Specifically, WP:NBAND #5 and #6, which read:

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.

Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Albury 17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable. I guess we need some concrete re-write suggestions to base an rfc on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you're assuming that NBAND is meant to be a substitute for the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. That's true for some WP:Subject-specific notability guidelines but not for all of them.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, both those criteria should be scrapped. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Here's a current AfD I am participating in where NBAND#5 was invoked to justify a keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sons_of_Azrael_(3rd_nomination) Graywalls (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's complicated - on the one hand, music publications are increasingly prioritizing their coverage toward Taylor Swift-level celebrities, so I am almost certain there are artists on major labels that might be examples -- major as in the Big 3. This is especially so for genres like country that publications don't cover as much - there are some big names on the roster of Warner Music Nashville and also some not-so-big names.

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)

• 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)
• 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. Mach61 23:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• Agreed. That's important to note. I was presuming such, and also why I wouldn't rely on a singular interview as the sole source for establish GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  The reverse situation, such as is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayson Sherlock, is one where you have someone who was/is in multiple notable bands, but doesn't have independent coverage about them as an individual person. -- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

I'd be happy to see #5 and #6 completely eliminated. What does it take to make that happen? What's the next step? Graywalls (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you believe this would amount to a major change to the guideline, then you should probably be making a formal WP:PROPOSAL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, would clarifying that SNG don't override GNG requirements be a major change?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And if you want to try that, you should find and read the many previous discussions about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  IMHO the original intent of such SNGs was to screen article candidates, but as the pedia grew, we started using SNGs to keep them. As someone who joined 10 years in, this seems to have been the trend.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in my opinion SNGs should be exclusionary criteria, necessary but not sufficient for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  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.

  Ideally I’d like to see every AfD “SNG-therefore-keep” voter back their rationale up by saying that they endorse the SNG by its likelihood toward sources existing. — HTGS (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 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)

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)

This doesn't happen very often, so I don't think there are any advice pages. In general, it would be a lovely thing if people who created an article in one language could then do a semi-decent translation into another language.

I'm aware of two multi-editor cases of that. The first is that when a WMF staffer mentioned writing her first article (in English), a handful of staffers who are not native English speakers (but who are experienced Wikipedians) translated that into their native language as a way of encouraging her to keep editing as a volunteer. This probably happened about a decade ago, and it was very sweet.

The other was a sustained self-promotion effort by a handful of artists, including hoax photos. See d:Q131244 for what's left of their efforts. We deleted the English article. The reason this sticks in my mind is that they repeatedly faked photos – see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferlinghetti meets Immagine&Poesia representatives.jpg for one example – of various people and the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti. Every few months, one of the same two photos of Ferlinghetti in a public place would appear, with a different person photoshopped into the scene next to him, and it would get added to an article with a caption saying something like "Ferlinghetti met with so-and-so" (a different name each time). The result is that every remaining mention of that group seems suspicious to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding. I'm going to think about what can be done to assist editors in future scenarios and draft some thoughts for an essay in my sandbox later. I don't believe that creating a policy proposal is worth it right now, since as you've observed, cross-wiki article copy-pasting isn't a major concern due to its relative uncommonness. I'm considering writing up an essay on the subject instead, maybe also creating a template later on to go at the top of an article that says something along the lines of "This article was cross-posted from the "XYZ Wikipedia" and is currently undergoing translation, discussion, and improvement." Sirocco745 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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).

• LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory
• LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory
• Moon landing conspiracy theories
• International Jewish conspiracy
• 999 phone charging myth
• John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

However: These do not, despite the article clearly stating the theory or accusation is incorrect:

• Fan death
• Allegations of genocide in Donbas (Note: Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War has the same title format, despite one referring to actual actions, and one that serves only as a casus belli with no basis at all in actual true events)
• 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)
• Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis
• Turbo cancer

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And according to that article "deep state" is a pejorative. Regardless, just because you have Illuminati does not mean you can't have New World Order conspiracy theory. The Illuminati of Bavaria, can well be a different matter than the Illuminati of the 1960s novel.[2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to add that, while I would like standardized article titles and would also like if some anti-FRINGE editors dropped the “angry atheist” stereotype, I think this is an exceedingly trivial issue that does not need to be “solved”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a proposed global policy at meta:Requests for comment/Welcoming policy: "A wiki is only allowed to post welcome messages to users if their account was originally created at the wiki, or the user has at least one non-imported edit there." Comments belong there and not here. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello users, I propose having a page within noticeboards in the "general" section called "Block discussion" with a list of active discussions (which could be a review request, an unblock request or a discussion on whether to block the user) (to separate from administrators ' noticeboard, to clarify further, and that within the DB there are 5 topics, 1. Evidence (evidence that the user can provide as a reason for blocking, will be ignored in the review request), 2. Defense (defense of the blocked or accused against blocking or defending its review), 3. Comments (comments from anyone who is registered and at least 10 edits whether they agree, disagree or neutrality with blocking, a filter or unblocking), 4. Administrators' evaluation (where administrators agree or disagree with blocking, unblocking or filtering, this means that the conclusion depends on the administrators' assessment), 5. Conclusion (Conclusion of the discussion if the blocking, filtering or unblocking was approved).

NOTE: And there must be verification in the discussion to prevent someone from manipulating BD through sockpuppetry. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 18:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This means I'm proposing to separate "Wikipedia:Block Discussion" from "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard" to be clearer JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 18:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand the desire to split things off of AN/ANI, but this split poses several problems in practice. Quite frequently the proposal for a CBAN only arises after discussion has been ongoing for some time, and while it could be split off at that point it creates an extra bureaucratic step for questionable benefit. The other issue is that neither CBAN impositions nor their appeals are all that common, and separate noticeboards only tend to work well for things that have a fairly high frequency threshold. Arguably, if we had to do it over again AN wouldn't be the catchall, but at this point changing that is more trouble than its worth.

Granted, CBAN and appeal procedures could be tightened up separately without splitting anything off, but there's a longstanding preference for unstructured and somewhat messy discussions, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@184.152.68.190 Ok, i'm understand, so can i'm cancel this proposal because that will be more complex? JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 17:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@JPPEDRA2: Yes, you can just close it as withdrawn, if you so chose. But don't let me discourage you if you want to leave this open for input from others; every so often perrenial proposals do get implemented, including rather recently, though its usually better to get input at WP:VPI first.

As a side note unregistered users cannot yet be pinged, though apparently that is coming sometime in the not to distant future. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so I won't cancel now, I will let others discuss it, if it is rejected, put it in those VPI or perrenial proposals that you mentioned, thanks non-registrered user. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 19:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• We need someone and other users to discuss this whether they agree or disagree, I will wait.
• IP user, can we ping other users or wait? JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 23:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  @JPPEDRA2: Neutral pings are allowed, but be aware of WP:CANVASS; same with {{please see}} notices. Remember we're all volunteers so it may be a while until others weigh in, and sometimes discussions just don't gain traction for whatever reason. I'm pretty busy myself so I might attend to some things for another day or two here, but after that I'll probably be away for a while.

  Even if this doesn't attract any interest, you can always raise the issue again in looser format at WP:VPI later, and see if any good ideas come up. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  Understood the WP:CANVASS part, but the "please see" should it be placed or not? JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 17:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  @JPPEDRA2:, both pings and {{please see}} notices are ok, so long as they are neutrally worded, and not given selectively to users based on their known preferences, see WP:APPNOTE for details. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why, but I was invited here by a notice on my talk page. My initial impression is that this is a solution in search of a problem - largely per the IP editor's first comment. Very few AN(I) threads start off as a proposal for a ban, and divorcing such a proposal from the preceding discussion seems suboptimal, especially ban proposals often run concurrently with proposals for lesser restrictions. Appeals of bans being moved to a new page is an easier sell from a purely practical perspective but it would be a relatively little-used, for example there are none currently being discussed at either AN or ANI, and it would be less watched than either page (which is not a good thing for a community block appeal). Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• @JPPEDRA2: I see that you have very few mainspace edits and you haven't participated in any AN discussions. I recommend working on some easy mainspace edits at WP:TASKS instead of proposing massive changes to areas of the encyclopedia that you don't edit in. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Voorts Ok dear voorts, thanks for recommendation. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 22:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• While I do agree that there are problems with AN/I I don't think those problems are that blocks are discussed there. Rather, as constructed I find it is generally bad at efficiently discussing and resolving urgent issues. I think we should have improved processes in place for promptly identifying and closing spurious cases so that they don't become drawn-out time sinks that often result in either nothing happening but an argument or, occasionally, a boomerang. I respect the WP:BOLD spirit of this proposal but I think it's unlikely to cure what ails AN:I. Simonm223 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

1RR in contentious areas should be fully maintained, with no exceptions. Otherwise, edit wars will quickly develop. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

they may not have the rollback right: Not the main point of this thread, but Wikipedia:Twinkle has its verison of rollback, available for any registered user.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Did you seriously just point to Donald Trump as your example and then say you don't know what articles aren't like that Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

If "do not repeat edits without consensus" were the rule (rather than "do not revert"), it would take care of this problem. Levivich (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about repeated edits? Am I missing something? I'm tired at the moment, so that's a possibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Well I'll have to come back after a sleep and try to comprehend that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)?

Milo8505 _(talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL was already a policy, independent of that resolution. It was just being cited as a principle used in deciding that case. —Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Albury 16:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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.

Milo8505 _(talk) 18:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

Milo8505 _(talk) 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Milo8505 _(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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,}

1. Infoboxes make standardized information more easily accessible, and
2. 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)

Info boxes can be accessibility issue for many readers and display what can only be described as clutter and unnecessary Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Infobox file spam. That said there's clearly a community consensus I believe overall. Moxy🍁 22:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed response.

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.

Milo8505 _(talk) 08:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 reasons^tm for which it should not be added

- But I also have good reasons^tm 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).

Looking in the Talk namespace, there are around two million links to Template:Wikiproject Biography.

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.

Milo8505 _(talk) 11:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the first 10 articles in Category:Core biography articles, and 100% had infoboxes. However, those ten articles used seven different infoboxes:

• Template:Infobox person (is this the one you looked at?)
• Template:Infobox royalty
• Template:Infobox writer
• Template:Infobox saint
• Template:Infobox scientist
• Template:Infobox philosopher
• Template:Infobox writer

Category:People and person infobox templates lists dozens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Yes!

That's my point. Most^{[citation needed]} good biographies have an infobox - except those of classical composers.

I will look at the category you mentioned and try to count from there.

Thank you very much! Milo8505 _(talk) 16:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, there still exist editors who strongly dislike infoboxes on most biographies -- me for one. When one writes every word of an article and then someone, who has not otherwise contributed, comes and adds an infobox it can be ... annoying. The basic use tends to highlight bits of trivial information (birth & death dates/places, nationality, spouse, children) that are not usually key to the person's notability. Even more contentious can be trying to define what a person's key contributions are, in a half-sentence. For some this is easy, and an infobox might be a good way of presenting the data, for others (including many classical composers) not so much. It can be hard enough to write a lead that presents this in a balanced fashion in a paragraph or three.

Are all good biographies written by groups? I'm not sure; probably the best are, but there are many many biographies of minor figures where 99.9% of the text was contributed by a single author, some of which are fairly well developed. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm thankful for your contributions, but I'm sorry that you don't WP:OWN any article, and you can't dismiss someone else improving the article you wrote because you wrote it and you don't personally agree with the contributions made.

That said, it may be difficult to summarize why someone is important in a phrase, but it's not impossible, and, IMO actually something that should be done, as it makes the article easier (and faster) to scan. Milo8505 _(talk) 09:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What I am obviously failing to convey is that some editors write articles, far fewer than those who contribute in other ways, and some of those dislike the "improving" addition of an infobox by another editor who makes no other edits, improving or otherwise. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Nobody owns an article, regardless of in which why they contribute to Wikipedia. Just because some editors dislike something does not give them a veto over things that the majority of other editors believe does improve the article. Obviously an infobox with incorrect information is not an improvement but that doesn't mean an infobox with correct information is not an improvement. In exactly the same way as a paragraph with incorrect information about an aspect of the article subject is a bad addition, this does not mean that a paragraph with correct information about that same aspect is bad. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me a great deal more like reference format and English variant. It could easily be argued that we should have standardised on US spelling and picked a mode of referencing, but we never did because it would alienate too much of the workforce. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not even close to being like ENGVAR or reference formatting. Those are stylistic decisions where there are multiple equally valid choices that don't impact content. Infoboxes are a content decision where one choice directly benefits the readership and one choice placates the dislikes of a minority of editors. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Load up the Good Faith, Thryduulf :D another phrasing, less pejorative or sweeping, might be Infoboxes are a content decision where either choice directly affects the readers' preconceptions of the topic. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It may or may not be less pejorative or sweeping, but it is also less accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We obviously genuinely disagree on the topic. But I just don't see how the usual formulation benefits readers for bios about writers, composers or the like, especially where it is difficult to encapsulate their contributions in a half sentence or single notable work. I note that biographical sources such as Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or newspaper obituaries do not generally include infoboxes, in fact I can't think of where I've seen one on a biographical article of this type outside Wikipedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not limited to a single notable work. There is no need to condense a person's life to a single notable work in an infobox. Milo8505 _(talk) 06:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

But unless you list all their works there is a problem of original research. You need to provide appropriate sources that the works you have selected are appropriate to represent the subject. This is often very hard in practice, and even harder to demonstrate in an infobox (according to critics A,B,C but ignoring the non-mainstream views of D,E, and only partially incorporating the views of F–Z, the following are the major works...). Espresso Addict (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. There are statistics for something. Notable means worthy of note, distinguished, prominent as per Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Notable works are not a collection appropriate to represent the subject as a whole, but rather those worthy of note, distinguished, prominent, in other words, popular or important (for the field in question).

But the main point being, once again, that this problem is NOT a problem with the infobox itself. Citing the lead paragraph for the Mahler article:

As a composer he acted as a bridge between the 19th-century Austro-German tradition and the modernism of the early 20th century

and

Mahler's œuvre is relatively limited; for much of his life composing was necessarily a part-time activity while he earned his living as a conductor. Aside from early works such as a movement from a piano quartet composed when he was a student in Vienna, Mahler's works are generally designed for large orchestral forces, symphonic choruses and operatic soloists. These works were frequently controversial when first performed, and several were slow to receive critical and popular approval; exceptions included his Second Symphony, and the triumphant premiere of his Eighth Symphony in 1910. Some of Mahler's immediate musical successors included the composers of the Second Viennese School, notably Arnold Schoenberg, Alban Berg and Anton Webern. Dmitri Shostakovich and Benjamin Britten are among later 20th-century composers who admired and were influenced by Mahler. The International Gustav Mahler Society was established in 1955 to honour the composer's life and achievements.

According to whom? By what research? What if I do not think that is the case?

You would rightfully say that my answers are on the references section, and that I should be WP:BOLD in changing it if I'm convinced that it could be better.

And, most importantly, from your comment on the Talk page, I see that the article actually selects three works as prominent, and, you challenge that (IMO rightfully). Then it turns out that the problem of selecting what is important is not one of infoboxes but one central to writing biographies.

For the last time: infoboxes are ONLY a collection of information already on the article. Milo8505 _(talk) 17:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's less true than one might think. Both {{taxobox}} and {{drugbox}} have a high likelihood of containing information than isn't repeated in the article.

But for infoboxes describing people, I would generally expect that statement to be true or to be meant to be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are very specific examples, although you are right that they do not conform to what I said. Anyhow the point still stands for biographies. Milo8505 _(talk) 09:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the usual solution in such cases is to link to the List of compositions by Gustav Mahler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but I believe that there are good reasons some works can be highlighted. Anyhow, this is also a consideration when writing the lead, not only the infobox. Milo8505 _(talk) 09:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that "OWN" is a useful model here. Consider this story:

Someone saw a neglected area in his neighborhood, and he thought he'd help people by quietly picking up the trash. People mostly didn't notice, and nobody objected, so whenever he was walking out that way, he brought a trash bag with him and picked up some of the discarded litter. He carried on for a while just for the satisfaction of seeing it get better.

Then The Committee showed up.

They told him: "It's very nice that you decided to clean this up. However, you should wear gloves for your own safety."

"Okay," he thought. "There's probably something in their advice." So he started wearing gloves, and he did think that it made it a little easier to sort the recycling from the garbage.

The Committee came back another time: "Thank you for your past work. We notice that a bit of the grass here grows out onto the sidewalk. We're not saying you have to do this, because this spot isn't yours, but it would be nice if someone got a lawn edger and made that even neater."

The volunteer thought that since nobody had bothered to pick up the trash, it was unlikely that anyone else would trim the grass. Besides, he had a lawn edging tool, so the next time he dropped by, he brought a trash bag, his gloves, and his lawn edger. The little spot was looking pretty neat, if a bit plain.

Soon, the Committee came back again: "Thank you for your past work. We just wanted to let you know that our standards say that it's not enough to clean up a mess. Every area should also have some plants. So it would be very nice if you planted some trees or bushes or something in this spot, even though it's not yours."

"Can you at least buy the plants?" he asked.

"No," said The Committee. "Thank you for your past work, but you'll have to grow them or buy them yourself, or maybe you could find someone who would give them to you."

The volunteer thought that the little spot would benefit from some cheery little flowers, and he decided to do it. He planted a few yellow flowers along the edge.

The next day The Committee showed up. "What? Yellow flowers? Thank you for your past work, but we have received complaints. One of the neighbors (who happens to be part of The Committee) just filed a confidential complaint that there are now garishly colored flowers in this little spot. Those have to be removed. You don't own this place, you know, even though you're the only one who did anything to take care of it, except for the neighbor's important work complaining, and of course our even more important work ordering you around."

@Milo8505 (and others), my question is: Do you expect the volunteer to keep maintaining that little spot? Or do you expect him to quit?

It is true that the author/maintainer of an article does not WP:OWN it. But it is also true that the editor is a WP:VOLUNTEER, and if you make volunteering be sufficiently un-fun – say, by trampling the yellow flowers he planted, or by demanding an infobox at the top of an article – then it would only be logical, rational, and predictable for that editor to quit contributing. And then who is going to write the new articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What you are proposing is no different to ownership - giving an article writer control over what is and is not allowed on "their" article just because they don't like something that the consensus of the community says is important and beneficial to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No. What I'm proposing is that we remember that there are consequences for every decision we make, and choose the consequences we want to live with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

And your proposed method of avoiding consequences you don't like is to give article writers ownership of "their" articles. The consequences of that need to be justified, and I don't think they can be. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I would actually say that suppressing infoboxes is more akin to removing flowers than creating them...

I'm not asking of anyone to do anything they don't want to. They are actually asking me (and others) not to do something a good number of people^{[citation needed]} consider good. Milo8505 _(talk) 17:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that what one person considers a beautiful flower, another person may consider a weed that needs pruning. Flowers are nice, but so is a manicured lawn. What we need to determine is WHETHER (in this particular lawn) we are planting flowers or pulling weeds. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

And for the wider distinction between WP:OWN and WP:VOLUNTEER. Nobody is forcing nobody else to do anything they don't like. Editors are free to restrain from editing whatever they feel like without any reason. What they are not free to do is to say that their substantial contributions to one article give them a more prominent opinion than everybody else on subjects related to that article. Milo8505 _(talk) 17:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The type of editor who quits the project over an infobox probably isn't someone suited to improving the project or working with others. I've worked on articles and a new editor may add something I don't like, but if they find consensus I accept the will of the community. That's how this place is supposed to work. Nemov (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov, would you say that about me? I once objected to a template being renamed to something that was less convenient for me. It got renamed anyway, because other editors thought the new name would make their own work more convenient.

We do have to "accept the will of the community", but we do not have to continue volunteering under circumstances that aren't working for us, so I stopped doing that work. They got their advantages; we got another backlog for several years. (Eventually another editor decided to do that work.)

Am I someone you would describe as not "suited to improving the project or working with others"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I really really really do not think that the spirit of How will this action make every other editor feel? is very useful to Wikipedia.

Although well-intentioned, it's imposible to think about every possible edge case, and sometimes it's imposible to find something that everyone will agree to, so if we stop to ask that question before every change, we will, in the end, get nothing at all done. Milo8505 _(talk) 09:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It is impossible to think about every possible edge case.

However, we're not talking about Unknown unknowns in this case. We're talking about known consequences. We either choose them and own them, or we avoid them. Take your pick – but don't pretend that a choice has no downsides after you've been told what one of the downsides is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's all take a deep breath, and not compare editing Wikipedia to waging deadly wars.

In any case, I believe that three things stand:

1. Nobody WP:OWNs articles.
2. WP:VOLUNTEERs are free to do whatever they want.
3. If making a change, after consensus reached by discussion, hurts someone's feelings, I'm sorry but they are not the leader of this place.

Furthermore, can't a compromise be reached? Can't infoboxes be hidden via user JS? Milo8505 _(talk) 07:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You're thinking about this at the wrong level, with your focus on "hurting someone's feelings".

This is more of a key employee situation, so let's tell the story a different way:

Your business depends heavily on a small number of highly valuable employees. Without these few, your business will probably fail, because you will have no products to sell. You are the manager, and you think about how you will improve the business's profitability. You come up with an idea and share it with your staff.

Most of the staff thinks it's a good idea, but some of your key employees tell you that it's intolerable, and if you implement it, they will quit.

Should you say:

• "Well, I'm sorry if your little feelings got hurt, but frankly you don't own this business. Don't let the door hit your backside on your way out", or
• "Um, I don't want you to quit. It's not good for any of us if you quit. Let me see if we can come up with something that meets my legitimate goals and also keeps you working here."

Your #3 sounds like that first one. I don't recommend it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not depend on "a small number of highly valuable employees". Our goal is always to best serve our readers, and we do that by including the information in our articles that they want and expect to be there. We do not do that by pandering to the dislikes of editors, especially not a small minority of editors. No matter how you try and spin it, ownership of articles is not justifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No one has suggested otherwise. I have absolutely no clue where you are substantiating this accusation of WhatamIdoing arguing for article ownership. Stating that outside editors with no connection to the article in interest other than to come and enforce their pet issues unrelated to any substantive content in the article is not “article ownership” anymore than having WikiProjects that have certain editors contributing more than others not part of the Project is “ownership.” Barbarbarty (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN isn't complicated. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). You're creating a group of "outside editors." We are all editors here. One editor's "pet issue" is another editors improvement. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Nemov (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, no one has suggested otherwise. I am simply stating a fact that when certain editors try to present something as an “improvement” and it is roundly rejected by other editors who routinely edit the article, it is not a case of someone asserting “ownership.” Hiding behind accusations of others asserting “ownership” to obfuscate the fact that some editor’s changes are counterproductive or not accepted is not the same as finding a violation of WP:OWN. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your reply to my comment. Nemov (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I fail to see how I could have made myself clearer. You are accusing me of “creating a group of outside editors.” I have suggested nothing of the sort. I was merely saying that when certain groups of editors have more expertise on certain subjects, and therefore edit articles related to those subjects more than other users, that is simply how many articles have been crafted and developed. It’s not “ownership” to state that fact, nor is it elevating any group of editors above any other group. If someone who does not edit a certain article frequently adds an edit to an article and it is reverted, just because it is reverted by another user who is more active on the article does not automatically implicate WP:OWN. Barbarbarty (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

when certain groups of editors have more expertise on certain subjects, and therefore edit articles related to those subjects more than other users, that is simply how many articles have been crafted and developed. is saying that certain groups of editors should be allowed OWNERSHIP of articles they have written, it is explicitly elevating [a] group of editors above [another] group. Thryduulf (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You have a very odd and confusing idea of what “explicitly” means, given what you described has absolutely no relation to what I actually said. Absolutely nowhere have I stated certain groups of editors be allowed “ownership.” For the third time, I have just stated that it is natural that some editors edit articles more than others. Sometimes they do so because they have specialized knowledge about the subject area. Nothing about that implies certain editors be given ownership, and frankly it’s ridiculous to construe what I said to mean anything like that. Barbarbarty (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barbarbarty Multiple of @WhatamIdoing's posts, including the one I was directly replying to, advocate for article ownership without using that term. The post I was directly replying to explicitly claimed Wikipedia depends on a small number of editors.

Stating that outside editors with no connection to the article in interest other than to come and enforce their pet issues unrelated to any substantive content in the article so presumably you object to editors copyediting, typo fixing, adding conversion templates, adding/editing/removing categories and short descriptions, making the article consistent in it's language variety, citation style and/or unit ordering and any of the other myriad of improvements "outside editors with no connection to the article" make? If not, why are infoboxes different? Who gets to decide who is and who is not an "outside editor" and thus who is entitled to stand above consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

First off, you admit that WhatamIdoing never advocated for article ownership. I still fail to see how it can be shown otherwise. As for your point about things I would “presumably” object to, one look at my posting history would show that the vast majority of my contributions involve things like fixing typos and the like. Simple maintenance issues like adding citations and fixing typos are not “pet issues” in any sense of the term. I doubt any editor on here would think that Wikipedia should have articles with unfixed typos or improper grammar. Infoboxes do not fall into simple “maintenance.” Arbitrarily adding them without discussion, as history as shown, is nearly guaranteed to cause debate. They are entirely done on a case-by-case basis, dependent on a myriad of factors. As I said above, “ownership” is not simply some editors who edit an article more frequently rejecting so-called “improvements” by editors who edit the article less frequently. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

First off, you admit that WhatamIdoing never advocated for article ownership I did not do this. I said she has argued for article ownership without using that term, because no matter whether you call it "ownership" or not, when she is arguing for is exactly what we define ownership to be. Infoboxes are no more "pet issues" than fixing typos or any of the other improvements mentioned, the only difference is that some editors dislike them. As I said above, “ownership” is not simply some editors who edit an article more frequently rejecting so-called “improvements” by editors who edit the article less frequently. Except it is, as Nemov has explained in very simple terms above. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, nothing you have pointed to shows anyone advocating for ownership. Nothing. Simply saying that one is “saying without saying” is pointless and unconvincing. Fixing typos and adding infoboxes are not the same, I find it mystifying to read you implying otherwise. If only infoboxes were as noncontroversial as typos that would save us a lot of trouble! But sadly they are not, so pretending someone adding an infobox to every article is the same as fixing typos here and there is not grounded in the reality we live in. As to your last point, that’s not a refutation. And I believe I thoroughly addressed that point already. Under your logic no person who has previously edited an article is allowed to revert someone else’s edit on that same article lest they be accused of asserting “ownership.” I fail to see the logic in such a position. Barbarbarty (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, I'd like to think that I'm arguing for acknowledging the value of content, and by extension for the people who create it.

If we choose to insist upon infoboxes, I'd rather that we did this kindly, while trying to find solutions to the identified problems, instead of with an WP:IDONTCARE WP:YOU WP:DON'T WP:OWN WP:WIKIPEDIA tone. I'm hearing a lot more of the latter than the former in this conversation. I think we can do better than that.

IMO the ideal outcome is more infoboxes and nobody quits writing articles. I think the first outcome is inevitable. I think the second outcome depends on how we treat people who are unhappy with the first outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I entered this topic about two years ago, completely unfamiliar with it until it came up in an RFC. Since then, I haven’t seen any of the content creators strongly opposed to infoboxes quit. In fact, they’re still actively creating content and opposing infoboxes. One editor even came out of retirement to create new content—so overall, it’s a net win.

Most of the RFCs over the last two years have been initiated by editors unaware of this long-standing dispute. The pattern is predictable: they ask why there’s no infobox, get dogpiled by the same group of editors, and if they persist, the tone worsens. When it eventually goes to an RFC, the infobox is approved most of the time.

This behavior seems tolerated because these editors are content creators. However, considering they haven’t quit and newer editors often face hostility for bringing up the topic, I’m not seeing the issue you’re raising. Nemov (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't quit the Wikipedia over it. There are some editors who have been arguing about infoboxes for over 15 years. It's only a contentious topic because that group can't let it go. I feel bad for new editors who wander into the topic not knowing the back story. Nemov (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's only contentious because both sides can't let it go.

If the template renaming had happened at a point when I was already unhappy with editing, it would have tipped me over the edge.

What I'm not seeing here is any acknowledgement of the costs. I see the advantages:

Pros:

1. I like it.
2. Readers like it.

but not the known list of disadvantages:

Cons:

1. Some editors dislike it enough that they will reduce their participation or stop writing articles altogether.

You might well say "I like it, so I and other supporters will be inspired to do 2% more editing if we get our way, and it adds 5% more value to readers in biographies and 10% more value in corporations with an WP:ELOFFICIAL link in the infobox. That benefit needs to be set against 1% of editors quitting and 2% fewer notable articles being created. That's still a net benefit, so let's go with it."

But let's not pretend that it is a cost-free choice. A net benefit can have significant harms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I would urge you reread my comment. I think you'll find there was no finger pointing at a particular side. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel here to defend ownership. There's a cost to everything. I think if you review some of the newer editors who have wandered into this topic they're not being encouraged to edit or learn. Nemov (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I've seen several examples of newcomers being thoroughly bitten when they dare to ask for an infobox to be added to an article. See for example Talk:Stanley Holloway where suggestions get aggressively shut down. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are costs to every choice. What irritates me at the moment is that some costs are being ignored, and one of those costs increases our long-term risk of collapse. (On the opposite side, one of the costs is that readers won't get what they need, which is also a very serious problem.)

For the record, if you see an article I've created without an infobox, you are (very) welcome to go add one. I'm not anti-infobox. I am anti-destroying-Wikipedia-for-the-sake-of-uniformity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

And I'm anti hyperbolic claims that allowing article ownership is somehow the only way to avoid destroying Wikipedia. Nobody is irreplaceable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Case in point Jacqueline Stieger, where the box I've just removed (1) highlighted her place of birth Wimbledon and nationality British, which -- for someone with two Swiss parents, who was brought up in Yorkshire, did some of her notable work in France/Switzerland with her Swiss husband and then settled back in Yorkshire with her Swiss stepchildren -- is undue; and (2) copied "artist and sculptor" from the beginning of the capsule, while not paying heed to the fact her notable works predominantly fall into two groups, big architectural sculptures mainly in metal, and jewellery/art medals. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

X thing is bad, because once, some time ago, I saw an instance of X and it was bad, really really bad, as a matter of fact. Milo8505 _(talk) 09:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Well sure, but I just looked down my list of created bios by date till I found the first to which someone had added an infobox. I didn't drag out my historical collection of badly added infoboxes including those that had been cut-and-pasted wholesale from another article without changing any of the data, and those that introduced errors in the dates. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the example of Jacqueline Stieger, I'm not understanding Espresso Addict's position. They object to the infobox giving her nationality as British. But the lead has always said that she "is a British artist and sculptor". And the {{short description}} is "British artist and sculptor". And there are a bunch of categories which tend to describe her as English rather than British.

The lead, infobox, short description and other structural stuff like categories are all summaries or attributes of the main content. Summarising obviously involves some loss of detail. Objecting to an infobox seems like objecting to a short description. I often don't like these myself but they seem to be unavoidable.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not so much the details being wrong for Steiger, they give undue prominence to trivial non-representative features of the subject's life, such as her place of birth, while not summarising the actual reasons for notability/interest -- possibly my fault for a slender lead. I'm not fond of short descriptions either but they are invisible to the reader. I'm actually not too fond of categories either, but they go at the bottom, after the references, and so again do not draw the attention of the reader. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What makes anybody of you think that the infobox is more prominent than the lead of the article itself? Maybe are you implicitly recognizing that inboxes are actually widely used by readers? Milo8505 _(talk) 20:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• The thing to remember about CONLOCAL is that almost all of our policies and guidelines (which supposedly reflect “global consensus”) contain a line noting that occasional exceptions may exist. This means that global consensus takes local consensus into account. Indeed, there are times when a consensus is reached at an article level (say through a RFC) that actually has greater participation (wider consensus) than the policy/guideline page that is at the heart of the discussion. A policy/guideline may be wonderful for most situations, but problematic in a specific situation.

As for infoboxes… yes, there is a “global consensus” that they are good things, and adding one usually improves the article. However, we have had RFC that show we also have a wide consensus that notes how infoboxes don’t alway work, that on occasion they can actually be more harmful than helpful… and that we can leave it to local editors to make that determination. This is especially true when it comes to articles about composers.

So, when there is local disagreement regarding a specific composer, when there is a question as to whether an infobox would be beneficial or harmful in that specific situation, the solution is to have an RFC to determine wider consensus about that specific situation.

Ie ASK the community whether that specific article should be considered an exception to our general consensus on infoboxes. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• The phrase "global consensus" indicates that we should look across all the languages, not just English. Articles about famous composers seem to have about 50 versions in the various languages and it's easy to spot-check these to see whether they do or don't have infoboxes. I looked at a few examples of English composers as they seemed to be the most likely to be disputed: Gustav Holst, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Benjamin Britten. My impression is that most languages have infoboxes for these. Apart from English, the main outliers seem to be German and Italian. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  The German encyclopedia is, as far as I know, very rich in classical music content. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do not thing that is the case. Each Wikipedia is separate from others, and they each have their own policies and ways of doing things. Milo8505 _(talk) 20:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• There seem to be at least three different meanings of "global consensus" in this discussion. The OP seems to have taken it to mean something that should apply to all articles of a particular type, but in WP:CONLEVEL I think it means a consensus reached by everyone rather than just the editors of particular articles. These are different. It is in principle possible for a global discussion to come to the conclusion that every article should be treated differently. Andrew Davidson introduces another level of "global" that includes other language Wikipedias. English Wikipedia has always claimed its independence from other projects, so I don't think that will fly. On the specific case of infoboxes surely the discussion should be about what to include in them, rather than first a discussion of whether they should exist. If the answer is "nothing" then we simply don't have them. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is the current policy to ignore WP:CRYSTAL in regards to wording in articles related to upcoming officeholders? Donald Trump had the usage "will be inaugurated" until recently and JD Vance has He will resign on or before January 20, 2025, when he will be inaugurated as vice president of the United States. Similarly, infoboxes have "assuming office on X date". Should it not be "Scheduled to assume office on X date"? There seems to be disagreement on whether CRYSTAL applies since it is almost certain that these individuals will obtain their office barring some unforeseen event. I would like community input on this since if there is CRYSTAL, changes may need to be discussed here and implemented. Noah, BSBA^Talk 23:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources appear to do both. For example:

• AP article: "President-elect Donald Trump will take office on Jan. 20 after defeating Democratic candidate Kamala Harris."
• NY Times: "Congress is scheduled to meet on Jan. 6, 2025, to count the Electoral College results, and Mr. Trump is set to be sworn into office two weeks later, on Jan. 20."

Personally, I think this is a distinction without a difference. In common usage, saying "X will do Y on Tuesday" is always subject to the caveat that something might occur that prevents X from doing Y on Tuesday. To quote the philosopher Søren Kierkegaard: "I shall certainly attend your party, but I must make an exception for the contingency that a roof tile happens to blow down and kill me; for in that case, I cannot attend." voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This type of stuff is what is outside the bounds of what WP:NOT#CRYSTAL has, eg we can start writing the article for the 2028 Summer Olympics as there's an extremely high certainity it will happen; there may be very extreme circumstances that may cause a change but the odds of those changing events are very low. The planned inaugeration is clearly of the same ilk. — Masem (t) 00:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The part I noticed was Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. The Olympics articles always say scheduled rather than will take place. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter in this case. If the inauguration of the next US executive is delayed, I’m confident those articles will be immediately updated. Infoboxes don't handle verbiage well. CMD (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

What about other officeholders? Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between saying a person is about to become a senator vs. the president. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The higher the number of electees, the more likely it is that something happens to one of them. We have had representatives-elect die before assuming office. It's an issue of saying something is certain to occur rather than very likely to occur. We have nothing to tell us it's certain they assume office on X. Does this policy simply not apply to any officeholder period and we just state they will be inaugurated/assume office on X rather than scheduled to be inaugurated/assume office on X? Noah, BSBA^Talk 02:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ditto voorts; difference without a difference. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The guidance on Wikipedia not being a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions (from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) is guidance on content, with most of the discussion on that page being about what warrants an article. It's not guidance on writing style, so doesn't provide guidance in choosing between writing "X will happen" or "X is scheduled to happen", but whether the statement should be included at all. isaacl (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable that we should ask editors to use "is scheduled" or "is planned" instead of "will" in cases of near-confirmed future events. Maybe for events where humans have no control on the result, such as the next solar eclipse, we can use "will", but I can't see harm to suggest we be a bit more careful for other cases. Masem (t) 22:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is that I was echoing your statement, This type of stuff is what is outside the bounds of what WP:NOT#CRYSTAL has. The choice of verbs is something to be covered by the writing style guidelines (and personally, I think consideration of individual circumstances is sufficiently important that a blanket statement wouldn't be too helpful). isaacl (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 175#RfC: Interim use of successor in Infobox officeholder Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Best to keep doing as we've been doing for years. Making sudden changes now, would be messy. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with voorts and Kierkegaard. I have notified the Trump article for the OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say reflecting the inherent uncertainty of future events is generally good practice (e.g., "scheduled to take place" rather than "will take place"). If the wording would be clunky, there can be some flexibility. And we should take care not to be too cautious about expected events; I find it confusing how infoboxes for a TV season will say it consists of three episodes (based on the number aired) when we have sources confirming eight have been made.--Trystan (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are inherently backwards looking. The number of episodes in a season should not be filled in until the season has ended. Similarly, the field for the beginning of an officeholder's term should not be filled in until it has actually occurred. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This wishlist item proposes a hard edit filter which would change citation policy for new users. We've repeatedly discussed requiring sources, and the consensus has been not to require them; per current policy, articles must be on notable topics and statements must be citable, but neither need be cited.

I know changes that affect new editors typically don't ignite as much interest as those that affect established editors, but they are in some ways more important; anything that affects our retention rate will eventually substantially affect the number of active editors, and the nature of their editing.

More broadly, it might be good to set limits on policy changes done through a wishlist survey on another wiki; big changes need broader discussion. HLHJ (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose implementing this on en-wiki. This is not the sort of change that the broader community should be allowed to dictate to local communities. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just a wish. Anyone can male one. We don't know whether it will ever be implemented (community wishlists don't exactly have a good track record), never mind turned on on enwiki. – Joe (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As Joe says, a wishlist item is a long way from becoming something that works. We don’t have need for limits on changes; it is very rare for any changes to be pushed on en.wiki. Those that are are large-scale changes that affect all wikis (think Vector2022 or the upcoming IP masking), and the community here is usually very aware of these ahead of time. If wishlist items turn into tools the wiki can use, they tend to require local activation, as different projects have different needs. (En.wiki for example already has WP:NPP, which will see any new pages, which may include pages that aren’t meant to have sources, like disambiguation pages.) CMD (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The WMF Community wishlists in the past have actually had some impressive successes, particularly in 2018 for NPP's Page Curation extension improvements. It is not all that rare for any changes to be pushed on en.wiki; two slightly earlier community driven major policies largely contributed - at the time - to reducing the flow of sewage in the new page feed: the 2016 NPP user right, and after a 7 year battle with the WMF, the 2018 ACPERM. However, the number of new registrations has since grown again by users whose first intention above all else is to create a new article by hook or crook with little or no regard for notability, relevance, UPE, and spam policies. NPP has lost many of its prolific, skilled patrollers and coordinators either through burn-out and/or the constant whining either from users whose inappropriate articles have been consigned to the queues for the various trash cans or draft space, or have been driven away for good by other (non NPP) back office regulars' complaints, for the sake of complaining, over a couple of misplaced CSDs or AfDs out of thousands.

The NPP backlog sawtooth profile looks menacing - it should be a regular low-value straight line. It is well known common knowledge that NPP is hopelessly overburdened and can no longer sensibly cope with even the minimum suggested criteria for patrolling new pages. The best way to ensure that the WMF's flagship project - the one that draws all the donations - becomes an untrustworthy resource full of useless and corrupt articles, is to sit back and do nothing and let WP become a mire of misinformation and spam. Wikipedia has already become the buck of media satire with "If you believe Wikipedia, you'll believe anything". The quest is therefore for any measures that will tighten up the article quality at the source of creation.

Although they are aware of them, as usual the WMF Growth Team has played down and resisted addressing these issues in favour of pursuing other, and expensive initiatives of their own design which in the NPP realm remain ineffective. It's the responsibility of the WMF to ensure new users are aware of the rules at the point of registration.

The NPP team has handed solutions to the WMF on a plate, which at the same time will not only reduce the tide of rubbish, but most importantly, encourage the good faith new users to offer articles that have a fair chance of being published. All this project needs is to be written up in MediaWiki source code, but of course short of a mutiny by the community, the WMF will not entertain any ideas that they did not think of themselves and can collect the accolades for.

The "anyone can edit" principle is not a get out of jail free card; it should be quoted in its full context: 'Anyone can edit as long as they play by the rules'. For once and for all, just make those basic rules clear for bona fide new registrants, and help them comply. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already become the buck of media satire with "If you believe Wikipedia, you'll believe anything

This is just rhetorically dishonest. When people say this they are generally referring to vandalism, hoaxes, and information on high-profile articles, not the stuff that goes through NPP.

Like, just think about this for a second. Think about the kind of misinformation people generally disseminate and what it is about. Almost always, it's about things people already care about, which means things we have articles on. COVID. Political stuff. Current events. Not obscure new articles. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that wiki should at least allow new users to create stubs without citations. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff : Almost always, it's about things people already care about, which means things we have articles on. COVID. Political stuff. Current events. Not obscure new articles. This is unfortunately not true as 800 patrollers will confirm. NPP needs all the help it can get. Why not enroll at the NPPSCHOOL, get qualified, apply for the user right and help out? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They can do so in draft space. BD2412 T 20:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting my point. I realize that NPP obviously gets a lot of junk and unsourced stuff. But this is not the junk that makes Wikipedia "the butt of media satire." The media satire is about things people actually look up, such as high-profile politicians, major scientific topics, etc.

That doesn't mean that patrolling new pages is not useful, and I am glad people are doing it (I personally doon't have time to take on any more responsibilities and don't foresee that changing). But it's not an area of the project that tends to escape containment, and so should be done on its own merits without trying to make it about "what would the press think?" Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the core portion of this proposal, I think it's worth pointing out that certain types of mainspace pages don't need and indeed are expected not to have references. You could try to get around that by excluding pages tagged with the DISAMBIG magic word, SIA templates, etc. But that won't work if they don't properly format the page common for new users; I don't have any statistics handy for often new users create those type of pages, but I suspect its a large enough number that it should be taken into consideration. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point. HLHJ (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the commentators on the original proposal pointed out that articles created through AfC in practice are required to have references, so this would not actually change anything for new editors, who have to use AfC anyway. So it would perhaps it would apply to somewhat more experienced editors.

There is a widespread belief that references are required for every statement, let alone article. This is usually applied to edits by newcomers, who get scared off when a solid but unreferenced contribution is deleted without trying to WP:JUSTFIXIT, and who would learn how to cite if it was instead tagged "citation needed" or a cite was added by another editor (we have studied this). But I've seen a solid-but-uncited edit by an admin removed by an IP, too; this is much less serious.

There is also confusion between notable and has citations that establish notability. I recently posted an unreferenced stub article in the mainspace, and it was draftified and AfCd within the hour. The topic was notable, meaning it would not have been deleted if listed at AfD, and I think I remember an explicit statement that draftifying was an alternative to deletion and could only be used if articles met deletion criteria. The point here is not the individual editors who did this in good faith; the point is that the ensuing discussion made it clear that most of the people on the AfC board thought it reasonable to draftify any unsourced article.

We need to make a conscious choice to either:

• change policy to require citations on every article (meaning we delete all the articles at Category:Articles lacking sources, or have a massive sourcing drive before the policy comes into effect) and every edit made by a new editor
• find a way to teach editors to cite unsourced things, and delete them only if the are unsourcable, which is current policy.

Opinions? Next steps? HLHJ (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a new discussion. There is no consensus to do bullet point one, and it is very unlikely to get any. At the same time, the existence of older unsourced articles is not a good reason for new articles to lack sourcing. The example process given seems fine, the article was given time to develop in draft space and was put into mainspace when ready. CMD (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I right to say, then, that you favour a policy of "all new articles must have sources" (regardless of whether the editor is new)? How about "all statements added by new editors must have sources"? HLHJ (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You might be right about my personal policy within some nuance, but the community has decided not to draw a firm line for sourcing but instead to keep a slightly fuzzier set of guidelines. This won't be changed by developments in WMF-developed tools, which we can use or not as desired. CMD (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@HLHJ I would be very surprised if your ever saw 'an explicit statement that draftifying was an alternative to deletion...'. If you did, I would like to see the diff. As we say on Wikipedia: 'Serious claims need serious sources'. No qualified New Page Patroller would ever contemplate doing such a thing and if they misused their tools to that end they would quickly lose that user right. Articles moved to draft are often pages which the creator has no intention of returning to and completing. If the the creator or a member of the community does not bring the draft or stub up to an acceptable artile within 6 months, it can be deleted under the special conditions at G13 and only under those conditions. Articles can only be physically deleted by an admin and the community is under no obligation to step in and rescue such articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Kudpung; I think, in trying to be brief, I was incomprehensible. What I meant is that articles that aren't fit for the mainspace, and would thus be deleted if sent to AfD, can be draftified instead of listed at AfD (assuming that they are notable topics, capable of improvement). Articles that are fit for the mainspace, and would therefore not be deleted in AfD, should be left in the mainspace. In other words, we have one standard for whether articles are fit for the mainspace. AfD and NPP do not, or should not, have separate standards. HLHJ (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

AFD isn't supposed to be deleting articles about notable topics. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. I would also question this claim that we have any "standard for whether articles are fit for the mainspace". There appear to be a wide variety of views but no agreed-upon standard.

That said, draftication is used as an alternative to deletion, as authorized under the Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@HLHJ: MY bad. My humble apologies. In a moment of mental aberration I totally misread what you had written. In fact I crafted and co-crafted much of the policies surrounding NPP, pretty much wrote the instructions at WP:NPP and designed and rolled out the user right. A lot has been done recently to improve and clarify the notability standards, especially on some kinds of BLP, but it's an on-going work. NPP is triage, it does mean sending stubs to draft but it's a long way off sounding their death knell. Equally important at NPP is knowing what is is an encyclopedically relevant topic. The fact that something can be sourced does not necessarily mean it belongs here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries, apologies accepted as excessive! Text-only conversations are easy to misunderstand, there's less redundancy. My thanks to WAID: the WP:ATD-I subsection of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion is, I think, what I was looking for, but I misremembered it, or it's changed. It says that a notable-topic article can be deleted if it "severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies", which I think of as "an article that is worse than no article". Draftifying can be cleanup, and I think in practice is done at a lower threshold, but I'm not sure.

Unlike AfD, no reason is given when draftifying. I don't very much mind what standards we have for new articles, but if I fail to meet them I'd like to know how, so I can avoid it in future. If I'm confused, new editors certainly are.

I'm actually more worried about the editors who seem to be acting on the misconception that all statements (not just BLP), or at least all statements by new editors, need to be cited. I'm pretty sure this is terrible for editor retention (from anecdote and stats). What would be a good way to let them know that they needn't delete every new uncited statement as if it were vandalism? I'm told that this is a bit too complex for a user warning template; any other ideas? HLHJ (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well... I've been told that one of the best ways to retain a new editor (at least for definitions of "retain" that are as simple as "get them to edit the next day") is to leave their uncited text in the article, and add a {{citation needed}} tag at the end of it.

Obviously, there are limits (e.g., blatant vandalism, probably untrue material, libelous BLP content), but if retention is the goal, then we should do more inline tagging and less "Ooops, you made one mistake. Go back to the beginning and start completely over". Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?, but some of us treat it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; there are plenty of reverts of newbies that are fully justified. It's a specific and thus perhaps fixable problem when editors think "unsourced" is in itself an adequate justification for reverting. Newbies who figure out how to source correctly on their first edit are rare.

In an attempt to fix this one specific problem, I drafted a user warning template, and tried unsuccessfully to add information to introductory tutorials, and discussed UI design for adding of inline tags using semiautomatic tools (T209797), and putting one-click templates in VE (T55590) might help a bit. But I've not gotten anywhere with any of this. Any suggestions, however wild, would be most welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been adding some original, subtitled Latin content to some pages, from a series of readings which are available as CC-By content now at here, here and here. The content is verifiable and properly sourced. Where the readings are sufficiently significant to the topic, this seems a reasonable thing to do, eg at Martin Luther. It is also more in line with MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE to subtitle the original than to read from a translation. If an editor feels the content is not sufficiently relevant, that is fair enough of course.

However, it has been raised that WP:RSPYT applies and the videos are simply not to be used as WP:RSPYT states that YT is simply unreliable as a "source". I don't think this is right but wanted to get some clarity. Jim Killock (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the wording of WP:RSPYT is poor - YouTube is a publisher, not a source, and so is neither reliable nor unreliable. While most videos hosted on it are unreliable and/or copyright violations (for various reasons), there are exceptions and there should not be any prohibition on citing those exceptions. The onus is on the person wanting to cite them to show they are reliable and not copyright violations, as well as the usual DUE, etc. but once shown to be acceptable and relevant there is no reason not to cite such videos imo (unless of course there are better sources of course). Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"use" as well as "cite" perhaps, in these instances? Jim Killock (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

With YouTube videos, even those released by a free license, we want to make sure of a few things. First, that the account that posted the material themselves are a reliable source. To take the first image in the first link provided, File:Dr. Samuel Johnson- Letter of Thanks for His Oxford Degree.webm, the YouTube it was pulled from appears to be no-name with zero evidence of any reliability on their own (they claim to be an independent student of Latin and Greek). While the content may be accurate, we shouldn't be using that questionable reliability for such sources. Another problem, but which is not the case here, is that there are people that create CC-BY videos on YouTube that include considerable amount of copyrighted material (that is not in there control), beyond what fair use would allow, and thus belie the CC-BY allowance. YouTube itself doesn't check this, so we have to aware of such problems. Masem (t) 21:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That all makes sense. But I would assume that it is OK so long as the checks can be made? The author of these videos is pseudonymous but give sources. In the case you mention, he cites the public domain Life of Johnson by James Boswell for the text; a search for "ingratus plane et mihi videar" turns up page 75 of this edition, in Latin and English, so the content is easy enough to check.

I have sufficient Latin to know that his pronunciation and diction is decent, and to check the sources linked to match up with what is said. I'm also able to translate most of the simpler texts from Latin to English where needed. Jim Killock (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the YouTube source is accurate or that it cites other sources; if it is not from an established RS outlet it is no more reliable than a forums post. JoelleJay (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless it clearly cites its sources, is published by an established expert in the field, or a few other scenarios - i.e. exactly the same as a text source. Thryduulf (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

...yes, an established RS outlet. JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

...and sources that are reliable but not established and/or which are not "outlets". Thryduulf (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Either a source is the account of an official outlet with a formal editorial policy that establishes it as RS, or it's an SPS from an established expert. If you need to replace "outlet" with "verified official account of an established expert" you can do that. JoelleJay (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear I am asking about a very simple scenario here. The Johnson video foe example follows this script:

'INGRATUS planè et tibi et mihi videar, nisi quanto me gaudio affecerint quos nuper mihi honores (te credo auctore) decrevit Senatus Academicus, Iiterarum, quo lamen nihil levius, officio, significem: ingratus etiam, nisi comitatem, quá vir eximius[831] mihi vestri testimonium amoris in manus tradidit, agnoscam et laudem. Si quid est undè rei lam gratæ accedat gratia, hoc ipso magis mihi placet, quod eo tempore in ordines Academicos denuo cooptatus sim, quo tuam imminuere auctoritatem, famamque Oxonii Iædere[832], omnibus modis conantur homines vafri, nec tamen aculi: quibus ego, prout viro umbratico licuit, semper restiti, semper restiturus. Qui enim, inter has rerum procellas, vel Tibi vel Academiæ defuerit, illum virtuti et literis, sibique et posteris, defuturum existimo.

The script matches the Project Gutenberg transcript of the source it cites. Google translate gives a passable translation that roughly matches the English subtitles.

There might be a question about the translation of the English subtitles, if the text is more complicated. In these, the author has generally gone with a public domain translation, which is also easily verified. Occassionally they are his own work, which obviously does need checking according to context and complexity.

Assuming the subs and original source are public domain; and the relevance of the original source can be established from secondary sources, then I'm struggling to see why there would be a problem using this content. Jim Killock (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Because (in general) the only thing a video of a reading adds over the script is aural. And given Latin is a dead language I would want to see someone who has qualifications in the area reading it (I would at minimum accept a catholic priest here FYI). Because YT is self-published I have no idea if the person reading it is competent. I cant even verify from the audio if it matches the script because I dont speak latin to start with. It absolutely would be suitable for an External Link, but there's nothing you can source content from it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of competent Latinists, judged competent by trained Latinists. WP has plenty of trained Latinists. Not everyone can judge everything against sources; not all of us can access all sources or other people's abilities to recite another language; the same would apply to Welsh or Gaelic for example, in that I personally cannot evaluate a spoken Gaelic source or translation. Wikipedia depends on a network of people evaluating sources; that is inherent in WP's work AIUI. Jim Killock (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

YouTube videos are self-published, YouTube myself just acts as a way to publish those videos. So they can be reliable is they from an otherwise reliable source, so if the Associated Press upload a video of their news coverage it would be as reliable as any other work by the Associated Press. For individuals they need to be subject matter experts who have been previous published by independent reliable sources (WP:SPS) or show they have been used as a citation by other independent reliable sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, but my use case falls outside of this scenario. Say someone sings "Jack and Jill went up the Hill" and releases it under CC-By. They cite and link a public domain music sheet. They use an anonymous name and they are not a known subject expert. According to the criteria set out above, the video is an unreliable source, as it is not published by a subject matter expert, nor used as a citation by an independent reliable source, so must be disallowed (not republished) on Wikipedia.

These videos are performances (recitals) not cited sources.

I am confused. Jim Killock (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's being used for the purposes of verification then it's a reference, and must be from a reliable source. If it's only being used as an external link, rather than for verification, then it comes under WP:External links. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The intention is not that they are used for verification; they are performances for "illustrative purposes", rather like images on the page. See for example: this Martin Luther reading. The idea is that the reader can get an idea of the original source material. The performances may be verified; but the performances are not sources, they are derivative works. Jim Killock (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

RSPYT only applies to verification, and this appears to be a matter of inclusion not verification. Whether a video made by an anonymous performer should be included or not is the same as if a particular image should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much; is there guidance on how and when appropriately licenced images are included? Jim Killock (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Answering my own question: MOS:IMAGES. I think there is a bit of lacuna in guidance here, as illsutative videos of performances or recordings etc don't seem to be covered in MOS, or if they are, I haven't found it. Jim Killock (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube and {{External media}}. If you don't wrap stuff in ref tags, people are less likely to think you are trying to use it to support article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. None of this content was wrapped up in ref tags. Confusion may have arise because the challenge was made over the "verifiability" of the content; as the videos are derivative works of public domain sources, eg Luther's pamphlet, it's important that the video's sources are clear and checked, even though the video is not being used as a citation. Jim Killock (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there,

[EDIT: this is specifically requested regarding use of AV for illustrative, rather than sourcing, purposes. Compare MOS:IMAGES; there is no similar guidance for illustrative audio-video content.]

From a couple of recent conversations I think that MOS could do with a bit more guidance on the use of audio and video content. I know policy development can be difficult and tedious, so I don't say this lightly, but I have encountered some situations where guidance would be beneficial.

A option would be to amend MOS:IMAGES so explain that most of the guidance also applies to illustrative uses of Audio visual content.

Specifically:

• Where a media file is used, as a recording of an original source, what are the verification requirements? For example, if someone recorded a song, does it need comparison to the original score? How far should it deviate?
• What are the "aesthetic" considerations?
• If AV needs subtitling or translation, which is preferred? Translations once recorded, for example, are very hard to edit or correct compared to subtitles.
• How do we cater for users' needs and preferences? Subtitling seems a good way to go.
• Are there benefits to hearing the original for the user, even where they do not speak the language? Where might these occur more (eg, in literary or poetical works, hearing the original is especially useful)
• Are there preferences on audio-video length? eg, are shorter clips generally preferable, and links preferred to long form content?

Although the answers seem fairly obvious to me, I've found there is not always understanding or consensus on these points. I think some of this may be cultural - in particular many EN speakers are resistant to foreign language content, and thus to original language content where that is not English. Other elements are UX matters which is again not always obvious at a glance. Discussion and guidance might help find the right criteria and balance for assessment. Jim Killock (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• It's longstanding policy that sources don't have to be in English but where possible English translations should be provided. Therefore subtitles seem like the policy-compliant option. Where you link to long-format media, provide a timestamp in your link which points to the part that directly supports the claim you're making.—S Marshall T/C 13:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you; and apologies for not being more precise, I've edited the comment and title above to be clearer about what kind of guidance I think is missing, which is regarding illustrative usages rather than citation. Jim Killock (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a comment at MOS:IMAGES talk page. Jim Killock (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Alalch E. has changed this section's title from the already descriptive "Removing sources", because this user disagrees how it describes the user's edits. – Editør (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A user removed source references from a list in the good article Femke, which seems like vandalism to me. Can someone perhaps weigh in on the talk page discussion before this turns into an edit war? – Editør (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

VPP is a good place to discuss the following portion of the widely-followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards, evidenced in the fact that anthroponymy lists (a type of WP:SIA, but functionally and style-wise often very similar to a dab), do not have a citation next to each entry, and that your idea to add these citations, however justified and obvious of an improvement it may seem to you, is a new idea that may not seem equally justified to everyone else ... said portion is:

Entries have certain limitations to promote consistency and usability. Not unlike Disambiguation pages, Names articles may contain lists of persons and each entry should follow a particular format.

Entries should not include External links. References are not required since the article that the entry is linked to should include citations.

Instead of weighing in on whether to call me a vandal and forecasts of edit warring, let us conduct a review of WikiProject Anthroponymy's WP:ADVICEPAGE. —Alalch E. 10:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely not vandalism. But, Alalch E, the fact that references "aren't required" doesn't mean they're banned. I think you should let people add sources if they want.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is not vandalism according to Wikipedia:Vandalism, but I believe @Alalch E. shows intential disruptive behaviour, including changing the heading of this post, which I have now changed back so I will against receive notification of new comments. – Editør (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't own section headings. I have changed the heading back to a descriptive heading. Stop that please. See WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. —Alalch E. 11:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your intentionally disruptive editing! – Editør (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please take a short break from this topic of something like an hour to get some perspective. You have started from an assumption of bad faith and are seeming less and less reasonable by the minute. Kindly let a few more editors weigh in. Nothing here is urgent. —Alalch E. 11:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to your "Removing sources" from the article Femke, you have reverted my edits to that article, made changes to my post here, and made changes to my comments on two talk pages. This is disruptive behaviour, even if it is not intentional. Please stop this immediately. – Editør (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the portions of the guidelines that I have linked in response to your attempts to enforce talk page headings and to determine the level of sections on my talk page? From the beginning of this dispute last night, you seem unusually distrustful, and more and more bent on enforcing your view of how things should be, even details that you have no control of, such as my talk page. Please step back to get a little perspective and let a few more editors weigh in. —Alalch E. 11:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

With your changes to this section's heading you are effectively trying to change how I am describing your disruptive behaviour here and what I am asking help for. – Editør (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

See the header of this page: The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines. Change discussions often start on other pages and then move or get mentioned here for more visibility and broader participation (emphasis mine). If you want to discuss my purportedly disruptive behavior, you should perhaps start a section at WP:ANI. But since you have started a section here already, perhaps do not start too many discussions in quick sequence. —Alalch E. 11:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop trying to control my comments. – Editør (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reasonable remark. What do you think about my already made observation that you are seeming less and less reasonable by the minute? —Alalch E. 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Even though WP:SETNOTDAB applies, anthro lists are probably the most dab-like of all lists, and their entries are intentionally styled the same as dab page entries because these lists and disambiguation pages are closely interlinked, and for a reader who wants a seamless experience of browsing for a person and/or exploring names, the appearance should be consistent. Take a look at List of people named James for example. —Alalch E. 11:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Alalch, I think that this dispute puts the disputed content over the (rather low) threshold for "challenged or likely to be challenged" within the meaning of WP:V. I think core content policy trumps "seamless" or "consistent appearance". I hope that you will consider allowing Editør to add his citations, and I also hope you will reflect on whether you ought to be editing someone else's words to retitle this VPP thread.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The original title was "Removing citations": a discussion of one editor's actions which should be at ANI if anywhere. The current title "Citations in Anthroponymy lists" reflects the fact that the discussion is about policy: whether references should be included for blue-linked name-holder-list entries in Anthroponymy articles. On the one hand we have an article failed for GA because of an uncited list; on the other hand we have the standards of the Anthroponymy project which do not include such references. PamD 13:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion follows a discussion at Talk:Tamara (given name)#List of names removal, where an editor was keen to remove the uncited list of name-holders (without creating a free-standing list, just removing them from the encyclopedia) so that the article might reach Good Article status. The article had been quick-failed for Good Article by @Voorts: on grounds including The notable people and fictional character sections require citations for each of the entries. I pointed out there that there are no single-name Anthroponymy Featured Articles to use as models, but that the three Good Articles included one with an uncited list of given-name holders (Femke), one with a link to a free-standing uncited list of name-holders, and one with a fully cited list of name-holders, all of whom were red links. That may have drawn attention to Femke and inspired an editor to add sources to all its name-holders.

I do not think that references are needed in lists of name-holders in anthroponymy articles, where the information about the person is limited to name, dates and description based on the lead sentence of their article. Such unnecessary references clutter the article and should be avoided. If there needs to be an amendment to the standards followed for GA review, then this should be done, to avoid further disagreements. PamD 13:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how references at the end of lines clutter an article. GA reviews don't have specific rules for certain types of articles, but in general an entirely unsourced section is a likely cause for pause for a reviewer. CMD (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Like a lot of other places where we do say "references are not required" (for example, in the case of plot summaries), removing references that actually do work to support the content should not be removed. "not required" is not the same as "not allowed". Whether references should be kept or use is a talk page issue to debate but an editor should not go around removing references without consensus just because they are "not required". --Masem (t) 13:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I don't see any need to require citations for such lists. I also don't see any point in removing them if someone has gone to the trouble of providing them, but it is not vandalism. Surely we can cope with some minor inconsistencies between articles? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I argue that despite anthro lists specifically not being dab pages, they are functionally the closest thing to a dab page and are intentionally styled to look like one (MOS:DABPEOPLE: ... only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name) because of very close interrelatedness to dab pages (the difference is highly technical and imperceptible to a reader, who will seamlessly go from a people dab to an anthro list and back not knowing that they have visited different types of Wikipedia article space pages), and the age-old practice has been that MOS:DABNOLINK applies to such dab-equivalent entries (References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles.). Not spelled out anywhere and recorded as "not required" in WP:APO/S, but in evident practice, the references are not just not required, they are unwanted. The article is better without them as the experience for the reader is better without them. —Alalch E. 14:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm actually not convinced that lists of given-name holders are particularly worthwhile, but lists of surname holders are vital. As well as possibly helping those interested in the surname in itself, they help the much more common reader who finds a reference to "Bloggs' earlier work on the topic" or "X was influenced by Davies" and needs to scan a list of surname-holders to find the person, forename and initials unknown, who is being referred to. Dates and field of occupation are important - an 18th-century botanist may be the answer where a 20th-century tennis player is not. These lists need to be as complete as possible, to help the reader.

If we go down the path where some editors add references to these lists, then we might move seamlessly along a path of references being "expected", not least for consistency in those articles, and newly-added unsourced entries being criticised, tagged, and perhaps routinely deleted as "unsourced BLP" by enthusiastic editors. Inevitably names will be added without references, but other editors will just stop bothering to add a name to a surname list because finding a single ref, or a small number, which elegantly sources all of their dates, nationality and occupation (or occupations) may be non-trivial. The reader would lose out.

So I argue that adding references to name-holder lists is positively unhelpful, and removing such refs is useful.

The time spent in adding such references could so much better be spent in improving genuinely unsourced or under-referenced articles: it's alarming to think that this might become a "favourite editing job", or even a "nice simple job recommended for novice editors". PamD 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to note that I'm fine removing references, despite my QF of the Tamara GA. I was applying the GA criteria and guidance at SIA, which says that citations are required if information beyond a wikilink is provided. I also wasn't aware of that part of the WikiProject Anthroponymy standards at the time. If there's consensus that these kinds of lists don't need citations, that's fine with me. Adopting this rule might affect whether these articles are eligible for FLC (see below) or GA/FA. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) I can see an argument for not citing bluelinked namehavers in anthroponymy lists. What guides the choice of source? In the removal diff linked in the OP, I'm seeing a lot of citations to sources that establish the existence of various Femkes. Especially for the athletes, there's no indication from these sources why the Femke attested is notable.

In the diff, Femke Verstichelen is cited to https://www.uci.org/rider-details/94895, which provides her nationality, birthdate, sanctions (none), and two entries for Team History. This is a database entry that does nothing to establish notability, and accordingly isn't used as a reference in her article (it's an external link).

Again in the diff, Femke Van den Driessche is supported by the source https://olympics.com/en/athletes/femke-van-den-driessche, the content of which reads in full "Cycling <br /> Year of birth 1996". This source – another database record – doesn't even establish nationality, and isn't linked from the subject's article at all.

I haven't clicked through to many of these, but the impression I'm getting is that the sources aren't really valuable here. I'm not trying to argue that bluelinks in anthroponymy lists have to establish notability in the list rather than just in the target article, but if we're going to bother adding citations for these people, why not make them informative and relevant? It's just a wasted clickthrough if a reader navigates to these database records instead of visiting the target article.

In general I do feel like lists of this type are disimproved by citations. If citations must be added by choice to anthroponymy lists like this, I feel the least worst solution would be to bundle them all into a single pair of <ref>...</ref> tags following the introductory sentence, which would make the section much easier to edit and significantly reduce bloat to the ==References== section. Folly Mox (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added sources for the list of name bearers in the article Femke, because birth years and professions are sometimes listed wrongly and can be challenged. Therefore the sources are required by the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, specifically criterion #2b that states "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". So good articles should never rely on sources not cited inside the article itself. And removing sources because it is an editor's opinion they don't look nice goes against the good article criteria and against Wikipedia's core principle of verifiability. Sourcing lists of people isn't unusual as it is also common practice for articles like Births in 2000. However, as far as I'm concerned, sourcing lists doesn't need to be demanded for all lists of name bearers in articles about given names, but it should at the very least be accepted. – Editør (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I believe you pointed out to me that given name articles probably shouldn't go through GA to begin with since SIAs are lists. Is that still your view? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on it, but I have generally felt that the name articles are often more akin to lists, depending on how many entries and the depth of the information on the name itself is. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Given name articles are sometimes just one sentence or paragraph with a list of names that looks like a disambiguation page. I tried to develop one given name article further and show that it can even be a good article where the list of names is just one section. I hoped that it could be an example to inspire others to improve given name articles as well. So some are set index articles, but others just have set index sections ({{given name}} using the section=y parameter). And in some cases the list is split off, such as the long List of people named David for David (name). There are simply different solutions possible that suit different names. – Editør (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Tupungato, we used to have a list of conventions, but it was deleted 16 years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions. I'm not sure we would make the same decision today. Information about some conventions is in History of Jehovah's Witnesses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tupungato: I'm probably one of the best people you could talk to about this. I've been trying to remove the emphasis on primary sources when JWs are talked about throughout enwiki. The Jehovah's Witnesses article used to cite the denomination's magazines 100+ times. I fixed that. Unfortunately I don't speak Polish but I have an extensive book collection on secondary sources about JWs if you ever wanted me to look something up for you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In regards to notability, we don't really have articles on individual conventions. I think a few are (or should be) mentioned at the History of Jehovah's Witnesses if secondary sources talked about them, but otherwise that sort of thing definitely wouldn't meet our notability guideline for standalone articles. I'm not sure what the standards at the Polish Wikipedia are because I know various projects have different standards. If you're looking for AfDs, the most recent one I can think of is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Watch Tower Society publications (2nd nomination). I've mostly been focusing on improving the content we have as there's only a handful of people editing the JW topic area and a lot of what was written a decade ago uses almost exclusively primary sources. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was away for a week, but I'll have a look how the matters are progressing in Polish Wikipedia, and will remember about your offer to consult. Tupungato (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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".

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@North8000 Please see Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop, where editors are already discussing potential changes. Sam Walton (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not talking about any particular cases. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So, the premise of your argument is pure conjecture? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

???? It was from an analysis of it's current structure. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

But you've just refused to engage in a discussion with how the structure has actually worked in practice; hence, conjecture. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

The recall petition threshold is not the recall discussion - it is just a check to prevent the most frivolous recall discussions from being held. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 Goldsztajn (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Magisch ^{talk to me} 09:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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". Magisch ^{talk to me} 09:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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 wouldn't be surprised if we see a bunch of recall petitions for the most vocal critics of this process. Magisch ^{talk to me} 11:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

I took the stats from the first RRfA to test this theory:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Magisch ^{talk to me} 18:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Magisch ^{talk to me} 19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

Take my opinion for what it's worth though. I'm not an admin nor do I foresee myself ever having aspirations to become one. Magisch ^{talk to me} 19:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 00:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Maybe the divide is not between admins and non-admins but between newer and longer-serving editors (who are more likely to be admins)? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@Soni: [3]. Levivich (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the Quarry query editcount/registration date for Supports, Neutrals, Opposes.

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)

Prepare to not be surprised. Supporters/Opposers:

• Median registration date 2008/2014 <-- Behold, Wikipedia's generational shift
• Average registration date: 2011/2014
• Median edit count: 40,293/17,363
• Average edit count: 76,125/43,683

Thanks for doing the quarry. Teamwork makes the dream work! Levivich (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree that it just needs fixes.North8000 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

ArbCom have to face re-election. Does that have a chilling effect on the arbitrators? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a facile argument. Arbitrators are well aware that they are standing for a fixed term period. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Silverseren^C 22:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not though right? Seems kind of silly. PackMecEng (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that might be my reaction, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Someone decided that it just isn't worth it" does not equal "the process worked". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Um, thanks for sharing? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

On the petition page, I conducted a careful analysis of the evidence. Nobody refuted what I said there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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: [4]. 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)

• 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)

  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.

  It didn't work like that in either of the two that we've had, but that's a fault with the implementation not with the concept. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  In other words any user should be able to start a binding RRFA on any admin at any time? No, no thank you... – Joe (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

I think the 25-vote threshold, because it’s so easy to meet, is essentially pointless because it will only weed out extreme outlier cases that I don’t believe will ever happen enough to be a serious concern. We should just have a supermajority vote requirement, and if we must have a petition it should be a lot higher than 25. Dronebogus (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have evidence the 25-vote threshold is easy to meet. Of the two recalls, one only hit 25 due to a bad block during the petition period. CMD (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

One more reason I don’t like this: it’s extremely important, but we’re using it to prototype this weird system not used anywhere else on Enwiki and possibly Wikimedia (if you have examples of off-wiki precedent please share them). Dronebogus (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have to try new things at some point. But CMD is right, from all the evidence we do have, it looks about right. Where as there is zero evidence that a higher number is required or helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's usually called Approval voting when it's used, though that might not be precisely the right name. It's used all over the Wikimedia movement. At least until recently, both grant requests and the (technical) community wishlist used petition-like voting processes that encouraged support and disregarded opposition votes. That is, if there were 25 people supporting something and you showed up to say "* Oppose because WMF Legal will have a heart attack if you do this", then the request might be rejected because of the information you provided, and your comment might change the minds of potential/future supporters, but it would never be counted as a vote of 25 to 1. It's still counted as a list of 25 supporters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The original Phase I Proposal was directly written as adapting dewiki's recall policies into enwiki. I believe the Italian wikipedia also has a threshold to RRFA style process. And I think spanish too? I might be getting some projects confused. But it's directly used in recall in other projects - That's how it was recommended here (and then adapted after). Soni (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration election commissioners are chosen by collecting solely supporting statements. Once upon a time, the arbitration election RFCs also consisted of proposals that commenters approved, without any option to oppose. Requests for comments on user conduct also used a format where support for expressed viewpoints were collected, without opposing statements. edited 18:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC) to add another example isaacl (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dronebogus This system was modeled after Adminwiederwahl on the German Wikipedia, which has been in place since 2009 or so. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Dronebogus (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That being said, different wikis have radically different governance structures. For example, Spanish Wikipedia is apparently much more democratic compared to Enwiki (in the literal sense, not just in the sense of “egalitarian” or “un-tyrannical”). Dronebogus (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting dewiki primarily uses the process to desysop inactive admins and has a much longer petition period. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Comparing with de.Wiki maybe apples and oranges. Disclaimer: This is what I have come up with, but a regular de.Wiki user or admin may well be able to improve or correct my findings. First there is the huge difference in scale - the de.Wiki currently runs with only 175 admins. There are nearly 400 former admins (that’s quite a high turnover but recall replaced the earlier term limit system for admins which required automatic re-election), but also there is the question of culture: en.Wiki is a lingua franca project contributed by users from many different backgrounds and regions while the de.Wiki is largely contributed to from a specific language region that shares a common culture which defines their way of doing things such as the way their RfC (Meinungsbild) are structured, voted, and commented on. Since 2009 when the de.Wiki system was rolled out :

• There have been 247 recall cases
• There was a rush of 67 cases in the first year 2009
• Since 2018 there have been 30 cases, an average of 4.29 per year

Breakdown:

• 49 handed their tools in voluntarily after being RECALLED. (zurückgetreten)
• 59 were stripped of their tools following a RECALL case and failed on a rerun (Nicht wiedergewählt)
• 96 were stripped of their tools after the rerun time limit expired (Nach Fristablauf de-administriert/Did not run after being asked to run for re-election)

These figures do not add up because they leave 43 unaccounted for. I think this is because there are several different pages with breakdowns of admin activity. The 43 could be users that passed a recall RfA or they may have handed their tools in voluntarily on recall but I can't find way to know for certain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Just in case anyone didn’t get the subtext of my first comment on this: I do think it’s apples and oranges, and that’s why we shouldn’t be using it. Different language editions have such vastly different systems and community cultures they might as well be on other planets half the time. You can’t import stuff between them just because it fills the same niche. Dronebogus (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the situations are somewhat different, but it at least means its not unprecidented. Also, I know what you mean, but I'm still amused by the phrase en.Wiki is a lingua franca project. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm for there being an admin recall process. But we need to recognize that RFA, at it's realistic best is an inherently rough process that few want to go through, and if they don't do so they are gone. At it's best it's like standing on a pedestal for a week in the middle of a crowd while people ask questions and make public assessments about you. Including about anything that anyone feels they might have done wrong. I just think we need a more careful thoughtful process before we subject them to "RFA or out" North8000 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

For several weeks, editors involved in updating the infoboxes (Template:Infobox officeholder) on Trump's nominees have either supplied status information about a candidate's position within the title itself, e.g. Special:Permalink/1262197122, or through the status parameter, e.g. Special:Permalink/1262208196. This should be standardized. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an infobox for office holders. These people do not actually hold an office at this time. Therefore, the infobox shouldn't be in their articles. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also… as an aside… technically Trump is not yet the “President Elect” … he is “President presumptive” until the electoral college reports to the Senate. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That may be factually correct, but sources are calling him "President Elect" and have been for some time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a need to better understand how the notability criteria works of Indian universities. Right now, we are looking at things like a university's rankings, research work, and its role in improving education. For academicians and vice chancellors, we consider things like research publications, fellowships, and leadership experience. However, in India, there is a big concern about the rise of educational institutions that claim to be non-profit but are run as businesses, with leadership often influenced by political connections or family ties. Also, most of these private universities including their vice chancellors' pages are just promotional, based on paid reporting in Indian news organizations, listing courses or publications, which breaks Wikipedia's WP:NOTDIRECTORY rule. They also rely heavily on rankings from multiple portals to boost their article's text. At the assessment level, there are two main opinions: one says a university is notable i.e, passes WP:GNG if it is approved by the University Grants Commission or set up by a state act or statute, while the other says universities must meet strict WP:NORG guidelines to have a Wikipedia article. Our goal is not to judge or oppose any institution. But, it is time to use different criteria to evaluate these organizations from India.

For greater clarity, please take a look at the following ongoing AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adani_University and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neotia_University

I am also inviting the following editors, who recently took part in the AfDs mentioned above, to join a helpful discussion: Pharaoh of the Wizards, Ratnahastin, GrabUp, Necrothesp, Sirfurboy, and CptViraj. -- Charlie (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NSCHOOL is very clear on this :- All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline.(emphasis mine)

All universities whether they are Indian or not or if they have been established by a statute or not need to satisfy either the WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable. The rankings are merely routine coverage as they are released periodically. Also we cannot use WP:OUTCOMESBASED arguments to keep an article as it is simply a circular reasoning (i.e keep an article because we usually keep them at AfDs). I am not sure if we need a separate guideline or clause for indian universities in lieu of the fact that most Indian media coverage about any organisation is often sponsored without any disclosure per WP:NEWSORGINDIA & User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a line in the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. Should we really accept this as an argument that Maybe there are offline sources, so Keep—without citing any offline sources? GrabUp - Talk 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't accept it. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME is an argument to be avoided at AfD. That is just describing the situation generally, and does not create a presumption of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree that we should never use outcome based arguments. What matters is the sourcing because how else can the page be written? In the main, I think the P&G is fine. These must meet NORG or GNG. But there is a difference. We allow public schools and non profits to meet GNG but private for-profit schools must meet NORG. As long as we do that, Charlie has raised a significant concern that Indian universities should probably be required to meet NORG when, on the face of it, they are non profits that only need to meet GNG. We have WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Do we need touch of guidance about these institutions? Also in India, there is a big concern about the rise of educational institutions that claim to be non-profit but are run as businesses - could we have some reference to these concerns, which we would need to justify such an additional guideline. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy

Here are few articles;

1. 2011 article: Large number of colleges are run by politicians, builders: V. Raghunathan

2. 2016 article: Private higher education is burgeoning in India – but millions can't afford it. There is a sentence in this article, "Private institutions keep the cost of education high, despite restrictions on generating profit."

3. 2018 article: Educational Institutions must earmark certain percentage of seats for poorer sections and subsidize their education: Vice President. There is a sentence in this article, "Calling for a complete overhaul of our education system, the Vice President said that majority of our colleges have become mere breeding centres for producing students with degree certificates rather than individuals with critical analytical skills."

4. 2021 article: 90% of India's students go to colleges where there is little research done: PSA VijayRagahvan

CITEHIGHLIGHTER shows that some reliable sources include paid or sponsored news, sometimes disguised as ads.;

1. Business Standard: Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research tops the list of Private Universities in India - Sponsored post

2. The Indian Express: Manipal University, Jaipur Admissions 2025: UG and PG Admissions, Eligibility and Selection process - Direct price list promotion.

3. ThePrint: Enhance Your Career with Manipal University’s Accredited Online Degree Programs

4. Business Standard: Ahmedabad University Inaugurates India's First MTech in Composites, Creating Pathways for Next Generation of Material Scientists. - Sponsored post.

5. The Hindu: Manav Rachna defines New Milestones | Becomes First Indian University to offer IB Educator Certificate in PYP, MYP and DP. - Sponsored post.

6. Business Standard: Shoolini Ranks No.1 Private University in India, Again. - Sponsored post.

Also, it has been found some universities in India are gaming research publications;

1. Chemistry World: Are Indian higher education institutes gaming the ranking system?

2. ThePrint: India’s research crime is getting worse. Scientists are gaming peer review system

3. ThePrint: This Indian watchdog is cleaning up ‘mess’ in academia—falsification, fabrication & fraud

Wikipedia is the only place on the internet where such entities try to gain legitimacy through the pseudo-promotion of their institutions. If we maintain basic vigilance, we can save many gullible parents and their children in India from being cheated. Charlie (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Paid news is ubiquitous in India, those that do not pay up are denied coverage. [5] - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@CharlieMehta, some of the complaints above have nothing to do with notability. Politicians have complained about the quality and price of education in every country. That has nothing to do with the guideline.

Something that surprises some people is that 'non-profit' doesn't mean 'low cost' or 'poor' or even 'charitable'. Non-profit means that if expenses are lower than revenue, then nobody gets to pocket the profits as their own personal money. You can have a non-profit cigarette maker, or a non-profit gasoline producer. The difference is:

• For-profit: Spend $90 to make something (including your salary), sell it for $100, allowed (but not required) to take the $10 difference home for yourself.
• Non-profit: Spend $90 to make something (including your salary), sell it for $100, not allowed to take the $10 difference home for yourself.

That's the only difference. These other things – the 'wrong' people are running them, the price is too high, the quality is too low – are completely irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I intended to offer some perspective to the discussion in response to the question raised by Sirfurboy. At the same time, the points and clarifications you have provided are very helpful in steering the conversation back to the actual guidelines and criteria rather than focusing on subjective or extraneous factors. Charlie (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Note WP:CONSENSUS. There is very definitely a consensus at AfD that fully accredited universities established by statute should be considered to be notable. I can't recall one being deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Where is the RFC that establishes this consensus? Is it in any policy or subject notability guidelines? What we recall is not always a reliable indication even of the consensus at our self selected engagement. For instance, you made the argument here [6] and the page was not kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There are examples where fully accredited universities were deleted via AfD or WP:CONSENSUS, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sant Baba Bhag Singh University, which I recall as I participated in it. GrabUp - Talk 11:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin, I don't think that "released periodically" is the definition of "routine coverage". WP:CORPDEPTH says "brief mentions and routine announcements". A report is not a "routine announcement", even if it happens periodically.

Perhaps we should clarify the meaning of "routine" in the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that should matter is whether there are multiple reliable independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage. That's what's necessary to write an article, and any attempts to get around this or ignore it should be discarded. Promotional and paid content do not meet the requirement of independence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If I'm understanding CharlieMehta's post, I think the concerns are that we can't reliably identify paid news when it's coming out of India, even when it's not clearly marked as sponsored, so guidance clarifying/reminding editors of NEWSORGINDIA in the context of Indian schools might be warranted; that allegedly non-profit universities might actually be operating for profit, in which case the stronger source scrutiny required by NORG might be needed even for "public" universities; and that the often deplorable degree of research fraud, corruption, fake stats, and nepotism in regards to academic career advancement may mean NPROF's C6 guideline (VCs of major academic institutions are notable) is faulty when it comes to VCs of Indian universities. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

While this doesn't fit into the tidy binary flow charts that we imagine, if it's a significant separate university facility it's tends to get a few brownie points in the evaluation for being a geographic entity. I think that a practical standard is that if it isn't a significant separate university facility, it should meet a strict interpretation of the NCORP GNG. And, given the "pay to get coverage" situation in India, what's in the source can help judge in the discussion whether it meets that standard. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Simonm223 but I was preparing a draft which could have helped a lot in making a consensus if you gave me some time. This draft is supposed to point at the points that most users agree on. And propose fixes to the points they don't agree on. This draft would organize the whole chaotic discussion into a neat bullet points and get it back to an understandable route rather than this chaotic fights.

Can you give me a chance to finish it? I know it looks chaotic but I need few days to make it work not more. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 12:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I doubt another post was going to change anyone's mind. The topic was going in circles and more than one person asked for a close. I'd very gently suggest you might be whipping an expired equine.Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No, this draft was going to break this circle and summarize the whole discussion into an organized bullet points and sift users' opinions and debate each argument independently. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 12:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Which would have taken this discussion into a different track. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are two mostly unrelated questions that came up in the course of a Deletion Review. The DRV is ready for closure, because the appellant has been blocked for advertising, but I think that the questions should be asked, and maybe answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

At DRV, there are sometimes requests to restore to draft space or user space material from pages that were deleted as G11, purely promotional material. DRV is sometimes the second or third stop for the originator, with the earlier stops being the deleting administrator and Requests for Undeletion.

Requests for Undeletion has a list of speedy deletion codes for which deleted material is not restored, including G11. (They say that they do not restore attack pages or copyright violation. They also do not restore vandalism and spam.) Sometimes the originator says that they are trying to rewrite the article to be neutral. My question is whether DRV should consider such requests on a case-by-case basis, as is requested by the originators, or whether DRV should deny the requests categorically, just as they are denied at Requests for Undeletion. I personally have no sympathy for an editor who lost all of their work on a page because it was deleted and they didn't back it up. My own opinion is that they should have kept a copy on their hard drive (or solid-state device), but that is my opinion.

We know that the decision that a page should be speedily deleted as G11 may properly be appealed to Deletion Review. My question is about requests to restore a draft that was properly deleted as G11 so that the originator can work to make it neutral.

I am also not asking about requests for assistance in telling an author what parts of a deleted page were problematic. In those cases, the author is asking the Wikipedia community to write their promotional article for them, and we should not do that. But should we consider a request to restore the deleted material so that the originator can make it neutral? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

When we delete an article we should always answer reasonable questions asked in good faith about why we deleted it, and that includes explaining why we regard an article as promotional. We want neutral encyclopaedic content on every notable subject, if someone wants to write about that subject we should encourage and teach them to write neutral encyclopaedic prose about the subject rather than telling them to go away and stop trying because they didn't get it right first time. This will encourage them to become productive Wikipedians, which benefits the project far more than the alternatives, which include them trying to sneak promotional content onto Wikipedia and/or paying someone else to do that. So, to answer your question, DRV absolutely should restore (to draft or userspace) articles about notable subjects speedily deleted per G11. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If the material is truly unambiguous advertising, then there's no point in restoring it. Unambiguous advertising could look like this:

"Blue-green widgets are the most amazing widgets in the history of the universe, and they're on sale during the holiday season for the amazingly low, low prices of just $5.99 each. Buy some from the internet's premier distributor of widgets today!"

If it's really unambiguous advertising to this level, then you don't need a REFUND. (You might ask an admin to see if there were any independent sources they could share with you, though.)

When it's not quite so blatant, then a REFUND might be useful. Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising gives some not-so-blatant, not-so-unambiguous examples of suspicious wording, such as:

• It refers to the company or organization in the first-person ("We are a company based out of Chicago", "Our products are electronics and medical supplies").

This kind of thing makes me suspect WP:PAID editing, but it's not irredeemable, especially if it's occasional, or that's the worst of it. But in that case, it shouldn't have been deleted as G11. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Blanket permission to restore every G11 to userspace or draftspace might make sense if you're, say, an admin who's mentioned G11 only once in his delete logs over the past ten years. Admins who actually deal with this stuff are going to have a better feel for how many are deleted from userspace or draftspace to begin with (just short of 92% in 2024) and how likely a new user who writes a page espousing how "This technical expertise allows him to focus on the intricate details of design and construction, ensuring the highest standards of quality in every watch he creates" is to ever become a productive Wikipedian (never that I've seen). If it wasn't entirely unsalvageable, it wasn't a good G11 to begin with. —Cryptic 14:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Some administrators have semi-protected their talk pages due to abuse by unregistered editors. An appellant at DRV complained that they were unable to request the deleting administrator about a G11 because the talk page was semi-protected, and because WP:AN was semi-protected. An editor said that this raised Administrator Accountability issues. My question is whether they were correct about administrator accountability issues. My own thought is that administrator accountability is satisfied if the administrator has incoming email enabled, but the question was raised by an experienced editor, and I thought it should be asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrators need to be reasonably contactable. Administrators explicitly are not required to have email enabled, and we do not require other editors to have email enabled either (a pre-requisite to sending an email through Wikipedia), and several processes require leaving talk pages messages for administrators (e.g. ANI). Additionally, Sending an email via the Special:EmailUser system will disclose your email address, so we cannot compel any editor to use email. Putting this all together, it seems clear to me that accepting email does not automatically satisfy administrator accountability. Protecting talk pages to deal with abuse should only be done where absolutely necessary (in the case of a single editor doing the harassing, that editor should be (partially) blocked instead for example) and for the shortest amount of time necessary, and should explicitly give other on-wiki options for those who cannot edit the page but need to leave the editor a message. Those alternatives could be to leave a message on a different page, to use pings, or some other method. Where no such alternatives are given I would argue that the editor should use {{help me}} on their own talk page, asking someone else to copy a message to the admin's talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is usually done in response to persistent LTA targeting the admin. I agree it should be kept short. We've also seen PC being used to discourage LTA recently, perhaps that could be an option in these cases. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't use PC on talk pages. See Wikipedia:Pending changes#Frequently asked questions, item 3. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Very few admins protect their talk pages, and for the ones I'm aware of, it's for very good reasons. Admins do not need to risk long-term harassment just because someone else might want to talk to them.

It would make sense for us to suggest an alternative route. That could be to post on your own talk page and ping them, or it could be to post at (e.g.,) WP:AN for any admin. The latter has the advantage of working even when the admin is inactive/no longer an admin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It's covered at Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

That says "Users whose talk pages are protected may wish to have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good-faith comments from users that the protection restricts editing from."

And if they "don't wish", because those pages turn into harassment pages, then what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Then it can be dealt with. But an admin shouldn't be uncommunicative. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Would there be value is changing that to requiring users whose talk page is protected to conspicuously state an alternative on-wiki method of contacting them, giving an unprotected talk subpage as one example method? Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

For admins yes. But for regular editors it could depend on the problem. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In general user talk pages shouldn't be protected, but there may be instances when that is needed. However ADMINACCT only requires that admins respond to community concerns, it doesn't require that the talk pages of an admin is always available. There are other methods of communicating, as others have mentioned. There's nothing in ADMINACCT that says a protected user talk page is an accountability issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)