Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 102

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196

Categorization by name of place by year established

This is a discussion of categories like Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan and Category:1911 establishments in Turkey. Both are higly problematic names. The first is just plain egregious. The idea of a seperate Muslim state carved out of India was not proposed until 1930. The name Pakistan was not put forward until 1933. In 1865 there was a concept of a place called India. Most of it was British India, a territory of the British Empire. There were also hundreds of "Princely States" of various sizes from Hyderabad State down, and under various levels of British Protection. Beyond this there was also Portuguese India, mainly Goa, and French India. Last I checked the one thing in the category mentioned was located in Lahore, which was a city clearly in British India, part of the province of Punjab, which transcended the modern international bouandary. As it is from 1947 until 1970 we clearly categoize those things established in East Pakistan in Category:1947 establishments in Pakistan etc. We also have Category:1960 establishments in West Germany, East Germany by year establishments categorizes, also Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, Mandatory Palestine, the Thirteen Colonies and probably a few more refering to now defunct categories. We have x year in Dahomey and a few similarly named categories as well. It seems to me the best course would be to categorize everything by where it was in the year it was established. This solves a lot of problems and avoids potential conflicts. Since these categories are clearly refering to the year involved it gives us a staight forward way to categorize things, and it makes it so we do not have to change categorize when boundaries change. It also allows for categorizing things such as sub-national entities that transcended modern boundaries. Thus we would categorize things established in 1910 in Lemburg (now Lvov) as being established in Austria-Hungary, since they were, and not in Ukraine, which makes no sense since a-there was no such place and b-the plurality of Lemburg's population was Polish. We have clearly recognized that we cannot retroactively call things "Israel" before that country was formed. This should be applied across the board. In the case of India, most of the stuff established in what is now Pakistan and Bangaldesh before 1947 is already in the India category. In the case of "Turkey" to the extent that that name was used before 1923 it was used as a synonym for the Ottoman Empire. However it would jus be too confusing to retroactively use Turkey for the Ottoman Empire, and we have clearly decided to use Ottoman Empire as the article on the place, so we should use Ottoman Empire to refer to the place during those times. This also avoids classifying as establishments in Romania things formed by ethnic Hungarian in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1917 or before, that now are located in Romania. This will avoid anarchronism and inaccuracy. It also makes it so we do not have to recategorize things when international boundaries change. I also think we should move toward having a set earliest year we categorize establishments by country. The extreme is Category:993 establishments in the Czech Republic which not only incorreclty calls the place a Republic, implies modern understandings of place nearly a century before they came to be, but also contains the only article anywhere in the Category:993 establishments tree. For Category:Educational institutions established in 1800 that is the first year we have the category, and for Populated places we only do by year back to 1500. I think we should agree to some year before which we do not do the establishments by country. I am thinking 1800 might be a good year, since much before that placing things in countries gets progressively trickier. However I think a fixed year would work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just remembered a related issue. With the currently used method of placing these categories into parent categories we take a category like Category:1911 establishments in Estonia and place a set of links on the category. This makes it so the category liks to th article Estonia. However in 1911 the thing we really should be linking to is Estonia Governorate, which covered only about half the area of modern Estonia. One option would be to try to use different names in the categories, but that would probably just create confusion, especially in a case like Category:1910 establishments in Romania. With Category:1910 establishments in Russia it might be worth using "The Russian Empire" as the name, but there is a strong argument that at the time "Russia" would have worked. It migth not be that big a deal. I guess we could still add manually on [[:Category:1910 establishments in Russia" a header that says "This is for things established in 1910 in the Russian Empire" but I am not sure how to do that and deal with the current header being placed there. I am not even sure if I am explaining this so people understand the problem. The problem is that currently there is something linking to Russia which is the article on the modern nation state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uw-spamublock

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-spamublock. -- Trevj (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if this should have been notified via WP:VP/PR instead. -- Trevj (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Signatures

Please see File:Paulsen Signature.jpg. How can one person's signature belong to somebody else and be declared public domain by that person? RNealK (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of ignorance. Presumably the uploader's copyright claim comes from the fact that they created the image, unaware that signatures are not eligible for copyright in the US, and that an accurate copy of an existing work doesn't involve sufficient creative effort to attract copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the public domain claim be removed, or should it be listed as a copyright violation? What other actions should be taken? RNealK (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I think the signature falls into the realm of {{PD-signature}}. Its not the uploader that is releasing the signature into the public domain, its that the signature lacks sufficient creativity to have ever been subject to copyright at all. As with all threshold of originality questions, there is no bright line, but the signature doesn't look to be especially artistic or have any other feature that would make it copyrightable. Monty₈₄₅ 04:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, why? It has no content. Reyk _YO! 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. There is no real content yet and it certainly isn't a guideline. I guess the creator didn't understand the meaning of adding Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. I have removed the category.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

See Wikipedia:Wikidata interwiki RFC. --Rschen7754 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Article feedback RFC now being drafted

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is now being drafted. Any and all users are encouraged to add a view or polish up the page. The RFC is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 21. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough restriction enforcement is now being discussed

Hi. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding restriction enforcement for User:Rich Farmbrough. Any and all users are encouraged to comment. --Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) no longer marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Artefacts upon image deletion

Moved from wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)

Can anyone tell me why, upon deletion of an image, a bot comes around to comment out (<!-- Deleted image removed: [[File:file.jpg|thumb|Image name.]] -->) the wikilink to the image, instead of removing all trace? Is it deliberate to leave these comments in place into perpetuity? There must be thousands upon thousands of such comments in various articles across the project. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been wondering that as well, for a long time. Surely it's completely redundant in light of article history? — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked the bot operator of User:ImageRemovalBot, User:Carnildo, if there were some prior discussions regarding this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped Carnildo a note pointing to this question. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, thanks for that. It seems it was a requested feature at the time the bot was set up. I have set my formatting script to systematically remove them as and when it comes across them. Does anyone see any reason why it cannot continue to do so? -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That's a long time. It means there are potentially well over 200,000 of those comments around. I'd be interested in discovering if there's consensus for it to stop doing it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can get consensus, I'll have the bot stop commenting images out. --Carnildo (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea behind it is that there are lots of images deleted mistakenly because they're mislabeled or because permissions haven't been obtained for them yet. If the bot just removed them without a note, when they were undeleted, people wouldn't be able to figure out where they were supposed to be put back. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an alternative to leaving such comments to languish forever? Perhaps we may consider adding a datestamp, which would permit these commented out links to images to be removed by bot after a certain 'grace period' has elapsed? All those comments without date stamp would de facto expire at the end of the earliest grace period. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It could be possible to have a bot identify and remove very old comments of that type as well, working from ImageRemovalBot's contribution history. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Please include a datestamp; bots or users who come across such comments older than a certain threshold can then remove them. As to what the threshold should be, maybe a couple months would be good—some low-traffic articles may get looked at only about that often. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the OTRS backlog, I would suggest a two or three month threshold. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. So if the bot started datestamping its removals as of today, it could also start removing all the undated tags, and any new tags inserted this month, at the end of April... -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That proposal is overall an improvement from present practice, but wonder if wouldn't be better to just disable the whole feature. The argument that it helps reinstating images which were deleted and later restored is not very convincing to me. As far I know, there is no automated process for reinstating such images in articles and if done manually the edit history can indicate where the image was. Also, at the time the image is restored, the same location for the same image is not necessarily the best, as in the meanwhile both the article and the collection of available images might have changed. So far I found the feature of no use at all and removed dozens of such placeholders in the past years.--ELEKHH^T 04:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Even better. I feel the same, which is why I systematically remove these. I'd just say any policy that allows us to get rid of this clutter within a reasonable period of time would be welcome. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 05:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If a deleted image is restored, how can you tell where it was used? There is no link between the old revisions in the article history and the image. At least with a time-limited comment, you could search for the file name in the search box and see where it was used. MBisanz ^talk 05:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the edit history it will appear when the bot removed an image, thus it will be possible not only to locate where the image was, but also simply restore by reverting the bot. Example of image restoration without place-holder: Bot removing image visible in edit history, editor restoring image in the same place, without placeholder. --ELEKHH^T 05:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But you know which article to look in the history of to see the bot removing it. Imagine a permission is sent to OTRS and an OTRS agent undeletes the image. How is that OTRS agent supposed to figure out which articles to look in the histories of to restore the image? MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases it is very straightforward: one or two articles related to the subject illustrated by the image in question. I get your point now, but I think we're talking about a minuscule chance that the placeholder could be useful, while in most cases is just unnecessary clutter. IMO it would be a net benefit to simplify the process. --ELEKHH^T 06:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An other option would be for the bot to add to the deletion discussion the article names in which the image appeared, thus cluttering the DR page, not the article. That would make it very easy for anyone undeleting images to restore them where used previously. --ELEKHH^T 06:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick note saying that there are about 36,000 instances of <!-- Deleted image removed: on articles on en wiki. Also if an image was ever restored somebody would have to scan a dump before being able to identify there the images used to be (looking through the bots contribs isnt' exactly great but could also work if it was recent). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the idea of a date-stamped comment that's removed by bot after three months? Also, a lot of images are deleted without deletion discussions (under enwiki or commons speedy deletion policies), so there isn't a page to annotate. MBisanz ^talk 06:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dating these tags sounds like a great plan. It would be possible to see how long the tags have been on pages after finding the pages themselves with a quick API query checking when the bot had last edited. This means it would also be possible to remove these comments without the addition of the date to the comment. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support, as previously stated date stamping and removal after three months is a great improvement. --ELEKHH^T 06:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the current system of commenting out the deleted image, which replaces the redlink that would otherwise appear on the page. I use it to go look for a replacement image. Obviously it can alternatively just be deleted if no replacement is needed. Apteva (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the feature, although I would also support removal after three months. I can personally attest to restoring many image after receiving permission at OTRS, and then starting the detective work of determining exactly where the image belongs. Yes, it is possible to peruse the history, and figure it out, but it is much easier to see the comment, and simply clean the comment to restore the image. I have restored hundreds of images, and maybe a hundred or so with the comment. I am always happy to see the comment, as it makes the restoration much easier.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Article feedback opened

Hi all,

The request for comment on article feedback has opened. All editor are invited to comment, endorse other users's views, and/or add their own view.

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For trans people does notability imply outing in Wikipedia?

In the Lynette Nusbacher talk page, the BLP notice board and the AFD discussion for the Lynette Nusbacher page it is clear that many people believe that if a transsexual person is sufficiently notable to appear in Wikipedia, and if that notability extends across pre-transition and post-transition segments of that person's life, it is de rigeur to note that person's previous name. Noting a trans person's previous name is in most cases outing that person as trans, and doing so in a WP article is potentially emphasising that person's transness in public. Do we mention LGB people's LGBness so explicitly except where two notable people are or were partners? (Genuine question - practice seems to vary.)

Media guidelines for writing about trans people generally emphasise that previous names ought generally not to be mentioned.

Apart from the personal distress that might cause the subject (which may or may not be the concern of WP), casting doubt upon the gender integrity of the subject, and potentially endangering the subject in certain countries, which raise issues of WP:HARM; it seems worth discussing whether it is the role of an encyclopaedia biographical article, especially about a living person, to out LGBT people, trans people in particular. NetNus (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless the gender change is the reason the person is notable (which I suppose is possible although rare), the rules here are clear: a) Does the inclusion of the information conform with the letter and spirit of WP:UNDUE; and b) Does the information come from multiple, reliable sources? If the answers to both of those are yes then the information should be included in the biography. Wikipedia is not 'media', it is not a newspaper or a magazine. It's an open, collaborative encyclopedia. Anyone is free to add any information to any article, assuming it is done within guidelines and policies. You can't keep the gender change information off a bio anymore than you can keep a paragraph about corruption, or a crime investigation, or whatever other event or aspect of the person's life is under scrutiny. Wikipedia is not censored, nor is its purpose to portray notable people in the light they prefer to be portrayed. It presents information in a clear, concise, and neutral way. All of it. This does not mean I'm not sympathetic to your problem here, but there are larger issues here at play than accommodating a single person. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what the Frog said, and couldn't have put it better myself. BLP policy doesn't preclude making public information that the subject would rather prefer remain off Wikipedia. In a situation where there are genuine verifiability or undue weight issues, it's important to take many factors into account, but with respect, I think this is a very straightforward case. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAICT, there's two main principles in WP policy, NetNus. Firstly, we don't publish original research (so we don't out anybody). Secondly, we should write biographical material conservatively.

The Lynette Nusbacher case is probably headed for either deletion of the article or to-hell-with-writing-things-conservatively, either of which is the wrong outcome IMO. If it's deleted, it will just make way on Google for risible sources of information such as The Sun and the neo-Nazi Metapedia. If it is kept, this will unfortunately probably be accompanied with a seal of "couldn't care less", so that's not much better. It's a pity that Wikipedia sometimes gives us whatever results from antagonism, rather than thought out solutions.

I think you will appreciate that very obvious problems arise in writing an article about someone whose name has changed without commenting on why, even if those problems might not be impossible to overcome. I'll also repeat my view that WP should not be a place where we are too eager to deny that human diversity is something contributed to by real people, not just unnamed theoretical people in the articles set aside for people who already know about that stuff. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tough cases make bad law, they say; but my query isn't about cases nor is it an attempt to open yet another discussion of the same issue. It's to discuss the principle and the policy. NetNus (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the principle and the policy is that anything that is sourced, neutral, true, and relevant will be included in BLP articles. This holds true across the board, with no exceptions as far as I can tell. I think this is a good thing. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is vital to address:

a) Does the inclusion of the information conform with the letter and spirit of WP:UNDUE;

No, absolutely not. The information on this subject was given undue weight using synthesis of material that itself was from tiny mention in a tertiary source.

and

b) Does the information come from multiple, reliable sources? If the answers to both of those are yes then the information should be included in the biography.

Again, no. The tertiary source was the only source used with no secondary sourcing and discussed the detail of a gender change, name change and "living as a man" from one simple mention in a history dictionary.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the author tries to claim the works written under the previous name, then the author has outed him/herself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the idea suggested by NetNus's query is well known here: we don't identify people as gay/lesbian unless they identify themselves as gay/lesbian. Trans is typically packed with G/L in the term LGBT -- and the straightforward conclusion is that we shouldn't identify someone as trans unless they identify themselves as trans. The name change issue is not a sufficient reason to override this basic principle, that when it comes to sexuality we require self-identification as a minimum condition for inclusion of relevant material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, there's no valid source that confirms a sex change operation or whatever. Only that the author used to go by a (presumably) male name, and now goes by a female name. That's all the article needs to say about it, and the readers can draw their own conclusions. What I don't get is, this was settled a couple of weeks ago, or so it seemed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that memorialized in a policy or guideline somewhere? Also, what about non living biographies, such as James Buchanan? Monty₈₄₅ 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are asking about "self indentification" that falls under Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to add one last thing to this discussion unless a need arises for me to reply, and that is the WMF resolution on Biographies of Living Persons:

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.

--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That would not apply to the author in question, as they outed themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate please.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

By claiming authorship of books written under a previous name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is true...could you explain how a talkpage admission is relevant to the article. Wikipdia and its talkpages are not reliable sources. If this was done elsewhere, please demonstrate the reliablility of the source and how it is anything more than admitting to having a previous name.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly the author confirmed via some process (OTRS, whatever that is) that they are in fact who they say they are. While random talk page comments might not be reliable, wikipedia treats these OTRS things as gospel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And private. It also did no such thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Private" or not, in the previous discussion a week or two ago, it was stated that the user NetNus was indeed the subject of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah....and how does that support your claim that they outed themselves. All they did was admit they are they subject of the article and it wasn't an OTRS ticket that did that.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying this Lynette does NOT claim authorship of the works of this Aryeh or whatever the spelling is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I always find it interesting whan editors can't support their own claims and resort to "are you saying...". If you can't say whatever it is you wish to say, please do not resort to this kind of tactic. Demonstrate your claims or stop altogether, please.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When this came up the previous time, it was demonstrated that (1) the editor NetNus is the article's subject; and (2) the two names are of the same person. I don't see how it could be any plainer than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with your claim? The editor NetNus has admitted to being the subject. AND.....????? As I stated on the article talkpage, OTRS and the edit summary left by the Admin who deleted some talkpage discussion had nothing to do with that fact. What is it you think you are saying here Baseball_Bugs?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That Aryeh and Lynette are the same person.[2] That doesn't necessarily imply a sex change. It could be a pen name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not a reliable source for claims on the article, but how does this support your claim that the WMF resolution does "not apply to the author in question"? This has no relevance to the discussion. You are simply not able to justify your claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NetNus was established as being Lynette, and acknowledged the previous name [Aryeh] in that link I posted above. So there is no issue about the names. The issue is about claiming, without evidence, that the author had a sex change. I don't know that anyone has established that as fact. And a couple of weeks ago, the article was fine. It stated the previous name and said nothing about any alleged sex change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot seperate what is, and what is not a relaible source for these assumptions for inclusion in the article then you have nothing to stand on. You seem to feel that admitting to being the subject on Wikipedia is enough to make GIANT leaps in the article. It is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What "giant leaps"? Aryeh and Lynette are the same person. That's established beyond any doubt. The medical allegations? Not established. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agwee with the wascawwy wabbit. This has nothing to do with NetNus's admissions, since they're not verifiable. Our best, most in depth, source for the article is the Jewish Chronicle piece about Aryeh, calling him male [3] The books the subject has written have Aryeh on the cover page. It would be ridiculous to have an article without explaining why we're saying this Aryeh person is also the same as this Lynette person; otherwise every helpful reader will be constantly wanting to correct the obvious typo. Lynette's Sandhurst resume [4] - clearly a reliable source - says Lynette wrote the books that themselves say they were written by Aryeh. That's not enough to say "had a sex change", but we can't avoid having to say "was known as Aryeh". --GRuban (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to respond separately to the "outing" assertion. I tend to interpret this as a more or less public statement claiming a particular status. I do not think that leaving information about which allows others to put the pieces together is such a statement. Nusbacher was outed by the Sun, but I don't think they outed themselves simply by changing names on a webpage. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FreeRangeFrog, Evanh2008, Baseball Bugs, FormerIP and others who hold that Wikipedia does not 'out' people because the information must have been previously published. Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be written conservatively, but relevant and well-cited information should always be expected. If that information is about a gender change, so be it. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Used a male name then and a female name now" is not the same thing as "had a gender change". We have evidence for the same person switching between the male and female names. We don't have a source for the gender change. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to back Ken on this one. Admitting you wrote under another name is just that: it does not provide evidence of a gender change. If I wrote books under the name Mary Sue, then later revealed my real name & gender (male), does that mean I've had a sex change or that I'm transgender? No, it means I used a pseudonym. That's all we can say, without delving into OR territory or relying on dubious sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a policy discussion, not a revisiting of the Nusbacher case. The discussion here is about "if a transsexual person is sufficiently notable to appear in Wikipedia, and if that notability extends across pre-transition and post-transition segments of that person's life", then do we report the transsexual information in the article. It is not merely about pen names or pseudonyms.

Ken, you misspeak about the lack of a source for "gender change" for Nusbacher. That is the exact term used by the The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. The Nusbacher bio is deleted, the issue is done, but I want to correct your mistake. Now back the policy discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, it's baffling that you say it's "not a revisiting of the Nusbacher case," then go right to correcting Ken... about the Nusbacher case. That, and the fact that this entire "policy" debate is framed around the issue with Nusbacher's article.

Regarding the policy discussion, I don't see there's anything left to discuss. If their transgender status is notable, and documented in reliable sources, we report on it. If not, we don't. I've not seen any disagreement on that, just disagreement on Nusbacher's "outing" by using a pseudonym. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since the information has to come from reliable sources, it is impossible that inclusions of properly sourced information is an "outing". Information on people should only be included if it comes from reliable sources, which means that it has already been made public. That said, not all information that is reliably sourced is worth including in an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • On the specific issue here, it seems to be general wikipedia policy to include people's birth names, so I seen no reason to not include past names a person used if those are reliably sourced. We do not suppress information just because a person might not want it to be public.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwashing?

If a BLP contacts me about fixing his article and has good connections to the media is it out of line for me to suggest he have an article published containing the information he wishes to add to his article? I don't mean false information but just things like birthdate, education, awards, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Our lord Jimbo did precisely this to get his birthdate included in his article several years ago. I would not find it out of line to provide this suggestion to the person. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to use a WP:RS. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you for prompt replies. I haven't recieved such a request yet but it may happen eventually. I have been in contact with some BLPs about their articles. Mostly stubs that need birth dates, images, etc. Some may not wish their age known so they may want to leave that out of any interviews.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to make an off-topic request here: Can we please not refer to persons as BLPs? The B stands for "biography"; a person is not a biography. I would not like to see this usage catch on. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many use the term that way. When I worked at a ski hill we use to 'talk to the chair' meaning the operator of the chair. It could be argued that BLP can also mean Biographed Living Person. I will refrain from it from now on it avoid uneeded issues about it. Has it been brought up at BLPN before?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, it's common shorthand. Doctors refer to patients that way sometimes ("Hey, how'd that STEMI do?" or "What floor is that stroke going to?"). It's impersonal, but it immediately narrows down what you're referring to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Doctors shouldn't use it, and neither should we. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Keep in mind, patient confidentiality. We can't say, "Hey, did you see John Smith? How's he doing?" in front of visitors or other patients. Sorry, but your personal preference does not make for policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in regard the article about me, someone asked me to add my year of birth, and added it. That was a long time ago in Wikipedia years, but it may still be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Prohibited (sic) links

• dgmlive.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

How should we link to pages on websites who claim to prohibit links to their pages, as discussed at Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Linking to DGM Live!? My view is that such ToS are ridiculous, and can be ignored, because anyone clicking on a web link sends a request to the host server for a page, and it is up to (the owner of) that server to decide how to respond. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt to run any proposed policy by Legal first, since their ToS claim is a contractual (legal) claim. But I would be quite surprised if they said anything other than "go ahead". – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy for legal to comment; but it's extremely doubtful they'd agree to such a prohibition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I thought I said: I expect they'd say "go ahead" with formalizing a policy to allow such links. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was agreeing with you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

As I already told Andy, talk page consensus determines whether a particular link be included. Nobody has claimed that there is a prohibition at Wikipedia of deep linking. The heading of this section is misleading.

The previous discussion, which should be read before commenting here, has discussions of recent legal cases by persons informed about internet law. I told Andy to look at RF's talk page; his linking to DGM confused things. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

An individual article's talk page discussion, while important, doesn't decide policy issues. Who's confused? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you confused the issue by linking to DGM rather than to RF, which you apparently have not read or have already forgotten. The Robert Fripp page has a link to a discussion at the appropriate guideline's talk page, which has informed discussion. Continuing to issue emotive ejaculations does not improve policy.

You may wish to suggest an RfC to suggest that WP shall practice deep linking whenever physically possible, if that is legal in the USA, regardless of the Terms of Service or polite requests by the page providers, and that editors should never write a polite request asking for permission to deep link before linking. Individual editors have no responsibility to strive for consensus before enforcing this policy on individual pages, which must accept the policy in every case.

Is that the policy you want? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask you again; who is confused? We need no RfC to allow deep linking; it's common practice on and off Wikipedia. You are not enforcing a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you have repeatedly asked "who is confused?", I shall answer: You have trouble with logic in this discussion. You are confused.

A common practice need not be universal and it need not be policy. Your stating that deep linking is a common practice here does not imply that it must be followed.

In this case, the editors writing the articles have decided to comply with ToS, and provide readers with the exact titles needed to search at DGM, meeting the needs of our readers and respecting DGM's ToS.

These articles are extremely carefully referenced, so perhaps the histrionics can stop.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're alleging that I have confused myself by linking to Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Linking to DGM Live!; and accusing me of histrionics? You have removed information from valid citations; with no prior discussion on the talk pages of the article concerned, and with no policy backing. That is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for a nap. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you've had it, and your milk and cookies, you'll recognise the emerging consensus and repair the damage you've done to our references? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Our references"?? LMAO, ROFL. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That ToS is ridiculous and should be ignored. If a URL exists, works, and is of service to our readers, then it should be linked. If the site takes technical measures to interfere with direct linking, then the affected URLs should be considered {{deadlink}}s - certainly not replaced with the homepage as appears to have been done on DGM. Kilopi (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that URLs in references have been redacted in a number of articles; for example in New standard tuning the "4th January 2010" diary reference has been changed from http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=16478 to http://www.dgmlive.com/ in this edit This is completely unacceptable. In the article Discipline Global Mobile the comment:

<!-- DGM's Terms of Service prohibit linking to internal pages, e.g. this diary's entry, without explicit permission. -->

has been inserted in refs. This too is unacceptable. Affected articles may include:

• Robert Fripp - confirmed
• Soundscapes by Robert Fripp
• King Crimson discography
• King Crimson
• London, Jazz Café, England – December 4, 1997
• Trey Gunn
• Discipline Global Mobile - confirmed
• Guitar Craft - confirmed
• P. J. Crook - confirmed (now includes three adjacent links, each with unique link text, all to the DGM home page)
• New standard tuning - confirmed
• Regular tuning - confirmed
• Grooveshark - confirmed

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, the discussion linked had a consensus that it was up to the talk page to achieve discussion, because our policy does not demand deepest-linking. Your "unacceptable" has no basis in policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You have cited no such consensus; nor is there discussion on each of the talk pages of the articles listed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, and repeated twice here, the link on the talk page of Robert Fripp leads to a discussion with informed editors familiar with internet/copyright law. Please read the linked discussion before replying. I never said there was a discussion on the talk page of each article. I wrote most of these articles, or at least referenced them, and so I am familiar with the editing discussions. Most editors appreciated my writing well referenced articles, when the articles had previously had almost no references. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed "a discussion with informed editors familiar with internet/copyright law" - and they tell you unambiguously that the DGM ToS does not apply to us. There is no support there for your bowdlerising of valid references. Such damage is not appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, for somebody who just added "brothers" to the article on RF, you have a lot of nerve taking this tone with me, who has written much of that set of articles.

Take it to the talk pages of articles and establish consensus. We have no policy requiring deepest linking, I repeat.

I will revert you if you add the links without first establishing consensus on the talk page.

I have requested and received images from Steve Ball, because I treated him with respect. Wikipedia could easily receive images from Fripp and DGM if we treat them with respect. This discussion, like the last, damage our ability to get images from DGM or the Fripp family. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You refer to this edit; are you saying that Peter Giles and Michael Giles are not brothers? Or that it is somehow against policy to inform our readers that they are? In what way does that edit devalue the points I have made here? Also, appeasing article subjects; especially corporate subjects, does not justify removing detail from references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see that as unacceptable as well. Referencing an article that way places the burden of verifiability on the reader, rather than on the author. That's not how a work of reference is supposed to work. That some websites have idiotic policies governing how people link to their content is not Wikipedia's problem, it's their problem. Whatever information is supported by references made this way should be modified with alternative sources, or removed altogether. Copyright or not, policies or not, as of now those articles are supporting their claims with the equivalent of hey, this information can be verified somewhere in this website, I promise! Good luck! That's so terribly half baked I have trouble believing anyone thought it was a good idea. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  hey, this information can be verified somewhere in this website, I promise! Good luck!

  On the contrary, in all cases, I provided the exact title of the diary entry, which is easy to find via search facility at DGM. This is at least a stable method of referencing. One can also use Google." Did you have trouble trying to verify anything?

  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:PAYWALL seems to cover this - if we consider a deep-link restriction to be a kind of paywall. Interesting. Maybe the best thing to do here would be to provide the actual full URL for precision, regardless of it being directly accessible or not. Most deep link bounce controls check for a referrer, so if I click on the link here on Wikipedia it will bounce me, but if I copy and paste it into my browser address bar maybe it won't. But you have to include the URL. The burden is on you, the article author, not the reader. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The links work; they are not being bounced, there is no need to remove the references. As suggested above, if they fail to work at some point in the future, they should be marked with {{deadlink}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that references linking to a site's main address are insufficient; if found, they should be tagged with {{full}} or {{page needed}}. As for terminology: there is no such thing as "deepest linking". I understand "deep linking" to mean links to items, particularly media files, which are not accessible through the site's own navigation system. The example given in the article deep linking is IMO not well chosen. Deep linking can also refer to URLs behind paywalls, and I consider citing those URLs as good practice, as it allows those with access to read the cited material. It is up to the web server to prevent access if they want to, and AFAIK they do a good job at that. Lastly, why should Wikipedia restrict itself from using URLs which show up in Google searches? Seems unreasonable and bizarre to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a growing informal consensus in this section that the practice of not linking directly to the source is unacceptable. Michael, Andy, FreeRangeFrog, Kilopi, and I all disagree with you (Kiefer) for various reasons, mostly summed up as ease of verifiability, which is the reason we use inline citations to begin with. Inline citations are mandated by WP:V for material which can (and will) be challenged, and most information related to living persons will certainly be challenged. I.e., I see a policy basis for rejecting the site's ToS and linking as we see fit.

Let me add an analogy which argues from a different perspective. While Wikipedia allowed and has allowed the use of general references (usually books and papers), the days where the use of such is acceptable for a high quality article are long past, and now we cite pages directly. If (in the highly unlikely probability) a book publisher came along and said precisely what this website publisher is saying, would you do as they requested and not cite the pages of their book or paper? In a paper or book you wrote and published outside of Wikipedia? I doubt it.

And, not to cast aspersions on the website publisher, what if the publisher were doing this, not out of some sense of trying to preserve bandwidth (as I believe may be or is the case) but because they wanted to increase their search engine optimization, thusly increasing the profit they make from advertising income? Would you still agree with their ToS?... I see no reason whatsoever why we should agree with their ToS, and neither does their ToS make any sense in the world of the web. It's not our problem what we do with links to their website, it's theirs, because they only have control over their website. If they want to break their own links, that's their prerogative.

As for deep linking, that is (and I agree with Michael here) the incorrect terminology for this problem. --Izno (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What's more, as is being discussed in the technical village pump, websites know where people are coming from. If they really wanted to, it's trivial (from what I gather) to have any non-internal linking redirect to their main page. Also, having this....restriction....in the middle of a large ToS written in legalese means that they are purposefully hiding this very unique restriction. If this were plastered at the top (or even perhaps the bottom) of every page prominantly that they don't want people linking to anything but their main site, MAYBE it could be argued...but 99% of Internet users would NEVER think twice of sharing links as they would with anything else. To restrict it on WP just because someone did comb through that ToS, and then go hard on people who didn't read it, well it's completely out of line. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Izno, please take responsibility for your actions. You did cast aspersions on the publisher. Apparently, you made this allegation without even bothering to see the site, which has no outside advertising (known to me). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Then consider it a hypothetical question, just as in the case of the book question. As it is, you responded to nothing in my post and so I believe you have little argument against the bulk of it. Ergo, you have presented little reason not to link. The consensus then is that we will be linking to the pages in question, regardless of whether we are granted permission; a consensus in fact echoed by multiple other consensuses (at the talk page of Fripp and at the copyright talk page). --Izno (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked whether anybody had trouble finding the referenced page, by using the search facility at DGM, and nobody has answered that question. Did you have trouble, Izno?

You did cast aspersions, without cause, and your allegations were not a hypothetical question, so I shall not consider your allegations to be a hypothetical question.

"we will be linking"---a curious "we", given your contributions to these articles, and seemingly a misuse of "will" (c.f., "shall").

Here is the truth: I shall not link specific pages until I receive permission from DGM. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• If there are no technical measures preventing external linking, there's no reason not to link directly to the URL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed. We are supposed to make access to the sources as easy as possible. Most limitations are for copyright reasons, and for some technical reasons like linking to temporal pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Summing up

So, do we have consensus to restore the full URLs in the references affected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from a minority of one, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, all other contributors here are in favour of using full URLs. Wolfowitz's proposed method of linking to a site's main page is at odds with Wikipedia principles and common usage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the links on New standard tuning, for now. It's a long and tiresome process; Kiefer.Wolfowitz should be doing these repairs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

KW is writing articles, a practice he recommends to the peanut gallery, particularly to Pigsonthewing.

The policy was discussed with knowledgeable persons at the previous discussion, where consensus was arrived at. If you wish to change policy, take it to the appropriate page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an appropriate page. And your opinion has no demonstrated support, nor any merit that I can see. I'm surprised that anyone even thought their TOS was a serious concern in this regard. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, your snide comments are unbecoming. I've read the prior discussion, and as I pointed out to you above, there was not the consensus you claim (you're welcome to cite it, otherwise). Indeed, the knowledgeable people in that discussion told you you were wrong then, too.Nor do I wish to change the mythical policy which you claim supports you but have yet to evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy,

You are welcome to add full urls to my writings on Wikipedia, if that is consensus. I look forward to your collaboration. :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy,

Further, I'm sorry to say that your approach has been similar here as it has been in past discussions at ANI and ArbCom, which have discussed various bans, which were supported by administrators rarely thought to be Judge Dredds of civility. Given this history, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You are welcome to try to improve articles however you wish within policy. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please restore full URLs and remove any hidden comments directing editors otherwise. If the website owner did not want people to go directly to a specific page then the owner should redirect long URLs to main pages, which is entirely possible for them to do. Until they do that, we are allowed to deep link. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that DGM is more interested in music and in not wasting their time with disrespectful persons, and I'm certain that DGM shall give the suggestions here the attention they deserve. 22:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at Wikipedia's Copyright-infringement page

Andy suggested citing the consensus at the previous discussion. Please note my statement of consensus and its endorsement:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The community views the legal warning of prosecution as lacking credibility, under the current U.S. law . If there were a problem of legal liability, the editor adding the link would be most responsible; other editors would hardly be liable. The decision of whether or not to add a link to a particular website is best decided on the individual article's talk page or on the talk page of a closely related project. An individual editor is free to ask the website for permission to deep-link (when this is prohibited by the ToS); a few have emphasized that politely requesting permission is not required by WP policy and some have further raised the concern that such requests may set an unwanted precedent.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got it. It's just as credible as saying "If you violate these terms of service, we will sue you, take your house, kill your dog, and eat your children." Likewise, if it isn't necessary to ask permission, then you don't need to do so. Asking is a mere pleasantry. Buffs (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There were no criticisms of it being unfair. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at copyright infringement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Linking to subpages of DGM violates terms of service The terms of service (tos) of Discipline Global Mobile (DGM, a record company) expressly prohibit links to any page except the DGM homepage. The tos warns that copyright violations will be pursued legally with tenacity. There is discussion at the talk page of WP's article on DGM's founder, Robert Fripp: Initial discussion of possible copyright infringement and certain violation of DGM terms of use. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I fail to see how there could be copyright issues with linking to subpages of a web site. Fair use allows you to quote short sections of text from copyrighted works (and a URL is definitely short) and I suppose that they are below the threshold of originality anyway, making them not copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I do not think this is an area where were we can make statements like "I fail to see..." because it is a legal syn. I suggest we look around for reliable sources that can give us some guidance on this issue. Here is one: Stanford University Library: Copyright & Fair Use: Connecting to Other Websites: Many copyright experts believe that deep linking (links that bypass a website’s home page) is not copyright infringement -- after all, the author of a novel can’t prevent readers from reading the end first if they so desire, so why should a website owner have the right to determine in what order a user can access a website? ... However, if a commercial website has no linking policy or says that deep links are not allowed, it’s wise to ask for permission before deep linking. Why? Because many websites -- even the listener-friendly National Public Radio -- have asserted rights against deep linkers under both copyright and trademark law principles. International law is equally murky. For example, in 2002, a Danish court prevented a website from deep linking to a newspaper site. But in 2003, Germany weighed in on the issue when its federal court ruled that deep linking was not a violation of German copyright law. Subsequently, an Indian and a Danish court both separately ruled against the practice of deep linking in 2006. -PBS (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC) International law is nice, but in the US, the courts have explicitly sided with those who use links; even "deep" links: Washington Post v. Total News, Ticketmaster v. Microsoft, Kelly v. Arriba Soft, Perfect 10 v. Google. Since US law governs our usage and usage OUTSIDE the US is covered by our WP:General Disclaimer, I think it is pretty safe to say that a reference usage is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, just about EVERY reference guide states you should cite the FULL URL of the source of your information, not merely the main page of a website. I fail to see how WP:SYN applies. Given that this is the fourth or fifth discussion that Kiefer has started, I believe there may be some issue of canvassing. Let's consolidate this into one discussion instead of having it all over the place. Buffs (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC) The point being that now you are discussing it on case law which is much better than saying "I fail to see...". The problem with the paragraph "I fail to see... Fair use allows" is that it is advancing a position without using a legal expert to advance the position for you. -- PBS (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC) @Buffs, Let us wish that your understanding of copyright is superior to your understanding of WP:Canvas, which explicitly labels the leaving of a handful of neutrally worded notices as appropriate. The link to the discussion page at Robert Fripp was provided, and experienced editors know that (at the time) it iswas best to continue the discussion at the original place (before discussion was closed there, to be continued here 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Snide comments aren't needed. Starting the same discussion in 4 places is canvassing. You've now stopped discussions elsewhere and redirected them here, ergo, any canvassing problems have been thoroughly eliminated. Have a good day. @PBS, "I fail to see..." indicates that the person doesn't understand your point of view. By definition, that's confusion, not synthesis. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC) As I suggested, you don't understand WP:Canvass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC) I think this is probably the best place to discuss the concept in a general way and let the discussion here be used for the more specific one. Here is another paper. Web Site Linking: Right or Privilege Richard A. Spinello June 4-5, 1999 The Ticketmaster v. Microsoft Case ... There was an out of court settlement to this lawsuit in February 1999. Although the terms of the settlement were not disclosed Microsoft did agree to link to Ticketmaster's home page instead of to its sub-pages. The settlement was actually a disappointment for those searching for a firm legal precedent about controversial linking activities. As a result, at least in the United States there are curently no unambiguous legal guidelines on the practice of deep linking. ... This article (Web Site Linking: Right or Privilege)also includes a section titled "Ethical Dimensions of Linking" which is worth a read and perhaps should be discussed further In our view, a compelling case [(Locke's "labor-desert" theory)] can be put forward that a Web site should be considered as the proprietary and private property of its author and owner. ... In short, property rights are required as a return for the laborers' painful and strenuous work. ... Likewise, the utilitarian argument that ownership rights are justified ... Part of exercising that control is ensuring that visitors are exposed to the homepage so that advertising revenues will not be compromised. --PBS (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Following Buff's and PBS's suggestions, I archived the discussion at the talk page of Robert Fripp. I agree with your comments and recognize that the creation of those pages required extensive labour, which should be respected (and, as usual, this position is better articulated through virtue ethics than through utilitarian or Lockean British-schoolboy ethics). I registered with DGM and asked for Wikipedia to have permission to link to its pages, only when illustrating or documenting an assertion in an article related to DGM or Fripp, etc. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC) The article is from 1999, which means that 13 years of development are missing. For the 1997 Ticketmaster case, it means it is simply irrelevant, as we actually do have precedents now. Ticketmaster tried it again later, this time against Tickets.com, and the court clearly said that URL is not subject to copyright (see deep linking). And then the same thing was said again in other cases. So this issue seems to be quite clear now: deep linking is considered fair use. See the Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing for more details. So, we don't need to ask DGM for permission. The fact that in 2012, we have multi-billion-dollar companies making products that build their success on deep-linking, proves that deep-linking is not illegal. Google offers deep links to billions of web pages (including the DGM subpages), and I am sure they don't read ToS for each one of them and ask them for permission. Because they don't have to. It's fair use. If it wasn't, they would have been sued already. The ethical considerations are outdated, too. In the days of cloud computing, having ToS saying that deep linking will be prosecuted is absent-minded to put it very mildly, as you will violate the ToS automatically, in thousand ways, when you use modern Internet services and modern technology that are the norm in 2012. Furthermore, there was no Wikipedia in 1999, the concept of sharing common knowledge for the benefit of mankind was not known (and therefore fully considered) then. And so on. There is nothing ethical about this "no deep linking" requirement in 2012. It is deeply immoral and dangerously inhuman, if the punishments suggested in the ToS are really enforced. I find the DGM ToS highly unethical, confused and backward-looking. So I think we should really focus on a single thing: is deep-linking in the US legal or not regardless of what the website owner wants? If it is (and the court rulings from this millenium suggest that it indeed is), than there is no need to ask DGM or anyone else for permission, and then I would not ask them even as an act of courtesy, for the reasons explained above—as a matter of principle.—J. M. (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Hi J.M. That seems a bit below your normally high standards. Would you please remove the abuse of DGM and soapboxing?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC) No. First, I wasn't interested in bringing ethical issues into this discussion, as I consider them irrelevant in this case. but they were brought here (i.e. considered relevant) by other people. They explained their opinion on the ethical issues, and so I did exactly the same thing, to offer my point of view. Second, I can't see anything that could abuse DGM in my comment. You said you see the requirement ethical and explained why, I said I consider it unethical and explained why.—J. M. (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Or do you mean the last sentence of the third paragraph? If that's the only thing you mean by the "abuse of DGM", then I'm making a small edit to make it 100% relevant to this discussion, and that's it.—J. M. (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) You at least removed the falsehood that "DGM views itself as 'the ethical company'"; in reality, DGM announced "an aim" to be "a model of ethical business" in a troubled industry. Your judgmental evaluations of DGM's ToS are at best superfluous.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC) I concur with Buffs as to law: the cases summarised on the relevant articles cited above show that deeplinking with images of/from the site being linked to are allowable - all that is under discussion here is linking to the URL. I also agree with JM as to practicalities: deep linking is normal practice, unavoidable in many web functions and is how the web works the design purposes of the Web is to allow authors to link to any published document on another site (from Deep linking). Babakathy (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Are you saying that I was wrong to comply with the ToS and to ask for permission to link from Wikipedia? Following Jimbo Wales's and the WMF's misuse of Wikipedia in protesting SOPA, I thought Wikipedia was making some token moves to respect others' copyright and property rights.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC) "The WMF's misuse"? First time I've seen the WMF accused of misuse for following community consensus, but...okay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC) The majority of the community differs from the consensus of the community. Consensual decision-making is practiced by many Societies of Friends ("Quakers") and other intentional communities.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC) So you would have read consensus here differently than the three administrators who closed it, I gather, and would have preferred that the WMF second-guess them as well. It seems the Wikimedia Foundation is in a rather tough spot. :/ The community is not happy that they disagreed with and would not implement WP:ACTRIAL, and you're accusing them of misusing Wikipedia for following what they were asked to do by three administrators in good standing closing out an extremely well advertised and attended community discussion. The RFC that User:Aaron Brenneman is proposing to draw together could be helpful to surface different ideas of what the WMF is supposed to do when the community wants to take action. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC) break for convenience I did not say anything about asking for permission to link. But since you ask, I think it is not straightforward as while it is a courtesy to do so, it is also a bit of a problem if they say no. (and how practical is this, does someone have to ask seperately each time we link?) More generally, can we please stick to the merits of this issue, which will apply elsewhere, and avoid snide comments about DGM, WMF and so on. They make this discussion uncivil when it need not be so.Babakathy (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC) I don't believe that this reference has been raised yet; forgive me if I'm wrong: “ So far, the courts have found that deep links to web pages are neither copyright infringement nor trespass. No court has enforced a website's terms of use that bar deep linking. --Electronic Frontier Foundation ” While I'm all about respecting copyright, there's a couple of things to think about: first, the person who would be liable for violating a site's terms of service is the person who violated the site's terms of service--that is, the editor who found and added the link originally. Our readers and reusers, who found the link on Wikipedia, will have entered into no such agreement with the site. Second, links are easily removed on a cease & desist request. Third, there is no universal presumption that deep linking is disallowed. NOLO notes at the Stanford website that, for instance, Amazon welcomes deep linking. I would not myself knowingly violate a commercial website's deep linking prohibition, and I would never counsel anybody to do so. But I would not support a blanket prohibition against deep linking. It is a useful practice, widely accepted, with little precedent against it in the US, which governs us collectively. It might be worth noting somewhere that the legality of deep linking is not entirely settled, that users are responsible for the links they add under the laws of their own jurisdictions, and that if they know a site discourages deep linking, they should take this into account. I'm not sure that many of our editors understand that they are personally liable for what they do here, even if what they do is within our policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC) The legal issue seems clear, the ToS of DGM is a matter for users of the site (and if someone utters a link, then a non-user would be able to link with impunity). The policy issue is another matter, and one we could perhaps address by looking at and respecting the NOINDEX requirements of web sites, the alternative being individual site negotiation (or a bit of both). Technically, if DGM would like to send me a large amount of money I will show them how to make the site un-linkable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC). I don;t think this is a DGM policy, it's just some cut and paste legal terms. See this search. Like those ToS that injunct against using cancelbots and make us ROFL. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC). I would summarize this discussion. The community views the legal warning of prosecution as lacking credibility, under the current U.S. law . If there were a problem of legal liability, the editor adding the link would be most responsible; other editors would hardly be liable. The decision of whether or not to add a link to a particular website is best decided on the individual article's talk page or on the talk page of a closely related project. An individual editor is free to ask the website for permission to deep-link (when this is prohibited by the ToS); a few have emphasized that politely requesting permission is not required by WP policy and some have further raised the concern that such requests may set an unwanted precedent.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I think you've got it. It's just as credible as saying "If you violate these terms of service, we will sue you, take your house, kill your dog, and eat your children." Likewise, if it isn't necessary to ask permission, then you don't need to do so. Asking is a mere pleasantry. Buffs (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC) My thoughts: As a legal matter, whether a complaint by a web-site manager claiming that a link is a WP:COPYVIO has any legal merit falls under WP:OFFICE and it's not productive to discuss it here, except perhaps as preliminary discussion to see if the claim is void on its face or if it has enough merit that a legal opinion is required. As a matter of what does the English Wikipedia want to do regarding deep linking against the explicit wishes of a web site operator when deep linking is not a violation of the law, that's something that should be discussed on the Copyright policy talk pages and probably linked to from WP:CENT. As far as the use of a link on a specific article page where neither law nor Wikipedia policy prohibited it, that's up to the editors of the page in question. Of course, all other policies and guidelines still apply: Having a link to DGM on a page where that link serves no useful purpose should be edited away. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you all for your comments. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was "there was not the consensus you claim (you're welcome to cite it, otherwise).". This, despite all the verbiage dumped above, you have still failed to do; the consensus you have claimed did not and does not exist; and neither does the policy you claim to be "enforcing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Shallow-linking is prohibited

In these instances, the link to the root of http://www.dgmlive.com serves no useful purpose. KW was editing links he believes to be a copyright violation into links which serve no purpose on Wikipedia. (I'm trying to write this in a way which assumes good faith. I'm not assuming bad faith, but English doesn't seem to have a a simple conditional past tense.) If he thought the links were in violation of copyright, he should have deleted the links and the material supported by them, rather than just truncating the link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the links are as deep as allowed by the ToS.

The detailed titles of the pages allow easy searching at the DGM site, using its search facility. Again, nobody has stated that they had trouble finding the desired page. Arthur Rubin, have you had trouble finding a page?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, we are not bound by those asinine ToS. This has been made clear to you, above. Your "search facility" comment remains a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I did no say that anybody is bound by ToS, unless they wish to be respectful.

You are obsessing over the difference between going to their main page using the search to find the page or having a direct link. I ask again, what is the difference practically? To whom does this matter? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No matter how many times you ask; it's still a straw man. Your comment was "allowed by the ToS". Those ToS can only disallow us to make links to specific pages if they bind us; which they do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The obligation to be honest and to avoid misrepresenting others similarly binds us.... Let us choose to be bound, the better to avoid vice. 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

The consensus expressed unambiguously above is that not only do those ToS not bind us, but that we also choose not to be bound by them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Keifer, if I cited a reference as "The Bible" and told you to search for the relevant passage, you'd think I'm daft. Likewise, simply linking to the root of a website and telling us "look for it" is daft.

Are we done with this charade, now? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

HandThatBites,

Your analogy is daft. An apt analogy would be to

"Exodus 20:16" or "Deuteronomy 5:20"

given with links to a hypertext Bible, with a search engine. Please consult either of the two verses, which are shorter than the articles being discussed, which apparently you didn't even look at. (I would have thought that young men had more trouble with next verses....)

Regarding your "charade", your complementary use of "we" was not daft but apt, but I won't be waiting for your answer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd hope so. If KW removes any full URLs to replace them with just the domain name, he should be reverted and warned. If he then continues to do it, he should be blocked for disruption. If KW adds "citations" that are nothing but the domain name, he should likewise be warned that doing so is not constructive. If he still inexplicably feels compelled to follow that website's TOS here, he should simply not edit anything to do with it. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Citations" in quotes? Did you even bother to look at the articles before insulting me? What a lazy, obnoxious comment from an administrator, who should know better. Are you this obnoxious regularly? If you feel compelled inexplicably to be act like an asshole continue with insults to my scholarship, especially after writing the "citation"-paradigm Terry v. Ohio (15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)), then block yourself. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your level of belligerent hysteria seems to increase proportionally to the number of people disagreeing with you. Why don't you tone down the personal attacks? Reyk _YO! 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. View the previous discussion at the copyright-violation page to see the majority of persons expressing views contrary to mine, in an atmosphere of intelligence and mutual respect. (It may matter that many of the participants write serious articles.)

Here, I don't reward incivility, personal attacks, AGF violations, and falsehoods---these being the key differences in the discussions. Any hostility is in direct response to such violations of WP policies. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The only person I see making personal attacks is you. And really, is making revenge AfD nominations respectable behaviour? Reyk _YO! 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not revenge. It was a diagnosis of a policy-violating article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

He also just went out of his way to downgrade the assessment of an article just because he saw it in my userpage list of articles I had created (Terry v. Ohio, the same one he mentions above in his attempts to personalize this, which I created waaay back in 2004), and tried to start a pissing match on my talk page about who had contributed a better article. This is all beyond childish, and his escalation of conflict with everyone is not only a waste of time but completely corrosive to a cordial and collaborative environment. Could someone start an ANI thread to close this discussion given the clear consensus, warn KW about respecting that consensus re: the linking issue as I have noted above, and (perhaps most importantly) to address KW's conduct here and everywhere else his hostility has spilled over (my talk page, the AFD...)? I would but real world obligations prevent me from having the time right now. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry v. Ohio was not B-class. It had one reference (whose citation is a paradigm of incomplete "citation") and almost no exactly one in-line citation (or "citation", to use your term), which I quote in all of its majesty:

"On October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden, aged 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious."

http://www.wrhs.org/docs/library/irisharch/McFadden.pdf

For comparison, the DYK project requires roughly one citation per paragraph, apparently evincing a fanatical belief in WP:Verifiability.

Please stop personalizing another issue. Are you claiming that the article is really B status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's just... extremely spiteful and childish. Reyk _YO! 23:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Malleus reported that he had been frequently called "childish" by 12 years olds. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the above. This is verging on disruptive. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You fellows should avoid the vague "this". What is disruptive? Your concurrence?

Are you alleging that I am somehow keeping you from cleaning up your own articles, Hex, many of which would be rejected by even DYK as utterly lacking sources, having gross grammatical errors, etc.? It's pretty funny to me that somebody with the Nuddy Buddy article, which does remind me of a scene in Caddy Shack, takes this tone about my articles' referencing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You've found a problem? Why don't you go fix it, rather than engaging in pathetic battling and revenge attempts? — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you fix your articles so that they comply with policy? Please review the AfD policy. 18:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Given that your AfD was closed speedy keep, it appears that you're the one who needs to brush up on deletion policy. Have a nice day. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article had no references and should have embarrassed you, when your canvassing here brought your friends to AfD. Now, it is appears to be a stub-class article, thanks to calling the community's attention to it. How are you doing with Nuddy Buddy, etc.? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've created {{Bad linked references}} for such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You tag-bombed articles without describing the links needing improvements, when at best you should have tag bombed sections. Please either provide specific links by editing the articles (what a concept!) or diagnose bad links on the talk page.

Also, please consult with an editor proficient in English before creating further templates on Wikipedia. I corrected this one, but I don't have time to correct others, if they are similarly ungrammatical and prolix. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You have removed the template from two articles. You should not have done that; not least as you know which references it concerns. Your comments about my use of my mother tongue are unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummm... if he knows which references it concerns, then so do you. Why do you not actually FIX the problems you find, rather than just tagging them (which probably makes you feel good about yourself, but doesn't really help very much). Victor Yus (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, your use of one of my languages is unacceptable, particularly on a template that is posted on top of a good article on an English-language encyclopedia. You created your latest little toy just for my articles related to DGM, and then used it to tag bomb my articles---do you think that the community approves of tag-bombing?Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

'Your' articles? Please read WP:OWN, twice through, before you ever make any more edits, please. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please think before writing, Melodia. I own the copyright and moral rights to my contributions, which I license to Wikipedia. Before you accuse me of violating the idiotically named ownership policy, you should have checked to see whether I have actually violated WP:Ownership. Either cite an article where I have violated ownership or apologize.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue that opened this thread has long since been answered and a consensus is clear. All you are contributing now, KW, is petty and irrelevant sniping. Unless you have something constructive to add, this thread is done and you should consider the linking question resolved against your position. postdlf (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I answered a badly expressed accusation of violating WP:Ownership. Learn manners, Postdlf. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started an ANI thread about KW's conduct here; please contribute your observations and concerns there. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

So at the moment, it looks like this:

1. If deep linking is, as alleged, illegal, then Wikipedia is in a very deep hole indeed because we deep-link on basically every article with a {{cite web}} present. Additionally:
2. WP:ELDEAD advises against linking to the front page of a website. (I'm certain there's a more explicit warning against this elsewhere, but can't find it at the moment.) So as far as our guidelines go, the advice all points towards deep linking and away from shallow linking. And most importantly:
3. Whatever consensus was reached previously on deep linking to particular sites, there's strong consensus here in a general forum that deep linking is appropriate (very nearly unanimous consensus).

I think we're done here. If you still have concerns about the legal status of deep-linking to sites which prohibit such in their terms of service, KW, you'd be far better mailing legal@wikimedia.org to try and get an official response from counsel. For now, edits which remove deep links on those grounds should be reverted. We'd do well to find somewhere to point WP:DEEPLINK to ensure that this consensus is recorded somewhere prominent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirected to Wikipedia:Shallow references, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

...which is not, as k.w. just categorised it, a user essay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Using {{Comment}} on articles

Is using {{Comment}} tag and placing a comment on a an article considered vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkn89 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Depends on the circumstances. If you decided to put it in the middle of today's featured article just "to see what it would look like", then yes. If you meant to comment on a talk page discussion and accidentally commented on the article, then no. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Commenting is supposed to be done on talk pages, not article pages. It's not vandalism if someone does this in good faith—that is, by mistake, or out of ignorance of the proper procedures here. If someone continues to do it after being warned not to, then it is either vandalism or incompetence. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Email policy proposal

Moved from WP:ANI

See specific abuse discussion from ANI for context. NE Ent 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did any of the other accounts start with "Nero"? In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given (WP:BEANS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

incident specific content not copied

(Non-administrator comment) I completely agree with the proposal that Arthur Rubin made. The addition of that new rule would prevent most of these throwaway accounts from spamming admins. However, I do wonder where the new policy request will be made? Perhaps WP: ARBCOM can pass it? I will message one of their members informing them of this discussion. Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is generally accepted that arbcom doesn't have the authority to make policy like this, and we wouldn't need their involvement for this. I would support a policy like this, though I don't know how useful it will be because this LTA tends to do the vandalism before sending emails.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not in my experience. I have received several hundred such messages, from about 30 such accounts. As far as I can see, none of these had made any edits to Wikipedia before abusing the Send Email facility. RolandR (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we actively try to avoid doing that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should note, though, that the Committee (and the rest of the Functionaries) are aware of this guy and are working with the Foundation to try and find some more effective ways of stopping him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an option to opt-out from receiving mails from new-accounts.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's one solution though I do not understand why accounts (new or otherwise) need the ability to send unlimited numbers of emails or why editors who have never edited need to be allowed to send emails at all.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a rule change to prevent accounts sending emails until they have made at least one edit (or perhaps Autoconfirmed?). However, we do need to bear in mind the fact that some people with few edits do feel a legitimate need to email - you don't have to be an active editor to try reporting a problem, and every so often a person with near-zero editing experience will turn up at a noticeboard to say "your article about me / my family / my business is a hatchet job, how do I get it fixed?" - I'd be amazed if some didn't try using email for that. Anyway, back to the point: If you need a bunch of people to agree before changing the rules, and it's not an incident or specific to administrators, wouldn't the village pump be a better place to discuss it? bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How much leeway do we give editors who send abusive emails? I just got one from a new editor that I'm trying to persuade to stop doing original research. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• One clear thing, in my opinion, is that those who make death threats can have their contact details released to the proper authorities, should the recipient inform Wikimedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  In this case there are no meaningful contact details. These were obvious throw-away email addresses @hmamail.com (hma = hide my ass). Of course, Wikipedia may have an IP address. Hans Adler 16:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  That's what I meant. It should be trackable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think enforcing this is not just against the spirit of Wikimedia, it would also be extremely hard to enforce. We could not allow email addresses from Google, Hotmail etc. nor any of the ever changing domains used by services such as Spamgourmet. The only way to enforce this is with a positive list, and that would completely exclude a lot of people from using the email feature. Hans Adler 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support throttling and restriction to autoconfirmed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to requiring a certain number of edits before sending emails (+ time delay so we don't just get 100 automatic edits immediately before the emails), there should also be a throttle. On Tuesday I got more than 50 identical emails within 3 minutes. There is no way something like this can ever make sense. Hans Adler 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can support restricting email access to autoconfirmed users. GregJackP Boomer! 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Definitely support - I was under the impression that this functionality was already controlled by some kind of role restriction (like autoconfirmed) until I started getting rude emails about AFD disputes from new users. I can see how this is something that would definitely be abused. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we just need to put a default throttle on emails, wholesale. Does anyone really use the feature enough to send 10+ emails per day through Wikipedia, rather than directly to someone you know? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I support both quantity control (throttling) and a restriction allowing only autoconfirmed users. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• has anyone made sure this is technically possible yet? Would be nice to know the discussion has no chance of being moot beofre proceeding. It would also be good to have the proposal being discussed copied at the topo of this section, since this is apparenrtly where it is being discussed, so that newcomers to the discussion are aware of what it is that is being discussed.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• It should be relatively easy. Looking at the code for Special:MovePage for example, I see

$permErrors = $this->oldTitle->getUserPermissionsErrors( 'move', $user );

So it would be simple to add something like this to SpecialEmailUser.php and check for autoconfirmed. Disclaimer: I am a developer but I'm no MediaWiki expert. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal is "In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given" NE Ent 19:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added something up to top to ,make it more obvious what is under discussion. I have also checked in to the ongoing functionaries mailing list discussion of these issues. It seems the answer to whether is technically possible is "probably, but not right this second." So, we can make such a rule, but the technical implementation may not happen right away. I don't see that as an impediment to continuing discussion, which could take some time anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Throttling is sensible. Anyone sending blasts of 50+ emails at once is up to no good. There may be legitimate reasons for a new user to use email, but I would support user preferences to give recipients finer control over who to accept email from. Kilopi (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Every little bit helps, though the long term abuser who is particularly problematic certainly can find ways around it that even I - who's not terribly technically literate - can think up. A way to (automatically?) send notes to evidently abused editors on their talk page telling them that they can disable email temporarily or long term also might help - and not to email the person back. CarolMooreDC 19:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think I am more in favor of throttling than just not allowing new users to email.As an oversighter I get emails from a fair number of new users, and of course they must be able to use the OTRS system to request suppression. Admins also get a decent number of emails from pretty new users, and most of them are completely in good faith, even if they do not need to be emails and a talk page message would have sufficed. But there is never, ever a reason for a user to be sending 50+ emails an hour. If we can stop that, we should. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, throttling is a completely different problem than simply checking a permission. Just pointing that out since above I said the permission check would be relatively simple. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to think of a situation where a non-autoconfirmed user would have a really pressing need to use the e-mail system. When it comes to the really important stuff, OTRS, the Foundation, Arbcom, the unblock system and other similar things all have publicly disclosed e-mail addresses, so people can mail them from outside the wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would recommend against making any restrictions, due to the fact that e-mail contact is an essential feature. Spamming does not appear to be at the level that it needs to result in any changes. Most e-mail clients are easily configured to filter junk e-mail. It is ludicrous to say, no spamming and we are changing our policy to eliminate it, but if you do want to spam us you just have to make ten sandbox edits and wait four days and then you can send all the spam you want. Limits on volume tend to forget about necessary high volume uses. Apteva (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What is a necessary high volume use? Especially for a new user?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not like unwanted e-mail any more than anyone else, but any time an ISP puts limits on sending e-mail they always forget about and conflict with the legitimate high volume uses that exist. I am not going to go into details. Apteva (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BEANS does not apply, you are being asked to give an example of a legitimate high volume use. There are no legitimate reason an editor with no edits should send out 20 emails to one recipient in a 24 hour period. None.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am simply not going to give ideas to anyone, but yes I can think of legitimate high volume uses. Changing the limit from 200 to 20 will have little impact on anyone - but will also have little impact on the volume of mail received. If someone has a publicly available e-mail address, then no changes will have any affect. It is better to tweak the volume than to change the permissions required. I actually did not know that anyone could send e-mail if they were an IP user or had not confirmed their own e-mail address. Adding auto-confirmed does not appear to be warranted. Apteva (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are unable/unwilling to give an example of single a legitimate reason that new users would send high volumes of email through wikipedias email system then your argument has no weight. We are not talking about "unsolicited email" we are talking wikipedia's email being systematically exploited for illegal purposes such as death threats. If you can't see how that warrants a restricting to autoconfirmed then then I don't know what does.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just offhand I would guess that most of the e-mail sent by new users is sent for legitimate purposes, and is not of that nature. For example, it is commonly held, falsely, that all IP edits are vandalism, when more than half are constructive. But am I right that to send e-mail through the system you first have to confirm your e-mail address, and be a registered user? I know for me the "e-mail this user" link disappears when I log out or log into an account without a confirmed e-mail address. Apteva (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That is beside the point - since most new users probably don't send 20 emails in an hour to the same recipient. I would guess that a very large portion of new users who send out more than five emails to the same user are sending abuse. We are taliking about a throttle, not about making it impossible to send small portions of legitimate mail.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unwise to altogether restrict email access from non-(auto)confirmed users. Admins and functionaries often advise users to contact them by email, and I imagine that a fair amount of such suggestions are to rather new users. At the very least, I think we'd have to specifically exempt User:ArbCom, User:Oversight, and the like so that any registered user would be able to email them. I think the ideal set-up would be a correlate of semi-protection, of sorts: If a user is receiving abusive emails from new accounts, they can simply request that new and IP users be barred from emailing them... But I don't know if such a model would be technically feasible. I think the most important thing to remember, though, is that if we were to actually implement this (assuming there's no way to apply it selectively), we'd have to change the way several critical processes run, e.g. the Oversight quick form. (Likewise, throttling could also be something of an issue, because it would just mean that if someone tried to out a new user more than, say, four times in an hour, after the fourth attempt that new user would have to wait until they were allowed to request Overisght anew.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As I just said, Arbcom, Oversight and other vital functions all have publicly disclosed e-mail addresses, so nobody ever needs the wiki e-mail function to contact them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I am getting very annoyed at this constant shoulder shrugging from people who have not faced this. Over the past 18 months, I have received some 1500 such abusive emails, many threatening, in graphic detail, what this person intended to do to me and my family. The emails are racist and sexually explicit, the addresses are also abusive, frequently threatening death or maiming to me or other named editors. The Foundation is treating this seriously, but to my mind not seriously or urgently enough; but some editors seem to be dismissing this altogether too lightly. It's not a joke , and we deserve and demand that some action be taken to stop this. It could be argued that Wikipedia is failing in its duty of care and responsibility towards volunteer editors here, by still permitting and enabling this constant abuse. RolandR (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree. At the very least they should put a disclaimer that if you edit with email enabled you may well receive death threats if you participate in talk page discussions about controversial topics. Might not be good for recruitment of new editors though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree too. It's unconscionable that editors are subjected to this to point of receiving thousands of them and nothing has been done. Getting 3 death threats in about a minute hasn't done much for my morale. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I am not suggesting this is not a real problem, and I very much sympathize with those who are receiving these awful emails. I have seen a copy of one of them and it is not something any of us should be subjected to, much less fifty times in an hour. However, email is a vital part of the functionality of some parts of site administration, so I would hope for a solution that is not just a knee-jerk reaction to this one incident, awful though it is, but rather a more thoughtful and nuanced solution that does not sacrifice the ability for new users who see real, serious problems to discreetly contact an administrator, oversighter, or checkuser directly. That's why I think a firm throttle is a better solution. These really determined WP:LTA headcases are quite willing and able to become autoconfirmed if that is what they need to do to geyt back to engaging in disruptive behavior, it's a pretty low bar, but we can't set it any higher than that for access to such a basic function. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I definitely support throttling - there's no good reason why someone should be sending 50 Wikipedia emails a day, let alone 50 an hour. And on balance, I think restricting email to autoconfirmed users is a good idea as well. As Beeblebrox says immediately above, it's a low bar - but that means it wouldn't be particularly onerous for new users, while it would make it slightly harder for spammers and trolls to abuse our system. As others have observed, all the important functions like OTRS can be contacted without having to use the Wikipedia email system anyway. Robofish (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• From a technical standpoint, both limiting to autoconfirmed and throttling appear to be easy enough to do; both are simple configuration changes. To limit to autoconfirmed, just remove the sendemail right from the user group and add it to the autoconfirmed and confirmed groups for enwiki. Throttling also already exists, but it's currently set very high (to 100/hour/IP for IPs and non-autoconfirmed and 200/day/account for logged-in users); that can be changed for enwiki, too. I have no opinion on whether this should be done or what the limits should be. Anomie⚔ 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Those are sort of typical limits. If the complaint is e-mail from a single user then a simpler solution is to bar that user from sending e-mail. Whether the limit was 1 a day or 100 an hour, the only thing that stops someone from sending hundreds is to block their e-mail sending. Apteva (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem may not have been properly explained (possibly per WP:BEANS). The WMF/community, with infinite wisdom, has decreed that anyone can create any number of new accounts at any time (hidemyass.com is one of a million other possibilities), and each of those new accounts (I think) can send an unlimited number of emails to an unlimited number of editors. Blocking a throw-away account after it has sent a couple of hundred emails is ineffective. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Apteva, your comment indicates you've not actually read the complaints here. The individual(s) involved are creating multiple different accounts, both here and on anonymous email servers, in order to continue this harassment campaign. Blocking these accounts has not sufficed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hard limits on email are essential, as has been demonstrated in a number of cases. The above comment suggesting a "knee-jerk reaction to this one incident" is most unfortunate as it is a lot more than one incident (I hate violating WP:DENY, but search WP:UNID for "mail" to see a 2006 LTA case, and there are more), and it is not reasonable to describe a proposed response to egregious abuse in such terms. The situation should be reversed: impose very strict limits on email ASAP, then work to relax them in clever ways that allow more freedom while still handling the problem. The WMF is spending large amounts of money on article feedback and other feel-good exercises—they need clear guidance from the community that serious action is required in response to email abuse. I have seen a couple of real-life situations where appalling situations were tolerated because it was "only affecting a few people", and I would hope for a better response in this community. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• As others have said, people have been getting these sort of emails for the past 1 and a half years or longer, so clearly this isn't just one incident. However I remain confused about all the above requests for throttling. As I mentioned in the ANI thread and as mentioned again above, there is already a limit of 100 per IP per hour (and evidently 200 per account per day). Are people asking for a reduction of the throttle (some people above mentioned 50)? A new kind of throttle? Without clarity on what people want compared to what's already implemented, I don't know if anything useful is going to come from this thread. One particular problem I would note is the definition of a user. For example while I would assume it's easy to limit to 20 emails a day per IP, this may create problems with shared IPs. Yet as others have mentioned, simply limiting to 50 emails a day per account probably won't help much since they can just create more accounts which they already seem to do. Incidentally can someone from the WMF provide clarity on whether limiting to say 50 emails per IP per day would even do much? Or do they already change IP more often then that? Nil Einne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for this information. I had no idea there is already a per-IP email throttle. Let me make a concrete, complete proposal:

  1. Accounts cannot send any emails at all before they are confirmed or autoconfirmed.
  2. This is bound to cause confusion among new users who see mention of emails but can see no method for sending any. So we should be open about it. Maybe leave the email link intact and just disable the actual form (and its function, of course), with a message.
  3. Every account can send only 5 emails per hour per recipient. That should be plenty. If the recipient responds per email, they can simply switch to normal emailing as opposed to our form. If the recipient does not have email enabled and responds on-wiki, tough luck. This should be relatively rare.
  4. This is in addition to the existing limit of 200 emails per account per day, which I guess is intended to prevent excessive mass mailings.
  5. With these other measures, maybe the limit of 100 emails per IP per hour is no longer necessary. If so, removing it will simplify debugging when someone who should be able to send email can't.

  Hans Adler 11:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support removing email rights for editors that aren't autoconfirmed. There just doesn't seem to be any other way of restricting what is clearly being heavily abused. And considering new users have a lot of alternatives to contact other editors, directly on the site or through disclosed emails from their personal email accounts, the likely damage being done by doing this would be minimal as compared to the good it will do regarding curbing violations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support the ability to use Special:EmailUser being restricted to auto/confirmed accounts. In terms of rate limits, my suggestion would be for the rate limit for auto/confirmed accounts to be dropped significantly down to 10/hour to stop mass emailing (this also allows people to use the fuction to reply if they don't want to reveal their email address), but also (if possible) 20/day to stop those who are willing to wait it out for the next hour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• I also support removing e-mail from editors who aren't auto-confirmed. Time limits are also good, and we should prevent e-mails being sent from certain websites such as hmamail et al. GiantSnowman 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with some that new users should have some (but limited) access to e-mail. How about a limit of 1per day per edit, plus 1, up to a limit of 50 per day? E.g. a brand-new user gets 1 per day, and a user who has made 10 edits gets 11 e-mails per day. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• If an outgoing cap is set for all editors, I'd like it so bureaucrats and highers have the limit eased/removed, simply because if we trust them with advanced tools we probably are also okay with trusting them not to abuse the email function. That probably goes without saying, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  Note anyone with the noratelimit user right is already exempt from the rate limiting. That currently account creators, bots, admins, 'crats, and stewards (see Special:ListGroupRights for which groups have which rights). Anomie⚔ 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  For real? The only ones who are getting flooded are those exempt from any limits anyway, so changing the limit would only affect those like me who rarely get any e-mail (one in four years). Apteva (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood. When I said users in those groups are exempt from the rate limiting, I meant that those users can send as many emails as they like. Anomie⚔ 03:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I was thinking this over and realized that must be what was meant. Apteva (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why either an autoconfirmed restriction or a cap (for anyone, frankly; the email system is not supposed to be an infinite address book for off-wiki communication) is remotely controversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel, like many others, that non-autoconfirmed should be limited to 2 emains a day - I can see no need for them to send any more. They may want to contact an admin, but that only takes one email to do. Mdann52 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a restriction until the autoconfirmed point seems like common sense. For those concerneed that it might prevent users in emergency situations from contacting help, that's not true at all as there's the OTRS address, the Arbcom one, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support whatever is necessary to stop email death threats, which shouldn't be acceptable - but seem to be met with tepid responses and shoulder-shrugging. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposal; if we can't stop the trolls we can at least require more effort. On a small scale (a new user wants to email someone) it won't have too many adverse effects, as it will merely require the user to wait awhile and make a few edits. When it's hundreds of emails over numerous accounts, these countermeasures would be multiplied, causing a delightful increase in agony for abusers of the email feature. —Rutebega (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - especially after I got 2 today from Ineffableonline (talk · contribs) evidently created a few minutes ago (17:31, 25 January 2013) just to email me about an AfD they didn't like. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. After I wrote a brief comment in the thread about Neumont University subpoena'ing SmackBot's details, I got an email from the fake account Lopsot (talk · contribs), using a disposable address, containing the personal contact details of Neumont's CEO. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: courts and judgements in a biographical article. BLP policy vs policy in biographical articles.

Does WP:BLP apply to independent reviews of courts and judgements that are mentioned within a biographical article? Content has been disputed / deleted on that basis, but the specific content relates to non-persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Hsien_Loong#RfC:_courts_and_judgements_in_a_biographical_article

The name of the WP:BLP policy suggests it may once have focussed on policies for specific types of articles. But the text of BLP states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." BLP policy should be renamed to distinguish it from articles that happen to be biographies of living persons, since the two are no longer linked and confusion is inevitable.

BLP policy should be clarified: does or does not apply to non-living and non-persons mentioned in an article that is biographical. WP:BLPGROUP suggests it does not. Without such clarification, BLP can be used as a tool of censorship outside the LP intent of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as a practical matter, BLP is best practice for all material at Wikipedia. No one should ever argue that unreliable, unreferenced, or otherwise wrong information is tolerable at Wikipedia in any context. The idea that bad information is somehow fine to keep in an article merely because the information isn't about a living person is a dangerous one. BLP is merely a reminder for extra vigilance when dealing with material about living persons, but the converse, that it's carte-blanche to ignore verifiability, neutrality, or other core Wikipedia values, as long as the material isn't about a living person, isn't the lesson to be taken from BLP. So my answer is this: we should always strive for having high quality sources, neutrally written text, and all the rest, in every article at Wikipedia. Anyone who argues it's OK to be sloppy about one's work merely because the text isn't about a living person is dangerously missing the point. It isn't censorship to demand that Wikipedia accurately and neutrally reflect reliable sources, or to ask that if something doesn't, it should be fixed. --Jayron32 06:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should always strive for having high quality sources, neutrally written text, and all the rest, in every article at Wikipedia. But such a 'high standard' is only one aspect of BLP. For example, in my experience the "delete first" policy "Contentious material .. should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" gives free reign to censorship as any statement can be argued to be contentious. Collaboration doesn't happen on content that isn't in articles. The iterative process where one contributor provides a reference with good material, another improves the summary, another improves the language and neutrality etc works well. It works well even though the intermediate steps introduce flaws that are ironed out over time. That process gets to even higher standards overall than we can achieve by BLPs de-facto requirement that every step be uncontentious, or be reverted. Sometimes to climb a mountain, you have to take a few steps down before resuming the ascent. Arguably, BLP articles end up at a lower standards because the BLP process requires every step to be sharply upward, and the collaborative process gets killed off before it can iterate to better outcomes. 11:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 (talk)

Article reviews and talk pages

Why do we have pages like Wikipedia:Peer review/Boris Johnson/archive1 (picked at random). Surely such discussion would be better taking place on the article's talk page, where its existence, and each new comment, will more readily come to the attention of interested parties; and be available in archives? Current and past peer/ GA/ FA reviews could still be identified, and lists of them curated, through the use, on talk pages, of templates that add categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines has been marked as a guideline

Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook reuse of Wikipedia material

I don't hang around as much as I ought to so I probably missed discussion of this somewhere but how does Facebook's reuse of Wikipedia articles square with the GDFL/CC_SA whatever license it is this week? Hiding T 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All anyone has to do to reuse Wikipedia content for any purpose is to acknowledge that they got the material from Wikipedia, which Facebook does. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought they also had to release under GDFL/CC-SA if they transform or build upon it as Facebook does? Hiding T 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The data itself remains free to use, Facebook would have no standing to prevent you from copying the Wikipedia article from their site. They don't have to release anything else, so far as I can tell. Me including part of a Wikipedia article in a novel I write does not make the entire novel subject to the GFDL, does it? Or quoting Wikipedia in a movie? Though it's possible I'm misreading what you're asking, but your question was very vague. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that if you used part of a wikipedia article in a novel, unless you could defend it under fair use, you would have to make the entire novel subject to the GFDL. In my opinion I would have thought that the way Facebook re-uses the material within their site is building upon it. However, I have read the full text of the license and build upon is not defined, so it's likely I am barking up the wrong tree. However, I have identified an area in 1(b) ofWikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License which points to section 1(f) that I think is an error and should point to 1(h), so maybe something will come out of this discussion. I'm a little unclear why the term "build upon this work" is used in the human-readable summary but not in the full license. Hiding T 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook has millions of pages and you haven't given an example of what you have in mind but here is an example of reuse of Wikipedia content: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milosevic-on-Trial/113947928615325. The bottom says (if you view it in English): "Content from the Wikipedia article Milosevic on Trial (contributors) licensed under CC-BY-SA". They link both the article, page history and license. It looks OK to me. The Wikipedia excerpt is clearly identified in one part of the page. I don't see why the whole page (or all of Facebook or whatever you have in mind) should be released under the same license. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a common mistake, as some other open licenses require the entirety of the derivative work to be under that license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure GFDL requires the entirety of the derivative work to be licenced under the GFDL. Although of course we are dual licenced so Facebook is free to use either licence. But the CC-SA does as well. In both cases, as with the GPL, the question comes down to the definition of derivative work. Our GPL article explicitly notes that. The GPL being software specific perhaps is better designed to cover a wider level of derivative works, hence why things like linking exceptions exist and the GPL and similar licences have a longer recognised history so there's perhaps a wider understanding of derivative work. But even so I don't think the wideness of Derivative work has actually been tested that well when it comes to the GPL. I'm not sure what exactly the question above is. But if Facebook allows people to modify the content they take from us, then those modifications will have to be released under at least one of the GFDL or CC-BY-SA or another compatible licence. This doesn't affect other content on Facebook. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I read a good explanation a few months ago, which said that the licensing is not infectious like that. Including one sentence of one image in a whole book does not automatically transform the whole book into a freely licensed work.

But I'm not sure that it's relevant, because I was under the impression that Facebook was just mirroring what's already here, so there's no transformation or building upon it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we remove the criterion "Award recipients" from Wikipedia:Overcategorization?

I think there is a lot of exceptions in Category:Award winners and some deletions should just be discussed case by case.--Inspector (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This si a very vague statement. This is normally a forum for discussing or proposing specific policies, not deletions or category maintenance. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it specific? I am arguing about one part of a guideline.--Inspector (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that in general categorizing people by award recived is a very bad idea. I think the guideline has served us well, even if we have way too many awards categories. I think it might be worth trying to actually describe which awards categories are allowed, but doubt we could come up with a workable way to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why aren't you discussing your proposed change to WP:OVERCAT at its talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't look like that page is active enough, but I'll try it first.--Inspector (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Actually I'm still not to clear on it. That may be part of the reason this discussion has not gotten anywhere, or maybe I'm just being dense today... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Article creation

Can it be assumed that while articles are not required, or even expected, to be created in their final form, all articles should read like articles from creation time? For example, compare this article creation to this one. I'm obviously biased as the creator, but I would consider the Medwed article useful in its initial form, but when I look at the First Parish article, my eyes just skitter all over the mess, unable to find the important information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Geez, can't we keep this "Sarek hates Doncram and Doncram hates Sarek" stuff in the ArbCom case, where it belongs? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'd like to sincerely thank you for addressing the substance of my question without bringing irrelevant personalities into it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam. Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You wanted to discuss it so where discussing it. If you didn't want comments you shouldn't have posted here. Its also inappropriate for you to block out discussion that is critical to you. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Most Wikipedia articles are shit. Why pick on one work in progress by Doncram? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it was a good example of an article that should exist, but not at all in the original form. To find a similar example on the New Page Feed would have taken forbloodyever. My argument here is that if it should be an article, it should look like an article when it's created. A new editor doesn't know any better -- someone who's been writing and cleaning up articles for years has no excuse. But this is not about me and another editor-- if someone can find two other similar examples, I'll be happy to swap them in above. What I want to know is whether there should be a consensus shown in policy to not dump obvious works-in-progress into mainspace.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of Stubby unreferenced articles. This one at least had some structure and references. Kumioko (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC

I also think its better if you provide a link to what the article looked like the next day after the author did several more edits. It still needs work I admit, but no more than 3.8 million of the other articles we have here.Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about the structure and references, at that point at least. One inline link to the official website barely qualifies. And my point is not what it ended up as, but what it started out as. Having veteran editors create articles that look like that because they can't be bovvered to put in the effort makes the encyclopedia look worse than if the article didn't exist in the first place. Not everyone can create first drafts like this, but it's definitely something we should aim for...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Check articles about people or places from the Indian sub-continent. As for your original question, Sarek, yes they should, but not everyone works an article out in userspace beforehand. I do it, because it can take time for an article to grow to where it wouldn't be speedied. Most people, sadly, just go for it. Sometimes they even blank an article and put their article on top of it. See this attempt by Gururajeshji. The mind boggles, but not much can be done about it but clean it up.--Auric talk 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

sofixit. Or ask user to move into their userspace and CSD it. Or Afd it. NE Ent 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Sarek that the condition the George Hancock (architect) article was left in was unconscionable, but I don't see that there's anything to be done about such behavior policy-wise. It would be too difficult to create a set of criteria that new articles had to fulfill, and we'd run the risk of losing articles by being too discouraging of newbies (something that already happens when new page patrollers are too quick on the trigger and too harsh in their evaluations). If a blatantly sub-par article is abandoned by an experienced, long-term editor, as was the case here, that can be seen as disruptive editing and can be dealt with using the RfCU mechanism and, eventually, ArbCom. That, too, is the case here, and I think that Sarek might want to set aside peripheral issues involving Doncram at this time, since Arbitration is underway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as directly involving Doncram, because any consensus formed at this time won't affect the articles he created before that point. I'm worried about the next instantiation of the situation. Arbcom is not going to decide on basic article requirements, they'll kick that back to the community.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy suggestion anywhere in here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia anyone can edit is going to have lots of short stubby articles. The article used in the first example is certainly not the worst example of these. It's structured, has a reference that proves existence, has information that a casual web searcher would find interesting and asserts notability. Besides it was edited the next day so that it got into this state, so not sure that the link you gave was entirely fair. If it got a couple of external references it would comfortably survive an AFD. After all, isn't that why Larry Sanger left? JASpencer (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was dealt with somewhat recently in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_100#Article_creation_in_main_namespace where frankly a whole lot of personal attacks took place and never really ended up with consensus. Existing policy really is that articles only need to be factually accurate and perhaps a single coherent sentence of something that is notable. References aren't even required, but certainly could be encourages. An AfD shouldn't be the place to "encourage" the finding of reliable sources, but rather done before it is nominated. In short, no, I don't think articles need to look necessarily like the standard-form Wikipedia article upon the first edit. If you think this kind of thing should by policy be relegated to userspace edits before an article is "published", change the policy first. Consensus is not around to make that kind of policy change either, even though it appears several editors want it to be policy and even act as if it is policy. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no policy statement. I'm seriously considering finding the correct policy and proposing one, however, because we have a couple of New Page Patrollers whose response to frequent complaints about spamming tags into seconds-old articles�—often creating an edit conflict with a newbie who is trying to fix the very problem in question and who has no idea how to recover from the edit conflict—is to huff and puff and say that if people can't create a properly formatted, wikilinked, catted, and sourced article from the very first save, then they should be working in userspace because everything in the mainspace ought to be perfect and the NPPer's time is too valuable to have to glance at a page twice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy is that Wikipedia is the place where "anybody can edit". That is policy, and it is also policy to not bite newcommers. Since the number of editors on Wikipedia is shrinking, it should be patently obvious that newcomers are being bitten and bitten hard. There is also to generally ignore rules, which implies that somebody who is being genuine about trying to improve Wikipedia, which includes the notion of being able to create new article as well, should be simply allowed to do just that. This is a behavioral issue as well in the sense that those who patrol new pages and run roughshod over newer users in this fashion really shouldn't be harming the project in this manner and perhaps need some further education. It is not policy to force all new articles to be created in the user space. Absence of policy implies it is permitted, not restricted. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

I'm more concerned about the brash copy/paste demonstrated by Doncram. In December, he copied text from here, the history page on the church's website, and pasted it into the article. Internet Archive proves that the article existed before that, at least by November 2011. Hasn't Doncram been warned about copyvio before this? Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories

What good are "categories"? I typed in the name of a category (American inaugural poets) in the search box, but the category page was not among the first hits (I didn't scroll through the entire hit list). It seems only if I know one item that is in the category, go to that item, scroll down to categories and click on the appropriate category will I get to the category page.Kdammers (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To reach the category namespace, you need to start your search with the text category "Category:" Without a namespace prefix, Wikipedia searches are restricted to the titles of articles. It can often be easier to find a category by first finding an article you know is in that category, then clicking the link at the bottom. Typing this exact phrase:

• Category:American Inaugural poets

gets you exactly what you want. --Jayron32 02:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:American Inaugural poets (poorly named and probably not suited for a category) was created a few hours ago and hasn't been indexed yet by the search function. See Help:Searching#Delay in updating the search index. Searches are only in mainspace by default. Search result pages have an "Advanced" link where you can select "Category". You can also select "Category" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-searchoptions to include categories in all your future searches. I have this and find it so practical that I would suggest it as default if there was a way to only show "reader-oriented" categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, it's only good for insiders in the know. Why?Kdammers (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Most people reach cats by clicking the links at the very bottom of the page, not by searching. That works instantly and is very easy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nauru Reed Warbler

Is it only me who sees a different article at Nauru Reed Warbler than at the most recent revision? I (J Milburn) rewrote the article recently, yet, for some reason, it's not visible on this computer while I'm logged out? Thanks, 148.88.244.176 (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You should clear your browser's cache. Ruslik_Zero 15:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Leftovers, Fun Things and Vampire Lovers

Hi, Three articles, The Leftovers (Australian band), Fun Things and Vampire Lovers, all received 'biographies of living persons policy' banners on their "Talk" pages. Recently, I have re-edited all three articles. There maybe still some issues thart are problematic. If so, I would like to resolve them. If not, could you please remove the banners? Dr.warhol (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That talk-page banner exists to educate new users about our policies, not to say that there is anything wrong with the article. That notice appears on more than half a million articles, and should be present on every article that is substantially about any living person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting articles and no consensus

Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure is silent on what action is taken when there is there is no consensus, does it mean the article gets split or remains whole. Does it make a difference if the no consensus is the result of a split deduction or a bold split that was contested. I thought that "no consensus" meant that the article remained whole, but another editor told me a contested bold split can't simply be reverted, citing WP:NOCONSENSUS which says "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." which I don't think was intended to apply to a contested split. So does "no consensus" mean the article gets split or remains whole?

Let me be clear, it's not the minor dispute I had with that editor, or the sounding issues I care about here, it's clarifying the split procedure. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)While I do not believe that my comment will matter much, I do have a question from reading your comment. Is the article that you are referring to the article about the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority or is it different article? The lack of that detail might be a problem in determining the circumstances of if the article should be split or not. (Though, I would say that WP:PROSPLIT should be edited to give instructions as to what should be done in those situtations.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No specific article, just in general. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As I read it no consensus to split would mean leave the article whole. In the case of a split, it is often the case that the sub article can be created and will stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split. This does though create a certain amount of duplication. Apteva (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The potability of the new article standing on it's own hadn't occurred to me. This is the kind of thing that needs to be mentioned on that page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Be aware that some editors don't care if new articles split out can in fact stand on their own, they like to see everything in one place. Other editors see keeping multiple topics in an article as confusing and encourage splitting. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue is covered by policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." So the general answer would be to leave the article unsplit. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We should probably add a note that no consensus mean don't split and that a bold split may be reverted on the parent page, but that it's not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old one if the new article might stand on it's own. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• If no one objects I'll add this to the page:

"No consensus, whether the result of a split deduction, or a bold split that was contested usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

With spelling corrected, of course... Apteva (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to correct spelling or typos in my draft, but I think I corrected them all. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been five days so in the absence of any objections I'll go ahead and add it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to deletion policy

See here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So it wasn't already a requirement? How come? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is impossible to begin with, and policy idea goes down hill from there. But it remains a good idea to strive for. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it impossible? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be encouraged, but not required. GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject notes in articles

<!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

I have recently been involved in a civil conversation about a Wikiproject note that was removed by a bot and then subsequently re-added by the project members. As seen here at the bot request there was a disagreement about this action. The conversation then was continued at WP:CM#Infoboxes (yet again). were the manner in which the note was removed evolved into a conversation about the notes meaning and placement. I believe a wider conversation on the matter should take place now. Below are our guides on the matter and what I think we should discuss.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
• WP:Advice pages
• WP:Bold

1. Is the information provided in the note or link provided inline with our current policies and/or guides on the subject?
2. Should a project be adding notes linking back to an "advise pages" showing a debate on a disputed matter?

The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.

have informed all involved about this postMoxy (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Interested parties should note the related RFC from 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that link - I was triyng to find it - one of the best example of non consensus here on Wikipedia. Also sorry if I did not notify you - I am not perfect :-(Moxy (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Non consensus"? You got to be kidding, right? The discussion involved a substantial amount of editors (see [5]), including those "who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles". Toccata quarta (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What consensus do you see? The whole page demonstrates the division on the topic - that lead to a conversation about a special template because of this. At some point the project should try and give fruitful advise that is inline with our policies on the matter. But back to the matter at hand - Do you honestly believe that leaving a note that links to an "advice page" that is the opposite of our what our guideline and fundamental principles on the matter says - (pls take the time to read them as they are the consensus of the community). I am sure everyone has better things to do then deal with the projects ownership problems time and time again. Moxy (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No...not really. Thats what collaboration is about. The projects have no control over any article and the local consensus of their own manual of style is not policy or relevant to the article itself. The projects have the right to decide what they wish to accept in those guides that they create for themselves but cannot use them to force their will on the article. I regularly remove these types of notes. They are little more than an attempt to push their local consensus on the article and editors not involved with their collaboartion. Simply put...be bold and add an ifo box if you want. Create a discussion and work it out on the article talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While talk page discussion is the correct approach, you can see at Talk:Cosima Wagner#Infobox the unfortunate result of trying to hold a reasonable discussion with people associated with that project, on such a case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1. There is no policy about these "project" notes? Is that correct? 2. If there is no policy about them they seem fine for a few reasons: they are worded politely, and they inform other editors about what likely issues they face (with other editors) in editing the article -- that seems more humane than springing it on them afterward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy that there has never been a clear consensus on the topic. I see 2 separate issues here:

1. the use of these notes - Although there is nothing against using these notes the use of notes in general on articles should be used in moderation. IMO, throwing these notices that X project demands that a certain thing be done or not done, IMO, points to my second point of undo article ownership.
2. WikiProjects showing what I would consider undo article ownership over articles - WikiProjects are supposed to be a group of editors working towards a common goal, not forcing the community to do things their way, often in contrast to the MOS and other guidelines. The above 2 examples being prime examples. WikiProjects should not and cannot tell another editor, or project (because in many cases these articles are tagged and worked on by more than one project) how things must be done. If they don't like infoboxes then that's all well and good but they cannot and should not be saying and leaving notes that they cannot be used on said article. Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it highly appropriate for wikiprojects to leave hidden notes in articles... they alert new editors to old consensus discussions in a quiet and non-confrontational manner. Removing a hidden note simply pisses off those who added it. That said, consensus can change... and there is nothing wrong with asking for a re-examination of a previous concensus (and if a previous consensus is contrary to current official policy or guidance, it should be re-examined).

So... my advice... don't remove hidden notations without discussion... raise your concerns about it on the talk page (or at the project talk page) and ask people to either reaffirm the previous consensus or modify it. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is, that once the discussion is brought to the articles talk page consensus is frequently gained by numerous members of the "project" voting to do whatever the WikiProject wants. I have fallen victim to that myself and as such have avoided working on articles dealing with the 2 projects mentioned above, as well as others. Some of these projects do not react well to non members and tend to be rather abrasive in discussions demanding their way or the highway. I do agree that removing the notes by an individual editor should be avoided but I think we need to remove them all, based on this discussion, from the articles and get away from this article ownership issue altogether. Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To expand further look at the Ludwig van Beethoven article. Multiple heated debates have taken place about this issue and that article. The problem is that Composers has this big note that says per consensus on their project, however this article falls under 6 projects including: WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Deaf, WikiProject Austria, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Vienna. So this note, IMO, tells these other projects that their opinions do not matter and infers article ownership on behalf of WikiProject Composers. That is the absolute wrong answer and shows why these WikiProject specific article notes should be and need to be abolished. Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the note is not pointing to "old consensus discussions in a quiet and non-confrontational manner", but is attempting to bypass consensus (reached at the above cited RfC) that matters should be decided on article talk pages, and instead point to a one-sided WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in what is clearly a confrontational manner. There are around 500 such hidden comments; too many to be discussed individually, as you suggest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have recently been working on some music articles, having never been there before. In two out of two cases thus far where I have come across these messages (one of each example above), they had been posted into articles where there there had been no debate whatsoever on the talk page as to whether an infobox would be desireable. These messages were clearly intended to mislead visitors into believing a consensus existed when it did not. The message refers to project opinion on biography (which actually states it is wiki policy to decide the matter on the article itself), but one of the two wasnt even a biography article.Sandpiper (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you even looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes? The English there is really clear:

"current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project and the Opera Project."

You might also like to note that discussions on this topic have taken place outside of WikiProject Classical music—see Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Classical artists and Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Classical artists (continued). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the text at the top of that page? It says:

This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style

and it and the "consensus among project participants" are no more binding than an essay written by an individual editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It also says "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.", which Toccata seems to have missed.—Chowbok ☠ 23:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The page I saw linked this project page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes where it says "Most members of this project think that Infoboxes are seldom useful additions to articles for many reasons, including:

1. They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article
2. They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead)
3. They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations.

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about this subject here and earlier debates here.)"

However either one is simply a polemic making a case against using them and stating that the matter has been settled, when it has not.Sandpiper (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thats all well and good however, it still forces onen WikiProject's standard on other editors and projects that may not agree. So personally if I were going to work on an article and disagreed, thinking perhaps that an Infobox is a good way to "summarize key information in the article, so that the reader isn't required to read the entire thing, while trying to dig out whatever informaiton they need" I would probably just pick another article or topic to work on rather than fight with some entrenched editor or project over their enforcement of something that in itself violates 2 out of the 5 pillars. So this type of rule, prevents more articles from being improved and at the same time deters editors from participating and causes extra drama and potentially blocks, 3RR violations, etc. Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• One point with hidden comments. They can adversely affect the 'standard' white space in the article. This is distracting for readers when they are use to our normal layout. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

So after the talk above - I think its clear the spammed message should be removed - are we in agreement on this point?Moxy (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Aye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

While, your opinion is clear above, there are others who disagree, so this discussion does not show agreement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I not sure I understand - we have 2 sides to a problem - one is based on policy the other on some local talk. At no point has there been even one policy quoted for the I like it side vs all the policy I have shown above. If one side cant provided any evidence then there point is mute - especially if its the opposite of our current policy Moxy (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked about policy and the response was that no policy addressed these notes. Why would it be here at the policy forum, if there was already a policy?Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your asking here. The question posed above is should a hidden message (like the one below) that is the opposite of our guides (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes - WP:Advice pages -WP:Bold). Should the message below be allowed to remain in hundreds of articles - yes - no?

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

.Moxy (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Those guidelines you link neither require nor prohibit for any article, anything with respect to these notes or with respect to info boxes. As has been noted above it is a service to others to make known what other editors interested in the individual articles think. They should not be forced to be surprised thereby because no one will tell them. No policy requires such absurd silence . Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The links are clear - "bold" says editors should edit then see what happens (the opposite of the note). The MOS tells us the a talk must take place on each page. WP:Advice is clear on the fact projects dont have this power of ownership. Not sure you understand whats going on here at all - the note(s) on 500+ pages is telling our editors they must ask this project permission to edit the pages that the project believes they own - there is no discussion on the talk pages ...just a spammed note . Would you add a note to Millennium Park saying editors must ask you permission before editing that page? What's absurd is this projects ownership problems.Moxy (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When someone edits an article, it is only polite to tell them the issues they will face with other editors. They can then go in with thier eyes wide open, discuss it with them and come to some agreement, or go to dispute resolution, but there is no reason to just wait to spring the issue on them, because we want to pretend the issue does not exsist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your missing the point all together - why in the world would we allow a project to spread there conflict to 100's of articles they have not even edited. As an editor that actually deals with this problem over and over again I cant express how many editors we have lost because of this. Moxy (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

They did edit the page of the article to tell others about the issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL - thats the problem to begin with talking ownership of articles they have note even edited let alone the ones they have - nice circular argument that brings us back to the beginning. We are here looking for progress not stating the obvious - we have been dealing with this for years and are looking for a solution to a long standing problem - perhaps a proper essay on the proplem we can likn to not a page that then links to many many debates .Moxy (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment said they did not edit it, not mine. What this posting appears to be looking for is abject agreement (not progress) and a new policy to use in a content dispute. "Bold" is not a command to edit without discussion and nothing is preventing people from talking on talk pages. It is sad if editors leave over an infobox (not particularly understandable but sad), nonetheless editing disputes will happen to people and they will have to deal with disappointment some time. But sure, an essay is fine, a new policy adopted in the way policies are adopted is fine, a dispute resolution is fine. What is not fine is pretending that guidelines are policy, that guidelines are claimed to say things they do not say, or cover things they do not cover, or not telling people about issues that exsist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will move on as I see the misguided notes are being removed anywas by others that understand the problem at hand.Moxy (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Are they? On a significant scale? Without them being restored later? Is there agreement to re-run the bot, to remove them all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have quite a bunch of said articles on my watchlist and haven't seen any removals. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how a discussion by involved editors on an article's talk page can be construed as "the Project claiming ownership". As for guidelines in general: all WikiProjects have them, and they serve a useful purpose by presenting consistent advice for the presentation of a specific topic. If I come to edit an article outside my usual field, I try to figure out how things are done there by visiting the talk page and the main projects listed there. That's how I learned, i. a., how a cast list is written and how ships are italicised. I thought that's how collaborative projects work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one has claimed that "a discussion by involved editors on an article's talk page is 'the Project claiming ownership'", your comment appears to be a straw man. We're discussing the application of hidden comments to articles,. where there has been no discussion on the talk page. Projects are entitled to wrote guidelines but not - as has been made clear at the related RfC - to impose them on editors; that is not how collaborative projects work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Endgame

So, how do we resolve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be removed - only side of the debate has a position that is based on our guides on the matter.Moxy (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so – several contributors above have agreed that notes to editors in articles can be useful. There's no policy/guide that prohibits them. Promoting discussion on an article's talk page can only be a good thing. Lastly: a "Project" doesn't edit articles, editors do; consequently, a project cannot own articles or be accused of owning them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that some have raised a great point that notes are not prohibited and are useful to inform our editors. I don't think anyone here disagree with that assement. I am afraid I did not explain the situation properly. As the problem is not that there is a note - but its message that directly contradicts one of our main principles, let alone a few guides. I blame myself for not posing the question properly, thus drawing more interest here. As for who can exhibit ownership behaviour my years of experience has demonstrated to me there are many types of ownership. But as I just said there seems to little interest in what I see as a problem (as I deal with the newcomers that get bit) -could care less about the infobox.--Moxy (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional voices are needed, so that we can wrap this up, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that such notes are a useful thing, in that they draw attention to a consensus that has been reached. Given that consensus is how we make decisions, editors of a particular article ought to be made aware of any decisions that have been taken that are likely to affect their editing of that article (this avoids wasting time and provoking conflicts). Of course, the general consensus can be challenged in the appropriate place if someone wants to change it, and it may be possible to provide good reasons for deviating from general practice for a particular article. But it doesn't make much sense to say that this is projects trying to "own" articles - any consensus is only reached by the small number of people who took part in the reaching of it, and it would render the whole process meaningless if we encourage any individual who disagrees with a consensus decision simply to ignore it. Victor Yus (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the issue is not whether the notation should exist or not... the issue is the language of the notation. There is concern that the previous consensus that the notation is based on may be flawed. Remember that Consensus can change. I would suggest an RFC to revisit the previous consensus (if that consensus ignores policy, it should be revisited). Establish a new, updated consensus (either confirming the previous consensus or overturning/modifying it). Once you do that, you can decide whether a notation is necessary, and if so work on new language for it. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, the comments do not reflect consensus at the relevant RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be misunderstandings in the discussion above. Editors have objected to one behavior: placing notes in an article without discussion on the article's talk page. The note creates a sense that there is consensus from participants in that article, when in reality the issue was never discussed by those participants. This creates a few problems; for instance when a new editor brings up the topic, he is often berated with messages about how a certain wikiproject has already discussed it and made a decision. Messages like that are without substance, except to defer to the wikiproject on how the article should be written, and so they discourage collaboration among the article's actual editors. There seems to be fairly clear consensus (although no agreement) above that these notes should be discouraged. I think someone just needs to step up and remove them, or hold a wider RfC or publicized discussion on the topic. Note or not, if a wikiproject's participants want to determine how an article is written, they can always do that by contributing to the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How did the note get there, if an editor interested in that article did not edit the page to put it there? Having done so they have edited the page and participated in the articles development. (Also, there does not seem to be fairly clear consensus.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable argument. Please don't be pedantic. Editing the article does not mean "clicking the edit button", and I think that was sufficiently clear when I suggested one could "contribute to the article".   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What? They are contributing to the article by opining on article content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

They are placing a note, with no discussion whatsoever, discouraging other users from making certain edits. That's not contributing to the article, nor is it opining on content in any meaningful way that encourages collaboration and discussion. Very obviously, when editors are saying "they can contribute to the article instead of adding notes", the word "contribute" does not include "adding notes".   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd position to take when the original objection was that notes somehow run afoul of editing "boldly." People can put notes; others can edit those notes or leave them. Their purpose being to advise about editing issues of interest to interested editors concerning article content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Placing an edit notice telling users not to make certain changes without discussion is not encouraging bold editing, and furthermore, you're suggesting that since other editors can change the notes, that means they are appropriate and so we shouldn't change the notes. I'm sorry, but I'm having an extremely hard time seeing this as a genuine argument, and I'd prefer not to engage it further. To summarize, we have guidelines and previous discussions which discourage this, and further objections have been raised by editors operating in good faith. Those guidelines, discussion, and concerns should be taken seriously. It is not unreasonable to request that editors who have asserted editorial decisions onto an article have participated in that article, and are open to engaging with the primary editors of the article. The only goal of adding these notices topic-wide appears to be discouraging participation and discussion. It would be fair to see someone step in and remove them; if consensus forms on an article that a notice is warranted, then they can be reintroduced at that time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What guidelines and previous discussions? It has been said many times in this discussion that there is no policy or guideline prohibiting these notes. Why would this discussion be here, at all, if it is as you now claim it is already decided. And as far as I can tell no one has argued notes can't be changed, the case has not been made for blanket rules, however. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to still be stuck on the fact a note as been placed over the real concern raise. Can you please address the meaning (content) of the note over your view of placing notes.Moxy (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did in my very first comment in the first section of this discussion (13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)), others seem to agree with those thoughts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets be direct in the questions -

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

Is what is above in the spirit of Wikipedia as set forth by WP:Bold? Does it reflect our guide on these boxes and project behavior as set forth by the community at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and WP:Advice pages? Yes/No?Moxy (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To recap: 1) The note was boldly added by an editor, so it complies with the spirit of bold; 2) Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited by policy, so the note does not contravene policy; and 3) Editors can advise other editors of editorial issues they will face (and its also an nice thing to do), and that is within the spirit of advice pages. (And overarching, editing notes in articles are used on all kinds of articles in all kinds of ways, so it's within Pedia norms to have notes) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Good good we are on the right track now - You are correct it was "boldly" added and as per WP:Bold its addition has been disputed (thus can be reverted at will). Its is being contested because its telling our editors they must ask a project for permission before editing the pages in-question. It also directs our editors to a page (I assume you have seen it by now) that is also disputed and links to many other arguments. How is this helpful - in fact its not at all and is why we are here because its causing problem after problem. As I have sugested before an essay may help - but telling our editors they need permission when its clear they do not is nuts. We edit then discus - not the other way around. We are trying to keep editors - not scare them away from articles they may be interest in. Moxy (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we sometimes (quite often) discuss than edit. They are asked to discuss an issue on the talk page, that's what we do when others have a different content view. Moreover, editors should be able to communicate with each other in multiple ways, including notes. If there is no consensus for the note on the page, it won't last. But if there is consensus than it's just cruel to not tell people about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok good so we all agree there is "no consensus for the note on the pages" - as clearly indicated here by this talk and its many editors. Good good was concern this point was being missed by most. Moxy (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? It's an issue for that individual article. Here, there is no consensus that there should be any policy about these notes. This is not an article talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your joking right? Your not actually tell me you expect us to bring this up on the hundreds of pages the note was spammed to? Thats why we are here because of its vastness. Done with your curricular arguments that don't suggest any solution whats soever.Moxy (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you've been presented with several solutions for going forward by several editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct "they" have as have I. Going to move forward on them - will write an essay on the problem and be bold.Moxy (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The note does not tell "our editors they must ask a project for permission before editing the pages in-question." There are articles about composers which do use an infobox. As the recent reinstatement of this note showed, there is consensus among involved editors for its presence. The practice of communicating certain points and concerns among editors via HTML comments is widespread and uncontroversial; their presence is subject to normal Wikipedia editing rules. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I see this "particular" note that was added all over as telling our editors. Dont edit yet - wait!!- first go read multiple conversations that are confusing and very long - then state your edit intentions on the talk page that has no mention of this topic before and wait for someone to hopefully show up and say ok - until then sit on your ass and wait. That said I agree with WhatamIdoing below. Moxy (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a fairly lengthy discussion already, and I think that the best course of action might be to have a separate RFC. One option is to have an RFC on its own page, e.g., WP:Requests for comment/Instructions from WikiProjects hidden in articles. Another, possibly better, option is to have an RFC on a proposal to change WP:OWN to specifically discourage hidden comments instructing editors to consult with a particular person or group of people before making a change to an article.

Either way, I'd like to recommend a particular format for the RFC, which is to ask a short question ("Should messages like this be permitted?") and to follow it with a two-column "for" and "against" table, so that each "side" can present its main arguments up front. You can see an example of this style in a recently closed RFC here. Perhaps Alanscottwalker would take the lead in writing for the defense, and Moxy could take the lead in writing for the prosecution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I would be good for that as the crafting of a broad policy is not how one need approach it and will likely lead to allot of missed nuance especially in the format suggested. (Moreover, the note above does not ask to consult with a particular group, it asks to look at that project statement and discuss it on the talk page). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am concern that not all understand the extent of the problem - pls see Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler for an example of what we deal with - note how the same arguments here are there - time to fix this problem with a central discussion and outcome. We are here because the same problem comes up again and again and again. Moxy (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, since you have not yet refuted any of our arguments and insist that pointlessduplicateboxes are "welcome additions to articles". Toccata quarta (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Never said anything of the sort - and dont care about the boxes as I have stated before - nor have I added or removed any. We are here about a note - that happens to be about infoboxes.Moxy (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments in that discussion (as well as many in this one) show a deeply uncollaborative attitude. It's troubling. I've seen it before, and I know how difficult it can be, and that it often drives editors away. The RfC suggested above seems to be the best step forward. Wider community input on these discussions should help, at a minimum.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It increasingly seems to me that this discussion is a well-orchestrated (NPI) distraction, and the real question that most people are concerned with here is that of whether or not classical composers' articles are made better or worse by the presence of infoboxes. I suggest calling a halt to all the irrelevant procedural debate (something which on Wikipedia inevitably ends up going round and up its own backside) and trying to reach a new consensus on that substantial question. Which is also far more pertinent as regards the improvement of Wikipedia than some debate about invisible notes (NPI either). Victor Yus (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how orchestrated it is as it seems rather unproductive and yes, indirect, but I think now you are right; address that issue directly, and don't attempt to bleed it over elsewhere, least of all EnWiki wide policy pages. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We had an RfC; it found (among other things) that "WikiProjects... do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article"; which is exactly what the comment described above attempts to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. So, make the change. If there's resistance, then hold a wider RfC or hit ANI, and then behavior can be examined.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing omitted something in his quotation from the closing remarks of the earlier RfC. Here are all 5 conclusions in full:

• Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.
• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
• The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion.
• There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
• Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

Note that Pigsonthewing did not participate in that discussion; he subsequently proposed the infobox mentioned in bullet point 4 three times for deletion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mann jess: do you mean that disagreement with your point of view merits action at WP:ANI? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I linked to the full RfC, above, on 29 December. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mann jess: the change was made; all the comments were removed by a bot; most if not all were manually reinstated by members of the wikiproject concerned. This discussion is the result. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't know we already went down that road. Then yes, it would seem that a broader discussion is necessary. I haven't nearly seen all the talk pages or discussions about this, just this one and the others linked by Moxy. In those, I see a disturbing lack of collaboration; arguments, for instance, that don't engage other editors and just go around in circles. In my experience, the only thing that works in these cases is encouraging more participation from the community. VPP isn't highly followed, so yes, I would say try another venue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Speculative diagnoses

Should Wikipedia's BLP policy have a section clarifying whether it is OK to state that a living person is speculated to have a mental disorder (either in the text of an article or through categorization)? I still remember the days when Wikipedia reported that (name redacted) was believed to be schizophrenic, that (name redacted) probably had bipolar disorder, and that (name redacted) was speculated to have Asperger's. It would be nice if we stated in no uncertain terms that mental disorders do not belong in articles on living people unless they are accepted as fact. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that is not necessary. If you know of any article with that problem (in the article or a category, or on the talk page), please report it at WP:BLPN. There are a lot of ways misguided editors can find to violate the spirit of WP:BLP, and in general policies do not list every prohibited action. I am confident established editors would remove unsourced speculation very quickly after noticing the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding it to the policy would be redundant. If it is supported by an RS then it can be added, if it isn't supported by RS it should be removed. RJFJR (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just being supported by a reliable source doesn't necessarily mean that the content is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. We don't list the physical illnesses that an article subject has had, even if they can be sourced, unless they are relevant to an understanding of the subject and such listing doesn't violate the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy. The same should go for mental illnesses. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this post objects (correctly) to such speculative BLP-infringing material, it was entirely inaappropriate to name people above.I have therefore removed the names; they should probably be hidden by an admin. RolandR (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's all very polite, but if you have major sources examining the question in-depth, then omitting it is a DUE violation. For example, there are many reliable sources whose sole subject is speculating about whether one of the recent American mass murderers has an autistic disorder or whether he committed murder because of another mental illness. Why would we omit all such information? Unlike the case of possible mental illness in some random celebrity (I would omit all such notability-unrelated speculation for both mental and non-mental disorders, and most non-speculation as well, because whether someone has diabetes or survived skin cancer is usually irrelevant), it seems obviously relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to what Johnuniq called "unsourced speculation", as this is without ambiguity a BLP violation, not to mention original research. I was thinking more things along the lines of the old version of this article, where it mentioned that a reliable source had speculated Bob Dylan had autism or Asperger's. Since Bob Dylan is a living person, should the Wikipedia community decide it's not OK even if it is speculated in a published book? This is a tricky question -- consider all the press that covers Bill Gates and speculates he is "autistic" or "borderline autistic". Some would argue an article on Bill Gates would be incomplete without mentioning this aspect of his coverage in reliable sources (even though the sources make it clear this is speculation and not the diagnosis of someone who has seen Gates). Others would argue we must stick to BLP to the degree we don't mention any mental disorders unless they are formally fiagnosed. I'm on the fence about this one. If nothing else, the page WP:BLP should make it explicit whether speculation of the Gates type belongs on Wikipedia, since judging by the comments above it's obviously not something people agree on. But we can work towards consensus. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Genre warrior has been marked as a policy

Resolved

 – no it isn't

Wikipedia:Genre warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change (more information). -- VeblenBot (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see here folks, it's not a policy and the changes have been reverted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Image use

I want to include an image in an article, and find an excellent one on a company website. I know that I shouldn't just grab images from other people's websites, but if I contact the owner of the site and ask, and they give permission, may I use it on Wikipedia?

If I can, what would I put in the copyright information for the image? In what manner should I provide proof of permission? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In short, ask them to donate it under [Creative Commons rather than just for Wikipedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the guideline I was looking for. Thank you. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Do the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies apply to administrators?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maunus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If I lost my cool at another editor I would be sanctioned. Indeed. I fear that, as a result of this post, I will be watched more carefully in future. Nevertheless, I cannot help but comment that some privileged souls get to shout and swear, remain unrepentant and even have their characteristic famous uncivil outburst struck from the record and then get to arrogantly shrug it off. Another series of strongly uncivil attacks (here and here) are tacitly condoned because the attacker self-reverted acknowledged attack and grudgingly apologised citing provocation.

This post concentrates on administrator behaviour. It specifically ignores ALL potential mitigating circumstances

I have four questions arising from the above

1. Why are the civility and no personal attacks policies not being used aggressively on administrators?
2. Do we as a community trust administrators who react in such ways to always use their tools fairly?
3. How is revision deletion permissible in this case?
4. Are either of the above administrators open to recall? If not, why not?

Update: Added permalink to tacitly condoned

--Senra (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment to be sure, if I or any other editor told an administrator to f___ off, we'd be blocked. Far as I'm concerned the admins should be held up to the same standards we should be held up to (civility and NPA ). As to do I trust the admins, actually, most do a great job with their tools, like The Worm that Turned. Others, like Future Perfect and Beeblebrox, not so great.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  14:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Far as you are concerned, you're lucky that goading and hounding with repeated WP:IDHT until you get your way isn't a blockable offense.--v/r - TP 14:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That would very much depend on the admin you told to "f..k off"....and normally, before coming to the "f....ing" stage, there usually is some kind of history which would have to be taken into account...anyway, I agree admins should be held to the same standards when it comes to civility and NPA. Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They should be, of course, but are they? Doesn't seem like it to an outsider like myself. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some regular users which get away with much incivility and personal attacks too. So this condoning of it is not necessarily a question of being an admin. Lectonar (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So your position is that because, in your opinion, some "regular editors" get away with it, it's OK for administrators to copy them? How weird is that? Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Regular" editors don't get away with it, "Special" ones do.--v/r - TP 15:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

@Malleus, no, it was just an observation, and yes, it is my opinion...and who is talking about admins copying the regulars? Lectonar (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not true example.©Geni 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment The second named has just voluntarily relinquished their tools under a cloud. Leaky Caldron 14:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Have they? Are you sure? --Senra (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes [6] Leaky Caldron 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the civility polices have proved unenforceable against some, I do not block anyone for them out of fairness.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To set the record straight, Maunus stated that they were relinquishing his tools "under a cloud". Whether that is correct or not, it needs to be clear that no one made a decision about whether or not he resigned under a cloud. At least part of this cloud could probably have been avoided if the strict civility restriction against an editor had been enforced immediately. That didn't happen and Maunus lost his temper. He shouldn't have done that of course. I will say that Administrators probably get more personal attacks both on and off-Wiki than most ordinary editors. Whether we decide that they should be abnormally thin-skinned is an interesting question. - Wow, just looked at that permalink for 'tacitly condoned', it's actually the editor who is under a strict civility restriction - are his comments in line with such a restriction? I doubt very much that if anyone "told an administrator to f___ off," that they would be blocked just for that. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment I can note that this diff, linked to above, happened on the talkpage of a MFD-closing admin, which is the first place a complaining or questioning editor must go. There is no alternative. -DePiep (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox actually does a damned good job. Users should have the perspicacity to differentiate between plain speaking and PA/incivility. I think it's a PA to even mention him here - has he been procedurally informed that he is being discussed? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Did you really just say "Users should have the perspicacity to differentiate between plain speaking and PA/incivility", and "I think it's a PA to even mention him here" in the same sentence? "Personal Attack" has really lost all meaning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know I should not ask this and I know I will regret it but how is Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)'s infamous plain-speaking different from the event described above? --Senra (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Are you asking me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• No. Sorry. I was asking @Kudpung --Senra (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung is trolling and not responding to my comment. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perspicacity doesn't enter into it. He admitted it was a deliberate PA and defended his entitlement to repeat it whenever he chooses. Leaky Caldron 15:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think Beeblebrox's response to the block and lock were as understanding as they should've been, but I don't really see a problem with the comment itself. Kosh was edit-warring over an action Beeb undertook on his own talk page (an action which was very much called for, though I'm not sure if that matters). Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and so what if we occasionally curse out editors who are giving us a hard time? Take my edit summary here, for instance. I wanted to send a message of "I have no interest in taking shit from you", and that's exactly the message I sent. And it made me feel good inside to respond in kind to a homophobic troll, and caused no damage to the project. If Beeblebrox's insults cause Kosh to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, I think that's a very good thing. And if they don't, okay, he got a bit nasty - but what point is there in blocking him? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  As far as "so what?" I'd venture to say that every time someone flies off the handle and abuses someone else, they're not only affecting that other person - they're affecting the entire atmosphere at Wikipedia, and supporting the common belief that Wikipedia is a place you don't edit unless you like getting attacked, called names, abused, and having all your edits reverted by some nasty gatekeeper who thinks you're not good enough (yes, this is a common perception. Read the comments of any news article or discussion forum when it touches on Wikipedia). Nothing anyone does here is done in a vacuum, and with enough people running around believing it's their right to "curse out" and insult people who don't give them their way, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the only people who want to contribute to a project where that's ok are...the people who think that's ok. The rest, the people who think that just because you're volunteering doesn't mean you can punch people in the face whenever you feel like it, back away and sometimes flat-out run away. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm loathe to wade into arguments like this, but while I wouldn't personally use the specific language that Beeblebrox did, I think the sentiment and background as to why he said it was fair game, to be honest. Kosh, you sent a user page to MfD that the community decided shouldn't be deleted. You sent it to a deletion review - same outcome. You then argued with Beeblebrox that the page should still be deleted, even when everybody else was disagreeing with you. That should have been your cue to give it a rest and find an article to improve. You cannot possibly compare rising to a bait with just out the blue name calling, which is something totally different. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  But this leaves us with a sort of logical leap that not everybody makes, believe it or not. Step 1) Kosh does something he shouldn't have done. Step 2) Beeblebrox tells him to stop. Step 3) Kosh continues. Step 4) ???? Step 5) Beeblebrox gets to call Kosh horrible names. Why? What happens in Step 4 that makes the proper next step "hurl abuse" rather than any number of other things, from "ignore" to "report for edit warring" to "ask a calmer head to step in and try to explain it"? I mean, it clearly, clearly makes sense to at least a subset of people here, like you Ritchie, but it doesn't make sense to me and I can't figure out what thought process goes "Someone did something wrong? I'll do something wrong too, I'm now allowed, and that will definitely fix the problem!" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hatting tangential disagreement. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter - he was being responded to logically and was not being abused by me, so telling me to fuck off was innapropriate. (Look at the history of the page, I hurl no abuse, make no ad homs, just respond with refs and logic.)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC) No, 'logic' would say that everyone else has rejected your position so you should review your position and find the fallacy. Logic was not your motivation.--v/r - TP 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Err.... look again... I had diffs from two sysops and one other user that supported my point. So no, the logic was sound and supported.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC) BTW - I did actually acknoweldge the conseus on NOTBLOG was against me as well... so no IDT doesn't apply either You didn't give diffs, so that'd be hard to look at. You gave links to edit a page. You might want to read WP:DIFF. From archives that in one case is over 5 years old, by the way, and unrelated at all to the context of this case. So yes, this is a case of WP:IDHT and you did not have two sysops and one other user who supported your position about the page you wanted deleted.--v/r - TP 16:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Read it again. Beeblebrox's disagreement with me is that I believe policy supercedes concensus. He doesn't. The three I quoted hold the same view.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC) You quoted nothing. Zip, zero zilch. What you did was you gave a link to an edit screen for an entire ANI archive that was 5 years old. I have no idea what on that massive page you are referencing at all. I have no idea who the admin is. Why? Because you didn't give a diff, you gave a link. And now I am seriously on the edge of joining Beeblebrox in the corner for admins who give you a nasty gram. But it comes down to this: you did not give any diffs. Click the links you put on his talk page and see what you get. If you do not know how to link to a diff, as I said you should read WP:DIFF to understand what one is. This is a diff and this is an edit box. Geeze, you should've just avoided this thread, you are not doing yourself any favors.--v/r - TP 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think everything has got out of hand. It was wrong to provoke someone, and it was wrong to rise to the bait. All I would do in these circumstances is to tell people to calm down, take a deep breath, and go and look at some pictures of cute fluffy kittens. If you want your pound of flesh out of Beeblebrox, then I won't stop you, but in my view, if there's clear provocation (and there was), then the provoker should get a similar sentence. And can you honestly say that blocking the pair of them is beneficial to the encyclopedia? We don't block people because we're angry with them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to anyone who has ever been charged with he responsibility of kicking people out of somewhere. The first thing you do is just tell them it is time for them to go. For 99% of people that is enough. They go, whether they agree or not, because they realize that their not going to get anywhere by arguing further. If they don't go, you tell them to get the fuck out and point at the door. This is almost alway enough for even the remaining 1% who dodn't leave yet. Sometimes it is not enough.

However, clearly it is not a case of me being "allowed" to do it since mere words so upset so many people here and there are now four five threads on my talk page about, arbcom is all up in my grill by email, and i got blocked. So Apparently telling an abusive person who won't stop posting to your talk page what you really think of them is not ok. Or is it, if you don't use harsh language? I have seen other users get away with insulting someone again and again in a normal content or policy discussion so long as they don't use "bad words" so where is the real double standard here? Obviously my approach is not one i would recommend to others since it tends to draw attention away from the persistent bully who refuses to disengage and get everyone in hysterics about a few bad words instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why were you blocked? Not for your abuse towards another editor AFAICS. Please don't conflate your short block for a possible compromised account with what you should be blocked for. Leaky Caldron 16:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think WP:CIV and WP:NPA apply to us all. I tend not to block for WP:CIV violations, but do block for WP:NPA violations. WP:CIV is, indeed, cloudy, with "please stay off my talk page", "stay off my talk page", "stay off my talk page, damn it", "will you please stay the fuck off my talk page", and "fuck off" all meaning the same thing, and the line in the middle that crossed WP:CIV being fuzzy. It's fuzzy enough that I normally don't act. WP:NPA is different: an attack on another editor is an attack on another editor, and dressing it up in polite words or coating it with obscenities doesn't change it. "You obviously don't have sufficient intelligence to edit this article" and "You wouldn't recognize a fact if it bit you on the ass" are both personal attacks, and I'm inclined to block for either. I haven't seen a personal attack here. Is there one that I've missed?—Kww(talk) 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's certainly possible that a sole, unexpanded and unexplained Assume good faith or No personal attacks can be just as chilling as something like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original questions

Comment: (ec) Would future posters stick to answering (or dismissing) each question please instead of posting sycophantic defences or even attacking me. I'm thick skinned enough to weather such attacks but in my own defence, this was a carefully crafted post that was intended for WP:ANI. I sought and received advice from an (unnamed) admin at IRC who recommended I post it here --Senra (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The question is useless. If you expect administrators to quietly accept abuse by others then you will not have any administrators very soon. Your examples are likewise ridiculous since you can't show that administrators in general receive less strict warnings than non-admins by using two examples. Non-admins say "fuck off" too all the time with no sanctions. Is this good? No. Is it possible to avoid? No. What you are doing is taking isolated examples and turning them into the well-known conspiracy theory of "admin abuse", if you had ever been ad admin you would know that being an admin means constantly being abused by people who hate admins because they're admins, by people who disagree with any decision you make or any administrative action you take. Yes sometimes that means that an admin will fly off the handle. Which then results in endless drama and stupidity like this. How is that useful? Keep your own path clean. If someone tells you to fuck off, consider whether you might have deserved it, and if not then take it to the appropriate forum. A general question like this is utterly useless for everyone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Senra, where have you been attacked? Please don't throw out wild accusations. I see no attacks targeted toward you in this thread or on your talk page.--v/r - TP 15:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

kudpung (talk · contribs) here and I would welcome the retraction of wild accusations above --Senra (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WOW! Neither Kudpung's comments nor mine are personal attacks. So now I am questioning whether you understand what a personal attack is and in that regard whether your questions can be answered.--v/r - TP 16:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attack inception, a personal attack saying someone responded to personal attacks with personal attacks? I have to say, Senra (and speaking as as close to "the civility police" as we appear to have in this thread right now), I'm not really seeing the attack in that diff. It seems to me that Kudpung was pointing out that you were being unvcivil by calling users names in the comment he was responding to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC

Just throwing this out there: when someone calls things attacks and then says they're thick-skinned enough to weather it, they're not really being thick-skinned; they're just being thin-skinned with a side of passive-aggressive. Someone who was really thick-skinned wouldn't have cared enough to mention it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was criticised for asking what may turn out to be a reasonable question, criticised for making a personal attack and criticised for bringing it to the wrong forum. How is a question about policy in the wrong forum? I wasn't asked why I brought it to this forum. I see those as personal attacks on my motives and integrity and diversions from the main question(s) --Senra (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not diversion, it's disagreement. You said "please instead of posting sycophantic defences or even attacking me." You posed a position and now your arguing that it's a personal attack or a diversion to defend a different position. Then you further claim others are personally attacking you, but your definition of a personal attack isn't in line with even the cloudy definition of the community's. That's not a diversion, that's explaining to you why your position is wrong in the first place.--v/r - TP 16:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I specifically stated at the beginning that "This post concentrates on administrator behaviour. It specifically ignores ALL potential mitigating circumstances" yet posters still vigorously defended the subjects of my examples of WP:CIV and WP:NPA behaviour and even accused me of possible procedural errors (without checking). How is this part of the thread not an attack on me and a diversion rather than a relevant post on the question(s) raised? If you see my original post as a personal attack then I will get what I deserve; in the meantime, please concentrate on answering the questions raised --Senra (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Let me try to get you to see why you can't make a statement like that. "Why does Senra hate Jews? This comment specifically ignores ALL potential mitigating circumstances. Please only answer the question." You see? You don't get to post an opinion and tell others that they arn't allowed to oppose your opinion. Sorry, not how discussion works. You don't get to dictate whether folks can oppose your position or not. You started with a loaded question which answering requires acknowledgement of the question as fact. That's why Fluffernutter is saying she is "taking the bait" and why no one else will answer you. Similarly, answering the question in my quote treats the statement as fact and then tries to answer it. It's a loaded question.--v/r - TP 17:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll bite. Here are my answers:

  1) Why are the civility and no personal attacks policies not being used aggressively on administrators? Because they're not used aggressively against anyone anymore, because they're such hotly disputed topics. Blocks done as CIV or NPA blocks (at least on established editors) are nearly always undone within minutes, no matter how "aggressively" someone tried to handle the issue.

  2) Do we as a community trust administrators who react in such ways to always use their tools fairly? Tricky question. I don't think that admins who are prone to incivility are any more prone to flat-out abusing their tools, in general. I do, however, think their judgment is questionable (based on their lacking judgment about how to treat others), and would trust them a bit less to referee any type of heated situation. If they had a history of misusing their tools in anger, then I would be much more inclined to not trust them with admin tools. Does this mean I think incivility is becoming of an admin? Not a bit. But I don't think it necessarily follows automatically that "uncivil person" = "abuses their tools".

  3) How is revision deletion permissible in this case? I don't think it was. Our Revdel policy says "Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries", and the special page from which we do revdels reminds us that "Redaction to [...] hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or desysopping." This was a revdelete done apparently to remove fairly standard (though still unacceptable) incivility and/or to remove from view the poorly-considered action of an admin.

  4) Are either of the above administrators open to recall? If not, why not? For the former, I have no idea. For the latter, if they're not I would assume it's because they didn't choose the voluntary option of being open to recall. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• While there is a little more drama here, than is required to dialog the concepts, there is nothing new to discuss. Somethings on Wikipedia are less then perfect. Proposed solutions to date have failed to find consensus. No new ideas for solution are offered, and the tone here is too toxic to forward any suggestion with hopes of making a change. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

just to be clear i was asked if i wanted the edit summary revdeleted and i said i didn't care. The person who asked me is not the person who did the deletion but was rather a sitting arbitrator. I would assume this was done to try and reduce drama but it clearly didn't work since the comment had already been reposted and everyone was aware of it. And no, I have never believed that the completely toothless admin recall process has any merit and have never set my own recall conditions. I don't think most admins of the last few years have. And with that I would add that I agree with Jeepday, I don't see anything useful coming out of this thread and will probably not comment again. . Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• " Blocks done as CIV or NPA blocks (at least on established editors) are nearly always undone within minutes, no matter how "aggressively" someone tried to handle the issue." - If this is true, this is very, very, very worrying. A single uncivil edit is nothing, a few we can ignore, but if there is a pattern, then this makes the environment unwelcoming and toxic, and as such the net bad is more than the net good, on the long term. That some well-known problematic editors in this respect are not banned is one of the stains of the current state of Wikipedia. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedians are a fairly diverse bunch that come from all corners of the globe, and all have different opinions on what's morally acceptable. That's why we will never ever agree on an acceptable level of civility that satisfies everybody, as a quick look at Malleus' block log (with each block being undone about ten minutes later) will reveal. Personally, recognising this fact, I subscribe to "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" - I'll "accept" all sort of "naughty words" in my direction if they've got a root of an argument in them, or ignore them if they don't, but I'll try to set a good example myself, and keep a tighter control on what language I use myself to others. I'd encourage everyone to do the same. And furthermore, if you stamp out bad language on Wikipedia, you'll still have to face it in the real world - I've been told to "fuck off" in real life, and knew that taking offence would be counter-productive. Furthermore, I could furnish you all with incredibly long and unbearably tedious tales of users I've had to encounter in my experience as an administrator on various forums and BBSes over the years who've decided to take offence at somebody and will not accept anything less than their permanent expulsion from the forum, then raked me over hot coals because I refuse to bow to their demands, and finally rage-quit the forum, explaining in great detail what a useless and incompetent admin I am .... but you'd get as bored of reading it as I am of typing this sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Been there, seen that.--v/r - TP 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"How is revision deletion permissible in this case?" That's the one thing here that troubles me. Apparently if you are high enough on the totem pole on wikipedia, your mates will strike embarrassing stuff out of the record for you, a concession that is specifically forbidden, is it not, for everyone else.Smeat75 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahem. I am the person who did the revision deletion of the edit summary (and only the edit summary), and I did it because it contained a clear and obvious personal attack directed at another user. I would have revdeleted the same edit summary had it been brought to my attention had it been made by any other user. The nature of the personal attack is a perfect example of an edit summary for which revision deletion is appropriate; indeed, one of the main reasons that the tool was developed to permit revision deletion of edit summaries and log actions to remove these sorts of personal attacks. Risker (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be an interesting point of debate in some sort of AN or RfC context, divorced from this case, because "where is the line where a personal attack becomes revdeletable" seems like the sort of thing that admins can (and do) genuinely and in complete good faith disagree about. At any rate, I think it's clear from her comment that Risker wasn't "covering up" anything so much as she was trying (unsuccessfully, it turns out) to cut the drama off at the root, and I don't think whether he call was perfect is terribly relevant to a discussion about the initial (alleged, etc) incivility. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would echo that opinion, I certainly do not believe that Risker was trying to shield me from responsibility for that edit summary, the emails I have received from the arbs about this express pretty much the exact opposite feeling. Agree that there may be a need for clarification here, but not a referendum on this one particular action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I will just clarify slightly on Fluffernutter's comment. The revision deletion of the summary was *not* done to reduce drama in any way, shape or form. It was to remove a very clear and inflammatory personal attack directed at a specific user. I do not understand why there is a sense that such abuse should be enshrined on this project for eternity; it is unhealthy for the target, and unhealthy for the project as a whole, and the decision to approve the use of revision deletion for these situations was a very conscious decision of the community. Risker (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, the revdel was completely allowable under policy (I even considered doing it myself). The reason I didn't was because the phrase was all over the place and I felt that it would be trying to spit into the wind. In regard to "Would future posters stick to answering (or dismissing) each question please instead of posting sycophantic defences or even attacking me." by the OP, they're "attacking" you because it seems that you don't know when to drop the WP:STICK. --Rschen7754 19:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just my two cents: If NPA and CIVIL is ignored as much as some people say, we have a problem. Each time a regular user abuses someone, it sends a signal that some users have problems with Wikipedia. If an admin does it, it creates a bad atmosphere we will suffer for in the long run. Admins violating NPA and CIVIL should be dealt with just as strictly as regular users, if not even stricter. We have the tools to stop harassment (at least on-wiki), and as far as I can tell we're allowed to use them for such a purpose. Bjelleklang - talk 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I'm dropping this because I appear to have no community support. For the record, I do not have any axe to grind against either of the two named parties and I apologise to them for the trouble I caused. I just used them as examples of unfair treatment. It also appears that a sitting arbitrator can unilaterally redact the edit summaries of their friends using a personal interpretation of policy at best or against policy at worst without apparent redress. I am sick and tired of the seemingly one-rule-for-us mentality around here. It appears to be admitted there is no "single policy on Wikipedia that is consistently applied in all cases". I feel very much like a Plebeian—unworthy of knowing the laws by which I am governed --Senra (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Senra you definetly have an axe to grind. I'm the guy that got yelled at, and I have no opinion one way or the other about that edit summary.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC) _{pardon the interuption}

Senra, you are seriously mischaracterizing my words to the extent that I ask you to remove the links. I said absolutely nothing about "without apparent redress", about a "seemingly one-rule-for-us mentality", and my actions were not a "personal interpretation of policy" any more than that of any editor carrying out any action is doing so using their own personal interpretation of policy. Beeblebrox isn't my friend, although like just about everyone else in this thread, I consider him a colleague. It is likely that this particular edit summary came to my attention because I am an arbitrator, but I am a Wikipedian first. Senra, if someone has made an inflammatory personal attack about you in an edit summary, and you were not able to persuade anyone to revision delete it, please let me know and we can review it together; I have no hesitation in revision deleting inflammatory personal attacks directed at our editors in cases where they cannot otherwise be removed. Risker (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, "I'm dropping this after I throw two more accusations." If your going to drop it, then drop it. Don't keep insulting people. The premise of this thread, which you started, began on a requirement that we acknowledge your opinion as fact. Next time, try it with more neutrality. Instead of "Why arn't admins blocked for incivility?" do "In which situations would an admin be blocked for incivility." One is loaded and the other is a neutral question.--v/r - TP 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, better still, "In which situations would an admin be reprimanded?" - doesn't even mention blocks or incivility, but discussion can still lead to them if need be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fair comments. No loading intended. I have nothing against admins; I seek fairness everywhere --Senra (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• My only 2 cents is that I find it unlikely there exists a personal attack that needs to be REVDELed but doesn't justify at least a serious wrist slap and promise not to do it again. Yes, he was provoked. But an admin should have thicker skin. And I don't think this rises to meet our policy on REVDEL. I don't see how it comes close.

I'm not so worried about the personal attack happening (we all make mistakes) as I am worried about the lack of contrition. For the record, I actively like both folks in the discussion, but the behavior of both was poor (KV for not accepting consensus and badgering, B for the outburst). Both really should apologize and move forward. But I'm not seeing that happening, which is sad and likely to just create more issues down the road. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This thread would be entirely unnecessary if any of the Admins/Arbs who witnessed the offending commentary had had the balls to warm Beeblebrox and threaten him with a block. No one did and a plague on your houses for the lamentable failure. You all sat back and allowed him to dictate the discussion and even bring the discussion to close with the lasting comment that he will do the same again if necessary. Disgraceful Admin behaviour will always result in drama. Senior Admins especially, you need to take a look at yourselves. Leaky Caldron 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  Leaky, Beeblebrox received the "compromised" block within minutes after he made the comment, and then was unblocked within minutes after that. At that point, a) it would arguably have been wheel-warring to reblock (depending on how you view the original block's cause), and b) discussion was ongoing on AN, and better judgment (as well as the leanings of policy) say admins should not cowboy up and take a unilateral action if discussion is still ongoing. To slap up another block right after he'd been unblocked - and I say this as someone who respects him but thinks he ought to have been blocked, alas - would have been upping the drama, would probably have started a full-on wheel war, and would have increased the probability of everyone digging into their trenches and lobbing grenades at each other. The only thing that could have reinstated the block without apocalyptic drama would have been for AN to reach a consensus to block. That didn't happen. Now, like Hobit above, I'm disappointed at the lack of understanding from the involved parties now, because it leaves me with little confidence that any of them won't do the same again...but the time for a well-supported preventative block has passed, as has the active name-calling. Being angry at everyone isn't going to get you anywhere here - we're all frustrated too, but we're doing the best we can to deal with this calmly and controllably, and that means without kneejerk reactions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

His threat/promise to do it again at will remains there, dangling like a big swinging dick(head). You have not dealt with that. No warning was given, deal with it now and finally the quasi-polemic essay is still there, delete it. All Admin. actions short of a block that would be carried out instantly for a non-Admin editor. Leaky Caldron 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I get the sense you won't be satisfied with anything I have to say at this point, because you firmly believe we've all failed, but...Beeblebrox got a ton of non-templated warnings last night, ranging from requests to "please tone it down" to a whole AN thread discussing his errors to "emails [he has] received from the arbs" that apparently hold him responsible for his actions. Believe me, he's 100% aware that he screwed up and isn't going to get away with something like this again, whether he thinks he was right or not. Am I entirely convinced that he gets everything I wish he got about the matter? No, but I rarely am when editors run into trouble. I'm willing to give him the chance to demonstrate next time he gets into a confrontation (whether that be a week, a month, a year from now...) that he's learned. As far as his essay, we don't unilaterally delete stuff unless it meets one of our CSD criteria. As far as I can tell, B's essay meets none of them, which means it would need to be MfD'd to be deleted. If you want it to be deleted, I encourage you to pursue in-process removal by opening an Mfd. Heck, I'll probably vote to delete right alongside you. But you can't rage at us for not violating policy by deleting it unilaterally while also being angry that B violated policy. Either we follow policy, or we don't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he did get blocked. Albeit, briefly. I got no laugh out of it. I though it was kinda sad, if you want to know the truth.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaky, when are you going to tell KoshVorlon to quit badgering admins with WP:IDHT before an admin has had enough?--v/r - TP 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. I have no axe to grind with editors who do not personally affect me. Plenty of others will deal with him. Any Admin. acting the way Beeblebrox did, who won't apologise and who arrogantly postures that they will repeat personal attacks, are fair game, as is inaction by their associates. Leaky Caldron 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"I have no axe to grind with editors who do not personally affect me" how does Beeblebrox words to Kosh affect you? Why is "arrogantly postures that they will repeat personal attacks" worse than "arrogantly insists they know better than consensus?" What is worse? Badgering and harassing and refusal to get the point, or telling someone to go away rudely? How are you now not an associate of Kosh's actions having been made aware of them and taking no action? How are you actions any different than any other admins?--v/r - TP 21:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

@TParis, Leaky doesn't know me, nor did Leaky and I talk about this at all.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  22:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Admins acting in any way that contravenes policy or demonstrating untouchable arrogance is invariably infinitely worse than an editor's foolishness. As we see time and again, there is no way to deal with the arrogance of Admins. and some of you appear to thrive on that situation. An ordinary editor proclaiming "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" would be blocked pronto, don't deny it. Leaky Caldron 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's my problem: you think it's an admin problem. It's an everyone problem and you're ignoring the instigator right above you because he's not an admin and that plays into your perception that it's an admin problem. Deal with the real issue. KoshVorlon is right there.--v/r - TP 00:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

KV hasn't been (s)elected for anything. Admins are chosen to act in a trustworthy manner. Anyone shouting "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" cannot be trusted. Any Admin supporting such a statement cannot be trusted and any Admin. neglecting to take appropriate action when they see such a statement cannot be trusted. A lot of you therefore are untrustworthy but because it is a job for life we are stuck with you. Leaky Caldron 10:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the pool admins are elected from.--v/r - TP 13:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a different response in mind but I want to bring this to an end asap. If, in the future, I become frustrated by an editor to the extent where I cannot control my feelings and post a message or edit summary along the lines of "fuck off you idiot, you don't know what you are talking about", you are an Admin., will you unblock me on request? Yes or No. Leaky Caldron 14:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. As I did with Kiefer when Bwilkins blocked him 3 weeks ago, I'd probably ask you to back away from the issue and agree not to pick up again until you have a cooler head and I'd let let ANI know what I was up to before I did it.--v/r - TP 14:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

and if I tell you that I reserve the right to repeat it in similar circumstances and maintain an essay in my user space to justify my stance, you would still unblock me? Leaky Caldron 15:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Reserve whichever right you want, it wouldn't help you if you did it again (within a reasonable amount of time). And per WP:ROPE, you'd be unlikely to get a chance like I'd offered again.--v/r - TP 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Fair game"? Given wikipedia's history with Scientology thats an interesting choice of wording. Objecting to inaction on the part of any given admin is somewhat unreasonable. Some of us earn our livings in ways that require us to be at times as much as 10 meters from a computer.©Geni 22:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. You know I'm talking about the Admins involved at the time. I don't care if you were 10 miles away, there were plenty who were not. Leaky Caldron 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't know that. The obvious problem with that approach is that is simply reinforces the guide that you do not become involved in any thing with drama potential if you can avoid it. Since this leaves the field clear to those admins who care nothing for your opinion this seems counter productive.©Geni 22:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not responsible for which Admins deal with which matters on boards so my approach has no influence on anything. However, the following post by Sandstein sums up the current situation very well. Leaky Caldron 10:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• The CIV/NPA policies apply to all editors. However, in my experience, as a practical matter, they are not enforced against experienced editors who have many friends (which includes many administrators, but also other editors). This is an artifact of Wikipedia's wheel-warring policy and ochlocratic dispute settlement system: If an administrator blocks an editor who has many friends, they will raise a stink at a noticeboard, until they find an administrator who is either also a friend of the editor at issue or simply disagrees that the action at issue deserved a block, and enacts an unblock. Because of the wheel-warring policy, the block can't be repeated. Also, the stress and hassle of the whole process deters administrators from even attempting to enforce CIV/NPA policies against the editor in question. In this way, many habitually incivil editors (which includes many administrators) enjoy effective immunity from sanctions. I've long argued that this is a structural weakness in our project governance, but apparently there are just too many old-timers who feel that they have been around so long that they deserve to behave however they want.  Sandstein  08:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well said. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this reflects my understanding of the situation quite well, though it's not always "friends" doing the obstruction so much as it can be people who mean entirely well, but can't see the forest for the trees (i.e. Saying "We can't block so-and-so, it upsets them terribly and might drive them away!" but not noticing that so-and-so's behavior upsets more than just one person). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The wrong question

I am much more concerned with an admin's judgment as an admin than I am with any occasional outbursts of incivility. I'd rather have a potty-mouthed admin who makes the right decisions about blocking, protecting and deleting than an unfailingly polite one who screws up those choices all the time. Unlike some, I think our admin corps is, overall, pretty good, and even some of those I have had run-ins with appear to me to be, over time, adequate or better. There are, nonetheless, some whose conduct as an admin leaves me scratching my head, wondering how they ever managed to get the bit in the first place - and those admins concern me, not the ones who sometimes react all too humanly under pressure and vent their feelings.

So the larger question here is "What standards should admins be held to?", and the incivility question is only a very minor part of that more general concern - certainly not worth the amount of time and effort which is going into this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken's comments. This thread is a distraction from real issues, another dramah thread for dramah bunnies. If someone is offended by an idiom that someone else uses, they can trout them (or use whatever version they personally prefer to express reciprocal incivility). Or better, they can take a wider perspective and stop being so precious and controlling. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The longer it is called "dramah" and shoved under the rug, the bigger the dramah becomes. Do you know what drama is? It's the crap that we keep ignoring because it's drama. You're propagating that drama simply by suggesting we ignore the drama. How about this approach: let's deal with it when it comes up so it quits smelling like a dead cat in the closet.--v/r - TP 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly know about the central crap that we keep ignoring because it's inconvenient. And one of the best ways to keep on ignoring it is to focus instead on sideshows, like this one. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@BMK, that is a valid concern, but admins don't get a pass when they get the bit. They should be held to the same basic standards as each and every editor. YPC should be sanctioned for violating his civility parole, but so should the admin. Should he lose his bit (or give it up)? Absolutely not, he's a good admin. But he was still in violation, and there should be consequences. Not that I expect any - the history of WP is to ignore violations by both admins and long-term editors - but it would be nice to be surprised, and find out that admins have to obey the same rules as the rest of us. GregJackP Boomer! 05:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

General policy question on profanity

Can I just get a quick survey here - how many people think it's acceptable for a user to tell another to 'fuck off'? That's pretty basic incivility in my book, but apparently a large number of Wikipedians have no problem with it - including Beeblebrox, as expressed here. I would hope that most of us could agree that profanity rarely helps improve disputes and ought to be avoided, but I seem to be in a minority on that one. But if 'fuck off' isn't incivil, then what is? Robofish (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you, but I do indeed have the sense that we're a minority, at least of vocal wikipedians. I will say, however, that I'm not opposed to the general concept of "profanity" - it's when it's deployed against another person that I think it becomes a problem. And though I think telling someone to "fuck off" is unacceptably aggressive, on the scale of things I think aren't ok, I'm far less disturbed by that (since it's basically a rude "go away") than by name-calling or personal attacks against other editors (which is not only something you wouldn't say to your coworkers, but is also cruel and personally-directed). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Depends on the context. On a user talk page, "I've asked you politely to leave 3 times, so now I'm saying fuck off" is acceptable to me. "Hello, welcome to my page, I dont care about your opinion, fuck off" is not.--v/r - TP 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, context is everything. Profanity is not necessarily uncivil (or even impolite, a related but not congruent concept), it all depends on how it is used, to whom, and in what circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TP, it depends. For example, the first five times someone accuses me of (whatever, fill in the blank) that is not true, I'll probably explain and discuss it with them. About the tenth time, I may be to the point of STFU and go away. GregJackP Boomer! 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the context in which profanity is used is relevant" is in fact the entire point of that essay.. You will note that nowhere in my initial reply to the discussion that endedso badly did I say "fuck off"[7] The nasty all-caps personal attack that ended the conversation, yeah, I did that. I was frustrated and I let the persistent posting to my talk page goad me into doing something that, had I thought about it for two seconds, I knew perfectly well would just cause problems. So, no I would not expect to see anything like that from me in the future. Everything up to that point, including the "fuck off" close of the discussion, I stand behind. I tried to discuss, they responded with an unfortunate combination of cluelessness and arrogance. Since they had opened a DRV before even waiting for me to reply to their initial inquiry and I saw no hope of getting them to understand what consensus even is and how it relates to policy I indicated I was done talking about it and would rather they left me alone. They continued to post. I closed the thread and told them to fuck off [8]. They arrogantly re-opened the thread. Stop right there, and I look a lot less like the bad guy don't I? Then I did something thoughtless and stupid and none of that mattered anymore. So, that would be where I screwed up so far as I am concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although the users above make good arguments, I believe it's inappropriate regardless of context. Like it or not a lot of users (and especially outsiders) doesn't read all the background leading up to a "fuck you message", and if they end up thinking that admins are allowed to behave that way, it reflects badly on the community. A couple of users further up noted that Wikipedia already has a bad reputation, and messages telling someone to fuck off doesn't really help on this, even if the user being told to do so deserves it. Bjelleklang - talk 07:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I personally don't use strong adult language to other editors on Wikipedia, but I respect that other editors do, and suggest its appropriateness depends on the context. To give another example to what TParis said above, you can certainly create uncivil responses that don't go anywhere near naughty words - for example : ""Hello, welcome to my page. You're wrong. Please read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV. HTH". I disagree with Bjelleklang's comment above, and suggest that if you wander into WP:ANI and made an off-hand comment about language in the middle of a heated debate, without understanding the full context and back story, you're likely to make things worse as attention turns to your comment, creating even more drama. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Fuck you" and "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" are not the same thing, in my book. One might be written in exasperation the other is obviously highly personalised invective presumably based on interactions leading to the conclusion that the recipient is (a) petty, (b) fascist and (c) an idiot. Leaky Caldron 10:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Using profanity (such as "fuck off") towards others, with the effect of offending them, is unacceptable under any circumstances, and should result in severe sanctions if it occurs after appropriate warnings. Wikipedia is a serious collaborative academic project, not a playground, and must cultivate a professional working environment if we want to retain competent editors. Unfortunately, for the reasons I've commented on above, structural weaknesses in our governance currently prevent us from doing so.  Sandstein  10:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• This statement encapsulates the severe, black and white, moral hard line that is wrecking Wikipedia. It is the single most effective way we can drive off the best and most competent editors. Never mind that the *morality* is a fantasy morality, and that the statement mischaracterises Wikipedia and academics. Wikipedia is profoundly anti-academic and "unprofessional", as these drama boards repeatedly demonstrate. Wikipedia is a playground, as these drama boards also demonstrate. Of course many academics use robust language, as anyone who moves among them knows. Some of our most able editors and admins occasionally use robust language. If Wikipedia is so rigid and lacking in administrative skills that it cannot accommodate them, then Wikipedia does not deserve to survive. --Epipelagic (talk)

• • What would an pro-man made climate change academic do if an anti-climate change academic was constantly hounding him about faulty or five year old data after being told of it's fallacies? (or vice versa, not trying to make this a climate change debate).--v/r - TP 13:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

    Most of them sigh, roll their eyes, and either write another blog post debunking the newest salvo, or they just killfile that person. I don't think many of them respond to it with rage and name-calling - if only because getting that het up, that often, would get downright tiring. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

    I was thinking more along the lines of face-to-face when I wrote the above, but you, Ma'am, have just schooled me. I've never heard of a killfile. I'm too young n00b for usenet.--v/r - TP 16:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

    @Sandstein: Sorry to disagree with you, but Wikipedia is not an "academic project", nor are the majority of editors academics, I don't believe. Wikipedia is, instead, an open source project to create a popular online encyclopedia, which is quite a different thing, and the standards of behavior for such a project should not be the same as those for a true academic project. (Besides, in my limited experience with academics, they appear capable of insulting and demeaning their fellow academics without the use of profanity, and do.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Chalk me up in the "depends on context" column. I mean, c'mon, guys, at some point, they're just words. Expletives like "fuck", devoid of any real meaning, have only the power we give them. Sure, there's almost always a better (or at least, more entertaining) word than "fuck", but...it's not so much a "structural weakness" that's preventing us from banning profanity so much as a disagreement as to whether it really matters. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Saying "Fuck off" to another editor on Wikipedia is always uncivil and not in the least collegial. I cannot think of a context where it would be the right thing to do. Having said that, a single instance is not the end of the world, especially if it is followed by an apology and/or a retraction. While disruptive, it is not the biggest problem we have here. Having said that, I am disturbed at the idea that senior editors and administrators would actually defend the practice. To me, that shows very poor judgement. Bovlb (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• The distinction, as always, is the difference between profanity and intimidation. The act of intimidating or bullying editors is not somehow "OK" if you swear when you do it. Profanity, outside of the context of intimidation or other forms of incivility, is completely benign, and conversely intimidation and incivility without use of offensive words is not OK. The obtuse defense that people who object to incivility and intimidation do so because they object to the use of words like "fuck" is a strawman argument, and dodges the main problem with incivil behavior. --Jayron32 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Should not be allowed - education may play a factor in this (not all can find the right words to express themselves) - I have always found that those that can communicate without profanity demonstrate a level of grammar and maturity that we should all strive for. Not that this is a work place - but its not a truck stop either.Moxy (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly capable of expressing myself without profanity. Every single time I have ever told a user to fuck off it was only after they refused to leave me alone when asked to. Incivility is often in the eye of the beholder, to me refusing to leave, be it a real physical location or a user talk page, is as or even more incivil /rude as telling someone to fuck off. And to then have that edit reverted by the same rude user with the edit summary "civility is policy" is far more rude. Again, not excusing what I then unfortunately chose to do, but somebody who won't stop oposting to your talk page after you have asked them to needs to fuck off, the sooner the better. self appointed civility cops cause problems, they almost never solve them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So why the need for "PETTY FASCIST IDIOT"? Maybe you should add that to your puerile essay. Repeatedly posting to your talk page - wow. Take a look at these edits and summaries [9] to my TP and tell me you have an excuse for abusing someone who has had the temerity to post to your talk page. You need to get a grip. Leaky Caldron 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my remarks before replying you will see quite clearly that I am in no way defending that edit summary and regret having posted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I read everything. Keep your childish insults to yourself, I have a perfectly good grip. If you had any integrity you would delete your silly essay. Leaky Caldron 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Guys, please consider the irony of getting into this sort of argument during a discussion on incivility before you go any further with this sub-thread. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is increasingly clear that profanity is not needed to be rude. I find the condescending attitude that many users adopt of late much worse than using a bad word every 10,000 edit s or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And I find arrogance emboldened by the inaction of others to be unacceptable. Here's a tip, someone gets to you on your talk page and you don't like it, there is a little link called "rollback". Click it and poof, it's gone. Also, you have many talk page stalkers, no doubt watching your back. Let one of the more mature ones deal with the offending poster, poof and they've gone. No need for you to loose your temper and create days of drama. Leaky Caldron 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I find your behaviour far more obnoxious than Beeblebrox dropping the F bomb. He's repeatedly said he regrets that unfortunate edit summary, but you refuse to accept that, and then you suggest he lacks "integrity" for writing an essay you happen to dislike. Coating this kind of unforgiving vindictiveness with a veneer of smug pseudo-polite baiting is IMO worse than any amount of profanity. Reyk _YO! 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You can describe my comments anyway you choose. If I said what I really feel I would be blocked and I'm not giving him the pleasure of seeing that happen. The point you have conveniently overlooked is that it was not an "unfortunate" edit, it was quite intentional and was rounded off with an assurance that he will use it again whenever he wants to. That's an apology with teeth bared and is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And the point you have intentionally overlooked is that B is apologizing for the "fascist idiot" bit, not the "fuck off" bit. The latter will be repeated in the case of persistent nuisances, the former will not. Reyk _YO! 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The words "fuck off" are not necessarily more uncivil than the behavior that prompts them. If it is the first response to a good faith and politely worded request or inquiry then yes it is extremely incivil. If the statement is the result of someone being obnoxiously persistent after having been politely asked multiple ways to leave then it may not be uncivil at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I tend to agree more or less with fluffernutter and TParis regarding this issue, and even moreso with Jayron32. I note, however, that the header for this section is not "is it ok to say 'fuck off'" it is a "general" question about "profanity". "Fuck off" is not the same as "what the fuck?" which denotes bewilderment, not hostility or any negative meaning. So yes, context is extremely important. Disclaimer: I once, several years ago, said "Well, fuck" in a rather pointed manner, in disagreement that mere "profane" words were some kind of bright line across which no one should ever venture. KillerChihuahua 22:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Profane language isn't a big deal, IMHO. If an administrator or non-administrator isn't causing vandalism or using socks, then he/she can profane away. If it were up to me? I'd have WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA abolished :) GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick tally of this thread and I see 7 editors (including 3 admins) who say yes (saying "fuck off" may sometimes be acceptable), and 6 editors (including 4 admins) who say no (never acceptable). (For 6 users who responded to this thread, I could not determine a vote on the question posed.) I thought this was an easy, clear-cut question, but the community seems about evenly split. That's a real surprise to me. Bovlb (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support CIVIL, and would like to see it more vigorously enforced. However, I will never support sanctions for profanity unless there is an investigation of the complete circumstances. The problem with those who want to warn/block editors for bad language is that they often express their opinion as if profanity were a really terrible thing (damaging the community and so on), yet those complaining about civility do not want to comment on the underlying issue—instead, they obfuscate the actual problem by harping on about a few bad words. There is a case now at ANI where editor A reported editor B for claimed systematic BLP violations. Editor C jumped in to support B by attacking A (offensive attacks on the integrity of A with no basis in reality). As the community let C get away with it, A used profanity. Anyone wanting to warn/sanction A because of a naughty word must first address the underlying issue if they want to assist the community and the encyclopedia—it would be totally absurd to sanction A's use of profanity when C is able to do much worse because "blocks are not punitive" and C has not repeated the nonsensical attacks. The problem with CIVILITY enforcement is that it makes no sense unless done fairly, and for that, trolling and incompetence must be regarded as worse problems than a few bad words. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Profanity isn't the issue for me, it is the use of the personalised epithet, by an Admin., with a track record and accompanied by the lack of action by his fellow Admins and his assurance that if the circumstances arise he will similarly attack another editor who antagonises him instead of allowing others to resolve the problem. Don't include me on either side as it would be hypocritical of me to claim that I am civil when other editors such as Reyk tell me that my behaviour is obnoxious and that I demonstrate unforgiving vindictiveness with a veneer of smug pseudo-polite baiting. If my honest assessment of someone who should be setting an example is perceived in that way I fully accept the characterisation without complaint. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that personalization, which epithets can and do highlight and punctuate, is the problematic behavior and pillar issue. It's not the language; it's how it's employed. Telling someone "they are ..." or that they should do something anatomically interesting or impossible is incivil. There are other ways to be incivil, particularly apparent in the personalization issues, but those are some of them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a serious editor. I see no reason Beeblebox be treaeted differently. Really, he got a REVDEL for nodrama?-=DePiep (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

This is not a policy discussion, it is a discussion about me and if I should have gotten in more trouble for a badly-considered edit sumarry. Nothing but noise is coming from it, no policy change is even proposed, let alone being discussed. If there are those who would like to have a prolonged discussion about me and my evil ways they can open a WP:RFC/U whenever they are ready. If there is an actual proposal for a policy change that discussion can be opened at any time as well. This discussion has more than run its course, it seems clear that there are no retroactive punishments coming my way, and this thread is just prolonging the drama without presenting anything of substance. Please close and hat this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is no benefit in discussing your behaviour here, and I for one was avoiding doing so. I did find the question above, "How many people think it's acceptable for a user to tell another to 'fuck off'?" to be worth asking, and useful from a policy perspective. Perhaps we need to pose such hypotheticals in a separate discussion. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Profanity hurts outreach

This is a little long, so I'm putting it in its own subsection.

On the general question, I think that serious profanity is always a problem for Wikipedia. The question has been studied by scholars, and the differences in cultural and gender responses mean that what you—I'm assuming that most or all of you here are native-English-speaking Western white males—think is "moderate" profanity is far more offensive to other people than it is to you. Furthermore, every culture has their own 'scale' of which kinds of terms are more offensive (e.g., which is stronger: sex-related terms or poop-related terms?), so when you think that you picked the lesser term, you may have accidentally picked what your reader believes is more offensive. Women in general (especially non-white women, but even western white women), find profanity far more offensive than men and interpret it as a signal that a website is a guy's locker room, not a place that women should try to stick around, or if they do stay, that it's a place where they will have to act male to be accepted.

It doesn't matter who the profanity is directed at. The ambient level of profanity at a website is used by potential participants to decide whether this website is a suitable place "for people like me" or not.

I don't think we will have a community consensus to block all profanity, because most of the people forming the consensus are white western men who accept it for themselves and worry that a strict enforcement will result in sanctions on themselves. It's about as likely as experienced drivers voting in fines for barely exceeding the speed limit for as little as one second. But among those of you who are thoughtful, and who would like to see more than just the articles favored by association football hooligans to be well-developed, please think about how even occasional profanity affects our efforts to encourage greater diversity on this project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't like the implication that people who deliver the occasional precision F-bomb strike are automatically "association football hooligans" who write inferior articles. I use profanity sometimes, and I've written on mathematics, astronomy, meteorology, computer science, and many other topics. Malleus has written brilliant content on nearly everything imaginable. There is no correlation between article work and profanity. None whatsoever. Reyk _YO! 22:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  There are, however, other relevant correlations, including the ones between

  • the presence of profanity-spewing white males and the absence of women and non-white people;
  • having a male-dominated website and having more information about association football than about topics that are traditionally considered women's issues, like children's health;
  • having a white-dominated website and having more information about association football than about topics that affect people in developing countries, like poverty and neglected tropical diseases.

  What we've currently got is a community that (unintentionally) discourages participation by women and non-white people by using profanity and other forms of incivility to send a signal that this is a white-jerks-only club. There are consequences for this. One of the consequences is that WikiProject Association football has 65 featured articles, and WikiProject Children doesn't even exist, because so few of the people who would be interested in getting articles like Child past start class are willing to stick around a website that they perceive (regardless of your intention) as being hostile to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Autistic editors

Should we have some kind of guideline, or possibly assistance project/(?) for autistic editors and their parents? I can think of three cases I've seen where autistic editors' mothers have (apparently) appeared to ask people to be nice to their sons (1, 2, 3). It strikes me that we should be anticipating this happening and be prepared to help in the best way that we can. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As someone who made the mistake of revealing depression in confidence to an arbitrator, then having that arbitrator use that to attack me, by means of a "He is unsuitable for reasons revealed to me in confidence I can't say", I'd be really hesitant to tell anyone anything. Also, Fuck you [name redacted by me to keep things on topic]. Quite simply, if Arbcom would pull a stunt like that with a minor problem that affects about one in four, we shouldn't encourage anyone to reveal anything. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hex but I think this is generally a greater problem of increased assholery from some of our editors. The rules of this place are hard to learn and many are counterintuitive but some editors like to block any user who isn't seemingly born with the knowledge to edit. I also notice that one of the folks you mention, Curtaintoad, was just blocked on 20 January based on an Arbcom decision? Not sure where that discussion happened but I cannot find it. I also know for a fact a large chunk of the community is here because they have social limitations (Autism is only one example). Many are antisocial in real life so there is no reason to think they wouldn't be here as well. I do not think we should be blocking for Autism unless the user genuinely does something bad. I think we should be encouraging people to edit in general, not sending a message that they aren't wanted. Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Rschen7754 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. Fist of all the definition of the word "Autism" has been severely expanded. These days the word is used not just to refer to real Autism but to anything on the autism spectrum, including Asperger syndromeand High-functioning autism. Autisum is a disability, Asperger syndrome is little more then poor social skills and having your brain be wired in an unusual way. It's unlikely someone with Autism would be editing Wikipedia. As for Asperger syndrome, that doesn't need special treatment on WP, except maybe the same treatment we would give anyone with poor social skills. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This essay has some useful information on how auties and nts can tolerate, understand, and collaborate effectively with each other. Kilopi (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Rschen no one is saying its therapy and throwing that out as a standalone bullet is just a bullshit reasoning to justify stupid decisions. If the user does something to justify being blocked or banned fine. Otherwise they should be treated just like any other editor. In fact I would say if the user self proclaims they have autism or something then we should give them a little latitude within reasoning. Otherwise we are just advocating them keeping it to themselves. I also agree with Kilopi. This recent indefinate block of User:Curtaintoad by Arbcom without discussion is just the latest in overreaching actions. Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that could cause huge amounts of potential drama - anyone could claim they were autistic and would get much more leeway than they usually would. This is just an open invitation for trolls. There is absolutely no way to verify if someone is autistic or not on the internet. - Rex (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If they're editing WP, they're probably High-functioning/Asperger anyway, and thus wouldn't need special treatment. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly true so then it also stands to reason we should not be indefinately blocking their accounts based on an assumption of Autism. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What's this about blocking people for Autism. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Check out User:Curtaintoad.Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see a great many oversighted edits on one of their subpages. Without knowing any of their background, only your reply to Roger Davies' block notice, I would suspect that is more likely a case of a young editor revealing far too much about themselves without a proper understanding of the consequences is what led to that. And that would also be a preventative block, not a punitive one for being autistic. You are certainly trying to spin it into a block for having Autism, but I don't see any evidence to support that accusation. Resolute 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to spin something up. The editor said they were young but no one took any action until his mother left a note on a couple users talk pages to be nice because he has autism. Then the user was blocked indefinately with a note to contact Arbcom. Also, since there were some revision deletions those of use without the tools can't see them, because of course we cannot be trusted with the tools. So your right I cannot prove that's what happened but the timing sure fits. I also have an issue with an Indefinate arbcom block based on WP:Child which is an essay. Not policy, not a guideline, its just an essay and its pupose wasn't even to do with a chold editor. As much as it may appear to the contrary though I really don't feel that strongly about it. In my eyes its just another editor that we blocked and told we do not want your edits. Lets also include that in this particular case this editor's mother is an editor here as well and I think probably watched his edits. Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just noticed this talk - By chance I have been thinking about making a proposal that would allow editors with disabilities (like me with MS) to have an avenue of identification (if they wish to) and a central place for those editors to talk and gain assistance (like a wikiproject). I would presume people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability would be more then willing to help. I know of at least 10 editors here that like me use speech to text software on talk pages.But because of this we have had a few of them not being able to pass the request for adminship based on talk page grammar, instead of years of positive contributions and great personal interactions (I have had personal experience on this last point). Moxy (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• No, there shouldn't be special treatment. Anyone can claim to be autistic, disabled, have some weird dyslexia, medically caused propensity to cursing, or whatnot. Don't even go there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm going to give my opinion on this being autistic myself. Autism makes the person more socially out of place and tends to make them think more in a logical fashion. Yes, it's unlikely that severely autistic people will edit Wikipedia, however autistic people do tend to have special talents be it do complex math quickly or have amazing research skills and grammar. To make an analogy, they're like computers that obey strict logical commands and a narrow path. If anything happens that falls out of that path, it can lead to confusion, like me, all the way to an absolute total meltdown on their end. Is it likely that autistic people will edit Wikipedia? No. Is it possible? Yes and I think we should give them specific leeway in certain areas. If a person is autistic, they should be able to pick up policy and work from there fairly quickly. They may not understand the "spirit" of guidelines of policies and might take it too literally which is why I would extend leeway on their interpretation of policy and social behavior. Allow them to process what it really means before blocking them as incompetent and try to explain things in detail so they can understand it. Autistic behaviors will definitely be apparent here if an autistic person edits.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I recall the first couple of times we interacted. I was very frustrated with you and when you mentioned your austism, a lot of your behaviors clicked from experiences with autism in my own family. But I think you've set a good example in that you adjusted your own behavior and I think you've become very productive. Whereas your first Rfba went terrible, now you're a candidate for BAG.--v/r - TP 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are we naming specific editors who are not of age in very public forums, again? --Rschen7754 02:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• We are all represented here by our behavior, nothing else. Whether autism, general incompetence, youth, having a bad day, or just not caring is the underlying source of a users troubles is ultimately not relevant. We don't let blind people drive school busses. Is it because we hate blind people, or is it because it just isn't feasible for them to do the job? We should never be asking about such things and a mere admission of a diagnosis should never be the reason for any sort of sanction, but by the same token it cannot be used to shield a user from responsibility for their own actions.

Outreach to such users to help them determine if they can learn to contribute constructively is a fine idea and I don't know that anyone needs permission to just go ahead and do so, although I am not sure structuring it as a wikiproject is appropriate.

If there is actual evidence that a user was blocked just for admitting to a diagnosis of autism I am sure we would all like to see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above. Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a general-purpose page with plain language and very few links could outline what avenues are available for anyone wanting assistance (I have pointed a couple of people to WP:HELPDESK with excellent results, and there's mentorship, the tea room, and no doubt more). However, Beeblebrox has the best response: while we might make it easier for someone wanting assistance to get advice, ultimately a user is defined by what they do, and editors who repeatedly generate disruption (whether to articles or the community) should not be at Wikipedia regardless of any medical explanation for their behavior. And of course no one has been blocked for revealing a medical condition—the example claimed above is clearly bogus (and those wanting more information should exercise restraint since Arbcom was elected to handle tricky cases, and calling for public explanations is misguided). Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is definitely needed. When I clicked on "Help" on the front page just now, I did not see any directions to WP:HELPDESK . True, the helpful Teahouse was highlighted. But in general, English Wikipedia is a jungle (in at least three senses: wild, confusing, and inhabited by vicious animals [see the defenses of profanity below]). I have been active for a number of years, and I still regularly have problems . A few suggestions I made went basically ignored. From my perspective, it seems that a huge chunk of Wikipedia is dominated by 1) geeks who make things overly complicated and 2) fans of pop culture who put in sales and covers of (to me totally) obscure songs with-out any discussion of the musical (lyrics or compositional)aspects and other equivalent stuff about the latest sneeze by some Hollywood actress. (Sorry for the rant, but I believe in the Wikipedia cause, but get very frustrated at times.) Kdammers (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• If Editor X₁ expresses an opinion in forceful language and perhaps uses "bad words" to Editor Y₁, and Editor Y₁ freaks out because s/he can't cope with profanity, we typically see Editor X₁ sanctioned and sympathy and understanding offered to Editor Y₁. If Editor X₂ expresses an opinion in forceful language to Editor Y₂ that triggers Editor Y₂ because s/he has a medical condition (autism, Asperger's, depression, whatever), then we see Editor Y₂ threatened and WP:NOTTHERAPY tossed about, even though some understanding and sensitivity to Editor Y₂'s condition could have avoided any problem. X₁ may get blocked but X₂ probably doesn't even get advised about being accepting of and considerate towards individual differences and sensitivities. In essesnce, we accept that an editor can't handle profanity in a mature manner but won't accept and try to support and understand those with genuine medical conditions. It's another example where WP does not appropriately respond to the needs of the editing community.

  It is also tragic that Adam is correct above, disclosure has been used as a weapon and not only in his case where a campaign was waged by a then-Arbitrator who in the process demonstrated a profound ignorance of depression (no matter what that person might have claimed to the contrary). Disclosure is not a desirable option when ArbCom admits they can't handle personal information, and while stigma and ignorance means that open honesty will likely result in that editor being harmed (inadvertently or recklessly, or even deliberately and maliciously). Editors with mental health issues of some type are common, in my view, and most are assets to the project and valuable content contributors. Unfortunately, the community collectively is not sufficiently mature to handle mental health issues with anything approaching competence and decency, and so encouraging disclosure is not ethical. EdChem (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that the maturity of the community is the issue at all. That is rather the point of both NOTTHERAPY and WP:CIR. We are not trying to "handle mental health issues." It is not stated anywhere that handling mental health issues is the responsibility of users who come here to try and edit an encyclopedia and it is ludicrously unrealistic as well as unfair to expect it of them, whether those suffering from such conditions self-identify or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, you are wrong. All I can say is that I was literally forced to reveal confidential information because, after revealing this in confidence, it was used to attack me, while it would not have actually significantly affected my editing in a negative way if it wasn't being used to attack me - it did mean I was not able to handle a three-month high-profile campaign of harassment, but... I doubt many editors would have been able to, and I doubt many of them would be editing again if they had. I can probably find the links if it's absolutely necessary, though I'd honestly rather not, as it would do absolutely no good to anyone to drag it back up, so... if you'll forgive me, can we just take this as a point made, and move on? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the point is that if an editor is treated the same way everyone else is treated (i.e. warning when they are clearly making unproductive edits, etc), it's not peoples' responsibility as editors to walk on eggshells with certain people -- who may continue to make said unproductive edits -- just because someone claims they may have a mental problem that causes them strife because of it. It's not about being uncivil, but trying to be fair to everyone. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• While I see your point, my point is on a different issue: It's actively dangerous to tell people on Wikipedia about any conditions you may have. Also, knowledge of such conditions can be used to attempt to trigger an issue that would then be used as reason to seek the person being driven off the community. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• (e.c.) Editors who are excellent content contributors are assets to the project, and deserve to be treated with humanity and respect. If a colleague / acquaintance of mine had a mental health condition and my style was interfering with his or her productivity because of something I could easily alter but s/he could not, I would make an effort to behave in a human and supportive fashion and recognise her or his difference. NOTTHERAPY and CIR don't give carte blanche to chase away productive editors by triggering their mental health conditions. And, the maturity of the community is very much at issue when editor A driving editor B over the edge is considered B's problem but editor A saying a bad word to editor B is considered A's problem and potentially block-worthy. EdChem (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing gives anyone carte blanche to chase away productive users. No one is arguing that. But it is not the responsibility of individual editors to be aware of other users conditions and to preemtively adjust their behaviors to avoid this supposed "triggering". You are deem to be suggesting that not only must the unpaid volunteers here handle these conditions but also that they are responsible for causing incidents where such users conditions becoem apparent. I don't think you are going to find much support for that idea. We go by behavior on-wiki, for everyone. Period. While we should all try to be understanding we are not responsible for other users behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think what Beeblebrox and others are saying is that their opposition to new policy is not the same as rejection of the idea that autistic editors arn't valued and welcome to contribute. They only reject the part of the suggestion that it's other people's responsibility to bend to their convience.--v/r - TP 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should provide adaptive resources for editors who are otherwise unable to participate as a peer in the rough and tumble of Wikipedia editing community. This could include mentors and proxies for example. However, I do not think it makes sense to require all editors to make individual allowances for social disability or various levels of editing incompentence beyond what has been established as the norm for civil discourse. Jojalozzo 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Im Curtaintoads mum. I dont know the many, many rules of wikipedia and doubtless I did the wrong thing by leaving a few messages on users pages re my son.

I wasnt asking for kindness, just understanding. I sincerely appreciate the attempts by some users to assist my son to learn the ways of wiki, but it is very complicated for him.

He has autism ok, Im not making it up (wish i was and I also know the diff between aspergers and spectrum disorders). I was reluctant to reveal this info because we have received a lot of discrimination in the past but i made the decision to do so because I could see that some people were becoming frustrated with his inability to comprehend (well intentioned) advice. I understand and support the policies re disclosure...but i naively thought my messages might help to calm things down.

And by the way, one of the big red flags of autism diagnosis is RIGIDITY OF THOUGHT so to all of those people who cant take a flexible approach to individual users, maybe take a look at yourselves?

I realise that his contributions were minimal, but he was learning.

As a result of his block, my account was also blocked from this isp...thanks a lot wiki.

I have suggested to my son to try again in a year or so.

He has a lot to learn, but he has a lot to offer.

Considering how far behind the starting block he is compared to the majority of wiki users, i couldnt be prouder and i will advocate for him to have the same rights as any user.

He NEVER once swore at other users, included profanities in his edits, intentionally committed vandalism or did anything he saw as negative.. I have seen a lot worse material come from other users.

He loves wikipedia and in time he will have a positive contribution.

Ok, so i know wikipedia is not a sheltered work shop, but I have to wonder if he would have been blocked if I hadnt mentioned his autism?...

Anyway, hopefully I havent broken too many rules this time.

Cheers WendyS1971 ^Talk 05:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wendy.I am sure your son is a fine young man and I know we all hope that the current difficulties can be overcome. However, I don't know that we can even discuss how he came to be blocked as it seems there were multiple suppression actions involved. I don't actually know what the exact reason for the block is, it is not entirely clear but it appears the Arbitration Committee or at least some members of it felt that a block was needed for purposes of preventing whatever problem was being caused there. It appears related to WP:OUTING of some sort, possibly self-outing. So, it seems likely that the only way to resolve this, as it apparently involves sensitive information we can't really talk about here, is for Cuirtaintoad to contact the committee by email and discuss the matter with them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is very bad to encorage people to self identify disabilities. There are enough people who are out there trying to claim any edit they dislike is motivated by some sort of antagonism that we do not need to encorage people to identify more. I think as it currently stands Autism is a too widely used term to have any real meaning in assesing other people. I think we should avoid labeling people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• "I think it is a bad idea to encourage people to self identify disabilities" might perhaps be a better statement. So many statements here are half useful, half misguided, it's all rather dispiriting. I hope I'll find the time to get back to this. (Beeblebrox, the one flaw in your thoughtful comment is that if a child has issues on Wikipedia, and the child's parent(s) are already involved, the best solution is for the parent(s) to contact arbcom, not the child himself!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would agree that people should be strongly warned not to reveal diagnoses. Wikipedia is a cyberbullocracy - as is the world. Those who hoard the intel are the unquestioned Gods, and they remain so because nobody seems to have the courage to ignore, to accept, to forgive, to not allow any tidbit of data they can get about someone to categorize them, to make them into a thing rather than a person in their eyes. Wnt (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

After communicating with arbcom I am satisfied that curtaintoads blocking was not directly related to the disclosure of his autism. WendyS1971 ^Talk 00:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support creation/improvement of guidelines relating to health issues in general, but note that targeting specific conditions may not always be helpful, per Adam Cuerden. And if we're not going to encourage self-identification, then perhaps some content at WP:UBX/HEALTH needs further consideration. -- Trevj (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Several issues are being discussed here at the same time, which shows that this is a very important topic but unfortunately makes it very probably that we will end up with no concrete result. I'll try to stick to the original question. Apparently it was geared towards relatively extreme cases, but given that autism is a spectrum and we seem to have an unusually high proportion (compared to the general population) of editors who are somewhere on that spectrum, we should probably accommodate them as well.

Here are the main problems that I have observed in connection with editors on the autism spectrum:

• A tendency to explode in conflicts. It is normal for humans to have complex emotions that are mixture of several basic emotions. Apparently it is a typical symptom of autism that this does not work. As a result, if an autistic editor becomes angry, they will often be purely angry and very hard to calm down, and will easily get themselves banned. The concept of "cool-down blocks" is deprecated, but for some autists it might actually make sense as it would give them time to get into a different mood and talk things through with a relative, rather than immediately escalate things towards creation of long-term enemies or even permanent bans.
• Extremely literal interpretation of rules. (This is not just a problem with autists but also with today's American culture. In the US, even kindergarten children may get severe punishments for intelligently following the gist of a rule instead of slavishly following the letter.) This is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's traditions that originated in wiki culture. Our rules emerge from practice, later someone tries to write them down, probably makes mistakes that are corrected etc. Each written rule comes with plenty of unstated assumptions such as "This only applies when there is actually a dispute, otherwise we just ignore it." Some rules contradict each other as written. Autistic editors need meta-rules which explain these issues to them. Normotypical editors tend to deny the existence even of those unstated assumptions and rules which they are following themselves. They must learn to become more aware of this issue and must become more open towards explicitly stating them.
• Obsessive behaviour. Some even concentrate on jobs that could be better done by a bot, and do them precisely like a bot would do them, with all the disadvantages. We have an approval mechanism for bots for the same reasons that some autists run into trouble. We usually address this problem with topic bans, but this only shifts the obsessive behaviour to a different topic.

Autists should not have to expose their problem. But we should absolutely help them to fit in. A new editor deals with good experienced editors who understand how things work, but also with inexperienced young editors who act as if they invented Wikipedia, disruptive sock puppets, editors with all sorts of hidden motives, and editors with various medical conditions that affect their on-wiki behaviour. A normotypical editor can filter this confusing input and still learn how things work. A normotypical editor will not even be confused by contradictory policies. But for many autistic editors this input is so chaotic that they can't learn from it how they are supposed to behave.

In the long run we need to rewrite our rules so that autists can understand them better. Paradoxically, it appears to me that the autistic traits of many editors are a key obstacle to this. Almost every attempt to streamline policies or to make the implicit context of a policy explicit runs into fierce resistance from editors who are overly attached to the precise formulation and structure of presentation and believe that the rule is meant to be implemented exactly as formulated, under all circumstances, and that it takes precedence over all other rules. The pages on which policies are written appear to be very attractive to autists. I think that's a problem because it's probably a huge factor in the development of ideological extremism and wiki-political factions. Hans Adler 13:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

All of those three things (especially the second) are common enough among all editors, not just autistic ones, and none of them should be grounds for instantly indefblocking someone. I think short cool-down blocks are good, because debates are more welcoming when people aren't raging their heads off. And something needs to be done about our contradictory policies, because all editors will cite the one policy which supports their case in a dispute while ignoring the other. If they must contradict each other they should be demoted to guidelines. - filelakeshoe 13:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think cool-down blocks are extremely bad under normal circumstances. Sorry that I wasn't clear, but they should only ever be used after general permission by the editor in question.

Policies don't just contradict each other, they are even internally inconsistent. One blatant example is WP:NOTCENSORED. The content of that section says the opposite of its title, but there is no chance of updating the title to something more sensible. Hans Adler 14:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any inconsistency in WP:NOTCENSORED. Removing irrelevant material does not equal censorship. - filelakeshoe 14:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The section explains in detail how censorship works in Wikipedia, through collaborative editing. We remove "inappropriate" material, not just "irrelevant" material. We remove even appropriate material, if it violates WP:BLP or the laws of Virginia.

The result of that section is that Wikipedia happily continues to censor in conformance with Western (mostly American) views, but defends content offensive to other cultures with the argument that there is no censorship. E.g. Genesis creation myth was moved to Genesis creation narrative because some Christians find the technical term myth, even in the technical phrase creation myth, offensive when it is applied to their own holy book. (The term was invented by Christians as an invective against non-Abrahamic religions.) But of course it is fine to use it for all other religions, and it's fine to put plenty of pictures on the Muhammad article because, supposedly, Wikipedia is not censored. Hans Adler 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem I have with your analysis: I don't see anything in PubMed about Wikipedia and autism. I have no idea how autism will affect editor behavior online. If you're basing your views of how a handful of autistic editors you encountered behave, then you're coining a stereotype as comically as Bob Dylan's farmer cursing a no good dirty doctor Commie rat. If you're basing it by extrapolating from some real-world interaction, then you're making a bad extrapolation because ASD has been associated with poor understanding of nonverbal communication which is irrelevant to the online experience. And what alarms me is that you jump immediately to the suggestion that we ought to block people who self-identify as autistic under circumstances where we wouldn't block other editors!!! As if it would be any less of an injustice than doing it to anybody else. This is a direct example what I meant above. You pigeonhole somebody, pretend you understand them, then treat them as a thing rather than a person. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation is a perfect example of why it simply will not work to do abything other than to judge each user's behavior equally, regardless of any disability/impairement/condition/etc. Such conditions may explain the behavior but they do not excuse it. In light of the feeling expressed here that we should discuorage autistic users from self-identification I would suggest that an off-wiki group of some sort may be a workable option. Users could discuss things there without tying themselves to an on-wiki identity, and experienced Wikipedians who have managed to edit productively despite such obstacles could counsel them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In an informal conversation I have given three examples of areas where I believe autists tend to be disadvantaged. If you think some of this was incorrect, then just say so, but blaming me for a lack of scientific research is not constructive at all but an extreme case of changing the goal post.

Next, what's so hard to understand about "[cool-down blocks] should only ever be used after general permission by the editor in question"? It is you who are jumping from this to generally quicker blocks for all autistic editors. I was talking about an option that we could offer to everyone who wants it, autistic or not. Most people (certainly me) would not like to be treated that way. But autists by definition think differently from most people, and I have a hunch that some (probably not all) would actually like to be forced off Wikipedia when they are in a bad mood, even though they are unable to act accordingly when it happens. I may be wrong, but I would like to hear that from someone who actually has experience with autism. Even for those who don't like it, such an agreement could still be a milder alternative once the topic of a permanent ban comes up. Hans Adler 13:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is a good idea it should be a good idea to offer everyone, regardless of whether they have an autism diagnosis. In practice I think that an offer out of the blue to block people "if they want it" because they are autistic would be in very poor taste, while allowing editors to claim this as a way out of a ban would soon invite mockery. I don't see anything good to be achieved by treating people differently. Wnt (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You are again making up interpretations of what I said that have nothing to do with what I want or how I said it. I am thinking of a page with advice for editors at various positions on the autism spectrum, which could, among tons of other stuff, include a hint that if they sometimes find themselves under serious stress but unable to log off, they might want to contact an admin they trust, or two, and ask them to block them quickly but shortly in such situations. Those admins would hopefully use neutral and non-confrontative block summaries such as "cool-down block as per user's earlier request".

Discussing all this in so much detail is really getting on my nerves because it serves no purpose other than hopefully, in the end, appeasing what may well be the only person who is misunderstanding me. You are consistently assuming bad faith and jumping to conclusions in relation to an informal proposal that seems far, far removed from any possible implementation. For me, this is a brainstorming session. For you, it seems to be the last reading of a law proposed by a devious evil party, and the last chance to prevent its implementation. If I liked power trips against minorities, I would have been an admin years ago and would be blocking people left and right for 'civility' violations. Hans Adler 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was overly strident above. My concern here is not about you being devious; my fear is that any practice of treating editors differently will fall down some sort of slippery slope and turn into a nightmare. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This sounds very fundamentalist to me. The world isn't just black and white, it has lots of shades of grey and even more colours. Obviously we shouldn't have different rules for different kinds of people. But basic humanity requires that we apply the rules flexibly depending on who we are dealing with. Editors who have specific problems do not have a right to be privileged in any particular way. That would lead to all sorts of play acting and gaming the system. But on the other hand, when an editor credibly claims to have a specific problem, or it appears to be the case, then not considering that information where it is relevant would be rude and unfair.

Fear of a slippery slope is rarely helpful. Hans Adler 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING

• I have proposed a change to the OWNTALK section of WP:TPG on the guideline talk page. I don't feel like I'm getting enough input on the talk page. Therefore I'm copying it here (see below the line). Please note that the topic was actually opened by an IP who had a question about the guideline. I used the question to launch my request for a change. I've left the question in, though, because some of the responses related more to the question than to the proposal.

To make it clear, I propose changes to two guidelines:

1. WP:OWNTALK. Change this sentence to: "Registered users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages ... (change bolded). (If my proposal is adopted, we may wish to add a sentence to make it more explicit that IPs cannot remove comments from their own talk pages.)
2. WP:BLANKING. Change this sentence to: "Policy does not prohibit registered users [] from removing ..." (addition bolded, deletion bracketed). Delete the bullet point that begins with "For IP editors ...".

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Editors are permitted to archive or remove content from "their own talk pages", but I am wondering what is counted as one's own talk page in the case of someone with a dynamic IP address, such as myself. It happens from time to time that someone will post a comment to me on a talk page for whatever IP address my ISP happens to assign me this time around that results in a discussion. That discussion can go on for a while, meaning that sometimes when I come back to reply again, my IP address is different. In such cases, I always make an effort to make it clear that I am the same editor so as to avoid confusion about the different address. Now if I had a static IP address or were editing from an account, there would be no issue of whether or not I could archive or remove discussions. It seems to me that if a discussion were about editing I was involved in and the conversation were directed to me and I participated in it that I should be able to count the talk page as "my own" for the purposes of archiving or removing those discussions, even after my ISP has assigned me a new IP address. Does this seem correct? 99.192.90.228 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue has bothered me for a long time. In my view, the ability of an editor to remove content from their talk page should NOT apply to IP addresses, whether Geolocate says they are static or dynamic (Geolocate isn't always correct, and I don't know how to verify whether an IP address is static OR whether it will always remain static). I understand that some comments are directed at the individual currently logged in as that IP and it is understandable that they may want to remove it. However, (a) there's no way of verifying that point and (b) Wikipedia needs the history of the IP account on the talk page itself, not just in the revision history. If an individual wants more control of their talk page, they can register.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup as far as I have always been aware, it doesn't apply to IPs. Atleast that is how I have see it treated in the past. And that is how I would want it to be treated. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems logical. --Nouniquenames 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• If we were to change OWNTALK to indicate that it doesn't apply to IPs, we would also have to take into account WP:BLANKING. As it is currently worded, an IP cannot remove "templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." The implication of that prohibition is that they can remove other material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does imply that. Anyway, if we make the change you have in mind, we can simply start the sentence about specific items not to be removed with something like "in particular, you may not remove...". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an actual page on which this is a problem? NE Ent 21:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:99.192.59.98 seems to be the page which prompted this discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

::Oh. So I set up ClueBot to archive the old stuff. Problem solved? NE Ent 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this is something that comes up often. I've reverted IP's removal of information from talk pages, but because the "policy" is unclear, when they've reverted back, which they have, I've dropped it. There doesn't have to be a current page on which this is a problem; it's a recurring problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have publicly stated my personal view that the benefits of mandatory account creation would outweigh the downsides, and one such benefit is that it would avoid to dealing with the complications of single editors using Wikipedia from ever-changing IP addresses, which confuses the applications of guidelines such as this one, but also proper edit attribution. I do not believe changing this guideline to accomodate the particularities of accountless editors to be needed and while I understand the current consensus that users should be allowed to edit without an account, I think there is no reason not to encourage recurrent contributors to register and autoconfirm (or confirm) in order to access the full range of Wikipedia's functionalities. Salvidrim! ✉ 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. Just register an account. There's literally no reason not to. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement that if an IP editor wants to maintain continuity across multiple IP addresses, even to the extent of "archiving" content on an IP address that is not his own, then really an account is the method to obtain that continuity.

I certainly do not agree that IP editors should be denied the same rights that registered editors have. We do know that most IP editors will be editing on IPs previously used by people other than themselves. We also know that registered editors are editing on accounts that should not be used by people other than themselves. On that basis, IP editors should have more right to remove warnings that do not relate to them, not less. Our not being able to "prove" that the warnings relate to them is neither here nor there - see WP:AGF.

After all, the purpose of allowing unregistered people to edit is to encourage their editing; how encouraging is it if they make an edit to improve a Wikipedia article, they see an orange bar with a complaint about them, they click on the orange bar, it lists warnings which they know do not relate to them (the warning also mentions that possibility, remember), so they rightly remove the warnings, and immediately they have some guy restoring the warning and telling them not to do that! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One way to avoid that result would be for the IP to respond to the warning rather than remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Which registered editors could also do - but we don't force them to do it. So my point stands.

A large proportion of IP editors don't even understand why it is that their IP address was previously used by a different person, never mind manage to respond thoughtfully to messages left for that different person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Registered accounts are kind of like residences with long term leases. You gotta follow some rules the landlord sets, but you can pretty much decorate however you want. Dynamic IP address accounts are like hotel rooms -- you're there for awhile and then you. If you check into a room and find the maid didn't clean up very well you should be able to take out the trash. So if the current user of an IP address wants to dump a message, what exactly is the harm?? NE Ent 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor analogy. It is typically IP editors who leave crap all around the place that needs cleaning up. WP:OWNTALK requires an OWNer -- something manifestly lacking with IP usertalk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the last few points, I don't think anyone here voiced anything against that -- a user on an IP address is perfectly entitled to blank his own talk pages, whether it bears warnings of earlier users of the same address or they were meant for him. This is more about editors whose IP address has changed, and wish to maintain the same rights over the pages of their previous addresses. Like keeping the keys to your previous hotel room, if you wish. At least that was the OP's original question and that's what I responded to. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The original question is not what is now at issue here. I am proposing a change to the guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You've not provided any form of coherent rationale for such a change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this entirely. No compelling reason has been given why IP users must maintain comments on their own talk paged in perpetuity, but registered users are allowed to remove them after they have been read. If an IP address is dynamic, then there's no need to maintain a message not intended for the next person to use that IP address. If an IP address is static, then there's no reason to not treat it exactly the same as an account. Either way, there's no compelling reason why IP addresses should be prohibited from maintaining talk pages the same way that registered users are. It should be noted that I used to argue and feel about this exactly as Bbb23 did above, but over the years I have changed my opinion based on two factors 1) it really doesn't matter that much and it generates far more drama every time it comes up, and for that reason a consistent policy that treats all users equally is more practical and 2) If we're going to be committed to treating all users equally, that includes extending the same rights and privileges to all users as far as practical, except in cases where they have proven that they are not to have those rights on an individual basis. That's the core of AGF. Understandibly, some actions taken against IPs do unfairly tar the innocent with the guilty (blocking a school IP to stop incessant vandalism prevents the good users from using it too), but in cases like this, where treating IP users differently does not provide any net benefit towards improving encyclopedia articles, I can't see us getting our panties in a bind over whether or not an IP user blanks their talk page or not. Given all of that, I have changed my stand on this issue, and really feel like its better if we just treat everyone equally on this matter. --Jayron32 00:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the extended explanation about your evolving views. As a relatively new admin, I find this kind of historical perspective valuable.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• And thank you for your kind words as well. I always try to be pragmatic and flexible in life, and I find that it is much more useful to abandon an idea if it is shown, by the evidence over time, to be bad. This is one of those cases, in my opinion, which is why I have done a 180 on this. --Jayron32 05:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I do not see any compelling reason to not allow an IP to remove notices from the talk page. If the message was intended for the person who removes it, they have read it. If it isn't intended for the person who removes it there is a good chance that the person it was intended for will never see it even if it is left in place. Either way it having it on the talk page doesn't make any difference. Having the whole warning history on the page doesn't help us either, in most cases we shouldn't be looking at the old warnings to determine if a longer block is warranted on an IP address. We should apply the policy equally against all users. GB fan 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Partial support I think there is value to the community in preserving User namespace templates such as Shared IP header templates, User block templates (while a block is in effect), and Template:OW on IP pages. However, I do not think that warnings and general discussions need special protection. Jojalozzo 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. That's really an oppose as WP:BLANKING already covers this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't an unregistered user be able to remove stale comments? For example, I left a note at User talk:66.25.155.10 in response to some article feedback a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if the user will ever see it, but what difference does it make if it gets removed by that user or by whoever else happens to be using that IP? Five years from now, nobody is going to care. Five weeks from now, it's likely that nobody is going to care. Why not let the next person using that IP blank the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Some regular editors use stable IPs to edit and behave pretty much like registered users. They should be treated in the same way. In any case, all messages are viewable in the history. LK (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal serves no discernible legitimate purpose and is likely to cause grief to some good IP editors. Constructive IP editors are even more likely than registered editors to just do and expect the right thing, as opposed to stupidly following rules that make no sense in the context and tolerating the same from others. For a historical example of the complications that can arise, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive200#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page and the IP's talk page just after the matter was resolved. Hans Adler 16:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA RfC round two

Hi all, the second of three rounds of the requests for adminship request for comment has begun. Please comment with your proposed solution there! Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I encourage anyone who knows how horrible it can be close enormous disputes to say thanks to Ed and Seraphimblade for their work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Child protection policy

I just wrote about this policy at the Jimbo Wales talk page (as he made it to a policy). Overall I am just wondering if anyone remember in what way it arrived to the current consensus state of a policy what "should not be the subject of community discussion, comment or consensus". As I explained in my first post, it is about to add the translation as a rule to another language project. --NeoLexx (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy is a good idea. I would just make one change in the wording: "who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children)" should be changed to "who defend inappropriate adult–child relationships (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children)". "Advocate" denotes that said editors are encouraging adults to have sex with children. If I say, "Drugs should not be illegal", am I advocating drug use? I hope we have consensus to make this change (and since this is a policy page, WP:BEBOLD doesn't apply). Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

> If I say, "Drugs should not be illegal", am I advocating drug use? Of course. Same way as if some John Doe says "Having sex with 8 years old should not be illegal" — he flies promptly and rapidly from the project. I hope we have full consensus on that ;-) --NeoLexx (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)4

Up to what age would that apply? Victor Yus (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case you have a very strange idea of what legality/illegality actually means. Ruslik_Zero 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"If I say, 'Drugs should not be illegal', am I advocating drug use?" Of course. Simply stating that you believe something is not morally wrong/should not be illegal (for many people, the same thing) does not amount to encouraging people to do it. The verbs "advocate" and "promote" mean to actively push for other people to do something. If you just disagree that people should not do something, that does not mean you think people should do it. If I don't go out there and say, "Hey, everybody, eat meat!", does that mean I'm pushing vegetarianism? I suppose most of you agree that water-skiing should not be illegal. Does that mean you go about saying, "Water-skiing is great!"? It really angers me when people misuse the words "advocate" and "promote" this way, and I seek to correct it when I see either of the words so misused. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have my own strong idea of what is legal and illegal, some people may have rather opposite and equally strong ideas. The policy is not about sharing these ideas or to enforce them over the country borders. What is "a child" is well defined in each society and every reader will get its own meaning of it. The policy - as I see it - is about to free up children (however it is defined in a particular society) from any personal anonymous volunteer help to arrive to the "right" (from that anonymous volunteer point of view) definition of a child and of a sex ready person. --NeoLexx (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose your change would mean saying (in a UK context) "17 year old youth X should not have been be prosecuted for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend" would mean a ban form Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; not an improvement. As a side note, if you have your "own strong idea" about what is legal and illegal, you don't understand legality. You may have your own ideas about what ought to be legal or illegal, but the laws are generally reasonably clear, and you aren't entitled, for example, to decide that even though stealing cars is against written law, it isn't illegal because you don't think it should be. KillerChihuahua 14:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean some other user with your Oppose as I didn't propose any policy change at all: see the very top for my original question. --NeoLexx (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Noone should advocate anything on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss whether anything at all should be legal or illegal. The policy is fine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The policy has the obvious weakness that it fails to define "inappropriate" (so if editor X expresses some view about what the age of consent should be, and editor Y believes that X's figure is too low, then the question of whether editor X is afoul of the policy can only be decided by determining which of editor X or Y is right in the first place, which can't be done objectively). But I think (hope) that in practice our administrators would be able to recognize the kind of person who actually poses a danger, and would not apply the policy in a silly way. Victor Yus (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

All advocacy is inappropriate on wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This policy is a late relic of the practice of Jimbo Wales, as founder of the Wiki, promulgating policies on his own. There was considerable objection to it - myself included - on the basis of the wording, which had some effect on it, and it is all recorded in the archives (Wikipedia talk:Child protection/Archive 1 to 7). I feel that the WP:Terms of use took a much better approach, which avoided some of the vagueness of the original formulation. I also feel (I'm nearly alone in this though) that the community should discuss these cases openly, like they did for one case on Commons, rather than leaving it to back rooms. The Penn State child sex abuse scandal reminds us of the sort of bad things that happen in back rooms. I have no evidence for this, but I suspect that part of the resistance to serious rewording of the policy is that Jimbo (rightly) wants to be able to tell media that Wikipedia has always had a policy against pedophiles hunting children here. There is some reason to fear that that could happen, though a larger number of cases (search "Wikisposure") involve ideologues who want to write some tolerance for these relationships into the articles. There is therefore a lot of blurring between pedophile POV-pushing and pedophile attempts to recruit children to their own private Wiki or porn site, which to my mind are two very different levels of trouble.

The problem with that, and with banning 'advocacy' in general, is that there is some reason in anarchist thought for people to do so, namely, because anarchists don't believe in ID cards and therefore aren't likely to accept a strict, arbitrary age limit written as positive law. There is also some belief among Muslims, such as in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that these relationships should be allowed. In practice I haven't seen the policy turn into an ideological witch-hunt for such viewpoints, as I'd initially feared. In practice, the rules are actually underenforced - allegations can be made against someone in a public forum but it is not WP:revdeled, nor is the person accusing blocked, nor is the person discussed blocked quickly, or indeed, not until an amazing amount of arguing over the issue. I think we have a situation in which we have a policy not open to discussion that really needs to be discussed and adjusted, not for the purpose of allowing pedophiles to hunt kids here, but to refine our philosophy so that we can respond more effectively. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I see no reason why someone should be advocating on wikipedia anything about age of consent laws. I see no purpose to doing so. The last thing we want is articles on such laws to be written with the intent of getting them changed. This applies just as much to people who feel the current laws set too low of ages, at least in some cases, as to those who feel the laws set too high of ages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true in general - Wikipedia's discussion pages aren't intended for debating of outside-world issues - but under normal circumstances, if you mention some view that you hold on some such issue (as people do, from time to time) it's not going to get you immediately thrown off the project. This policy creates a special case, in that it implies that expressing (a certain type of) views on this particular issue may indeed lead to your expulsion. I don't know if people with other "obnoxious" viewpoints would be treated similarly - do we ban holocaust deniers, for example? (Just thinking aloud, there's no particular point I'm trying to make here.) Victor Yus (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Done here? The Russian Pedia policy has apparently been rejected for the time being. [10] So further discussion about the English policy should probably go to its talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

CSD G10

I recently marked Molemo Maarohanye for speedy deletion under CSD G10, but after looking more into the specific wording of that criterion I'm not as certain it applies.

Before I marked it (which blanked the page), the article had zero sources, but stated that the subject had been charged with the murder of four children, which is quite a significant negative claim. It appeared to be neutrally written, and the article itself (short though it was) did not have a negative tone, so does that criterion actually apply?

Regardless of whether I picked the correct CSD, I think the article needs to either go or change fast, because it either needs sources quick or at least needs to not claim murder charges. I'm also not certain the subject is notable. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 20:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, my mark got declined. It would be nice to have an explanation though, still. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 22:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the person that declined it but there is at least one source (the BBC article in the external links) that provided verification; no, its not how we like to do citations but that's never a reason to delete. Also, in further cases, when you tag an article for CSD, you should never touch its contents; wiping the article is inappropriate and if the article was inappropriate, the whole thing would be ultimately deleted. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

All I did was use the Twinkle CSD function. In addition to blanking the page, it also sent a "Cease and desist, thou vandal!" -esque message to the fellow who "created" the article, but he had nothing to do with the article's content: he created a redirect some time ago and then other people came along and made it into an article. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 02:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In the case of an article exists only to attack someone, blanking the page is entirely appropriate. This is especially true if it is a new article because it lessens the chances of Google retaining a copy of the attack. Articles which are candidates for speedy deletion are no different from any other articles, so the advice of "when you tag an article for CSD, you should never touch its contents" is not based on any guideline or even good practice. Any halfway competent admin will check the history of an article before deleting it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Courtesy blanking is appropriate for true attack pages, which this was not. Negative unsourced content about people, though, should still be removed on sight. You are responsible for all edits made with Twinkle, including the optional-but-included-by-default notifications when tagging a page as an attack. A more appropriate course of action here would have been to first edit the article removing the negative unsourced content, then research whether the negative information was verifiable in reliable sources and significant enough to bear mention in the biography, then finally add the negative information back in but now with a source. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

CSD was totally inappropriate in this case. It could not have been easier to find sources of the best quality for the claims in the article. (BBC, SABC, large local newspaper, all with in-depth reports.) And it can hardly be argued that a 25-year prison sentence is a minor event in a rapper's biography. None of our rules are completely fool proof. They were all written, and are constantly being changed, by volunteers on the internet and must be interpreted in such a way that they make sense. The unwritten assumption behind the "unsourced" requirement in CSD #10 is that it is unsourced even after you have made a minimal effort to find sources. Hans Adler 16:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hans here. And Twinkle... that robot needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice. It seems to exist for the purpose of getting otherwise reasonable editors to trash newbies and start fights. Wnt (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh, people still own their actions. It is more of a bionic arm than a robot, anyways. VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this how Wikipedia treats contributors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:166.82.205.115&diff=537122923&oldid=537087991

"Hello, "Erik," or whatever your name is. Now, if you are done whining like a little bitch, please either kindly contribute to the encylopedia at hand, or GTFO. What do you think this is, Twitter? Oh, and the next time you are hanging around that cult-like website you control, can you do me a favor and tell that "Kohai" to go fuck herself? Same goes for KCO and CorriJean and the rest of that gang of patzer trolls you have sucking your dick. Welcome to Wikipedia, Brah! OGBranniff (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)"

Wikipedia needs to start setting some guidelines and enforcing them. This behavior is unacceptable and explains why Wikipedia is continuing to decline. User:68.191.214.247

No, it isn't, which is why the person who left that message has been blocked. The Wikipedia community doesn't stand for that, and it's been taken care of. We can't stop people from doing that before they actually do it (not being mindreaders and all) but when it happens, as in this case, it is dealt with. --Jayron32 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

+1 If someone joins Wikipedia just to troll, s/he WILL eventually be blocked. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Sister project links#Wikivoyage hidden by default

This discussion concerns changing Template:Sister project links so that Wikivoyage is not hidden by default. Everyone who has commented thus far are active Wikivoyagers, and I think all of us were drawn to the discussion by a mention on Wikivoyage. I'm just dropping a line here to solicit comment on that page from others (so we don't run afoul of Wikipedia:Canvassing) before any changes are made. This is a common template that would be affected site-wide, so it's important that the discussion isn't driven by an interested party. Thanks. AHeneen (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Notability" of a geographical location

What are the criteria for "notability" of a geographical location?

I remember how a number of years ago, a user named "Ram-Man" or something similar went ahead and uploaded literally tens of thousands of articles on United States cities, towns, and perhaps other U.S. locations as well. "Notability" didn't seem to have anything to do with it: a one-house, one-horse place in the middle of nowhere got the same attention as a city of millions, even if the only people who really care that the former even exists are the (very) few residents and a handful of government bureaucrats.

To put this in perspective: suppose someone went ahead and did an article on every mud-hut village in Africa.

See Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). The general consensus is that any officially-defined (and officially documented) populated location can reasonably be presumed notable; even the proverbial one-horse Wyoming town will feature in a lot of documentation. Problems around articles on African (etc.) places tend towards issues with the identification and availability of reliable sources than philosophical objections to covering these places at all. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If that "mud hut" or small collection of them in Africa is on a formal list of places, such as Nyang’oma Kogelo in Keynya (to pick on one of those towns) it would be notable. This is a very old issue that has been resolved a long time ago. While you can certainly try to bring new perspectives on this issue, I would not expect there to be much support for widespread mass deletions of articles like this and other small towns. If you can find a list from the Kenyan government of towns in that country which includes some details beyond just the name and pure geographic location, I don't see any problem with somebody creating those articles. If anything, that mass creation of thousands of articles about small towns was in fact a major bonus to Wikipedia when it happened and commendable work when it happened, where that initial seeding of articles has blossomed into a great many well written articles often with edits by people who live in those small towns. If anything, it is a fantastic way to encourage new editors to become involved in Wikipedia if they improve an article like that. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

But Nyang'oma Kogelo is the hometown to much of the family of the leader of the Free World! Of course it has a claim to fame. I support articles on every city in the world, however, including every small town and even verifiable ghost towns like Hollywood, Pennsylvania. I should note that articles on species of animals, plants, fungi, protists, bacteria and archaebacteria are included without controversy. Basically, anything that's natural and verifiable (no hoaxes), including all natural languages, are considered notable. Being traditional also gets a subject a free pass. When arroz con pollo was nominated for deletion, almost everyone !voted to keep it. The things that get deleted due to non-notability are pretty much things that are recent and man-made: micronations, conlangs, contemporary songs, bands, companies, products, individual people not mentioned in ancient texts, individual animals, books, Internet memes and culture and web content, stores and other buildings and establishments, streets, movies, plays, protologisms and other things made up in eighth-grade gym class one day, granular articles on TV shows characters and similar things often denounced as "cruft", short stories, works of art, dance moves, skateboarding tricks, etc. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Natural and verifiable isn't quite as simple as it seems; see WP:NASTRO for a counterexample. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the arguments for notability of these small villages rests on two facets: 1) part of WP's function is to be a gazetteer, and 2) that documentation about any place can be expected to come in time, if from that place itself.

I would argue that we can maintain the first point with lists of such communities (when they are are not clearly notable themselves); on the second point, if the only source of documentation about the place is going to end up being documents from the place itself and likely the tiers of government that officially recognize it, it fails WP:V and WP:GNG (requiring third party sources). I know that the history towards such places has been counter to this, but I think that it is time for WP to mature past this, particularly as no harm would be done redirecting clealy non-notable places to lists of communities until such a time notability can actually be shown. No other area of WP gets this wide open allowance for inclusion, and while a gazetteer is part of our function, this doesn't require us to have separate articles for each entry. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the reason that the community tends to allow this practice, while coming down hard on other marginally notable entities is that this has a relatively low potential for abuse. It has not been shown that one-horse towns are using Wikipedia pages for rampant spamming campaigns or eggregiously unbalanced attack pages the way that other types of marginally notable articles are. There are other rather large classes of articles besides towns, the kajillions of species articles, for example. For documented biological species of any kind, there's little effort made to delete the articles, even for microministubs, because no one is using these articles for purposes that run counter to Wikipedia's goal of providing a neutral encyclopedia. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. --Jayron32 01:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of information that only serves to antagonize

Alpha Phi's secret motto was published on a book then added to the Alpha Phi article. There were and are numerous attempts to remove it, I being probably replacing it more than most; usually citing WP:NOTCENSORED. I stopped, realizing that this information really is not useful, except perhaps, to antagonize (Nener-nener! I know your secret motto!) some people. Perhaps a policy should be added to allow removal of such content? I don't think that antagonizing Alpha Phi's members is helpful to Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's not widely reported, then it's probably covered by existing prohibitions against giving WP:UNDUE attention to WP:TRIVAl details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

TRIVIA and UNDUE seem rather subjective, but then so is deciding what is undue trivia. There continue to be attempts to remove it from the talk page as well which are reverted. Perhaps it should be archived or removed by a white-listed user? Jim1138 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel it goes against Wikipedia's fundamental purpose of existing for it to start to play the game of keeping secrets. The UNDUE and TRIVIA memes seem to be used mainly as excuses to suppress information which is in fact no more trivial or narrowly reported than much of the information we do happily publish, but which happens to upset someone for some reason. Unfortunately it often seems to be the suppressors who care more, and therefore win the "argument". Victor Yus (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't our job to expose secrets... our job is to present relevant information about the topic, so our readers can understand what the fraternity is, what it does, where it came from, etc. Of course it is always a judgement call as to whether some bit of information is relevant or not. That is a matter for consensus at the article. But we should ask is the fraternity's secret motto really important for the reader to know? Does mentioning it really help the reader understand what the fraternity is, what it does, where it came from, etc. Or is it simply a bit of non-essential trivia. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The last time the information was removed from the article was 20:35, 13 July 2012‎ and it hasn't been added back since then. The only place that it has been removed and added back in lately is on the article's talk page where IPs stop by and refactor others comments. GB fan 16:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And I can't find any significant discussion or consensus as to its relevance or likely importance to the reader (how can we know that anyway? why not let the reader decide what she does and does not want to know?). As I implied above, the decision (like many others on Wikipedia, it seems) was not made in accordance with our theoretical procedures, but simply by way of who's prepared to edit war about it the longest. (Admittedly the argument seems to have been that the source was not reliable, rather than that the information was not important, but it seems the reliability of the source was only called into question by those with a clear agenda of suppressing the information.) Something similar happened at an article where a long-dead person had been identified as a child molester. Any information that seems "unsympathetic" or inconvenient to the subject appears to have an inordinately high barrier set for its inclusion, which just doesn't apply to other types of information. Victor Yus (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)