "notable" but we can't find 2 references to prove it. On the opposite there are a lot of what we would consider non notable topics you could easily get to FA status with the amount of available content. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Politely correct me if I am wrong, but WP:GNG should cover notability via multiple verifiable mentions in reliable sources by the phrase:

The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.

Although there is the first part "Significant coverage", I have often seen that a multitude of non-significant mentions themselves denotes a level of notability. That being said, I have also seen that standard be opposed via arguments like WP:GOOGLEHITS and emphasis on significant coverage requirements while not taking into account semi-significant mentions in hundreds (sometimes thousands) of sources. I guess on that case it's a case by case and how well defenders of the subject argue in favor of the subject's notability. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While it's clear that the encyclopedia cannot change its standards for the sake of making users happy, I do agree that people in deletion discussions can do a lot more to be nice. If the article is well-written, but happens to be on a non-notable topic, tell the author their article is well-written, and suggest a good alternative outlet, like one of the Wikia wikis, or (for an essay) a personal blog, or (for a story) deviantART or a fanfiction website. If the subject might become notable in the foreseeable future, invite them to request undeletion or recreate at the appropriate time (I would like to see Delete for now become a popularly-used opinion). These are ways we can send a positive message while still deleting things. Dcoetzee 19:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree that often times things are deleted for a reason and the deletion is justly deserved I have, in my time here, seen several very well written articles get deleted on the sole grounds they were "non notible". I recall one being mentiond recently on the MILHIST board that was being considered fro deletion submission when someone submitted it to GA and another editor questioned its notability. I think that, this is one of those few areas in Wikipedia where we should give some credit to the "fuzzy grey area" of life and perhaps not view it in terms of black and white, yes or no. It seems to me that if the article is fairly well written (I would say at least B class at least for articles with dubious notability) that we should consider keeping it. If there is enough information and creditable references to write a decent article then it seems to me that the subject must be at least minimally notable to someone. Otherwise no one would have bothered to write about it here or in the references used to write it here. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One should not get credit for writing extensively about a non-notable subject, no. This is the sort of "gold star just for trying" mindset noted earlier in this discussion that we honestly should not be promoting. Tarc ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. Nobody wants us to stop our essential quality controls in favor of qualitative anarchy. But surely there should be a middle ground between "gold star" and " Damnatio memoriae". I think Incubator may be it. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. AfD with notability claims is a common ground for snowball claims, like the Protests against SOPA and PIPA article which was nominated a day before the event. A AfD process can be huge distraction and a major BITEing of newbees even in cases where the AfD ends in a keep. Compared to how protect procedures are done, an AfD process a few hours after article creation is like doing a indef full protection of a article after a single vandalism edit. For protection policy we have different levels and a normal procedure with increasing steps of actions if previous levels do not fix the problem. With AfD it is black and white, because either the article is considered at that time notable or it is not. Belorn ( talk) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Opinions on this matter are split. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor participation or article quality

I wouldn't characterize this as a question of "hurt feelings" but a deep difference of opinion among experienced contributors over what a better future for the Wikipedia would be: (a) More editors with policies that encourage new articles and new or revised material for existing articles. Or (b) Increasing the overall quality of the Wikipedia by deleting old articles which are determined by consensus to be "bad" (by the application of policies updated in 2012 to articles substantially written in 2006, for example) and by imposing stricter quality standards for new articles and revisions to existing articles. With 50 archives of talk pages, Wikipedia talk:Notability has been a proxy battleground for this. This is confirmed by vast number of WP:Articles for deletion which have a two-sided debate on notability.

A popular position for (b) is based on the Closing of the Frontier. This is the idea that every past or current person, place, or thing already has an article in the Wikipedia, and the emphasis of editors, Afd voters, and admins is to improve quality by adding, moving, or removing content and finally by deleting articles. I think this emphasis is currently out of balance and discouraging to the new editor class of 2012 of whom some have arrived and some we await.

It isn't so much a deletionist position, but a elitist position that wants fewer articles about the interests of editors and readers in popular culture and can only shape the Wikipedia by using the Afd process to greenlight the articles that conform to the highbrow standard: more articles on writers, fewer articles on wrestlers. patsw ( talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it's a repetition of the Wikipedia:Concept limit foolishness, which is just sheer unadulterated rubbish. I've been very quietly collecting some of the more extraordinary sets of redlinks for subjects that we not only don't have, but don't even know (via lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles or redlinks in article space) that we don't have. Uncle G ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree in the assessment with Uncle G that we're far from running out of appropriate article topics (expansion), but at the same time, with WP's maturing, there is also contraction, not because we're elitist against specific topics, but that overall we're becoming wiser at how to hierarchically structure information so that topics, which may be just notable but only have a paragraph or so that can be said about them, are discussed in context of a broader, larger topics, giving better clarity to both main and sub-topic. We can document everything and make them search terms (redirects are cheap), but that doesn't require an article for everything we document, and this sometimes produces a more comprehensive result. There are still plenty of new topics that need articles, but again, encouraging all editors (and thus new editors via way of osmosis) to consider top-down information organization and placing a new, small topic in the context of a larger one is what helps here. -- MASEM ( t) 13:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that another consideration is realizing why people are using Wikipedia. People don't use Wikipedia because its content is always 100% trustworthy or because all of our articles are well written (featured status). They come here because the world has come to expect that with almost 4 million articles in the English Wikipedia alone there is a very good chance what they are looking for is here and that will lead them to other references and sites about the topic. I don't think realistically we are ever going to break that mindset, nor should we try. I agree that all the key topics probably have articles and some articles need a lot of help or, if need be, deleted or merged into a larger topic. As I have said many times before I often think we are too wrapped up around the notability criteria which is very very subjective. More focus should be placed on whether its referencable and verifiable. I do think though that there are plenty of articles still needing creation and if we can focus the potential new editors attention on those, it would be very helpful. I think that we can do this through WikiProjects. If we can somehow steer new editors towards a WikiProject that interests them, it would give them a place to ask questions, talk to like minded editors with a similar editing interest and provide a place to list articles needing creation, which many projects already do.-- Kumioko ( talk) 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the points raised about regarding what a better Wikipedia would look like with respect to article quality. That's the easy part. The point others have raised is the behavioral one - how do the sharp elbows and demands that new editors have thick skin imposed by old editors - the characteristics of argumentative (but inside our civility lines) editing discussions - encourage all those new editors to create all those desired new articles? patsw ( talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WMF, please comment here

I'm assuming someone from WMF will read this eventually. So tell us: since the last idea that had overwhelming support (creation of new articles only by autoconfirmed users or after a while of observing) was flat-out rejected — what can we propose that won't be rejected? I'd say nobody here is fond of dreaming up and brainstorming great ideas just to be told "no". Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested, that WMF decision is documented here: WP:ACTRIAL and here. Diego ( talk) 09:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And even more articulated here. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 13:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody said here (comment #19) that 80% of all newpages wind up getting deleted by one process or another. If that statistic is true, then what the HELL are we doing? To claim that "anyone can create a page here" and then wind up deleting 80% of the result is an enormous broken promise and an enormous waste of everyone's time. If the Wikimedia Foundation's overriding concern was "editor engagement" and "editor retention" (comment #25), that is not what the current process is producing. And that is exactly the point that the original poster here was making - the current process turns people off and turns people away. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, that is why new editors need to bee steered towards editing existing articles rather than creating new ones. We can't blame them for creating crap if they have little to no feel for what type of article we want to retain in the project. How this project works now is like a big empty parking lot, a bunch of brand new cars being unloaded, and people who have never driven before are being given keys and told to go park without error. Tarc ( talk) 16:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think thats a really nice analogy. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only must they park perfectly but they must stay in the poorly marked or unmarked lanes, while avoiding the pot holes big enough to break an axel, and deal with the often surly and uninformative parking attendants. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't waste your breath. They're either unable or unwilling (probably the latter, though I don't want to rule anything out) to get with the reality of this problem, and for now, at least, I don't think they're going to bend; point 1 on User:MastCell applies here. Why should they care about what we think, as long as they can inflate the stats on new users; what was that again that Benjamin Disraeli said? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Blade, I'm really sorry that you feel this way; as I've mentioned in the past, we've dedicated half our features engineering team to new page patrol for a solid 2-month sprint. That's a pretty big committment given the other half is busy on the visual editor until at least October: we've basically committed everyone we have. I've explained to the staffers in Engineering how New Page Patrollers feel, and they get it. If they didn't, they wouldn't be dedicating these resources to the problem. I appreciate a lot of people would like to see ACTRIAL, but it's simply not going to happen.

This gives you two options. For one, you can refuse to help us. I'd be sorry to see you go: you're a really experienced patroller, and your perspective would be really valuable when designing these new tools. Indeed, without the perspectives of experienced patrollers like you, the eventual features are likely to be far less useful than they might be. Alternately, you can help us. You can say "okay, so I think this is a bad set of changes, but it's going to happen. How do I make it the least bad set of changes?" If you do this, then sure, you don't get precisely what you want, but that wasn't going to happen anyway. What you do get is a stronger role providing input into how the Foundation understands new page patrol and better-designed software to help with that work. I, at least, hope you'll join us, either in providing feedback on the existing plans or suggesting new ones as written below :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Foundation chose to so flippantly ignored the community, I have decided to stop dealing with new articles; I know that, probably, my contribution to that area has always been negligible and that my absence won't even have been noticed so far, but, considering the WMF's arrogant approach to the issue, I felt I could no longer do NPP. And quite frankly I hope that more and more editors start doing the same. Maybe, when we have another Siegenthaler incident, you will reconsider your position. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are completely free to do or not do whatever work you want, although I'm sad to see one fewer patroller. We have dedicated literally all our available features engineers to this issue; I'm sorry we couldn't do precisely what you want, but, to be blunt, we're not going to. Continuing to debate something that was settled six months ago is not going to result in a productive outcome. Providing feedback on the tools we're developing to help patrollers; that can make a difference. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All this tells me is that you are unwilling to consider the most obvious solution to a problem in favour of wasting massive resources to solve a side issue. And truthfully, I think you guys are looking at this all wrong. I've been on numerous discussion boards that required new registrants to wait x time or make y posts before they were allowed to create new topics. It doesn't stop people from joining up. There is no reason why Wikipedia is different. In fact, it could be combined with your new creation workflow to force funnel new editors into what would basically become a tutorial on how this project works. Want to contribute --> want to create an article --> go through ACW --> approved new article --> Article creation user right granted, congratulations and happy editing! There is nothing remotely bitey about that. What you are doing is telling the reader you want them to contribute, and you want to help them contribute. Meanwhile page patrollers might get some of their time back to work on other articles. Reso lute 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all; we did consider it. Then we rejected it. Sometimes that's the outcome of considering ideas; it doesn't mean the idea is bad, or not a step in the right direction: it just means that we think there are more elegant and efficient ways of doing it. I'm afraid I don't quite get what you mean when you say "side issue"; the landing pages work to inform new editors what our expectations are and reduce cruft, and the new Special:NewPages interface makes patrolling whatever cruft gets through a lot easier, and divides the work up amongst more people. Can you explain why this is a "side issue"? Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to speak for Resolute, but I agree with what he is saying. The landing pages are a "side issue" because they're not central to the problem. People simply ignore them, and improving them doesn't change that fact. People will still just come in and start making new articles without reading them.

The issue is that there is no "buffer" for people to slow down and learn our policies & guidelines. If they want to ignore them, they can go right ahead creating articles that will get deleted, leading to frustration and arguments. I'm sure Resolute understands that sometimes ideas are rejected. However, rejecting this proposal means nothing is actually getting done to help the central problem.

Car analogies are weak at best, but to explain: what we've got is a car (Wikipedia) with the keys in the ignition (article creation), and permission for anyone to get in and drive. Your solution is to leave a nicely made instruction manual in the driver's seat. It does not actually encourage anyone to slow down and learn to drive; the majority will still just toss the manual out the window and crash the car into the nearest wall. ACTRIAL would have at least meant people needed to take some driving lessons (editing) before driving off in a car of their own (article creation).

In that regard, cleaning up the landing pages is a side-issue to this problem. It will be nice to have them, but it does nothing to solve the real problem of people who aren't going to read them before creating an article. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Switching off page creation by newbies was never going to stop the creation of crap articles that need deletion, it would certainly have reduced it, though with what side effects we can only speculate. My betting was that the spammers would have mostly learned the rules and done the minimum needed to get the right to create articles. The kids who've just decided their new bandname and are working out who gets to play what instrument won't be stopped, they'll just be diverted from creating a new article that no-one ever reads to adding a paragraph into the article on their town, school or maybe the record they are covering. I'm not convinced that diverting such people to articles that other people read was a good idea. An article on Effortless Moon and the Ramp Alternative was never going to be noticed by anyone but the band members and the newpage patrollers, a paragraph added to the article on the University or city where it was dreamed up might be, and it wouldn't get revdeleted or even rollbacked, just reverted as undue weight, and would be sitting permanently in the edit history. So even if Actrial had gone ahead we would still have an overly simplistic newpage patrolling system that could do with major improvement. I'm keen that we get in features such as:

1. Noindex for unpatrolled articles - reduce the incentive for spammers and stop Google caching attack pages.
2. An extra colour for tagged for deletion, so patrolled no longer means ready for mainspace or deletion and declined speedies revert to unpatrolled.
3. Display [mark as patrolled] to any autoconfirmed editor who opens an unpatrolled article - so categorisors and people looking at new articles of relevance to their Wikiprojects get the opportunity to patrol articles in the queue even if they never visit special:Newpages.
4. A different colour for articles created by people who've recently had an article deleted G3 or G10 so we can prioritise looking at their latest offerings.

All of the above would be useful whether or not we had Actrial. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey guys. So, at the moment we're working on two things aimed at this problem. The first is a new set of landing pages. When a new editor goes to a redlink, they'll be offered various ways to create an article. If they click the one that involves direct creation, they'll be warned that they need to have things like references, no COI and not be writing about their friend Ethan's band (that practises in their garage and has recorded, like, four whole songs! I mean, that's an entire EP!). Alternately they can simply request the article be created (at requested pages), or go through the wizard and AfC. At the same time we're working on New Page Triage; a complete redesign of the new page patrol system that will hopefully reduce the workload of patrollers, both through making it simpler to patrol and either attracting more patrollers or simply distributing the workload more evenly. If you have any ideas relating to these, or want to leave feedback on what is being designed so far, you can drop notes on the mediawiki talkpages (which our devs watch) or, if you're not comfortable with mediawiki, email me at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop me a talkpage message. Or, hey, just leave them here ;p.
• As to what other ideas would be permitted - well, it's kind of hard to rule out a negative :(. I can say with near-certainty that no immutable restrictions on the ability of new people to create articles will be permitted - something ACTRIALesque, where you set a rigid barrier to participation - but if you have other ideas, I would dearly love to hear them. I must warn you that we've pidgeonholed new page triage and the landing system in for a two month coding sprint: we don't really have much time. So if you have an idea, bear that in mind (and get it to me fast!). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can the New Page Triage include a special category for pages created by non-autoconfirmed users? Because those pages are the ones most likely to have problems with neutrality, conflict of interest, or notability. New Page Patrollers should be made aware that those articles need a courteous, personalized response explaining to the new user what goes on here - as opposed to a brusque speedy-delete request two minutes after the article is created. Maybe responding to those articles should be restricted to a new category of established editors - a "New Page Welcomer" or "New Page/New User Helper" or something like that. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(sorry, restructuring just for consistency). I think that would be a fantastic addition :). We're already discussing the first element; I can't confirm it'll make it into the final design (because, at the moment, we're discussing dozens of things. I can't confirm anything will go in) but it's definitely something worth considering. On the second, it'd depend largely on if we get the first thing introduced :(. But I think the point is well made: we do need some way to treat newbies better. Whether we do this through providing better ways to oversight each patroller's actions, through a special userright, through improving or altering templates, or through any other means remains to be seen :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That was actually the whole idea behind the flagged revisions and this is how flagged revisions work in other language Wikipedias: Edits (not only the page creations but all edits) made by experienced users are authomatically marked as patrolled, all other edits need attention of more experienced users. Introducing flagged revisions here seems to me at the moment as having more perspectives that convincing WMF to prohibit non-autoconfirmed users to create articles.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good luck getting that implemented; setting aside for the moment that I think that's more exclusionary than the concept behind ACTRIAL (I'll point out that I really don't, as of now, have a position on PC; far too many walls of text to read through), it's also a very politicized issue. In reading over some of the discussion of it, some people are so set in dogmatic, idealized views that they're blindly supporting or opposing it without carefully checking the merits of it (not at all unlike healthcare issues in the US, except far less important in the grand scheme of things). The great majority of people are set in their position, convinced that theirs is The Right Way^TM, and have no intentions of compromising, and that goes for both the proponents and opponents of it. I think it will be at least another year before we, the community, can even think of having a rational discussion on it, and that will require a very structured RfC, which is something that doesn't seem to happen too much on en.wiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Flagged revisions would be nice :(. As Blade quite correctly points out, though, it's far too much of a political hot potato at the moment. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• IMO we have a deletion problem at Wikipedia.  We have a deletion problem here because we have a mountain of man-hours of hard work in the form of new articles that need to be deleted.  Our admin volunteers of necessity become efficient at the task, and in doing so they of necessity become desensitized to the humans behind the deleted articles.  Destroying written work associates with other areas of the project, such as enforcement of the written policies.  I believe that the admins are joined by editors with sadistic tendencies who are attracted to Wikipedia because of the unusual culture that values destruction.  Newbies are seen as targets of opportunity, and an editor verbally roughing up a newbie is, after all, an editor on the side of destruction.  IMO this pervasive problem goes far beyond new page patrol.  Therefore, the WMF would do well to spend the one man-hour to implement the low-barrier ACTRIAL while their new-page-patrol investigation proceeds.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is an encyclopedia project, not a hand-holding therapy retreat. All this talk about alternatives to deletion to avoid hurt feelings is just ridiculous. Tarc ( talk) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • And if anyone has a right to complain of hurt feelings, it's the people who try to maintain a minimum standard of quality and who understand that editing means deciding what not to include as much as what to include. They get called things like bullies, elitists, snobs, evil hordes, destructive, dishonest and sadistic. They're accused of taking delight in "demolishing" people's hard work and getting their jollies out of tormenting newbies. And with no rationale whatsoever behind these accusations, just name-calling. Now consider the differences between these attacks and deleting a newbie's first article: the attacks are personal, they're lies, and they're not taken seriously by the community because the attackers get a free pass with this sort of thing. Deleting newbie articles is not meant personally, the reasons are fact-based, and the amount of handwringing and anguished wailing they inspire wouldn't seem out of place in the Book of Lamentations. If anyone has a right to feel personally attacked, and that the community hasn't got their back, it's the people who put quality first. Reyk _YO! 01:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Tarc and Reyk, I really appreciate the quality control work. It's hard, thankless, and it has to be done. I see comments like this as the other side of the same problem-- newbies are getting demoralized, but our "quality-control" teams get just as demoralized too. We get to build Wikipedia any way we want it, and we can also build things that aren't wikipedia. Can't we find a way for poor-quality authors to write here without it being part of Wikipedia, so that you don't have to burnout playing eternal wack-a-mole? -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 03:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
        • No, we cannot because this is not a blog; legally, the WMF and its projects are a charity with a certain goal, and its charity/tax-exempt status was approved with respect to those declared goals. If wikipedia becomes "the site where anyone can write stuff without aim, quality, or stated purpose", WMF will eventually lose its legal status. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
          • Who said anything about purpose anarchy? Good-faith attempts and drafts are already allowed in userspace, I just propose making it easier to collaborate on them. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

^{> haneʼ} 09:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • Actually, I take it the Foundation sends those authors to Meta [13], just slap "essay" on it. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I find WP:ACTRIAL rather disconcerting, that the WMF refused to implement something that received broad support of the Wikipedia community. IMO if they feel they are free to ignore us, then we the community are free to ignore them, e.g. The Foundation resolution of May 2011. Tarc ( talk) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And now you found the actual problem why so many experienced users going retired: the WMF (esp in th last ~1.5 years) is introducing many new features without asking... and even when the community gets a consent, it will be either smashed down by the WMF or by the devs (see consent on the part of the "non account creation flagged users" are only able to create 2 accounts - and the bugzilla entry; in some discussions it is only of the length of the discussion). mabdul 00:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you link me to that precise discussion, please? I'll take a look. I think it is unfair to claim that the experienced editor retention problem is down to the Foundation introducing new software; the data says different. I appreciate that the software work pisses people off, but it's slight hyperbole to claim it's the primary reason people are leaving. It's also a bit unfair to gloss over things like WP:AFT5, where we've been fully engaged with the community and notifying people every step of the way. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 09:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:YDOW seems to apply: Oh, horrors: the WMF added features to the WMF's own website? What is the world coming to. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Compromise opportunity: We understand (ala WP:ACTRIAL) new article creation is difficult. WP:ACTRIAL said "Newbies, don't even try making new articles". Instead let's say: "Newbies, here's an 'draft' namespace, where we can collaboratively write without fear of quality-based deletion". Then let experienced editors transfer the useful input to main articles. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  That'd be WP:AFC. The line we're taking, at least, is more to replace "Newbies, don't even try making new articles" with "newbies, if you're going to try making new articles, here's what you need to have beforehand. If you don't have these things, stick it at "requested pages". Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Apart from the new editor issue, has the Foundation learned anything from the WP:ACTRIAL incident, that will hopefully prevent such disastrous miscommunication/wasted effort in the future? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sure. This might be a good direction in which to take the conversation, actually. So, things I've picked up on at the WMF:

  New Pages are a problem. Or, rather, the way new pages are dealt with and the way editors have to approach new pages. This has been bubbling away at the back of the consciousness for a long time, but ACTRIAL kicked it into overdrive; that's why the Foundation has dedicated a large chunk of resources to providing the landing page system and new page triage (as expanded upon above).

  The WMF needs to keep a closer eye on the community. Not in an Orwellian sense, but in the sense that there needs to be a greater awareness of what is being discussed so it doesn't catch the Foundation by surprise.

  The WMF needs to get better at explaining engineering decisions to the community. That's an element of my job; making sure that decisions or the lack thereof are communicated effectively, and providing an obvious port of call for people to talk to. So, if you look at WP:AFT5 and the material surrounding it, you'll see that there's been far more effort put into letting people know about the software than is the norm. That's the first project I've worked on; NPT is the second, and will hopefully incorporate lessons learnt from AFT5. I appreciate there hasn't been much communication about the specifics of NPT yet; that's mostly because we're still working out the specifics :). There's also stuff like the "enabling gadgets by default without wider discussion" issue, which I've been dealing with.

  The WMF needs to get better at involving the community in engineering decisions. Again, AFT5; editors have been fully involved all the way through development, providing feedback on the designs, evaluating the feedback left so that we know what editors think the best design is, participating in an RfC we held so editors could play a role in deciding on things like "what userrights should be able to do what with AFT5". With New Page Triage, we're going to be getting more responsive to the community than in AFT5. I'm afraid I can't provide details yet: I've written a big engagement strategy document, which should act as a breath of fresh air in this area, but I'm waiting on internal feedback until I can release it.

  The community, or big chunks of the community, no longer trusts the Foundation. That's the main outcome of ACTRIAL: people are, understandably, pissed. And if editors are angry with the WMF, editors are not going to be willing to participate in future development cycles and software choices, and this makes for crapper software; at the end of the day, everyone loses. So we need to regain trust, and we need to do this through involving the community more, through communicating our decisions better, and through showing that we care about editors. Because there's this perception that we don't: that existing editors are just a means to an end, as far as staffers are concerned. This isn't the case - as someone who as been contracted for four months, and editing for six years, I've yet to see a staffer who doesn't want to be supportive of the community - but the problem is editors and devs speak two different languages, and have two different sets of priorities. Most of the time the priorities are the same, but sometimes they drastically veer in opposite directions, and in those situations more effort needs to be put into reconciling the two viewpoints, having a way to explain the motivations of devs to editors and editors to devs, and seeing if we can find a middle ground that everyone is equally happy (or unhappy!) with. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I wish you well. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In my efforts to make things better, or generally? Has my doctor told you something he forgot to tell me? :P. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 17:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for weighing in on this, everybody. I'd just like to say two things:

1. "The Foundation" is not a shadowy committee of moles living in a secret bunker under the earth. It's real live human beings like me, Oliver, Steven, Brandon, Erik, and Sue. We all spend 90% of our workday on the wikis and on #wikipedia-en on IRC, we all have talk pages that we check regularly, and you're always welcome to talk to us. Really! Honestly! It's a banner day when somebody comes to me with an idea they have, or just wants to chat about some nuance of the deletion or new article creation process they'd like to see changed. The problem is that when these discussions do happen, they're often framed as hostile jabs at "The Foundation" for not doing what the community wants. I'm not saying every comment in this thread is like that, or that every comment in every thread about ACTRIAL is like that, but you have to remember that we're all people, just like you, and when someone starts off a discussion by implying that every staff member of the Foundation is an idiot and won't listen to anything anyway, so "don't waste your breath"... well, it's less likely to be taken seriously.
2. Editor retention is a huge, complex, hairy problem, and the truth is that there's probably not any one silver bullet that's going to kill it. Our unofficial motto in the office, shamelessly stolen from Samuel Beckett, is: fail better. You can spend all your time and energy planning out one idea and then be crushed when it fails, or you can shake it off and move on to the next idea. All of us in the office have at one time or another uttered the words, "man, if only we could do this one thing, I bet we'd fix everything on Wikipedia!" but for one reason or another, whether it's technical or social, that one thing probably won't happen. Trust me, we all know that feeling very well, and we all know how much it sucks to feel powerless. But getting angry and quitting is not the solution. The solution is to find ten other things you can do, do them, and then do ten more.

Apologies if I sound exasperated, but I'm tired of conversations that split us off into "the community" and "The Foundation," as if those entities don't overlap and aren't all working really hard toward the same goal. Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I hate to see one of our best users at the point where he feels he has to step back from en.wiki affairs after cleaning up from a series of preventable disasters. As I'm neither omnipotent nor capable of mind-reading, I don't know how much he was actually listened to, but it certainly didn't seem to him like it was much. His frustrations largely match up with my own, as we've worked together for considerable lengths of unpaid time to resolve some of these issues; if you're not already aware, I can elucidate our (as well as other users, i.e. WereSpielChequers and Scottywong) take on the NPP survey. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Kudpung's reasons for stepping out were related to the NPP and IEP issues or not. If you want to drop me an email, I'm happy to listen to your concerns, or have a skype call with you if you want to run through them properly. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 23:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My perspective on this survey would in some ways be different to Kudpung's. He was in that clear majority of the community that supported the Actrial idea, I was in the sizeable minority that opposed it. However one thing that we could agree on was that there were other changes that could be made to the newpage patrol process, and that many of them would be less contentious than stopping newbies from creating articles. In fact many of the ideas we chewed over would be useful even if we do at some point stop newbies creating articles. The survey idea was originally Kudpung's, I made some suggestions re questions though I'm not sure much that I suggested reached the final version. It is ironic that a survey requested by a supporter of Actrial should provoke a response so focussed on that issue. I think it is a positive that the Foundation are planning to invest in improving that aspect of the site, I worry as to the extent that the development will actually be influenced by the community as opposed to the Foundation. The discussion at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:New_Page_Patrol_Zoom_Interface (warning it uses that rather unfortunate liquid thread system) seems a little stale and we don't know what is in or out; Even uncontentious ideas such as making unpatrolled articles NoIndex to remove the incentives for spammers and stop Google caching attack pages. I hope that Zoom winds up working well, and incorporates enough of the suggested improvements to be a better patrolling tool.

On a broader note, the focus of the Foundation on readers and neglect of the editing community, combined with the policy of treating the English Language Wikipedia as the guinea pig risks doing great damage to the editing community on this wiki. In particular the imposing of new initiatives here without first getting the consensus that would be sought on other wikis is something I find troubling. It is one of the major reasons why nowadays I'm more active on Commons than here. Improving the interface so as to make the site easier to use and enabling editors to get more done in the same time is an obvious way to keep people active. Commons has the advantage of having major recent improvements in Cat-a-lot. Wikipedia needs a similar initiative in tools that are important here, obviously it would be preferable and much more efficient if it was a community based initiative. But a Foundation based one could work, provided it focuses on delivering things that the community here wants written. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you read my above comments you'll see that getting editors more involved in engagement over NPT is a priority, moving forward. Improving the interface is a big priority - the reason there isn't any big movement at the moment is (appropriately enough) that everyone not involved in the visual editor is tied up in new page triage. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been active at that page for a while, its good that we eventually won the argument not to default to the back of the queue and leave attack pages up for days. But the current page isn't looking very promising despite the survey and the talkpage discussions. At the heart of it is the page patroller right which I'm personally ambivalent about and which the majority in the survey were opposed to. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. So, let me elucidate a bit; while the discussions on the talkpage at MW will be taken into account, the eventual release - that is, the basic framework we come up with for proper community discussion - may not look anything like this one. We're in a series of rather grueling meetings to work out what to do; some people think the basic methodology of patrolling needs tweaking, and we should tweak that. Some people think that making substantial methodological tweaks will cause a low rate of uptake from experienced patrollers, and so we should go with something closer to (but better than) what we've got at the moment. We'll work it out soon, but it's currently sucking in a large chunk of time and means that you can't take what's written on that page as concrete (it's also why being told that I neither care about nor are working for the benefit of patrollers makes me reach for high-calibre weaponry). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 08:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While that is somewhat reassuring as I'm really not keen on Zoom as currently detailed, it does make it rather difficult to engage with the design process. First we have a discussion on mediawiki rather than here, then we're told not to worry about what has been said as there as the real decisions are being taken off wiki by staff at the WMF. My view on this is that we are much more likely to get a useful improvement to the system if the community is somehow part of that dialogue. Kudpung, myself and others have put a lot of time into this over the last year, I think we've nipped in the bud bright ideas such as leaving attack pages up for weeks by making everyone patrol at the back of the queue. But judging from experience so far, we really need to have several patrollers in the discussion at this stage. I don't dispute that you've done a humongous amount of patrolling, probably tens of thousand more articles than me. But this is a classic crowdsourcing exercise - different people approach NPP from very different angles. For example, you have been known to plough through screen after screen of the backlog, I'm very selective and might only open one in ten articles (but if I'm at the front of the queue that will include most of the attack pages). The current design for Zoom, at least as far as we can see on Mediawiki, assumes that people will plough through the whole of each batch that they select; That might suit you, but it doesn't work for me. How do you intend to feed those gruelling meetings back to the community, are you going to run an RFC on the list of features that will and won't be in the product? I've enough experience of developers to accept that sometimes things aren't practical or can be coded for, but even after that there are going to be major decisions made in the design of Zoom and I'm not seeing how the community can influence them Ϣere SpielChequers 14:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it seems I'm not explaining myself clearly. We are not having gruelling meetings over the list of features; we are having meetings over the basic methodology and premise of New Page Patrol. There are currently two "camps"; one group wants to go for something similar to the current format. This is because we need to produce software that existing patrollers are comfortable with - although software that still allows for the training of new patrollers, and software that is far more intuitive and self-explanatory than the current format. The big advantages here are that, as mentioned, it's more useful for and useable by existing patrollers, and it is an excellent way to involve the community and show that, actually, we do care. The alternative is something that alters the basic methodology behind new page patrol. The advantage of this is that we can alter practises to work with what is most efficient and all-encompassing, rather than having practises that were brought about because of the features of the current format (or the lack of such features). The disadvantage is that this has a high barrier to entry for existing patrollers, who not only have to learn new ways of working but have to unlearn old ones, and is (quite understandably) likely to infuriate a lot of our editors: hardly the best start for a consultation process. But that's the basic question we're trying to work out here; do we completely reimagine New Page Patrol from the ground up, risking the alienation of existing contributors in the hope that people will fill the gap, or do we work to adapt the software properly to what it is currently being used for (with changes aimed at increasing participation in patrolling) and wait until things are in a more stable situation before altering the methodology.

Because we're working on that very basic and important question, we're not in a situation where we can decide on specific features. When we are, the floodgates open; I'll be releasing an engagement strategy soon (as repeatedly mentioned) that aims to include editors as much as is humanely possible: at the moment, though, we're not at that stage. This is the only question that is being handled exclusively "off wiki by staff at the WMF"; it is not practical to open it up to the entire patrolling community. Let me be clear; I was not hired by the Foundation because I'm a new page patroller, nor is my role to allow them to concentrate all their needs for editor consultation into one 5 foot 7 package. Every time I give an opinion on this software, I point out I could be an edge case. When we talk about including a group of patrollers; we're doing that. When it comes to working out who patrols in what fashion, we've got a load of screencasts and interviews that highlight a range of different ways people work at the moment. And, when we come to a situation where we're not just presenting the community with a blank sheet of paper - where we actually have something to say - everyone can participate. As soon as the staffers clear it, I'll be releasing a full engagement strategy on the subject.

I appreciate the enthusiasm people here have for change, and I appreciate that it must be frustrating not knowing all the details. Heck, at this stage, I don't even know all the details. But I would appreciate it if people assumed good faith. We aren't being non-specific because we're making all the decisions in a secret cavern in California illuminated by burning brimstone. We're being non-specific because we haven't worked out the general plan yet - and because when it comes to the specifics, we want to ask all the patrollers. Not just me, not just a select group; everyone who is willing to participate. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK that is partially reassuring, but currently the Mediawiki page that you referred us to earlier in this thread reflects a whole different reality. May I suggest that you update it to reflect where we actually are in the development cycle? Ϣere SpielChequers 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got a meeting with Howie tomorrow morning to talk about just that - and also to beg for an actual timetable we can put up somewhere :P. I appreciate how annoying it must be to hear answers like "it's coming!...soon...ish...and we don't quite know what it'll look like". Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to comment on one thing you said above, in summarizing what WMF has learned (and BTW I really appreciate your taking all this time to discuss things here): You said one of the things WMF has learned is "New Pages are a problem. Or, rather, the way new pages are dealt with and the way editors have to approach new pages." Has WMF not learned that New pages are a problem in themselves - it's not just about the way we approach them? I saw a statistic that 80% of new pages wind up getting deleted in one way or another. If that statistic is accurate, it should be clear that there is something very wrong with a system that allows unlimited creation of new pages, then deletes 80% of them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"80 percent of those created by newbies who have no idea what they're doing" is the correct stat. And yes, this is a problem - but it's a problem that we think we can solve with weaker restrictions than ACTRIAL; see the new landing page system, mentioned above. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it 80% of ALL new pages (that was the stat I saw), or 80% of new pages from non-autoconfirmed users, that are getting deleted? Just so I'll have my facts straight. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The latter; if it was the former we'd be in real trouble :). As it happens, newbies product a tiny minority of the pages actually created. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 17:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When ScottyWong measured the fate of articles created by non-autoconfirmed newbies in putting the case for Actrial it was 27% kept, 72% deleted or redirected. Some people have rounded that up to 80% or even from the fraction 0.72 to 1, others have extrapolated it from newbies to all new page creators. Of course an unknown but hopefully small proportion of the deletions are incorrect, but I'd concede that at least two thirds of the articles created by newbies merit deletion under our policies. What I'm not sure of is the comparable figure for edits to existing articles. Newbies do tend to make newbie mistakes, and a large and growing minority of newbies make the sort of badfaith errors that imply they won't belong here. But 27% false positives is a price we would normally regard as unacceptable. If a rollbacker was only getting it 73% right we'd take Rollback off them, if a bot had 27% false positives we would deflag it. A better system would be something that more gently guided errant newbies without losing the good edits. For example a large proportion of newbies are from the copypaste generation and need to be taught that writing your own words is not the same as copying from other websites. Currently we do this laboriously and painfully by bots checking after the event, and people sweeping up after the bots. But that is a design from a different internet era. What we should have today is an edit filter that incorporates the search that corensearchbot does, so if someone clicks save on a paragraph of new text the system can spot that this is a straight copy of foo.com and explain to the newbie why we don't do that. I think that would be less bitey for the nebies who do need to be taught about Copyvio, and much less bitey for those newbies who submit valid articles. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm troubled to hear that you're having a debate deciding between an interface that supported the current patrollers workflow or an overall redesign. If we have learned something in 30 years of computing-for-the-masses, it is that an interface that infuriates its current users should never be considered as an option (at least in software services, where the user can't decide to keep using an older version). If you think there's a possible design that would provide a more efficient and encompassing workflow, the sane way to implement it and the only one endorsed by usability experts is to " introduce big changes in small increments, so that an overall redesign can be achieved without breaking consistency at any single step". I hope you comment this idea to both "camps" an it helps settle the debate. This is a winning strategy; both goals can be achieved, but it must be done one at a time. Diego ( talk) 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's my proposed way forward too. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And how is it faring? :-) Of course my comment above is not informed on how the discussion is actually proceeding, so forgive me if I stated something obvious. But that someone suggested throwing out the current workflow when it's actively being used by experienced patrollers didn't sound well. Diego ( talk) 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got two meetings Tuesday, one on Wednesday and one on Thursday (plus numerous emails flurrying back and forth) to work out what'll happen. At the moment we're firmly in Too Soon to Tell Territory. Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Commitment from the WMF that developers will work on this and that more of the problems reported by the community will get resolved is very welcome. But to put it in context, the loophole that pages moved into mainspace bypass special newpages has been a bugzilla request since 2007. The loophole that redirects converted into articles bypass special newpages has been on bugzilla since 2008. If Actrial had gone ahead both loopholes might well have become rather more heavily used. I suspect that many of the IPs who convert redirects into articles are editors who know what they are doing. But you can understand the anger from those who supported Actrial and even some angst from those of us who opposed ACTRIAL but knew that the system needed a lot of improvements and had been left to ossify for so long. I knew that the WMF gave low priority to community based initiatives to improve quality and make things easier for existing editors. But unfixed bugs lingering since 2007 make me wonder just how old some of these bugs are. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just not understanding the WMF on this. They want to retain users, and also want the project to "fail better". Steering new users towards editing articles first is something that the community believes will drastically improve retention, because it reduces friction and acts as a low-speed "on ramp" to the high speed autobahn that is Wikipedia. While that's rooted in practically every respectable theory of good interface design, I can respect that the WMF has doubts. But aren't you choosing the worst possible way to fail: ignoring a solution that could work, that most people believe will work, not even willing to try it in a limited scope because you'd rather assume you're right than actually find out? Wouldn't failing better require that we try, instead of just shutting down a potentially project-saving idea? Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

HectorMoffet, the shoe is on the other foot, now.

You say that you have limited time. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. As someone with such limited time, would you write "Delete: Essay." there and never look back, because it's easy and quick and doesn't involve researching a subject to see whether it is encyclopaedic? Or would you actually practice yourself what you are asking other people to do? Yes, it's hard to do what you say other people should do. I've been practicing what I preach at AFD for a long time, and I can assure you that it takes time and effort to do things properly. I expended time and effort in that very case reading the article and its edit history, and finding and citing all of those sources that weren't handed to me on a platter. I'd have done one of my infamous "Kerrrzappp!"s if I'd had more time, but my time is finite, too, so all (sic) that other collaborating editors have are a set of correctly formatted citations, in the wikitext of the discussion right there ready to use.

AFD works very well when multiple editors all take the time and effort, double-checking one another to cover for blind spots. And it makes its most egregious mistakes when multiple editors just sheep vote and don't bother at all to do any research of their own (or even read the article at hand in some cases that I could mention). The way to ensure that it doesn't make these mistakes is to push back against the sheep voting, the research-free rationales, the Google hits counting, the drive-by participation, and the other sillinesses. Are you willing to do that by doing things properly?

Editor retention is a complex affair, and blaming it upon notability is to fall into the trap that everything at Wikipedia is about AFD. A lot of the editor retention problems have nothing to do with AFD or even New Page Patrol. There's drive-by tagging with no explanation, for example. Or ridiculous MOS warriors. Or people who don't keep citations linked to the text that they support when inserting new stuff or paragraphing. Or the continual dulling of the senses that comes from having to combat sockpuppetry for years. Or the problem editors who cannot actually write, and so substitute stealing copyrighted work from other people wholesale. Or the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can write the word "penis" into. …

Uncle G ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate greatly the invitation to become an AFD participant myself, thank you Uncle G for extending it.

  I believe the problem I raised has to be solved institutionally. We shouldn't just harass our admins for not doing enough handholding over and over-- we need to actually make their jobs easier. Instead of handling the same problem over and over, we need to build a better solution, so writers can just write, alone or together, without getting overwhelmed by deletion fears.

  Then, when we do AFD, the stakes aren't so high. Delete my work, I hate it. Send it back to draft space so it's still accessible to others, I'd probably appreciate the editorial feedback.

  Quality vs Quantity is a false dichotomy. We can have a "junkyard" full and full of good-faith but poor-quality writing, so long it's clear it's junk, not Wikipedia. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 03:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • As I said, it's not solely deletion fears that is at the root of the editor retention problem. The incompetent writers overwhelming the compentent writers is a complaint that I've heard a lot, far more than any complaint about AFD. I've even hit it myself, most recently at Swiss cheese model.

    I rescued that article from deletion in 2007. Someone else came along, decided that it should be morphed into an article about something else, renamed it, progressively section blanked it, and ended up with the abysmal article — with less than half the verifiable material than there was, none of the further reading and clear scope for expansion, and still about the one subject rather than the broader scope that was promised — that can now be seen at Organizational models of accidents. As you can see, in five years the editors who promised something better only managed to make something worse, instead.

    Another thing: Remember that some ideas have been tried and have failed. We tried the model of articles only entering the encyclopaedia when they had been reviewed with Nupedia. It failed. Citizendium initially had the idea of zapping and starting afresh badly written articles that languished perpetually without any hope of reaching approval. According to its deletion log at any rate, the Citizendium people have given up on that idea. (The last deletion on those grounds was this one in October 2011 and the one before that was in April 2011.)

    The model that we have now, with Wikipedia, is where — yes — we have poor quality articles in the encyclopaedia proper. It has demonstrably worked, even if atrociously slowly. (Witness North Asia ( AfD discussion). It took five years for us to remember to write more than a sentence about a significant fraction of the planet.) However, it means that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia is stubs and badly written stuff — the junk that you talk about. Push that out of the main namespace, and there'll be very little left. Uncle G ( talk) 08:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think the status quo is sustainable, perhaps that's okay then.

I stand back and I see one stream of energetic but novice editors meeting up with another stream of energetic quality-control editors. When the two meet, their collective energy gets wasted working against each other. It's inefficient, I think it's unsustainable. We can do better. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Uncle G:I sympathize with experienced people that think their good writing is messed up by others but really, this is a wiki, they should know what that means. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They do know what it means. It means the things that I've described, and a lot more that I haven't. The problem is that it shouldn't mean that. You need to think about this more. MediaWiki is our collaborative writing tool. It's a complicated fountain pen. It's not the goal. An encyclopaedia is the goal. We don't and shouldn't do things because "it's a wiki". We do and should do things because "that's how one writes an encyclopaedia". Editor retention problems are in part rooted in the very attitude that you express. The bad push out the good, and people come along, shrug, and say "It's OK. It's a wiki.". It's an encyclopaedia writing project, and it's not OK. Uncle G ( talk) 10:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

    FWIW, I classify my AfD rationales in two ways. Some AfDs, for instance things that clearly fall under NFT or are pieces of software that assert their non-notability (the ones where the creator removes a PROD saying "This article staying on Wikipedia is the one chance to make this popular") don't need anything more than a quick comment. But for anything else, when I'm closing an AfD I look for rationales that are well thought out and tend to give them considerably more weight. YMMV. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 03:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Confused

I am confused! I do not often get involved with this process so I may have misunderstood something or there is guidance to explain the steps that I think were taken.

HectorMoffet, I had a look your talk page and picked a couple of the articles listed there:

1. Proposed deletion of Larry Reid (councilmember) ( history)
2. Proposed deletion of Libby Schaaf ( history)

You created both articles and in both cases someone nominated them for deletion using the {{ Proposed deletion/dated}} template and then someone else removed that template and hence the nomination for deletion. Why in both cases did you put the template back (albeit with other concern)? Larry Reid (councilmember) 12:58, 24 February 2012 HectorMoffet and Libby Schaaf 12:54, 24 February 2012‎ HectorMoffet Does the template not say: "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced"?

Have I made a mistake in understanding the history of the articles and the actions taken? Please explain what happened. -- PBS ( talk) 02:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When I realized I was out of touch with community standards, I wanted others to glance over my work and see what else needed deleting. Some of the articles were on subjects less notable than another article that appears to be non-notable, so I figured some other article are probably non-notable too. So, I just put templates up, just asking for doublechecks to bring all my contribution back in line with the community's standards. (Standards which I disagree with, of course, but that's what community is all about). -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 03:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed both of the Prods. An article can only be Prodded once. Since both articles had Prods and then were removed they are ineligible to prodded again. GB  fan 03:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want them deleted you can put {{ db-g7}} on them. That is a deletion request by the original and only significant author which you qualify on both. GB  fan 03:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No no, I don't 'want' anything legal deleted, just wanted to make sure I helped clean up any potential mess. :) Thanks for helping out! - HectorMoffet ( talk) 03:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

HectorMoffet please check the other articles that you were notified were subject to {{ Proposed deletion/dated}} templates and make sure that you have not put the template {{ Proposed deletion/dated}} back onto any of them. These templates are part of a process that sits between speedy deletion and an AfD and the process is explained in detail in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Perhaps when you have read it you will be able to reconsider if these templates are part of a process that is as demoralising as you initially thought they were. -- PBS ( talk) 04:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow at work Tomorrow at work, take a close look at the type of people who work around you. I have been at the same job with around 100 employees for the past seven years and it is striking how the management has shaped the way the business runs. Every step of the organization is influenced most by the head manager of our organization, every step: who is hired, the atmosphere of the job, what ideas are fostered, and what ideas are disregarded. Our head manager is quiet and soft-spoken, and a little awkward socially. Almost without exception our entire staff is like him. What is even more fascinating is his assistant managers are both in the exact same office, but their groups they manage are subtly different similar to the assistant manager over them.

Jim Wales is the problem Every organization has a company culture which defines the atmosphere of the group. Jim Wales, and by Wikipedia extension Wikipedia, has continued to build a company culture that many media outlets have basically called "bullying". Sure there are exceptions, a couple come to mind, moderate editors who support editor retention who are administrators, but the general trend, the overall trend is that those who have little respect for other editors work excel on wikipedia. Wales rewards and supports these caustic editors. I can't see an extremely vocal supporter of editor retention ever becoming an admin, yet extremely bullying editors become admins here all the time, and the rate is accelerating. As a result of this caustic company culture, contributions will continue to drop. Okip 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite needs on Jimmy as root cause. I wouldn't know one way or the other, but it's a big claim to make without evidence.

I agree wholeheartedly with your larger criticism that over time, our community's openness has plummeted.

I don't think this is anyone's fault, though. I think this is what we can expect when one group is trying to cover "all the world's knowledge" and another group is charged with "ensuring content standards".

They say "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." When all you have is a delete !vote, everything does sorta look like garbage. We need a "recycle bin" for good-faith articles, rather than just throwing everything in the trash. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 07:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)