This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive).
Policy
Date redirects to portals?
16 August 2006 points to the current events portal as a result of this discussion. However, date redirects will continue to come up at RfD, some some wider community discussion and input is helpful on whether or not the current events portal is an appropriate target for mainspace redirects. See also: this ongoing discussion for some context.
The second question is easy: Yes, portals are part of the encyclopaedia. As to the first question, portals are reader-facing content and so I see no reason why they wouldn't be appropriate targets for mainspace redirects, given that uncontroversially target mainspace redirects to reader-facing templates and categories when they are the best target. Whether the port is the best target for a given date will depend on the specific date but in general the portal should always be an option to consider. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The portal is definitely not always the best option and it has its limitations, but, as I wrote at WP:RDATE it should be considered and assessed along with mainspace articles. Cremastra (u — c) 01:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a namespace doesn't have the same standards as mainspace, then the reader shouldn't be redirected there while possibly not realizing they are now outside of mainspace. Yes, there is more content at Portal:Current events/August 2006 than at 2006#August, but the reader is now facing a decades-old page with no quality control, where links to Breitbart are misleadingly labeled as (AP). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portal does have the same standards as mainspace. That a portal is not up to those standards is no different to an article being in bad shape - fix it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they are not articles. Two things can be held to the same standard without being the same thing. Criterion P1 previously allowed that (indirectly) but it was repealed in 2023 due to lack of use. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then they aren't held to the same standards... More in general, no, they obviously aren't held to the same standards, e.g. a portal page doesn't have to be a notable topic but may be purely decorative or (as is the case with the date pages) be a list of mainly non-notable things, failing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTN. That some standards are the same (BLP, copyvio, ...) can also be said for e.g. user talk pages, and we don't redirect to these pages either. Fram (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't redirect to user talk pages because they aren't reader-facing, so that's irrelevant. We don't hold reader-facing templates and categories to article content policies (because they aren't articles) but we do redirect to them. Don't conflate quality standards with inclusion policies, they are not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn´t aware that the standards we were talking about were solely quality standards, whatever these may be, and not content standards, sourcing standards, ... I´m sadly not amazed that you consider these irrelevant when deciding what to present to our readers. Fram (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I think portals should be held to the same CSD criteria as articles. But of course the A criteria actually only apply to articles. Cremastra (u — c) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of random junk in portalspace, but yes, it is part of the encyclopedia. Just like categories and templates, portals are reader-facing content. CFA💬
I didn't really have super strong opinions on portals until seeing this one link to Breitbart, twice, in a misleading way. This is not okay. I agree with Fram that clearly Portals are not being held up to the same standards as regular articles and it might be a bad idea to redirect readers to them. Toadspike[Talk]23:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this on CENT, and I am confused by the question. Portal:Current events/2006 August 16 is very different from something like Portal:Belgium, and it doesn't make sense to pretend they are the same to establish policy. And what does "part of the encyclopedia" even mean? "Interpreting a confusing phrase" is a terrible way to decide redirect targets. For the specific question of "Should dates redirect to the Current Events portal rather than to a page like August 2006 ... I don't know. I don't see a compelling reason why they can't, nor a compelling reason why they should. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's a nice Portal! Thank you for restoring my faith in portals. Clicking on "Random Portal" took me to Portal:Trees, which is also pretty nice. My opinion is now that yes, portals can be good, but it seems to me that we currently have no Ps and Gs to apply to their content or measure their quality, no consensus about how to direct readers to them, and a very checkered and controversial history of deletion. I really dunno what to do about them. Toadspike[Talk]16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should not redirect dates to the current events portal subpages. It's a cross-namespace redirect that takes readers from somewhere they expect to be (an encyclopedia article on the topic "16 August 2006") to somewhere they don't expect to be (a navigational aid(?) that highlights some things that happened that day). I'm not 100% sure what the current events portal subpages are for, but they're not meant to stand in as pseudo-articles in places we lack real articles. Ajpolino (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-namespace redirects in and of themselves are not a problem. They only cause issues when they take someone expecting reader-facing content to "backroom" content (e.g. project space). Both article and portals are reader-facing content, so this is not an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another case where we link a reader from an article to a non-article without clearly denoting it? E.g. I have no problem with the {{Portal}} template folks often use in the See also section. Ajpolino (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Okay, Citeweb is a bad example, not something readers look for but something editors look for. The other 2 are among the 6 existing reader facing redirects to templates (from Category:Redirects to template namespace, the only ones which are from mainspace and not editor-related like the cite templates). Not quite the "lots" you seemed to be suggesting throughout this discussion, but extremely rare outliers which should probably all be RfD'ed. Fram (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the current events portals are valid redirect targets for dates and preferred in this case of the best article redirect for a specific date being the month section of an article on an entire year. I agree with Fram that portals are not held to the same standards as articles, but I disagree with Ajpolino's stance that a cross-namespace redirect is so disruptive that they are prohibited in all cases, given that WP:Portal says "portals are meant primarily for readers." ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 23:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting strictly on the "are portals part of the encyclopedia" question, yes it is. Unfortunately there was one extremely loud, disruptive voice who kept making portals less useful and suffocating any discussions that would make it more beneficial to readers. Plenty of willing portal contributors, including myself, left this space and readers are still reaping the seeds of what that disruptive user planted even after they have been ArbCom banned over a year ago. So it may given some people an illusion that portals aren't doing much towards the encyclopedic goal, because the current status is handicapped by its history. I'm reserving my views on the redirect part of the discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page07:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not, portals are not held to the standards of articles, and if something for whatever reason shouldn't be or can't be an enwiki article, this shouldn't be circumvented by having it in portalspace. Either these date pages are acceptable, and then they should be in mainspace. Or they are not what we want as articles, and then we shouldn't present them to our readers anyway. Fram (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These current events pages differ from articles in many respects, but the referencing standards are similar. Whether they happen to be prefixed by "Portal:" or not is not reflective of their quality. J947 ‡ edits23:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current events portal example listed seems encyclopedic enough, in that apart from some formatting differences it might as well be a list article, but I've seen other portals that have editor-facing content that is more dubiously appropriate for mainspace. Consider, for example, Portal:Schools § Wikiprojects (capitalization [sic]) and Portal:Schools § Things you can do, and the similar modules at many other portals. Sdkbtalk18:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speaking as a recognized portalista, portals have not yet been excised from the pedia. In this case, User:J947 makes the essential point. I'm not convinced that even incomplete, out-of-date portals are any less encyclopedic than the 2 million or so Wikipedia articles nobody bothered to edit last year. BusterD (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portals are not part of the encylopedia as we understand encyclopedias: sources of information. They serve as navigation within an encylopedia. We would not see a Portal as the final delivery of information, any more than we would see a contents page, index, blurb, or advert as the final information page. These are all ancillary. People mostly land on a Wikipedia article page without a Portal. I have used Wikipedia for nearly twenty years without ever needing a Portal to direct me to where I want to go, and I would assume this is true for the majority of people. Redirects are designed as a signpost, and we frown upon a signpost simply pointing to another signpost. People would generally only arrive at a Portal if directed there from a link that should more helpfully point to the appropriate article. The Belgium Portal is mentioned above as a good Portal. If we go to the Belgium article and scroll down, there is a link to the Belgium Portal. But the Portal mainly provides us with a digest of the Belgium article, including a link back to the Belgium article, which itself contains more links to Belgium related articles than the Belgium Portal. Huh? Seriously? Why are we taking readers away from a sublime source, rich with information and links, to an inferior source? There is nothing on the Belgium Portal that is not available on the Belgium article page - including links to news. But there is much on the Belgian article page that is not on the Belgium Portal page. My suggestion is that ALL links to portals such as the Belgium Portal should instead go to the main article page. Why are we redirecting people to a redirect page when we can send them to the main article on the topic? Portals are a waste of our time and resources, and are a misdirect for readers. SilkTork (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork Your argument breaks down as soon as you realise that disambiguation pages and set indexes exist and that redirects to those pages are extremely common and uncontroversial. We also redirect people to outlines, broad concept articles and overviews. What is the "main article page" for a date? In all but a few exceptional cases there isn't a single article but multiple, and so just as if they had searched Mercury, Bitter ash or Stuffed flatbread we present them with a menu of content that is relevant to their search term and let them choose what it is they want to read about. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer above. I don't see the point in duplicating signposts. We have Belgium, so we don't need Portal:Belgium; and we have 2006#August so we don't need Portal:Current events/2006 August 16. Signposts are not part of the encyclopedia, but they are navigational aids which lead us to further information. However, we have built into every article multiple signposts to further information. We don't need to have duplicate signposts outside of mainspace to which people are directed away from mainspace to consult. It is a waste of our time and resources, and a misdirection for readers. Internal links are an elegant way of signposting to further information. Navigational templates are a little clunky, but are useful. Portals take readers away from the encyclopedia, and are a pointless timesink for both editors and readers. SilkTork (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5.) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
6.) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
These appear to have been put together by a very small number of editors over a decade ago and hasn't seen much change since then and I feel it's much more lenient than just about anything else. This SNG defines a "label" that has been around for over "a few years" that has a roster of performers as "important". So, any group of people who have released two albums through ANY verifiable label that has exited for more than a few year can end up being kept and this isn't exactly in line with GNG. I believe a discussion needs to be held in order to bring it to GNG expectations of now.
Especially given how broadly the various criteria have been "interpreted" in deletion discussions, the best way to go about it is just to deprecate the whole thing. Rely on the GNG for band notability, and if that results in a heap of articles on ephemeral outfits, garage bands and local acts vanishing, huzzah. Ravenswing 09:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SNG isn't workable in the age of digital distribution. It's very easy to create "an independent label with a history of more than a few years". If someone wants to suggest a way to reform the SNG, I am open to solutions. But deprecation is a simple alternative if we can't. The GNG is always a good standard because it guarantees we have quality sources to write an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was active in AfD discussions when NBAND was pretty new, and it was useful for dealing with a flood of articles about garage bands and such, but I think our standards in general have tightened up since then, and I agree it is time to review it. There is the possibility, however, that revising NBAND may require as much discussion as revising NSPORT did. Donald Albury17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the underlying question is: Is there actual harm in having a permastub about a band that proves to be borderline in GNG terms? Consider this:
"Alice and Bob are a musical duo in the science fiction genre.[1] They released their first album, Foo, in 2019 and their second, Bar, in 2020. Both albums were released by Record Label.[2] They are primarily known for singing during a minor event.[3]"
I'm asking this because I think that the nature of sources has changed, particularly for pop culture, since NBAND and the GNG were written. We now have subjects that get "attention from the world at large", but which aren't the Right™ kind of sources and, while these Wrong™ sources definitely provide "attention", some of that attention might not provide biographical information (which means we're looking at a short article).
For example, instead of getting attention in the arts section of a daily newspaper, they're getting attention from Anthony Fantano on YouTube. He's an important music critic,[1] but I suspect that our knee-jerk reaction is "Pffft, just some YouTuber, totally unreliable". Consequently, we might rate a band that we theoretically intend to include ("attention from the world at large") as not meeting the GNG (because the whole field relies on the Wrong™ style of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that like most other notability guidelines, it is a presumed assumption that a topic is notable if it meets these criteria. If you do an exhaustive Before and demonstrate there is no significant coverage beyond the sourcing to satisfy there criteria, the article should still be deleted. None of the SNGs are geared towards preventing this type of challenge. — Masem (t) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we had to yield to presumptive notability about some random band because it released two albums with Backyard Trampoline Recordings established few years ago and had to do exhaustive search to disprove notability, we're getting setup for a situation where removal is 10x more challenging than article creation. So.. I see a great value in scrapping NBAND 5, and 6. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to WP:SNGs. As Masem said, they're supposed to be a rough idea of gauging notability before exhaustively searching for sources. But pretty much all of them have ended up being used as means to keep articles about trivial or run-of-the-mill subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls listed two criteria but the main discussion seems to be about the 1st (#5). I agree with Graywalls on that. With the evolution of the industry, the label criteria is no longer a useful indicator as it once was and IMO #5 should be removed or modified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that as well. I think #6 has some value still, while #5 is like saying an author who has published two or more books by a major publishing house is presumed notable. Way too low a bar without requiring some level of reception of those albums/books. (WP:NAUTHOR doesn't have that 2-book criteria, of course, just seems like parallel benchmarks.) Schazjmd(talk)13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, in this case, I suspect that an artist that "has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" will in 99% of cases have enough coverage to clear the GNG bar. I'd like to see an example of one that doesn't. Black Kite (talk)13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of important as said in #5 is "history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". This would mean that a garage band is notable, because they've released two CD-R albums on Rotten Peach Recordings which has been around for 3 1/2 years, has a roster of performers and some of whom have a Wikipedia page on them. Often time "notable" is determined by the presence of a stand alone Wikipedia page. When you look at the page, many band member pages are hopelessly non-notable, but removal takes an AfD. So a simple deletion can become a time consuming multi-step AfD. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opining on that band's notability, but Metal Blade is a famous independent label that has existed for 42 years, has released material by very high-profile bands, and is distributed by Sony - it's not some one-person imprint operating out of their garage. Black Kite (talk)11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur regarding that particular example. Metal Blade is a big label, and not surprisingly notability was quickly demonstrated in the deletion discussion through citing reliable source coverage. And that's how #5 should work - artist is on a significant label, which suggests coverage exists. And then coverage is found.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The elephant in the room here is that entertainment journalism is in crisis mode right now, publications are operating on skeleton crews, and the range of coverage has narrowed dramatically. I encourage everyone taking part in this discussion to read the article I linked, there are a lot of assumptions being made about the way things work that aren't true. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion I would add is to make these two criteria apply only to bands before a specific year, that year being where physical releases still dominated over digital sales. I don't know the exact year but I am thinking it's like around 2000 to 2010. There may still be older groups during the time of physical releases that don't yet have articles that would fall into one of these criteria. Masem (t) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's had WP:DSMUSIC watchlisted for most of their editing history, and who tends towards deletion at that, I actually don't see much of a problem with these criterions. It certainly seems true that the majority of musicians who are signed to a label or a member of multiple bands with two other musicians who meet WP:GNG themselves meet GNG. I do think it is sometimes justified to accept less-than-GNG sourcing in articles where a SNG is met (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John LeCompt for this as it applies to c6 specifically) and more importantly, NMUSIC contains language that allows deleting articles even where it is technically met (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouzbeh Rafie for an extended argument about that. Mach6123:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've understood these criterion to be supplementing GNG, that is, that if a band or individual artist meets one or more of these criterion, they *likely* are notable. However, in the past when I was a younger and less experienced editor, I think I did understand these as being additions or alternatives to GNG. So I think that should be clarified. This has come up on the deletion discussion for Jayson Sherlock. He is a member or former member of several very notable bands, and for that reason I presumed that he would easily have independent coverage about him specifically. However, to my surprise, there's only one interview of him in a reliable source that would provide notability (there's some interviews on personal blogs or minor sites that wouldn't be RS except for him making statements about himself). But at least one editor has used the above criterion to argue that the article should be kept.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, interviews do not contribute to GNG unless they include secondary independent SIGCOV (such as a substantial background introduction by the interviewer). JoelleJay (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I see most SNGs (and the outliers ought to follow their lead). At the very least, we can clarify that NBAND is meant as an indicator for the GNG, and not a substitute. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who thought the old NSPORTS was wildly overinclusive and needed cleanup... these NBAND guidelines don't seem that bad? If two plainly notable musicians were discovered to have done some obscure team-up in the 1970s, that does indeed seem to be a notable topic and useful to have linked somewhere, even if there isn't tons of info on this collaboration. It's worth mentioning because minor subtopics are often merged to the overarching topic (e.g. songs to the album), but there may not be a clear merge location for this if both parties were equal contributors, and a short separate article is an acceptable compromise. Similarly, the complaint about #5 seems to be about just how "indie" the hypothetical label is, but this seems like a solvable problem. If a band fails GNG, that implies that either their two albums really were from a very obscure indie outfit and thus also fail NBAND, or else that we have some sort of non-English sources issue where we may consider keeping on WP:CSB grounds (i.e. that sources probably do exist to pass GNG, but they're difficult to find, and we can trust they exist because this was a major and notable label releasing the band's work). About the only suggestion I can offer is that the comment in 6 about avoiding circular notability could probably be phrased in the sense of GNG, i.e. that the two notable musicians need to both meet GNG and then this will create a new, safe NBAND notability for their collaboration. SnowFire (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with deprecation; "Rely on the GNG for band notability" is the correct answer. And is the correct answer for many other things about which we have SNGs that attempt to be alternatives to GNG. Perhaps the only justifiable one is WP:NACADEMIC, because special considerations apply in that sphere (academics and other journal-publishing researchers are generally unknown the public and the public-facing media coverage like newspapers but may have major impacts in particular fields and on the world; what determines their influence level is primilar the frequency of citation of their work by other academics). No such special considerations apply with regard to bands or most other categories. We have some SNGs that are helpful because they are written to comply with GNG, to explain predictively what is most likely or unlikely to pass a GNG test at ANI, rather than trying to be an end-run around GNG. If we actually needed an SNG for bands and musicians, then the current SNG for them could be replaced by something like that. However, we don't actually need an SNG for bands and musicians.
PS: The ideas in the current NBAND SNG are daft. Lots of musical acts have multiple albums (i.e. tracks released at the same time under a grouping title) and lots of indie labels (which may just be some dude in his bedroom) exist with multiple acts, some of them nominally notable [because of NBAND's issues, making this a vicious cycle!], but that doesn't actually make every band on that notional label (nor the label itself) enclopedia-worthy. Some of these are farcically obscure acts [not a denigration – I'm probably buying their stuff]. This is not 1977; you do not need a vinyl pressing plant to be a music label. You just need to figure out how to fill in a web form at Bandcamp and Spotify, and have enough of a clue about how the present music industry works (often just within a narrow subculture) that you can convince some acts (probably your friends in the same scene) that you can help them if they agree to be on your roster. PPS: A side issue is that "albums" isn't a good metric anyway, since several genres are not album-driven at all, and the entire notion of albums is being increasingly questioned in the era of on-demand music. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPLACE, which presumes populated legally recognized places are notable. So, all it takes is prove the legal recognition and presence of people and it's assumed to be notable, unless refuted.
A legally recognized city is presumed, but not guaranteed notable. If it doesn't meet GNG, then the presumed notability can be refuted. It does essentially "override" GNG though a short cut, but is subject to removal by presenting failure to meet GNG.
Such presumption is not present for most things. For example, simply quoting a local paper about a gas station opening up and operating demonstrates existence of that gas station, but there's no presumed notability for businesses.
NBAND 5 and 6 qualifies bands and albums into Wikipedia far easier than they should and they stand as a burden to article deletion due to presumed notability under tenuously defined importance, such as having released two albums through an important indie label Four Legged Octopus, which is "important" because the MailBox Etc based label has been around for five years and has a roster. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not speaking to this issue directly, but the trend in subject specific guidelines, IMHO, has been to reduce the influence of SNGs relative to GNG, not override. When we started these projects 20 years ago, almost every article was low hanging fruit, almost bound to be found notable eventually. As an example, Military History Wikiproject adopted and modified WP:SOLDIER, a set of specific and non-subjective criteria which if met gave an indication of presumption of reliable sources being found somewhere eventually. This was intended to screen out a lot of "dead veteran I know" articles, not become the floor for inclusion. When it finally came up for discussion it was made clear SOLDIER was just a project thing and wasn't itself an approved SNG. It was quickly decommissioned, but SOLDIER criteria was for many years a frequently mentioned keep argument at AfD. As another example, WP:SPORTSPERSON is another project related shorthand (but consensus-approved SNG), which made it more difficult to create and keep articles about athletes without at least one source with significant coverage, which still seems a low bar indeed. IMHO the original intent of such SNGs was to screen article candidates, but as the pedia grew, we started using SNGs to keep them. Adjusting SNGs to meet the modern usage era seems the practical and accepted path. The medical SNGs are still used as exclusionary, and for the best reasons. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and this makes a lot more sense to me. I haven’t paid much attention to SNGs till recent years, so it has been my impression that they are applied as supplemental options towards keeps and creates. The only one that I even think of as exclusionary is WP:NEVENT, although that’s got its own difficulties inherent.
Blind enforcement of 1RR/3RR does not serve the project. The question should not be whether one violated the rule, but whether they violated the rule in a way that does not benefit the article. If there is no objection to the violation, we can reasonably assume that they are benefiting the article, or at least causing no harm. The decision should be left in the hands of other editors. Could this be used as a weapon? Would there be editors who claim harm where none exists? Certainly, but that's preferable to what we have now.
The problem, no doubt familiar to editors reading this, is that there are often not enough "good" editors around to protect an article from "bad" editors (malicious or merely inexperienced) while staying within 1RR/3RR. There is no restriction on the number of BOLD edits by a given editor, or on the number of editors performing BOLD edits. ―Mandruss☎00:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is repeatedly reverting reverts, then there is objection to the violation by definition. That's what edit warring is. If someone is making the same BOLD edit that needs to be reverted multiple times, then they are also edit warring. There are already exceptions with these rules for patent nonsense or obvious vandalism. If there's routine disruption, then it only makes the problem worse to revert over and over instead of taking it to WP:RFPP. If you feel the need to make more than one or two reverts in a content dispute, then it's time to either consider other options or step away from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about edit warring or re-reverts; the problem exists without a single re-revert. Editor A does ten BOLD edits, five of which are detrimental to the article because they are too inexperienced (this stuff takes years to master, so that's far from uncommon). Editors B, C, D, and E contribute an additional twenty detrimental edits (along with any number of good ones, that number being irrelevant for our purposes here). Meanwhile, competent editors F, G, and H are limited to a total of nine reverts, leaving 21 detrimental edits in the article. I say F, G, and H should be allowed to revert until someone claims they are doing harm. ―Mandruss☎02:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing thirty detrimental edits to an article in every day? Why isn't this article protected? Why aren't editors F, G, and H starting a discussion? Why are they reverting Editor A's edits individually instead of rolling them back? Why is it so urgent that these edits need to be reverted right this moment? Even on the off chance that they encounter such an article that exists, F, G, and H would not need to engage in tag-team reverting (which is still edit warring) if they knew what they were doing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to reduce the numbers as you please; the problem exists regardless. The article is protected, even with ECP, and there is no shortage of registered editors who have 30 days and 500 edits and still have years to go before they are editing with any reasonable level of competence. Some never reach that point. Why aren't editors F, G, and H starting a discussion? Seriously? Why are they reverting Editor A's edits individually instead of rolling them back? Because (1) they may not have the rollback right, and the rollback right should not be required to function as an editor, (2) they would be rolling back five good edits, and (3) it's impossible if Editor A's edits are interleaved with those of any other editor(s). Why is it so urgent that these edits need to be reverted right this moment? Because (particularly in large and very active articles) the bad edits can easily be missed if not caught immediately. Then they stay in the article for some unknown amount of time until noticed by a competent editor and corrected with a BOLD edit. Could be months or even years. Is that good for the article? ―Mandruss☎02:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example or two where this has caused a problem? And I note that you have answered the two most important questions inadequately: if an article is subject to edit-warring it should be fully protected, and you dismissed "Why aren't editors F, G, and H starting a discussion?" with "Seriously?". Yes, of course it's a serious question. Starting a discussion is the best way of defusing an edit war. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Seriously?", while counter to the WP:DR policy, might be an honest response. I often get page protection or block requests, where my first response is often "where's the discussion?" —Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Mandruss is extremely lazy, for which I have no evidence, I don't see how that response can be honest. It only takes a few seconds to start a discussion, no longer than it took to start this one, and the person who starts it wins some extra points. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
extremely lazy, for which I have no evidence Thank you! I have my share of faults and shortcomings, but I don't think extreme laziness is one of them. So there should be new discussions for each of the bad edits (separately for the sake of efficiency and organization), and the bad edits should remain in the article until enough editors have the time, interest, and attention span to form consensuses against them while attending to other important matters. This, at an ATP where we're struggling to keep the ToC at a manageable size even without such discussions. I don't know what articles you're editing, but I want to work there. ―Mandruss☎03:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gather the Donald Trump article is a rare anomaly where bad content is something we have to live with because the current rules are incapable of preventing it. After all, it's just one article. I would oppose that reasoning. I'd say article quality is at least as important there as anywhere else. ―Mandruss☎04:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there should be new discussions for each of the bad edits ...: Yes, or what is an alternative? Your suggestion to favor "good" edits over "bad" is problematic when everyone says their's are the "good" ones. Polarizing topics can be difficult for patrolling admins to WP:AGF determine "good" v. "bad" edits if they are not subject matter experts.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that consecutive edits by a single editor are treated as a single revert for WP:3RR purposes. So, in your case, editor H can go back and revert the various bad edits and, even if they mechanically break it out into multiple edits, they still have done one revert... Until someone goes back and re-reverts. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, who said? I said something about repeated edits :-) If the rule were "do not repeat edits without consensus" 1x or 3x in 24 hours, instead of "do not revert" 1x or 3x in 24 hours (which leads to the whole "what exactly counts as a revert?" issue), the problem you are describing would not happen. The 'bad' editor can make 10 bad edits, and the 'good' editor can revert all 10 edits without violating do-not-repeat-3RR, and the 'bad' editor would be able to repeat 3 of those 10 edits without crossing do-not-repeat-3RR, and the 'good' editor can revert all 3 of those without crossing do-not-repeat-3RR, et voila: equilibrium. The problem is we focus on "revert" instead of "repeat." To tamp down on edit warring, we should prohibit people from repeating their edits, not from "reverting" (whatever that means, exactly) edits. Levivich (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blind enforcement of 1RR/3RR does not serve the project: Are you referring to page protection or blocks? On contentious topics or any subject? —Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protect sockpuppet tags?
Should sockpuppet user pages with tags be protected to extended confirmed only or admin only. This is to prevent removal or modification as the edit filter only prevents users less than 4 days old and have made less than 10 edits. 125.63.140.154 (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ArbCom resolution established that "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus."
I would like to ask what is the standard for defining that there is global consensus. If the top 100 articles in a certain category all are written in a certain way, is this considered sufficient for global consensus?
If a 100 articles are not enough, what is the threshold? Is it proportional to the number articles in that category?
Should then this warrant that all articles in that category be written in that way (unless very clearly harmful to the specific article)?
I believe that "global consensus" refers to policies and guidelines in particular, and to generally accepted practices across the whole of the English Wikipedia. A consensus that applies to just 100 articles out of the almost 7 million article in the English Wikipedia is a local consensus. Donald Albury16:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Milo8505, you asked this question in a way that can't be answered. Consensus does not depend on categories, and Wikipedia does not deal in abstract quantities but in concrete articles. Is this about whether to have an infobox on Gustav Mahler? If so then please say so, to provide some context to your question. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger Yes, it is about that topic. I believe that there is sufficient global consensus about the inclusion of infoboxes on biographies. I am well aware that the official policy is "no policy defined", but I see a clear trend, by looking at the most read articles, that all biographies - of musicians and non musicians alike - have an infobox, except a select few classical music composers.
I do not currently have the whole information regarding exactly how many of all biographies have an infobox, and that is why I was asking what is usually considered consensus.
However, given that I'm very aware that a hundred articles out of seven million is not precisely consensus, I will attempt, when I have the time, to go through every single biography to determine an exact percentage.
If you want to spend your time doing that then I can't stop you, but I warn you that you will be wasting your time. That is not how consensus is measured. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I will not count by hand, I have some idea of how to use an automated tool to do that.
But then, how is consensus measured?
I'm under the impression that there is a group of very determined and very vocal editors that fiercely oppose infoboxes on classical composers' articles (which leads to most of them having discussions about infoboxes, citing each other as examples of articles without infobox), separate from the majority of biographies, which have an infobox.
I see no better way of proving (or maybe disproving) my point than this, because my earlier points of infoboxes being a great thing for Gustav Mahler's article, and the fact that numerous non-classical musicians have infoboxes, and lengthy ones at that, seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
And I would like to state, for the record, that I'm not doing this out of spite, or out of a personal interest (I'm actually losing my time by arguing about this), but because I truly, wholeheartedly believe that an infobox on each and every biography, and in general, on every article where there could be one (this excludes abstract topics such as existencialism) would make Wikipedia a truly better place.
I would have to search the archives, but we actually held an RFC (one of the ways in which we determine GLOBAL consensus) that was focused on whether to mandate infoboxes on articles about composers… which determined that there were valid reasons not to require them (I suppose you could say that global consensus was to defer to local consensus on this specific issue). Remember WP:Other Stuff Exists is not an accepted argument here at WP. And that “standard practice” often has exceptions. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but that is not my sole argument. I have provided other arguments in favor, which you can read at the aforementioned talk page which basically boil down to:
in my opinion,
Infoboxes make standardized information more easily accessible, and
They do not harm the rest of the article, as they do not displace the lead paragraph.
However, in the linked talk page, I see that opponents of infoboxes rely somewhat on the loosely established precedent/consensus that composers shouldn't have infoboxes.
That is why I wanted to bring forth a new argument, using the, as I see it, very established consensus for infoboxes in biographies, and what I want to know here is whether this consensus can be proven to exist (or what is it required for this consensus to exist). Milo8505(talk)07:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing about "global" and "local" consensus seems to confuse everyone, and consequently folks make up whatever seems plausible to them. Let me give you a potted history and the usual claims, and perhaps that will help you understand the principle.
'Way back in the day, infoboxes didn't exist. AIUI the first widely used infobox template was {{taxobox}} in 2004, and the general concept appeared soon after. However, through the end of 2007, Template:Infobox didn't look like what we're used to. Originally, an 'infobox template' was literally a wikitext table that you could copy and fill in however you wanted.[1]
While infoboxes were being developed, the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers decided that infoboxes were a bad idea specifically for articles about classical composers, so after a series of disputes and discussions, in April 2007 they wrote a note that said, basically, "BTW, the sitewide rules don't apply to the articles we WP:OWN."[2]
The conflict between this group and the rest of the community eventually resulted in the 2010 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. The result of this years-long dispute is memorialized in the example given in what is now the Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus section of the policy: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."
Or, to be rather more pointy-headed about it: WikiProject Composers doesn't get to decide that "their" articles are exempt from MOS:INFOBOXUSE.
What was then a statement about the "Purpose of consensus" or, before then, one of several "Exceptions" to forming a consensus on a talk page has since been renamed ==Levels of consensus==. Also, ArbCom (and consequently part of the community) has started talking about "global" consensus. I think that has confused people about the point.
"Levels" of consensus could mean the strength of the consensus ("This is just a weak consensus, so..."). It could mean something about the process used ("My CENT-listed RFC trumps your Village pump post"). It could mean whether the consensus applies to the whole site ("We formed a consensus at Talk:Article about the first sentence of Article, so now I need to make 500 other articles match this one"). And it could tell us something about how likely it is that the decision matches the overall view of the community.
It's supposed to be that last one. We don't want a handful of people getting together on some page and saying "Let's reject this rule. This article needs to be censored. Copyvio restrictions are inconvenient. Bold-face text helps people see the important points. And we know this POV is correct, so it should dominate." We want quite the opposite: "The community says that this is usually the best thing, so let's do this."
AFAICT, the overall view of The Community™ is that we think that there should not be any Official™ Rule saying that any subset of articles should have an infobox. We're probably doing this mostly for social reasons, rather than article reasons. For example, every single article about a US President, or atomic elements, or any number of other subjects, has an infobox – but we refuse to write any rule saying they should, or even that they usually should, even though we know the popularity is ever-increasing. For example, at the moment, Georgina Sutton is the only biography linked on the Main Page that doesn't have an infobox.
I suspect that the closest we will come to such a rule during the next few years is a note about how popular they are. It should be possible to see how many articles (overall, or in particular subsets) already use infoboxes, and to add that information to MOS:INFOBOXUSE. For now, we could add a statement that "most" articles have an infobox.
^Being able to do this in wikitext was was considered an improvement, because originally, you had to code tables in raw HTML.
^This was not as unreasonable back then as it sounds now. WikiProjects were a significant source of subject-specific advice back then, and the rule-making systems were quite informal. WP:PROPOSAL didn't exist until late 2008. Before then, most guidelines and even policies acquired their labels merely because someone decided to slap the tag on it, and if nobody objected, then that was the consensus for what to call it.
From what you have said, given that WikiProject composers have to follow MOS:INFOBOXUSE, there should be a discussion on each and every composer's talk page to determine whether an infobox is warranted.
I see this as a bit of a, difficult and fruitless endeavor, as the arguments presented, for either case, are always the same, and they all usually result in stalemates (like the one about Mahler).
What I propose is to change the policy, to, at least, recommend infoboxes on certain categories, given that, as you said, they are very popular. Or at the very least, as you suggest, acknowledge the fact that they are very popular.
When I have time to gather more data on the use of infoboxes, I will propose a new RfC to try to commit this change to the policy.
I am very well aware that my chances of success are slim, but, I'll do what I can do.
Well, if "they all usually result in stalemates", then that represents a change, because the last complaint I saw about this subject said that the RFCs on whether to add an infobox almost always resulted in an infobox being added. Perhaps it varies by subject, however.
Acknowledging that they're popular shouldn't require a proposal for a change. It should only require getting some decent numbers. Check the archives of WP:RAQ; they probably can't query it directly, but if there's been a request, you'll see what could be done. It might also be possible to create a hidden category for "All articles with infoboxes", automagically transcluded, to get a count on the number of infoboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you again very much for your continued interest.
The discussions around infoboxes (not RfCs, discussions on talk pages) as far as I have seen usually go something like:
- I propose adding an infobox
+ We have talked a lot about that and there are good reasonstm for which it should not be added
- But I also have good reasonstm for which it should be added.
(no comments for 4 years, then it begins again).
I thought a bit about counting links, and I realized maybe getting this data is easier than I thought, see:
For counting the number of transclusions to a given page, this tool is very useful, and says that there are around 3.2 million infoboxes in total, and 460 thousand infoboxes about people. (on the (Article) namespace).
This seems to suggest that only around a quarter of all biographies have an infobox? Maybe I was wrong all along in my observation that infoboxes are very popular.
I am however not too sure that the two million links to Template:Wikiproject Biography on the Talk namespace actually corresponds to two million unique biographies.
Maybe another way of getting this data would be better, I'll have to look at it on some other occasion that I have more time.
I looked at the first 10 articles in Category:Core biography articles, and 100% had infoboxes. However, those ten articles used seven different infoboxes:
An article was deleted, but it seems that it was incorrectly deleted. It was based on a composer and notability was questioned in an earlier version of the article. However, I was able to re-write a new version of the previously deleted article with the song the person composed that is clearly notable. The song has its own article here on Wikipedia. The article was about William Lawrence Hansen. Starlighsky (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like a copy of it, ask an admin to put a WP:REFUND copy into your personal sandbox first (i.e., User:Starlighsky/sandbox). Once you think you've got it in good shape, I'd suggest first asking at a relevant WikiProject to see if you can get an extra set of eyes on it.
One thing you should know… writing a notable song does not automatically mean the song writer/composer will be considered notable. It certainly helps, but what you really need to find are a few sources that discuss this composer in some depth. Hope you find them. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + 4 + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} United States presidential election|{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + 4 + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} U.S. presidential election]] and [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (2*4) - ({{CURRENTYEAR}}mod4)}} Summer Olympics]]. By comparison, the [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (5*4) + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} United States presidential election|{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (5*4) + ({{CURRENTYEAR}} * -1)mod4 }} U.S. presidential election]] and [[{{#expr: {{CURRENTYEAR}} + (6*4) - ({{CURRENTYEAR}}mod4)}} Summer Olympics]] are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.
According to this, the 2028 election and 2032 Olympics automatically became valid articles on January 1, 2024, although it is not really clear why that exact date matters. Should this be clarified, and if so, how? ypn^219:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant question IMO is why do we need an article on the 2028 or 2032 presidential elections? Any "significant coverage" is just speculation at this point. Until candidates declare, I don't see how articles on either is useful to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedic coverage of predictions and speculation about and preparations for the 2028 presidential election that appear in reliable sources is possible and (in at least some cases) due. Similarly things like whether (and if so what) changes to electoral collage allocations will happen, etc should also be easily found by someone searching. Whether that should be on its own article yet or as part of a broader article will depend entirely on the volume of encyclopaedic material there is. Similarly for the Olympics. As soon as we have coverage about the next and next+1 US presidential elections and Olympic games there should be blue links from the titles those articles will reside at when they have articles (e.g. 2036 Summer Olympics was kept at AfD (although moved to Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics) in November 2022 due to there being significant sourcing about the preparations). I don't think the dates in WP:CRYSTAL should be taken as "there must be an article" but as loose guidelines along the lines of "significantly before this time sufficient information to justify a standalone article is unlikely; it is unlikely there will not be sufficient information for a standalone article significantly after this time." i.e. those dates are the approximate midpoint in the range when sufficient information for a standlone article existing changes from very unlikely to very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now only "recall" votes count, and those opposing recall don't count for anything, nor do any points made in the discussion. So 25 quick group-think / mob thumbs-down votes and even be best admmin can get booted. And the best (= the most active) are the ones most likely to get booted. An admin that does near zero will get zero votes to recall. And with a single regular RFA currently the only way back in (which we've seen, very few want to go through) "booted" is "booted". The fix would be to have a discussion period pror to voting, with both "recall" and "don't recall" choices. And then say that the recall has occurred (thus requiring rfa) if over 50% or 60% of those voting said "recall".
Thanks. I looked for something like that but I guess I didn't look hard enough. I hope others look harder than me. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how recall works. An admin is only desysopped after the RRFA, not after the 25 signatures, unless they choose to resign on their own. You're asking to hold a vote on whether or not a vote should be held. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood that and that is integrated into my comment above. Unless they go through and succeed at an RFA they are gone. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of a petition that lets people sign because they don't support it. And I'll add that between the two recall petitions that were enacted to this point, both were preceded by many, many attempts to get the admin to correct course over the years despite egregious misconduct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process at the moment does have a certain level of redundancy, with the recall and reconfirmation RFA being separate things. The reconfirmation RFA is even a standard RFA, as it has different criteria for success.
I'm not sure if anything should be done yet, as it's still very early in its adoption. However if the situation occurs that a petition is successful but the reconfirmation RFA SNOWs, it could indicate that adjustments needs to be made so that community time isn't wasted. That speculative at the moment though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recall petition threshold is not the recall discussion - it is just a check to prevent the most frivolous recall discussions from being held. — xaosfluxTalk00:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The optics of this look alltogether terrible from my observation. I don't edit much, but I like reading a lot. Every criticism of the recall process i've seen so far just looks like old established admins thinking they might be next and having anxiety about that.
The problem of something like this is that the optics are terrible. If anyone who doesn't know you reads that, the conclusion they will draw will likely not be "this recall process is terrible" and more likely go along the lines of "wow this is a lot of admins who don't have the community's trust anymore and want to dodge accountability".
By being so vocally against any form of community led accountability, you're strenghtening the case for easy recalls and low thresholds, not weakening it.
Specifically regarding Fastily, I'll make no comment on whether or not he deserves to still be an admin or not, I don't know him well enough for that and haven't reviewed enough of his contributions, but the arguments of "ANI agreed that no sanctions were appropriate" sound a lot like "our police department has investigated itself and found nothing was wrong". You have to see how this comes across, it's eroding trust in Admins on the whole project right now. Magischtalk to me09:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, if RFA is so toxic that nobody wants to do it, that needs to be reformed. But the recent amount of vitriol towards a process that only kickstarts having to prove that you retain community trust has me convinced that there should be automatic mandatory RRFAs for every admin every 2 years or so.
If, as of today, you don't believe the community would entrust you with admin tools, why do you think you should still have them? The criteria for losing them should not be "has clearly abused them", it should be "wouldn't be trusted with them if asked today". Magischtalk to me09:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin actively working to improve the recall process, my goal is to make it as fair as possible to all parties. That means it should not be possible to subject an admin to the process frivolously while equally making it possible to recall administrators who have lost the trust of the community, and it needs to be as non-toxic as possible, because even administrators who are actively abusing their tools are people and nobody deserves 1-2 months of abuse. It's also incorrect to describe ANI as a police department investigating itself - everybody engaging in good faith is welcome to comment there, regardless of whether they are an admin or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf It's the Administrator's Noticeboard, naturally the vast majority of participants will be either admins or people who are involved in the same work.
I don't think asking an admin to confirm they still retain the trust of the community (the whole basis of giving out admin tools to begin with) is ever really frivolous. The current process allows that at most once a year. If an admin had to stand for RFA every year, that might be a bit too much long term, but really, if any admin thinks they would not pass RRFA today, why should they retain their tools.
Also, the sheer optics of it being mostly (from what i've seen) established admins calling this process toxic are terrible. Anyone who doesn't know anything about this process will see this as some kind of thin blue line mentality in the admin corps - and might conclude that it is time to desysop the majority of old admins to dissolve the clique.
I have no horse in this race, except that I regret not seeing the RFA earlier so I could have voted Support, sorry about that.
But if your argument is optics, then having a bunch of recall petitions for the people who most vocally expressed a valid opinion on an evolving policy is absolutely awful optics. At best. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took the stats from the first RRfA to test this theory:
1st RRfA votes
Support
Oppose
Total
Administrators
48
29
77
Non-admins
71
116
187
Total
119
145
264
Administrators made up 29% of the voters. If being an admin doesn't influence anyone's vote, then we can expect admins to make up roughly 29% of the supporters and 29% of the opposers. But this didn't happen. In the final results, administrators made up 40% of the supporters and 20% of the opposers. We can also look at the individual odds of supporting/opposing depending on user rights. It ended at 45% support, so you'd expect admins to have a 45% chance of supporting and a 55% chance of opposing. But this also didn't happen. If you choose any admin at random, they had a 62% chance of supporting and a 38% chance of opposing (ignoring neutrals). Non-admins were the opposite: they had a 38% chance of supporting and a 62% chance of opposing.
So our next question should be why it was so much more likely for an admin to support the RRfA relative to a non-admin. The obvious answer is of course as you said: admins have a perverse incentive to support here, especially if they're not-so-great admins who know they probably don't have the trust of the community anymore. Also suggested during the RRfA is the comradery that comes from working alongside a fellow admin for so long. I'd be interested in seeing how account age affects likelihood of supporting, but that's not something that can be counted up in a few minutes like admin status. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it may be centered on the idea that we all make mistakes, and many of us like to think we'd be given a chance to grow and learn from said mistake, instead of being forced through the RfA process again. But I recognize I may be being overly optimistic on that, and that others may not have the same thoughts on the matter that I do. Many admins I've spoken to would simply choose to give up their tools as opposed to go through an RfA again, something I've also considered despite my relatively smooth RfA. I'm also not sure Graham is the best representation of that. I voted support, recognizing that Graham87 has made mistakes, but also recognizing the significant contributions they've made and their pledge to do better. Bluntly, I did so expecting the vote to fail, and wanting to show some moral support and appreciation for their work. There's certainly a psychological aspect involved in it, but I don't think that, generally speaking, those of us who voted support or have issues with the current process are doing so out of self preservation.
There's a lot of numbers that could be analyzed, such as the history of those admins who vote at RfA (whether they often vote support or don't vote at all), but it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from this small of a dataset. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On paper, I get that. The thing is, I don't know whether you saw Levivich's comment or bradv's comment, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a less appropriate time to test the "chance to grow" theory than the absolutely deplorable behavior that we saw from Graham for many years with far too many chances to improve. If it were down to me, this should have been a block in 2023 rather than a desysop in 2024. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the discussion, but I think it's also worth pointing that only 7 of the 25 users who signed Graham87's petition and 2 of the 25 on Fastily's were admins. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that there is a potential wrinkle in this analysis. I'm an extended-confirmed user here (and thus would likely be counted as a non-admin), but I am a sysop on Commons so I would have my own perspective on the matter. Abzeronow (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not an admin and I started this thread. I'm all for having an admin recall process by the community in place. I'm also also for a process for course correction by the community in areas where and admin has drifted off course but where the problem is fixable. Administrative Action Review has the potential to become this but that has been stymied by various things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, fundamentally, the problem is that admins have a direct and concrete conflict of interest in this discussion. Of course an admin would be naturally opposed to more mechanisms that might make them lose their permissions, especially since desysops are very rare at the moment.
I also don't really agree that the current recall process is all that toxic. You could get rid of the discussion section, as the recall is only a petition, not a consensus discussion, but that's about it. Magischtalk to me18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an admin would be naturally opposed to more mechanisms that might make them lose their permissions – I wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion. There's a number of us that fully support a recall process, including quite a few people who have historically been open to recalls. This is an over simplification of the motives of a large group of experienced editors, many of which have legitimate and reasonable concerns about the process in its current form. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially all criticism i've seen so far of the process have boiled down to "RFA is abusive and it's unreasonable to make people go through that again". And yet, instead of attempting to change that, the only suggestions seem to be to support older admin's rights to have their permissions continue being grandfathered in. Magischtalk to me19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that that's all you've taken away from the vast amounts of criticism given by people. Perhaps consider focusing on whether the process, in its current state, makes sense instead of focusing on older admins. I'm a relatively new admin and I don't support the current iteration of the process. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's eminently sensible to have adminship not be a lifetime appointment, both by the fact that norms change even when people dont, and that I see people in every RFA expressing reluctance over granting lifetime tools. I also think that assuming RFA isn't a big deal regular reconfirmations make sense. IFF RFA is a big deal, then the focus should be on fixing that.
It seems to me that existing admins being immune to having to suffer RFA again has created a lack of pressure to actually make it into a functional, nontoxic process.
Attempting to improve RFA is a very hard problem that people have been working on since before you joined Wikipedia, and are still working on it. I would also say that it is unreasonable to make people go through that again is a mischaracterisation of the views expressed, which are it is unreasonable to make people go through that again unnecessarily, which is significantly different. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out about this discussion, and it looks to me like the same or similar things are being discussed in way too many different places. Anyway, I'm someone who has stated repeatedly and strongly in multiple places that I think the recall process is a disaster, and is beyond repair. And, contra some statements above, here are some other facts about me. I'm not an admin. I opposed Graham's re-RfA. And I played a central role in WP:CDARFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against it for a different reason: if we allow both supports and opposes, then the recall petition becomes a mini-RfA with the same amount of pressure as the RRfA itself (especially since, given the identical threshold, the recall's result would be indicative of the RRfA's subsequent result). Since anyone can start the recall petition, it functionally means that anyone can force an admin to re-RfA, which is clearly worse. On the other hand, having a set number of supports needed provides for a "thresholding" of who can open a RRfA, while not necessarily being as stressful. If anything, I would say the recall should become more petition-like (and thus less stressful for the recalled admin), rather than more RfA-like. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ones most likely to be booted are bad admins who are abusive toward the editor community and who negatively represent themselves as admins. Both of the recalls thus far were just exact examples of that and worked perfectly as designed and needed. The process worked exactly as desired and removed bad admins who deserved to be desysopped. Though I do think the discussion section of the petitions should be more regulated. Discussion should be about the admin's actions and conduct and nothing else. Any extraneous commentary should be removed. SilverserenC00:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I first started editing Wikipedia almost 20 years ago, I was struck by what, to me at least, appeared to be widespread incivility. Among a number of things which have changed for the better IMHO is an all round expectation that everyone's standards of behaviour should rise (and they have). The admin role breeds a certain "culture" (for lack of a better term) akin to a conservationist, the role is to "protect" Wikipedia from "harm" and I can certainly see why being an admin could be a deeply frustrating experience. However, what has happened, I think, in the attrition of the admin corps, and the turnover in the non-admin corps, is that the generalised culture of "regular" non-admin editors has moved further forward towards less acceptance of a culture prevalent 10-15 years ago. I think also the rise in editors from non-English speaking backgrounds and from the Global South has caused complexities for those with limited experience outside the anglosphere. The statistics above on the vote for G87's RRFA show an interesting split between admins and non-admins, and within admins. Non-admins were almost overwhelmingly (close to 2/3) of the view that G87 had been given an almost exceptionaly long period to improve, had not, and no longer held their trust. 5/8s of admins, appeared (and comments here also seem to confirm this) split between solidarity for one of their own and displeasure with the recall process. 3/8s admins were in alignment with the majority of non-admins. FWIW, I'm not trying to point to some grand schism; A 38/62 admin split on these numbers is not that profound - if just 9 admins had changed their vote from support to oppose it would have been a 50/50 split. To reiterate, I'm not suggesting that there is a great gap between admins and non-admins, but there does appear to be some gap when it comes to generalised views around the expected behaviour of admins. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, and in effect I was sort of saying the same thing in terms of the attrition of the admin corps and turnover in non-admin corps. FWIW, I do think there are some generalised feelings about admins among non-admins; for example, admins are less likely to face sanction than non-admins. How true that actually is I'm not sure and the point would be that a group of people already tested in commnuity trust (ie RFA) are less likely to breach that trust. However, comments in the G87 RRFA and the strength of the vote suggest there are (wrongly or rightly) widely felt perceptions of disparity. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently compiling the data to get some statistics about voters in Graham's re-RFA. I'm a bit less than halfway through so it might be a couple of days before I can present any results. However among the first 113 support voters the maximum account age (on the day the re-RFA started) was 7919 days (21 years), the minimum was 212 days and the average was 4785 days (13 years). I have no data yet for neutral or oppose voters so cannot say how that compares. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a handy list of all voters for RFA? It should be simple enough to use a WP:QUARRY to find out all details about the voters if someone finds an easy enough scrape of who each user is Soni (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think about 6 editors were missed by the tool you linked, but it should not change overall patterns much so we can just use this as is. Soni (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prepare to not be surprised. Supporters/Opposers:
Median registration date 2008/2014 <-- Behold, Wikipedia's generational shift
At a quick glance, it seemed like editors with more edits were more likely to support while editors with fewer edits (with one exception) were more likely to oppose. - Enos733 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given a single admin action may involve multiple edits, it's not so surprising the supporters' list possibly reflects a group with higher edit counts. Personally, I'd be more inclined to draw conclusions from length of registration rather than edit count. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my very, very rapid count - supports 35/117 (30%) less than 10 years old, opposes 67/141 (48%) less than 10 years old. In absolute numbers, 10+ year accounts were 82 supports, 74 opposes - actually quite even. What was crucial was younger accounts. It does confirm my sense of gaps between "older" and "younger" generations in regard to perceptions of tolerable admin behaviour. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have had two recalls as of now. The people signing the recall were by and large not trolls, vandals, people blocked by that admin, ... but regular editors in good standing and without a grudge. One of these recalls has been supported by the RRFA afterwards, and the other admin decided not to go for a RRFA. There is zero evidence that the process is flawed or leads to results not wanted by the community at large. While minor issues need working out (things like "should it be closed immediately the moment it reaches 25 votes or not"), the basic principles and method have so far not produced any reason to fundamentally "fix" the issue. That the process highlights a gap between parts of the community (see e.g. the Graham RRFA) doesn't mean that the process needs fixing. The process only would need fundamental fixing if we would get successful recalls which would then be overwhelmingly reversed at RRFA, showing that the recall was frivolous, malicious, way too easy... Not now though. Fram (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fram. There is not any evidence that the recall process is reaching outcomes that are not supported by the Community (I voted Oppose on the Graham RRFA; I don't know how I would have voted on a Fastily RRFA). Small fixes to the process if supported would not be indicative of the process itself being fundamentally flawed. Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that desysoppings for cause should only happen when there is objective evidence of misconduct. My main concern about the recall process is that it may be wielded against administrators who are willing to take actions that are controversial, yet necessary. Examples of actions that have got administrators hounded include (1) closing contentious and politically charged AFD discussions; (2) blocking an "WP:UNBLOCKABLE" editor who is being disruptive or making personal attacks; (3) stepping up to protect a politically charged article to stop an edit war. None of these actions are administrator misconduct, but in a heated dispute the side that has an admin rule in their disfavor may quickly resort to punishing said administrator by starting a recall petition, and in a dispute involving many editors, getting to 25 may be easy. Even if that petition fails, it is so unpleasant that it may have a chilling effect on admin involvement even when needed. Sjakkalle(Check!)21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, a RRFA might be overwhelmingly in favor of the administrator and thus vindicate the administrator. I would definitely vote in support of an administrator if those any of those three were the impetus behind a recall. I also trust our editors, and so far, the recall process has worked as intended. Abzeronow (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's driving me up the wall that people keep saying that the process has worked as intended. Come back and tell me that, after you can link to an RRfA for Fastily that resulted in whatever result you define as working as intended. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing not to do an RRfA was their own choice, particularly if Fastily thought it wouldn't be successful. It was also their choice to make no attempt whatsoever to defend the reams of evidence presented against them in the recall petition of their negative actions toward the editing community. So, yes, Fastily as well was an example of the process working as intended. SilverserenC22:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they just thought "well, I've put XX years into this and a load of random people with rationales ranging from reasonable to utterly non-existent have told me I'm not fit to do it, so f*** you". If that's the case, I don't blame them. Black Kite (talk)22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was going to lose if he didn't apologize, and he didn't want to apologize. That simple. As others have said, that was his choice to make, and I respect it. Levivich (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that he did apologize, although there were differing views of whether that apology was enough. This oversimplification is what's wrong with the way discussions happen in this process. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He woulda had to apologize more, then, including for the stuff that came out during the petition, and any other stuff that may have come out during the RRfA. He woulda had to answer questions about it, make promises, etc., basically go through what Graham went through, and realize that even that (answering questions, making promises) might not be enough (as it wasn't for Graham). It's not at all irrational for someone to choose not go through that. Being an admin isn't worth all that to some (e.g., to me), especially if you might not get it despite your best efforts. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, those two things are not the same. If you want to know why I think the process worked, it's because it stopped disruption, did it faster than Arbcom, and I think with less drama (though admittedly the third one is purely subjective and speculative). Levivich (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linking might help though. It doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Graham87, Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Fastily, or on Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall, so it's a bit hard to know what "the petition page" is. Do you mean your 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) reply to A smart kitten? The one that ended with "Does this rise to the level of requiring, for me, a desysop? I'm leaning towards no." And others leaned towards "yes", it's not as if people couldn't draw different conclusions from your post or could disagree with things you said without actually replying directly to you. You didn't contradict the evidence, you personally didn't find it severe or convincing enough, that's all. That doesn't show that the process needs fixing though, just because enough people disagreed with your opinion and the result wasn't put to the test. Fram (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, the context of what I said was clearer before there were all those intervening edits, but yes, you correctly identified the post I meant as the one that ended with the words that you quoted. Here's the diff: [3]. From where I'm sitting, your analysis here of how people reacted to what I posted is, well, not convincing enough. There was a lot of discussion about the evidence that I analyzed, back and forth. When the editor (A smart kitten) who originally posted the evidence came back with the additional information that I requested, the discussion was still very active. I provided a very detailed examination, point-by-point, of each individual claim made in that evidence. Yes, it was based upon my opinions, but I drew specific conclusions, and justified those conclusions. And nobody came back and said that they thought anything in my analysis was incorrect, nor did anyone who signed on the basis of that evidence before my comment come back and reaffirm their signature, rejecting my analysis. If you think somebody actually did, you can provide a diff of it, but I can assure you that you won't find one. And that wasn't because the petition discussion had come to a close, because it continued for several more days after I posted that. After a whole lot of back-and-forth about that particular evidence, nobody said that they found errors in anything that I said. But a couple more editors did sign the petition after that, with brief comments saying, in some cases, that they decided to sign after reading that particular evidence.
So the question, in the light of your comment to me, becomes whether those later signers did so because they carefully read all of the discussion, including my critique, and decided to sign, implicitly having decided that my critique was unconvincing – or whether they signed after only a superficial read and had never really engaged with my critique. I cannot prove that it was the latter, and you cannot prove that it was the former. But given that their signatures came only with brief comments, and nobody found reason to actually mention that they had rejected my critique, I'm pretty skeptical of the former. And that's a problem. The petition process does not, of course, require that anyone had to say explicitly that they disagreed with me, either, but that's a shortcoming of the discussion process. A desysop via ArbCom makes room for careful examination of the facts. The petition did not. This is a half-assed way of driving someone off Wikipedia. And I'm arguing for a more deliberative process. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I don’t get the recall process either. I support admin accountability but just having an arbitrary number of “support” votes, no “oppose” votes, and I guess a time limit instead of consensus forming seems… extremely weird and out of step with how virtually everything else is done on Enwiki. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intended point of the recall petition is not to find consensus or to determine whether the admin has lost the trust of the community, has abused the tools or anything like that. The intended point of the petition is only to prove that a re-RFA is not frivolous. The Re-RFA is where consensus is formed from support and oppose, analysis of evidence, etc. Think of it in judicial terms, the petition is at the pre-trial stage and simply aims to answer the question "are there 25 people who think there is a case to answer?" if the answer is no, then it ends there. If the answer is yes, then you can please innocent or guilty. If you plead guilty you take the sentence (desysopping) and move on. If you plead innocent there is a trial and the jury finds you either innocent or guilty by majority verdict. This is an imperfect analogy of course, but it hopefully helps explain the concept.
The problem is, the concept itself makes no sense. Nearly everything on Wikipedia is decided one of three ways: consensus democracy that must be approved/vetoed by an admin (most non-trivial issues); WP:BOLD editing, informal discussion, or admin fiat (trivial issues); or arbitration (extreme fringe cases). This resembles none of those. It’s like arbitration, only everyone can be an arb, and instead of voting yay or nay to take the case you collect signatures to see if there’s general support for a case? Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The request stage of arbitration is the closest analogy, but it is indeed a process not used anywhere else on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It's sole purpose is intended to be a check against frivolous requests so that an admin doesn't have to go through re-RFA just because they pissed off a single editor once by making an objectively correct decision. The actual decision is intended to made by consensus democracy at the Re-RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a limited vote based on a formula like “after 7 days a minimum of 2/3rds of people must support for re-RFA” would be less opaque than trying to start a Wiki-Minyan? Dronebogus (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like skipping the petition, and going right to the RRFA, or running two successive RRFA's. I have not been involved in any of this but it is not really hard to understand why there is the two-step process of: 1) calling the question, and 2) deciding the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think it should just go straight to RRFA, and if there’s enough opposition fast enough it can just be WP:SNOW closed. We don’t, for example, ask for 25 signatures to start and AfD discussion in order to weed out frivolous nominations— it’s patently obvious when a nomination is garbage in most cases. RRFA is clearly a last resort, and no established, good faith user is likely to abuse this kind of process so egregiously we need a two-step failsafe. Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not any time, there should be a policy that steps must already been taken and failed, ideally multiple times, similar to ArbCom. And not any user, since the starter should probably be autoconfirmed at the absolute minimum, and probably be required to be in goof standing, have X edits, been on WP X years, and been active during the last year. If it was unambiguously required that an RRFA follow these rules or be rejected (with filing an improper case being a sanctionable offense) I don’t think anyone would realistically start a frivolous case. Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we also don't require a !vote to create an article but we do for an admin. I also don't think it is likely that 'any experienced user' has experience in making an RRFA -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An admin is essentially just voted into office; they should be voted out of office in an identical way. There’s no need for some kind of novel additional process on top of that. That’s all I’m saying. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the basic complaint here is that the 25-vote threshold is too easy to meet, and therefore it is unfair to require an affirmative consensus for the admin to retain the tools. I think the 25-vote threshold is fine for weeding out frivolous nominations, but correspondingly I think we should make it harder to remove adminship, i.e. make 50-60% the discretionary range for removing adminship. This would make it in line with most of our other processes, where a slight supermajority is required to make changes, and no consensus defaults to the status quo. Whereas under the current recall system, 25 votes with no opportunity to object are enough to make removal of adminship the status quo, which seems a bit harsh. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That any news outlet or source that refers to a government as a "regime" be considered not reliable for facts about that regime, except for attributed statements.
This would, for example, rule out using a significant proportion of reliable sources covering contemporary North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba and Iran as well as countless historical governments (e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Franco's Spain, Gaddafi's Libya, etc). This is clearly hasn't been fully thought through. Thryduulf (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this does get at something which is a problem in Wikipedia. It just doesn't quite hit the mark. And that is that there is a core assumption in Wikipedia's handling of news media sources that they are largely independent and that a deviation from editorial independence represents a deviation from best practices. However this often leads to Wikipedia simply assuming the biases of the New York Times and other major media outlets. But there has been an accumulation of multitudinous issues - one of the most recent being accounts of Jeff Bezos influencing the Washington Post to withhold an endorsement of Kamala Harris - that demonstrate that the idea of editorial independence is frankly quaint.
This, of course, then creates problems with adjudicating those sources that have previously been demonstrated to be non-independent (see for example WP:XINHUA) as the rationale on Wikipedia for treating Xinhua differently from, let's say, the BBC or Al Jazeera for that matter largely depends upon the assumption of independence of those outlets that are not aligned with enemy states of the US/UK hegemony.
My personal opinion is that the use of news sources on an encyclopedia should be far more limited than it presently is as, in my case, it's not that I trust Xinhua (I don't) but that I don't trust any media outlet to produce material appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. I don't think a "regime" test is going to improve the quality of pages that over-rely on news media. But I would suggest that it's another indication that Wikipedia needs to be far more critical of what news sources we depend on and in what contexts. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, editorial independence is not the reason for a source being considered reliable or not. Many sources are biased, or influenced by specific governments/interest groups, and are still considered reliable for topics other than the groups influencing them (in which case, by definition, they would not be an independent source). A history of disinformation (actually making up stuff, not just reporting it in a biased way) pushes the source towards being considered unreliable.WP:XINHUA, which you link, demonstrates this clearly, stating There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. In the same way, we shouldn't rely on the Washington Post for topics related to Jeff Bezos. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example I gave wasn't one of a story about Jeff Bezos or a topic related to Jeff Bezos unless one contends (which, I will grant there's a case to be made) that anything to do with a US election is ultimately about the interests of the Billionaire class. But, you see, that's my point. Pretty much any media outlet will distort truth, spread disinformation or, at the most basic, bury stories that aren't to the interests of their handlers. And I do want to stress that the stories that are not covered is a key method through which media occludes truth. The only real question is whether the handler is a politbureau or a rich guy. I don't think one of those is better than the other. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a news media is influenced to not publish a story makes it biased, but not unreliable. Having a point of view when reporting (or choosing not to report) stories is what every media does, and is different from outright making up disinformation. And that is the difference between bias and unreliability. It's not about who the handler is, rich guys can also own unreliable news sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we certainly agree about that rich guy. I just think Wikipedia is too fast to treat news sources as reliable out of convenience rather than any real confidence in the quality of information. Simonm223 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Simonm223. I just can't understand why an encyclopedia should be largely based on news sources rather than peer-reviewed academic articles or books. For a start most of them are primary sources, by any definition other than Wikipedia's. This is dumbing-down at its worst. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the definition (specifically 2(c) and 2(d)). Regime is a synonym for "administration" or "government" (when used to describe, as example, the Biden administration or the Tory government). It makes zero sense whatsoever to block sources who use a synonym for administration just because one person feels it has negative connotations. Wikipedia is not the place to practice redefining words or limiting their use based on their worst definitions or connotations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!05:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prescriptivism is dead. See examples. There is zero percent usage in modern times that isn't derogatory; literally no one says unironically "our regime", "the regimes of our allies", or "regimes we'd like to do business with". Skullers (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in as much as "government" would always be a better term in any use case I can think of.
However, your polemics here have been consistently superficial and unhelpful. It seems almost self-parody to aphorize "prescriptivism is dead" amid seeking to categorically deprecate sources based on the sole criterion of whether they use a particular word, citing what you feel is the only correct definition of said word in practice. Remsense ‥ 论09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The attraction of the word "regime" to headline writers is often that it is simply shorter than "government" or "administration", rather than anything to do with its connotations. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the rationale for this proposal, IMO it goes way too far. I would agree that it's important to keep in mind when a source is using biased language and consider using in-text attribution in these cases, but certainly it's not worth a blanket ban.
Furthermore, it's often the case that when the news media uses negative language about a topic, that's because that negative language is the consensus. For instance, nobody would really question the phrase "the Nazi regime" or even probably "the genocidal Nazi regime" from a reliable source, and for good reason. When everyone agrees on a contentious label that implies that in that specific case the label is not, in fact, contentious. Loki (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is rather absurd. You can’t declare a source unreliable based on a word, especially one that’s frequently used as a harmless rhetorical flourish. What should we ban next? Sources that use swearing? Sources that use subjective adjectives like “best” or “amazing”? Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Harald Winter article was created by X3ntar as a port from the German Wikipedia article (found here: Harald Winter). The English article consists primarily of poor English translation and promotional content, and when I was looking through the history of the article, all I saw originally were red-linked accounts created a short while before their edits to the article, leading me to begin researching to source a WP:SPI case. After almost an hour of looking into this, I don't think this is canvassing, meatpuppetry, or anything like that. More likely it's a case of German editors wanting to update the English version of the article. However, I couldn't find any policies or essays that gave advice on how to handle cross-wiki contributions or page creations. Is there a common consensus reached prior? Sirocco745 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topics on Jehova's Witnesses - article spamming issues
Polish Wikipedia is experiencing and uptick in Jehova's Witnesses topics article spamming, surrepticious edits pushing JW terminology etc. One of current problems is the spamming of separate articles for every "convention", which is an annual (I think) event with a theme and about 100k visitors. We are discussing their notability right now, and I was wondering whether English Wikipedia already discussed and cleaned this, which would be helpful? If you remember any topic discussing notability or monitoring of Jehova's Witnesses related topics, and possibly deleted articles. (I'm not sure if there is any sensible search method of deleted articles archive/log? Can I use any wildcards in Special:Log/delete? It doesn't seem to work.) Tupungato (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titles of articles about false theories or accusations
This seems to be a little bit inconsistent. Some have "conspiracy theory" in the title, clearly stating they are false (I don't think there's any possible way any even remotely possible theory or accusation would have the words "conspiracy theory" in it). Some go even further outright stating "myth" (not unwarranted if it is clearly false).
Vaccines and autism (Note: the fraudulent study that begun this conspiracy is titled Lancet MMR autism fraud, not using the word "study" or something not indicating it was a fraud in the title, which it used to, I don't know when it was changed)
Is there some kind of policy regarding whether to include "conspiracy theory", "myth", etc in article titles about false theories or accusations? </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 12:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, all articles should be titled neutrally and in line with their common name, where they have one. If the significant majority of reliable sources do not describe something as a conspiracy theory or myth (even if they are false) then our article titles should not. In most cases where "myth" and "conspiracy" appear in the article titles they are descriptive as there is no single common name for the topic(s) covered. Consistency is part of the article titles policy but it is only one criterion and generally not regarded as the most important. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see two situations here: one where the article title wouldn’t work without the addition of “conspiracy theory” (i.e “International Jewish” is a non sequitur fragment); and one where the title would work (“999 phone charging” makes sense on its own). We don’t need to state something is a myth in the title if the article explains it’s a myth; there’s enough RFK Jr. types whining at Talk:Turbo cancer to prove that much. Dronebogus (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Thryduulf. We should use titles that are considered the common name for the topic and that fall with the article title policy, and then after that any necessarily disambiguation steps to differentiate from other topics. And as long as the lede sentence or lede itself (as in the case of Vaccines and autism) is clear what is legitimate science or fact and what is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, or disproven, then its not as important for the title to reflect that as well. Masem (t) 13:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are some editors on the sceptic side who seem to feel that it is necessary to explicitly and stridently describe something as pseudoscientific at every possible opportunity. We don't need to bash our readers over the head with it, indeed doing so can be contrary to NPOV (e.g. when reliable sources disagree and/or take a more nuanced approach). Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what leads to adding "conspiracy theory", "myth", etc. generally boils down to whether the topic is one that perennially annoys the regular page watchers at WP:FRINGE/N. So, for instance, Fan Death isn't caused "the Fan Death Myth" largely because there's not a large proportion of editors rushing to the Fan Death article to say "this is a real serious problem guys". Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s a genuine problem that we should probably address— some anti-fringe editors are among the most aggressive contributors I’ve encountered, probably because too many “skeptics” are also culture warriors who need to right great wrongs by doing everything short of calling something “stupid” and its adherents “idiots”, which of course actually damages our credibility. Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for preventing the spread of quack medicine and Ufology silliness on the encyclopedia but, generally, the fringe noticeboard is poorly equipped to address assessments of what research is fringe outside of medicine, history and archaeology. I think some of these anomalous titling conventions kind of point toward that specificity of scope. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FRINGE should really only apply to topics where objective research have thoroughly debunked the notion, and not to areas where questions remain open or where debunking may never be possible at which point Undue becomes the answer. For example, whike most science rejects the COVID lab theory, it's still near difficult to devisicely conclude that the lab theory is not posdible, so we should avoid calling it fringe but clearly note the weight of experts that have dismissed it. — Masem (t) 16:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there is a difference between "theories that are scientific, plausible and supported only an extreme minority of sources but have not been/are unlikely to be conclusively disproven", "theories that are scientific, were previously mainstream but no longer are, but are still supported by an extreme minority of sources as they have not been conclusively disproven". "theories that are scientific but implausible to the extent that mainstream sources do not feel the need to conclusively disprove them.", "theories which are scientific and have been conclusively disproven, but still have some supporters", "theories which are pseudoscientific" and "theories which are neither scientific nor pseudoscientific". I've seen FRINGE used to describe all of these cases, which is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the issue is: there is a Kennedy assassination, but this article is about the conspiracy theories; there is grooming but this article is about about a conspiracy theory; there is phone charging but this article is about a myth; there are international Jewish organizations but this article is not about that, etc. So, the article title is limited to (and limits) the scope of the article. And other times, 'myth' or 'conspiracy theor[ies]' is in a common name for the subject. Also note, you really can't tell why an article is called 'this' instead of 'that', unless it has actually been discussed. Article title decisions are made in a decentralized manner, and may never be revisited. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alan raises a good point… when there actually are theories that postulate a conspiracy, then it is not POV to call them “conspiracy theories”. That is a neutral descriptive title, not a pejorative one. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if that's true, that those that subscribe to a theory that is based on conspiracy would necessary call it a conspiracy theory themselves. Eg those that claim there is a deep state aren't usually calling that a conspiracy theory, but a theory about conspiracies, if that makes sense. Masem (t) 15:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suntooooth, that's because DraftCleaner uses ?action=submit to open the editor, while your lockout script only checks for ?action=edit. You could change the condition of the if-statement to something like !["edit","submit"].includes(mw.config.get("wgAction")). Rummskartoffel21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over at Silk Road (marketplace) where there was a pending changes notice on the history tab, the links in it were all broken with Special:Badtitle being used. Looking at Special:PendingChanges this seems to affect other article titles as well. It seems to be an issue with mw-fr-revision-tag-edit:
<divid="mw-fr-revision-tag-edit"class="cdx-message mw-fr-message-box cdx-message--block cdx-message--notice flaggedrevs_notice plainlinks"><spanclass="cdx-message__icon"></span><divclass="cdx-message__content">The <aclass="external text"href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Badtitle/Message&stable=1">latest accepted version</a> was <aclass="external text"href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=review&page=Special:Badtitle/Message">reviewed</a> on <i>20 November 2024</i>. There is <aclass="external text"href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Badtitle/Message&oldid=1258565930&diff=cur&diffonly=0">1 pending revision</a> awaiting review.</div></div>
It changes Special:Badtitle/Message everywhere (maybe the bug affects other messages) including in the edit window for this section, so don't edit it if you add the fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a phabricator ticket. PrimeHunter, do you want to write something up? I'm wondering if this has something to do with * git #016644c4 - Do not pre-parse MessageValue arguments (T380045) by Isabelle Hurbain-Palatin? I did do a quick test to confirm that {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} (or {{FULLPAGENAME}}) are directly producing the Special:Badtitle/Message text, it's not just happening when passed through {{fullurl:}} or when linked.--Ahecht (TALK PAGE)15:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a partial fix [5]. It fixes the third and most important link in the message by omitting the bad title. A title is unnecessary in diff links. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
code editor
Yep, I know, Thursday. Something has happened to the code editor. When I start typing, the code editor now pops up a window that shows a list of text strings that may match what it is that I'm typing. This list is not constrained to Lua keywords but apparently is a list of all words in the module. How do I turn that off?
You can disable it by pressing Ctrl + , and unticking "Live Autocompletion".
(I was looking to see why the change hadn't been proposed for Tech News, and I see someone has just tagged it yesterday, so it will be included next week.) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both, Ctrl + , worked. I wonder who thought that key combination is intuitive? Wasn't there a Dilbert comic about such shortcuts?
@Quiddity (WMF) That's useless because, even if it were documented somewhere, it doesn't persist. You have to re-set that preference every time you load the editor, even if you just hit the "preview" button. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed change to tabs on redirect pages
I am proposing in phab:T5324#10347051 that the page tabs on redirect pages (‘Article/Talk’ and ‘View’ depending on the page) get a small improvement: they would link to redirect pages themselves by default. Currently they link to their targets with a possibility of navigating back. The change should improve navigation from other actions, like going from history page for "WOW" redirect to the redirect page itself. This should be especially beneficial for English Wikipedia since this community has a system of redirect templates. You would still be able to navigate to redirect target, just with an additional click.
Please let me know either here or on Phabricator (by awarding a token or leaving a comment there) if you are for, against or indifferent to this potential change. It was previously announced in Tech News in 2020 but no one went on to actually review the change. Hopefully this time would be different. stjn01:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, I agree with the change, having reopened the Phabricator task in 2019. I was using this one-liner to mitigate for a while.
The talk page behavior is likely more contentious: essentially this turns talk page redirects into soft redirects when clicking on the 'Talk' tab, which is probably the most common way of accessing them. Numerous closely-related templates use redirects to centralize discussion (example: Template talk:Cite news and related templates). Bot talk pages often redirect to the bot operator's talk page (5/10 of the top 10 active bots by edits do this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Also in Wikipedia namespace you can find cases like AN and ANI that have a merged talk. Retro (talk | contribs) 06:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all cases where a normal page has a redirected talk page. I think the proposed change would only apply to redirects with redirected talk pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood correctly even in the case of going from a redirected article to a redirected talk page it would go to the target of the redirected talk page. The change as I understood would be:
When going from history, info,... of a redirected article to the article itself it would stay in the redirect
When going from history, info,... of a redirected talk page to the talk itself it would stay in the redirect
Looking at the current version (Patchset 2) of gerrit:r/1094077, your second bullet is not correct. The behavior is simpler:
The talk tab would still follow the redirect, except when the talk tab is the current tab (e.g. you're already on the talk page with &redirect=no, or viewing the talk page history).
The subject tab would always stay in the redirect.
Extra tabs, such as TimedText on Commons or Source on Wikisource, will work similarly: stay on redirect if pointing to a subject namespace or are the current tab, follow redirect if pointing to a talk namespace and non-current.
Personally, I'm not so sure of this behavior change. When I'm already at a &redirect=no, I tend to click on the tab to follow the redirect. Clicking the link in the "soft-redirect" on the redirect=no page has different behavior in some edge cases (e.g. double redirects) and won't show the "redirected from" on the target page. OTOH, it's better than the more-consistent alternative that Retro was concerned about above, which would have made it much more likely for people to start commenting on redirected talk pages. Anomie⚔13:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current Gerrit patchset is a first attempt at implementing this. It should not be referenced as what I want to achieve. Ideally, only the tabs related to the currently viewed page would have redirect=no added. So TimedText/Source etc. should only be affected when they are the current page and user is viewing something related to the redirect.Currently, there is no way to get to view the redirect page in one click even if you are on edit/history pages. That is more unacceptable than someone being a bit inconvenienced by having to click to the big article name and not the tab. stjn13:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How often do people really need to get to view the redirect page that one click rather than two for this use case outweighs the drawbacks of increasing the inconsistency of the UI and requiring editing the URL to follow the redirect as a reader would? Anomie⚔13:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
‘Increasing inconsistency’ is your personal opinion that multiple people already disagreed with. In my opinion, it would decrease the inconsistency, as all the other page tabs relate and point to the current page, and not to the redirect target, so the main ones should, too. Currently people are already required to edit the URL, just in the other direction. stjn14:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inconsistency I referred to is that, with your proposed change, the tab will sometimes follow the redirect and sometimes not. PS6 seems intended to make it more sometimes-and-sometimes-not. As for URL editing, people don't have to edit the URL to get to the redirect page now, but they do need two clicks: one on the tab, following the redirect, and then one the "Redirected from" under the page title to get to the redirect itself. Anomie⚔23:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I started on Wikipedia, waaaay back in May 2009, if you clicked on a link for a redirect, the redirection would occur client-side and your browsing history would get two entries: one for the redirect page, and one for where you got redirected to. An effect of this was that you needed to use the browser's "back" feature twice in order to return to where you first came from. A bonus side effect was that if you only used "back" once, you could then work on the redirect page directly - "edit", "history", etc., even "move" if you were that silly. Nowadays the redirection is performed server-side, which in some ways makes it harder. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tab will follow the redirect when you are not looking at the redirect page and won’t when you are. That is not inconsistent.The workflow you described in the last sentence can also be described as requiring people to edit the URL to get to the redirect page, since it is much easier to copy the URL and then add ?redirect=no than it is to aim at the barely visible ‘Redirected from’ notice (especially for section redirects, which do not show it at all, see phab:T360255 / phab:T169282). stjn21:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only mean that if someone is on the redirect talk page, they should be able to navigate to it from ‘Talk’ tab. Otherwise (‘Talk’ page on non-talk pages) there should be no change. stjn12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought is that this seems fine, since it'll only affect editors (readers have basically no reason to end up at a redirect page). But overall we should be careful not to focus unduly on our editing needs over their reading needs. Sdkbtalk17:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about what is being proposed here, so I'll just say that if the URL of the page I'm viewing includes "redirect=no" then I want that to be preserved when I click the article or talk tabs. When I'm viewing the non-redirected talk page of a redirect and click the article tab I could be wanting either the reidrect or its target, probably the former about two thirds to three quarters of the time, but as someone who does a lot of work with redirects I don't know how typical my workflow is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile wikipedia images problem
Images on the sides of articles don't show up with Javscript disabled on en.m.wikipedia.org, only their captions. Images in the infobox and the main page load normally. If you don't want to show images in articles to users who disable Javascript in Firefox please remove the captions too so there's no clutter. 31.217.45.191 (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In dealing with an issue, electcom implemented Special:Diff/1258984383 which unfortunately broke the question numbering. I'd appreciate any suggestions on what wikimarkup could be used to keep the hatted text hatted and also preserve the question numbering sequence. RoySmith(talk)00:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still a problem? I see the question numbers, including the collapsed one at question 21. If still an issue, please describe the problem a bit more. — xaosfluxTalk00:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{ACE Question}} is implemented in a way which makes this practically impossible without something in the hatted text looking off if you collapse things. It basically assumes the structure of the container (an ordered list) and then indents the answer with wikitext #:. That is a flaw of that template that cannot be corrected without some non-0 study. Izno (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but {{hab}} only works if it's added at a new line, which would break the numbering either way.
More kludgily, since the list would be the second ordered list in the content area, the corresponding style sheet rule could be written to target the second ordered list. That would avoid the need for a wrapper div. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The style rule would be something like the following:
From an accessibility point of view, is any other choice other than replacing with text (maybe with a permalink if you want it to be accessible) even good?
The only thing I found that sorta works is wrapping it all in a {{efn|1= ... }}, but then you have to add a notelist somewhere where the question will actually appear (collapse and all). That doesn't break the numbering of the questions afterwards. – 2804:F1...86:EF41 (::/32) (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: To be honest, I don't think it needs a complicated technical response. ARBPIA states that this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including... reverts, and that applies On any page where the restriction is not enforced through ECP. So you can just get rid of it, much easier. SerialNumber5412915:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be uncivil. I had the answers I needed, that was all. If folks want to continue to chat about this, please feel free to do so. RoySmith(talk)21:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article incorrectly marked as List class
I noticed that the article Femke is wrongly marked as List class on the talk page, where it should have been marked as GA class, like I believe it was previously, but now the class in the banner shell appears to be overridden. I suspect that this is somehow caused by / related to the {{given name}} template, despite the section=y parameter that indicates only one section and not the whole article contains a list of given names. Could this be fixed? – Editør (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of that template says Template:given name is only for use on Wikipedia set index articles. If Femke isn't a set index article, then that template shouldn't be used there. Misusing templates can and usually does, break other things. Remove the template from that page and the banner should work. Gonnym (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I changed something, but I've checked my common.js and preferences ("Don't show the revision slider" not checked) but the revision slider ("Browse history interactively") is not showing. Did I do something wrong or is it disabled? </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 11:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing a very unusual error, when I compare diffs between a deleted revision LTA and a live revision, it won't show, obviously, because I'm not an admin, but then it also pops up the following in a red box:
User doesn't have access to the requested revision (The revision #1259514017 belongs to a deleted page. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wikipedia:Help_desk×tamp=20241125161251&diff=prev view it]; details can be found in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia:Help_desk deletion log].).
(I've nowikied the above, because the error box literally shows that).
Screenshot of an error where the red box shows content that was supposed to include links, but links failed.
I can reproduce the problem, it seems to be caused by trying to display a visual diff, which neither you nor I can view. I found a similar bug report at T337817, although the error message has apparently changed since 2023. Matma Rextalk16:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I remember clearly that days ago, perhaps weeks, the error message was still "Invalid response from server", like desribed at phab.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
A new version of the standard wikitext editor-mode syntax highlighter will be available as a beta feature later this week. This brings many new features and bug fixes, including right-to-left support, template folding, autocompletion, and an improved search panel. You can learn more on the help page.
The 2010 wikitext editor now supports common keyboard shortcuts such Ctrl+B for bold and Ctrl+I for italics. A full list of all six shortcuts is available. Thanks to SD0001 for this improvement. [8]
Starting November 28, Flow/Structured Discussions pages will be automatically archived and set to read-only at the following wikis: bswiki, elwiki, euwiki, fawiki, fiwiki, frwikiquote, frwikisource, frwikiversity, frwikivoyage, idwiki, lvwiki, plwiki, ptwiki, urwiki, viwikisource, zhwikisource. This is done as part of StructuredDiscussions deprecation work. If you need any assistance to archive your page in advance, please contact Trizek (WMF).
The CodeEditor, which can be used in JavaScript, CSS, JSON, and Lua pages, now offers live autocompletion. Thanks to SD0001 for this improvement. The feature can be temporarily disabled on a page by pressing Ctrl+, and un-selecting "Live Autocompletion".
Tool-maintainers who use the Graphite system for tracking metrics, need to migrate to the newer Prometheus system. They can check this dashboard and the list in the Description of the task T350592 to see if their tools are listed, and they should claim metrics and dashboards connected to their tools. They can then disable or migrate all existing metrics by following the instructions in the task. The Graphite service will become read-only in April. [9]
The New PreProcessor parser performance report has been fixed to give an accurate count for the number of Wikibase entities accessed. It had previously been resetting after 400 entities. [10]
Meetings and events
A Language community meeting will take place November 29 at 16:00 UTC. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Mooré Wikipedia, the language support track at Wiki Indaba, and a report from the Wayuunaiki community on their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community over the last 3 years. This meeting will be in English and will also have Spanish interpretation.
Extra letter "R" between C and D in category listing
See Category:All portals. The list first shows portals starting with 0-9, then starting with A, B, C (including things not starting with C, but with a sortkey starting with a C), then continues through the alphabet with R, D, E, ..., P, Q, R, S, ...
What is this extra letter "R" between C and D?
It looks like a hiccup or MediaWiki bug I haven't seen before. The Internet Archive shows [11] the issue 19 September with an R heading between the C and D headings. Special:ExpandTemplates shows Portal:Reformed Christianity just adds a normal [[Category:All portals]] with no sortkey and no DEFAULTSORT. It's added by a template but even if the template had different code at the time, it should not be possible to create an R heading between C and D on a category page. The Internet Archive shows a normal Latin letter R and not some special Unicode character. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as you would expect if R was actually a letter betwen C and D and there was only one portal starting with R. The category collation system determining how to sort characters is sometimes changed and can be set differently for different wikis. Maybe this page was cached in the middle of a change or accidental setting. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Standard parameter name for Wikidata IDs
Some time ago, we standardised large numbers of templates so that they all used the same parameter names for the same thing; for example |birth_date= instead of |birth-date=, |birthdate=, |birth=, |dob=, etc.
I now find that we have a number of parameter names for a Wikidata item about a subject, for example:
(Note: Sorry, if this is a FAQ. Just provide the link and I'll be on my way.)
Does Wikipedia provide some means of reverting several edits by a single user in one go? As a concrete example, I cite the instance of the following user:
The user appears to have made several edits within the span of a few days designed to assert or to falsely establish as fact that a number of large multinational drug companies are subsidiaries of a small privately held Philippine drug company.
Most common language tags and TemplateData suggested values capacity
I'm wondering if there is a way to produce a list of the most frequently used IETF BCP 47 language tags in use on English Wikipedia. By "in use", I mean values for the HTML lang attribute in current published articles. Such a list would be useful so that we could populate the TemplateData suggested values of the many templates that have a language parameter with the values that editors are most likely to use. To be clear, I mean the full language tags with subtags, and not just the language code.
I'd also welcome guidance on how many suggested values is advisable for usability purposes. Instead of using most common values, I could include the 183 ISO 639-1 codes. Is that too many? Daask (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting the answer would be to do a search on the HTML output of English Wikipedia, but I see that the subcategories of Category:Articles containing non-English-language text are fairly detailed and include at least some subtags. I suppose an answer could be produced by finding the largest of these subcategories and then converting them from names back to language tags (probably with the same Module:Lang that populates them). I'm not sure how to do that. Daask (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Re-instating this proposal, I want to make the icons look more clear and sleek; I will eventually add on more to the icons (such as good articles, audio articles, etc.) I also want to add region-based letter shackles, so for example 拡 (拡張, Kakuchō) would be the Japanese extended-protection icon, same with 満 (満杯, Manpai) for full-protection.
Agree with others that these new icons look dated. However, if we are discussing changes to lock icons, then I must say the the purple for upload protected is incongruously gaudy. Cremastra — talk — c20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think the gradients or bevels make these icons less clear and sleek, at least in their current iteration. The icons also become less readable at smaller resolutions since the shackle part of the padlocks takes up more space, making the actual symbol inside smaller.
Pretty strong oppose trying to run a geolocation script on every load to try to make dynamic labels here. If anything (which I also don't like) labels should follow user interface language. — xaosfluxTalk17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the differences, I was just suggesting (because I don't really speak any other language you could propose a specific version) Also, I will later add the letters on the shackles.
Oppose making the primary (only) differentiation be color, as that gives out less information then the current scheme and is useless for those without color viewing abilities. — xaosfluxTalk17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xaosflux on this one. Furthermore, the two issues of the old icon scheme (color and "realistic" shading that doesn't look great on small icons), which were the reasons for the change to begin with, are present on this one too.Regarding the region-based symbols, it would make more sense to display them based on the language edition, and, since each language edition already sets its own standards for this stuff, there isn't much more we can do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs(converse)(hedgehogs)14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were using "shackle" as the word to describe a thing by a single aspect for the purposes of avoiding conflation with protecting/locking editing. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we shouldn't, because as @WhatamIdoing noted, the shackle is one part of a padlock. And simply using the word "padlock" avoids conflation, without calling things the wrong thing. (It's even the exact same number of letters.) FeRDNYC (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WIKICLICHE we've been asked to not say this quite as much, due to supply chain issues – if we use them too much we could see a huge shortage down the road. But I hope I'm not generating more heat than light with this comment, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cremastra — talk — c20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never throw the baby out with the bathwater. This will contaminate your greywater collection system. Like other meats, babies are not compostable, so they should be sorted into the landfill waste stream unless otherwise advised by your municipal waste management authority. Folly Mox (talk) Folly Mox (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pseudo-3D shading looks dated compared to the current flat icons. Most modern design systems (including codex, which is the new design system for Wikimedia wikis) are built around flat icons. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for funStill feel like a step backwards. The current "Good article" icon, on top of having less of a distracting shading and being more readable, is in a consistent style with a lot of our other icons. The current "Featured article" icon, although not consistent with the others, is pretty unique and recognizable in design, while this one looks like a generic star.Just for fun, I did once make a "Good article" star in the style of the FA one – not meant for any official implementation beyond my personal script of course, but it's neat to see how it would look like. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever looked at the Featured Article icon, full-size? (If not, check it out at File:Cscr-featured.png. I'll wait.) ...Like or lump @Chaotic Enby's GA star, it's actually of a fairly harmonious style with the current FA star, which is (as noted) currently not consistent with anything else anywhere. Arguably it's well-known/recognizable — Chaotic makes that argument, anyway — but TBH I have a feeling the great majority of readers never see it larger than head-of-a-pin-scaled, and wouldn't even recognize the actual, full-sized image AS our FA icon. FeRDNYC (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the full FA icon; the GA star is just straight out of Cthulhu (...positively). It is fun, but I think GA should be more inline with the rest of the article-rating icons because of the kinda lesser rigor. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's definitely a concept design rather than an actual proposal. If anything, I far prefer having the current GA icon as our official one, as it is more harmonious with basically anything that isn't the FA star. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not visual improvements whatsoever, unfortunately. They are clear regressions in design, and the current icons are fine. Our system is particular to the English Wikipedia, so it's perfectly appropriate for their design to be relative to the English language.Remsense ‥ 论19:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Color me baffled. By starting with Re-instating this proposal, you make me think you want to reinvigorate some failed proposal. But then I follow your link and see that the proposal led to the implementation of new padlock icons, which; I guess, you mean to reverse. I also fail to understand what you mean by region-based letter shackles; do you mean for articles about, e.g., Japan? Or articles viewed by somebody we're supposed to have guessed might be in Japan? Or somebody with the Japanese language listed in a userbox on their User page? It's English Wikipedia, so I can't see the last two being useful options, and the first one will only lead to arguments and confusion and we've got that already. The current icons seem clear enough to me, although I don't know how to measure "sleek", I guess. In summary: baffled. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)12:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean region-based letter shackles basically like the letters on shackles but different regional translations. (This'll probably not work because of @Chaotic Enby's post.)
So (just to see if I understand it finally), you're proposing on English Wikipedia that Japanese Wikipedia use icons with Japanese symbology, and Spanish Wikipedia use some Spanish-language indicator on the padlock, etc. Yes? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Status quo is fine. It's really cool that you're contributing your graphics skills to the movement though. I'm sure there's some less high profile areas that could really benefit from your skills. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: New proposals are nice but I personally like the style of the old ones better, and flat icons also seem more up-to-date to me. Regional shackles sound like a good idea, but don't appear to be in this proposal, so I'll just say I support those (maybe in the old design-style in my preference). Mrfoogles (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Remsense. The new 3D icons look like something from the early days of the internet. Plus the shadowing makes the icons appear unnecessarily "bulky" (not sure how to say this). Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here as well. It's not about status quo or resistance to change, I vastly prefer the current icons to the proposed replacements. (Admittedly subjective) points in favor of the current icons over the new ones:
The flatter look will render better at small sizes (since these icons are actually shown at a fraction of the size they're displayed in this thread)
Ditto the blockier font
Ditto the thicker shackle arcs
The skinny shackles and rectangular body give the proposed replacements the appearance of handbags, not padlocks
The letter placement is more uniform and precise in the current icons; the proposed replacements appear to have been "eyeballed". IMHO SVG art of this sort is best hand-coded (if not from scratch, then at least as a finalization pass to clean up the code), with all of the dimensions precise and uniform.
I appreciate the effort, and I'm sorry to be critical, but I'm just not into them at all. The current set, OTOH, are actually fairly well-designed and optimized for their purpose, which is an important consideration in designing functional artwork of this sort. It's puzzling to me that anyone would be looking to replace them, as there's surprisingly little room for improvement IMHO. FeRDNYC (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposed sets may been cool at the time of the previous proposal. Those locks would be more appropriate for something like in 2008. It's for the same reason why traffic lights are always (from top to bottom) red yellow green. And why train doors on British trains need doors to have sufficient contrast to the rest (see PRM TSI). In other words, using colour alone for distinguishing isn't enough.
Oppose - not a fan of the proposed icons (see also Nythar's comment), and the current locks work quite well. however, I would be supportive of a redesign of the GA/FA icons (/the various icons of the same style) in a style similar to the current locks. Rexo (talk | contributions) 20:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if we kept the shackles and good icon, get a new featured icon, and make a built-in feature that allows shackles to be compatible with dark mode? 2I3I3 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(to clarify: the style used by a lot of icons across the wiki (including FA/GA) feels dated, and the locks have a cleaner look that I think could be used as a basis for further redesigns. I don't think that would inherently lead to the quality symbols implying protection.) Rexo (talk | contributions) 13:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Norro or FA icons are dated, and using padlocks to indicate quality just makes no semantic sense. We adopted padlocks because it showed that the article was locked from editing. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Shackle says "A shackle is also the similarly shaped piece of metal used with a locking mechanism in padlocks.[1]". Some here seem confused, but anyone using "shackle" to refer to the handle part of the handbag-looking icon is correct. Anomie⚔21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the section heading to not be confusing (except, I guess, to one person whose idiolect equates locks and shackles, which is rather like calling your door a "handle" or "knob". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, because when people want to cause trouble on Wikipedia, they immediately think "I'm going to change the wikipedia article for Shackles so that anyone who wants to know anything about them will be confused! Archer87643 (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While I personally favor skeuomorphism in electronic interface design and am not fan of the last decade or so's fashion for making everything flat and same-looking, we cannot sensibly re-inject a cluster of skeuomorphic design elements and leave the rest anti-skeuomorphic. Design and user-experience do not work like that. PS: The actually-named-a-shackle part of the lock depicted in the proposed new icons looks farcically thin and weak, like those on the pretend-security of luggage locks, so even if WP went with a skeuomorphic design (for everything) again, these icons in particular should not be used. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should a new pending changes protection level - extended confirmed pending changes (hereby abbreviated as PCECP) - be added to Wikipedia? AwesomeAasim19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
WP:ARBECR (from my understanding) encourages liberal use of EC protection in topic areas authorized by the community or the arbitration committee. However, some administrators refuse to protect pages unless if there is recent disruption. Extended confirmed pending changes would allow non-XCON users to propose changes for them to be approved by someone extended confirmed, and can be applied preemptively to these topic areas.
It is assumed that it is technically possible to have PCECP. That is, we can have PCECP as "[auto-accept=extended confirmed users] [review=extended confirmed users]" Right now it might not be possible to have extended confirmed users review pending changes with this protection with the current iteration of FlaggedRevs, but maybe in the future.
Survey (PCECP)
Support (PCECP)
Support for multiple reasons: WP:ARBECR only applies to contentious topics. Correcting typos is not a contentious topic. Second, WP:ARBECR encourages the use of pending changes when protection is not used. Third, pending changes effectively serves to allow uncontroversial edit requests without needing to create a new talk page discussion. And lastly, this is within line of our protection policy, which states that protection should not be applied preemptively in most cases. AwesomeAasim19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than EC, which already restricts being the free encyclopedia more. As I've said below, the VisualEditor allows much more editing from new people than edit requesting, which forces people to use the source editor. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not somehow less or more restrictive as ECR. It's exactly the same level of protection, just implemented in a different way. I do not get the !votes from either side who either claim that this will be more restriction or more bureaucracy. I understand neither, and urge them to explain their rationales. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By creating a difference between what non logged-in readers (that is, the vast majority of them) see versus logged-in users, there is an extra layer of difficulty for non-confirmed and non-autoconfirmed editors, who won't see the actual page they're editing until they start the editing process. Confirmed and autoconfirmed editors may also be confused that their edits are not being seen by non-logged in readers. Because pending changes are already submitted into the linear history of the article, unwinding a rejected edit is potentially more complicated than applying successive edit requests made on the talk page. (This isn't a significant issue when there aren't many pending changes queued, which is part of the reason why one of the recommended criteria for applying pending changes protection is that the page be infrequently edited.) For better or worse, there is no deadline to process edit requests, which helps mitigate issues with merging multiple requests, but there is pressure to deal with all pending changes expediently, to reduce complications in editing. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this would be fixed with "branching" (similar to GitHub branches)? In other words, instead of PC giving the latest edit, PC just gives the edit of the stable revision and when "Publish changes" is clicked it does something like put the revision in a separate namespace (something like Review:PAGENAME/#######) where ####### is the revision ID. If the edit is accepted, then that page is merged and the review deleted. If the edit is rejected the review is deleted, but can always be restored by a Pending Changes Reviewer or administrator. AwesomeAasim21:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of programmers who struggle with branching; I'm not certain it's a great idea to make it an integral part of Wikipedia editing, at least not in a hidden, implicit manner. If an edit to an article always proceeded from the last reviewed version, editors wouldn't be able to build changes on top of their previous edits. I think at a minimum, an editor would have to be able to do the equivalent of creating a personal working branch. For example, this could be done by working on the change as a subpage of the user's page (or possibly somewhere else (perhaps in the Draft namespace?), using some standard naming hierarchy), and then submitting an edit request. That would be more like how git was designed to enable de-centralized collaboration: everyone works in their own repository, rebasing from a central repository (*), and asks an integrator to pull changes that they publish in their public repository.
(*) Anyone's public repository can act as a central repository. It just has to be one that all the collaborators agree upon using, and thus agree with the decisions made by the integrator(s) merging changes into that repository. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. This has influenced me to amend my Q2 answer slightly, but I still support the existence of this protection and the preemptive PC protecting of low-traffic pages. (Plus, it's still not more restriction.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, functionally a more efficient form of edit requests. The volume of pending changes is still low enough for this to be dealt with, and it could encourage the pending changes reviewer right to be given to more people currently reviewing edit requests, especially in contentious topics. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support having this as an option. I particularly value the effect it has on attribution (because the change gets directly attributed to the individual who wanted it, not to the editor who processed the edit request). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: better and more direct system than preemptive extended-confirmed protection followed by edit requests on the talk page. Cremastra (u — c) 20:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Pending Changes has the capacity to take on this new task. PC is much better than the edit request system for both new editors and reviewers. It also removes the downsides of slapping ECP on everything within contentious topic areas. Toadspike[Talk]20:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the opposes below and completely disagree that this would lead to more gatekeeping. The current edit request system is extremely complicated and inaccessible to new users. I've been here for half a decade and I still don't really know how it works. The edit requests we do get are a tiny fraction of the edits people want to make to ECP pages but can't. PCECP would allow them to make those edits. And many (most?) edit requests are formatted in a way that they can't be accepted (not clear what change should be made, where, based on what souce), a huge issue which would be entirely resolved by PCECP.
The automatic EC protection of all pages in certain CTOPs is not the point of this proposal. Whether disruption is a prerequisite to protection is not altered by the existence of PCECP and has to be decided in anther RfC at another venue, or by ArbCom. PCECP is solely about expanding accessibility to editing ECP pages for new and unregistered editors, which is certainly a positive move.
I, too, hate the PC system at dewiki, and I appreciate that Kusma mentioned it. However, what we're looking at here is lowering protection levels and reducing barriers to editing, which is the opposite of dewiki's PC barriers. Toadspike[Talk]10:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with JPxG's principle that it is better to "have drama on a living project than peace on a dead one," but this is far less restrictive than preemptively setting EC protection for all WP:ARBECR pages. From a new editor's perspective, they experience a delay in the positive experience of seeing their edit implemented, but as long as pending changes reviewers are equipped to minimize this delay, then this oversight seems like a net benefit. New users will get feedback from experienced editors on how to operate in Wikipedia's toughest content areas, rather than stumbling through. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idk what it's like in other areas but in mine, of edit requests that I see, a lot, maybe even most of them are POV/not actionable/nonsense/insults so if it is already ECR only, then yea, more filtering is a good thing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming this is technically possible (which I'm not entirely sure it is), it seems like a good idea, and would definitely make pending changes more useful from my eyes. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per @JPxG:'s reasoning—I think it's wild that we're willing to close off so many articles to so many potential editors, and even incremental liberalization of editing restrictions on these articles should be welcomed. This change would substantially expand the number of potential editors by letting non-EC contributors easily suggest edits to controversial topic areas. It would be a huge win for contributions if we managed to replace most ECP locks with this new PCECP.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Edit requests are a really bad interface for new users; if discouraging people from editing is the goal, we've succeeded. Flagged revisions aren't the best, but they are better than edit request templates. Toadspike's reasoning hasn't been refuted. Right now, it seems like opposers aren't aware that the status quo for many Palestine-Israel related articles is ECP. Both Israeli cuisine and Palestinian cuisine are indefinitely under WP:ECP due to gastronationalist arguments about the politics of food in the Arab–Israeli conflict (a page not protected), so editors without 500/30 status cannot add information about falafels to Wikipedia. That being said, this proposal would benefit from more detail. For example, the current edit request policy requires the proposed change to be uncontroversial and puts the burden on the proposer to show that it is uncontroversial. On the other hand, the current review policy assumes a change is correct unless it's obvious vandalism or the like, which would be a big change to the edit request workflow. Likewise, what counts as WP:INVOLVED for reviewers? Right now, there's a big firewall between editors involved in content in an area like Israel-Palestine and admins using their powers in that area. Can reviewers edit in the area and use their tools? This needs to be clarified, as it seems like editing in PIA doesn't disqualify one from answering edit requests. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)21:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the current review policy assumes a change is correct unless it's obvious vandalism or the like
@Chess That's true, but reviewers are also currently expected to accept and revert if the change is correct but also irky for a revert. Below, Aasim clarified that reviewers should only reject edits that fail the existing PC review guidelines plus edits made in violation of an already well-established consensus. As for Involved, since there's no guidance about edit request reviewers yet either, I think that should be asked in a separate RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The number of sysops is ever decreasing and so we will need to take drastic action to ensure maintenance and vandalism prevention can keep up. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. While I understand objections from others based on the technical downsides and design of the current Flagged Revisions extension, I support making it easier for users to suggest changes with a GUI rather than a difficult-to-understand edit request template, which creates a barrier to entry. Frostly (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (PCECP)
Oppose There's a lot of history here, and I've opposed WP:FPPR/FlaggedRevs consistently since ~2011. Without reopening the old wounds over how the initial trial was implemented/ended, nothing that's happened since has changed my position. I believe that proceeding with an expansion of FlaggedRevs would be a further step away from our commitment to being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit without actually solving any critical problems that our existing tools aren't already handling. While the proposal includes However, some administrators refuse to protect pages unless if there is recent disruption as a problem, I see that as a positive. In fact that's the entire point; protection should be preventative and there should be evidence of recent disruption. If a page is experiencing disruption, protection can handle it. If not, there's no need to limit anyone's ability to edit. The WordsmithTalk to me03:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wordsmith, regarding "However, some administrators refuse to protect pages unless if there is recent disruption as a problem, I see that as a positive.", for interest, I see it as a negative for a number of reasons, at least in the WP:PIA topic area, mostly because it is subjective/non-deterministic.
The WP:ARBECR rules have no dependency on subjective assessments of the quality of edits. Non-EC editors are only allowed to make edit requests. That is what we tell them.
If it is the case that non-EC editors are only allowed to make edit requests, there is no reason to leave pages unprotected.
If it is not the case that non-EC editors can only allowed to make edit requests, then we should not be telling them that via talk page headers and standard notification messages.
There appears to be culture based on an optimistic faith-based belief that the community can see ARBECR violations, make reliable subjective judgements based on some value system and deal with them appropriately through action or inaction. This is inconsistent with my observations.
Many disruptive violations are missed when there are hundreds of thousands of revisions by tens of thousands of actors.
The population size of editors/admins who try to address ARBECR violations is very small, and their sampling of the space is inevitably an example of the streetlight effect.
The PIA topic area is largely unprotected and there are thousands of articles, templates, categories, talk pages etc. Randomness plays a large part in ARBECR enforcement for all sorts of reasons (and maybe that is good to some extent, hard to tell).
Wikipedia's lack of tools to effectively address ban evasion in contentious topic areas means that it is not currently possible to tell whether a revision by a non-EC registered account or IP violating WP:ARBECR that resembles an okay edit (to me personally with all of my biases and unreliable subjectivity) is the product of a helpful person or a ban evading recidivist/member of an off-site activist group exploiting a backdoor.
Oppose, I hate pending changes. Using them widely will break the wiki. We need to be as welcoming as possible to new editors, and the instant gratification of wiki editing should be there on as many pages as possible. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a similar and larger backlog at CAT:EEP. All this does is move the backlog into an interface handled by server software that allows newcomers to use VE for their "edit requests", where currently they must use the source editor due to being confined to talk pages. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... if the number of protected pages does not increase. I expect an increase in protected pages from the proposal, even if the terrifying proposal to protect large classes of articles preemptively does not pass. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most PCECP pages should be ECP pages (downgraded?) as they have lesser traffic/disruption. So, the number of pages that will be increase should not be that much. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Isn't the loss of instant gratification of editing better than creating a request on the talk page of an ECP page, and having no idea by when will it be reviewed and implemented. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>11:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Feels unnecessary and will only prevent other good faith editors from editing, not to mention the community effort required to monitor and review pending changes requests given that some areas like ARBIPA apply to hundreds of thousands of pages. Ratnahastin(talk)01:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very good reason I reference Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums in my preferred name for the protection scheme, and the answer is generally no since the topic area we are primarily talking about is an ethno-political contentious topic, which tend to draw partisans interested only in "winning the war" on Wikipedia. This is not limited to just new users coming in, but also established editors who have strong opinions on the topic and who may be put into the position of reviewing these edits, as a read of any random Eastern Europe- or Palestine-Israel-focused Arbitration case would make clear just from a quick skim. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is how pull requests work on GitHub. You make the edit, and someone with reviewer permissions approves it to complete the merge. Here, the "commit" happens, but the revision is not visible until reviewed and approved. Edit requests are not pull requests, they are the equivalent of "issues" on GitHub. AwesomeAasim19:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may come as a surprise, but Wikipedia is not GitHub. While they are both collaborative projects, they are very different in most other respects. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Git, submitters make a change in their own branch (which can even be in their own repository), and then request that an integrator pull that change into the main branch. So the main branch history remains clean: it only has changes that were merged in. (It's one of the guiding principles of Git: allow the history tree of any branch to be simplified to improve clarity and performance.) isaacl (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests are supposed to be pull requests.
Clearly indicate which sections or phrases should be replaced or added to, and what they should be replaced with or have added. — WP:ChangeXY
Yeah that is what they are supposed to be but in practice they are not. As anyone who has answered edit requests before, there are often messages that look like this:
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
Oppose, per what JSS has said. I am a little uncomfortable at the extent to which we've seemingly accepted preemptive protection of articles in contentious areas. It may be a convenient way of reducing the drama us admins and power users have to deal with... but only at the cost of giving up on the core principle that anybody can edit. I would rather have drama on a living project than peace on a dead one. jp×g🗯️18:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unnecessary, seems like a solution in search of a problem. Furthermore, this *is* Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit; preemptively protecting pages discourages contributions from new editors. -Fastily22:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I do understand where this protection would be helpful. But I just think something is EC-protectable or not. Don't necessarily think adding another level of bureaucracy is particularly helpful. --Takipoint123 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm inclined to agree that the scenarios where this tool would work a benefit as technical solution would be exceedingly niche, and that such slim benefit would probably be outweighed by the impact of having yet one more tool to further nibble away at the edges of the open spaces of the project which are available to new editors. Frankly, in the last few years we have already had an absurdly aggressive trend towards community (and ArbCom fiat) decisions which have increasingly insulated anything remotely in the vain of controversy from new editors--with predictable consequences for editor recruitment and retention past the period of early involvement, further exacerbating our workloads and other systemic issues. We honestly need to be rolling back some of these changes, not adding yet one more layer (however thin and contextual) to the bureaucratic fabric/new user obstacle course. SnowRise let's rap11:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The more I read this discussion, the more it seems like this wouldn't solve the majority of what it sets out to solve but would create more problems while doing so, making it on balance a net negative to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Point of Order Oppose because pending changes is already too complicated and not very useful. I'm a pending changes reviewer and I've never rejected one on PC grounds (basically vandalism). But I often revert on normal editor grounds after accepting on PC grounds. (I suspect that many PC rejections are done for non-PC reasons instead of doing this) "Point of Order" is because the RFC is unclear on what exactly is being opposed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that what happens is that when vandals realize they will have to submit their edit for review before it goes live, that takes all the fun out of it for them because it will obviously be rejected, and they don't bother. That's pretty much how it was supposed to work. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good point, and I ask for @Awesome Aasim's clarification on whether reviewers will be able to reject edits on grounds for normal reverts combined with the EC restriction. I think there's enough rationale to apply this here beyond the initial rationale for PC as explained by JSS above. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are given specific reasons for accepting edits (see Wikipedia:Pending changes § Reviewing pending edits) to avoid overloading them with work while processing pending changes expeditiously. If the reasons are opened up to greater evaluation of the quality of edits, then expectations may shift towards this being a norm. Thus some users are concerned this will create a hierarchy of editors, where edits by non-reviewers are gated by reviewers. isaacl (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and wonder how the reviewer proposes to address this. I would still support this proposal if having reviewers reject according to whether they'd revert and "ostensibly" to enforce EC is to be the norm, albeit to a lesser extent for the reasons you mentioned (though I'd replaced "non-reviewers" with "all non–auto-accepted"). Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to whom you are referring when you say "the reviewer" – you're the one suggesting there's a rationale to support more reasons for rejecting a pending change beyond the current set. Since any pending change in the queue will prevent subsequent changes by non-reviewers from being visible to most readers, their edits too will get evaluated by a single reviewer before being generally visible. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Aasim, the nominator. I made a thinko. Currently, reviewers can undo just the edits that aren't good and then approve the revision of their own revert. I thought that was what we were supposed to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anything that is obvious vandalism or a violation of existing Wikipedia's policies can still be rejected. However, for edits where there is no other problem, the edit can still be accepted. In other words, a user not being extended confirmed shall not be sufficient grounds for rejecting an edit under PCECP, since the extended confirmed user takes responsibility for the edit. If the extended confirmed user accepts a bad edit, it is on them, not whoever made it. That is the whole idea.
Of course obviously helpful changes such as fixing typos and adding up-to-date information should be accepted sooner, while more controversial changes should be discussed first. AwesomeAasim17:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but also edits made in violation of an already well-established consensus. Edits that enforce a clearly-established consensus (proven by previous talk page discussion), are, from my understanding, exempt from all WP:EW restrictions. AwesomeAasim18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thryduulf and SnowRose. Also regardless of whether this is a good idea as a policy, FlaggedRevs has a large amount of technical debt, to the extent that deployment to any additional WMF wikis is prohibited, so it seems unwise to expand its usage. novovtalkedits19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the more productive approach would be to reduce the overuse of extended-confirmed protection. We have come to rely on it too much. This would be technically difficult and complex for little real gain. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. How can we know that the 72,802 extended-confirmed users are capable of reviewing pending changes? I assume this is a step above normal PCP (eg. pcp is preferred over pcecp), how can reviewing semi-protected pending changes have a higher bar (requiring a request at WP:PERM) than reviewing extended-protected pending changes? Doesn't make much sense to me. — BerryForPerpetuity(talk)14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but assuming this will work the same as PCR, isn't it possible that an extended-confirmed user who doesn't want to review edits, will try to edit a PCECP page, and be required to review edits beforehand? They're not actively seeking out to review edits in the same way that a PCR or someone who handles edit requests does. Will their review be on par with the scrutiny required for this level of protection? — BerryForPerpetuity(talk)14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to review edits to edit the pending version of the page, which is what happens when you press save on a page with pending edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the case that reviewers need to check a page's pending changes to edit a page? Either way, the point of "what would constitute a revert" needs to be discussed and decided on before we start to implement this, which I appreciate you discussing above. — BerryForPerpetuity(talk)15:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we know that the 72,734 extended-confirmed users are capable of reviewing pending changes? This isn't about pending changes level 1. This is about pending changes as applied to enforce ECP, with the level [auto-accept=extendedconfirmed] [review=extendedconfirmed]. As this is only intended to be used for WP:ARBECR restricted pages, it shouldn't be used for anything else.
What might need to happen for this to work is there are ways to configure who can auto-accept and review changes individually (rather than bundled as is right now) with the FlaggedRevs extension. Something like this for these drop-downs:
Auto-accept:
All users
Autoconfirmed
Extended confirmed
Template editor
Administrators
Review:
Autoconfirmed
Extended confirmed and reviewers
Template editors and reviewers
Administrators
Of course, autoreview will have auto-accept perms regardless of these settings, and review will have review perms regardless of these settings. AwesomeAasim16:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, and I'm aware this isn't about level 1. I'm not strongly opposed to PCECP, but my original point was talking about the difference in reviewer requirements for semi-protected PC and XCON PC. If this passes, it would make reviewing semi-protected pending changes require a permission request, but reviewing extended-protected pending changes would only require being extended-confirmed. If that could be explained so I could understand it better, I'd appreciate it.
This also relates to edit requests. XCON users are capable of reviewing edit requests, because they don't have to implement what the request was verbatim. If a user makes a request that has good substance, but has a part that doesn't adhere to some policy (MOS, NPOV, ect), the reviewer can change it to fit policy. With pending changes, there's really no way to do that besides editing the accepted text after accepting it. The edit request reviewer can ask for clarification on something, add notes, give a reason for declining, ect.
Especially on pages that have ARBCOM enforcement on them, the edit request system is far better than the pending changes system. This approach seems to be a solution for the problem of over-protection, which is what should actually be addressed. — BerryForPerpetuity(talk)17:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would also support this change if only reviewers may accept. I think editing a change after acceptance is superior. It makes clear which parts were written by whom (and thus much easier to satisfy our CC license). Aaron Liu (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying which specific parts were written by whom isn't necessary for the CC BY-SA license. (And since each new revision is a new derivative work, it's not that easy to isolate.) isaacl (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but there's no need to forget the attributive edit summary, which is needed when accepting edit requests. Identifying specific parts is just cleaner this way. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the change is rejected, then a user who isn't an author of the content appears in the article history. In theory that would unnecessarily entangle the user in any copyright issues that arose, or possibly defamation cases. isaacl (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should be maximizing the number of pages that are editable by all. Protection fails massively at this task. All this does is tell editors "hey don't edit this page", which is fine for certain legal pages and the main page that no one should really be editing, but for articles? There is a reason we have this thing called "code review" on Git and "peer review" everywhere else; we should be encouraging changes but if there is disruption we should be able to hold them for review so we can remove the problematic ones.
Since Wikipedia is not configured to have software-based RC patrol outside of new pages patrol (and RC patrol would be a problem anyway not only because of the sheer volume of edits but also because edits older than a certain timeframe are removed from the patrol queue), we have to rely on other software measures to hide revisions until they are approved. Specifically, RC patrol hiding all edits until approved (wikiHow does this) would be a problem on Wikipedia. But that is a tangent. AwesomeAasim19:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a reason why Git changes aren't pushed directly to the main code branch for review, and instead a pull request is sent to an integrator in order to integrate the changes. There's a bottleneck in processing the request (including integration testing). Also note with software development, rebasing your changes onto the latest integrated stream is your responsibility. The equivalent with pending changes would be for each person to revalidate their proposed change after a preceding change had been approved or rejected. Instead, the workload falls upon the reviewer. Side note: the term "code review" far predates git, and is widely used by many software development teams. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see I see. I do think we need better pending changes as the current flagged revs system sucks. Also just because a feature is turned on doesn't mean there is consensus to use it, as seen by WP:SUPERPROTECT and WP:PC2. AwesomeAasim18:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your second sentence would render everything about this to be meaningless. Plus, the community does not like unnecessarily turning features on; both of your examples have been removed. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. You're making a proposal for a new feature that has to be developed in a MediaWiki extension. If it does get developed, it won't get deployed on English Wikipedia unless there's consensus to use it. And given that the extension is not supported by the WMF right now, to the extent that it won't deploy it on new wikis, I'm not sure it has the ability to support any new version. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per JSS and others. We don't need another system just to allow the preemptive protection of pages, and allowing non-EC editors to clutter up this history in ARBECR topic areas would just create a lot of extra work with little or no real benefit. – bradv23:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who is an expert at configuring mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs will need to confirm that it is possible to simultaneously have our current type of pending changes protection plus this new type of pending changes protection. The current enwiki FlaggedRevs config looks something like the below and may not be easy to configure. You may want to ping Ladsgroup or post at WP:VPT for assistance.
Extended content
// enwiki// InitializeSettings.php$wgFlaggedRevsOverride=false;$wgFlaggedRevsProtection=true;$wgSimpleFlaggedRevsUI=true;$wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes=0;$wgFlaggedRevsAutoReview=3;$wgFlaggedRevsLowProfile=true;// CommonSettings.php$wgAvailableRights[]='autoreview';$wgAvailableRights[]='autoreviewrestore';$wgAvailableRights[]='movestable';$wgAvailableRights[]='review';$wgAvailableRights[]='stablesettings';$wgAvailableRights[]='unreviewedpages';$wgAvailableRights[]='validate';$wgGrantPermissions['editprotected']['movestable']=true;// flaggedrevs.phpwfLoadExtension('FlaggedRevs');$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote=false;$wgHooks['MediaWikiServices'][]=staticfunction(){global$wgAddGroups,$wgDBname,$wgDefaultUserOptions,$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces,$wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels,$wgFlaggedRevsTags,$wgFlaggedRevsTagsRestrictions,$wgGroupPermissions,$wgRemoveGroups;$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces[]=828;// NS_MODULE$wgFlaggedRevsTags=['accuracy'=>['levels'=>2]];$wgFlaggedRevsTagsRestrictions=['accuracy'=>['review'=>1,'autoreview'=>1],];$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['movestable']=true;// T16166$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['stablesettings']=false;// -aaron 3/20/10$allowSysopsAssignEditor=true;$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces=[NS_MAIN,NS_PROJECT];# We have only one tag with one level$wgFlaggedRevsTags=['status'=>['levels'=>1]];# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected$wgFlaggedRevsTagsRestrictions=['status'=>['review'=>1,'autoreview'=>1],];# Restriction levels for auto-review/review rights$wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels=['autoconfirmed'];# Group permissions for autoconfirmed$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['autoreview']=true;# Group permissions for sysops$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['review']=true;$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['stablesettings']=true;# Use 'reviewer' group$wgAddGroups['sysop'][]='reviewer';$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][]='reviewer';# Remove 'editor' and 'autoreview' (T91934) user groupsunset($wgGroupPermissions['editor'],$wgGroupPermissions['autoreview']);# Rights for Bureaucrats (b/c)if(isset($wgGroupPermissions['reviewer'])){if(!in_array('reviewer',$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat']??[])){// promote to full reviewers$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'][]='reviewer';}if(!in_array('reviewer',$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat']??[])){// demote from full reviewers$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'][]='reviewer';}}# Rights for Sysopsif(isset($wgGroupPermissions['editor'])&&$allowSysopsAssignEditor){if(!in_array('editor',$wgAddGroups['sysop'])){// promote to basic reviewer (established editors)$wgAddGroups['sysop'][]='editor';}if(!in_array('editor',$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'])){// demote from basic reviewer (established editors)$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][]='editor';}}if(isset($wgGroupPermissions['autoreview'])){if(!in_array('autoreview',$wgAddGroups['sysop'])){// promote to basic auto-reviewer (semi-trusted users)$wgAddGroups['sysop'][]='autoreview';}if(!in_array('autoreview',$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'])){// demote from basic auto-reviewer (semi-trusted users)$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][]='autoreview';}}};
I basically came here to ask if this is even possible or if it would need WMMF devs involvement or whatever.
For those unfamiliar, pending changes is not the same thing as the flagged revisions used on de.wp. PC was developed by the foundation specifically for this project after we asked for it. We also used to have WP:PC2 but nobody really knew what that was supposed to be and how to use it and it was discontinued. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what exactly is meant by "implementation". A configuration where edits by non-extendedconfirmed users need review by reviewers would probably be similar to what was removed in gerrit:/r/334511 to implement T156448 (removal of PC2). I don't know whether a configuration where edits by non-extendedconfirmed users can be reviewed by any extendedconfirmed user while normal PC still can only be reviewed by reviewers is possible or not. Anomie⚔13:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the MediaWiki documentation, it is not possible atm. That said, currently the proposal assumes that it is possible and we should work with that (though I would also support allowing all extended-confirmed to review all pending changes). Aaron Liu (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RfC summary statement is a bit incomplete. My understanding is that the pending changes feature introduces a set of rights which can be assigned to corresponding user groups. I believe all the logic is based on the user rights, so there's no way to designate that one article can be autoreviewed by one user group while another article can be autoreviewed by a different user group. Thus unless the proposal is to replace autoconfirmed pending changes with extended confirmed pending changes, I don't think saying "enabled" in the summary is an adequate description. And if the proposal is to replace autoconfirmed pending changes, I think that should be explicitly stated. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal did not specify if it assumed co-existence is possible, or enabling it is possible, which could mean replacement. Thus I feel the summary statement (before the timestamp, which is what shows up in the central RfC list) is incomplete. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While on a re-read, It is assumed that it is technically possible to have PCECP does not explicitly imply co-existence, that is how I interpreted it. Anyways, it would be wonderful to hear from @Awesome Aasim about this. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key question that ought to be clarified is if the proposal is to have both, or to replace the current one with a new version. (That ties back to the question of whether or not the arbitration committee's involvement is required.) Additionally, it would be more accurate not to use a word in the summary that implies the only cost is turning on a switch. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is assuming that we can have PC1 where only reviewers can approve edits and PCECP where only extended confirmed users can approve edits AND make edits without requiring approval. With the current iteration I don't know if it is technically possible. If it requires an extension rewrite or replacement, that is fine. If something is still unclear, please let me know. AwesomeAasim23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing the summary statement to something like, "Should a new pending changes protection level be added to Wikipedia – extended confirmed pending changes (hereby abbreviated as PCECP)?". The subsequent paragraph can provide the further explanation on who would be autoreviewed and who would serve as reviewers with the new proposed level. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think inclusion of the preemptive-protection part in the background statement is causing confusion. AFAIK preemptive protection and whether we should use PCECP over ECP are separate questions. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q2: If this proposal passes, should PCECP be applied preemptively to WP:ARBECR topics?
Also to add on there needs to be some enforcement measure for WP:ARBECR. No technical enforcement measures on WP:ARBECR is akin to site-banning an editor and then refusing to block them because "blocks should be preventative". AwesomeAasim19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking a site-banned user is preventative, because if we didn't need to prevent them from editing they wouldn't have been site banned. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, including on talk pages. With edit requests mostly dealt with through pending changes, protecting the talk pages too should limit the disruption and unconstructive comments that are often commonplace there. (Changing my mind, I don't think applying PCECP on all pages would be a constructive solution. The rules of ARBECR limit participation to extended-confirmed editors, but the spirit of the rules has been to only enforce that on pages with actual disruption, not preemptively. 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to disagree with the "no" argument entirely - we should be preemptively ECPing (even without pending changes). It's a perversion of logic to say "you can't (per policy) do push this button", and then refuse to actually technically stop you from pushing the button even though we know you could. * Pppery *it has begun...20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Summoned by bot): While I disagree with ECR in general, this is a better way of enforcing it as long as it exists. Constructive "edit requests" can be accepted, and edits that people disagree with can be easily reverted. I'm slightly concerned with how this could affect the pending changes backlog (which has a fairly small number of active reviewers at the moment), but I'm sure that can be figured out. CFA💬23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Preemptive PCECP)
No, I don't think this is necessary at this time. I think it should be usable there, but I don't feel like this is a necessary step at this time. We could revisit it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we still shouldn't be protecting preemptively. Wait until there's disruption, and then choose between PCXC or regular XC protection (I would strongly favour the former for the reasons I gave above). Cremastra (u — c) 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I feel this would be a bad idea. Critics of Wikipedia already use the idea that it's controlled by a select group, this would only make that misconception more common. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. No need for protection if there is no disruption. The number of protected pages should be kept low, and the number of pages that cry out "look at me!" on your watchlist (anything under pending changes) should be as close to zero as possible. —Kusma (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for protection if there is no disruption. Trouble is, the ECR restriction is enacted in response to widespread disruption, this time to the entire topic area as a whole. Disregard for POV, blatant inclusion of unverifiable or false (unreliable) information, and more all pose serious threats of disruption to the project. If WP:ARBECR was applied broadly without any protection I would agree, but WP:ARBECR is applied in response to disruption (or a serious threat of), not preemptively. Take this one for example, which is a long winded ANI discussion that ended in the WP:GS for the Russo-Ukranian War (and the ECR restrictions). And as for Arbitration Committee, ArbCom is a last resort when all other attempts to resolve disruption fail. See WP:ARBPIAWP:ARBPIA2WP:ARBPIA3WP:ARBPIA4. The earliest reference to the precursor to ARBECR in this case is on the third ArbCom case. Not protecting within a topic area that has a high risk of disruption is akin to having a high-risk template unprotected. The only difference is that carelessly editing a high-risk template creates technical problems, while carelessly editing a high-risk topic area creates content problems.
Either the page is protected technically (which enforces a community or ArbCom decision that only specific editors are allowed in topic areas) or the page is not protected technically but protected socially (which then gives a chance of evasion). I see this situation no different from banning an editor sitewide and then refusing to block them on the grounds that "blocks should only be used to prevent disruption" while ignoring the circumstances leading up to the site ban.
What PCECP would do is allow for better enforcement of the community aspect. New editors won't be bitten, if they find something that needs fixing like a typo, they can make an edit and it can get approved. More controversial edits will get relegated to the talk page where editors not banned from that topic area can discuss that topic. And blatant POV pushing and whatnot would get reverted and would never even be seen by readers.
The workflow would look like this: new/anon user make an edit → edit gets held for review → extended confirmed user approves the edit. Rather than the current workflow (and the reason why preemptive ECP is unpopular): new/anon user makes an edit → user is greeted with a "this page is protected" message → user describes what they would like to be changed but in a badly formulated way → edit request gets closed as "unclear" or something similar. AwesomeAasim14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this POV change made to a topic that I presume is covered under WP:ARBPIA and that is not protected. The whole reason that there is WP:ARBECR is to prevent stuff like this from happening. There already is consensus either among arbitrators or among the community to enact ECR within specific contentious topic areas, so I don't see how it is productive to refuse to protect pages because of "not enough disruption" when the entire topic area has faced widespread disruption in the past. AwesomeAasim18:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. We should be quicker to apply protection in these topics than we would elsewhere, but not preemptively except on highly visible pages (which, in these topics, are probably ECP-protected anyway). Animal lover|666|17:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying such a discussion exists, but changes to Arbitration remedies/discretionary sanctions are something they would want to weigh in on. Arbitration policy (which includes WP:Contentious topics) is in their wheelhouse and this would have serious implications for WP:CT/A-I and any further instances where ArbCom (rather than individual editors, as a discretionary sanction) would need to resort to a 500/30 rule as an explicit remedy. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques04:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my reading of WP:ARBECR. Specifically, On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by...the use of pending changes... (bold added by me for emphasis). But if there is consensus not to use this preemptively so be it. AwesomeAasim05:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the forward thinking that PCECP may want to be used in Arb areas, this feels like a considerable muddying of the delineation between the Committee's role and the community's role. Traditionally, Contentious Topics have been the realm of ArbCom, and General Sanctions have been the realm of the Community. Part of the logic comes down to who takes the blame when things go wrong. The Community shouldn't take the blame when ArbCom makes a decision, and vice versa. Part of the logic is separation of powers. If the community wants to say "ArbCom, you will enforce this so help you God," then that should be done by amending ArbPol. Part of the logic is practical. If the community creates a process that adds to an existing Arb process, what happens when the Arbs want to change that process? Or even end it altogether? Bottomline: Adopting PCECP for ARBECR is certainly something ArbCom could do. But I'd ask the community to consider the broader structural problems that would arise if the community adopted it on behalf of ArbCom. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓05:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'd say ArbCom should be able to override the community if they truly see such action fit and worthy of potential backlash. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a terminology note, although I appreciate many think of general sanctions in that way, it's defined on the Wikipedia:General sanctions page as ... a type of Wikipedia sanctions that apply to all editors working in a particular topic area. ... General sanctions are measures used by the community or the Arbitration Committee ("ArbCom") to improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area.. Thus the contentious topics framework is a form of general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the general point: I agree that it is cumbersome for the community to impose a general sanction that is added on top of a specific arbitration remedy. I would prefer that the community work with the arbitration committee to amend its remedy, which would facilitate keeping the description of the sanction and logging of its enforcement together, instead of split. (I appreciate that for this specific proposal, logging of enforcement is not an issue.) isaacl (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed started off as an arbcom concept - 500 edits/30 days - which the community then choose to adopt. ArbCom then decided to make its remedy match the community's version - such that if the community were to decide extended confirmed were 1000 edits/90 days all ArbCom restrictions would update. I find this a healthy feedback loop between ArbCom and the community. The community could clearly choose (at least on a policy level, given some technical concerns) to enact PCECP. It could choose to apply this to some/all pages. If it is comfortable saying that it wants to delegate some of which pages this applies to the Arbitration Committee I think it can do so without amending ArbPol. However, I think ArbCom could could decide that PCECP would not apply in some/all CTOP areas given that the Committee is exempt from consensus for areas with-in its scope. And so it might ultimately make more sense to do what isaacl suggests. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "contentious topics" procedure does seem like something that the community should absolutely mirror and that ultimately both the community and ArbCom should work out of. If one diverges, there is probably a good reason why it diverged.
As for the broader structural problems that would arise if the community adopted it on behalf of ArbCom, there are already structural problems with general sanctions because of the community's failure to adopt the new CTOP procedure for new contentious topics. Although the community has adopted the contents of WP:ARBECR for other topic areas like WP:RUSUKR, they don't adopt it by reference but by copying the whole text verbatim. AwesomeAasim17:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same structural problem. The community hasn't had a lot of discussion about adopting the contentious topic framework for its own use (in my opinion, because it's a very process-wonky discussion that doesn't interest enough editors to generate a consensus), but that doesn't interfere with how the arbitration committee uses the contentious topic framework. This proposal is suggesting that the community automatically layer on its own general sanction on top of any time the arbitration committee decides to enact a specific sanction. Thus the committee would have to consider each time whether or not to override the community add-on, and amendment requests might have to be made both to the committee and the community. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to contentious topics there were discretionary sanctions. Those became very muddled and so the committee created Contentious topics to help clarify the line between community and committee (disclosure: I help draft much of that work). As part of that the committee also established ways for the community to tie-in to contentious topics if it wanted. So for the community hasn't made that choice which is fine. But I do this is an area that, in general, ArbCom does better than the community because there is more attention paid to having consistency across areas and when a problem arises I have found (in basically this one area only) ArbCom to be more agile at addressing it. But the community is also more willing to pass a GS than ArbCom is to designate something a CT (which I think is a good hting all around) and so having the community come to consensus about how, if at all, it wants to tie in to CT (and its evolutions) or if it would prefer to do its own thing (including just mirroring whatever happens to be in CT at the time but not subsequent changes) would probably be a good meta discussion to have. But it also doesn't seem necessary for this particular proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q3: If this proposal does not pass, should ECP be applied preemptively to articles under WP:ARBECR topics?
Support (preemptive ECP)
Support as a second option, but only to articles. Talk pages can be enforced solely through reverts and short protections so I see little reason why those should be protected. AwesomeAasim 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Moved to oppose. AwesomeAasim19:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for articles per Aasim. Talk pages still need to be open for edit requests. (Also changing my mind, per above. If anything, we should clarify ARBECR so that the 500-30 limit is only applied in cases where it is needed, not automatically, to resolve the ambiguity. 20:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chaotic Enby and Pppery above and think all CT articles should be protected. I am generally not a fan of protecting Talk pages, but it's true that many CT Talk pages are cesspools of hate, so I am not sure where I sit on protecting Talk pages. Toadspike[Talk]20:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current wording of ARBECR, When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area. We should protect pages, rather than letting new editors edit and then reverting them for basically no reason. This is a waste of their time and very BITEy.
I am not opposed to changing the wording of ARBECR to forbid reverting solely because an editor is not extended confirmed, which is a silly reason to revert otherwise good edits. However, until ArbCom changes ARBECR, we are stuck with the rules we have. We ought to make these rules clear to editors before they edit, by page protection, instead of after they edit, by reversion. Toadspike[Talk]10:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support preemptive ECP without PCECP (for article space only). If we have a strict policy (or ArbCom ruling) that a class of user is forbidden to edit a class of page, there is no downside whatever to implementing that policy by technical means. All it does is stop prohibited edits. The consequences would all be positive, such as removing the need for constant monitoring, reducing IP vandalism to zero, and reducing the need to template new editors who haven't learned the rules yet. What I'd like with regard to the last one, is that a non-EC editor sees an "edit" button on an ECP page but clicking it diverts them to a page that explains EC and how to get it. Zerotalk05:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (preemptive ECP)
Oppose because I think this is a bad idea. For one thing, just making a list of all the covered articles could produce disputes that we don't need. (This article might be covered, but is it truly covered? Reasonable people could easily disagree about whether some articles are "mostly" about the restricted area vs "partly", and therefore about whether the rule applies.) Second, where a serious and obvious problem, such as blatant vandalism, is concerned, it would be better to have an IP revert it than to mindlessly follow the rules. It is important to remember that our rules exist as a means to an end. We follow them because, and to the extent that, they help overall. We expect admins and other editors to exercise discretion. It is our policy that Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This is a proposal to declare that the IAR policy never applies to the rule about who should normally be editing these articles, and that exercising discretion is not allowed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither Arb nor admin, but I think the words "broadly construed" are specifically chosen so that if a topic is "partly" about the restricted area, it is included in the CTOP. @WhatamIdoing, could you please show me an example of a case where CTOP designation or ECP was disputed? Toadspike[Talk]10:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I avoid most of those articles, but consider "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted": Does that include BLPs who come from Israel/Palestine? What about BLPs who are in the news because of what they said about the Israel–Hamas war? IMO reasonable people could disagree about whether "every person living in the affected area" or "every person talking about the conflict" is part of "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Miller is what we call a "partial" Arbpia. So while it's a BLP in general, parts of it are subject to Arbpia/CT, not a particularly unusual situation. The talkpage and edit notices should, but don't always, tell you whether it is or isn't, part of. Selfstudier (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAR stands for IgnoreAllRules. The latter two cannot be claimed valid based on IgnoreAllRules because they don't have strong IgnoreAllRules arguments for what they did, not because IgnoreAllRules somehow only applies to content. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "ignore all rules" applies to rules – including rules about behavior. ARBPIA is a rule about behavior. IAR therefore applies to ARBPIA.
Of course, if breaking the rule doesn't prove helpful to Wikipedia in some way, then no matter what type of rule it is, you shouldn't break the rule. We have a rule against bad grammar in articles, and you should not break that rule. But when two rules conflict – say, the style rule of "No bad grammar" and the behavioral rule of "No editing this ARBPIA article while logged out, even if it's because you're on a public computer and can't remember your password" – IAR says you can choose to ignore the rule that prevents you from improving Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there's already precedent for preemptive protection at e.g. RFPP, I do not like this. For one, as talk pages (and, by extension, edit requests) cannot use the visual editor, this makes it much harder for newcomers to contribute edits, often unnecessarily on articles where there are no disruption. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mu - This is basically my reading of the 500/30 rule as writ. Anything that would fall into the 500/30'd topic should be XCP'd on discovery. It's worth noting I don't view this as anywhere close to ideal but then neither did ArbCom, and given the circumstances of the real-world ethnopolitical conflict only escalating as of late (which in turn feeds the disruption) the only other - even worse - option would be full-protection across the board everywhere in the area. So why am I not arguing Support? Because just like the question above, this is putting the cart before the horse and this is better off being discussed after this RfC ends, not same time as. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, pages that do not experience disruption should be open to edit. Pending changes should never become widely used to avoid situations like dewiki's utterly absurd 53-day backlog. —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose, again Kusma puts it excellently. Protection should always be the exception, not the norm. Even in the Israel-Palestine topic area most articles do not experience disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RUNAWAY sums up some of the tactics used by disruptive editors: namely Their edits are limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch and Conversely, their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles to make it less likely that any given user watches a sufficient number of affected articles to notice the disruptions. If a user is really insistent on pushing their agenda, they might not be able to push it on the big pages, they may push it on some of the smaller pages where their edits may get unwatched for months if not years. Then, researchers digging up information will come across the POV article and blindly cite it. Although Wikipedia should never be cited as a source, it still happens. AwesomeAasim14:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The number of revisions within the PIA topic area that violate the ARBECR rule is not measured. It is not currently possible to say anything meaningful about the amount of 'disruption' in the topic area by non-EC IPs and accounts. And the way people estimate the amount of 'disruption' subjectively depends on the timescale they choose to measure it. Nobody can see all of the revisions and the number of people looking is small. Since the ARBECR rule was introduced around the start of 2020, there have been over 71,000 revisions by IPs to articles and talk pages within the subset of the PIA topic, about 11,000 pages, used to gather statistical data (ARBPIA templated articles and articles that are members of both wikiproject Israel and wikiproject Palestine). Nobody has any idea how many of those were constructive, how many were disruptive, how many involved ban-evading disposable accounts etc. And yet, this incomplete information situation apparently has little to no impact on the credence we all assign to our views about what would work best for the PIA topic area. I personally think it is better to dispense with non-evidence-based beliefs about the state of the topic area at any given time and simply let the servers enforce the rule as written in WP:ARBECR, "only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions...". Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make sense, but I am not sure if this is meant to be an oppose. Personally, since there hasn't been much big outrage not solved by a simple RfPP, anecdotally I see no problem with the status quo on this question. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As OP I am actually starting to lean weak oppose unless if we have a robust and new-user-friendly edit request system (which currently we don't). We already preemptively protect templates used on a lot of pages for technical reasons, and I don't think new users are at all going to be interested in templates so our current edit request system works decent for templates, modules, code pages, etc. When we choose to protect it should be the same as blocking which is the risk of disruption for specific pages or topic areas, using previous disruption to hope predict the future. Users already have a hard time submitting edit requests for pages not within contentious topic areas, so as it stands right now preemptive protection will do more harm than good. AwesomeAasim19:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q4: Should there be a Git-like system for submitting and reviewing edits to protected pages?
This behaves a little like pending changes, but with a few different things:
There would be an additional option entitled "allow users to submit edits for review" in the protection window. There could also be a specific user group able to accept such edits.
Instead of the standard "protected page text" informing the user is protected, when this option is enabled, the user is given a message something like "This page is currently protected, so you are currently submitting an edit request. Only when your change is approved will your edit be visible." An edit summary as well as a more detailed explanation into the review can be provided. Same for title blacklisted pages. However, the "permission error" will still show for attempting to rename the page, as well as for cases where a user cannot edit a page for a reason other than protection (like being blocked from editing).
All the changes submitted for review end up in some namespace (like Review:1234567) with the change id. Only users with the ability to edit the page or accept the revision would be able to see these changes. There would also be the ability to discuss each change on the talk page for that change or something similar. This namespace by design will be unprotectable.
Users with the ability to edit the page (or when a higher accept level is selected, users with that accept level) are given the ability to merge these changes in. Administrators can delete changes just like they can delete individual revisions, and these changes can also be suppressed just like individual revisions.
Changes are not directly committed to the edit history, unlike the current pending changes system; only to the page in the Review: namespace.
This would be a major improvement over our edit request system which ONLY allows a user to write what they want changed, and that is often prone to stuff that is not WP:CHANGEXY. If there are merge conflicts preventing a clean merge then the person who submitted the edit or the reviewer will have to manually fix it before it merges cleanly. If this path is chosen we can safely retire pending changes. AwesomeAasim18:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Survey (Q4)
Support failing Q1, as it streamlines the experience for making edit requests, especially for new users. I have had ideas for scripts to make the experience of submitting an edit request a lot easier but none has really come to fruition. I still don't entirely agree with the arguments with Q2 and Q3, but I am starting to agree that that is putting the pen before the pig and thus can be closed as premature, unless if there is an emerging consensus that pages being within a topic area should not be protected for being within that particular topic area. AwesomeAasim18:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in theory, but wait to see if this is technically possible to implement. While a clear improvement, it will likely require quite some amount of work (and workshopping) for implementation. While a non-binding poll to gauge community interest is a good thing, having a full RfC to adopt this before coding has even begun is way too premature. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon to know. Once it is known that it is technically possible and you have mockups of things like interfaces and details of how it would handle a range of common real-world scenarios then we can discuss whether it would make sense to implement it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before proposing something like this, first find out whether it is possible. If it isn't currently possible but could be, work out structures and how it will work, at least broadly. Then find out whether enough people want it that someone spending the time to make it will be worthwhile. You can't just assume that anything you want is technically possible and that if enough other people also want it that developers will make it for you. Some relatively simple, uncontroversial feature requests, with demonstrated demand, have been open tasks awaiting developer intention for over 15 years. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an actual developer, this seems like it would be possible in the technical sense, but also a sufficiently large project that it won't actually get done unless some WMF team takes the initiative to do it. This would likely amount to writing a new extension, which would have to go through the review queue, whose first step now is Find at least one WMF team (or staff member on behalf of their team) to agree to offer basic support for the extension for when it's deployed to Wikimedia Production. And I have no idea what team would support this. Moderator Tools would be my first guess, but they refused to support Adiutor even when it was actually coded up and ready to go and is much simpler, so they definitely won't. I personally think this requirement is unnecessary (and hypocritical), and the WMF needs to stop stifling volunteers' creativity, but there's nothing I can do about it now. And all of this is despite the fact that I think there's actually some merit to the idea. * Pppery *it has begun...04:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Q4)
If additional proposals come (seems unlikely), I wonder if this might be better split as a "pending changes review" or something similar. AwesomeAasim18:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, please stop calling this a git-like system. The real essence of version control systems is branching history. Plus one of the key principles for git is to enable developers to keep the branching history as simple as possible, with changes merged cleanly into an integration branch, so proposed changes never show up in the history of the integration branch.
I would prefer keeping the article history clear of any edit requests. There could be a tool that would clone an article (or designated sections) to a user subpage, preserving attribution in the edit summary. The user could make their changes on that page, and then a tool could assist them in creating an edit request. Whoever processes the request will be able to review the diff on the subpage. If the current version of the article has changed significantly, they can ask the requester to rebase the page to the current version and redo their change. I think this approach simplifies both creating and reviewing a proposed change, and helps spread the workload of integrating changes when they pile up. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It won't. If the change is not merged. The point of this is the edit history remains clear up until the edit is approved. We can do some "squashing" as well as limit edits to be reviewed to the original creator. A commit on GitHub and GitLab does not show up on main until merged. It is already possible to merge two page's histories right now, this is done after cut and paste moves. This just takes it to a different level. AwesomeAasim22:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History merge isn't really the same thing, in that you can't interlace changes in the version history, but only have a "clean" merge when the two have disjoint timespans. If multiple versions of the same page are edited simultaneously before being merged, even assuming no conflicts in merging, the current histmerge system will not be able to handle it properly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't show up in the article history, then it isn't like pending changes at all, so I suggest your summary should be updated accordingly. In which case, under the hood your proposal is similar to mine; I suggest having subpages under the user page would be easier for the user to manage. Squashing shouldn't be done with the history of public branches (commits should remain fixed once they've been made known to everyone) plus rewriting history can be confusing, so I think the change history should be preserved on the working page. If you mean that the submission into the article should be one edit, sure.
My proposal was to layer on tools to assist with creating edit requests, while yours seeks to integrate the system with the edit function when a user is prevented from editing due to page protection. Thus from an implementation perspective, my proposal can be implemented independently of the rest of the MediaWiki code base (and could be done with gadgets), while yours would require changes to the MediaWiki code. Better integration of course offers a more cohesive user experience, but faces greater implementation and integration challenges. I suggest reaching out to the WMF development team to find a contact to discuss your ideas. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for now we should have JS tools, although that itself has challenges. A modification to MediaWiki core will also have challenges but it might be worth it in the long run, as Core gets regular updates to features, but extensions not always. AwesomeAasim01:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General discussion
Since we're assuming that PCECP is possible and the last two questions definitely deal with policy, I feel like maybe this should go to VPP instead, with the header edited to something like "Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics" to reflect the slightly−larger-than-advertised scope? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think policy proposals are also okay here, though I see your point. There is definitely overlap, though. This is both a request for a technical change as well as establishing policy/guidelines around that technical change (or lack thereof). AwesomeAasim00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this proposal is accepted, my assumption is that we'd bring back the ORANGELOCK which was used for the original incarnation of Pending Changes Level 2. There's a proposed lock already at File:Pending_Changes_Protected_Level_2.svg, though it needs fixes in terms of name (should probably be something like Pending-level-2-protection-shackle.png or Extended-pending-protection-shackle.png), SVG code (the top curve is a bit cut off), and color (should probably be darker but still clearly distinguishable from REDLOCK). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs)21:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think light blue is a better color for this. But in any case we will probably need a lock with a checkmark and the letter "E" for extended confirmed. AwesomeAasim22:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually starting to wonder if "protection" is a bit of a misnomer, because technically pages under pending changes are not really "protected". Yeah the edits are subject to review, but there are no technical measures to prevent a user from editing. It is just like recent changes on many wikis; those hold edits for review until they are approved, but they do not "protect" the entire wiki. AwesomeAasim23:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to withdraw Q2 and Q3 for putting the pen before the pig, but I did realize I added a couple more comments particularly to Q2. I did add a Q4 that might be more actionable and that is about making the experience of submitting edit requests a lot better. I am starting to agree though for Q2 and Q3 everything that has needed to be said has been said so the proposals can be withdrawn.
We do need to consider the experience of the users actually being locked out of this. I understand the opposition to Q3 (and in fact just struck my !vote because of this). But Q2? Look at the disaster that WP:V22RFC, WP:V22RFC2, and WP:V22RFC3 is. These surveys are barely representative of new users, just of experienced editors. We should absolutely be bringing new editors to the table for these discussions. AwesomeAasim19:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't pre-close. 4 of the opposers to the main proposal seem to address only Q2 instead of Q1, and I don't see anyone addressing the argument that it's less restrictive than ECP. It's up to the closer to weigh the consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add AI translation option for translating from English to non-English article.
AI certainly improved a lot by now. It can translate to many non-english language better than traditional translators . My suggestion is to add AI translation option for translating from English to non-English article. User will review the AI translation to see if its correct. It will increase the translation quality. I dont suggest using AI for English article, that could have a devastating impact. Dark1618 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's out of scope here, and would need to be asked on each and every individual language-edition of Wikipedia, as those would be the ones dictating policy for translations into their respective languages. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a translation into English be devastating, but a translation from English into any other language be acceptable? English just happens to be that most used language in the world by some measures: beyond that it has no special status. Anyway, we can not decide here what is appropriate for other language Wikipedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea! That’s actually what I was going to propose but you took it. To add to your amazing proposal, I suggest that every wiki translation must be approved by a speaker. Like If someone translated an article from English to Arabic, the translated article goes to an Arab speaker, by algorithm when the person would press a button that says “send for approval” or something like that, and the Arab person who gets the translated article will read the Wikipedia page and look for any errors, then the Arab corrects it and it gets published to the world. And why can’t the opposite happen, when an article gets translated to say french To English the same thing happens the French person machine translates the article, it gets sent to approval, a fluent English speaker goes and corrects it, then it gets published. If it is an extinct language, a person who is a professional in the language will correct it, and as for rates, I mean Wikipedia has at least 1 person who knows the language. Anyway have a good day! Cheers! Datawikiperson (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the technical backend for that tool, but I do see at English Wikipedia a constant inflow of articles translated from sister projects, usually without proper attribution, sometimes with broken templates.Some of these translations are pretty good, up to idiomatic phrasing; others have the appearance of raw machine translation, with errors no one fluent in the target language would leave in.As to the original proposal / idea, a flow of machine translations from this project to sister Wikipediae, that is indeed out of scope here, and would have to be brought up individually at each language project. Except maybe Cebuano Wikipedia. Folly Mox (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally translate from English to Chinese and vice versa, and take on some bits from Japanese and Korea projects to be translated on to here if the information and sources can be used on here. And I strongly discourage automated AI translations from English to other languages, which you are proposing, without further inputs from the targeted language projects. AI translations to other languages from English are not perfect and can have the same devastating impact you don't want to see on English Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Machine translation from English to most other languages is already enabled (and where it isn't it is a choice of the to project, not of the English Wikipedia). I don't think there is anything for us to do about this proposal? — xaosfluxTalk10:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see also WP:CXT. We should never be using AI to translate works; always humans. Yes AI is good, but just by the nature of how LLMs and neural networks work, they can't necessarily be better than humans. AI does not have any understanding of context, cultural norms, and so much more that humans do have, it just finds patterns in data to see what comes next. AwesomeAasim19:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Require 2FA for bureaucrats
Heya, I noticed a couple of weeks ago that while interface administrators and central notice administrators need 2FA, bureaucrats, who can grant interface admin don't need 2FA. To me this seems a bit weird, because if you wanted to compromise an account with access to interface admin tools, bureaucrats may not all have 2FA. Hence, I'm proposing requiring all enwiki bureaucrats to enable 2FA as a precaution. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 09:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see non-restricted adjacent bugs T242553 and T242556 were both created on 12 Jan 2020. Would it be accurate to describe this as an evaluation which has been unresolved for about 5 years? -- zzuuzz(talk)13:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per pppery and zippybonzo - should be a requirement locally. Waiting for phab tickets could take years while I imagine a RFC would pass pretty quickly. BugGhost🦗👻19:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that 'crats can assign interface admin (a role which requires 2FA) but are not required to have 2FA personally enabled is wild. Support a local rule (and hopefully the largest WMF project implementing such a rule will encourage others to make such a change). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definite support. I am personally in favor of a 2FA requirement for any privileged group, but it is something I doubt will happen anytime soon. Crats should absolutely have it enabled. EggRoll97(talk) 01:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How are you going to check whether the user enabled 2FA or not? This information is not public. Only WMF can confirm this. Ruslik_Zero20:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, stewards can check this, and we periodically audit this for compliance on projects. Also, 'crats will very likely soon be able to check this as well - just some paperwork in that way right now (primarily so they can check it before assigning intadmin to others). — xaosfluxTalk10:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because the last time I checked, WMF's self-developed version of 2FA was not really fit for purpose. It's not like they're using Duo or Google or something. If anything, I'd support removing it from the roles requiring it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It works OK, but is certainly not ready for large-scale deployment due to the support model and capacity. Staff is generally responsive to recovery requests for those that WMF requires enrollment though. — xaosfluxTalk10:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in theory - I use 2FA as a crat. Makes all the sense to me. As Xaos says above it's not ideal how it's setup. If it was just a "should this user group use 2FA", then I think yes. And, I'd argue administrators should as well. I can't support the technical solution we currently have being rolled out further without more Dev time. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. This is an security oversight. Regardless of the issues with WMF's 2FA this is still a flaw in the current security model since an attacker could gain interface admin without bypassing 2FA Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Floq, plus it's not clear how we're enforcing this: either we're revoking permissions (in which case several crats will lose the bit on inactivity alone) or we're not (in which case we're no more secure than before). A much better solution would be to just put the stewards in charge of adding/removing intadmin. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I support implementing phab:T282624, which would make IA a steward-only thing. 2FA for interface admins is required by WMF, and only stewards can check whether the requirement is being followed. Letting 'crats check whether 2FA is enabled is stuck in phab purgatory, though there has been some movement in 2024. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Should a blackout be organized in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's actions?
I think we should have infoboxes for rituals and cultural practices, as studied in anthropology and religious studies. Parameters like associated culture, associated religion, purpose, origin, place, whether or not it is extinct, and when it is observed could be included. Examples of articles that could benefit are Akazehe, Savika, Sikidy, Haka, Bar Mitzvah, Quinceañera, Nggàm, and Hajj. ꧁Zanahary꧂19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there’s not really enough fields they’d have in common. Although I personally believe that every article that has an applicable infobox should use it, there’s also many articles that work best without them. novovtalkedits10:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, infoboxes work best when there are a number of basic uncontroversial factual characteristics that are shared by a group of articles. That's very far from the case here. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski Even the most diehard of infobox supporters recognise that infoboxes don't work on every page (broad, abstract concepts like Love and Existence for example) and that is one reason why we don't have (and never will have) any requirement for every article to have an infobox. That doesn't in any way preclude setting a policy that specific subsets of articles where they are uncontroversially useful (e.g. countries and NFL teams) must have an infobox if we wanted to. Some of the types of articles mentioned could have useful infoboxes (Hajj already does for example) not all of them can, so the OP's suggestion would not be a good set for such a policy, but that's not an argument against any set being appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A recent attempt to impose an all-infobox policy failed emphatically, reinforcing the long-standing position the they are not compulsory. And in many areas, the approach using a specific template will not be suitable, for the reasons I gave above. If many "helpful" editors see a template with blank fields, they will attempt to fill them, regardless of appropriateness. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In re "editors see a template with blank fields, they will attempt to fill them": I think I see less of that these days than I used to. I'm not sure why (infoboxes are less empty? Fewer stray fields are listed? The visual editor hides the 'missing' lines from new editors? I dunno, but it's been a long while since I noticed someone filling in all the blanks on any article in my watchlist.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Or even if they're not filled in the wikitext, I think there's a certain amount of content that feels "normal", and if it displays some low but still normal-ish amount when reading, then people don't think that something's missing, so they don't try to "improve" it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to update WP:NBAND to be explicitly constrained by WP:GNG
A single discussion where somebody argues something that does not gain consensus is not evidence of a problem, let alone evidence that the proposed change would solve that problem. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a feature, not a bug; "or" does not mean "and". That WP:BAND currently circumvents WP:GNG is either trivially true (as creating subject-specific notability guidance outside of the GNG is the whole point of a WP:SNG) or arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the subject-specific notability guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the subject-specific notability guidelines. That might actually be what is at issue - there seem to be two different understandings of what SNG's are - supporting GNG or an alternative to it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this in the other village pump thread, but while I'm generally fine with this proposal, I don't think it's coming from a place of understanding.
Basically, there's an assumption happening that record labels work off some kind of predictable tier system, where the Big 3 labels are home to the most famous artists, indie labels are home to the semi-famous ones, and everyone else is a non-notable bottom feeder. That's not how it works. One of the more notable albums of the year is Cindy Lee's Diamond Jubilee, which was self-released. Meanwhile, there are artists on the Big 3 who I would guess probably don't have significant coverage. This is because music journalism is dying, no one has staff and no one has money, and the range of artists being covered has shrunk dramatically. See this Columbia Journalism Review article for further on that.
So in other words, I don't think criterion 5 in NBAND is good or useful, but for the opposite reasons that this proposal suggests. The problem is not that people's random garage bands will be considered a "label." The problem is there is less and less correlation between being signed to a label and having significant coverage. (Ironically, the "albums" criterion is probably the more stringent one, because labels are less and less likely to put out a full-length album by an artist that isn't already established via singles and streaming tracks.)
I don't know what to do with that. (I honestly think the collapse of journalism and the shrinking scope of what gets reported on is a ticking time bomb for notability criteria across the board, but that's a whole other topic.) The most straightforward solution is to use WP:GNG, but I think it's important to have a correct understanding of exactly what musicians we're talking about here. The bar is way, way, way higher than "run of the mill non-notable items" now. The bar is one or two tiers below Sabrina Carpenter. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: One way that this criterion could have value is to serve as a reminder that one Google search is not a sufficient WP:BEFORE check, because artists on notable labels are likely to have received coverage in print. (Another way this proposal is misinformed
I'd love to make BEFORE specifically include looking where sources are most likely to be found and explicitly state that looking at the first few pages of Google do not constitute a proper check. This always gets shot down in howls of protest at how dare I require people nominating pages for deletion to do more work than they imagine it took to create a three line sub-stub. I don't know how we get past this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it already does: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. The problem is that WP:BEFORE is not considered binding so there are no consequences to ignoring it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal operatively eliminates the SNG for bands. And also creates an even tougher GNG requirement than GNG by requiring that GNG compliance be demonstrated. I would like there to be some at least partial demonstration requirement added to GNG, but that's a whole 'nother issue and a secondary one in this case.
It also sort of misses the main point discussed at the linked pump discussion which was eliminating one or two items / "ways in" in the SNG.Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in line with this, NBAND can be eeaily fixed to makes sure that the idea that the criteria are a presumption of notability is added. I do not see any language like this though the intent seems to be there. That would quickly resolve one conflict. Mind you, deprecating or time gating criteria that do not make sense in modern music distribution is also a reasonable step though I would not remove them outright for historical purposes. Masem (t) 19:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was amazed by how much our guidelines were written with Western popular musicians in mind when I started editing 17 years ago and it seems that nothing has changed since. It is so much easier for such a person to have an article about them than for other types or nationalities of musician. This is so obviously caused by Wikipedia's demographics that I hesitate to say anything further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what effect imposing GNG would have on that. I've heard from some African editors that much of the real news for music and pop culture is posted on social media (i.e., actually posted on Facebook itself, not some website that's sorta kinda social media-like). So if you take away an objective but non-source-oriented criteria and substitute 'must have the kind of sources that are usual enough in the US and UK but are unusual in Nigeria', will that tip even further towards overrepresenting Western popular musicians?
My impression of the two albums/two films kinds of rules from back in the day is that the advice had more to do with WP:Build the web than with writing full articles. The expectation was that (if there weren't significant sources to justify writing more), the articles would usually be very brief ("Joe Film is an American actor who appeared in Film and Example" or "The Band is a British band who released Album in 1998 and Cover album in 2001") but that we'd still be able to provide non-red links in related pages and still not have to duplicate information. Consequently, I think the traditional thinking is closer to how we think of spinning off a list or splitting a long article, than about trying to justify the subject as "worthy" of a full, stand-alone article via extensive sourcing.
I could imagine people opposing this merely for fear of the resulting red links, and of course the idea of going beyond the GNG to require "demonstrating" it will turn off other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is established that reliable third party sources covering African music are going to include posts on social media rather than print or web publishing, then we should work to accomodate that so that we are more inclusive, rather than expect the more traditional forms of media. Masem (t) 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
speaking for myself, I never had issues with using a third party posting via something like Facebook. I've always considered that to be a statement by that third party, they're just using Facebook as the medium. Am I understanding this example correctly?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A statement by the band('s representatives) on the band's official facebook page is no more user-generated content and no less reliable than if that same statement was made by the same people was posted on the band's official website or quoted verbatim in a newspaper. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Thryduulf, that's partly what I'm referring to. Schazjmd, I am indeed familiar with that guideline. In fact, my first edit on Wikipedia was removing content that I had generated as a user on another site. I'm referring to established media outlets posting something on Facebook. Like, say, Salon posted a story on Facebook rather than on their official site. It's gone through an editorial process, they just are using Facebook as a publishing medium.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a wiki-requirement for the type of source that sources used, or even that they have sources. Of course such things still matter regarding regarding actual/ real world reliability of of the source. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So keeping in mind that I have never had a Facebook account and have no experience with social media, my impression from these editors was that when they say they get news on Facebook, it's not necessarily the band that's posting (which wouldn't be Wikipedia:Independent sources) or even news articles being shared. Instead, it could be an ordinary comment by someone whom their followers believe is knowledgeable but who is not necessarily "official". For example – and I completely make this example up; the African editors who told me about this dilemma two years ago are welcome to disavow and correct anything I say – imagine a post by a professional DJ: They'll know things about music and bands, and they'll probably know more than a magazine writer assigned to do a piece on pop music in that city/country. They are "reliable" in the sense that people "rely on" them every day of the year. But it's outside the kinds of formal structures that we use to evaluate official sources: no editor, no publisher, no fact-checker, no peer review, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for adapting guidelines and policies for geographic and cultural considerations. However, I don't think this would get far, because it's essentially a using self-published sources for BLPs issue, and that's going to be a steep climb to weaken that policy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't see any easy solution here. Even if it's not BLP-related, it relies on already knowing which accounts are the trustworthy ones, and there's no impartial way to evaluate an unfamiliar source. The post could say something like "This village is best known for cloth dyeing" or "The bus service there doesn't run on Sundays", and you'd still have to know whether that source is a good source of information. What if one person posts that the bus runs on Sundays and another person posts that it doesn't? An outsider would have no way of knowing which to trust. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought the the reason "two or more" was specified was that if there was only one the name could be redirected. Since that time there seems to have developed a dislike for stubs. I don't know where that came from (most articles in most traditional encyclopedias only consisted of one or two sentences, if that) but in order to satisfy that dislike maybe criterion 6 should be an encouragement to create a disambiguation page (or maybe a set index page, if you want to be pedantic) for the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is correct. If there's only one, then you could:
Have an article about the album
Redirect the band's name to it
Put the little bit of information you have about the band in the album article
but if there are multiple albums, then:
You can have an article about each album
But which one do you redirect the band's name to?
And do you duplicate the information about the band in each of the album articles?
So it seemed easier to have an article. Now, of course, when the median size of an article is 13 sentences and 4 refs, and when we have a non-trivial minority of editors who think even that is pathetic, there is resistance to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am interpreting this section as an RfCBEFORE, and contributing in that spirit.
Having briefly reviewed the linked discussions, I do not see a problem with NBAND itself that would justify deprecation (rather than revision). And turning NBAND into a predictor of GNG rather than a standalone SNG seems to me essentially akin to deprecation. Fixing specific criteria seems much more appropriate to me, given the issues raised to date.
There are what seem to me to be evident reasons why NBAND operates according to the same logic as NCREATIVE, which is explicitly excluded from WP:NOTINHERITED. These SNGs reflect the reality that creative people produce creative works, and that therefore the people creating those works gain encyclopedic relevance directly from having created them.
In addition, it seems to me that there are practical, navigational reasons (having to do with the affordances of hypertext, Wikipedia's list system, and Wikipedia's category system) to offer more consistent treatment rather than leaving each individual musician, each musical group and each album up to the vagaries of WP:NBASIC, WP:NORG and the WP:GNG.
There may be problems with specific NBAND criteria and the way they are sometimes used at AfD, but it seems entirely incommensurate to deprecate the whole SNG based on such marginal concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the Wikipedia norm for a "just barely made it" band has sourcing that meets a slightly lenient interpretation of GNG, and the decision is influenced by somewhat meeting an SNG criteria, thus being more conducive to artists than for example a for-profit corporation. And the "norm" means that is is how Wikipedia as a whole wants it. There are folks out there who are at the extreme deletionist end of the spectrum and they will typically say that the above is not the case and piece together an unusually strignent "letter of the law" demand, even adding some things from essays saying that three sources that 100% meet GNG is the expectation. And so while I really think that the burden should shift to providing some GNG-ish sources (vs. just saying "they are out there" without actually supplying any) I'm loath to shift the balance too much, keeping the folks at the deletionist end of the spectrum in mind.
The pump discussion started with talking about how being signed by a label is no longer as indicative as it used to be and to remove it as being a key to the city of SNG compliance. I think there was support for that.
I agree with everyone else above that this proposal would gut WP:BAND, which I am not okay with. If you want to remove some criteria of WP:BAND, like #5, which I agree is a little opaque and outdated, fine. But this seems like a sneaky way of demolishing WP:BAND without openly saying so. Toadspike[Talk]21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the point North made, that our notability rules are set up to be more conducive to artists than for example a for-profit corporation. I've never thought of our guidelines on artists as particularly lax, but I know that NCORP is purposely stringent and that is the way things should be. Toadspike[Talk]21:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disappointed at the consensus emerging here, and hopefully it might help clarify discussions. there does seem to be some consensus to ditch criterion 5. I'm happy to amend it to that particular criterion disappearing and everything else stays.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the most practical thing with criterion 5 (the one about releasing two albums on a label) would be to give it an end date. It was a useful criterion in the pre-streaming music world, so why not say "two albums on a label before 2010", or at whatever point editors decide that labels became less relevant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea but the cutoff should be earlier. The iTunes music store was founded in 2003, Spotify was founded in 2006, sometime around there would make more sense. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are specifically concerned about self-published labels (again, I think the "more important indie" labels part already rules that out anyway, but whatever), the digital distribution companies making that happen DistroKid in 2012 and CDBaby in 2004. But even those had their main impact by partnering with Spotify and iTunes respectively. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI the problem there isn't that deletion isn't one of several available options according to policy; instead, the problem is that other editors do not agree to delete it. DELPOL allows such deletions, but it does not require them, and if I want to delete the article for being IMO undersourced, but other editors show up at AFD saying things like "qualifies under NBAND 5", then the article won't actually get deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. The rules don't result in the deletions "I" want; therefore, we must change the rules so other editors can't prevent the deletions "I" want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly opposed to the proposal as written by 3family6 as it's written at Wikipedia:Band_notability_proposal now, because it still contains the same text from #5 and #6, which are the two criteria from NBAND that I am objecting to that SNG's presence in the first place. I am unfamiliar with proposal process, but 3family6 went ahead and put it together on his own and doesn't want anyone editing it now. As I said, I don't know how proposals work, but if one user puts it together and quickly puts it out for a vote, is it off limits to editing? Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making criteria 2-11 contingent on also meeting criterion 1 is a much larger (and seemingly unnecessary) change compared to removing or reformulating 5 and 6. Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yeah, why not; I didn't really see the point back then, I'm not sure, honestly, that I do now, but enough people have said it's useful work that who am I to deny it? And Graham87's obviously both good at it and committed to it. Support this proposal. SerialNumber5412912:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support. Importers are editors who are highly trusted to undertake a very specialised role and it makes sense that they be given the rights needed to fully do the job properly. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously – thanks, wow, did not expect this and I didn't know this would be feasible. As I said at my RRFA, I have my own issues with this tool (which explain why I didn't use it so much), but access to it is way better than no history-merge access at all. Graham87 (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support if technically feasible. I really opposed the RRFA because Graham87 was asking for a role we didn't have. If they can do their importing/merging work without being able to block users, I would support that. (Normally I wouldn't support a one-off solution like this but, given the rareness of this, I think it makes sense here.) Note that I would also favor further unbundling admin powers beyond this nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure. This is super niche, but basically: if someone can be trusted to be able to do an xmlimport, this is related and much less dangerous. If we're going to touch it I'm find also adding it to transwiki importers as well (even though we don't have any currenty) for parity. transwiki import is less dangerous, and most of the WP:RFPI items are able to be done that way -- in case any non-admins were looking to work in that area. — xaosfluxTalk13:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support If somebody is a importer, they can be trusted with not messing up the databases any further while apply (merge-history). Sohom (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems like a bit of an exceptional case, but I do think that it's worthwhile to allow importers to merge histories for practical reasons. And the role is so restricted that I don't have trust issues here. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got to support Graham's importer request once upon a time. Pleased to support this request as well. Even setting aside the direct impetus, this is a logical bundling of the tools that does not raise the required trust level for this small user group. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Let's at least permit Graham to continue his archaeological work. No one else does this, and it requires the mergehistory perm. Folly Mox (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously, this is invaluable work and it would be a clear negative for it to stop being done, which is effectively what would happen otherwise. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support My gut doesn't like this (mergehistory feels like a distinct permission from importer), but I do trust Graham87 to use the tool and think the chance of us ever getting any other non-admin importers is negligible, so I guess I support this. * Pppery *it has begun...01:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Importers are already highly trusted and it is granted by a steward, so this would be a narrow unbundling that would probably satisfy any WMF legal requirements. And I would trust Graham87 with this tool. Abzeronow (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Importers already can fuck with the page history a lot more than someone with history merge rights can. I see no reason to not allow importers to merge history. ThatIPEditorTalk · Contribs02:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support because if this enables work to be performed that much easier for one editor, then chances are increased for other editors to follow suit or pick up the mantle later on down the line. Thanks. Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't see a reason why not. This seems relevant to the importer group, and I'm surprised this permission isn't already included. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because importing is importing a bunch of revisions into the history of the page. It's quite similar and often needed. Those two users are the only ones who maintain this area critical to Wikipedia, and that's the system, which has persisted due to their being able to merge history; now that Graham's been stripped of history merging, half of his duty and thus a quarter of this system, we need to rectify it or risk destabilizing of the system. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The system is only two people doing this work, and we're otherwise taking away half of what one of them does. I don't see any reason not to do this. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect yes, criteria is basically a user-specific RFC. This is a super niche area; though I'd be open to expanding this permission to the less dangersour transwiki-importer group -- which also requires a per-user rfc to add too, but with a lower bar to entry. — xaosfluxTalk13:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Since the topic has come up, I've actually wanted to jump into importing for a while (I'll be quite honest, probably transwiki importing, given it seems like a better place to start out at than XML import), but how does one really get into that line of work? I presume the common answer would probably be the direction of WP:RFA, but that seems like a bit much given a right already exists that is outside of the sysop group. EggRoll97(talk) 20:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97 transwiki comes with admin, so most people that want to deal with it go that route, WP:RFA. It is possible to add transwiki in isolation - to do so start a discussion (suggest over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page importation). The discussion will need to be well advertised (WP:AN and WP:VPM are good places), run for a reasonable time to allow feedback (about a week), be well attended, and show a good consensus of support (someone else should 'close' the discussion with such showing). The bar for transwiki is generally less than for sysop, while the bar for importxml access is generally higher than sysop. At that point, it would get processed over at m:Steward requests/Permissions#Miscellaneous requests. — xaosfluxTalk11:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Yeah that. @EggRoll97:, I did notice your ping, but I wasn't sure how to respond (given that no-one,, especially a non-admin, has asked such a question before) then got distracted by other things. If you have a good idea how/where you'd like to use the import tool, feel free to float your proposal as noted in the message above. Graham87 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and no. The only way we can assign permissions is to add the permissions to a group, then users can be added to the group. It would be possible to create an entirely new group that has this permission - but that seems overkill here unless it was going to do a whole lot more (like a "technician" group that had a bunch of other sub-admin permissions). — xaosfluxTalk13:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727 those are certainly case-by-case. Sometimes historymerge is the right tool for the job. Any complicated merge/imports that require deletion are going to have to be handled by admins unless we want to make some new sub-admin technician group in the future (the community has repeatedly rejected such proposals though) which could have extra tools (like delete/undelete and others) but only be permitted to use them for certain purposes. — xaosfluxTalk14:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graham believes that the MergeHistory tool is inferior simply because it doesn't log a merge on the target page. I see no problem with this view. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Log the use of the HistMerge tool at both the merge target and merge source
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Currently, there are open phabtickets proposing that the use of the HistMerge tool be logged at the target article in addition to the source article. Several proposals have been made:
Option 1a: When using Special:MergeHistory, a null edit should be placed in both the merge target and merge source's page's histories stating that a history merge took place.
(phab:T341760: Special:MergeHistory should place a null edit in the page's history describing the merge, authored Jul 13 2023)
Option 1b: When using Special:MergeHistory, add a log entry recorded for the articles at the both HistMerge target and source that records the existence of a history merge.
(phab:T118132: Merging pages should add a log entry to the destination page, authored Nov 8 2015)
Option 2: Do not log the use of the Special:MergeHistory tool at the merge target, maintaining the current status quo.
Should the use of the HistMerge tool be explicitly logged? If so, should the use be logged via an entry in the page history or should it instead be held in a dedicated log? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1a/b. I am in principle in support of adding this logging functionality, since people don't typically have access to the source article title (where the histmerge is currently logged) when viewing an article in the wild. There have been several times I can think of when I've been going diff hunting or browsing page history and where some explicit note of a histmerge having occurred would have been useful. As for whether this is logged directly in the page history (as is done currently with page protection) or if this is merely in a separate log file, I don't have particularly strong feelings, but I do think that adding functionality to log histmerges at the target article would improve clarity in page histories. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1a/b. No strong feelings on which way is best (I'll let the experienced histmergers comment on this), but logging a history merge definitely seems like a useful feature. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b would be most important to me but but 1a would be nice too. But this is really not the place for this sort of discussion, as noted below. Graham87 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 History merging done right should be seamless, leaving the page indistinguishable from if the copy-paste move being repaired had never happened. Adding extra annotations everywhere runs counter to that goal. Prefer 1b to 1a if we have to do one of them, as the extra null edits could easily interfere with the history merge being done in more complicated situations. * Pppery *it has begun...16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expound on why they should be indistinguishable? I don't see how this could harm any utility. A log action at the target page would not show up in the history anyways, and a null edit would have no effect on comparing revisions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 History merges are already logged, so this survey name is somewhat off the mark. As someone who does this work: I do not think these should be displayed at either location. It would cause a lot of noise in history pages that people probably would not fundamentally understand (2 revisions for "please process this" and "remove tag" and a 3rd revision for the suggested log), and it would be "out of order" in that you will have merged a bunch of revisions but none of those revisions would be nearby the entry in the history page itself. I also find protections noisy in this way as well, and when moves end up causing a need for history merging, you end up with doubled move entries in the merged history, which also is confusing. Adding history merges to that case? No thanks. History merges are more like deletions and undeletions, which already do not add displayed content to the history view. Izno (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They presently are logged, but only at the source article. Take for example this entry. When I search for the merge target, I get nothing. It's only when I search the merge source that I'm able to get a result, but there isn't a way to know the merge source.
If I don't know when or if the histmerge took place, and I don't know what article the history was merged from, I'd have to look through the entirety of the merge log manually to figure that out—and that's suboptimal. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... Page moves do the same thing, only log the move source. Yet this is not seen as an issue? :)
But ignoring that, why is it valuable to know this information? What do you gain? And is what you gain actually valuable to your end objective? For example, let's take your There have been several times I can think of when I've been going diff hunting or browsing page history and where some explicit note of a histmerge having occurred would have been useful. Is not the revisions left behind in the page history by both the person requesting and the person performing the histmerge not enough (see {{histmerge}})? There are history merges done that don't have that request format such as the WikiProject history merge format, but those are almost always ancient revisions, so what are you gaining there? And where they are not ancient revisions, they are trivial kinds of the form "draft x -> page y, I hate that I even had to interact with this history merge it was so trivial (but also these are great because I don't have to spend significant time on them)". Izno (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... Page moves do the same thing, only log the move source. Yet this is not seen as an issue? :)
Page moves do leave a null edit on the page that describes where the page was moved from and was moved to. And it's easy to work backwards from there to figure out the page move history. The same cannot be said of the Special:MergeHistory tool, which doesn't make it easy to re-construct what the heck went on unless we start diving naïvely through the logs. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be *possible* to find the original history merge source page without looking through the merge log, but the method for doing so is very brittle and extremeley hacky. Basically, look for redirects to the page using "What links here", and find the redirect whose first edit has an unusual byte difference. This relies on the redirect being stable and not deleted or retargetted. There is also another way that relies on byte difference bugs as described in the above-linked discussion by wbm1058. Both of those are ... particularly awful. Graham87 (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the given example, the history-merge occurred here. Your "log" is the edit summaries. "Created page with '..." is the edit summary left by a normal page creation. But wait, there is page history before the edit that created the page. How did it get there? Hmm, the previous edit summary "Declining submission: v - Submission is improperly sourced (AFCH)" tips you off to look for the same title in draft: namespace. Voila! Anyone looking for help with understanding a particular merge may ask me and I'll probably be able to figure it out for you. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another scenario, this one from WP:WikiProject History Merge. The page history shows an edit adding +5,800 bytes, leaving the page with 5,800 bytes. But the previous edit did not leave a blank page. Some say this is a bug, but it's also a feature. That "bug" is actually your "log" reporting that a hist-merge occurred at that edit. Voila, the log for that page shows a temp delete & undelete setting the page up for a merge. The first item on the log:
clues you in to where to look for the source of the merge. Voila, that single edit which removed −5,633 bytes tells you that previous history was merged off of that page. The log provides the details. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are times where the clues are much harder to find, and even in those cases, it'd be much better to have a unified and assured way of finding the source. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1b (log only), oppose 1a (null edit). I defer to the experienced histmergers on this, and if they say that adding null edits everywhere would be inconvenient, I believe them. However, I haven't seen any arguments against logging the histmerge at both articles, so I'll support it as a sensible idea. (On a similar note, it bothers me that page moves are only logged at one title, not both.) Toadspike[Talk]17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. The merges are already logged, so there’s no reason to add it to page histories. While it may be useful for habitual editors, it will just confuse readers who are looking for an old revision and occasional editors. Ships & Space(Edits)18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But only the source page is logged as the "target". IIRC it currently can be a bit hard to find out when and who merged history into a page if you don't know the source page and the mergeperson didn't leave any editing indication that they merged something. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1B. The present situation of the action being only logged at one page is confusing and unhelpful. But so would be injecting null-edits all over the place. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. This exercise is dependent on finding a volunteer MediaWiki developer willing to work on this. Good luck with that. Maybe you'll find one a decade from now. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, more importantly, someone in the MediaWiki group to review it. I suspect there are many people, possibly including myself, who would code this if they didn't think they were wasting their time shuffling things from one queue to another. * Pppery *it has begun...06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link requires a Gerrit login/developer account to view. It was a struggle to get in to mine (I only have one because of an old Toolforge account and I'd basically forgotten about it), but for those who don't want to go through all that, that group has only 82 members (several of whose usernames I recognise) and I imagine they have a lot on their collective plate. There's more information about these groups at Gerrit/Privilege policy on MediaWiki. Graham87 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I totally forgot Gerrit behaved in that counterintuitive way and hid public information from logged out users for no reason. The things you miss if Gerrit interactions become something you do pretty much every day. If you want to count the members of the group you also have to follow the chain of included groups - it also includes https://ldap.toolforge.org/group/wmf, https://ldap.toolforge.org/group/ops and the WMDE-MediaWiki group (another login-only link), as well as a few other permission edge cases (almost all of which are redundant because the user is already in the MediaWiki group) * Pppery *it has begun...18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. This stupid RfC isn't even asking the right questions. Why did I need to delete (an expensive operation) and then restore a page in order to "set up for a history merge" Should we fix the software so that it doesn't require me to do that? Why did the page-mover resort to cut-paste because there was page history blocking their move, rather than ask a administrator for help? Why doesn't the software just let them move over that junk page history themselves, which would negate the need for a later hist-merge? (Actually in this case the offending user only has made 46 edits, so they don't have page-mover privileges. But they were able to move a page. They just couldn't move it back a day later after they changed their mind.) wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1b – changes to a page's history should be listed in that page's log. There's no need to make a null edit; pagemove null edits are useful because they meaningfully fit into the page's revision history, which isn't the case here. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing some commentary in the above RfC (on widening importer rights) as to whether or not this might be useful going forward. I do think that having the community weigh in one way or another here would be helpful in terms of deciding whether or not this functionality is worth building. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an odd thing to RFC. This is about a feature in MediaWiki core, and there are a lot more users of MediaWiki core than just English Wikipedia. However, please do post the results of this RFC to both of the phab tickets. It will be a useful data point with regards to what editors would find useful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that even if we had enough checkuser capacity to routinely run checks on every new user that doing so would be contrary to global policy. Thryduulf (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside privacy issues, the fact that the WMF wouldn't let us do it, and a few other things: Checking a single account, without any idea of who you're comparing them to, is not very effective, and the worst LTAs are the ones it would be least effective against. This has been floated several times in the much narrower context of adminship candidates, and rejected each time. It probably belongs on WP:PEREN by now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't it be automated? What are the privacy issues and what would WMF concerns be? There has to be a better system than SPI which imposes a huge burden on the filer (and often fails to catch socks) while we just leave the door open for LTAs. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be automated? We can't just block everyone who even sometimes shares an IP with someone, which is most editors once you factor in mobile editing and institutional WiFi. Even if we had a system that told checkusers about all shared-IP situations and asked them to investigate, what are they investigating for? The vast majority of IP overlaps will be entirely innocent, often people who don't even know each other. There's no way for a checkuser to find any signal in all that noise. So the only way a system like this would work is if checkusers manually identified IP ranges that are being used by LTAs, and then placed blocks on those ranges to restrict them from account creation... Which is what already happens. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that IT experts can work out a way to automate CheckUser. If someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock that should be flagged and human CheckUsers notified so they can look at the edits and the previous sock edits and warn or block as necessary. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have autoblock. For cases it doesn't catch, there's an additional manual layer of blocking, where if a sock is caught on an IP that's been used before but wasn't caught by autoblock, a checkuser will block the IP if it's technically feasible, sometimes for months or years at a time. Beyond that, I don't think you can imagine just how often "someone edits on a shared IP used by a previous sock". I'm doing that right now, probably, because I'm editing through T-Mobile. Basically anyone who's ever edited in India or Nigeria has been on an IP used by a previous sock. Basically anyone who's used a large institution's WiFi. There is not any way to weed through all that noise with automation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: An actually potentially workable innovation would be something like a system that notifies CUs if an IP is autoblocked more than once in a certain time period. That would be a software proposal for Phabricator, though, not an enwiki policy proposal, and would still have privacy implications that would need to be squared with the WMF. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Tamzin has it about right, but I want to clarify a thing. If you're hypothetically using T-Mobile (and this also applies to many other ISPs and many LTAs) then the odds are very high that you're using an IP address which has never been used before. With T-Mobile, which is not unusually large by any means, you belong to at least one /32 range which contains a number of IP addresses so big that it has 30 digits. These ranges contain a huge number of users. At the other extreme you have some countries with only a handful of IPs, which everyone uses. These IPs also typically contain a huge number of users. TLDR; is someone is using a single IP on their own then we'll probably just block it, otherwise you're talking about matching a huge number of users. -- zzuuzz(talk)03:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
T-Mobile USA is a perennial favourite of many of the most despicable LTAs, but that's besides the point. New users with an account can actually edit from T-Mobile. They can also edit from Jio, or Deutsche Telecom, Vodafone, or many other huge networks. -- zzuuzz(talk)03:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would apply to every new User as a protective measure against sockpuppetry, like a credit check before you get a card/overdraft. WP:NOTFISHING is archaic like the whole burdensome SPI system that forces honest users to do all the hard work of proving sockpuppetry while socks and vandals just keep being welcomed in under WP:AGF. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're suggesting is to just inundate checkusers with thousands of cases. The suggestion (as I understand it) removes burden from SPI filers by adding a disproportional burden on checkusers, who are already an overworked group. If you're suggesting an automated solution, then I believe IP blocks/IP range blocks and autoblock (discussed by Tamzin, above) already cover enough. It's quite hard to weigh up what you're really suggesting because it feels very vague without much detail - it sounds like you're just saying "a new SPI should be opened for every new user and IP, forever" which is not really a workable solution (for instance, 50 accounts were made in the last 15 minutes, which is about one every 18 seconds) BugGhost🦗👻18:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And most of those accounts will make zero, one, or two edits, and then never be used again. Even if we liked this idea, doing it for every single account creation would be a waste of resources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU's use their tools to identify socks when technical proof is necessary. The problem you're linking to is caused by one particular LTA account who is extremely obvious and doesn't really require technical proof to identify - check users would just be able to provide evidence for something that is already easy to spot. There's an essay on the distinction over at WP:DUCKBugGhost🦗👻14:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with Mztourist. The current system is less effective than it needs to be. Ban evading actors make a lot of edits, they are dedicated hard-working folk in contentious topic areas. They can make up nearly 10% of new extendedconfirmed actors some years and the quicker an actor becomes EC the more likely they are to be blocked later for ban evasion. Their presence splits the community into two classes, the sanctionable and the unsanctionable with completely different payoff matrices. This has many consequences in contentious topic areas and significantly impacts the dynamics. The current rules are probably not good rules. Other systems have things like a 'commitment to authenticity' and actively search for ban evasion. It's tempting to burn it all down and start again, but with what? Having said that, the SPI folks do a great job. The average time from being granted extendedconfirmed to being blocked for ban evasion seems to be going down. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, me too. I'm doubtful about everything I say because I've noticed that the chance it is slightly to hugely wrong is quite high. The EC numbers are work in progress, but I got distracted. The description "nearly 10% of new extendedconfirmed actors" is a bit misleading, because 'new' doesn't really mean new actors. It means actors that acquired EC for a given year, so newly acquired privileges. They might have registered in previous years. Also, I don't have 100% confidence in the way count EC grants because there are some edge cases, and I'm ignoring sysops. But anyway, the statement was based on this data of questionable precision. And the statement about a potential relationship between speed of EC acquisition and probability of being blocked is based on this data of questionable precision. And of course, currently undetected socks are not included, and there will be many. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in clicking through to a Google file. Here's my back-of-the-envelope calculation: We have something like 120K accounts that would qualify for EXTCONF. Most of these are no longer active, and many stopped editing so long ago that they don't actually have the user right.
Wikipedia is almost 24 years old. That makes convenient math: On average, since inception, 5K editors have achieved EXTCONF levels each year.
If the 10% estimate is true, then 500 accounts per year – about 10 per week – are being created by banned editors and going undetected long enough for the accounts to make 500 edits and to work in CTOP areas. Do we even have enough WP:BANNED editors to make it plausible to expect banned editors to bring 500 accounts a year up to EXTCONF levels (plus however many accounts get started but are detected before then)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself. I'm not interested in what interests other people or back of the envelope calculations. I'm interested in understanding the state of a system over time using evidence-based approaches by extracting data from the system itself. Let the data speak for itself. It has a lot to tell us. Then it is possible to test hypotheses and make evidence-based decisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than 100 XC socks? Or more than 100 detected socks, including socks with zero edits?
Making a lot of accounts isn't super unusual, but it's a lot of work to get 100 accounts up to 500+ edits. Making 50,000 edits is a lot, even if it's your full-time job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of users get it done in a couple of days, often through vandal fighting tools. It really is not that many when the edits are mostly mindless. nableezy - 00:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's kind of my point: "A couple of days", times 100 accounts, means 200–300 days per year. If you work five days per week and 52 weeks per year, that's 260 work days. This might be possible, but it's a full-time job.
Since the 30-day limit is something that can't be achieved through effort, I wonder if a sudden change to, say, 6 months would produce a five-month reprieve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ban evading actors who employ deception via sockpuppetry in the WP:PIA topic area are here to improve Wikipedia, from their perspective, rather than damage it. There is no need to use faith. There are statistics. There is a probability that a 'new user' is employing ban evasion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment wasn't a direct response to yours, but new users and IPs won't be able to edit in the WP:PIA topic area anyway since they need to be extended confirmed. Some1 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not hold up the way PIA handles new users and IPs, in which they are allowed to post to talk pages but then have their talk page post removed if it doesn't fall within very specific parameters, as some sort of model. CMD (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support automatically checkusering all active users (new and existing) at regular intervals. If it were automated -- e.g., a script runs that compares IPs, user agent, other typical subscriber info -- there would be no privacy violation, because that information doesn't have to be disclosed to any human beings. Only the "hits" can be forwarded to the CU team for follow-up. I'd run that script daily. If the policy forbids it, we should change the policy to allow it. It's mind-boggling that Wikipedia doesn't do this already. It's a basic security precaution. (Also, email-required registration and get rid of IP editing.) Levivich (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you've been reading the comments from people who know what they are talking about. There would be hundreds, at least, of hits per day that would require human checking. The policy that prohibits this sort of massive breach of privacy is the Foundation's and so not one that en.wp could change even if it were a good idea (which it isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A computer can be programmed to check for similarities or patterns in subscriber info (IP, etc), and in editing activity (time cards, etc), and content of edits and talk page posts (like the existing language similarity tool), with various degrees of certainty in the same way the Cluebot does with ORES when it's reverting vandalism. And the threshold can be set so it only forwards matches of a certain certainty to human CUs for review, so as not to overwhelm the humans. The WMF can make this happen with just $1 million of its $180 million per year (and it wouldn't be violating its own policies if it did so). Enwiki could ask for it, other projects might join too. Levivich (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh now I see what you mean, Levivich, good point, I guess you know what you're talking about, after all."
I seem to have missed this comment, sorry. However I am very sceptical that sockpuppet detection is meaningfully automatable. From what CUs say it is as much art as science (which is why SPI cases can result in determinations like "possilikely"). This is the sort of thing that is difficult (at best) to automate. Additionally the only way to reliably develop such automation would be for humans analyse and process a massive amount of data from accounts that both are and are not sockpuppets and classify results as one or the other, and that anaylsis would be a massive privacy violation on its own. Assuming you have developed this magic computer that can assign a likelihood of any editor being a sock of someone who has edited in the last three months (data older than that is deleted) on a percentage scale, you then have to decide what level is appropriate to send to humans to check. Say for the sake of argument it is 75%, that means roughly one in four people being accused are innocent and are having their privacy impinged unnecessarily - and how many CUs are needed to deal with this caseload? Do we have enough? SPI isn't exactly backlog free and there aren't hoards of people volunteering for the role (although unbreaking RFA might help with this in the medium to long term). The more you reduce the number sent to CUs to investigate, the less benefit there is over the status quo.
In addition to all the above, how similar is "similar" in terms of articles edited, writing style, timecard, etc? How are you avoiding legitimate sockpuppets? Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know this already but for anyone reading this who doesn't: when a CU "checks" somebody, it's not like they send a signal out to that person's computer to go sniffing around. In fact, all the subscriber info (IP address, etc.) is already logged on the WMF's server logs (as with any website). A CU "check" just means a volunteer CU gets to look at a portion of those logs (to look up a particular account's subscriber info). That's the privacy concern: we have rules, rightfully so, about when volunteer CUs (not WMF staff) can read the server logs (or portions of them). Those rules do not apply to WMF staff, like devs and maintenance personnel, nor do they apply to the WMF's own software reading its own logs. Privacy is only an issue when those logs are revealed to volunteer CUs.
So... feeding the logs into software in order to train the software doesn't violate anyone's policy. It's just letting a computer read its own files. Human verification of the training outcomes also doesn't have to violate anyone's privacy -- just don't use volunteer CUs to do it, use WMF staff. Or, anonymize the training data (changing usernames to "Example1", "Example2", etc.). Or use historical data -- which would certainly be part of the training, since the most effective way would be to put known socks into the training data to see if the computer catches them.
Anyway, training the system won't violate anyone's privacy.
As for the hit rate -- 75% would be way, way too low. We'd be looking for definitely over 90% or 95%, and probably more like 99.something percent. Cluebot doesn't get vandalism wrong 1 out of 4 times, neither should CluebotCU. Heck, if CluebotCU can't do better than 75%, it's not worth doing. A more interesting question is whether the 99.something% hit rate would be helpful to CUs, or whether that would only catch the socks that are so obvious you don't even need CU to recognize them. Only testing in the field would tell.
But overall, AI looking for patterns, and checking subscriber info, edit patterns, and the content of edits, would be very helpful in tamping down on socking, because the computer can make far more checks than a human (a computer can look at 1,000 accounts and a 100,000 edits no problem, which no human can do), it'll be less biased than humans, and it can do it all without violating anyone's privacy -- in fact, lowering the privacy violations by lowering the false positives, sending only high-probability (90%+, not 75%+) to humans for review. And it can all be done with existing technology, and the WMF has the money to do it. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more you write the clearer you make it that you don't understand checkuser or the WMF's policies regarding privacy. It's also clear that I'm not going to convince you that this is unworkable so I'll stop trying. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are are unable to distinguish between reasoned disagreement and insults, then it's not at all weird that reasoned disagreement fails to convince you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Whatever existing data set we have has too many biases to be useful for this, and this is going to be prone to false positives. AI needs lots of data to be meaningfully trained. Also, AI here would be learning a function; when the output is not in fact a function of the input, there's nothing for an AI model to target, and this is very much the case here. On Wikidata, where I am a CheckUser, almost all edit summaries are automated even for human edits (just like clicking the rollback button is, or undoing an edit is by default), and it is very hard to meaningfully tell whether someone is a sock or not without highly case-specific analysis. No AI model is better than the data it's trained on.
Also, about the privacy policy: you are completely incorrect when you "Those rules do not apply to WMF staff, like devs and maintenance personnel, nor do they apply to the WMF's own software reading its own logs". Staff can only access that information on a need to know basis, just like CheckUsers, and data privacy laws like the EU's and California's means you cannot just do whatever random thing you want with the information you collect from users about them.--Jasper Deng(talk)21:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So which part of the wmf:Privacy Policy would prohibit the WMF from developing an AI that looks at server logs to find socks? Do you want me to quote to you the portions that explicitly disclose that the WMF uses personal information to develop tools and improve security? Levivich (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Did you read the part where I mentioned privacy laws? Also, in this industry no one is allowed unfettered usage of private data even internally; there are internal policies that govern this that are broadly similar to the privacy policy. It's one thing to test a proposed tool on an IP address like Special:Contribs/2001:db8::/32, but it's another to train an AI model on it. Arguably an equally big privacy concern is the usage of new data from new users after the model is trained and brought online. The foundation is already hiding IP addresses by default even for anonymous users soon, and they will not undermine that mission through a tool like this. Ultimately, the Board of Trustees has to assume legal responsibility and liability for such a thing; put yourself in their position and think of whether they'd like the liability of something like this.--Jasper Deng(talk)22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So can you quote a part of the privacy policy, or a part of privacy laws, or anything, that would prohibit feeding server logs into a "Cluebot-CU" to find socking?
Because I can quote the part of the wmf:Privacy Policy that allows it, and it's a lot:
We may use your public contributions, either aggregated with the public contributions of others or individually, to create new features or data-related products for you or to learn more about how the Wikimedia Sites are used ...
Because of how browsers work, we receive some information automatically when you visit the Wikimedia Sites ... This information includes the type of device you are using (possibly including unique device identification numbers, for some beta versions of our mobile applications), the type and version of your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of your device's operating system, in some cases the name of your internet service provider or mobile carrier, the website that referred you to the Wikimedia Sites, which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each request you make to the Wikimedia Sites.
Put simply, we use this information to enhance your experience with Wikimedia Sites. For example, we use this information to administer the sites, provide greater security, and fight vandalism; optimize mobile applications, customize content and set language preferences, test features to see what works, and improve performance; understand how users interact with the Wikimedia Sites, track and study use of various features, gain understanding about the demographics of the different Wikimedia Sites, and analyze trends. ...
We actively collect some types of information with a variety of commonly-used technologies. These generally include tracking pixels, JavaScript, and a variety of "locally stored data" technologies, such as cookies and local storage. ... Depending on which technology we use, locally stored data may include text, Personal Information (like your IP address), and information about your use of the Wikimedia Sites (like your username or the time of your visit). ... We use this information to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and their interaction with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services. ...
We and our service providers use your information ... to create new features or data-related products for you or to learn more about how the Wikimedia Sites are used ... To fight spam, identity theft, malware and other kinds of abuse. ... To test features to see what works, understand how users interact with the Wikimedia Sites, track and study use of various features, gain understanding about the demographics of the different Wikimedia Sites and analyze trends. ...
When you visit any Wikimedia Site, we automatically receive the IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical location. ... We use this location information to make your experience with the Wikimedia Sites safer and better, to gain a greater understanding of user preferences and their interaction with the Wikimedia Sites, and to generally improve our services. For example, we use this information to provide greater security, optimize mobile applications, and learn how to expand and better support Wikimedia communities. ...
We, or particular users with certain administrative rights as described below, need to use and share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. ... We may also disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to detect, prevent, or otherwise assess and address potential spam, malware, fraud, abuse, unlawful activity, and security or technical concerns. ... To facilitate their work, we give some developers limited access to systems that contain your Personal Information, but only as reasonably necessary for them to develop and contribute to the Wikimedia Sites. ...
Yeah that's a lot. Then there's this whole FAQ that says
It is important for us to be able to make sure everyone plays by the same rules, and sometimes that means we need to investigate and share specific users' information to ensure that they are.
For example, user information may be shared when a CheckUser is investigating abuse on a Project, such as suspected use of malicious "sockpuppets" (duplicate accounts), vandalism, harassment of other users, or disruptive behavior. If a user is found to be violating our Terms of Use or other relevant policy, the user's Personal Information may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity, for example, to assist in the targeting of IP blocks or to launch a complaint to the relevant Internet Service Provider.
So using IP addresses, etc., to develop new tools, to test features, to fight violations of the Terms of Use, and disclosing that info to Checkusers... all explicitly permitted by the Privacy Policy. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich:"We, or particular users with certain administrative rights as described below, need to use and share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use" – "reasonably believed to be necessary" is not going to hold up in court when it's sweepingly applied to everyone. This doesn't even take into consideration the laws I mentioned, like GDPR. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm guessing neither are you. If you want to be the one assuming the legal liability for this, contact the board today and sign the contract. Even then they would probably not agree to such an arrangement. So you're preaching to the choir: only the foundation could even consider assuming this risk. Also, it's clear that you do not have a single idea of how developing something like this works if you think it can be done for $1 million. Something this complex has to be done right and tech salaries and computing resources are expensive.--Jasper Deng(talk)22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am suggesting does not involve sharing everyone's data with Checkusers. It's pretty obvious that looking at their own server logs is "necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use". Five people is how big the WMF's wmf:Machine Learning team is, @ $200k each, $1m/year covers it. Five people is enough for that team to improve ORES, so another five-person team dedicated to "ORES-CU" seems a reasonable place to start. They could double that, and still have like $180M left over. Levivich (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Yeah no, lol. $200k each is not a very competitive total compensation, considering that that needs to include benefits, health insurance, etc. This doesn't include their manager or the hefty hardware required to run ML workflows. It doesn't include the legal support required given the data privacy law compliance needed. Capriciously looking at the logs does not count; accessing data of users the foundation cannot reasonably have said to be likely to cause abuse is not permissible. This all aside from the bias and other data quality issues at hand here. You can delude yourself all you want, but nature cannot be fooled. I'm finished arguing with you anyways, because this proposal is either way dead on arrival.--Jasper Deng(talk)23:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a statistician/data scientist, @Levivich is correct about the technical side of this—building an ML algorithm to detect sockpuppets would be pretty easy. Duplicate user algorithms like these are common across many websites. For a basic classification task like this (basically an ML 101 homework problem), I think $1 million is about right. As a bonus, the same tools could be used to identify and correct for possible canvasing or brigading, which behaves a lot like sockpuppetry from a statistical perspective. A similar algorithm is already used by Twitter's community notes feature.
IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal side of this, and I can't comment on whether that money would be better-spent elsewhere since I don't know what the WMF budget looks like. Overall though, the technical implementation wouldn't be a major hurdle. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Building such a model is only a small part of a real production system. If this system is to operate on all account creations, it needs to be at least as reliable as the existing systems that handle account creations. As you probably know, data scientists developing such a model need to be supported by software engineers and site reliability engineers supporting the actual system. Then you have the problem of new sockers who are not on the list of sockmasters to check against. Non-English-language speakers often would be put at a disadvantage too. It's not as trivial as you make it out to be, thus I stand by my estimate.--Jasper Deng(talk)06:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to spend more time speculating about a system that WMF Legal is extremely unlikely to accept. Even if they did, it wouldn't exist until several years from now. Instead, let's try to think of things that we can do ourselves, or with only a very little assistance. Small, lightweight projects with full community control can help us now, and if we prove that ____ works, the WMF might be willing to adopt and expand it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mistake -- doing the same thing Wikipedia has been doing for 20+ years. The mistake is in leaving it to volunteers to catch sockpuppetry, rather than insisting that the WMF devote significant resources to it. And it's a mistake because the one thing we volunteers can't do, that the WMF can do, is comb through the server logs looking for patterns. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the "building an ML algorithm to detect sockpuppets would be pretty easy" part, but I admire the optimism. It is certainly the case that it is possible, and people have done it with a surprising level of success a very long time ago in ML terms e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.002. These projects tend to rely on the category graph to distinguish sock and non-sock sets for training, the categorization of accounts as confirmed or suspected socks. However, the category graph is woefully incomplete i.e. there is information in the logs that is not reflected in the graph, so ensuring that all ban evasion accounts are properly categorized as such might help a bit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, we wouldn't have to build an ML algorithm, we can just use one of the existing ones. Some are even open source. Or WMF could use a third party service like the aforementioned sift.com. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess: Essentially, you would like their machine-learning team to use Sift's AI-Powered Fraud Protection, which from what I can glance, handles safeguarding subscriptions to defending digital content and in-app purchases and helps businesses reduce friction and stop sophisticated fraud attacks that gut growth, to provide the ability for us to automatically checkuser all active users? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon16:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF already has the ability to "automatically checkuser all users" (the verb "checkuser" just means "look at the server logs"), I'm suggesting they use it. And that they use it in a sophisticated way, employing (existing, open source or commercially available) AI/ML technologies, like the same kind we already use to automatically revert vandalism. Contrary to claims here, doing so would not be illegal or even expensive (comparatively, for the WMF). Levivich (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, in my attempt to get things set right and steer towards a consensus that is satisfactory, I sincerely follow-up: What lies beyond that in this vast, uncharted sea? And could this mean any more in the next 5 years? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, @2601AC47, I think the answer to your question is "tell the WMF we really, really, really would like more attention to sockpuppetry and IP abuse from the ML team". -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 days! When I first posted my comment and some editors responded that I didn't know what I was talking about, it can't be done, it'd violate the privacy policy and privacy laws, WMF Legal would never allow it... I was wondering how long it would take before somebody pointed out that this thing that can't be done has already been done and has been under development for at least 7 years now.
Of course it's already under development, it's pretty obvious that the same Wikipedia that developed ClueBot, one of the world's earlier and more successful examples of ML applications, would try to employ ML to fight multiple-account abuse. I mean, I'm obviously not gonna be the first person to think of this "innovation"!
Unlike what is being proposed, SimilarEditors only works based on publicly available data (e.g. similarities in editing patterns), and not IP data. To quote the page Sean linked, in the model's current form, we are only considering public data, but most saliently private data such as IP addresses or user-agent information are features currently used by checkusers that could be later (carefully) incorporated into the models.So, not only the current model doesn't look at IP data, the research project also acknowledges that actually using such data should only be done in a "careful" way, because of those very same privacy policy issues quoted above.On the ML side, however, this does proves that it's being worked on, and I'm honestly not surprised at all that the WMF is working on machine learning-based tools to detect sockpuppets. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. We should ask WMF to do the later (carefully) incorporated into the models part (especially since it's now later). BTW, the SimilarUsers API already pulls IP and other metadata. SimilarExtensions (a tool that uses the API) doesn't release that information to CheckUsers, by design. And that's a good thing, we can't just release all IPs to CheckUsers, it does indeed have to be done carefully. But user metadata can be used. What I'm suggesting is that the WMF should proceed to develop these types of tools (including the careful use of user metadata). Levivich (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really clear that they're pulling IP data from logged-in users. The relevant sections reads:
USER_METADATA (203MB): for every user in COEDIT_DATA, this contains basic metadata about them (total number of edits in data, total number of pages edited, user or IP, timestamp range of edits).
In a few years people might look back on these days when we only had to deal with simple devious primates employing deception as the halcyon days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any such system would be subject to numerous biases or be easily defeatable. Such an automated anti-abuse system would have to be exclusively a foundation initiative as only they have the resources for such a monumental undertaking. It would need its own team of developers.--Jasper Deng(talk)18:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no chance that this would pass. WP:SNOW, even though there isn't a flood of opposes. There are two problems:
The existing CheckUser team barely has the bandwidth for the existing SPI load. Doing this on every single new user would be impractical and would enable WP:LTA's by diverting valuable CheckUser bandwidth.
Even if we had enough CheckUser's, this would be a severe privacy violation absolutely prohibited under the Foundation privacy policy.
It is perhaps an interesting conversation to have but I have to agree that it is unworkable, and directly contrary to foundation-level policy which we cannot make a local exemption to. En.wp, I believe, already has the largest CU team of any WMF project, but we would need hundreds more people on that team to handle something like this. In the last round of appointments, the committee approved exactly one checkuser, and that one was a returning former mamber of the team. And there is the very real risk that if we appointed a whole bunch of new CUs, some of them would abuse the tool. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And its worth pointing out that the Committee approving too few volunteers for Checkuser (regardless of whether you think they are or aren't) is not a significant part of this issue. There simply are not tens of people who are putting themselves forward for consideration as CUs. Since 2016 54 applications (an average of per year) have been put forward for consideration by Functionaries (the highest was 9, the lowest was 2). Note this is total applications not applicants (more than one person has applied multiple times), and is not limited to candidates who had a realistic chance of being appointed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I tend to get the impression from those who have checkuser rights that CU should be done as a last resort, and other, less invasive methods are preferred, and it would seem that indiscriminate use of it would be a bad idea, so I would have some major misgivings about this proposal. And given the ANI case, the less user information that we retain, the better (which is also probably why temporary accounts are a necessary and prudent idea despite other potential drawbacks). Abzeronow (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A lot has already been written on the unsustainable workload for the CU team this would create and the amount of collateral damage; I'll add in the fact that our most notorious sockmasters in areas like PIA already use highly sophisticated methods to evade CU detection, and based on what I've seen at the relevant SPIs most of the blocks in these cases are made with more weight given to the behaviour, and even then only after lengthy deliberations on the matter. These sort of sockmasters seem to have been in the OP's mind when the request was made, and I do not see automated CU being of any more use than current techniques against such dedicated sockmasters. And, has been mentioned before, most cases of sockpuppetry (such as run-of-the-mill vandals and trolls using throwaway accounts for abuse) don't need CU anyways. JavaHurricane08:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are, unfortunately, fair points about the limits of CU and the many experienced and dedicated ban evading actors in PIA. CU information retention policy is also a complicating factor. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my original post, recidivist socks often get better at covering their "tells" each time making behavioural detection increasingly difficult and meaning the entire burden falls on the honest user to convince an Admin to take an SPI case seriously with scarce evidence. After many years I'm tired of defending various pages from sock POV edits and if WMF won't make life easier then increasingly I just won't bother, I'm sure plenty of other users feel the same way. Mztourist (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the main function of that sort of thing seems to be compiling data that is already available on XTools and various editor interaction analyzers, and then presenting it nicely and neatly. I think that such a page could be useful as a sanity check, and it might even be worth having that sort of thing as a standalone toolforge app, but I don't really see why the WMF would make that particular extension a high priority. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't have to be that particular extension, but it seems to me that the entire "idea" has been stalled, unless they're working on another tool that I'm unaware of (very possible). (Or, it could be because of recent changes in domestic and int'l privacy laws that derailed their previous development advances, or it could be because of advancements in ML elsewhere making in-house development no longer practical.)
As to why the WMF would make this sort of problem a high priority, I'd say because the spread of misinformation on Wikipedia by sockpuppets is a big problem. Even without getting into the use of user metadata, just look at recent SPIs I filed, like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#27 August 2024 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#09 October 2024. That involved no private data at all, but a computer could have done automatically, in seconds, what took me hours to do manually, and those socks could have been uncovered before they made thousands and thousands of edits spreading misinformation. If the computer looked at private data as well as public data, it would be even more effective (and would save CUs time as well). Seems to me to be a worthy expenditure of 0.5% or 1% of the WMF's annual budget. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks really interesting. I don't really know how extensions are rolled out to individual wikis - can anyone with knowledge about that summarise if having this tool turned on (for check users/relevant admins) for en.wp is feasible? Do we need a RFC, or is this a "maybe wait several years for a phab ticket" situation? BugGhost🦗👻18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requiring registration for editing
Note: This section was split off from "CheckUser for all new users" (permalink) and the "parenthetical comment" referred to below is: (Also, email-required registration and get rid of IP editing.)—03:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich, about your parenthetical comment on requiring registration:
Part of the eternally unsolvable problem is that new editors are frankly bad at it. I can give examples from my own editing: Create an article citing a personal blog post as the main source? Check. Merge two articles that were actually different subjects? Been there, done that, got the revert. Misunderstand and mangle wikitext? More times than I can count. And that's after I created my account. Like about half of experienced editors, I edited as an IP first, fixing a typo here or reverting some vandalism there.
But if we don't persist through these early problems, we don't get experienced editors. And if we don't get experienced editors, Wikipedia will die.
Requiring registration ("get rid of IP editing") shrinks the number of people who edit. The Portuguese Wikipedia banned IPs only from the mainspace three years ago. Have a look at the trend. After the ban went into effect, they had 10K or 11K registered editors each month. It's since dropped to 8K. The number of contributions has dropped, too. They went from 160K to 210K edits per month down to 140K most months.
Some of the experienced editors have said that they like this. No IPs means less impulsive vandalism, and the talk pages are stable if you want to talk to the editor. Fewer newbies means I don't "have to" clean up after so many mistake-makers! Fewer editors, and especially fewer inexperienced editors, is more convenient – in the short term. But I wonder whether they're going to feel the same way a decade from now, when their community keeps shrinking, and they start wondering when they will lose critical mass.
The same thing happens in the real world, by the way. Businesses want to hire someone with experience. They don't want to train the helpless newbie. And then after years of everybody deciding that training entry-level workers is Somebody else's problem, they all look around and say: Where are all the workers that I need? Why didn't someone else train the next generation while I was busy taking the easy path?
In case you're curious, there is a Wikipedia that puts all of the IP and newbie edits under "PC" type restrictions. Nobody can see the edits until they've been approved by an experienced editor. The rate of vandalism visible to ordinary readers is low. Experienced editors love the level of control they have. Have a look at what's happened to the size of their community during the last decade. Is that what you want to see here? If so, we know how to make that happen. The path to that destination even looks broad, easy, and paved with all kinds of good intentions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can tell you objectively that the number of edits declined, but "quality" is in the eye of the beholder. I understand that the latter community has the lowest use of inline citations of any mid-size or larger Wikipedia. What's now yesterday's TFA there wouldn't even be rated B-class here due to whole sections not having any ref tags. In terms of citation density, their FA standard is currently where ours was >15 years ago.
But I think you have missed the point. Even if the quality has gone up according to the measure of your choice, if the number of contributors is steadily trending in the direction of zero, what will the quality be when something close to zero is reached? That community has almost halved in the last decade. How many articles are out of date, or missing, because there simply aren't enough people to write them? A decade from now, with half as many editors again, how much worse will the articles be? We're none of us idiots here. We can see the trend. We know that people die. You have doubtless seen this famous line:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
I say:
All Wikipedia editors are mortal. Dead editors do not maintain or improve Wikipedia articles. Therefore, maintaining and improving Wikipedia requires editors who are not dead.
Trends don't last forever. Enwiki's active user count decreased from its peak over a few years, then flattened out for over a decade. The quality increased over that period of time (by any measure). Just because these other projects have shed users doesn't mean they're doomed to have zero users at some point in the future. And I think there's too many variables to know how much any particular change made on a project affects its overall user count, nevermind the quality of its output. Levivich (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the graph to the right accurately reflects the age distribution of Wikipedia users, then a large chunk of the user base will die off within the next decade or two. Not to be dramatic, but I agree that requiring registration to edit, which will discourage readers from editing in the first place, will hasten the project's decline.... Some1 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are significantly more barriers to entry than there were 20 years ago, and over that time the age profile has increased (quite significantly iirc). Adding more barriers to entry is not the way to solve the issued caused by barriers to entry. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could say it's about a user called PaperQA2 that writes Wikipedia articles significantly more accurate than articles written by other users. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is very clearly about a language model. As far as I know, PaperQA2, or WikiCrow (the generative model using PaperQA2 for question answering), has not actually been making any edits on Wikipedia itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. It is not making any edits on Wikipedia itself. There is a barrier. But my point is that in the future that barrier may not be there. There may be users like PaperQA2 writing articles better than other users and the demographics will have changed to include new kinds of users, much younger than us. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In re "What do you suppose that chart looked like 20 years ago": I believe that the numbers, very roughly, are that the community has gotten about 10 years older, on average, than it was 20 years ago. That is, we are bringing in some younger people, but not at a rate that would allow us to maintain the original age distribution. (Whether the original age distribution was a good thing is a separate consideration.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like looking at the en.wikipedia user retention graph hosted on Toolforge (for anyone who might go looking for it later, there's a link to it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention § Resources). It shows histograms of how many editors have edited in each month, grouped by all the editors who started editing in the same month. The data is noisy, but it does seem to show an increase in editing tenure since 2020 (when the pursuit of a lot of solo hobbies picked up, of course). Prior to that, there does seem to be a bit of slow growth in tenure length since the lowest point around 2013. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the story there is: Something amazing happened in 2006. Ours (since both of us registered our accounts that year) was the year from which people stuck around. I think that would be just about the time that the wall o' automated rejection really got going. There was some UPE-type commercial pressure, but it didn't feel unmanageable. It looks like an inflection point in retention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think something particularly amazing happened in 2006. I think the rapid growth in articles starting in 2004 attracted a large land rush of editors as Wikipedia became established as a top search result. The cohort of editors at that time had the opportunity to cover a lot of topics for the first time on Wikipedia, requiring a lot of co-ordination, which created bonds between editors. As topic coverage grew, there were fewer articles that could be more readily created by generalists, the land rush subsided, and there was less motivation for new editors to persist in editing. Boom-bust cycles are common for a lot of popular things, particularly in tech where newer, shinier things launch all the time. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that glorious time when we gained an article on every Pokemon character and, it seems, every actor who was ever credited in a porn movie. Unfortunately, many of the editors I bonded with then are no longer active. Some are dead, some finished school, some presumably burned out, at least one went into the ministry. Donald Albury23:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at what happened to the size of their community.—I'm gonna be honest: eyeballing it, I don't actually see much (if any) difference with enwiki's activity. "Look at this graph" only convinces people when the dataset passes the interocular trauma test (e.g. the hockey stick).
On the other hand, if there's a dataset of "when did $LANGUAGEwiki adopt universal pending changes protections", we could settle this argument once and for all using a real statistical model that can deliver precise effect sizes on activity. Maybe then we can all finally drop the stick. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This particular idea will not pass, but the binary developing in the discussion is depressing. A bargain where we allow IPs to edit (or unregistered users generally when IPs are masked), and therefore will sit on our hands when dealing with abuse and even harassment is a grim one. Any steps taken to curtail the second half of that bargain would make the first half stronger, and I am generally glad to see thoughts about it, even if they end up being impractical. CMD (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want us to sit on our hands when we see abuse and harassment. I think our toolset is about 20 years out of date, and I believe there are things we could do that will help (e.g., mw:Temporary accounts, cross-wiki checkuser tools for Stewards, detecting and responding to a little bit more information about devices/settings [perhaps, e.g., whether an edit is being made from a private/incognito window]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary accounts will help with the casual vandalism, but they’re not going to help with abuse and harassment. If it limits the ability to see ranges, it will make issues slightly worse. CMD (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the current story is there, but when I talked to the team last (i.e., in mid-2023), we were talking about the value of a tool that would do range-related work. For various reasons, this would probably be Toolforge instead of MediaWiki, and it would probably be restricted (e.g., to admins, or to a suitable group chosen by each community), but the goal was to make it require less manual work, particularly for cross-wiki abuse, and to be able to aggregate some information without requiring direct disclosure of some PII. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, misleading statistics! "The Portuguese Wikipedia banned IPs only from the mainspace three years ago. Have a look at the trend. After the ban went into effect, they had 10K or 11K registered editors each month. It's since dropped to 8K. " Of course you have a spike in new registrations soon after you stop allowing IP edits, and you can't sustain that spike. That is not evidence of anything. It would have been more honest and illustrative to show the graph before and after the policy change, not only afterwards, e.g. thus. Oh look, banning IP editing has resulted in on average some 50% more registered editors than before the ban. Number of active editors is up 50% as well[12]. The number of new pages has stayed the same[13]. Number of edits is down, yes, but how much of this is due to less vandalism / vandalism reverts? A lot apparently, as the count of user edits has stayed about the same[14]. Basically, from those statistics, used properly, it is impossible to detect any issues with the Portuguese Wikipedia due to the banning of IP editing. Fram (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussion boards (AfD, RfD, etc..) are riddled with socks. You can see in old AfD pages, how many accounts were later banned as socks (strikethroughs). It would be interesting to analyze this data to quantify how bad the sock situation is. IPs are some of the worse abusers. Deletion of content by straight vandalism is hard, but aggressively and maliciously voting delete while using socks? That's kind of fun and "legal" (if you don't get caught). This misbehavior could be better managed with some simple rules. One Example:
IPs are not "banned", but IPs are limited to a certain number of deletion votes per week. It's good faith self-monitored restriction that can be enforced if needed.
Such a rule would force frequent IPs to either register, which makes sock detection easier; or force them to use dynamic IPs, which is more difficult and costly for them. Legitimate IP editors who frequently vote in deletion discussions need to register or do something else, I don't believe this category of editors will be a large number.
The consensus discussions, particularly deletion, are frequently abused by sock accounts not operating in Good Faith. We can take simple low-friction steps to make things more difficult for them, and easier for us to detect. -- GreenC16:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think limiting IPs to a certain number of votes would be helpful. It would restrict participation from legitimate users who might not wish to create an account, while encouraging abusers to use even more socks when voting. Also, many people already have dynamic IPs, which is more often a function of the ISP/network they are using than any costly choice (to take an extreme example, an IPv6 user can have the second half of their address vary between 264 possibilities in their device's assigned /64 range). This would automatically put static IP users and dynamic IP users on unequal grounds, and make it even more enticing to sock/use multiple IPs.It is easy to make proposals raising the bar for prospective editors to participate, in the name of defending the wiki from socks/bad actors/etc., but each step we take in that direction brings us further from our ideal of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and we should be very careful about this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been closing a lot of AFDs lately and, while some socks are caught in some discussions, I have not personally seen a serious issue with block-evading IP users. This proposal seems like it is assuming bad faith if IP users wish to particpaite at AFD. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As IPs may not be a single person over time, a soft participation limit doesn't work. It is at any rate up to closers to evaluate an AfD on its merits, not as a vote count. CMD (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without any idea of the statistics, we don't have any way to know if the problem is serious enough to justify restricting anons on this. When gathering data, exclude any CTOPs where anons are already disallowed, as these are more likely to reflect the CTOPs than AFD. Other CTOPs may also suffer from this, so probably list those separately. Animal lover|666|12:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I routinely discount low-activity IP's in discussions, on the argument that there is an absence of a basis for determining whether they understand the purpose of the encyclopedia and its policies. BD2412T15:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it's impossible to tell the difference between a newcomer IP, an anon who edits on a wide range of IP addresses and has perhaps hundreds of edits, and a long-time registered user who got logged out without realizing it and decided after expressing their opinion to let it stand as an anon vote. Animal lover|666|16:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Animal lover 666: I am aware of that, but the problem runs both ways. It is equally impossible to tell if an IP is really another editor already involved in the discussion; or a COI editor, or the like. If an IP makes a persuasive argument backed by evidence, their argument should be able to persuade non-IP participants in the discussion, whose opinions will be weighted more heavily. BD2412T17:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP and non EC editors are not permitted to participate in consensus forming discussions if the subject matter is a CT, which are probably(?) the worst affected areas. If my assumption is wrong and the problem is extensive beyond CT, then perhaps consider a similar rule across the board, why not. It is not clear to me how such editors even find these discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some context, see this comment by GreenC, where he makes an unprovoked casting of WP:ASPERSIONS with no evidence. Also worth noting is that the actual sock in this case, TeapotsOfDoom, had an account, and wasn't editing unregistered. Also also worth noting, is that yes, while socking is disruptive generally, Teapots's activity at RFD was overall quite productive, bringing a lot of bad redirects to the forum's attention. If he's reading this, I hope he follows the WP:SO approach and is able to return. Also also also worth noting is GreenC's characterization as "malicious", which is completely uncalled for. I would highly urge you to reconsider your words and strike your aspersion at the RFD in question. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was because TeapotsOfDoom had an account that checkuser was able to work. It doesn't work with IPs. That's the point. There is a loophole that gives IPs an easy bypass of checkuser and SPI. They have an advantage over registered accounts, when it comes to socking. -- GreenC22:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It's like 3RR or anything else, you have the option to warn them, it's all voluntary there is no hard rule that stops them from editing. If nobody sees their editing as a problem then it won't be a problem. The issues are that it can be very hard to prove at SPI because IPs have natural immunity from checkuser. IPs are often used in deletion discussions for that reason. -- GreenC23:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
End dates in office, for presidents & vice presidents of Brazil
Which dates do we use for when a president or vice president of Brazil's term ends. As I understand it, their term of office (barring a military coup) ended at midnight. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm brazilian, so I think can answer this for y'all. The term ends the day the next president/governor is inaugurated. So for example, Jair Bolsonaro's term ended 1 January 2023, and Lula started 1 January 2023 (same day).
The new term starts at the time the inauguration takes place. So as an example, if the inauguration takes place at 1400, Bolsonaro was president until 1400, when Lula became the president.
The fact is we will never have an answer because the Constitution is ambiguous. It states the date when the term begins, but also states that the president must take the oath of office.
As this has never been brought before the Supreme Court to rule upon because there have never been any issues with deciding who the president is between midnight and 10 a.m. of January 1, the ambiguity will likely remain unresolved.
That said, the public perception is that the incoming president becomes president on the morning of the 1st, when they receive the sash from the outgoing president (when the outgoing president is gracious enough to take part in the ceremony). For that alone I would suggest that the term be said to end on January 1. Zelani (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This covers all the presidents & vice presidents of Brazil. So if we go with January 1? We'll have to also go with November 15 & March 15 for the earlier presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay The fact is that "terms end at midnight" just isn't a thing. Nobody's looking at their watches saying, "Ten seconds until Jurandir becomes mayor!" Jurandir's team isn't waiting at the door of Paçoquinha do Norte City Hall just waiting to barge in at midnight to take the reins to municipal administration.
Transfer of power is (ideally) a smooth handover of power.
If the Constituent Assembly had intended for there to be an exact time, they would have written it into the document.
That argument wouldn't go far, concerning Mexico presidents or New York governors & lieutenant governors. Terms in some places, do end at midnight. GoodDay (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, you're splitting hairs over an issue that is irrelevant outside of Wikipedia. It has no bearing in the real world.
Anyway, the Constitution is clear in one respect:
"Art. 78. O Presidente e o Vice-Presidente da República tomarão posse em sessão do Congresso Nacional, prestando o compromisso de manter, defender e cumprir a Constituição, observar as leis, promover o bem geral do povo brasileiro, sustentar a união, a integridade e a independência do Brasil."
This, to me, leaves no margin for doubt. The President's term begins when they take the oath of office in the session in Congress.
I often remove redlinks from dab pages per WP:DDD. I recently did this on the Sylvester page and was pleased to see at the top of the editing page Attention editors! No red links. Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia ... else it will be removed without warning. I assumed this must be a new feature for dab pages, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere else so far. Some dab pages do have a notice at the top of the editing page explaining their purpose, but with no mention of redlinks, and many dab pages have nothing like this at all. Can/should they all be flagged with an appropriate notice about redlinks? Or at least all flagged with an explanation of dab pages? Shantavira|feed me10:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having an editnotice for name articles as @Shantavira suggests seems like a good idea. It should definitely be centralized and automatically added, so that we can ensure it represents best practices/consensuses and reduces the workload.
Idea to reduce issue with user pages being used for hosting a vanity page or advertisement
Some of the recent discussion on AN/I regarding Fastily and U5 closures centered on the challenges of properly addressing misuse of user pages. I believe the high volume of apparent misuse is causing difficulty in balancing protecting Wikipedia and taking due care in deletions. Anything that would reduce misuse (or reduce the consequences of misuse) should help relieve some of the pressure.
Thus my half-baked proposal below. The goal of this proposal is to reduce the attractiveness of putting up fake Wikipedia pages and holding yourself out to the world as having a page about you.
Proposal
The primary user page will automatically have the output of {{User page}} displayed at the top. Once a user becomes extended confirmed, they will have the ability to suppress display of the template. Extended confirmed users who abuse this by making an inappropriate user page can have the right to suppress display taken away by an admin. When first enacting this change, all current extended confirmed users will have the display suppressed, though they can enable the display if desired.
This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all).
Above is the output of the template, for those unfamiliar with it.
That could be a good idea. For new users who might not know it, a message could also be added to inform them that drafts should ideally not be written on their main userpage, with a link to automatically move it to their user sandbox. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objection to this in principle. I think the application of this is likely to get pretty hairy, though. And I think most people write promo drafts on their userpage because they don't know they're promo and don't know that's not the place for drafts - so I don't think this would really help. But if I woke up tomorrow and this was the status quo, I wouldn't be mad about it or anything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After giving it more thought, one objection I can see is that enforcing a banner on people's userpages might not be well-received, especially since the target demographic (non-ECP editors) likely won't overlap much with the people who will take the decision. I agree with your explanation for why people write promo drafts on their userpage, and a way to gently inform them that that isn't the place might be better.Now that I think about it, we need an equivalent of U5 that isn't "speedy deletion" but "speedy move to sandbox" (with a message informing the user of what happened, of course). Now that would be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issues with user pages seem to be promotional drafts and non-Wikipedia uses (like fake election articles for alternate history forums). It's non merely an enwiki issue - while userspace pages aren't prominently visible, images uploaded for them are. It's a big problem for Commons to have spam and hoaxes mixed in with other images. I'm not sure there's actually a common problem with userspace pages being passed off as real articles; I don't object to this proposal, but I think other changes might be more effective. In particular, I would propose stricter rules and other changes for userspace, with the primary aim of reducing incorrect userspace usage to reduce admin work:
Edit filters disallowing commonly misused elements like external links, images, and infoboxes for new users in userspace. This would essentially kill userspace for fake articles and make promotional userpages less attractive. Maybe even have a fairly strict character limit for new users - that would allow them to have a bluelinked user page introducing themselves, but not enough space for their CV or fake article.
Prominent edit notices for userspace explaining restrictions and directing users to draftspace
Disable the "upload file" link in userspace. The vast, vast majority of crosswiki uploads from userspace are junk.
Better bot patrolling of userspace. This could include creating lists of new userspace pages for easier patrolling, or even automatic moves of likely drafts to draftspace.
Partial blocks from userspace for those who misuse it. This should be more akin in seriousness to an edit filter than a mainspace block.
Formally expand U5 to include any clearly non-Wikipedia usage, regardless of whether the user has mainspace edits, after other interventions reduce userspace usage overall. Obvious junk shouldn't have to go to MfD just because the creator has mainspace edits.
As to passing off user pages as Wikipedia articles, I have encountered it once in real life, and everyone in that conversation was convinced it was real until I started reading the URL more carefully. Admittedly, this was a while ago, and perhaps people are more sophisticated now, but I suspect it is still a bit of an issue, and one that would be easily stomped out with this change. — rsjaffe🗣️22:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that there's lots more things that should/could be done and appreciate your list. Perhaps the discussants here could put together a package of changes to improve the situation, though approval of each one would be independent, as some items in the package may be more of an issue than others. — rsjaffe🗣️22:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I particularly like the edit filter preventing links idea. A plaintext page without through links is (generally) essentially harmless. I don't like the idea of a character limit unless it could be just applied to the top-level user page, rather than subpages which can legitimately be used for draft development. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly in response to the first point. When creating a new article in mainspace, the little popup on the side always invites me to create the article in my userspace instead. Help:Your first article#Where to start writing also recommends placing drafts in a user subpage. I could very easily see a new editor not understanding the difference between their main userpage and a user subpage. If we block things such as infoboxes, external links, or set word limits, we will be sending a very mixed message to new users. Maybe an edit filter to block new editors from adding external links to commercial/social media sites? (LinkedIn, YouTube, blogspot, what have you). There's very valid reasons why we don't block these types of links in general, but if we're thinking about userspace spam from non-contributors, then maybe? Lots of good faith users do end up adding links to these sorts of websites, but I also think discouraging them from doing that until they've been around long enough to learn the intricacies of WP:SPS isn't a bad idea. I don't really know edit filters, however, so I have no idea how practical this would be. I also don't have enough data to throw myself behind this suggestion just yet.
Not a fan of expanding u5. But maybe, for abandoned SPAs with a spammy vibe, a process similar to PROD? A user tags something as obviously unencyclopedic, and the creator has a month or so to return to their account and contest it, or else an admin reads the userpage, confirms it's never likely to be useful, and either a)declines the tag (so it can never be tagged again) or b) bins it on the understanding that should the creator return, they can request undeletion. MfD doesn't get clogged up with long-abandoned quasi-spam, and it limits the risk of biting newer contributors since it wouldn't work on them. This won't do anything for active spam-like users, but neither does U5, seeing as they can just re-create the page as many times as they'd like before getting inevitably blocked. (And then we go back to userspace prod). There's probably flaws with this idea. I could absolutely see somebody trying to abuse it in the way U5 is abused. The most obvious way is if two editors get into a dispute, one of them is blocked, and the other tries to delete their userspace now that their "enemy" is gone. I like to think that would be noticeable, however. Also, admins would still be required, and thus required to read the pages before deleting them. If the admin fails to do so, that would be very bad.
I like the idea of removing the "upload file" link in userspace. I also think we should remove it in draftspace. I also think we should make the "upload to commons!" link less prominent. A few gours ago, I nearly accidentally uploaded a non-free book file to commons; it was only once I got to the second page when I realised I'd mistakenly clicked the giant blue box as opposed to the tiny grey one. If I'm doing that, then goodness knows what a new user who doesn't understand the difference between their own work and a screenshot is thinking. (And that's just talking about good-faith newbies who are still hunting for clues. Commons does not need anymore copyvio spam than it already puts up with.) This also would not stop users from adding images to their userspace. They would still have other ways. It would merely slow them down, force them to ask questions, and hopefully learn about copyright. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a good template for this use. The header is harmless, but of the main text only the first sentence (to the effect of "this is not an encyclopedia article") is relevant. That sentence is needed, though, as well as a statement that this page hasn't been reviewed or quality-checked (even to the extent that normal Wikipedia articles are).Also, we don't need the option to let the page owner turn it off for everybody else, just a handy gadget to hide it for logged-in users who don't know to edit their own css. Without that, we could do this right now without the proposed software changes, which probably would never happen anyway. —Cryptic22:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I see no reason at all to limit it to the primary user page. I don't think I've seen anybody passing off a main user page in their "now read our article on Wikipedia!" link, but have to sandboxes and other subpages a couple times. —Cryptic22:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to get the software to display the namespace in User: and User talk: the way it shows up for every other namespace? Seems like that would be a step towards the goal here. Folly Mox (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the onboarding (or whatever it's called) doing in the way of suggesting very new editors start user pages by the way? I did wonder if we were inadvertently inviting users to make a profile in their first or second edit, and then immediately deleting it U5 with unfriendly messages. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless things have changed in the twelve months since I tested the new user signup flow, accounts are presented with a couple messages about Suggested Edits, then land at Special:Homepage. I don't remember there being (and definitely didn't screencap) anything related to creating a userpage. Folly Mox (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, a pretty normal impulse to have, creating a userpage. Social media and various apps outright make you do it before being able to do anything else, and many newcomers will have been trained on that kind of behaviour. Also, if you're nervous, userspace edits feel safe, like you're not disturbing anybody while you're mucking around. -- asilvering (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's something that is encouraged in in-person training for new editors. A new editor with a userpage tends to be treated less harshly by some new page patrollers than one whose name is a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Folly Mox, Asilvering, and Thryduulf: Thanks, Folly Mox. I think we need more advice on what the top-level user page may be used for, aimed both at new editors trying to create a profile and, perhaps more importantly, at patrollers. I've seen user pages that were entirely appropriate even for an editor with no other edits ("Hello world, my name is EA, I'm excited to edit Wikipedia!" sort of thing) being tagged G11/U5 by patrollers. (As far as I can tell, some patrollers think U5 is for anything created by a user with few non-userspace edits.) Asilvering writes, "if you're nervous, userspace edits feel safe", and I've found new patrollers think the same, it's a safe space to patrol without offending anyone who knows how to complain. And the flipside to Thrydulf's "A new editor with a userpage tends to be treated less harshly by some new page patrollers than one whose name is a redlink" is that patrollers are suspicious that a blue-linked user page is just the first step in a campaign of terror spam. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an editnotice for new users when they go to edit their userpage? I don't think there is. I don't see one when I try to edit mine, at any rate. -- asilvering (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the impression that some don't speak English at all and have used AI to draft something. Certainly that's true of promotional autobios submitted to draftspace in perfect American Marketing Speak, where I sometimes find it is impossible to communicate with the creator because they don't speak plain-old (British) English (and I don't speak their language). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having started some Wikipedia articles and added to others, I have the following questions and suggestions:
Why are there four different reference templates, when they all have roughly the same content?
Why does one template call it “Journal”, and another call it “Work”?
Why does there need to be a Page slot and a Pages slot? (printer drivers handle both together)
Should there not be one uniform format for all references when published? (see "Notes", David Graham Phillips: six different references, six different formats)
I suggest there be one reference template that has places for all necessary content, and that all references follow the same format when published:
Template
Title of source _________________ URL ___________________
Last name of source creator _________________ First name ________________________
News agency _____________________ Website name ___________________________
Name of journal, magazine, newspaper, etc. ___________________________ Volume _____ Issue _________ Page(s) ________
Name of publisher ________________________________ Location of publisher _________________________
Date source published __________________ Date source accessed____________________
Ref name ________________ Ref group __________________ Ref ID for anchor ___________________
There are quite a few more citation templates, it is just the four most commonly used that are available in the tool bar. All of the citation templates use the same set of fields, and you can build a citation from scratch using Template:Citation. The four citation formats available in the tool bar just start you with the fields most commonly used for each type of citation. You can leave fields empty, and you can add other fields as needed, as is needed when citing a chapter in a book, for instance. Donald Albury18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor correction, not all of the CS1|2 templates support the same parameter set. For example, as of 2023, calling {{Cite book}} with the parameter |website= (or any of its aliases, like |work=, |journal=, |periodical=, |magazine=) will cause a template error, and add the article to Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (23,119).To address the substance of the OP, that there is any consistency among the most commonly used citation templates is the result of years of effort and discussion. The multiplicity of display formattings is a feature, not a drawback. There will never be just one single citation template, uniform in formatting across all sources and transclusions.Pbergerd, if you want the input fields in whatever editor you're using (not clear from tags in your contribs) to match the displayed format of those templates, that would best be addressed to whomever maintains your editing interface of choice (if anyone). The formatting will not be changed in the other direction (i.e. display matches input field ordering). Additionally, to my knowledge no citation template display leads with the title when the author is known, so I doubt you'll find consensus for your specific implementation proposal anywhere. All the best, Folly Mox (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a less gloomy follow up, our editing guideline WP:CITEVAR allows for articles to maintain the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page. So if you feel strongly about title-headed citations, you can implement your preferred formatting on articles you create, or unreferenced articles you provide the first citations for. But don't be surprised if bots come along and change it.With respect to your specific example David Graham Phillips § Notes: three two of the six citations – Fellow, Mencken, and Ravitz – are manually formatted (not the result of any citation template) and shouldn't be used as examples of a surfeit of citation formats. Two of the three four sources used in citation templates do not provide any authorial or editorial attribution (verified in sources), so naturally the format will differ from that of sources where the author is known.Tangentially, it is somewhat common for articles to use a mixture of Shortened footnotes and regular "defined in place" citations. Usually this is unintentional, as editors new to an article will almost never add citations in shortened format, except improperly, adding to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors (4,721). Converting all the new sources to shortened footnote form happens very irregularly. Sometimes articles will intentionally adopt a mixed style, where "main sources", multiply cited sources, or sources cited at more than one in-source location (a subset of the previous criterion) will be formatted in shortened form, and the remainder in the standard fashion. Folly Mox (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)corrected per below 20:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reasons not to use shortened footnote templates, and the lack of support for extra parameters is a feature (the footnotes, after all, are supposed to be short).I'm wondering why |access-date= in particular would ever be helpful to support: it's one of the cruftiest parameters, displaying rather a lot of text for information only really needed during archive snapshot hunting; it's not useful for print sources, which have a stable form per publication date, and are the most common types of sources where shortened footnotes are used; and why would you have different access dates for different sections of the source? Can't it just be added to the full citation template the shortened footnote links to?Quotes are another matter, but are easily included within the <ref>...</ref> tags following a harv family template like {{harvp}} or {{harvnb}}, which can be embedded within ref tags. Folly Mox (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The attributes I mentioned were just random examples, but, e.g., |sectionlink= certainly seems important, and lots of printed sources are also available as PDF. Placing detail as free text in <ref>{{harvnb}}...</ref> does not create the proper metadata, so while it might work for |quote= it does not for other attributes. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the OP that it's silly to have lots of different templates for citations – {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc. But there is a generic template for this and it's {{citation}}.
I usually use {{citation}} so that if, for example, I'm citing the Times using a URL, I don't have to worry about whether it's a web site or a newspaper when it's obviously both.
The main problem nowadays is that the Visual Editor generates the more specific templates rather than the generic one. I usually switch to the text editor to correct it but that's a nuisance.
"The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow."
The heuristic for C-class is "substantial but is still missing important content". The heuristic for Start-class is, similarly "developing but still quite incomplete": not very different. As an alternative, you can try to determine whether the article is "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study" or "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more."
And here's the military history version of C-class:
"The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
Here, rather than having to make a difficult heuristic judgement between C-class and start-class, clear criteria determine whether an article is start-class and other clear criteria determine whether it is C-class. It seems to me to be a reasonable formalization of the two heuristics (referencing and completeness) used to determine C versus Start class anyways. I think if Wikipedia adopted this generally, it would make rating articles much faster and simpler and less confusing given that the criteria for distinguishing C-class articles are formalized rather than subject to essentially how complete the article feels. When I rate articles, I usually spend a good bit of time worrying about whether it is C-class or Start-class -- a major part of the decision making currently is informed by observing other people's decisions. WP:MILHIST has basically solved that and added a FAQ.
Has anybody ever proposed using the MILHIST criteria before? I do remember seeing proposals (not successful) to merge C and Start class, but not this specifically. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making the assessment process any more formalized than it is is a non-starter when we have hundreds of thousands of articles that aren't assessed at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is that any article ratings other than those which are part of a formal process (i.e. all those except GA, A, and FA) tend to be assigned based on vibes rather than any strict concern with the criteria, and mostly are not updated when the article changes. If assessments are largely made without reference to the criteria, I'm not sure that changing the criteria will have much effect. Even assuming for the sake of argument that people are carefully rating articles based on the assessment criteria, ratings are updated so infrequently that there's no guarantee that they are still appropriate at any given time. I don't object to clearer criteria for what is a start/C/B class article, but I also don't know that I really see the point: at this point in Wikipedia's development, what if anything do people actually use these ratings for? Generally I agree with the view which has been expressed by various people in the past (I know Iridescent used to make this point, as in this thread) that the distinctions between start/C/B class are pretty pointless and we'd be just as well off scrapping them entirely and ending up with a scale which goes stub/standard/good/featured or even unassessed/good/featured. (You mention proposals to merge start- and C-class, but I cannot find them in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Content assessment or WP:VP) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pretty much agree with this, adding that in my experience most ratings are assigned almost entirely on article length, and also that nearly all our readers and most of our editors never look at them. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are pointless, generally speaking, other than that it's nice to say you've improved the quality of X article to Y, which can be a nice achievement. You might be right than eliminating the distinctions might be a good idea -- stub/start/C are very difficult to distinguish meaningfully, and checking that everything is cited correctly in B requires a mini-GA review level of work for long articles. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the reception, probably not going to propose this. What the system really needs is a reform based on determining what purposes it actually serves. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rating system was created by, belongs to, and primarily benefits the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This group is still active, even though they do most of their work via specialized off-wiki tools these days (so don't be fooled if you look at the page history and don't see any recent edits; that's not where the action is). AFAICT it serves their purpose (i.e., selecting articles for offline distribution based on a multi-factor calculation that reflects centrality [most internal links work], popularity [students want to read it], and quality [via ratings]) well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the ratings are associated with the projects such as Milhist but the project templates seem to be placed in an indiscriminate and rote way.
It would be good to rationalise the ratings in a functional way. For example, what I notice is that DYK and ITN perform their own independent quality assessments without regard to the project assessments. The {{article history}} attempts to pull all these things together but is only used on 50,000 pages. There ought to be a standard talk page template to unify these things.
One of the edits I most often do is to use author link to wiklink names in citations, including in citations that use templates like Template:Cite book. This works great if the author already has an article in English Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, when the author only has an article about him in some other language, this cannot be taken advantage of. Interlanguage links do not work in cite templates. I think Wikipedia does not allow one set of braces or curly brackets {{}} to be inside another set {{}}; in other words does not permit nested layers of templates.
Proposal
I propose that Wikipedia, via some way (whether or not that means allowing nested layers of curly-bracketed templates), enable interlanguage links in citations that use cite templates.
Eberhard Straub (2011). Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens. Klett-Cotta. p. 17.
The wiki markup for the citation reads:
{{cite book|title=Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens|author=Eberhard Straub|year= 2011|pages=17|publisher=Klett-Cotta}}
To make the author's name in the citation be a wikilink to his article, one would insert a new field in the citation like this:
|author-link=Eberhard Straub
but that would create a red link in English Wikipedia, because Eberhard Straub does not currently have an article in English Wikipedia.
However, he does in German Wikipedia, making it preferable for such a link to be an interlanguage link, thus empowering readers who want to know more about the cited author to at least be able to look at the article about him in German, and also inviting readers to be editors and create a new English-language article about him. If and when that English-language article is posted, then the red link to his name and the smaller bracketed blue link to the German article disappear from view and the link appears to readers to be an ordinary blue link to the new English language article.
How?
I don't know how to accomplish this.
I don't know if it's technically feasible to change the Wiki software to allow for a nested layer of curly-bracketed template to be used within another curly-bracketed template, using the already-existing author-link field, like this:
{{cite book|title=Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens|author=Eberhard Straub|author-link={{interlanguage link|Eberhard Straub|de}}|year= 2011|pages=17|publisher=Klett-Cotta}}
Or if a new interlanguage author-link field in the citation template needs to be created instead, like
{{cite book|title=Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens|author=Eberhard Straub|ill-author-link-de=Eberhard Straub|year= 2011|pages=17|publisher=Klett-Cotta}}
just put :de:Eberhard StraubEberhard Straub[in German] (2011). Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens. Klett-Cotta. p. 17.The real reason it didn't work is because the template already generated a [[]], so the parameter tries to linkify a link and render "[[[[:de:Eberhard Straub]]]]], causing it to fail. You can nest templates easily.
Doe, John (1 April 2020). [I witnessed Tom Hanks admitting to actually being born one year earlier, faking his age to enlist in the scouts] (Dream). Lucid. Recurring Tom Hanks scouts dream number 8. Doe's bedroom, 412 Example Street, Suburbiaville, London: REM stage R.
Thanks for your feedback, but the main problem with your suggestion is that it doesn't work with author links, which can draw from separately provided surnames and given names, and then display the results as surname first, then comma, then given name, hyperlinking to the article about the author. I didn't mention this in my original comment for reasons of space and focus.
In other words, what I really want to be able to do is to do something like
{{cite book|title=Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens|author-first=Eberhard author-last=Straub |ill-author-link-de=Eberhard Straub|year= 2011|pages=17|ill-publisher-de=Klett-Cotta}}
If you want to suggest something to do with with the citation templates I suggest you post it to Help talk:Citation Style 1. This, and similar ideas, have been discussed before. The solution is to use: {{cite book |title=Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens |author-first=Eberhard |author-last=Straub |author-link=:de:Eberhard Straub |year= 2011 |pages=17 |publisher=[[:de:Klett-Cotta|Klett-Cotta]]}} which produces: Straub, Eberhard[in German] (2011). Eine kleine Geschichte Preußens. Klett-Cotta. p. 17.
Disclosure: I hate {{ill}} since it breaks title display in non-ASCII scripts on Firefox; i.e. you have to click through and load the sister Wikipedia page just to retrieve the title instead of a bunch of percent escaped garbage numbers for unicode codepoints. Folly Mox (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, one could set up a disambiguation page (thereby allowing for multiple languages) for the target and use {{interlanguage link}} on the disambiguation page. Of course, there may be a mild "surprise" for the user, but there can be sufficient explanatory text on the disambiguation page to explain the situation.
A side-effect of this (unless there's some provision to suppress this behavior), is that the page will be recognized as a valid "local wiki" page for other purposes as well, but IMO, that's not necessarily a bad thing ... and we can always include a qualifier in the title of the disambiguation page to help address that concern. Also, this is a little more work, but I think it's an improvement over the current practice of not providing the link. Fabrickator (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to create a stub/start article, link it to wikidata to get the language links, and tag it with the relevant "Expand language" template EdwardUK (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a bunch of transwiki dabpages or nearly content-free stubs are the solution to this unproblem. {{ill}} formatting aside, what's wrong with linking an article on a sister project? We do it with Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikidata all the time. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of citations, the actual target is only visible when you mouse over it (assuming the user bothers to examine the link preview), so it will typically be a surprise when a non-English page is displayed. Also, the general intent is to let the user select their preferred language, if multiple languages are available. (Of course, there will be a list of all available languages when you go to any language version of the article.) As a fairly minor point, the existing use of {{ill}} provides for the replacement of {{ill}} when a local link becomes available. Fabrickator (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Favoriting articles for logged-out and IP users
Hi. Before i joined Wikipedia, i always wanted a way to save my favorite articles somehow. When i logged in, i was excited to see a star button on a article (which signaled it was a sort of a favorite button) but to my disappointment it just made articles go on the watchlist. So what if there was a way to save certain articles to, say, read later or gather a collection for a school assignment. This would be very useful to both logged-out and in users. This could mean good for Wikipedia editing too! If you favorite a article, there should be a way to easily come back too it. This would make more efficient editing, rather then a confusing “watch list” of articles. Another way to implete this idea is to add it to a group, where you can come back to later. But either way, there should be a way to save articles to a dedicated area, logged in or not. Edit: I apologize if this is the wrong area,i couldn’t quite figure out if i should out this in Proposals or here.K.O.518 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the “View and edit watchlist” tab of the watchlist has a list of all your watched articles in alphabetic order, which could be used as a favourites list. novovtalkedits10:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nearly two years since I brought this up here, but I've done some more work on articles about years since then and could use more feedback. I've just finished working on 2002. To ensure WP:WEIGHT/WP:PROPORTION, the information in the body of the article is based on sources that cover the year as a whole, such as Britannica Book of the Year and The Annual Register as well as more subject-specific sources. The timeline then reflects what's in the body, with sources like newspapers to verify the specific dates. I want to get more opinions to see if this is a good approach for other year articles going forward and whether there are any other ideas that should be considered. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toward helping readers understand what Wiki is/isn’t
I’ve often noticed confusion on the part of both general readers and editors about what Wikipedia articles are AND aren’t. Truth be told, I suspect all of us editors probably had it not only before becoming editors but also well into our Wiki work.
So I got thinking that perhaps a cute (but not overly so!) little information box that would fly in or otherwise attract attention upon accessing a new article could help halt some common misunderstandings or lack of awareness of general readers. Because I think most editors here at the Pump would be aware of many such examples, I hope you’ll forgive my not providing e.g.’s.
(Of course if such an info box were put in place, there’d also need to be a way for readers not to see it again if they so wish.)
I started to check elsewhere at the Pump to see if a similar idea had ever been submitted before, but I couldn’t figure out a relevant search term. And I didn’t want to suggest an outright proposal if anything similar had in fact ever been proposed. So IDEA LAB just seemed a good place to start the ball rolling. Looking forward to seeing where it leads. Augnablik (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a strong supporter of providing more information about how Wikipedia works for readers, especially if it helps them get more comfortable with the idea of editing. Readers are editors and editors are readers—this line should be intentionally blurred. I don't know if a pop up or anything similar to that is the right way to go, but I do think there's something worth considering here. One thing I've floated before was an information panel featured prominently on the main page that briefly explains how every reader is an editor and gives some basic resources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with putting stuff on the main page is that many (probably most) readers get to Wikipedia articles from a search engine, rather than via the main page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main page gets 4 to 5 million page views each day. And even so, I would guess that people who go out of their way to read the main page are better candidates to become frequent editors than people who treat Wikipedia like it's part of Google. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of the main page. What I had in mind was that whenever someone requests to go to an article — irrespective of how he or she entered Wikipedia — the information box would fly in or otherwise appear. Augnablik (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha, i don't see the box as ONLY to dispel confusion but ALSO to point out some strengths of Wikipedia that probably readers wouldn't have been aware of.
A few things that came to my mind: although Wikipedia is now one of the world's most consulted information sources, articles should be considered works in progress because ... however, there are stringent requirements for articles to be published, including the use of strong sources to back up information and seasoned editors to eagle-eye them; writing that is objective and transparent about any connection between writers and subjects of articles ... and (this last could be controversial but I think it would be helpful for readers in academia) although not all universities and academic circles accept Wiki articles as references, they can serve as excellent pointers toward other sources.
if the idea of presenting an information box including the above (and more) is adopted, a project team could work on exactly what it would say and look like. Augnablik (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that considerably overstates reality (the requirements are not stringent, sources do not have to be strong, many things are not checked by anyone, much less by seasoned editors, hiding COIs is moderately common...).
Ooops. Well, if stringent requirements, etc., overstate reality, then official Wiki guidance and many Teahouse discussions are needlessly scaring many a fledgling editor! 😱 Augnablik (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these points also fall into the "well, DUH!" category. I did, however, want to respond to your statement that "not all universities and academic circles accept Wiki articles as references". I would be very surprised if any university or serious academic project would accept Wikipedia as a reference. Tertiary sources like encyclopedias have always been considered inappropriate at that level, as far as I know. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about encyclopedias being generally unacceptable in academic writing.
But as we’re having this discussion in an idea lab, this is the perfect place to toss the ball back to you, Khajidha, and ask how you would describe Wikipedia for new readers so they know how it can be advantageous and how it can’t?
As I see it, that sort of information is a real need for those who consult Wikipedia — just as customers appreciate quick summaries or reviews of products they’re considering purchasing — to get a better handle on “what’s in it for me.” Augnablik (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the logo at the top left already does a pretty good job: "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia". Especially if you look at the expanded form we use elsewhere: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha, a mere tag saying "The Free Encyclopedia" seems to me just a start in the right direction. The addition of "that anyone can edit" adds a little more specificity, although you didn't mention anything about writing as well as editing. Still, I think these tags are too vague as far as what readers need more insight about.
I'm working on a list of things I'd like to bring to readers' attention, but I'd like to put it away tonight and finish tomorrow. At that point, I'll humbly request you to "de-DUH" your evaluation of my idea. Augnablik (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me the problem is that people don't understand what an encyclopedia is. That's a "them" problem, not an "us" problem. And what exactly do these readers think editing the encyclopedia would be that doesn't incude writing it? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is very different from the historical concept of encyclopedia. The open editing expands the pool of editors, at the expense of accuracy. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)
Wikipedia may have put traditional general encyclopedias out of business, or at least made them change their business model drastically, but it does not define what an encyclopedia is. One example is that Wikipedia relies largely on secondary sources, but traditional encyclopedias, at least for the most important articles, employed subject matter experts who wrote largely on the basis of primary sources. It is our job to explain the difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a little longer gap between than what I thought it would take to create a list of things I believe all readers need to be aware of from the git-go about what Wikipedia is and isn't, due to some challenges in other departments of life, here's what I came up with. It would be in sections, similar to what you see below, each surrounded by a clip art loop, perhaps golden brown, and perhaps a few other pieces of clip art to set it off visually.I wish I knew how to separate paragraphs with line spacing ... I know this looks a little squished.
_____________________________________
New to reading Wikipedia articles? Here are some helpful things for you to be aware of about Wikipedia. They'll help you get more clearer ideas of how you can use the articles to best advantage.
If you'd like to go into more depth about all this, and more, just go to the article in Wikipedia about itself by typing WIKIPEDIA in the Wikipedia search field.
Wikipedia is a different kind of encyclopedia.
— Its articles can be written and edited by anyone.
— They’re supposed to be based completely on reliable outside sources.
— They can be updated at any time, thus allowing for quick corrections or additions if needed.
— Wikipedia is free.
That’s the main difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias.
BUT:
All encyclopedias serve as starting points where readers can find out about information — especially the main thinking about particular subjects — then follow up as they wish.
Students and researchers: keep in mind that schools and professional research journals don’t accept encyclopedias as references for written papers, but do encourage using them to get some ideas with which to go forward.
Wikipedia has become popular for good reason.
— Wikipedia is the world’s largest-ever encyclopedia.
— It’s consistently ranked among the ten websites people visit most.
— Because it’s all online, it’s easy to access.
— Because it’s highly interactive, it’s easy to move around from topic to topic.
Quality standards for writing articles are in place and in action behind the scenes.
— Wikipedia has high standards for choosing the subjects of articles.
— Wikipedia also has high standards for writing articles, especially freedom from bias.
— Certain editors are assigned to ensure that articles follow Wikipedia standards.
— Although differences of opinions naturally arise about whether a particular article does so, there are sets of procedures to work them out and arbiters to step in as needed. Augnablik (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think a more magnetic format for this tool I'm hoping can one day be used on Wikipedia would be a short series of animated "fly-ins" rather than a static series of points with a loop around each set thereof. Augnablik (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would happily pay 25 cents per query if Wikipedia had its own AI chat interface. I use the Co-Star app (astrology) in this way already. I find the cost is worth the value. Free AI summaries available in search engines suffer from having too much garbage input (aka, the unrestrained data of the internet) to produce viable output. I would find it useful to have an AI interface built into Wikipedia. I already trust the information here and all "training data" for the hypothetical bot would effectively be open source. I would trust an AI bot managed by Wikipedia much more than I would trust an AI bot managed by any other entity. And I would be willing to pay for the service more often than I would be able to continue supporting the site through donation. 2603:6080:9F00:B05D:6205:4DF2:8C83:4343 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is free and open-source, so we won't be implementing a paid AI chatbot on principle. Regarding the idea of an AI chatbot in general, they are often prone to hallucinations and not necessarily as accurate as they are confident. And they can't be edited by individual users in case they were trained on factual errors, which again goes against Wikipedia's principles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New users, lack of citation on significant expansion popup confirmation before publishing
There are many edits often made where a large amount of information is added without citations. For new users, wouldn't it be good if it was detected when they go to publish an edit lacking citations with a large amount of text, and came up with a popup of some sort directing them to WP:NOR, and asking them to confirm if they wish to make the edit? I think you should be able to then turn it off easily (as in ticking don't remind me again within the popup), but my impression is that many make edits without being familiar with the concept of rules such as WP:NOR. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm thinking of the right tool, there was a discussion (at one one of the village pumps I think) that saw significant opposition to deployment here, although I can't immediately find it. I seem to remember the opposition was a combination of errors and it being bundled with VE? I think Fram and WhatamIdoing were vocal in that discussion so may remember where it was (or alternatively what I'm mixing it up with). Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, Edit check is available on the visual editor. Having it on wikitext won't make sense as the goal is to teach users to add citations, not to teach them both about citations and wikitext. Let's reduce complexity. :)
And the visual editor is still not the default editor at de.wp or en.wp. I advised to work on deploying both in parallel so that newcomers would have a better editing experience all at once (less wikitext, more guidance). Why am I not working on it now? Because it would take time. Now that the visual editor was used for years at all other wikis to make millions of edits, we should consider making it the default editor at English Wikipedia for new accounts. It could be a progressive deployment. I've not yet explored past reasons why English Wikipedia didn't wanted to have the visual editor being deployed, again for time reasons. But we would support any community initiative regarding VE deployment for sure.
We could deploy Edit check without VE, but I'm afraid of a low impact on newcomers: they are less likely to be helped as long as VE remains the second editor.
@Thryduulf, there were a discussion about Edit check in the past, you are correct. It covered multiple topics actually. I let you re-read it if you like; I didn't found "significant opposition" there, more questions about Edit Check, VE, citations and more, concerns on Edit Check and VE integration, and support for a better experience for newcomers (as long as it doesn't impact existing personal experiences).
If you didn't see "significant oppo sition" there, then perhaps reread it? The tool you deployed elsewhere had no measurable positive impact (when tested on Simple or French Wikipedia). As for past reasons why enwiki didn't want VE deployed, let's give you one: because when VE was deployed here, it was extremely buggy (as in, making most articles worse when used, not better), but the WMF refused to undo their installation here (despite previous assurances) and used enwiki as a testing ground, wasting tons of editor hours and creating lots of frustration and distrust towards the WMF. This was only strengthened by later issues (Flow, Gather, Wikidata short descriptions) which all followed the same pattern, although in those cases we eventually, after lots of acrimonious debates and broken WMF promises, succeeded in getting them shut down). As shown in the linked discussion, here again we have two instances of WMF deployments supported by test results where in the first instance reality showed that these were probably fabricated or completely misunderstood, as in reality the results were disastrous; and in the second instance, Edit Check, reality showed that the tool wasn't an improvement over the current situation, but even when spelled out this was "misread" by the WMF. Please stop it. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a couple of links to comments from people other than yourself, and which specifically opposed EditCheck (not the 'make the visual editor the default' or 'Citoid has some problems' sub-threads)? I just skimmed through the 81 comments from 19 editors in the proposal that Robertsky made, and while I might have missed something, your first comment, which was the 69th comment in the list, was the first one to oppose the idea of using software to recommend that new editors add more citations.
Most of the discussion is not about EditCheck or encouraging refs. Most of it is about whether first-time editors should be put straight into the visual editor vs asking them to choose. The responses there begin this way:
"I thought Visual Editor is already the default for new accounts and unregistered editors?" [15]
"In theory, this sounds like a great idea. I'm eager to try it out..." [16]
"I'd support making Visual Editor the default..." [17]
"I totally agree that VE should be the default for new users." [19]
which is mostly not about whether to use software to encourage newbies to add more citations (the second quotation is directly about EditCheck; not quoted are comments, including mine, about whether it's technically necessary to make the visual editor 'the default' before deploying EditCheck [answer: no]).
Then the thread shifts to @Chipmunkdavis wanting the citation templates to have "an easily accessed and obvious use of an |author= field, instead forcing all authors into |last and |first", which is about how the English Wikipedia chooses to organize its CS1 templates, and @Thryduulf wanting automatic ref names that are "human-friendly" (to take the wording RoySmith used), both of which entirely unrelated to whether to use software to encourage new editors to add more citations.
I see some opposition to putting new editors into the visual editor, and I see lots of complaints about automated refs, but I don't see any opposition from anyone except you to EditCheck itself. Please provide a couple of examples, so I can see what I missed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"which is about how the English Wikipedia chooses to organize its CS1 templates" is perhaps one way to say that the VE has no functionality to accept the synonyms, which I discovered in a few disparate conversations following that thread. I still have a tab open to remind me to put a note about phab on this, it's really not ideal have VE editors shackled with the inability to properly record author names. CMD (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VisualEditor is perfectly capable of accepting actual aliases such as |author=, and even non-existent parameters such as |fljstu249= if you want (though I believe the citation templates, unlike most templates, will emit error messages for unknown parameters). It just isn't going to "suggest" them when the CS1 maintainers have told it not to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to solve the problem, please solve the problem. Per Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 95, "The solution to the ve-can't/won't-use-already-existing-alias-list problem lies with MediaWiki, not with editors adding yet more parameters to TemplateData". As it stands, VE doesn't do it, and I've seen no indication that they consider it an issue. CMD (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this wikitext:
{{cite news |author=Alice Expert |date=November 20, 2024 |title=This is the title of my news story |work=The Daily Whatever}}
which will produce this citation:
Alice Expert (November 20, 2024). "This is the title of my news story". The Daily Whatever.
then (a) I just did that in the Reply tool's visual mode, so it obviously can be done without any further coding in MediaWiki, VisualEditor, or anything else, and (b) you need to convince editors that they want "Alice Expert" at the start instead of "Expert, Alice" of citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have to convince editors that they want "Alice Expert" instead of "Expert, Alice". The issue is, as covered in the original discussion with some good input from others, non-western name formats. It is a cultural blindspot to assume all names fall into "Expert, Alice" configurations, and it seems that it is a blindspot perpetuated by the current VE expectations. CMD (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis, I guess I'm having trouble understanding what you want.
You said in the linked discussion that "My understanding is that the VE tool does not allow for the use of aliases". I'm telling you: Your understanding is wrong. It's obviously possible to get |author= in the visual editor, because I did that. Either this diff is a lie, or your understanding is mistaken. I'm going with the latter. |author=Mononym is already possible. So what change are you actually asking for?
The linked discussion seems, to my eyes, to be a long list of people telling you that if you don't like the description used in the TemplateData (NB: not MediaWiki and not VisualEditor), then you should change the description in the TemplateData (NB: not MediaWiki and not VisualEditor) yourself. You say the devs told you that, and I count at least two other tech-savvy editors who told you to WP:SOFIXIT already. Neither the part that says "Last name" nor the part that says "The surname of the author; don't wikilink, use 'author-link'; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors" is part of either the visual editor or MediaWiki. Any editor who can edit Template:Cite news/doc can change those words to anything they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having to type source wikitext completely defeats the purpose of the visual editor; why not just type in the wikitext editor. This "solution" is a blaring technicality.Perhaps you should read the last four replies in the linked discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is the sort of odd reply this topic inexplicably gets. You can just type in source code in the visual editor, I mean, why have visual editor at all. Just change the description so people can pretend someone's name is their last name, now being suggested yet again as a simple SOFIXIT, and no I'm not going to deliberately and formally codify that we should mislabel people's names, for what I did think before these various discussions were obvious reasons. CMD (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. How did you do that? 2. The author parameter is useful and used iff the author has no last name; e.g., byline being an organization, mononymous person, no author stated, etc. This is documented at the citation-style help pages. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The |author= parameter behaves the same as the |last= parameter, so there's little point in changing the wikitext to say |author=.
(In this case, I took the quick and dirty approach of typing out the template by hand, and pasting it in. The Reply tool's visual mode normally won't let you insert a template at all, because block-formatted templates completely screw up the discussion format. Normally, if there's no TemplateData to provide you with the options, then you'd click on the "+Add undocumented parameter" button and type in whatever you wanted. If there is TemplateData, then see my earlier comment that "It just isn't going to "suggest" them when the CS1 maintainers have told it not to do so.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's semantically different, like the em tag vs italicizing and whatnot. And as I've said before, the documentation doesn't suggest it so that the clueless will not use both |last and |author. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone adds |authorn= as a separate parameter, I fear that we will see an increase in the number of articles that populate Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter because OMG!-there's-an-empty-box-in-the-form;-I-must-fill-it. This is why I suggested radio buttons for aliases; something that MediaWiki would needs implement.
You missed that none of them tested it or checked it on other wikipedia versions, and that no support came along after I had tested it and posted my results? No surprise here... Fram (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big gap between "The discussion stopped" and "There was significant opposition in this discussion".
In terms of EditCheck, I found most of the discussion to be off-topic, but I can honestly only find one editor (you) who opposed it in that discussion. I assume your failure to provide links to any other statement of opposition means you also honestly can't find a single comment in that discussion from anyone who agreed with you – just an absence of further comments, and an unprovable assumption on your part that its due to everyone agreeing with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't stop you from making any assumptions or presentings things in the most WMF-favorable light. Seems like VE all over again, only then you had the excuse of being paid by the WMF. Fram (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I presented the discussion in the most WMF-favorable light. The discussion started off pretty enthusiastic, but it was mostly enthusiastic about something other than EditCheck itself. It then turned into a long digression into something completely unrelated.
(My own contributions to that discussion were technical in nature: It doesn't require the visual editor as the default; code may already exist for an unrelated change that someone wants; stats may already exist for something close to the numbers someone else wants.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Fram, this is precisely because I reread the conversation that I wrote my previous message. We have the right to disagree, but it should remain civil and not convey accusations of bad faith. The way you try to depict me as a dishonest person is not acceptable at all.
I let other participants have a look at the previous discussion we linked, also take a look at the data we provided, and make their own opinion. We aren't the two people who will decide of a deployment here: I'm just the messenger, and you are not the person who has the final word on behalf of everyone. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tough luck. You posted a dishonest reply last time we had this discussion. If it had been a genuine error in that previous discussion, you should have just said so. Instead, you not only let your error stand, but then come here and claim that there was no significant opposition to Edit Check in that previous discussion, ignoring the one person who tested it and posted results. And like I said in that discussion, the data the WMF provides is not to be trusted at all, as seen from other deployments. Which I already stated and you again ignore completely. But, like I said, the WMF (and previous WMF employees like Whatamidoing) are very good at civil bullshit, while I am not so good at the civil part but rather good at cutting through the bullshit. Fram (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are non-native English speakers in this discussion, I'd like to clarify that "dishonest", in English, means that the person deliberately told the opposite of the truth. For example, it is dishonest to say "I love Windows ME", when you actually hate it.
However:
Having incorrect or outdated information is not "dishonest".
Caring about a particular benefit more than a different problem is not "dishonest".
Disagreeing with you, or with a hypothetical average reasonable person, is not "dishonest".
There's a reason that English has an idiom about an "honest mistake": It's because it's possible to be factually wrong without being dishonest. For example, if you say "Oh, User:Example said something yesterday", but upon further inspection, it was a different user, or a different day. Or even if you say "The previous discussion shows significant opposition to EditCheck", but upon further inspection, nobody except you publicly opposed it. Such a sentence is only dishonest if the speaker believes, at the time of speaking, that the statement is factually wrong. Unless the speaker believes themselves to be speaking falsehoods, it's not actually dishonest; it's only a mistake or an error.
"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" – Claiming, or even implying, that WMF staff have a tendency to be dishonest is probably a violation of this point in the policy.
"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." – Claiming that anyone is "dishonest", especially when the difference between your view and theirs is a matter of opinion, is very likely a violation of this policy. It doesn't officially matter if the manner in which you say this is "you are dishonest" or "your replies are dishonest"; it's still insulting and disparaging another editor.
Like I said, one can post all distruths one wants as long as one does it civilly. Reminds me of the discussions we had about VE when it was disastrously deployed but all you did as a liaison was defend the WMF no matter what. And I didn't say their replies were dishonest because they are a WMF employee, just that it is typical behaviour for many of them apparently. Perhaps reread the breakdown of the Gather discussions I gave below, or reread the countless discussions about Flow, VE, descriptions, ... There are some good apples among them, but not too many. Fram (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2013, not 2023. July was early days in VE testing, when I still thought you were helpful. A few months later I had become wiser. Fram (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I do think a RfC can be made once the proposed details of the deployment is firmed up:
Do we make VE as the default for new editors?
Do we enable EditCheck as it is?
Current pop-up for new editorsAside, if we retain the current arrangement, i.e. letting new/anon editors selecting their preferred editor, can we change the buttons to be more balanced in colours and sizing? These do affect one's preference in choosing which button to click. – robertsky (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
robertsky, that's two RFCs, and – respectfully – conflating the two questions was a primary contributor to how far off the rails this conversation got last time.The UX alterations are probably best brought up at meta or mw for the skins devs to consider. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gather was dropped after 3 months (without any "broken WMF promises" nor any time for them to have given such promises or to have acrimoniously debated), and Wikidata SDs seem to be deployed and working completely fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gather was deployed in March 2015 and immediately got severe backlash at the announcement: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Extension:Gather launching on beta. No good answers followed. So three weeks later we get Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Moderation of Collections?, where we get (laughable) promises of what the WMF will do to solve some of the most basic problems of this tool they rolled out on enwiki but hadn't really thought about at all it seems. Instead, they created a new Flow page on enwiki for this tool (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback) despite Flow being removed from enwiki long before this. So in January 2016 (hey, that's already 10 months, not 3), Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 130#Disabling Gather? was started. On 22 Januuary 2016, an answer was promised by the WMF "next week" (section "A WMF reply next week"): "by next week, the Gather team will have a major update to share about the feature". Things escalated, so another WMF person came along 6 days later to promise "we will be putting together this analysis starting now with the intention of sharing publicly next week with a decision the week after." (section "A Response from the WMF"). So instead of some great announcement after 1 week, we are now 6 days further and will get big news 2 weeks later... So, more than 2 weeks later, 12 February, we get "the analysis has taken longer than I anticipated. I'll post the results as soon as I can." So, on the 19th, they posted a "proposal" to which others replied "that proposal is an insult to the community." and "his smacks of yet more stalling tactics and an attempt to save face". Only when the RfC was closed with truly overwhelming supprt to disable it did they finally relent.
Do you really need a similar runthrough of Wikidata short descriptions, which are (or should be) disabled everywhere on enwiki and replaced by local descriptions instead? Or will you admit that perhaps you didn't remember details correctly? Fram (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah man I don't remember anything well, I wasn't there. I'm just reading random things I can find to see what you're talking about, such as the MediaWiki page that states development was suspended by July 2015, but as you've pointed out, that is different from disabling, and thank you for helping me to find. Thanks for your links on Gather. By no fault of its own, Shortdesc helper made me conflate WD descriptions and SDs. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested deploying it on the source editor. Having not fully read the above discussion yet, it currently seems unreasonable that it's not deployed in the visual editor on enwiki and dewiki (while preserving the current "level of defaultness" of the visual editor itself instead of increasing the defaultness). Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, I never implied you suggested it, I was just one step ahead telling you that it is not available on source editor. :) We can deploy Edit check without changing the "level of defaultness" of the visual editor itself, but the impact might not be the same. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Probably Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive_213#Deploying_Edit Check on this wiki. Having reread that thread, it combines all WMF rollout issues into one it seems, from starting with false requirements over a testing environment which isn't up-to-date at all to completely misreading everything that is said into something supposedly positive, ignoring the stuff that contradicts their "this must be pushed no matter what" view. But all in a very civil way, there's that I suppose... Fram (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an utterly weird objective for that tool "Newcomers and Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa will feel safe and confident enough while editing to publish changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers consider useful." Very neocolonial. Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Different parts of the world have different responses to UX changes. A change that is encouraging in a high-resource setting (or an individualistic culture, or various other things) may be discouraging in others. It is therefore important to test different regions separately. The Editing team, with the strong encouragement of several affiliates, decided to test sub-Saharan Africa first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help it if you don't see how insulting and patronizing it is to write "Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa will feel safe and confident enough while editing". Fram (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redone my check at Simple wiki, looking at the most recent edits which automatically triggered this tool[20]. 39 instances were automatically indicated as "declined", the other 11 contain 3 edits which don't add a reference anyway[21][22][23] and 6 edits which actually add a reference[24][25][26][27][28][29] (though 3 of these 6 are fandom, youtube and enwiki). And then there is this and this, which technically add a source as well I suppose... Still, 3 probably good ones, 3 probably good faith bad ones, 3 false positives, and 2 vandal ref additions. Amazingly, this is almost the exact same result as during the previous discussion[30]. Fram (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think just creating one good source addition is enough cause for deployment (without making VE the default editor), especially since it doesn't appear to be causing additional harm. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't create more good source additions than we had before the tool, then there is no reason to deploy something which adds a popup which people usually don't use anyway. Without the popup, there also were new editors adding sources, it's not as if we came from zero. No benefit + additional "noise" for new editors => additional harm. Fram (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that has to do with my reply. Fram was disputing that the source additions were good and useful, and I was replying to him that some of them were good, hence edit check should be deployed (plus I'm fairly sure there's another check in the works to check reference URLs against the local RSP) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you observed (Editors who got a popup did not originally give a source when attempting to publish) is shown in the data we shared.
We already deployed checks to verify if a link added is not listed in rejection lists and make it more actionable by newcomers. Some users at other wikis expressed a need to have a list of accepted links (the ones that match RSP), but other said that it could prevent new good sources from being added. Thoughts?
Isn't that the programmed heuristic for when the popup appears? I don't get what this has to do with any stats.Only URLs in the spamlist are blocked. Edit check should strongly warn against adding sources found generally unreliable by consensus summarized at RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to understand, sorry. Stats are about users adding a citation when asked compared from where not asked. It is not connected to RSP.
Like I said, of the 11 supposed additions, 5 need reverting (as far as the source goes) and 3 didn't add a source. I don't trust WMF numbers at all, but 5/8 needing a revert is hardly an overwhelming success. Even assuming that the 3 good ones wouldn't have added a source otherwise, one then has to make the same conclusion for the others, and the 5 bad ones wouldn't have been included otherwise either. So where is the net benefit and the no harm? Fram (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust WMF numbers at all
I'm new to all this, could you elaborate on why?
the 5 bad ones wouldn't have been included otherwise either
The 5 bad ones would have included no source at all if Edit Check wasn't there. I don't see how adding a blatantly terrible source is worse than adding text without a source at all. Both are checked the exact same way: eye-scanning. So there you go, net benefit and no harm. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I explained it already in the previous discussion. You have made false claims about Gather and so on, but can't be bothered to reply when I take the time to give a detailed answer; but now you are apparently "new to all this" suddenly and want me to again take some time to enlighten you. No. And an unsourced statement is obvious to see, a statement sourced to a bad source is much less obvious. Fram (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, I think this is a "reasonable people can disagree" thing. Some RecentChanges patrollers just revert any new unsourced claim, so if it's unsourced, it's quick to get out of the queue. Faster reverting means success to them, whereas encouraging people to add sources is like whispering a reminder to someone during a game of Mother, May I?: It removes an easy 'win' for the reverter.
OTOH, having a source attached to bad information has other advantages. It's easy to determine whether it's a copyvio if you have the source, and if you're looking at an article you know something about (e.g., your own watchlist rather than the flood in Special:RecentChanges), then having the source often means that you can evaluate it that much faster ("This is a superficially plausible claim, but I wouldn't trust that website if it said the Sun usually rises in the East").
For content that shouldn't be reverted, then IMO encouraging a source is always a good thing. For content that should be reverted, there are tradeoffs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I miss things, especially on a workday. Sorry about that. I think the mobile short-descriptions thing is believable, as users . This is a case of the methodology being technically correct but misleading, which I don't see for the edit check study, unless you're willing to provide an argument.
an unsourced statement is obvious to see, a statement sourced to a bad source is much less obvious.
IMO, only slightly. Often, only users of experience patrol pages when reading them. (The unacquainted are also sometimes able to realize something's probably wrong with a swath of unsourced text, hence they make up part of the aforementioned "slightly".) And blatantly bad sources jump out to those experienced from the references section. Sources in the middle ground can often link to good sources, though there is a debate on how good it is to have both additionally middle-ground and bad sources vs. no sources at all. Personally, I think it's better. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would save time to have a true template but what would the word list be; y/Y/yes/Yes/YES n/N/no/No/NO t/T/true/True/TRUE f/F/false/False/FALSE? Anthony2106 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In templates like plot and AUD they have an option for "true" e.g {{AUD|10,000|link=yes}} putting "True" in place of "yes" does not work, so this functionality could be added into the AUD template or AUD could use a istrue template - a global template that has all the yeses and no's, so AUD would have a template in a template. This way each template that needed a yes/no could use this global template. Anthony2106 (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t put up Ip addresses for those who are not signed in.
You see, if someone edits Wikipedia and they are not signed in, their IP address is exposed. That means one could track where they live and dox them further. So yeah, don’t put the Ip adrees. But what if the person does an edit that ruins the page, or something bad? you see Wikipedia will have the ip address, and all what they have to do is report the anonymous person, Who will have a name, like not logged in or something, then Wikipedia will block it. Have a good day. Bye bye! Datawikiperson (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses will give the location of the ISP node, or if the router has a location recorded with the ISP it will show that, most private routers do not show their location and will just show the ISP node. Try it yourself on a website like https://www.iplocation.net/. But you're right, sometimes it can that's true. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not the most versed on that technical issue, one of the important points raised during Graham's RRfA was that admin tools were needed for him to do history merges and deal with more complex imports. Since Graham will no longer have these tools as an administrator, would there be a way to add these capabilities to the importer role? It could also help make the latter more accessible for non-admins potentially interested in helping out with this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be possible. Need (a) a community discussion that supports adding the (mergehistory) permission to the import group, here on the English Wikipedia. Then (b) a configuration request can be made to add such. — xaosfluxTalk11:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox officeholder}} already has a parameter for "Other political affiliations", which might be what you are looking for. Otherwise, yes, a section in the article text can be written if there are enough sources to position the person on the political spectrum, but there shouldn't be a strict guideline mandating it to be present, especially since these affiliations can be controversial or contested. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dead pixels, an expansion to WP:CITEWATCH, a new noticeboard?
Bit of a long one... more of an essay at this point really, but IMO, it might be worth it to prevent editor burnout and bring in new users, so here goes: You know how once one spots a dead pixel, they can't seem to ignore it? Then one starts wondering whether the monitor vendor has either: gotten sloppy with their work... or if they just got unlucky given the volume of monitors that get put out by the vendor. Then the dread of calling the warranty department...
Just like the analogy above, the news and research outputted by reliable sources is generally problem free. But because of the volume of information, occasionally errors will get in. Sometimes even unscrupulous outlets gets in. But unless one is motivated or knowledgeable enough, few will go through the effort of comparing what the reference says to its references (reference-in-reference). This is the dead pixel problem I'm talking about, and just like a dead pixel, annoys the crap of the person who sees it, for better or worse. Then comes the process of "fixing" it: currently, original research issues, and reference-in-reference issues are handled in science by PubPeer, whose extension is used by a paltry number of users. Response times by authors take days, maybe years even with relentless journalism. At any rate, most people who feel compelled to edit Wikipedia due to accuracy problems have probably never heard of PubPeer. And as for issues with regular journalists, I suppose one could turn to opinions by third parties like NewsGuard? And meanwhile, they can usually get away with publishing contradictory health news without being called out for it.
All made more worrying given that impact Wikipedia has on the real-world non-Wikipedians, like judges and scientists. Recent political developments, as well as LLM usage (see WP:CNET), mean that once reliable sources could suddenly hallucinate or contradict other sources on a whim. Maybe the errors made daily won't be indicative of LLM usage... but they could. In any case, we don't currently track these issues, so whose to say what patterns unreliable sources follow?
Mistake or no mistake, when the inaccuracy is inevitably spotted (probably by us, I wonder why...), an attempt will probably be made to re-balance the article or add footnotes following WP:Inaccuracy. This works great... if you are the only editor of a given article. For everyone else, because not everyone will necessarily see a dead pixel as a big deal, the actions may seem disproportionate and/or violate certain consensus policies, and the talk page will go on and on, maybe then to WP:DRN driving away casual but knowledgeable editors, all of which will be seen by hardly anyone, let alone the original author of the source. One could then go to WP:RSN, but that noticeboard is really only equipped to handle the most problematic and fringe sources, not really the daily errors that get published by sources day to day. We burn out, and the world, by and large, hardly notices the dispute.
To solve this, I propose some sort of objective-ish tracking in WP:CITEWATCH of reference-in-reference accuracy (in line with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOR) as well as other issues like typos, linking issues, cotogenesis, copyright violations, notable omissions, and most importantly, corrections (sure sign of a RS), and the time elapsed from error spotting to correction for refs, all heuristics that, when aggregated, could be indicative of a sloppy copyeditors or cursory peer review. Editors could put in a template with the relevant issue, hidden by default until patrolled. If there is a dispute, a new reference-in-reference noticeboard, split into categories (typos, copyright violations, etc.)
Bonus benefits - we might finally:
Know which MDPI journals have decent peer review, allowing them to build a reputation?
Create an easy place to show that the consensus on WP:ALJAZEERA is justified?
Create an incentive to keep more accountable (especially on health related topics)? As well as obscure sources on obscure topics that may only be read by the Wikipedian.
Reduce biting and attrition by creating an easy place for sub-WP:RSN issues to be reported, counted and easily exportable to PubPeer or elsewhere?
Problematically high counts could then easily be reported to WP:RSN without the need for extensive, hard-to-read discussion.
Other references
External videos
No, Sabine, Science is Not Failing, Somewhat related video by Professor Dave that was coincidentally published while I was thinking about this. Mentions PubPeer. See also WP:WTW.
Older pre-internet sources might be less affected by ref-in-ref errors, since the reader could be reasonably expected to check the sources, necessity.
WVhere ref-in-ref notices go to the reader: Probably inside ref tags, after the chosen citation template?
This proposal could involve multiple changes to various guideline pages. WP:Inaccuracy will probably be changed the most by this proposal.
Patrolling - Mostly in anticipation of misunderstanding of policy, and WP:NOR.
Noiceboard name - RRN, reference-in-reference noticeboard? To avoid flooding the noticeboard, require discussion on talk page first? Split noticeboard into categories?
Categories - Categories will be separated into errors that will be reported to readers when patrolled, and those that will just be tracked by an expanded SOURCEWATCH table, for later discussion on RSN.
General typos - just track, probably a mistake, and shouldn't happen often with vigilant peer reviewers.
Ref-in-ref notable omission - Things like not disclosing a certain ref-in-ref is a preprint, failed, etc. Probably should report to the reader.
Ref-in-ref typo - Linking to the wrong paper in the paper's references. This should be reported to to the reader.
Ref-in-ref contradiction - Errors in copying data from another paper to the paper, making statements that are not supported by the other paper. I feel like this should be reported, like other the other Ref-in-ref categories
Copyright violation/plagiarism - Ref should be removed as soon as possible. If not, report, provide copyvio report.
Verifably illogical - Claims such as "birds don't exist" or "FDR invented the Federal Register" that would require overlooking enough sources to be problematic. This is mostly a catch-all category, for LLM hallucinations or otherwise, that should be used with caution, and should probably just be tracked.
Citogenesis/Citing Wikipedia - Apparently it's still a thing, but I'd prefer sources be honest rather than hide it (see [33][34]). Policies should encourage the use of permalinks to properly cite Wikipedia. Speaking of perverse incentives...
Perverse incentives? Less citing of sources overall? Counterpoints: Existing incentives to cite to increase impact or whatever. Could be solved with another category:
General contradiction - Tracking only, focus only on all refs that were ever cited on Wikipedia to reduce scope. Some contradictions are expected, but an excessive number of contradiction notes - more likely to be fringe?
Rolling this out might take an extended period of time, and will probably involve the WMF as well as new templates, modules, instructions, etc. Thoughts on this, as well as how improvements could be broken up or rolled out? ⸺(Random)staplers03:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the fact that we now have an additional public court disclosure seeming to overwhelmingly indicate that the WMF will imminently be disclosing the personally identifying information of at least the three volunteers that ANI has identified as defendants in its suite, I am proposing we have as broad a community discussion as possible on what further response (up to and including large organized protest actions aimed to challenge the WMF's intended course of action) might be appropriate and feasible in the circumstances. Please see here, for further details. SnowRise let's rap16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journal article about coverage of native American topics in English-language Wikipedia
Given that it's recent (May 2024) and it has suggestions directed at Wikimedia Foundation, I was just wondering if Wikimedia Foundation is aware of this article. And I am not asking with respect to editor conduct, but with respect to any potential initiatives (such as partnerships with potential volunteer experts to audit few articles). Bogazicili (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation over the first half of November 2024. Please help translate.
WikiCelebrate Mārtiņš Bruņenieks
Upcoming and current events and conversations Talking: 2024 continues
Commons Community Call: The first community call with Wikimedia Commons volunteers and stakeholders to help prioritize support efforts for 2025-2026 Fiscal Year will take place on November 21. The theme of this call will be about how content should be organised on Wikimedia Commons. The call will be hosted by Chief Product and Technology Officer Selena Deckelmann.
Wikifunctions: The Abstract Wikipedia team is working toward a rewrite of our backend services in a different programming language, likely Rust. More status updates.
Temporary accounts: Logged-out editors on 12 wikis, including Norwegian, Romanian, Serbian, Danish, and Cantonese Wikipedia, receive temporary accounts now. This new account type enhances the privacy of logged-out editors and makes it easier for community members to communicate with them. Read the new Diff post to learn more about temporary accounts.
Mobile apps: The Mobile Apps team has released an update to the iOS app’s navigation, now available in the latest App store version.
Admin Retention: A survey on Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition is open until November 11. As part of the Foundation's 2024-2025 Annual Plan, the research team and collaborators are studying recruitment, retention, and attrition patterns among long-tenured community members in official moderation and administration roles.
Knowledge is Human: The campaign web page, which educates visitors on Wikipedia’s model and why it’s trustworthy, has earned over 140,000 clicks. The campaign has increased pageviews on WikimediaFoundation.org by more than 50%.
Annual Goals Progress on Equity See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki
WikiCelebrate: From making a minor maintenance edit in 2005 to being one of the most appreciated Wikimedians in the Central Eastern European (CEE) region: this month we celebrate Mārtiņš Bruņenieks.
Future of Language Incubation: As part of a new Future of Language Incubation initiative to support language onboarding, Wikipedia is now live for five languages: Pannonian Rusyn, Tai Nüa, Iban, Obolo, and Southern Ndebele.
Global Advocacy: Reflecting on the anniversary of the EU’s Digital Service Act (DSA), Wikimedians share successes and public policy priorities at digital rights Global Gathering event, and more global advocacy updates.
Fundraising Report: Our annual fundraising report for the 2023-2024 fiscal year is published. Last year, we had over 8 million donors giving an average donation of m:Fundraising/2023-24 Report0.58. We ran campaigns in 33 countries, 18 languages, and received donations from over 200 countries.
We would prefer not to deploy on English Wikipedia at that time, though. A knee jerk reaction would be requesting otherwise and have enwiki be onboard as early as possible. – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to fine-tune implementation on smaller wikis before rolling out to larger ones, but I am a lot more comfortable about this implementation than I was with earlier reports, which merely talked of hiding IP addresses, with all the worries over how we then handle IP vandalism, and did not provide any benefits to the (logged-in) community of editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was very pleased that the ability to look at IPs had been extended to patrollers. Is there somewhere better that we can highlight this useful update, which allayed many of my concerns as an administrator about the upcoming change, as I fear the WMF page is not much read? Espresso Addict (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How will this change the WP:OUTING policy? For example can I include the IP address or cidr range of a temporary account in the suspected sock list? Would that be considered outing? Because anyone(logged out editors too) can see a SPI report.Ratnahastin (talk) 09:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely not, as you're required to agree to certain terms when opting in to view IPs (as you already are on this wiki when enabling IP info). It would be a violation of not only local policy but ToS. Nardog (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should not be a need to include the IP address or the CIDR range in SPI report. Just the list of temporary accounts will do. Any CU, clerks, or patrolling admins will to have updated their checking processes to account for temporary accounts. – robertsky (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone seen an indication of how many buttons you have to click to see IP info? In the past, people might post half-a dozen IPs at ANI and someone else would point out that that was a /64 that should be blocked with no collateral damage. At least one template ({{blockcalc}}) can extract IPs from wikitext and show the ranges involved. We will have to see how much hassle will be involved with the new system. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: I have the global version of edit filter helper, so I have access on the wikis where it's just been rolled out (plus testwiki). If I recall correctly, it's just one button agreeing to the IP information policy to reveal IPs, but there are more boxes in Special:Preferences that allow for things like revealing IPs in the edit filter and using IP information on contribution pages. There's also a global preference available to CU/OS and certain global groups (global rollback/sysop, and global abuse filter helper/maintainer) to enable IP information cross-wiki. EggRoll97(talk) 23:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary accounts can be changed if one clears cookies or uses a different browser, not the same case with a cidr IP range. This will certainly make it a bit of a hassle to list out every temporary account associated with the IP range, anyway let's see how this feature is implemented first. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has devolved completely from anything appropriate at VP. Please take discussion of US politics to some forum where it's appropriate. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you mean the users or a part of the body of wikipedia itself? As in, could Trump take over the website or otherwise exert significant pressure that would otherwise be alleviated by relocation? If not, then I guess no action necessary.
Are the servers located in the United States? It's looking like the answer is no, and I'm sorry for being paranoid, it's just that he has done things in this country that we didn't anticipate because we didn't expect anyone to have the sort of character that it would be a problem in that position. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary Wikimedia data centers are located in the U.S., with caching centers distributed around the globe. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country with better legal protections for online free speech, but as you note, it shouldn't be taken for granted. Legoktm (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the 1st amendment provides stronger protections than almost all countries have; even if Trump tried he'd be hard pressed to find a court that would agree with Wikipedia censorship (unlike in India...). Galobtter (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the strength of free speech protections in the US being more robust than just about anywhere else in the world, from a perspective of well-enshrined constitutional protections and the historical jurisprudence and respect from institutions. That said, if there were to be a concerted push by the incoming president and his allies to suppress certain information streams and target free speech that aligns against him, it would not be the first time that he sent shockwaves through the legal world by finding success in overturning long-established doctrines that were until recently thought iron-clad and inviolable, by appearing before a federal judiciary that is now showing the influence of decades of concerted efforts by the GOP and the Federalist Society to pack those courts to the gills with ideologically-aligned and personally loyal jurists. In short, nothing is certain in the current political and institutional landscape. I just don't think a whole-sale move of the organization and its technical infrastructure is either feasible or likely to substantially obviate the risks. The only answer is to take up the fight when and where it occurs. SnowRise let's rap20:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add that the Federalist Society is not opposed to the First Amendment, and indeed has been staunchly supportive of what it is and what it means in terms of campaign finance. Unlike with Roe v Wade, where there was in fact a decades long campaign to overturn it, there's no similar movement to overturn key First Amendment precedents. Having said that, I do worry about Section 230's protections for user generated content, which is very important. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Jimbo Wales, and yes, 230 is a concern. I'd request and suggest that you arrange a meeting with Donald Trump and Elon Musk at Mar-a-Lago to discuss how it would affect Wikipedia and other online projects. They both seem open to such meetings, and my guess is that it would be beneficial for the project in several ways. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They both seem open to such meetings. They do? Are you sure it's that easy to get a meeting with the president-elect and the richest man in the world? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Jimbo, pretty sure. Trump takes many meetings, both formal and informal, and I would hope that Musk would be interested in sitting in on their conversation(s). Many things happen in Trump's meetings, and I would assume that a Wales-Trump-Musk sit-down would veer into some interesting directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not afford either of those an ounce of credibility in any statement they make. Both have shown a willingness to say one thing and do another to an extreme extent, and risking something like this to the whims of people like that is not something I'd personally advise. Though, Trump doesn't appear to be looking too good these days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ir3ULEvRqBU
I'm speaking somewhat plainly, but trying to be appropriate. As for Musk, when he sent his submarine to go rescue some people from a cave somewhere... his response to some of the events was... notable (not for Wikipedia standards maybe though).
For Trump, there's too many examples (saying that he doesn't know anything about project 2025, and soo many others).
The Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, is based in the United States, and has to comply with US laws. Unless a relevant law is passed or legal action is taken, there isn't much Trump can do. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!20:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Trump goes authoritarian, which at this point I'm not going to rule out, US Law could be changed on a whim. But, I'm going to try to not be paranoid as much on this and WMF may already have evaluated appropriate courses of action given how they've managed to handle a wide variety of different kinds of disruption already. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is, we just don't know. I'm sure the WMF has contingencies in place for if US law ever becomes prejudicial to the project. Until he actually becomes president, we don't know what will happen. We just have to wait and see. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but considering the current crisis over the ANI matter, I am not at all confident that the WMF does have a proper contingency plan for a concerted litigation campaign from a Trump presidential administration or aligned parties. And actually, in that case, I could forgive their not having one: in that case, it's hard to predict for once bedrock civil and constitutional principles flying out the window, or know the exact combination of legal angle of attack and political pressure which may lead to such outcomes. Unlike certain other recent scenarios where the manner in which things have played out was mostly predictable, there is a lot that could very much be up in the air. The Justice Department will certainly be headed by a political loyalist for the next four years, and SCOTUS and many of the other federal courts are incredibly friendly to right wing causes, but the MAGA movement as a whole has not tended to attract the sharpest of legal minds for advocates, and not withstanding the election results, there is a lot of cultural attachment remaining in the U.S. for robust free speech protections--which afterall, conservative politicians are typically as happy to invoke and benefit from as anyone. So it's very difficult to know how concerned to be or what angle to expect the erosion of expression rights to set in from, if it does occur. In this case, I would sympathize if the WMF felt as much ina holding pattern as the rest of us. SnowRise let's rap20:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not act like the Sigmund Freuds sister's who throught they could survive in 1939. I hope Wikimedia is seriously thinking about moving overseas several time if needed in order to gain some years rather than being turned into a Darwin Awards receipient. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite yet. The House passed HR 9495 yesterday, but for it to actually become law there are a few more steps that would need to happen. Anomie⚔00:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably won’t pass the Senate this session, and the democrats could also filibuster it when the GOP takes a very slim majority next time. And if it did pass, the main targets would be Palestinian rights groups, which the US already treats inexcusably because it shamelessly supports Israeli war crimes as part of the US-Israel-Iran proxy war. The long game that is international geopolitics makes both Wikipedia and the current office holder’s grievance politics look small. Dronebogus (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Disagree. He hired the guy that plan to enact laws allowing to crack down on mederation on Project. The Framework would give the power to the Fcc to prevent any kind of moderations by platforms as long as it s not death threats. Wikipedia Articles would be legally compelled to accept Breibart New or Infowars as a trusted source.2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah cause someones gonna use for extreme left leaning content eventually and they will go back. Also I'm sure that it will be such a big screwup in countless of other ways that they will be forced to go back. Gaismagorm(talk)02:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that wash your wishes of wikipedia not going in the right directions as the result of Trump. Moving legally is a lengthy operation that should be srudied in order to be ready when things become required. We can have the WMF as hardware user in the United States were the data is legammy managed from an the new country the WMF have moved to. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a basic precaution there should be a Wikipedia mirror with daily backups hosted on a server geolocated in a country with a higher democracy index and a higher internet freedom index than the US. I'd suggest Iceland, personally.—S MarshallT/C04:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's unneeded. Look, I get worrying about this situation but I doubt the situation will get so bad where wikipedia needs to move overseas. As stsated above, wikimedia also likely already has a plan for if this happens. Gaismagorm(talk)11:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, I do believe the backups at least are already quite robust in that respect. I'm less certain about the current situation for the mirrors, but I'm sure that information is probably transparently located somewhere on-site or on Meta. SnowRise let's rap20:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What’s so great about Iceland? I don’t like the idea of being subject to the whims of a country with the population of a small city that’s floated the idea of banning internet pornography at least once. The most obvious choice would be Switzerland. Dronebogus (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland's a fantastic place, and everyone needs to go on a night out in Reykjavik before they die, although some people might need to extend their mortgages to do it. It's true that pornography is technically illegal in Iceland, so in that scenario, if the worst should happen, some of your more worrisome drawings on Wikimedia Commons might be lost; but I understand that the antipornography laws are rarely enforced.—S MarshallT/C17:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a night in Reykjavik (well, it was aboard ship, but we did stay overnight), but I will note that Iceland has no army or navy and only a small coast guard. I'm not sure how well the country could resist pressure from the US (or Russia, for that matter, if the US were looking the other way) to interfere with any entity operating there. I used to have hopes that the EU would get its collective defense act together, but even if it did, Iceland hasn't joined, yet. Donald Albury18:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since we’re pretending like this actually a viable idea Switzerland has a formidable military for the express purpose of defending its neutrality. Dronebogus (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: I’m actually thinking of stuff like the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia or Seedfeeder. Plus a country with a tiny, homogeneous population (even a very friendly one) is more likely and able to legally force its weird idiosyncratic opinions onto Wikimedia, especially if it thinks the biggest nonprofit website on Earth has done something to damage its reputation (because in this hypothetical scenario Wikimedia would quickly become synonymous with Iceland by virtue of being its biggest export besides maybe Bjork) Dronebogus (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Latency would be tarrible and it wouldn t mean much than moving into the ocean as legally, everything would need to be attached to an earth nation. However by speaking about time, Elon, is planning 2 starship launches per week under Trump. If he moves to mars, in less than a decade, he ll be cut from Internet access. That s why gainning time is usefull. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but if the WMF does have or in the future creates contingency plans for moving operations in response to political developments, publicly revealing such plans in advance might make it harder to carry them out. It would be like a business announcing that they will build a factory in a given location without having at least an option to buy the land they will build on. Donald Albury16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop worrying to much, I doubt Trump is going to do anything against Wikipedia. Attacking and threatening to block Wikipedia will only infuriate the centrist voters, which I didn't think anyone would want to do. Some of the editors here are Trump supporters as well! What is concerning for Wikipedia today is the above case in India, where WMF HAD agreed to disclose the editor's information because of a defamation suit. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)06:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an important part of the analysis: we are hardly the most vulnerable collective entity in existence: for obvious reasons, we are meant to be apolitical, unaligned, and disinterested in directly influencing public perception of any matter (beyond the core mission of providing information, of course). But the one time this community was willing to flex its muscles to head off a legislative outcome that it felt was a danger to the fundamental viability of the project, the latent power of the project's reach, through the site/encyclopedia was made pretty obvious--and that strength was not trivial, utterly crushing legislation that had been sailing through congress. If pushed into a corner and forced to abandon its apolitical role, this movement is capable of coming back with potent counter-punches in terms of grassroots mobilization, and I think there is some perception of that fact out there now.
There's also the massive legal warchest of the WMF to contend with (which so many on this project have groused about over recent years, but which was well-advised to build up, for exactly this moment in time). Of course, the current ANI situation raises significant concerns about the ability of the WMF and the community to row together, which is one of the most concerning things about that situation. But the WMF will not have the same onerous sub judice principles giving it both legitimate and illegitimate reasons not to communicate clearly with us (at least nowhere near to the same degree) with regard to suits before U.S. courts. SnowRise let's rap20:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Disagree. He is attempting to appoint the guy at the Fcc that plan to enact laws allowing to crack down on mederation as the part of Project2025 he did write. The Framework would give the power to the Fcc to prevent any kind of moderations by platforms as long as it s not death threats. Wikipedia Articles would be legally compelled to accept Breibart New or Infowars as a trusted source. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, I doubt anything in particular will happen to Wikipedia. But if you want to prepare for the worst, as it were, and you have a machine with some extra disk space, consider periodically keeping an updated copy of the Wikipedia database dump. I get one periodically, just in case, since I've got plenty of spare space on this machine anyway. If worst ever came to worst, plenty of volunteers have the technical skill to get a DB dump up and working on a MediaWiki instance elsewhere, and run it at least while things are sorted out. I doubt it'll ever come to that, but if you want to be prepared just in case, well, the more widely copies of those are available, the better. Just remember that Wikipedia was completely run by volunteers once, from software development to sysadmins, and we could do it again if we had to. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem would be providing sufficient server capacity to handle the traffic. Anybody can put up a static mirror of WP as it was on the download date (Lord knowns there are a lot of those on the Internet), but providing an editable version that would be used by a large proportion of current editors would be pretty expensive. And if there were more than one editable version out there, it would be very difficult to ever merge the changes back into a single database, with some clones becoming permanent forks, perhaps sponsored by governments and other large entities. Donald Albury18:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought of the technical feasibility of a forked encyclopedia more the last few weeks than I have in the last ten years. Not as a serious exercise in making any plans, but just as a consequences of thinking about the relationship between the project and the WMF and what actually keep volunteers invested in this particular, traditional and only mode of building the encyclopedia. Aside from the obvious organizational and cultural ties, there's the obvious cost of maintaining ongoing access and development that you talk about, but then there's also the liabilities and legal fees. If circumstances were drastic enough to take Wikipedia itself down, it would be hard to shield any project with a big enough profile to be able to afford the access and tools for readers and editors from whatever legal forces had compromised Wikipedia's viability in the first place. Even redundancy different jurisdictions wouldn't necessarily obviate the kinds of threats that would be sufficient to take the original Wikipedia out of the picture. SnowRise let's rap07:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about the legal side. Trying to fork Wikipedia may well cause more problems than it could ever solve. I think the best chance of preserving Wikipedia is anything like its current form is to let the foundation do its job. If the foundation cannot protect Wikipedia in the US, there is little hope of Wikipedia surviving somewhere else. Donald Albury15:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it s someone who own the hardware personally. No, as I looked, most of the traffic is static web pages loading numbers aren t that much important. The problem is to have proper physicall backups but this would let the WMF time to organize for moving overseas.
To be frank, I am greatly surprised by the faith you put in the US Constitution. Many of you seem unaware that the threats you are facing are unprecedented. Trump attempted a coup in 2020 and during his campaign he actually said he wants to be a dictator. Or how else are we to interpret such things as "If you vote for me, you don't have to vote at all in four years"? He didn't say all this back in 2016. Neither did he employ such rascals in his government as he is planning to do know. Therefore I find the argument that we lived through Trump's first presidency unharmed very unconvincing.
He and his loyal servants have expressed their contempt of science on numerous occasions, most recently J.D. Vance by saying "professors are the enemy". With both houses of the Congress and the Supreme Court in Republican hands, checks and balances aren't worth much, especially since the party has shown an unfaltering loyalty for its Great Leader over the past few years. A major Gleichschaltung operation is to be expected. What matters most in situations like this is not the law but the sentiment of the people. And that sentiment seems to be strongly in favour of an authoritarian dictatorship. Under such conditions, laws are easily explained the way that best fits the regime.
So for goodness' sake, move! Not just the servers, but also the WMF as a legal entity. I am well aware that no country on Earth is entirely safe of a populist threat, but the situation isn't as dire everywhere as it is in the US. Canada could be an option. Or Spain, one of the few European countries that still welcomes immigration of some sort. Do it, before it's too late! Don't let yourselves and our work be ground among the cogwheels of this vile, narcissistic despotism! Steinbach (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steinbach, you write that the sentiment of the people seems to be strongly in favour of an authoritarian dictatorship and yet the current popular vote count has Trump at 50.1% and dropping as California votes continue to be counted. So, the sentiment is not as strong as you portray it. I too am deeply concerned about the path that the United States is on, but we should not overstate public sentiment for dictatorship. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Billions of people rely on Wikipedia. Trump won't be able to do anything without the world going against him. Tons of his very voters shame his fake news big lie narrative. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2023, you could had said: Billions peoples relies on Twitter, Elon won t be able to trick it s algorithms to promote disinfo and gender hate speech since the platform rules disallow such thing (and in fact promoting gender discrimination is still among x.com terms of rules but of course the owner is now doing it all the day along and it s 206 millions followers props its content)
Yes, but it's important to note that the twitter changes were due to elon buying twitter, not due to new laws being formed. Elon Musk (no matter how much he wants to try) can't buy wikimedia. Gaismagorm(talk)02:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is one is just a poor business strategy, and the other is mostly unfeasable (at least to the level that some are wanting, or dreading). Besides, wikipedia isn't a social media site. It is a encyclopedia. Gaismagorm(talk)02:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon musk tweets claims highlights that he sees no difference between speech regulation on wikipedia and Youtube/Facebook. I might agree the biggest risk is gettting the fundation non profit status revoked. McCartysm shows how the constitution can little free speech protections. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the planning purschase of MSNBC by Elon, things will last like in Russia where richs mens that supports the executive using conflict of interests purschase and control the media. It Science evidences that won t last. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are urging is not really feasible, at least not in the short term, and if the fight you fear is coming, it will go best for the movement on the ground that a U.S. base provides. If you think that moving to Spain and putting the project even further under the auspices of EU law will lead to greater free speech protections, I have bad news for you: a substantial portion of the content on this site would be much more amenable to exclusion and state interference under petition by private parties under GDPR principles than it would under U.S. jurisprudence. This is one area of civil and human rights where the EU is much more laissez-faire about suppression than is the U.S., especially when you consider "right to be forgotten" stances. SnowRise let's rap21:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, but we don t have to do it on the short term. We have time before things changes. And that s why we must be prepared to move instead of realizing we have to move within 2 weeks.. We can move in Damage control. For example if we did choose Qatar, we would have to just remove all content that critisize the country. Otherwise they have a strong journalism and allow to critiise anything else, including saudi Arabia. Plus there s no elections there (so stable). There would be no such things as accepting climate changes and vaccine by Trumpers. The United States might had been the best place, but now it risks to become worst than Russia.2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would take longer than two weeks since the WMF would have to legally establish themselves in a new country, and study their laws so they are in compliance with them. So years, not two weeks. Also Qatar would want to delete articles and media of human sexuality and possibly some other highly contentious topics, so that would appear to be a nonstarter for WMF. Abzeronow (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m noticing Telegram was allowed to let gender discussion happenning by being in Dubai in addition to outright advertising illegal drug trade. Otherwise, exactly! As passing laws through congress takes time' we do have time. That s why it has to be studied now, so when rather than if it become required everything would be ready. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last I heard the WMF keeps both the main site and the backup site in the US. Now might be a good time to reevaluate this and move one of them to another country. The WMF is quite good at employing a diverse multinational workforce scattered across the planet, but it is very centralised when it comes to fundraising, a more distributed model where funds raised in particular countries were controlled by affiliate charities or chapters in those countries would in my view be stronger. At least it wouldn't have a single point of failure. ϢereSpielChequers15:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the WMF has contingency plans for any potential authoritarian steps Trump may take, and as seen with the ANI case, may obey any legal demands the Trump Administration makes of them. WMF does have some flexibility not to do some things since they are not a publisher (that is they don't have editorial control over Wikipedia), and WMF does not want such control. I don't think the WMF would share their contingency plans if they have them though, and by the time Trump or his Administration took extreme authoritarian measures against WMF and its Board, it would probably be too late to do anything. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to ask to etablish such moving overseas plans. They don t have to tell us which is the plan but if they have 1.
WMF moving its servers to Switzerland has its own tradeoffs (no PD-Art; possibly different fair use/fair dealing laws, some PD-US works would have to be deleted), and such a process would take years so it would not be helpful against a Trump Administration. Abzeronow (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving servers isn t needed, just the legal entity. I m also noticing that by chosing Dubai Telegram was allowed to have no moderation at all to the point of outright being allowed to let opiods advertising posts. United States is clearly the best country, but things can become worst than in Russia and thus have to legally move to a place where things wouldn t be ideal but better thzn the upUnited States2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if we hosted some content in some countries and other content in others? I know, I know, that’s probably just the insane troll logic talking Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, would it be possible to have dumps of password hashes for each users? I know it s a little security threat but it would be a good thing in current times, As there s data dumps of everything else, this would allows anyone to resume operations (without physicallly separated backups though). In my case, I personally own what s required for 1/4th of the traffic. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this thread a good use of time? WMF will not be moving out of the United States, Elon Musk and Donald Trump will not be meeting with anyone from WMF (nor would it be wise for us to do anything to get on their radar), and WMF is not going to publicly release our password hashes. This thread is full of the most hypothetical of hypotheticals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not. But it a) helps Wikimedians cope with the uncertainty of the present moment and b) leads to amusing tangents about relocating to Iceland/Switzerland/Spain/the Moon. Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passwords hashes says little about the underlying password as basically it s what things like Bitcoin s security is based on. I m suggesting it as an alternative of moving to a better place if the United States turns from the best place to the worst place in order to to let other peoples take back hosting in other countries. Personally, I created an account in 2013, and wouldn t mind having the password hash being released for thr greater good.
Ok. Guys Makes sure to not have debates https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1835668071773581413. But I m sure to bet something, and I can open a Polymarket about this: Within 11 months you d had lost all your trials by deseparately trying to stay in the United States at all costs, and all langagues of wikipedia would have turned to promoting consiparcies theories even in in maths or wikipedia.org will be shut down. Such passivity in the face of the obvious will be remembered in the history like the actions of the Sigmund Freuds Sisters thinking something like the Shoas won t happen. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2, stop WP:BLUDGEONing the debate with your sensational doomerism. You have made fewer than 50 edits and they’re exclusively to this thread. This is WP:SPA behavior and it’s growing tedious. If you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia then I see good reason to report you to an admin. Dronebogus (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin November Issue 2
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation from November 7 to November 21, 2024. Please help translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Talking: 2024 continues
Scholarships open for Wikimania 2025
Conversation with the trustees: Speak directly with the Wikimedia Foundation trustees about their work at the next Conversation with the Trustees on 27 November from 12:00 – 13:30 UTC.
Wikimedia Hackathon:Registration is now open for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon which will be held in Istanbul, Turkey, May 2–4, 2025.
Tech News: Admins and users of the Wikimedia projects where Automoderator is enabled can now monitor and evaluate important metrics related to Automoderator's actions; Stewards can now make global account blocks cause global autoblocks. Learn about the latest tech updates from tech news 45, 46, and 47.
Board Updates: The Board met in Katowice, Poland on August 5 and held its quarterly business meeting before Wikimania. Learn more about the outcomes of the meeting.
1) Deals with user behavior problems that our normal consensus process at WP:ANI can't handle. 2) Deals with administrator behavior problems. 3) Deals with anything related to private, off-wiki information. 4) Deals with certain unblock requests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The internet we were promised. 21 November: An important update for readers in Australia. You deserve an explanation, so please don't skip this 1-minute read. It's Thursday, 21 November, and this message will be up for only a few hours.”
The same damn message I saw 2 weeks ago. Seriously, do they put it up for a few hours the turn it off for a few hours in alternation?
Or is there a timestamp such that each cookie-bearing individual only sees the message for a few hours (or until the Cookie Monster visits and clears their tokens)?
I deserve an explanation.
At least now it is “we ask you, sincerely” instead of “we ask you, humbly”. The fake humility used to grind my gears.
Pre-GivingTuesday, I understand that the main US-focused campaign often runs for a few hours here and there, or perhaps a whole day, depending on what they need to test.
That said, the timing varies by country, though, so I'm not sure whether you're seeing testing at the moment or if this is the 'normal' campaign for your location. US donors often prefer to make their donations towards the end of the calendar year, but other places have other patterns. (I've heard that US editors, who are a minority of donors, tend to donate quite early in the campaign.)
This participant-driven meeting will be organized by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language Product Localization team and the Language Diversity Hub. There will be presentations on topics like developing language keyboards, the creation of the Moore Wikipedia, and the language support track at Wiki Indaba. We will also have members from the Wayuunaiki community joining us to share their experiences with the Incubator and as a new community within our movement. This meeting will have a Spanish interpretation.
Revert these edits from 15+ years ago on pages by IP editor on pages about Greek instruments
I don't know if here is where this should be posted. On pages about ancient Greek musical instruments like epigonion there is something about "ASTRA Project" that appears to be advertising of this project. These links were added over 15 years ago, and no one noticed. They should be removed as said previously it's advertising. Draheinsunvale (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I see plenty of things that could be improved in the Epigonion article, I don't think advertising for ASTRA is a problem. I couldn't find a surviving link to anything that explained what ASTRA was. Donald Albury02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Moved to User talk:MusikAnimal
A new version of the standard wikitext editor-mode syntax highlighter will be available as a beta feature later this week. This brings many new features and bug fixes, including right-to-left support, template folding, autocompletion, and an improved search panel. You can learn more on the help page.
Tool-maintainers who use the Graphite system for tracking metrics, need to migrate to the newer Prometheus system. They can check this dashboard and the list in the Description of the task T350592 to see if their tools are listed, and they should claim metrics and dashboards connected to their tools. They can then disable or migrate all existing metrics by following the instructions in the task. The Graphite service will become read-only in April. [9]
White
Silver
Blue
Pink
Gold
Red
Green
Skyblue
Purple
Turquoise
Black
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
) Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: If a certain case of IPs spamming at Help Desk is any indication, would a CU be able to stop that in its track? 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 14:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This section was split off from "CheckUser for all new users" (permalink) and the "parenthetical comment" referred to below is: 
.png)
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
