Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 197

< Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Latest comment: 14 days ago by HTGS in topic WP:PAID if owner of company
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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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, 197

What is a revert?

Latest comment: 27 days ago16 comments10 people in discussion

There is a long-simmering issue when dealing with 1RR, namely there is no policy that covers what a revert is. WP:REVERT which defines a revert as reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. is an essay, and Help:Revert, which is an information page, uses undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version.

First issue is that these two definitions contradict each other. ...typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously and ...which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version are mutually exclusive. Something can typically result or result, and there is a large space between them. Secondly, undoing the effects of one or more edits and otherwise negating the effects is a hole wide enough to drive an article about an 80s cartoon character through. Normally, this type of ambiguity is par for the course, but we have multiple policies, bright-line rules, and arbitration sanctionsWP:3RR, WP:1RR, WP:CTOP#Standard_set that call out reverts, and can be grounds for immediate blocking and sanctioning.

So I ask, what is a revert? When does something become the WP:STATUSQUO so that changing or removing it is BOLD and not a revert? Where is the line on undoing the effects or negating the effects? If someone adds bananas are good to an article and someone changes that to bananas are not good has the previous edit been reverted, as the effect was negated, or should the banana-hater have the first mover advantage? Should we have an actual policy defining a revert if we're going to have arbitration sanctions and bright-line blocked if you break 'em rules about reverting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

A related discussion on from talk page can be seen at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 33#Clarity on reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
A revert is changing anything I don't want changed. Seriously tho, since changing anything is technically a revert, one is forced into examining the exact circumstances, how long since content was added, intent, etc. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I think rules should be interpretted according to their purpose, which isn't always clear from their literal wording. The purpose of classifying edits as reverts is to identify edit-warring in a semi-rigorous way. It isn't to catch editors out for cooperative editing. If Selfstudier writes "The population of XYZ is 10,000", and I remove it with the comment "I don't like that source", then that's a revert. However, if I remove it with the comment "That's a different place called XYZ, see page 23 for our XYZ", that's cooperative editing. The difference is that in the first instance I was opposing Selfstudier's intention, and in the second case I was assisting with it. Something likely to please the editor whose edit is being changed shouldn't be called edit-warring, ergo not a revert. Encoding this principle in a way that everyone can understand might be tall order, and in my current covid-ridden-and-sleep-deprived state I won't try. Zerotalk 15:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
SFR is correct to highlight the "restored to a previous version" aspect, which was always broken. Consider add A, add B, delete A, add C, delete B. Possibly two reverts in there but no two versions of the page are the same. Zerotalk 15:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Should be able to point to an edit that was reversed. Removal is basically always a revert, restoring what was removed is almost always a revert, rewording? Depends, but in the case of "A is true" edited to "A is not true", one of those editors is doing something more important than reverting anyway. nableezy - 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there can be a hard rule on when edit B negates the effects of edit A, because there are lots of ways to reword edits, all functionally equivalent to a revert. Unfortunately for the enforcement of the one-revert rule, I think it's also difficult to have blanket rules on when some content has achieved default consensus agreement status, as it's highly dependent on factors such as how many editors regularly review changes to an article. As per English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, the way forward is to have a discussion about what is the current consensus, halting any changes on the contested content in the meantime. I appreciate, though, that has high overhead. The community has been unable to agree upon less costly ways to resolve disagreements. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
An edit that deliberately reverses the changes of one or more previous edits, in whole or in part. Cremastra (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a constructive and reasonable clarification. I would say that if you can no longer see the edit you're supposedly reverting in the first 50 or 100 page revisions, and there's good faith reason to believe that the editor was no longer aware that they were reverting, it's no longer a revert. Wikipedia:Reverting: Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version. Andre🚐 22:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I feel like some essays on this might be a good idea (then we can figure out which one is most accurate, refine it over time, and gradually push it towards policy, or at least towards being a highly-respected essay with nearly the weight of policy.) Having hard-and-fast rules risks people gaming them, and I'm not sure it's possible, but there's some definite guidelines that could be helpful. I threw together a quick-and-dirty User:Aquillion/What_is_a_revert with my thoughts - note the two questions at the end, which are the points I'm uncertain about (I definitely saw a dispute recently about the "removal -> restore -> add text downplaying the disputed material" sequence somewhere recently, so it ought to be nailed down.) My opinion is that it isn't a revert - this interprets negating the effects too broadly. As the second example on my essay shows, that logic could be used to argue that once I've made an edit to an article, almost any edit made by anyone in a dispute with me anywhere in the article at all is now a revert, because any addition of other information that potentially contradicts or even just waters down the WP:WEIGHT of my addition could reasonably be framed as undoing the intent of my edit. I add something saying "X is true"; someone in a dispute with me then makes a large addition to the article, of stuff that was never there before but which represents a position that broadly diverges from what I added. I accuse them of trying to water down my statement that "X is true" by making it less of the article by percentage and otherwise shifting the balance I established, effectively reverting me. This may even actually be their intent! It's a common situation! But it's not, I think, an actual revert. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think that your discussion of how things become a lot less clear with 1RR vs 3RR is worth noting. A lot of things become more clear with the repetition, but it's pretty blurry with 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
First, an observation: the community has imposed a 0RR sanction before, which is not intended to be a complete ban on editing. Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Therefore, a revert is not simply undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits and so either that definition is wrong or the qualifier which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version is important.
My general inclination, separate from that observation, is to construe "revert" narrowly. An edit is a revert if it returns the page to a prior state and it's not if not, even if it's intended to contradict or downplay other information in the article. I agree with Aquillion that the cyclic nature of an edit war is an important piece of the puzzle, and therefore am inclined to say that editing disputes that progress rather than cycle are not edit warring even if they don't usually feel great from the inside. Loki (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • This idea of their being a contradiction and a lack of clarity is illusory, and caused by trying to approach this question as if interpreting a legal statute instead of a WP community body of practice. It is entirely reasonable to state that a revert "typically results" in content being restored to a previous version; the point is that the attempt to change it has been undone. This wording short-circuits a WP:WIKILAWYER / WP:GAMING loophole. For example, if the article says that what today is western Scotland "was settled from Ulster by Gaels of Dál Riata starting at least as early as the 5th century AD", and you change this to say it was the Vikings, and I then, instead of a straitforward automated revert, have it say "was settled by Dalriadic Gaels from Ulster starting in the 5th century AD or earlier", I have definitely reverted your incorrect change [the Vikings arrived in the late 8th century], to exactly equivalent meaning as the original, but not actually restored the article to a previous version of the relevant content. This is important. And everyone already seems to understand it (or will be induced to understand it quite quickly if they try to skirt 3RR or otherwise engage in editwarring by making reverts that are not to exact versions of older content).

    Whether a page has a template on it that says it is an essay or information page (a sub-type of essay) is pretty much meaningless (except when an essay conflicts irresolvably with a policy or guideline, in which case the essay should be revised or deleted, or an essay advises something that the community otherwise does not support, in which case it should be revised, userspaced, or deleted). Various essays have the force of at least guidelines, they simply don't happen to be written in guideline language and don't quite serve the function of guidelines (which is circumstantially applying policy through best practices). Essays of the sort that the community takes seriously, and treats as operational, are often describing patterns of reasoning or behavior rather than outlining a rule or how to put that rule into practice. This reasonably enough can include definitions of WP jargon. (Some examples of WP essays that have enforcable levels of community buy-in are WP:5PILLARS, which doesn't even have an essay tag on it, WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:CIR, WP:ROPE, WP:NONAZIS, and WP:DUCK, and there are many others, especially those with the "supplement" tag, another specific type of essay.)

    To the extent there is an actual wording problem between the two essays listed at the top of this thread, it is simply that Help:Revert says "results in ... restor[ation] to a previous version", without "results" being qualified in any way. The fix is just basic, noncontroverial copyediting: Help:Revert simply should be edited to agree with WP:REVERT's "typically results". However, a "Help:" page's purpose is to act as a practical instructional summary, mostly for noobs. It is not a definitional document, but a how-to. As such, it is not possible for imperfectly precise wording (pretty typical in "Help:" pages) at the former to magically shortcircuit the higher precision of the latter; WP:REVERT clearly is a defining document, making it clear that a revert need not precisely restore previous content in order to qualify as a revert, but simply undo or otherwise thwart the intent of the change being reverted – to restore the prior meaning.

    This is also, obviously, the resolution of the "Nearly every edit involves undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits" pseduo-problem of 0RR. Any time a policy or procedure interpretation results in an impossible scenario, it means you are misinterpreting the policy or procedure. If you improve confusing old language in article, it might technically "undo" or "negate" a poor semantic choice by an earlier editor, but it is not a revert, because it is not attempting to thwart the intent and meaning of that other editor's input. I.e., your innocent copyediting is not a form of dispute, so it's not relevant to reversion and its place in our dispute-resolution system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    I understand this interpretation but disagree with it. I don't like this because this causes the exact problem we're all here about. I would rather have a rigid definition that can be gamed than a vague one that can still be gamed by WP:WIKILAWYERing a vague wording, and wasting all our time in the bargain. Loki (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    A response that amounts to "I say I understand but I take a disagreement stance because the sky is falling" isn't much of a response. The problem and its cause, this waste of our time, is one editor claiming the relevant material is too vague and is contradictory, when this is demonstrably not the case, and the community as a whole has no problem with interpretation and implementation of this. I.e., this is a solution in search of a problem. Most attempts to substantively change policy (in the broad sense, i.e. "that which the community acts upon", the templates at the top of pages being largely irrelevant) do more harm than good, because the extant community understanding is not broken and needs no fixing, but changes introduce chaos into the community's understanding and usually induce unforseen-consequences problems due to the very complex interaction of particular wording in one place with particular wording in another. WP:Policy writing is hard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say it is a solution in search of a problem. I've brought it up because it has often come up in my arbitration enforcement. The grey area around reverts is a common issue. That said "do the best you can with what you have" isn't necessarily the wrong answer. It just leaves a lot up to individual admin judgement in an area where there's already a whole lot up to individual admin judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Fringe Theories Noticeboard, religious topics, and WP:CANVAS

Latest comment: 25 days ago318 comments34 people in discussion

For years the Fringe Theory Noticeboard has been a go-to for a lot of editors when it comes to soliciting help on religious topics. This has caused… problems. FTN seems bent towards a particular kind of skepticism which, while healthy for Wikipedia as a whole, leads to some serious issues with WP:NPOV, WP:CIVILITY, and on occasion WP:OUT on these topics. The most signifficant incident off the top of my head was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics. There’s also been some pretty big issues with FTN regulars editing religious articles not realizing when something is technical/academic terminology when it comes to religious topics, which is playing out right now in the discussion here and which got its start on FTN.

There seems to be this attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile. This definitely comes across as trying to right a great wrong with religion not being treated with appropriate intellectual derision. This is especially the case with New Religious Movements such as Mormonism, Falun Gong, etc.

My concern is that exclusively bringing these topics to WP:FTN and not, say, the religion wikiproject (or the appropriate wikiproject for a given religion) ends up feeling like a deliberate decision to exclude people who may be less hostile to a specific religion and comes across as WP:CANVAS, especially in light of how willing FTN regulars are to throw WP:CIVILITY out the window on religious topics to the point of multiple admin warnings and thread closures. My willingness to assume good faith is pretty low here considering the history of open hostility to (mainstream) religious/spiritual topics when they come up on FTN.

My fundamental question here as it relates to policy is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella? If so, should the appropriate wikiprojects be notified at the same time so as to not basically canvas people who have specific biases but not necessarily a useful working knowledge of a given topic? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation, ie. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Falun Gong, beyond the broader Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science. Canvassing specific wikiprojects or not doesn't really mean much in my opinion. There definitely are POV editors, but most editors in WikiProjects on religion are heterogeneous. I do think there are tensions in terms of whether Wikipedia exists to promote a religious movements viewpoint about its religion, especially theological summaries, but I don't agree a policy change is helpful or warranted here. If there's any policy to look at, it's about sourcing requirements and weighing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Falun Gong is notably the only religious movement to have a dedicated CTOP designation
Keep in mind the incident I was referring to was FTN demanding Falun Gong editors out their religious affiliation when editing pages, which the admins in the discussion came down like a meteorite on. It's not just a question of "Is this religion fringe/y" but this sort of r/atheism open hostility to religious topics, especially when it gets into the theological weeds and not just something which is clearly fringe. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
the admins in the discussion came down like a meteorite on ← sounds impressive. What sanctions were applied? Bon courage (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd also like to hear more about this. It's news to me. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand I do remember plenty of action in relation to the LDS/COI fracas, like an enormous amount of activity at ANI ending in sanctions.[1] and a WP:BUREAUCRAT losing their bits. But we're told here the multi-admin "meteor strike" was on FTN participants? Curious. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
There can be 'fringe theories' about everything, including religious history and theology. It is trivial for wikiproject pages to transclude FTN if desired so as to provide notifications to followers. Feoffer (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
But the issue isn't other people transcluding FTN, it's FTN editors only pinging FTN on religious topics when the editing gets contentious, as opposed to anyone else regardless of their experience in the exact topic in question, which is why it feels pretty strongly like WP:CANVAS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Not this again. This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance. The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes and I suggest Hitchen's razor is applied. But, to repeat what has often been said there: religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply; the religious aspect doesn't give nonsense some sort of Holy Shield from Wikipedia's NPOV policy by which it must be accurately described within a rational, knowledge-based context. Bon courage (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    This is like a stuck record from the OP, who keeps popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance.
    What? I was told to bring this here during the last huge blowout about it and hadn't gotten around to it, the current spate of Mormon topics on FTN made me think it's finally time to get around to it. Beyond that I'm a regular at FTN? I'm not "popping up at FTN to air this supposed grievance", I'm a regular contributor there who is bothered by the handling of a specific topic at FTN and this is a recurring and ongoing problem, who only brings it up when that problem comes to the forefront, which it has in two separate and ongoing threads.
    The lack of the examples in their complaint speaks volumes
    I didn't provide specific examples because the main talk page of FTN is right there for all to see and I didn't want it to come across as airing grievances with specific individuals, or make the discussion about, say, Cunning folk traditions and the Latter Day Saint movement rather than the broader issue of FTN on religious topics.
    religion does not fall under WP:FRINGE but when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world (like claiming that Christian Science can cure disease or that the E-meter has a useful function) then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply
    I addressed this right away in the post you're replying to. The issue isn't the E-meter like content, which are absolutely fringe, but rather people treating core claims of theology as a fringe topic, when it may be a bit fuzzy in a Venn diagram between a fringe topic and a religious one, or even just blanket religious topics being treated as fringe despite them being wholly articles of faith. You've been around FTN long enough to know that there's a contingent that see religion as an inherent enemy and I'm very far from the only person to bring this up recently. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism. If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine. If they say it actually happened that's a problem. There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    No, I think you're imagining things and keep banging on about reddit and atheism.
    As I'm far from the only one to raise this specific concern, that sure seems like a mass hallucination then. I (and others) use "r/atheism" as a shorthand for a specific form of "angry at religion" type of persona that pops up basically all over in bursts. It's a shorthand, and it's one where I'm far from the only person using it.
    If people want to believe a Douglas DC-8 piloted by Xenu put Thetans in a volcano (or whatever) as part of their 'core theology' that's fine.
    What isn't fine is users not feeling that a topic is being treated with appropriate derision, as opposed to just WP:NPOV and addressing WP:PROFRINGE. This comes up a hell of a lot on religious topics on FTN, and while it's not exactly a majority stance it is a present one. A contingent of FTN basically likes viewing the Resurrection of Jesus and the Loch Ness monster as rhetorically equivalent and deserving of the same sort of treatment. Regardless of personal beliefs around either, Wikipedia is not the place to air personal grievances with religion.
    There is nothing here to fix. Or do you have a specific proposal?
    Well, seeing as FTN handles religious topics indelicately, inexpertly, and with a very gung-ho attitude I think that making sure the appropriate wikiproject is roped in on religious issues would probably do quite a lot. I think the current discussion on cunning folk is a pretty great example of FTN jumping the gun due to a lack of familiarity with the literature on a given topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    WikiProjects do not or should not create Wikipedia:Local consensus. You are welcome to add any relevant WikiProject banners on any talk pages, and notify any WikiProjects you want for broader discussions. It would not be seen as canvassing, because a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV (hopefully true for the WP:TERRORISM related ones). Sure, {{WikiProject Mormon}} likely has more adherents of LDS faith, but also more importantly, people with scholarly knowledge, whether as adherents, critics and other. If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with, but in of itself, notifying any WikiProject you want is fine. Admittedly some projects like WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE COULD be merged, but neither projects are in of themselves "canvassing" when being notified. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    If a specific WikiProject is POV pushing or trying to create local consensus, that can be dealt with
    This is what I think is happening with FTN, though not necessarily very explicitly. "Anti-religion" isn't a neutral point of view, and it can come across as canvasing to go to a place where that's a prevailing attitude while simply ignoring the other wikiprojects that may actually have more ability to contribute directly to the topics at hand.
    Essentially I don't feel that
    a WikiProject in of itself does not represent any particular NPOV
    holds true for FTN when it comes to religion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    FTN is a noticeboard, not a WikiProject. Bon courage (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Whoops, sorry, you're right, that's what I get for reading along too quickly. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Last time I looked FTN had a large number of people with different takes on topics. Maybe you'd go to WP:SKEP for atheism? Bon courage (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Anyways, your point begs what's considered neutral/default state, and when it comes to religion, is not an easy one. I find this essay helpful Wikipedia:Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability. As someone who was raised extremely religious and now atheist, I am appreciative that Wikipedia has always been a decent source of summarizing the state of literature out there. In some cases, it was not as "comprehensive" as my specific religious theological education, because the sourcing requirements were not up-to par. There are better resources off-wiki if the goal is to provide a religious seminar. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think the bigger issue is where it relates to New religious movements like Falun Gong, Mormonism, the Moonies, etc. which have a lot less established literature around theology and people tend to be a lot more open about treating with derision. Hell, I've been accused of being crypto-Falun Gong on FTN and I'm an FTN regular... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I suppose some notions are risible, and being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?) Thus yogic flying is as daft as perinium sunning: just because one has religious-y connections doesn't mean it isn't nonsense on toast. Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful. Wikipedia editors are often inexpert; it is the basis of much discussion on every article ever. If anybody want to inform any WikiProject that a discussion at any noticeboard may be of interest they may do so. Indeed that is often useful. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I think you are imaging (or maybe projecting) this "anger". Complaining about the supposed mental state of fellow editors is not useful.
    Surely this was intentional?[Humor] Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Core claims of theology can be fringe, for example miracles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure what the Cunning folk traditions thread has to do with anything. There were only 4 posts by 3 posters (including you and an IP). The initial post by @Feoffer: was clearly on the wrong board -- such a proposal if having too few people for consensus (or if too contentious) on an article Talk page is meant for an RfC on that Talk page, usually with notification of the relevant WikiProjects. The lack of replies on FTN suggests other watchers were generally aware this was misplaced. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Since the stated purpose of this noticeboard (top of page) is "to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines" and nothing of the sort is in evidence, I suggest this thread is closed as off-topic. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I get that you don’t agree with the thesis in the slightest but I was literally told to bring this exact topic here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Anybody telling you to post like this at WP:VPP needs a WP:TROUT. Perhaps WP:VPM or WP:VPI could have been appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that this should probably be on one of the other Village Pump boards, since there's not really a P&G change or problem suggested here. It's not a huge deal either way, and the thread is already going, but the procedure to move a discussion thread is easy enough and can be done by anyone. Warrenmck, if you like, you can use the {{Moved discussion to}} template set and simply cut-and-paste this thread to a different pump. (But again, not a big deal either way.) SamuelRiv (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Be happy to, but I’m on my phone right now and it’d be a bit cumbersome. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Putting aside the rest, the question is should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella. That's a fine policy question to ask here IMO as it's about WP:FRINGE. But the implied question here is actually "should religious topics be exempt from WP:FRINGE" and the answer is no. Not every aspect of religion has to do with WP:FRINGE, but some do. If someone is applying WP:FRINGE where it doesn't belong, that's the same as any user applying any other policy incorrectly and would have to be dealt with on the user level. If you think users are systematically misapplying policy at FTN, that's an issue for WP:AN and would need a lot of unambiguous diffs. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don’t think this could be done at WP:AN, because it’s more of a general attitude thing than a problem with specific users. Unambiguous diffs of FFN misapplying FTN are either easy or impossible, depending on what the remit of FTN is. I definitely agree that religion shouldn’t be exempt from fringe, but there’s a contingent that treat religion itself as fringe.
    looking at the threads I’ve been involved in recently on religion:
    1. The LDS and Cunning Folk thread, which seems to heavilystem from a misunderstanding that “cunning folk” is the specific applicable academic term which exists well beyond Mormon topics.
    2. The Joseph Smith Golden Plates thread. It’s rife with calls that Wikipedia should be outright calling Joseph Smith an active fraud, sources not fully agreeing with that conclusion (though leaving the possibility open) be damned.
    3. The Tukdam thread, which did actually call out some issues with that page but also didn’t grasp the language used by researchers working with minority religious communities (and fair enough, that’s esoteric)
    Of twenty threads on FTN right now, nine are directly about religion (discounting the tenth which mentions religion but which is really just about racism). Most of these do actually belong at FTN, but the substance of the threads really highlights that “religion is not inherently fringe” seems to be openly ignored by a decent chunk of the involved parties. If half the content on FTN is going to be religious in nature, then it’s not really just about fringe theories anymore, is it? And the lack of civility or ability to handle sensitive topics becomes a prominent issue that could use guidelines for handling so we reduce the amount of inexpert sledgehammers wielded in the direction of religious topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    So you're saying all the (what you term) 'religious' threads at FTN are there properly, but there is a problem with stuff being raised there improperly. Then there is the vague complaint that you think some people ignore the “religion is not inherently fringe” idea, but with not a diff in sight. This is bizarre. The supposed bombshell 'cunning folk' thread has only four mild-mannered posts (one of them yours) discussing a proposal.[2] Isn't that what noticeboards are for? Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    If you're so convinced there's nothing of merit here, why the WP:TEND? I think we're all fairly clear on your perspective that this is a nothing sandwich, but hell even in this thread:
    being labelled 'religion' doesn't mean a topic becomes deserving of respect (although maybe religious people believe this?)
    Feels sort of like the problem in a nutshell? Wikipedia's policies around civility and bigotry (not necessarily articles, just to pre-address that) absolutely does distinguish "religious belief" among other categories as deserving respect when it comes to civility. The point isn't respecting the beliefs, it's respecting that they are beliefs and mean a heck of a lot to some people, and while "some people" in this equation aren't entitled to ignore wikipedia policies around verifiability and neutrality in favour of their argument, that doesn't mean that they deserve to have their beliefs mocked and ridiculed in talk pages (but let's be real, the more fringe-y it gets the more that'll happen to a degree).
    That we seem to have exempted NRMs from a need to handle the same way we do world religions is a genuine systemic failing of WP:NPOV. I can't for a second imagine someone who is committed to WP:NPOV and was themselves a Mormon wouldn't take more than a passing glance at the current state of FTN and instantly nope out due to the behaviour of editors in talk pages and noticeboards, and we need those editors to better address fringe relating to those topics. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    From a glance, FTN seems to have a large number of useful Mormon participants. If there are civility problems, raise them at ANI, AE or appropriate venues (but again, you have provided zero evidence). To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect. Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Nothing in this discussion was a personal attack at you nor was it advocating for a diluting of Wikipedia’s stances around religion. I cannot begin to fathom the tone with which you’ve elected to engage here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Basically, you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a whole noticeboard (effectively hundreds of editors) saying things which are largely un-evidenced (no diffs given) or simply wrong (such as Mormons shunning FTN). You have attacked me with a "why the WP:TEND?" jibe. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    The part where you accuse Bon courage of disruptive editing (WP:TEND) without apparent grounds (or with really weak grounds that would equally apply to yourself) does appear to be a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    I’m trying to act in good faith here, it genuinely seemed Bon Courage was basically misrepresenting the initial argument while saying any discussion should be procedurally shut down. It was not intended as a personal attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    From your opening post: "My willingness to assume good faith is pretty low". Bon courage (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • "was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics" did this actually happen? I remember we had a whole string of issues with Falun Gong members being disruptive but I don't remember admins sanctioning FTN or anything like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed it is baked into the WP:PAGs that religious belief can be a source of a WP:COI. There's a reason the entirety of Scientology church IP addresses are blocked from the Project. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 96 Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    Not finding it, which admins and what did they say? A quick search says that the only editors on that page who mentioned COI are you, Bon Courage, and @ජපස:. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    The closest thing I can find is this related AE request where the filer was TBanned, another editor who was seen as broadly pro-Falun Gong was indeffed, and "editors in the Falun Gong topic area" (not FTN regulars) were "warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views" (not against "insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics").
    In the FTN thread linked by Warren, there is a comment by ScottishFinnishRadish that WP:TPG is clear, Do not ask for another's personal details. It is inappropriate for a number of reasons, and adherents of a faith should in no way be expected to share that while editing. which isn't exactly "was admins coming down on FTN for insisting that members of Falun Gong declare themselves as COI editors on any Falun Gong topics". It's more "one admin saying that it isn't permitted to ask other editors whether they are Falun Gong adherents" which is... sort of close-ish? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thats just an admin saying that you're supposed to say "Do you have a COI with topic X" without any prompting as to what the COI is believed to be not "Are you a member of topic X? If so you have a COI" which is a pretty common note that admins give. Its certainly not giving COI editors a free pass on COI as long as their COI is personal info (it almost always is)... Which appears to be what the OP was suggesting. COI is not an excuse for outing, but outing can't be used as a shield against legitimate COI concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
If we were to take this idea to the extreme, then FTN wouldn't be able to discuss topics like faith healing which seem to me to be clearly within scope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
It'd be a lot easier if you refer us to specific example threads here. It's hardly throwing anyone under the bus to link to discussion threads instead of just implying them for us to find ourselves -- and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
Meanwhile, I believe what you have been referring to many times here is the Cargo cult thread (which is where the suggestion of canvassing and referral to VPP is made). I have two notes: first is that I agree that a P&G noticeboard should not be used for canvassing people back to an article Talk page or an RfC (per existing norms, RfC notifications are done on subject-matter WikiProjects, by subscription, etc). Generally with noticeboards like WP:RSN the scope is limited to resolving issues of the P&G, unless/until discussion goes into article content, at which point it is referred back to the article Talk page. The P&G noticeboards I've followed have been pretty disciplined about this, so I'm not sure whether that's one issue with FTN. On a similar note of scope, noticeboards can refer to superceding policy, and FT is pretty much made up entirely of superceding policies (it feels like it could be better as an explanatory essay more than a guideline imo). So if a post there is actually about a RS or OR dispute, maybe it should instead be referred to RSN or NORN? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
RfC notifications are done on subject-matter WikiProjects ← don't think so. WP:BLPN, WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN are for example ideal places to publicise RfCs where those P&Gs apply. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
and people seem to be getting offended regardless.
To the extent I regret raising this thread. I think this thread is itself a microcosm of my core issue: FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith. Not "FTN needs to treat religious claims as non-fringe" which is a honestly strange read multiple people here have had considering that my initial post specifically was narrowly focused on matters of theology and, as an example:
To make the same point again: beliefs are beliefs, but reality is reality. There is no "respect" according to any claim in that latter realm, religious or not. Instead, Wikipedia relies on sources and concentrates on conveying accepted knowledge and if that upsets religious sensibilities, well: tough. So no, the Shroud of Turin is not Jesus' funeral shroud, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, Jesus did not visit America, and prayer does not cure cancer. NRMs and 'mainstream' religions are treated the same in this respect.
How in any chosen diety's name does any of this have anything to do with a concern raised here? Not once did I call for Wikipedia to treat religious topics as hyper-credible per internal logic, nor did I express any concern about articles "offending religious sensibilities", nor did I make any sort of argument that'd exclude faith healing from the remit of FTN:
should religious topics which are specifically relating to religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim, fall under the “fringe theory” umbrella?
Faith healing and every single example from Bon Voyage's reply above make specific empirical claims. All of them, without exception. So what I'm left with here is an FTN regular who came in extremely hot for some reason ignoring the fact that I'm also an FTN regular while pretending that my argument was an axe to grind, when my core argument is that FTN handling these topics alone without involving editors familiar with them has lead to some problematic editing, in addition to FTN basically openly vilifying NRMs on FTN. Not once in this entire thread have I said that FTN should leave all religious topics alone, nor, as some seem to imply, have I argued that religious claims should be treated with credulity and handled with kid gloves.
At this point to even engage with this thread I feel like I have to dedicate a fair amount of time to addressing arguments I never made. It feels like people are trying to read some kind of apologetics into my comments which I never intended, and if that's coming across to multiple people then that's a communication problem on my end, but I think that this thread right here has become a perfect example of how complex, loaded, nuanced topics which invoke strong emotions on all sides are not necessarily best handled in a vacuum by a noticeboard which, as much as we'd all love the policy-backed
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
to be true, it doesn't necessarily hold water in practice.
@ජපස's suggestion:
Maybe a resolution could be adding a request in the FTN boilerplate that when people start a thread that they notify relevant WikiProjects?
Would solve literally every single issue I have except for the open intolerance, which is a secondary issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  Done [3] jps (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I believe what you have been referring to many times here is the Cargo cult thread
Funny enough, I haven't even gotten around to reading that one. FTN is genuinely pushing majority-NRM focused some days. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
You made an erroneous distinction: "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim". These are not cleanly distinct things. Religious history and theology is rife with empirical claims (Lazarus e.g.), and these are not exempt from "fringe". Your argument is weirdly personifying a noticeboard of hundreds of people with statements as though it were an monolith, like "FTN is unable to handle some religious topics in good faith", with zero evidence. Perhaps the reason you get a "hot" response is because you write accusatory, wrong and confused statements about "problems" which, without any evidence, come across as borderline trolling.
This is all seems track back to when FTN addressed your own muddle over panspermia where,[4] instead of grappling with the problems at hand, you perceived some kind of problem with the noticeboard that was solving those content problems. There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others. Instead of taking on the chin, you insinuated there was some kind of issue with FTN ("I do think that there's something very problematic here going on"). As another user observed in that linked thread "Instead of trying to find a solution, you are making accusations while claiming you are not". And so we have this pattern here again. It is a time sink. (It should be noted, if this[5] is to believed, that the OP's editing has been to FTN and ANI hugely more than to anything else in the Project, which tells its own story. I'm thinking WP:NOTHERE.) Bon courage (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
There you wrongly asserted It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory” which, ironically, shows the very lack of understanding of specialist terminology you are now attacking here in imagined others
Well, seeing as I’m a research meteoriticist (essjay aside) I’m pretty comfortable pointing to that specific example as “strong options, little expertise” on the point of FTN. In fact, I’m far more comfortable pointing to that one as an example of FTN inexpertly handling nuanced topics than I am around any of the religious ones. Theres a reason it was very easy for me to cite a pile of papers which make the case that researchers are using “panspermia” in a way that Wikipedia insists is only pseudo-panspermia. The distinction on Wikipedia cannot pass WP:VERIFY, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at FTN aside, which is why I think the best proposal was bifurcating it to Panspermia (Astrobiology) and Panspermia (Fringe theory). FTN is extremely slow to acknowledge there may be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the noticeboard around a fringe topic. Of course, trying to bring in a bit of nuance with citations didn’t stop people from accusations of being WP:PROFRINGE and possessing a
lack of understanding of specialist terminology
I’m going to be very honest, since your first post here commenting you’ve been fully on the offensive insisting this is some kind of misguided personal crusade. Between assuming motivations/incompetence on my part and some shall we go with routinely characterful reimagining of the posts you’re responding to I think I’m at least going to bow out of engaging with your replies here, and suggest we consider that mutual to avoid gunking up discussions more. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Free energy, Kinesiology, Panspermia. All three have a scientific and a pseudoscientific meaning. One is a disambiguation page, one explains the scientific meaning and has a pointer to the pseudoscientific one, and one explains the pseudoscientific meaning and has a pointer to the scientific one. This is the result of applying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You were unhappy with the solution in the third case (my take is that due to your field, availability bias leads you to think in WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT terms). [6] shows you that only a small percentage of readers of Panspermia move to the pseudo-panspermia page, showing that there is a good reason why it was done that way. You were wrong, and you have been blaming the people who were right since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I would expect an article on a religion to describe, e.g., the foundational documents, the liturgy, the rituals, the tenets. Excluding believers would exclude the editors most likely to be familiar with the literature. As long as an editor is neither attacking nor proselytizing, I don't see a COI. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
This just seems to be an argument against the entire concept of regulating COI editing... COI in general applies to the editors most likely to be familiar with a topic, for example the editors most familiar with Edward P. Exemplar are likely Edward himself, his friends, and his family... But we absolutely do not want Edward himself, his friends, and his family writing that article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I personally thrill when people who are less hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN and I thrill when people who are more hostile than I to religions post at WP:FTN. Generally, I thrill at anyone posting at WP:FTN. Though I may object (sometimes strenuously) to others' positions, I welcome their positions being aired as it helps clarify Wikipedia editorial praxis. I may be singular in this, I understand. Someone with sage observational skills pointed out that I may simply enjoy having arguments more than others. But I have learned things from such arguments and I do think that these discussions have helped clarify matters. Can't there be different strokes for different folks?
Maybe a resolution could be adding a request in the FTN boilerplate that when people start a thread that they notify relevant WikiProjects?
jps (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I enjoy having arguments more than you do. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
If they're notifying the WikiProjects, then it's a content dispute, and so it should be handled by the WikiProjects, or else RfC. If the intent is that FTN is a general-purpose board for fringe content, then that's the domain of a WikiProject, not a P&G noticeboard. (And just because FT has a separate guideline page, does not mean it automatically needs its own noticeboard; and in a separate point, I'd be interested if there's anything in FT that is not entirely redundant with the extensive RS and OR guidelines.) SamuelRiv (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Eh? All noticeboards except ANI/AN are for content disputes. The stated purpose of FTN is to "help determine whether [a] topic is fringe and if so, whether it is treated accurately and impartially". There is quite a bit in WP:FRINGE which is distinct, for example WP:FRIND, WP:NFRINGE and WP:PARITY. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
You are free to propose FTN for deletion if you don't like the way it is set-up. Others have done so in the past.
I think the consensus has generally been that it's okay to have a centralized discussion board that brings together people who have a general interest in topics that are relevant to WP:FRINGE. WikiProjects have remits which go well beyond that sort of thing.
jps (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
That would be both interesting and useful. It's no secret for example that Falun Gong-aligned accounts once maintained a chokehold on Falun Gong-related English Wikipedia articles like Shen Yun, Epoch times, and Li Hongzhi before a handful of editors finally broke it up. Today many of the responsible WP:SPA accounts have been zpped but new accounts constantly pop up trying at new angles to manipulate coverage. The matter has seen discussion in peer-reviewed material but it is poorly documented on Wikipedia itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate is also relevant, but in a very different way. That's the case in which being the target of something like Death by a thousand cuts results in the community blaming the victim for not being able to tolerate even more "minor" annoyances.
I feel like there is some of that going on above. People aren't reacting here, as if from a tabula rasa, to the exact statements being made. They're reacting to long histories and perhaps what sounds like coded meanings or Dog whistle (politics). So, e.g., maybe you didn't directly say "having a religious belief is automatically a COI" – or at least not in this discussion – but other editors have said this, and you said something that reminded them of the overall climate on wiki. And now you're mad at them for noticing the overall climate, or for assuming that you agree with it, and anyway, how dare they be upset about something that upsets them?
If you haven't personally seen editors claiming that being religious is a problem, then I point out that there are l-o-n-g discussions open at ANI and COIN right now about whether being a member of a particular Christian denomination is a formal COI. Note that I'm not linking them because I think that having anyone in this discussion join them would be a bad idea – too much risk of us providing more heat than light, and all that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I've never seen anyone say that having a religious belief is automatically a COI, I've seen people say that religious belief or affiliation can be a COI and people say that it can't be. Nothing in policy or guideline seems to support the "can't" side while the "can" side is currently consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't remember seeing anyone claim that all religious beliefs are always a COI. I have seen editors say that having specific, uncommon religious beliefs (e.g., anyone who belongs to this or that 'cult') is a COI for any articles related to that subject area.
ArbCom disagreed in 2010: "For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies."
But editors are not required to agree with ArbCom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Editors with a COI are not prohibited from editing pages regardless so not sure if there actually is any disagreement there. The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's always true, but the case I worry about more is the incorrect "identification". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
In what context is a COI editor actually prohibited from making edits? Incorrect identification is not an outing concern, so not sure why you would worry more about that than legit outing but OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect identification is a Wikipedia:Harassment concern. Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in. This is bad for Wikipedia, and it is bad for the falsely accused editors. You shouldn't have done that. IMO editors should be strongly discouraged from following your example.
COI editors are officially not prohibited from making all edits, but COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions. However, in practice, WP:Nobody reads the directions, and many of them are told by well-meaning editors that they shouldn't make any edits at all, and some of them are also told that if they do, then they'll be dragged to ANI or COIN for a criticism and self-criticism session. See, e.g., fully disclosed paid editors being told that simple updates for outdated information should be handled through the edit request system because "it's best" if paid editors never touch the mainspace. It is best – if your personal values prioritize purity over up-to-date articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Well that suddenly took a person turn... These are serious aspersions and that is not my memory of what happened in what ways was the infomation incomplete? I would also note that those allegations turned out to be 100% valid, they were not in any way false. "COI editors are officially prohibited from making most types of contributions" doesn't appear to be true, as far as I can see they are not officially prohibited from making any type of contributions in particular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Casting wp:aspersions is "accus[ing an editor] of misbehavior without evidence". You were accused of misbehavior for a specific course of events. I was not a part of this, it was not linked, and I don't really care, but I found the narrative easy to enough to follow that it seems to me that if I asked you both to spell out in detail the factual series of events, you'd agree -- that's why it's not aspersions.
Since the topic of this sub-sub-thread is COI, and the editor brought up this sad tale because it directly relates to COI, I also see nothing personal or uncivil in it. You state there is a factual lie or inaccuracy in the narrative, so that probably should be hammered on your own respective talk pages. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The catch-22 is that if it is possible to identify the editor's religious affiliation from their edits alone then their edits aren't NPOV.
okay, but I’ve been accused of being Falun Gong for my comments on FTN, so maybe nobody should be trying to divine the religion of editors on the basis of their edits?
like don’t get me wrong, if someone is editing a JW article with watchtower talking points that’s definitely an issue, but there’s little value I can imagine in trying to “gotcha” an editor’s faith and if their editing is a COI issue or otherwise problematic that can be addressed. Someone may simply have bad information and be editing on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
If people's affiliation can be inferred from NPOV edits, then I'd say that's working-as-intended. People can be TBanned for repeated or blatant NPOV on contentious/vulnerable articles without any reference to COI -- that's the whole premise for TBans on stuff like Israel-Palestine (nobody would say that being a national from one or the other is a COI to edit respective articles). Political fervor is quite the driver of disruptive editing -- if that is regulated without COI then why are some here calling for COI for religion?
(fwiw, I'd argue "religious affiliation" is not usually the same as affiliation/membership in a specific church bureaucracy/org that is affiliated with that religion -- so for example one could argue CoS is a church-organization that is affiliated with dianetics philosophy/religion; then an employee of CoS has COI by existing policy. I realize that definition would put a monolithic-monocephalous church in a grey zone, but I'd again say NPOV is sufficient.) SamuelRiv (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I am 100% not endorsing any sort of on-wiki assertion or accusation of another editor's religion or political beliefs based on their editing habits (agreeing Warren above). I am saying such blatant NPOV edits can be called out for what they are, as they have been in every contentious topic area. (It's common also to call out poor or undue sourcing, synth, cherrypicking, etc. -- blatant bad behavior be blatant.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The trouble with COI editing is it's often not "blatant", but like "dirt in the gauge" of the fine instrument in consensus forming. A !vote in a RfC here, a change of emphasis in an article there, and hey presto! POV achieved! The basic truth is that Wikipedia fails to deal with COIs because of its emphasis on the primacy of anonymity. The two are irreconcilable. Thus: the shit-show continues, and will continue for ever until Wikipedia gets a grip and turns into a serious Project. Bon courage (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
COI can be a subtle problem, but so can many other things. Someone attempting a subtle change in emphasis is not necessarily a bigger problem than editors who believe they're always right – and we have lots of those (including me, except that I really am always right!). If I have to choose between an editor who determines reliability on the basis of whether the source says the Right™ Thing and an editor with a secret COI who wants to slightly shift the emphasis of an article, I might not always think that the latter is the bigger problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That would be to misunderstand, fundamentally, the pernicious nature of COI. People may - on their own behalves - argue passionately in many directions. But when an external interest is exerting influence, the outcome of decision-making will depend of which interest has most sway. It is why serious consensus-making fora (i.e. not Wikipedia) tend to have stringent rules on COI transparency. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I'm misunderstanding COI. I think I'm saying that I'd rather have a small problem in an article than a big one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, you were choosing types of editors you'd maybe prefer. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
A subtle shift in article focus seems like a smaller problem than a big bias in source choice; ergo, I'd choose the editor who spends multiple years pushing for a small shift in focus over the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV and include weak sources with the 'right' POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Hah! Editors are wrong all the time, and preferring weak sources to strong ones is of course a common fault particularly in newbies. But here's the thing: editors with a brain and good faith will generally change their mind, modify their position or gracefully concede a point if they are presented with cogent opposition but have no skin in the game. They learn and grow. The COI editor will forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've been assigned, without deviation. I'd rather have an editor corps of messy but correctable human beings than apparatchiks dedicated to shaping content in some particular way so as to advance an outside interest. Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
But editors who do have skin in the game, but not of the sort that 'counts' as a COI, don't generally change their minds. They forever press Wikipedia to follow the line that they've personally adopted, without deviation, exactly like that irritating family member that you never want to hear talking about politics at any family gathering.
Also, paid editors are often temporary: eventually, either we come to a plausible compromise (and sometimes that 'subtle shift in article focus' is actually warranted, though not generally with the wording that the marketing department suggests), or the payer decides to quit throwing good money after bad.
People who feel aggrieved about something will argue for decades about their pet thing. I know one who is still upset that his mother had to pay inheritance taxes half a century ago. I don't know if he would agree that he's a "messy" human being, but I am convinced that if he were editing Wikipedia, he would not be a "correctable" one.
Perhaps putting it in WP:UPPERCASE will help: Given a choice between a WP:GREATWRONGS editor pushing bad sourcing and a WP:COI editor pushing a subtle shift in emphasis, I'm often going to prefer the COI editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Or we could just have neither editor... Thats clearly the best solution in terms of improving the encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both the tendentious editor and the COI editor who doesn't respect NPOV can be shown the door if they don't change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Don't spoil it HEB. WAID has chosen her beau and I have chosen mine. We shall both go to the dance and have a thoroughly miserable time. Bon courage (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Neither would be lovely. However, for some unaccountable reason, the paperwork to declare me Queen of Everything seems to have gotten lost, and until that's resolved, I don't think it's feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing why both would be any less feasible than one or the other... If both can be done individually then both can be done together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Neither can be done consistently or reliably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
If neither can be done then why is the choice either or? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Because sometimes figuring out whether Bad Thing #1 is better or worse than Bad Thing #2 is helpful to people. It can help people develop perspective and prioritize their efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The effect seems to be to excuse one of the bad things, why can't we just say that both are bad and should result in full or partial seperation from the project and which is badder is up to context and personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
We did say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Then perhaps I do not understand the point you wished to make. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
While I also agree that neither is best if possible, I am also always going to prefer an editor editing in good faith to an editor editing in bad faith. Loki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course, but few people, except blatant vandals, think they are deliberately trying to make Wikipedia worse. A paid agent may think they're making Wikipedia more accurate or fairer. A personal POV pusher may believe they're making Wikipedia better by giving a little more respect for an idea they believe. Even the parents who show up at Talk:Santa Claus every December, to ask that we not "ruin" Christmas by telling their kids that Santa Claus isn't a living, breathing magical person think they're trying to make Wikipedia better.
That's why the rule is Wikipedia:Assume good faith: assume that the other person – no matter how stupid, misguided, or wrong they may actually be – is actually trying to do something that in their opinion will make Wikipedia better. To put it more bluntly, when the white supremacists show up with their racist garbage, we assume that they're trying to make Wikipedia better according to their own way of thinking, even though we don't agree that their garbage actually makes it any better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I think "bad faith" is one of the most misunderstood/misused phrases on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if we re-wrote Wikipedia:Tendentious editing to say "Tendentious editing is a pattern of good-faith editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I think COI editing is so egregious, because it's one of the few kinds of editing that is actually in bad faith. Loki (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar, imagine that someone works for a big company. In the actual marketing department, no less. This person notices that the number of employees in {{infobox company}} is several years out of date. Imagine that the employee corrects the error.
In your opinion, is that employee "trying to hurt Wikipedia" or "trying to help Wikipedia"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You didn't provide the piece of information we would need to know in order to determine that... Their intention. It is most likely that their intention was to promote their company therefore their intention was to hurt wikipedia, but unless you provide that piece of the puzzle the question is (perhaps purposefully) unanswerable in a straight manner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
This: their intention was to promote their company therefore their intention was to hurt wikipedia is a logical fallacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
How so? The use of wikipedia for promotion unambigously hurts wikipedia, thats why we explicitly ban it (WP:PROMO). Anyone who intends to engage in promotion, advertising, or recruitment intends to hurt wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
While I disagree with him on many COI things, I'm behind HEB here. Correcting an error in order to promote an organization that is paying you to promote them is a bad faith edit and harms Wikipedia.
To see why, imagine that article has three estimates in it for number of employees: one that is too low, one that is correct, and one that is too high. The COI editor only corrects the one that is too low despite being aware of all of them. Is that a good faith edit? Loki (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar, see the comment where I've already addressed the biased assumption that more employees is better for a company. (Hint: Layoffs usually result in stock prices going up, not down.)
Also, what if there aren't three estimates? What if it's just one wrong number in an infobox, and the COI editor is merely correcting a simple factual error?
Just because a person with a COI could make an edit that is intended to harm Wikipedia – or, more likely, that is intended to help the company and doesn't care whether Wikipedia is helped or harmed – doesn't mean that every single edit made by that person is inherently harmful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Thats true , but every promotional edit they made would be inherently harmful. They could also make other edits but thats not really the point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

{outdent} Two things:

  • Simply replacing inaccurate or outdated information with accurate, up-to-date information unambiguously helps Wikipedia.
    • "As of 2012, the company had 190 employees" → "As of 2024, the company had 165 employees".
    • "As of 2012, Alice Expert was the CEO" → "As of 2024, Bob Business was the CEO".
  • Correcting a factual error is not inherently promotional.
    • Whether more or fewer employees is better (and therefore potentially promotional) depends on how you interpret that. For example, is having slightly fewer employees a sign of good management leading to greater efficiency and productivity, or is it a sign of a shrinking, struggling company that can barely make payroll?

Have you ever heard of a win–win scenario? On those occasions when what's best for Wikipedia happens to match what's best for the company, then Wikipedia is not actually harmed by the company getting what they want.

There are many circumstances in which what's good for the company is bad for Wikipedia, but there are also circumstances in which what's good for the company is also best for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In re Thats true , but every promotional edit they made would be inherently harmful. They could also make other edits but thats not really the point.
No, that really is the point. Exclusively promotional edits are harmful, no matter who makes them. A good edit made by a Bad™ person is still a good edit. A bad edit made by a Good™ person is still a bad edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
The win-win scenario is when the COI editor makes an edit request like they're supposed to... If they make the edit directly thats a loss for wikipedia. We don't scrub the edits of confirmed COI editors, your argument would only make sense if we did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Break

the editor who spends multiple years pushing to exclude good sources with the 'wrong' POV
I've definitely seen this habit at FTN, and it was one of the impulses for this thread. If FTN has decided their specific understanding of a topic, collectively, is the "correct" one then attempts to address that are often met with accusations of POV-pushing, attempts to introduce FUD for WP:PROFRINGE purposes, etc.
The example raised above is a pretty good one for this. Wikipedia has a hard deliniation between Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, but this hard deliniation doesn't exist in the literature and "panspermia" is regularly and routinely used to refer to what Wikipedia calls "Pseudo-panspermia". Note that this isn't "the scientific literature is actually down with the fringe theory" but rather "the specific terminalogical bifurcation that Wikipedia is using is an artifice of Wikipedia and risks confusing readers who come to Wikipedia on this topic from credible sources."
No amount of academic, primary, secondary, etc. sources that show that "Panspermia" can and is regularly used to refer to it landed with anything other than a wet thud and accusations from some of the FTN core. Even in the Tukdam thread that's on FTN right now there's a "Well we can't consider that credible source" (which is, to be fair, actually arguable on the sourcing, but not cut-and-dry per WP:RS). There seems to be this attitude of absolute certainty that arises from FTN which outpaces the ability of people whose personal expertise is more rooted around fringe theories to evaluate.
See: above with me being accused of not understanding specialist terminology in my own field. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
You asserted, with the "absolute certainty" you are projecting onto others It’s absolutely erroneous to say “panspermia is a fringe theory”. You were shown the sources to show why this was wrong and had to concede "The Science Direct link you provided is certainly evidence that both terms are used". In such cases Wikipedia need to manage the terminology and use hatnotes to guide the reader, and this is what happened. Consensus was achieved and things improved thanks to FTN. Yet here you are rewriting history and somehow it's the fault of "FTN" that you were in a muddle. It's all very odd. Have you considered the problem isn't with FTN at all, but somewhere else? Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If you have an issue with me personally take it to WP:ANI.
Here is the thread which is being very creatively represented above for anyone who'd like to evaluate it for themselves. FTN's "consensus" on this topic was exactly what @WhatamIdoing seemed to be worried about.
This thread just feels like a huge waste of time at this point, and it really didn't have to. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
In fact the thread sprawled to here where the issue was resolved. If I took every editor that was wrong about something to ANI I'd never be out of the place (and would have to take myself there regularly!). I think we can all agree this thread has been a waste of time. It was always going to be since there was no evidence and no proposal. Perhaps this can - for all our sakes - be the last time this particular FTN complaint pony is taken round the park. Bon courage (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I genuinely can't even begin to think of how to respond to this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
No. Religion is ubiquitous in most parts of the world. While many if not most of the various religions of the world hold beliefs that are not provable by science, they are just that beliefs. While all fringe theories could be categorized as beliefs, not all beliefs are fringe theories. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
A religious belief that has no effect on the rest of scholarship is just that. For example, a claim that pure land exists is generally so far removed from physical reality as to be basically just worth documenting as a major belief in Buddhism. However, there are those Buddhists, some of which are more active than others, who claim that there exists a literal Mount Meru that one can actually discover here on Earth. That is a WP:FRINGE theory. jps (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Not all beliefs are fringe... But all "beliefs that are not provable by science" are fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
That's not true. Firstly, it's not true because the policy defines a fringe view as "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", not according to whether the view is provable by science.
Secondly, it's not true because it's goes against common sense. Views in non-scientific fields (e.g., art criticism, history) are never provable by science and can still be classified as mainstream or fringe. It's nonsense to say that since, e.g., fictional characters can't be scientifically proven to exist, then all views about them are fringe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Religious views are never mainstream by definition, no single religion is that large and they don't generally agree on anything. The field of Religious Studies isn't some sort of free for all, even claims which are purely religious can be fringe. The belief that a fictional character was real would be fringe, the mainstream view is that fictional characters are not real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Religious views are certainly "prevailing views", since 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religious views. Those religious views include ideas that are very widely held (e.g., that humans are different from other animals in some important way; that justice and peace are desirable values; that long-term happiness is something people should seek; that there are good ways and bad ways to relate to others). The belief that justice is better than injustice is absolutely "not provable by science", but it's definitely mainstream. Science might help us understand what actions could achieve specific forms of justice, but science (i.e., excluding the quasi-religion of scientism) can't tell is that justice is good.
When considering not just "the prevailing views" but specifically the "mainstream views in its particular field", we prioritize scholarly sources. For example, most of the world believes in ghosts. The scholars in the relevant fields, using the methods of that field don't. Therefore, "ghosts are real" is WP:FRINGE and "ghosts are not real" is mainstream. There is no limitation here about the relevant field needing to be a scientific one.
Also, let's go back to that fictional character. Othello (character) is a fictional character. What was this fictional character's racial/ethnic background intended to be? There are two mainstream views. Neither are provable by science. Neither of them are WP:FRINGE. A view that "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" might say that Othello was Irish, and this would be FRINGE. A view that aligns with the mainstream views in the field might say that Othello was a brown-skinned Muslim from the Mediterranean coast, and this would not be FRINGE. But the relevant fields are literary studies, theatre studies, and history, none of which are science. Each view on that question is declared FRINGE or not FRINGE without any reference whatsoever to whether the view is "provable by science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There's been another exchange on FTN in the last few days that I think really highlights my issues here. A user (@ජපස:) removed the entire section on academic study from the Tukdam article. They removed a link to a UW-Madison research group publishing on this topic using brain scans and other methods. He dismissed their papers out of hand as not being justified in the article with

It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.

Which is obviously not how any of this works. We cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university (not just religious scholars playing with brain scans for fun without any idea what they're doing) and an even passing knowledge of the field of Buddhist Studies will make it very clear that scholar-practitioners are the norm in the field. And this is why FTN should tread cautiously with assuming they know the fields they're editing in. "Well the author is a Buddhist and can't be trusted to write about Buddhism" is not a reasonable take, especially in the context of an academic field that both routinely stands up to outside scrutiny of their scholarship and which is typically rife with people who both practice their faith and publish on it in critical, objective ways.

Why are FTN regulars deciding that the religion of authors is enough to justify the removal of entire sections when we're talking about accepted peer-review publications in Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos? Why are we tolerating the dismissal of credible, non-Bealles-list peer-reviewd sources on the grounds of the religion of the author when there's zero evidence whatseover of wrongdoing that could have implicated the study in question or its authors? Wikipedia is worse for this type of editing, incredulity and personal (ir-)religious philosophy shouldn't be dictating the content of articles.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel it's an important detail here that the results of the studies in question didn't particularly support wild, fantastical conclusions that warrant incredulity. The claim was "Meditating dead monks are still somewhat alive" and the paper's conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." It feels like the religion of the authors is the whole basis for the objection of inclusion here, which is not at all how WP:NPOV and WP:RS work, but on FTN it can. This is, to me, simply open bigotry, which is something I've been expressing some frustration at here.
This is why I disagree with @ActivelyDisinterested that
Neutrally worded notices to noticeboards or projects are not canvassing
When a noticeboard starts having its own interpretation of the sites rules and it operates on those, and does so on obscure parts of Wikipeida that may not have many eyes on it, then yes, the official canvassing policy aside if can very much feel like "I want to bring this issue only to people who have the same interpretation of policy that I do." Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
"I want to bring this issue only to people who have the same interpretation of policy that I do.", so about (insert project name here)... -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
At this point it would appear to be you who holds heterodox interpretations of policy... Not the guys you keep ranting about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Based on community action earlier this year, Warrenmck is not the one with the heterodox interpretation. A thread at ANI a few months ago ended in a topic ban for a user who was rejecting citations to academically published material about Islam merely on the grounds that the academics were Muslims. Excluding content cited to academically published material about Buddhism merely because the academics were also Buddhists is the behavior and interpretation that's out of step with the community. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I genuinely feel a little crazy with these exchanges here. Between this and the discussion above about how all religions are totally fringe I feel like some of FTN isn't engaging with, well, WP:FRINGE in good faith when it comes to topics of religion, which can result in article quality being reduced, which isn't what any of us want from noticeboards.
It's pretty clear that, while maybe not a huge systemic thing, several editors are using FTN to grind a particular axe. The is probably where things like attacking a credible scholar on the basis of their faith without any evidence whatsoever of impropriety comes from as far as I can tell, because it's certainly not coming from WP:FRINGE or WP:RS. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Over the years, I have rejected a variety of publications about Isra' and Mi'raj on the basis of the apologetics of the author. The fact that academics who are arguing in favor of the literal truth of that story are Islamic is absolutely relevant. It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. Not any that would pass WP:REDFLAG certainly. The article text just linked to their research group and press releases! The fact that this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation while claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead is WP:BOLLOCKS influenced by a blinkered religious devotion. It's the equivalent of Young Earth Creationism or Hindu astrology. jps (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
claiming that Buddhists who are good at meditating continue to meditate after they are dead: Except that apparently isn't what the source claimed, or at least it isn't what was in the article text. The article text that you twice removed (wholesale, with no attempt at just trimming) stated that the study did not detect any brain activity in clinically dead tukdam (italics added). As Warrenmck said that the conclusion was "He's dead, Jim." What's so 'bollocks' about that? And what's so un-solid about the source, a research center at a secular state university (University of Wisconsin-Madison)? You pay no apparent notice to the secular university setting of the source nor to the utterly plausible results of the research (that no, there is no detectable brain activity from the dead monks); all you offer is your apparent revulsion that the researcher was a Buddhist. It's frankly bigotry, and the way you let it influence your editing is disruptive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The suggestion that jps has any "apparent revulsion" is unwarranted here. Are we reading the same source? This one appears problematic to me, and the article content being sourced to it should not have relied on such a source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that section should definitely be trimmed but obviously not removed. It's a real and secular study that didn't find anything WP:EXTRAORDINARY, so saying that it existed and didn't find any brain activity ought to be utterly uncontroversial. Loki (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The EEG on a corpse was hardly the only thing they claimed to "test". The entire enterprise is an ideological juggernaut that includes things like asking the asinine question as to whether the corpses decay at different rates depending on their status as meditators -- claims which are so ridiculous as to be nearly impossible to operationalize. The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that. The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. jps (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The lack of serious peer-reviewed work in serious journals on this attests to that.
From the research group you removed from the article as a "shit" source:
it certainly looks like It is also the case that the research program Warren is whining about did not result in any solid publications. may have been a bit off the mark? Thanks for accusing me of "whining" though.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
C'mon. I see a list that includes predatory and pocket journals, FrotiersIn, MDPI, and moribund backdoors to avoid peer review by competent scholars. And you were already warned at WP:FTN about promoting Frontiers as a potential WP:RS. These are terrible sources for claims about corpses decaying. This is basically WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Or not. Frontiers in Psychology is a highly rated journal.[7] Their WP:Impact factor is more than twice the average for the field. Beall's List said that "Some of their journals have a very poor peer-review; some are fine." WP:CITEWATCH says that these journals should be evaluated "case by case", which is significantly different from "anything and everything from MDPI is a terrible source" or "anything in MDPI is basically PROFRINGE". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Here's the whole list:
  • Forensic Science International is a mid-tier journal, ranked 46th percentile in Scopus.[8]
  • Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry is ranked 90th percentile by Scopus[9] and is indexed by MEDLINE.[10] Their impact factor is high for "culture" and low for "psychiatry".
  • Ethnos is rated 93rd percentile[11] and has an impact factor a bit above average for anthropology.
  • Religions is rated 90th percentile[12] with an impact factor that would be typical for sociology (I don't have numbers for religious studies specifically).
  • Frontiers in Psychology is ranked at the 78th percentile[13] and has an impact factor that's double the typical level for psychology.
I'm not seeing serious problems here. None of these journals are remove-on-sight predatory journals. Some of them are quite respectable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Would you rate any of these journals highly for the evaluation of medical conditions or slowing decay? jps (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
A review article in Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry would tick all the boxes for the WP:MEDRS ideal: MEDLINE listed, reputable publisher, good metrics. Dhat syndrome would probably be improved by using their PMID 39136849. Wandering (dementia) would probably be improve by incorporating the POV presented in PMID 29368117. PMID 27142641 looks like it could be useful in Chronic condition or Terminal illness or even Spoon theory, as it presents the process of developing realistic expectations as being a form of healing/healthcare.
I would accept a recent review article, within the usual scope of their field, from any of these journals. I wonder if the problem here is less about the source and more about what the source is being used for. For example, the 1991(!) Cult Med Psy article might be more useful for "Some people have a different concept of death than modern medicine!" than for "It is a definite fact that even though his heart stopped beating last week and he hasn't moved or breathed since then, he's still alive". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I can definitely get behind an argument that we need to look at what sources are used for. My main interest is preventing some sort of WP:PROFRINGE of the empirical claims associated with Tukdam. There is obvious interest in these subjects from a cultural studies, anthropological, sociological, and comparative religious perspective. The issue I have always had with this particular research group is the attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience, physiology, and even quantum physics(!). There is some shoehorning that I see by the group itself and even more that got laundered into previous versions of our own article text. jps (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Before I listed Tukdam at WP:FTN, it had been discussed at WT:DYK[14] and transcluded onto the talk page from Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam. Two editors other than myself had supported the removal of the "Scientific research" section. The primary author of the article restored it.[15] Above, it was mentioned that FTN discussions should be linked from relevant notice boards. Issues about Tukdam had already been raised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism weeks before hand.[16] I've added links to both this discussion and the one at FTN just now.[17] If I noticed a problem (a faith-based belief being misrepresented as an evidence-based hypothesis), but I "didn't grasp the language" used by a specialized field, I think posting to a relevant notice board was the correct thing to do. Despite conflicts, do you think that the changes made since the issue was raised improve or worsen the article, Warrenmck? Rjjiii (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I think most of the changes made so far have been good, and was quick myself to question Tricycle as a source being... not great in the context of that article. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on an editorial decision being presented as based on the faith of the author. An identical conclusion could have been arrived at in any other way, but it's not on me or other editors to discern if just open bigotry is actually masking an in-depth discussion which warrants consideration. If those points exist, then editors should cite them and not the religion of a given academic.
Even if I wholly agreed with every change made (which for the most part, minus the removal of the scientific studies section which I'm still unclear why you and others are calling for its removal, we do agree on) nothing would change in that lines like
It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers.
shouldn't be happening here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
You're not going to stop my evaluations of religious nonsense by posting to village pump. I'm allowed to make judgement calls in the cause of protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims. jps (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @Warrenmck here. Wikipedia isn't pro- or anti-anything, except pro-verifiability and neutrality. Everyone is allowed to make judgement calls within Wiki rules and consensus (which terms as hyperbolic and farcical do not imply). It's also worth examining what is actually notable about these beliefs; that they exist among a community, or that it wouldn't pass peer-review? A majority of the time with any movement/philosophy (religious or other), it's the former. We could do this about almost anything, like Jesus' resurrection or optimism/pessimism. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that often you want to say something like "Some of these people believe ____". Sometimes an article needs to say "____ is not factually true" (e.g., List of common misconceptions). And I would add a third category: "____ was sensationally claimed in the news/has become a common stereotype in popular culture/was a widespread internet meme in YYYY". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
In this case, the imprimatur of a "research group" was being laundered as a way to claim that there was "serious investigation" into whether or not meditating champions would be able to continue meditating after death and thereby prevent their corpses from decaying. This is pretty WP:BLUESKY nonsense. I do not see how it is at all defensible. jps (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
You again removed the section in question, with the edit comment of
Get better sources if you think there is anything here. These sources are shit.
There's a content dispute here, but also a fundamental behaviour and WP:OWN issue. At no level is how you're engaging with this appropriate. It feels like you have far more of an issue with the fact that the research group exists at all, rather than any substantive issue with their findings. UW Madison and their research group focused on this are credible, and they've published their results in journals like Forensic Science International: Reports, Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, and Ethnos. They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Ideologically driven editing has no place here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
If we're turning this into a conduct discussion forum, I'd say the bigger problem is that you're supporting poor content based on a poor source. I don't think of this as being a common issue with your work, and my good-faith guess is that maybe your involvement in this conduct dispute is putting up some content blinkers. You've repeatedly restored, for example, a wiki-voice claim that a named individual "remained in tukdam for 13 days". That's obviously not appropriate. If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no strong opinions on the exact verbiage of the section before you changed it a lot recently. I have strong objections to the removal of the entire section on absurd grounds that the source isn't good. Not once have you actually raised a specific concern with the source other than what amounts to "C'mon, look at it" which several of us have and have seen no particular issue with.
If there's a systemic problem at FTN, can we pick cleaner examples?
I frankly think the issues around the sources being rejected due to what appears to just be personal incredulity is pretty much is the cleanest possible example, here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
This "personal incredulity" mind-reading gambit is tough to take in good faith. WP:REDFLAG is part of WP:V, one of our core policies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, while I also don't think that line is worth including:
a) I think the idea that a whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line is obviously absurd.
b) The source in question I also agree seems fine. Notably it does not endorse that line.
Like a lot of FTN content disputes I'm not entirely sure why it's even happening. It feels like the "skeptic" side, huge airquotes, has dug their heels into an aesthetic commitment so hard they haven't even actually bothered to look at the source. Loki (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The source explicitly endorses that line, saying "Ling Rinpoche remained in the state for 13 days, exhibiting a fresh life-like appearance in the humid subtropical climate of Dharamsala until the thirteenth day when initial decompositional signs appeared." In context, "the state" unambiguously refers to the tukdam state. As for "whole long section should be blanked because of one bad line": what a weird and untrue guess at the motivation for the removal. Which edit summary hinted at anything of the sort? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that sentence would benefit from a re-write. For example, consider "This study began in 1995 after a discussion between neuroscientist Richard Davidson and the Dalai Lama about the meditative death of Kyabje Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body did not show visible signs of decomposition until then." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I would go even further with who was said to have remained in tukdam for 13 days because his body was said by monks and other believers to have not shown did not show visible signs of decomposition until then. jps (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Does the source make that claim, or is that your editorialization? Because when I glanced through it I didn’t see the bifurcation in claims you’re making. I can imagine a whole bunch of environmental variables factoring in but you seem very hung up on a form split between what the source says and what you personally deem credible, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask editors to filter papers through your personal incredulity as a standard before editing.
It’s not like the implication in any of these papers is “a specific theology is true!” and in your race to editorialize you’re possibly inventing caveats and conclusions not in the papers in question.
I have zero problem with your suggested edit if that’s actually backed up by the sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The source begins the narrative with the phrase 'The Dalai Lama described' and follows that description for a while, so jps's paraphrase would seem to be a fair summary and not editorialization. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
About They are a perfectly acceptable secondary source: Journals aren't primary/secondary/tertiary sources per se; they're publications in which multiple individual primary/secondary/tertiary sources are published.
All first-time reports of scientific research are primary sources for the results of that research. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good. An article that provides comments on the research would be a secondary source, even if those comments say something like "Look at this huge waste of research money" or "All the experts we contacted thought this was a huge joke" or "Here's more proof that peer review doesn't indicate importance, and journal editors aren't immune to clickbait fodder", and even if that commentary is in a popular/non-academic publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I echo you in emphasizing that a single research paper is a primary source -- if there's no other research coming out, then I'd be very cautious about mentioning such a paper at all or its conclusions (and especially not summarize them more than they choose to summarize themselves in their own abstract and conclusions sections).
U:jps had an odd comment about the credibility of the UWisc group (with sentiment echoed by others) that included The attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever into whether there might be measurable signs of this religious belief is belied by the fact that WP:FRIND sources are totally absent discussing this. This seems odd in that one of the issues of wp:Parity is the relative lack of typical RS that challenge fringe claims; so here a typical RS is critically assessing fringe Tukdam claims, yet therefore this becomes in itself a reason for prejudice against the RS's reliability?
I don't see that objective scientific inquiry needs to be defended (even if the investigator has personal biases, which we all do). Nonetheless, as the EEG paper outlines (as have a couple more I've seen investigating similar stuff), investigating this sort of thing raises all sorts of interesting methodological questions in several fields. Usually the conclusions of these sorts of papers is not the most important part. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the evaluation of a claim should be contextual and methodological, absolutely, and that's also why the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me. To take another example, there are a number of null-result papers published in Journal of Scientific Exploration that would otherwise be used to prove certain wacky ideas "taken seriously" which, y'know, isn't true because even those WP:BLUESKY conclusions don't receive notice. To behave otherwise risks us becoming cherry-pickers. I take WP:REDFLAG to be my lodestar. The idea is that you want multiple serious, independent relevant researchers arguing there is a there there before Wikipedia should be going on and on about that kind of "they take us seriously argument".
Shroudies are another good example of this. The amount of ink spilled about what is obviously a medieval forgery is absurd, but the faithful will point to the ludicrous number of "investigations" that start from square one and apply yet another test to the thing as evidence that science takes them seriously. It doesn't.
jps (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I feel that this reaction is a degree of defensiveness that is not compatible with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia goes by the sources and not whether the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously by the scientific establishment. Like, the thing you are describing is just not a thing that Wikipedia can or should consider at all. Loki (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
We are tasked with deciding whether a source is reliable for the claim it is making. If there are few to no citations that notice a WP:PRIMARY source, we typically do not lean heavily on it. jps (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Kind of feeling like what you are describing is WP:RGW. PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure who this is directed towards, but I think this is something of an inversion of my point. The "righting of great wrongs" is typically what I see being pushed by those who are arguing, "hey, this WP:FRINGE idea deserves more consideration." jps (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
It was a reply to Loki, the outdents make it kind of tricky. Sorry about that. PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Pack's comment sounds fair to me. We see editors in some areas trying to make sure that readers are "protected from" certain ideas. We're happy to invoke NOTCENSORED for (e.g.) sexual content, or whether Santa Claus exists, but we are less inclined to expose readers to POVs that we don't agree with and that we believe should be considered a "scientific fact/falsehood".
In such cases, saying "This idea exists" is interpreted by editors as "This idea deserves more consideration". In this case, you can look at the facts and come up with several responses: "Huh, those people think meditation happens in the heart, so it was stupid of them to test the brain". Or "Look at the stupid research ideas people spend money on". Or "I wonder why they tried to apply medical technology to their spiritual practice". But the worry from the RGW-ish editors is that somebody might read it and say "Wow, finding out whether dead bodies can still meditate must be a worthy scientific endeavor instead of a candidate for the BMJ's Christmas edition. I believe in science, so now I believe in meditation after death!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not as concerned with reader reaction as I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here. I am hoping to evaluate the worthiness of article text on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. I argue that the proper amount to include for many claims that strain credulity on the basis of a WP:Notability vs. prominence basis is zero. jps (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I am with the possibility that Wikipedia functions a role in laundering claims that there is scientific endeavor found here
There very clearly is, though. This isn't the only neuroscience group doing work with Buddhist monks, and that doesn't mean that the researchers involved in those research groups are making, laundering, or even agreeing with any theological claims. This isn't a particularly unknown thing among neuroscientists as far as I know, and it speaks a lot more to "interesting brains" than validating any kind of theology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you might want to go down the hall and knock on the doors of a few neuroscientists and ask what if they have heard about performing EEGs on corpses on the basis of tukdam and whether there is a legitimate research question to answer by doing so. I'll do the same. Then we can report back. jps (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
My issue is following the logic. You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. (Various reasons for this -- but even those who consider fringe theories in themselves worth their time may decide ignoring them is a good strategy; others feel they should be positively debunked; afaik there is not an objectively "correct" position given basically identical goals.) That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory. Whether you feel that, ethically or whatever, any scientists should investigate fringe theories ever, is your own thing, but it has and will occasionally happen, and scientists will do it in a certain way, and I don't know how you would expect it to be done differently. And without those occasional RS, the only source of parity (or parody) on fringe topics is from snarky self-qualified skeptic bloggers. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, exactly this. We're obligated to use the WP:BESTSOURCES on a topic, and clearly a study saying "he's dead Jim" is a stronger source than a science blogger snarkily conjecturing "he's dead Jim", regardless of what you feel about the beliefs of the people who did the study or if it was worthwhile to do it in the first place. Loki (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Just as an aside, remembering one particularly well-written informal review, Andrade and Radhakrishnan 2009 made a point that there are very good theological and philosophical reasons for rejecting or debunking claims of empirically-testable spiritual intervention on Earth. (Indeed, once the spiritual becomes scientifically empirical, it by definition is no longer spiritual.) A number of religious authorities have learned this lesson, as have religious scientists. A faithful Buddhist may (or may not) have every reason than any skeptic to want to see the empirical claims of Tukdam disproven. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Do I want to have an article on a fringe topic? I'm not sure I do? jps (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I do. I think that providing facts (including facts about opinions, spiritual beliefs, perspectives, and errors) is an important service to the world. I do not subscribe to the belief that all publicity is good publicity or that describing the wide diversity of people's beliefs is promoting fringe subjects. I also don't believe that it's Wikipedia's job decide which beliefs are worthy of being learned about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I think we are at slight differences of opinions about where we draw the line for WP:NFRINGE. I am just less of an inclusionist and like to be dragged kicking and screaming over the line to articlespace presentation. jps (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
What's even more odd to me in this whole mess of a discussion is that a lot of the research motivations are clearly independent of the religious or fringe-adjascent claims; it's just a desire for more data on the state of the brain at the moments around death. Couple that with a population eager to probe that specific thing and you have a basis for a fairly ethical approach to a very sticky study subject. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not at all convinced that these are the motivations, but I also don't think the motivations ultimately matter. What does matter is the lack of third-party notice. jps (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
It feels like the goalposts keep moving. We can't say this; there's no scientific research. Oh, there's scientific research, but we still can't say this, because we need someone to comment on the research. Oh, there was a television program commenting directly on the research? Well, we still can't say it, because the television program isn't truly independent. Oh, now you've got an article in a reputable daily newspaper analyzing the television program's analysis of the scientific research and that doesn't appear to be written by someone with any personal connections to this subject and which also didn't interview anyone even remotely involved in this? Well, that still won't do, because, um, I'll think of something, but a self-self-published website like Quackwatch would be infinitely preferable to whatever sources actually exist.
This is the sort of thing that makes people wonder whether the ultimate test is "Does the source agree with my personal POV?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
What is the TV program commenting on the research? jps (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
A documentary called Tukdam: Point of Death, apparently. The newspaper describes it as "The strangest programme of this week — or of any week for a long time" and provided some analytical commentary (e.g., comparisons to the popular Christian tradition of ascribing saintly values to physical Incorruptibility). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I have been trying to watch this documentary, but have failed. Maybe because it only appeared on Irish TV? Unclear. If you know how I can watch it, I would be grateful. jps (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I haven't attempted to watch the documentary. I think the newspaper article provides enough information about it to give me an idea of its contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
It is definitely true that one of the biggest complaints of WP:PROFRINGE is that Wikipedians dismiss their proposed sourcing as unreliable. To wit, I don't think I've seen much in the way of reliable sourcing that post-death brain activity is a hot topic except among those religious believers who, as part of their faith, believe that this is a possibility. jps (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Reliability isn't about whether it's "a hot topic". Reliability is whether we trust (aka are willing to "rely on") a source for a given statement. Whether something's a hot topic is a matter for NPOV rather than reliability.
We see this all the time in medical topics. A loussy primary source actually is reliable for a statement like "In YYYY, one study found that pouring gasoline on cancer cells reliably killed them". The problem is that the space in an article should be focused on less stupid forms of cancer research (because even if Wikipedia has an infinite supply of pixels, reader attention does not have a correspondingly infinite number of minutes to spend on reading the article). In this case, if you put "tukdam" into your favorite news search engine, basically all the sources are trying to explain whether it can be proven to exist via modern technology. Ergo it is DUE for the article mention something about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the model of "putting tukdam in your favorite search engine" to test for whether a perspective on a topic deserves inclusion is valid. I think WP:FRIND asks us to consider broader impacts. jps (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure: You should put "tukdam" in your favorite search engine and see which independent sources you can find. If your favorite search engine happens to be news.google.com, you should find a couple dozen sources that were not written by any of the authors of the EEG study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Here is all that I find when I do that:
  • Big Think starts out with "It’s definitely happening, and it’s definitely weird. After the apparent death of some monks, their bodies remain in a meditating position without decaying for an extraordinary length of time, often as long as two or three weeks." [18]
  • The only other article is from mindmatters.ai which is a publication by the Discovery Institute(!) I beg your forgiveness that I stop right there.
So one article that starts out pretty miserably is all that I'm seeing, but maybe you're getting better results than I.
jps (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Back to the core concern

So it feels like, unintentionally, the exact situation I’m griping about has played out at full volume here. A subset of FTN regulars has shown up first attempting to shut down any discussion (I can’t help but notice I’ve been told I’ve been “warned” for citing a source someone here didn’t like, and told I’m being WP:PROFRINGE for the same) and refusing to avoid strawmanning, expounded on personal extra-policy values of “not accidentally giving a topic credibility” when the entire argument around that is something failing a vibe check (rather than anything to do with WP:RS) and in general just engaging in WP:RGW behaviour.

The editorial standards several users here advocate for are patently absurd. We are not qualified to evaluate if peer-reviewed publications have subtle implicit biases that poison the data in a way that the referees, with their actual qualifications, at various journals weren’t able to spot. We are being told that any scientific investigation into religious claims must be treated as fringe, even when the results are exactly what would be expected and make no extraordinary claims. We are meant to take it on face value that this entire endeavour is an attempt to legitimize a religion using science, and we must ignore specific and reasonable claims as to why scientists might actually be interested in this and must instead condemn academics for even daring to look at this.

This isn’t policy, this isn’t how Wikipedia works, and this is actively worsening articles. Editors in here have made it abundantly clear that they’re explicitly and openly not engaging with these topics in good faith, which goes back to my entire point posting this here where active derision of topics relating to religions seems to be the only acceptable approach to much of FTN. Given that this has come up with multiple editors, it does seem like there’s possibly a culture problem at FTN that warrants addressing and possibly greater oversight.

I’ve seen this come up time and time again when the actual understanding of a topic differs from the popular understanding of FTN. We saw it at panspermia, where a segment of FTN decided that plain as day sources right in front of them were secondary to their personal understanding of a topic. We’ve seen it at the Cunning folk and Mormonism thread, where editors viewed “cunning folk” as an attempt to whitewash magic and no amount of “this is the term used in academia” seemed to counter those laundering concerns. We see it here again, where the personal incredulity of editors who cannot begin to believe that neuroscientists may have a secular, academic interest in a specific type of brain activity. I can’t help but notice how much of the arguments here hinge on “this research group is taking something seriously that they shouldn’t be” without a single actual substantive argument to back that up. We’re being expected to take those arguments as serious and meaningful when they’re merely an opinion of an editor. In all cases WP:RS instantly caves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is made pretty explicitly with

Do I want to have an article on a fringe topic? I'm not sure I do?

This isn’t improving Wikipedia. It’s making certain topics a nightmare to edit on because as it stands FTN cannot be wrong and FTN users are never wrong in their understanding of fringe. Evidence of a misunderstand is always just another WP:PROFRINGE user trying to concern-troll away good articles with PROFRINGE content and anyone who disagrees is, well, see the first large reply this post elicited.

This is, frankly, exhausting. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To me, it seems pretty arrogant to declare that a slightly contrary WikiPhilosophy of your fellow Wikipedians "isn't improving Wikipedia". This is the kind of rhetoric I see in radical inclusionist spaces often, and it strikes me as inflammatory at best and toxic at worst, which feels like a bit of WP:KETTLE irony considering your complaint is largely that you (or those who follow closer to your editing philosophy) are feeling put upon. I should hope that people advocate for approaches because they think they are right. Differences of opinion are likely to occur, and the solution doesn't have to be thesis/antithesis. If you think that you aren't being heard, then maybe consider the massive length of this discussion. jps (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I think 90% of this is just common content dispute, with the added complication that Warren keeps describing the policy-based objections to his proposed content as IDONTLIKEIT or "merely an opinion" or lacking in substance. That's pretty typical as well, though it is exhausting. If our goal is to get back to the core concern, which I understand to be allegations of a systemic conduct problem at FTN, I'd suggest that identifying examples where Warren isn't personally part of the dispute might get us some distance from the common content disputes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
the policy-based objections to his proposed content—When the purportedly policy-based objection in a particular case was 'the sources were created by Buddhists' and ignores all other context (that the research was conducted through a research center at a secular university, that the reported result was the rather normal 'the dead monk is dead'), and when the general concern is said to be with patterns of objections that on examination boil down to 'the source/author can be connected to religion', I am hard-pressed to see the substance or policy basis of the objection. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
You read all the edit summaries and discussion here and at the talk page, and you found them all to say "created by Buddhists"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Edit summaries at Tukdam don't seem to haven't gotten much beyond claims like "get better sources" and "This is all WP:FRINGE nonsense claims. Unless non-believers find it worthy of notice, it is not worthy" (the nonsense claim that dead brains don't give off brain activity?). And in this discussion, comments like describing the author as "this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation" and must therefore be unsuitably "influenced by a blinkered religious devotion", or saying that he (JPS) is protecting the encyclopedia from hyperbolic and farcical religious claims (the unblinkered, religiously devoted act of saying that... dead brains gave off no brain activity?) For where JPS hasn't hammered at the religious connections of an author, I think Loki has described the situation well in saying JPS seems to say that the existence of the sources will cause someone somewhere to believe that they are being taken seriously and that this, somehow, makes the sources unusable for our purposes on Wikipedia. To quote another editor from a recent discussion, JPS continues to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary; the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel becomes a reason to consider the whole enterprise, seculary university and all, as untrustworthy, and this despite our community having a guideline that reminds us that a reliable source can be biased; we just try not to reproduce the bias.
Add to that the expressions of pride in being uncooperative with other editors (preferring "to be dragged kicking and screaming", professing to "enjoy having arguments", and taking on a brusque, short tone that doesn't strike me as treating other editors as respected colleagues rather than as ideological enemies), an attitude of behavior that's explicitly contrary to Wikipedia's expectation that we be reasonably cooperative, and Warrenmck's exhaustion seems pretty understandable. All this time and energy gets put into trying to assuage JPS's concern (except JPS is not interested in being assuaged; JPS explicitly would apparently rather have arguments and be dragged kicking and screaming) instead of getting put into doing as Loki brought up: trimming the content to be its best and most relevant, neutral version. Instead, by repeatedly pushing total exclusion of even the notion that anyone checked for brain activity (and found none!), we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
the source's tone being more generous to Buddhism than an individual Wikipedia editor might feel
It’s worth pointing out this sort of conciliatory tone is pretty common when working with minority ethnic/faith groups. It’s a bad look for researchers to get permission to study a topic within a minority community and turn around and (from the perspective of the community you’re working in) insulting them. “Yeah, their religious belief is wrong” isn’t exactly a shining example of research ethics.
Also I can think of at least one good research paper in geosciences which studied the mythology of Native Hawaiians to fascinating effect. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general. Researchers tend not only to take a neutral tone, but I've often seen that if they're in a paper that's going to objectively demonstrate not-X, they will take a tone that is generous and often deferent to the position of X (among other reasons to indicate that they investigated any alternative hypotheses). (My favorite example of this is from papers on dog and cat cognition, which the authors typically introduce with something along the lines of 'It is scientifically obvious that cats are reproduction machines motivated solely by food, with never any objective evidence of emotion', and the paper proceeds to prove that cats do love their owners. 'Further research is recommended.') SamuelRiv (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
More like the conciliatory tone is pretty common for researchers in general
oh, for sure. Just when it comes to minority groups, especially those who have faced substantial hardship, that tone goes into overdrive. When it comes to scientific investigations of spiritual practices, especially when done in cooperation with monastic/preistly/ordained communities it’s best not to make them feel that working with you is directly undermining their own faith/beliefs/identity (etc.) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 03:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Calling for better sources and reverting because content violates FRINGE are both good moves. The sourcing was poor, and FRINGE was being violated. JPS clearly articulated at the FTN discussion and at the talk page at least one way in which the content violated FRINGE, and it had nothing to do with anyone being a believer. Warren reverted to restore the content saying that JPS's reason was just "not liking the research group". I raised REDFLAG concerns, which Warren dismissed as "personal incredulity". I'm not saying anyone's conduct here was perfect, but I have an extremely difficult time seeing W's action as clearing the "reasonably cooperative" bar you mention. Incidentally, "we instead remain in the Discuss portion of the suggested WP:BRD cycle" isn't true for the "checked for brain activity (and found none!)" part of the disputed content. It's been sitting in the article for a few days now with at least rough talk page consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
My current opinion is that WP:Fringe itself may be better placed as an explanatory essay, with original P&G sections woven back into their core P&G: Parity under NPOV/DUE, NFringe under Notability, etc.. The role of FTN is overlapped by existing noticeboards, which handle fringe theories and editors regularly without much issue. As a cultural matter, it may be that the referral of editors to FTN, the labelling of their content as "fringe" as opposed to a violation of general policy, itself invites the long often-heated content debates that seem to most often characterize the board.
Closing a noticeboard is a big step, (as would be rearranging a P&G page, but that's the lesser one), and I'd like to spend more time watching there before making a definitive judgement on my own part, but I do see the problems identified, and this is a possible way to try to address them. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if closing FTN would actually help. When a group of editors feels like their interests are served by working together, then it's pretty difficult to get them to stop. We could close FTN and discover that Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism becomes a lot busier, or that coordination is happening off wiki.
It might be nice to encourage the FTN regulars to put NPOVN on their watchlists, though. NPOVN can always benefit from a few extra eyes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
At that point it would be an ARBCOM case and possibly get them separated from fringe topics in general. PackMecEng (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a good outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
What I find strange is that this stems from the Tukdam article saying in wikivoice that individuals where still alive after they had died. No-one should be disrespecting religious beliefs, but the context for such things should be that they are beliefs.
If editors have been making uncivil or disrespectful remarks that should be rectified, editors shouldn't interject their own opinions on other people's beliefs it's not helpful or constructive. Equally editors shouldn't be stating beliefs as if they were factually true. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, at no point have I objected to removing that line. The only thing I objected to was a total section blanking. Me undoing the blanking wasn't a tacit endorsement of the whole text that was there before and I agree that religious beliefs shouldn't be presented in wikivoice and that line was inappropriate there. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Editors restoring content are endorsing it, by restoring it you are taking responsibility for it. Any section with that in was inappropriate, if it had been restored after improvements that would have been another matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I reverted a section blanking and immediately took it to the talk page as clearly it was contentious. That's not out of line. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
True but by reverting it you were taking responsibility for it, removing text isn't something that necessary needs reverting while consensus is found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
No. The section was blanked with "removing WP:FRINGE claims" as the sole edit comment. It is very clear that the entire section isn't just fringe claims and it's very clear that the user in question who blanked it has a significant ideological axe to grind they seem unable to leave out of their editing. Here's the diff. Considering how very blatant the bigotry motivating these edits has been, a revert and the comment on the talk page was appropriate. Re-reading this to pull the diff I actually think an ANI would have been appropriate a while ago for some of the open bigotry and how absurd the WP:OWN situation has gotten but by now I think it'd just be rehashing this argument and go nowhere. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree that ANI would not be a desirable forum right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I still think it may be warranted, but I’m holding off. We have here two issues:
1) a possible systemic issue with FTN and religious topics
2) an editor who is openly editing with prejudice as a base, flinging around accusations, and inventing new site policies to get their way in a content dispute
at this point this whole thing feels… weird. One editor is blanking sections they ideologically disagree with, attacking a source for the source’s religion which has nothing to do with the results, going around “warning” editors for citing sources they don’t like, and just moving goalposts over and over to create a specific interpretation of policy that by all appearances is designed to arrive at a specific foregone conclusion.
But the discussion has become “Why didn’t you remove that one line when you restored the article? You restored bad faith page blanking so now you’re responsible for it.” and broader discussions around the article. The problem is so much time has been spent discussing the behaviour of one (or two, to include me in fairness) editors that the entire point has either been lost or poisoned, because whatever issue with FTN I was bringing up here never got to this extreme with “no they’ve got religion so we can’t trust them” as a basis for editing that people mostly just seem fine glossing over?
If I’m the wrong here I’ll own up to it, but “I don’t see a reliable source for the claim that there’s academic interest in this topic” in response to a research group and a half dozen peer reviewed papers is cut and dry not engaging in good faith. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I am mystified how you think it is a problem to WP:REDFLAG claims that people meditate after they are dead. jps (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that other editors are mystified how you think it is a problem to say that these REDFLAG claims have been debunked. Compare:
  • Homeopathy repeatedly says there's scientific evidence against it.
  • Hoxsey Therapy says there's scientific evidence against it.
  • Faith healing says there's scientific evidence against it.
  • But Tukdam – Whoa, we can't say there's scientific evidence against that. That might make people think this religious belief was a valid subject of scientific inquiry!
I know you support the first three. What's so wildly different about someone claiming that a special person can channel divine powers vs someone claiming that an equally special person can meditate after their physical death? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
One very small part of what jps removed was about scientific evidence against tukdam, sort of. That brief bit was outweighed by caveats about the research barriers, wikivoice claims that tukdam is real, and promotional content about the research team. The article is better off now that we briefly summarize a published study, but removing the problematic content was an incremental improvement over the status quo ante. Any supporter of the good bits of the content could have partially restored the good bits, just as jps could have partially removed the bad bits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know about that.  Comments from jps say all of this content is an attempt to argue that there is any legitimate research interest whatsoever and an attempt to claim there is legitimate research interest in Tukdam within the context of neuroscience.  He objects to providing information that someone could use as a "they take us seriously argument".  He does not want Wikipedia to say anything that supports any claims that there is scientific endeavor found here.  He does not believe that there is a legitimate research question to answer, so he does not want Wikipedia to report that people have done the research.  He opposes having Wikipedia acknowledge the verifiable fact that these studies were done, regardless of their outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
The disputed content started with "Western scientific interest has grown", cited to the self-published website of the research group in question, so many of those concerns are well-founded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It was my impression that except in the case of violations of copyright or BLP, leaving a page in the status quo ante state is considered reasonable during content disputes. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 to merging WP:FTN with WP:NPOVN and WP:FRINGE with WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point I think it's not a bad call, and I'm a regular at FTN. There's too much of a power user concern, and it either needs to not be a full on noticeboard or it needs to be diluted with people who share a goal of improving wikipedia and addressing WP:NPOV concerns but who can do so without a personal religious views very explicitly dictating their editing. Its function is better served as a noticeboard but the commitment to Wikipedia policies is not as strict as it should be for a noticeboard. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
FTN is primarily concerned with Pseudo-scholarship rather than religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
But what's being done here is exclusively slandering scholarship as pseudo-scholarship, purely on the basis of the topic and the faith of the author, despite results which are 0% unexpected or WP:PROFRINGE. @SamuelRiv summarized how I see this whole situation best:
You want to have an article about a fringe topic. By its nature, fringe theories tend not to have quality independent RS that debunk them. [...] That said, when such an independent RS comes about, you suggest the RS is unreliable for the sole fact that it investigates a fringe theory.
I think they're meant to be concerned with Pseudo-scholarship, but what we're seeing here is a: at times a majority of FTN is about religious pages and b: FTN is inventing their own conception of pseudo-scholarship and declaring perfectly reasonable academics guilty of it.
See also: the whole panspermia thing
I think there's a lot of "FTN is ____" in here which is a nice ideal but doesn't actually pan out to the experience of FTN. Note I'm not calling for getting rid of it, I just think that FTN by its very nature attracts people who are more on the militant side of skeptic in a way that gets disruptive. I've left it pretty well alone but scroll up and look at the "warning" I received for citing Frontier, then go look at FTN at the context of the "warning" I received coupled with how many times here I've been accused of being WP:PROFRINGE for not damnatio memoriae-ing a peer-reviewed source and tell me if this behaviour is compatible with the norms of Wikipedia or building a better encyclopedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Warrenmck, i can't help but recall this thread from more than a year ago. I could not care less whether otherkin are viewed as a religion or not, but am just hanging out to find sources for a hard-working group who make a positive impact on the project. If you are at such a hair trigger and on such a mission to get others to conform to your worldview then no wonder you are finding it "exhausting".
Looking at some of the threads you've pointed to i would probably agree that Stapley shouldn't be dismissed so readily and to take a closer look at the content. But i would probably say that content does not justify keeping the current title and it should probably move to 'folk magic' or similar. I disagree with "the regulars" at FTN sometimes, no big deal.
As far as getting Egon Spengler and his UW Madison group's research into the article, well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious. A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis. Maybe try something different because that tactic is one seen probably 2-3 times a day by "the regulars". I shudder to think what some of the content would look like if there wasn't opposition to that view. The test here for such speculative (admittedly so in the papers) is whether or not other researchers take notice. That's pretty objective and from what i've seen mostly applied across the board on a wide variety of topics by "the regulars", but of course no one gets everything right all the time.fiveby(zero) 04:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
And I’ve also basically been working on rewriting the entire Otherkin article in that time, feel free to check its edit history. Like I said, I’m a regular at FTN and I try tackling a lot of the faith-centric stuff that comes up at FTN because I’ve got a bit of a formal background in religious studies. I may as well edit in a broad area I know, though I do mostly stay out of Mormonism threads since I don’t know it as well.
I’m not just complaining, I’m actively putting in the work to improve these articles. Let me be a little more clear about my frustration with this: I think FTN has one tool, a hammer, and has decided that they’re collective experts on identifying nails. It can simply result in worse quality articles, the reason I’ve brought up the Panspermia example here is it’s a very cut and dry non-fringe case of FTN just deciding that evidence cannot be allowed to counter their understanding.
well, there is a think tank behind it and it is in partnership with the Dalai Lama. So even tho a bunch of neuroscientists probably think he's a nice guy and all reason to be cautious.
I agree! But what’s happening here isn’t caution, it’s bigotry. It’s very clearly bigotry. I don’t see the benefit to sanitizing accusations of bigotry, because “these aren’t academics, they’re religious believers and we should ignore their output” is bigotry.
FTN is great with quack medicine, UFOs, etc. but the second the Venn diagram overlaps with spirituality or faith there’s this sort of gleeful attitude of taking the religious down a peg, and not just when it comes to editors but apparently authors of research papers. We have an editor in here accusing authors, baselessly, of academic impropriety, using that accusation to edit articles on the basis of open bigotry, and and I don’t know why we’re tolerating that. We’ve seen recent topic bans for that exact behaviour recently.
A lot of your arguments seem to come down to inclusion simply because something has been published and insistence on that basis.
You do realize the source being argued about here rejects Tukdam, yes? It’s at no level pro-fringe, an editor just doesn’t like the religion of the author and is just being disruptive on that basis. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Very clearly bigotry? That is rather strong don't you think? Wikipedia's purpose concerns readers, information, and knowledge. I take these arguments expressed in opposition to your to be just that: views concerning readers, information, and knowledge; and how WP should work towards achieving that purpose. I have certain opinions concerning these matters which generate a negative reaction to, for instance, new-agers, postmodernists, evolutionary psychologists, and Canadians.
Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam? Applying that standard i would feel would lack objectivity and be a little dishonest. I try to be objective and honest but am probably as full of shit as the next editor.
I'm sure "the regulars" would benefit from hearing about and adapting to my views on how they should edit, but somehow image that preaching to them about it would likely be an unproductive use of everyone's time. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
That is rather strong don't you think?: What seems 'strong' is JPS saying things like this guy from UWisc is a devotee of Tibetan Buddhist approaches to meditation and is influenced by a blinkered religious devotion, or that academics are actually not academics because they are instead religious believers. I'm hard pressed to see how this doesn't amount to claiming a Buddhist, regardless of academic training or posting or employment, can't or shouldn't be considered an academic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Buddhists make great academics up to the point they argue in favor of dogmatic religious positions in ways that WP:REDFLAG. Arguing that Tukdam is a physical or biological state is a common position of a very particular set of religious believers and, to my knowledge, exactly one American academic group housed at a secular institution is led by such a religious believer. To be clear, I find it admirable that he is open about his belief in contrast to the mess that we are in when trying to consider Ian Stevenson's undercover connections to theosophy. By the way, there is another research group in St. Petersburg, Russia -- but I haven't figured out what they are all about as the sourcing for their stuff is very obscure. jps (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Why should i care if a source rejects Tukdam?
Because that’s the sourcing standard we actively want on potentially fringe topics? This is the only instance I can think of with FTN actively calling for the removal of evidence against a fringe stance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
You haven't been around enough, then. We have removed loving debunkings (and accounts) of lots of extreme fringe positions on the basis of WP:NFRINGE. Just off the top of my head, editors gutted the article on modern geocentrism and replaced it with an economic redirect. jps (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
This wasn’t a debunking paper. There were perfectly valid secular motivations. That you don’t accept them as truthful is a personal thing and not relevant to Wikipedia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
You said, This is the only instance I can think of with FTN actively calling for the removal of evidence against a fringe stance. I gave another instance. This is not at all personal for me. Please stop insisting otherwise. jps (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough on the example, but WP:AGF would be gaslighting myself here, at this point. You’ve made it excruciating clear you’ve got a serious prejudice here and you’re using it to inform your editing and I’m afraid I’m tired of pretending otherwise. As other editors have pointed out, it seems like you’re engaging in WP:WGR and accusing academics of impropriety on the basis of their religion in they absence of any actual evidence and constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repeatedly in the face of secular interest in this topic.
If you can’t maintain WP:NPOV on these topics you can’t demand other editors treat your POV as neutral in the face of very direct and explicit claims from you to the contrary, and I’m far from the only person interpreting your statements as bigotry. I’m happy enough to just not engage with you at all if you’d prefer, but I’m done pretending there’s been a fruitful endeavour here (seriously, how many times have you directly accused me of being WP:PROFRINGE now? Or playing admin and “warning” me for citing a source you didn’t like?) or that this hasn’t just been you refusing to hear what people are saying about your behaviour here and pretending it’s just just me with an issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
From WP:AGF: "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful."
This is measured according to their own (probably wrong) idea of what would help Wikipedia. That means that if an editor believes (however wrongly) that applying a religious litmus test to sources would help Wikipedia, and so they apply such a test, then that editor is acting in good faith. (It does not matter whether the test is pro- or anti-religious.) You might call it "screwing up in good faith", but it's still good faith. Good-faith actions can be harmful.
The opposite of "acting in good faith" is "deliberately screwing up for the actual, direct purpose of hurting Wikipedia". The opposite is not "holds POVs that I find reprehensible" or "espouses views that, if expressed during a job interview, would constitute discrimination against a protected class in my country". That latter point is for Wikipedia:Civility, not for AGF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
One of FTN’s favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind and openly explicitly running away editors who engage in ideologically driven fringe editing. Yeah, at some point it’s possible to just lose sight of being able to see how someone is viewing their own behaviour, sincerely, as helping build an encyclopedia. I’m only human.
The fact that an admin is cheerleading this bigotry to an extent is appalling, in my time here I’ve come to expect much better from Wikipedia. Maybe I’m just wrong here but I’ve firmly hit a brick wall here and should probably disengage and take a wikibreak. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's precisely correct. FTN probably does run some editors off. (I've run a couple off myself; discouraging would-be contributors who are net harmful to Wikipedia is not an inherently bad thing.) I don't think FTN is known for saying that these editors intend to be harmful; instead, they're known for saying that editors actually are harmful. AGF only requires us to acknowledge that most harm is a misguided attempt to help.
Compliance with AGF means "I reverted that because it's wrong" or "That's not appropriate content for Wikipedia" instead of starting it with "You intentionally vandalized Wikipedia on purpose!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, bad faith is a very rare problem on Wikipedia. In the context of FRINGE, far more harmful would be (say) a true believer, desperate that the world should be exposed through Wikipedia to their discovery that energy can be derived from a perpetual motion machine. Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe bad faith as very rare; if that were true, then Cluebot would be out of a job and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism would be a very boring page. But I do think that it's very rare among established editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
When the work in question is a primary research result, it shouldn't get more than a passing mention, regardless of its outcome. The only reason we might give it more attention is for FRINGE parity purposes -- if it is the best source we have to contextualize a pseudoscientific claim that is otherwise DUE in the article, it can be used even if it's not at the quality level we normally expect for scientific topics. However, what I suspect @ජපස is concerned about is that this research article really isn't the best way to contextualize pseudoscientific claims because a) it is at least partly sponsored by adherents, and such sources are directly discouraged in several places of WP:FRINGE; and b) using that source actually introduces pseudoscientific claims about tukdam that otherwise wouldn't be in our article, since it actively pierces the veil between religious belief and science that had been maintained up to that point (or at least would be easily achieved by simply removing the in-universe language, without needing any additional sources). By discussing scientific investigation of a religious belief, we're also presenting the pro-fringe position that the belief has any scientific basis at all; if we're going to do this, that position should either already be DUE (i.e. it has had significant secondary discussion by RS that don't debunk it themselves) or the study garnered enough secondary attention itself. But neither of those conditions is the case here, and furthermore the study has a clear conflict of interest in its partnership and predictably tries very hard to legitimize its (pseudo)scientific rationale. That its outcome rejects the fringe stance is irrelevant since the fringe stance apparently isn't even published reliably elsewhere and so doesn't need to be debunked.
Also, to address something raised upthread, the "secularity" of UW-Madison is completely irrelevant when the authors themselves are obviously biased -- it's not like academic research on a drug sponsored by its parent pharma company becomes independent just because it's conducted by an unaffiliated university and published in an independent journal. We are contractually obligated to disclose that CoI for a reason. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
While this response makes more sense to me than JPS's, I also think that it shows the blindspots of Wikipedians in this area pretty clearly.
Specifically: what "veil between religious belief and science"? The religious claim is that a bunch of people who are clearly dead right now are not dead. When people make clearly false claims in matters other than religion it doesn't suffice for us to say that "Some people believe [clearly false thing]" without also saying "but [clearly false thing] is false". I believe that what you're advocating for is in fact WP:PROFRINGE in the guise of anti-fringe. Loki (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The idea that there is a "veil between religious belief and science" is a Western viewpoint. It's like the one that says it's perfectly normal and desirable for people to separate their personal beliefs from their professional actions (think "acting in my role as a corporate officer, I say let's raise the food prices after the hurricane, because price gouging will make the stockholders rich" vs "in my role as a member of the community, I say let's keep the prices for necessities as low as we realistically can").
These distinctions seem artificial and contrived to some cultures, but they're commonplace in mainstream/white US culture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I understand that, I just don't think that it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Loki (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, maybe it isn't appropriate – at least not in every article – but we're always going to have editors who prefer WP:SPOV over NPOV, and many of them don't even know that's what they're doing. The thing about a worldview is that it's so all-encompassing and all-consuming that you don't even know how it affects you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
This is explicitly discussed in FRINGE. Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects.
This article should be primarily covered as a religious belief, except where it makes claims about scientific phenomena. If the Wisconsin study is the only source putting forth the idea that tukdam is a scientifically testable phenomenon, that position is probably too minor for us to cover in detail. And we should especially not amplify the opinion of an adherent regarding its scientific potential, which is what that study does even if its results are negative. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
To expand: the problem with "debunking" a scientific claim about tukdam is that we only have the one study doing that, and that study is clearly non-neutral and presents tukdam as sympathetically as possible. That is not a good source for disabusing people of the idea -- which we introduce by discussing the study -- that tukdam might have scientific grounding or that the topic is even remotely debatable in science. Non-adherent readers could come away thinking that tukdam is scientifically plausible and "just needs more research done", rather than regarding it in the same way they would transubstantiation: as a purely spiritual concept that has no basis in physical reality. JoelleJay (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
A claim that someone who is dead isn't really dead is transparently a scientifically testable phenomenon in a way that "Moses split the Red Sea thousands of years ago" is not. Loki (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
But the Vajrayana system itself doesn't actually claim a person is "still alive" or suggest that there is brain activity when in tukdam -- those are positions introduced by the study to rationalize it with science. The aspects of tukdam that should actually be disputed in our article are the claims of delayed decomposition, and yet the study doesn't actually address that and instead assumes the bodies they examined really had attenuated decay. They even credulously propose additional research is warranted:

It is important to note that even if tukdam is mediated by residual electrical activity in the brainstem, this activity may generate signals that are too weak to be detected on the scalp surface or not possible to resolve owing to the limitations of our field equipment. If signal were detected, we would still need other types of data to shed light on the possible mechanisms that link brain activity and external signs of tukdam. Alternatively, if activity (or in this case, lack of activity) in the brain postmortem is not a mediator of the reported lack of decomposition, other biological mechanisms could be responsible. In both cases, we believe that—in addition to lifestyle, medical, and practice history—collecting blood, saliva, and tissue to investigate other potential mechanisms is key. When such fluids and tissues become available, discovery-based science with large-scale metabolomics and whole epigenome arrays can be examined.

Is it really worth diving into the possibility that tukdam is scientifically plausible if our only source for contextualizing its plausibility is one primary study, published in a low-quality journal, by people with a CoI, that uses "brain activity" as its sole proxy for postmortem meditative state and heavily couches its negative findings by noting the study limitations (like that they couldn't even evaluate anyone sooner than 26 hours after death)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
A claim that someone who is dead isn't really dead is transparently a scientifically testable phenomenon in a way that "Moses split the Red Sea thousands of years ago" is not They are both empirical claims. I don't understand the distinction unless you adopt the creationist canard, "where you there?" as a means to distinguish between "experimental" and "historical" science -- something which is so outside of the mainstream understanding of these epistemological endeavors as to be WP:BLUESKY pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
You can go to the dead body and test if its dead, which is a very simple test to do.
Conversely, while it's unlikely that a miracle happened in the distant past, it's hard to actually prove that scientifically. Loki (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Look, I'm all on board for debunking pseudoscience, including religious pseudoscience. I just do not think a weak study sponsored by adherents disproving a single claim that the belief system doesn't even make itself warrants more than the handful of sentences it already has in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Conversely, while it's unlikely that a miracle happened in the distant past, it's hard to actually prove that scientifically. This is actually a pretty good object lesson for why experience dealing with fringe theories may help in providing context for how we might treat such things at Wikipedia. There is no evidence for any miracle happening in the distant past or right now. It is not "easier" to "prove" (a concept that itself is not exactly a way we approach topics in science) dead bodies are dead than there was no supernatural splitting of the Red Sea. They are both facilely the null hypotheses, and arguments to the tune of differentiating between one flavor of incredulity versus another is what we end up dealing with all the time at FTN even as fringe theories are, by definition, those ideas which are on the borders of plausibility and there is no consistent metric for demarcating which tests are easier or harder to show that.
We often get that kind of Russell's teapot argument in the service of WP:PROFRINGE that says because all that matters is the evidence, if there is no evidence then there is nothing that we can say about whether an idea is plausible. This just is not how the corpus of scientific knowledge works. You don't get to have easy versus hard tests. All are equally unlikely and all suffer from the same problem of being outside the realm of possibility when it comes to the sum-total of our worldview. You don't get meditation after death. You don't get a split Red Sea.
jps (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
And if the desire is to have another epistemology in the mix[19]? fiveby(zero) 22:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Business as usual. Explicitly dumping the scientific epistemology because it does not support one's views and replacing it by another has been tried by creationists, parapsychologists, astrologers and alternative medicine fans. Probably others too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Written by Tawni L. Tidwell. Guest Editor: Tawni L. Tidwell. Are we at the point where we need an WP:RSP entry for these scam special issues yet? – Joe (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe for me. Tidwell was a guest editor for publication of a special edition with other Tukdam research? I just matched the name from the UW Madison project site. fiveby(zero) 11:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
What I mean is that she was both the author the paper you linked and the editor of the journal issue it appeared in. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Was just going to add to my response about WP:SOURCEDEF and remembering editors part of "publication" but i completely missed "special edition". Any epistimological theories about how i could read "Center for Healthy Minds" in the footer and not "Guest Editor"? fiveby(zero) 11:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I see a lot of "FTN" being used as a collective noun, as in "one of FTN's favourite pastimes is throwing AGF to the wind". As someone who sometimes uses that noticeboard, I guess that's directed at me, too? Because otherwise why not specify who you're talking about? And if you're talking about one or more specific people, that's a matter for ANI, not VPP. Almost 2500 people have edited that page, with nearly 1200 watchers. There are some heavy users, but the top 10 editors have only made about a quarter of all edits.
At the end of the day, there's gray area where people may disagree whether something deals with purely theological beliefs or whether it touches on something empirical/falsifiable/scientific. If someone is repeatedly bringing topics to FTN that fall squarely on the theological side, beyond the gray area, then deal with that person. I could be wrong, but I just don't see a consensus to get rid of WP:FRINGE or WP:FTN happening any time soon. Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree this should have been an ANI. As I said above, what I came here to raise has never gotten to the extreme it has in this instance, and that’s derailed any fruitful discussion of wider systematic issues.
We both know well enough there’s a cadre of regulars, but the situation in the case that’s come up here has basically removed all ability to look at a wider issue with nuance, though the behaviour of some of the other regulars in here did help make that case a bit. After this situation I’m now of the opinion that FTN should be merged with WP:NPOVN. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
It's a recognizable tactic to attack a personified "FTN" as a proxy for this OP's perceived enemies. Textbook WP:ASPERSIONS. So yeah, this may be better at ANI but not for the reason the OP thinks. This quixotic campaign has been going on for too long across too many areas to be ignorable for much longer. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Just ANI me if you sincerely believe that, since you’re just teasing threats of it anyways. If my behaviour is out of line here let’s evaluate it and if sanctions are warranted they’re warranted. That’s sincere, I know my utter exasperation with you and jps hasn’t lead to my finest edits. You’ve been nothing but openly hostile and dismissive from your first reply here and your insistence that I’m on some kind of quixotic crusade falls flat in the face of me not being the only one seeing the problem here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no intention to "ANI you", but might contribute if you end up there. Nobody else is seeing "the problem" here because there is no "the problem" stated, just a vague meta-complaint about "FTN" (initially framed as a question about religion and scope) that has valency for a small number of other users' various stances. What your basic complaint seems to boil down to is that one or two editors disagree with you on various points and have the temerity to argue their case, perhaps forcefully! There is a fairly broad spectrum of approaches to editing Wikipedia you know, and it is really not an issue if some editors fall outside the narrow band other editors prefer so long as they remain within the broad spectrum of the community as a whole. Bon courage (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I'm nobody. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
No, you're one of the editors who's bound your own take onto the meta-complaint. Hence your statement of "the issue" is different to anything the OP has stated. Bon courage (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Since Warrenmck said We cannot just decide that the religion of an author is basis for us ignoring the fact that they're publishing in serious journals when research scientists with an American university, I don't see how I'm as far off the mark of anything the OP has stated you claim. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
A problematic campaign has gone on for too long across too many areas, but it's not Warrenmck's. The troubling campaign is the effort by a small number of editors to decide whether or not to cite sources by applying religious tests to the authors. Moving into the realm of the hypothetical, it could be right to not cite X source; it could be right to leave out Y content; but it isn't right to do so for the reason that Z credentialed scholar operating in an academic setting is [insert personal attribute, e. g. a certain race, religion, gender, nationality, etc.]. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Classic WP:ASPERSIONS ("a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence"). It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption? Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
They are not 'classic aspersions'. You have not included in consideration quotations provided elsewhere in this thread that constitute evidence and posts that explain the evidence.
An author's context includes things like academic training and university posting, and members of the community seemed to arrive at a relatively strong consensus in an ANI thread from this year that considering a relevantly-trained and university-posted author uncitable for [topics related to X religion] solely because of being an adherent of [X religion] was disruptive to the point of being a reason to topic-ban an editor who applied that train of thought to Islam, removing and objecting to citations of university-press-published content about Islam solely because the content was written by Muslims. I think it'd be safe to guess that Warrenmck would agree with me that we're not lining up to defend a proselytizing or devotional publisher like Chick Tracts; the goal isn't to say that no scrutiny should be applied to books printed by "Convert People to X Religion Press". Rather, the concern is with saying that academics don't count as academics if they have a religious background, as in the example It's a bit misleading to claim it's been studied by "western academics". It's actually been studied by religious believers, when the religious believers were also trained, credentialed, and posted at a research center of a secular state-run university. I wouldn't consider that a "religious exemption" to the necessary consideration of record and context so much as "it seems bigoted to say Muslims can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Islam even when they have academic postings at universities or that Buddhists can't be qualified, trained, credentialed, and trusted authors on something to do with Buddhism even when they have academic postings at universities". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
jps makes an interesting point. Referring to religious researchers into a fringe/religious topic as just "academics" would be a kind of POV omission in many circumstances no? Devout Catholics on the Turin Shroud? Scientologists on e-meters? Mormons on Joseph Smith? Christian Scientists on animal magnetism? Fundamentalists on the age of the Earth? All seems fair play for concern especially where WP:FRINGE claims are in play. And I agree it's not simple, all kinds of contexts for a source apply too. The "problem" here seems rather the push to deny that Wikipedia editors can raise these concerns and argue their case. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
where WP:FRINGE claims are in play: And when fringe claims are not in play? The report at issue concluded that despite what some Buddhists believed, no, monks who try to meditate while dying don't display any post-mortem brain activity—dead monks, in fact, exhibit all signs of being dead. It is one thing to discount, say, a Catholic historian who says 'the Turin Shroud is definitely authentic'. It's quite another to discount a Catholic historian saying things like 'X traditional belief about the Shroud of Turin is false' Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue. But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN. In general claims of something require better sourcing than claims of nothing, if that 'nothing' is just the default null hypothesis. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
When FRINGE claims are not in play then FRINGE is not a consideration and FTN not an appropriate venue: That's good advice.
But this is a thread about FRINGE things at FTN.: Is it? This has been a thread that is, at least in the OP, about worries of there being an attitude that religions should be treated as any other fringe theory and there are regular calls to edit religious articles in a way that seems to be fairly openly hostile without necessarily having regard for whether content is actually 'fringe'. After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents ('dead monks mediate, their brains still work') was not empirically endorsed by the researchers. The source instead concluded 'when he died his brain stopped doing anything'. And yet an editor explicitly considered that non-fringe-ness irrelevant to deciding to regard it as suspect and unciteable (the words used being the "he's dead, Jim" conclusion is unimpressive to me). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
After all, the particular example source much discussed in this thread has been one in which the empirically fringe claim made by some adherents
I think it’s also fair to point out that in contrast to many articles like this FTN gets involved in, not one editor here is taking a WP:PROFRINGE stance (accusations aside) on the content of the articles, so I’m hard pressed to actually see any fringe editing here beyond what was there at the start with editors uninvolved in this entire process.
I think raising Tukdam as it was written at FTN was reasonable, the article had some sources and phrasing which were inappropriate and I was the first editor to remove some of that content and raise Tricycle as biased in FTN. What follows wasn’t just fixing the article, but the open hostility to the article topic we’ve seen time and time again.
For what it’s worth (for Bon), I don’t see where we’re disagreeing at all and think you’re actually managing to articulate my perspectives a bit better than I can filtered through exasperation Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to comment without evidence but it's not at all unusual for sources to be disqualified or regarded with suspicion on Wikipedia because of their authors' record, context, and stated beliefs (e.g. certain researchers for Morgellons, Chinese research into TCM and Russian neuroscience in general). Is there some kind of religious exemption?
If I may, "context" bears much weight here. Just like any other argument you can make in this vein, there is a fine line between analyzing the reliability of individual authors based on their work and what their peers have to say about it, following a complete chain of logical inferences—and skipping that work, going with the latent "vibe" based on the intersection of categories visible about the author (independently if in tandem with the reputation of the relevant institutions). The latter approach amounts to bigotry. Remsense ‥ 论 06:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Completely agree; it's complicated. And at the other (wrong) extreme I can remember a push at one time to ban any research on COVID-19 if the authors had a Chinese-sounding name. Generally there are factors suggesting a source is reliable that can outweigh any reputation an author might have, but at the same time there are entire large fields of "medical" evidential research Wikipedia puts in the bin no matter how esteemed the publisher or how peer-reviewed the paper because of the field itself (e.g. homeopathy). WP:ECREE is also a factor in this; and the idea that dead people meditate is rather ... exceptional. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
A claim that dead people have been scientifically or technologically proven to meditate would indeed be exceptional. A claim that a religion says that a few dead people meditate, OTOH, is no more exceptional than when a religion says that people are mere manifestations of the universe, or that people are being reincarnated through the millennia on a path towards enlightenment, or that people have immortal souls.
AFAICT though, the the objection isn't to the religious claim, but to mentioning that science says that these people are just plain dead, according to every physical measurement they've tried so far. We've got a 526-word-long article that contains only a single sentence about modern scientific research, and even that was removed at one point. These are not difficult claims that require special skills. The religion says part of the body stays warm, so stick a thermometer on it and see if that claim matches reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Nonetheless, a concrete proposal would be preferable to repeated accusations directed at a large group of contributors, especially when the closest thing to evidence has concerned just a couple of them.
Look at how my interactions have gone so far in here with the user’s I’m concerned about the behaviour of and ask yourself for a half second why I’d open myself up to more of this. I’m already at the point of a wiki break and am just sticking around now in case Bon decides to ANI me so I don’t get accused of simply not responding to that.
It doesn’t appear to matter what I actually say, what a few people want me to have said gets hot replies and derails any possible discussion, and this entire thread gets derailed. And that’s not in my head. Scroll back up to the top and look at the fixation on faith healing and other things that make empirical claims when my entire thesis was very explicitly about pure theology and a secondary thing of religious intolerance. I don’t thinks it’s even possible to go back to the first point here and the second point I believe has become self evident. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
If the distinction was as clean as you thought there wouldn't be all this fuss about Tukdam, right? Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy. You can't expect other editors to use it a basis for discussion. Bon courage (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The Tukdam article wasn’t posted when this thread went live and I raised it as an example of the intolerance issue, not the pure-theology issue, though did mention it in the context of FTN being tactless and inexpert.
Your invocation of "religious history and theology, as opposed to a specific empirical claim" is a false dichotomy.
You added the word history there, as history is most certainly not theology. And in what possible way is a belief in something utterly unfalsifiable the same as a claim that can be measured and analyzed? It’s a perfectly reasonable distinction. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I added nothing, but copy and pasted the bold bit of your first post to this thread, which I assume was intended to be the main thing you were raising. So all this time you've been complaining editors aren't engaging with your post when you aren't even aware what you wrote? Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, look at me with egg on my face. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
the user’s [sic] I’m concerned about the behaviour of ← and here we have it at last. You're concerned about particular user behaviour. So why is that being raised in an opaque way at VPP? Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I’m genuinely unsure what gotcha you think you just stumbled across. I think you’re so caught up with seeing me as some kind of enemy that you’re not taking the time to read what you’re replying to, a pattern that seems to go quite a ways back in this thread. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 05:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think of you as an "enemy" at all. But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors (maybe me? I don't know) risks exhausting the community. I really really don't think you should accuse anybody of not reading what they're responding to with quite so much 'egg on your face' (above)! Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Since Warrenmck already said I agree this should have been an ANI (though I don't consider it a terrible thing to have wanted to find a solution that doesn't involve disciplinary action against a user), I wonder if that's why there's a sense of being unsure what gotcha you think you just stumbled across. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
But this long drawn-out campaign you're waging as proxy for an apparent spat with one or two editors
What? Have you considered exactly how many of the things you’ve been at me for in this thread are utter products of your imagination? You pointed out where I made an embarrassing mistake and I immediately owned up to it, but you’ve constantly represented arguments I’ve made any way except by actually assuming I’m not hiding my real motivations. Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith, trying to stop disruptive editing, and dealing with a fair amount of direct and baseless accusations because of that? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean (which might be that you think a "cadre" of users A, B and C are problematic and need to be sanctioned).
Have you considered the possibility that I’m sincere, acting in good faith ← of for sure you are. But I also think you're wrong. Wrong about how the WP:PAGs apply and wrong about how the community operates. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you're "hiding your motivations", rather that your just being very coy about what you mean
I fail to see how the accusations are distinct. And no, I don’t have a list of users in my head. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to remember that, in the big picture, Wikipedia's handling of fringe theories is working appropriately; see [20] in particular, which goes into depth on how good our handling of fringe topics is. (See also [21][22] for coverage.) I can understand that it is sometimes frustrating or that WP:FRINGEN can sometimes be overbearing, but I'd be strenuously opposed to any significant changes to how it operates when it is, largely, working. Dealing with the flood of fringe material on the internet is difficult, and Wikipedia is one of the few places that has coverage saying we've managed it properly despite being open for everyone to contribute; WP:FRINGEN is an important part of that. (Also, just from a skim, huge swaths of the above seem to be about disputes between a few specific editors who believe each other guilty of misconduct; that's not an issue for WP:VPP at all, and shouldn't be turned into a discussion of FRINGEN as a whole. Conduct issues with individual editors should be taken to either WP:AE or WP:ANI as appropriate.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    The point we're making is that we tackle fringe topics well enough, or even in the majority of the cases, without or in spite of FTN and/or WP:Fringe. And at least one of your citations cut to the point:
    • Steinsson 2023 makes zero mention of FTN (talks about "noticeboards that are frequented by large numbers of Wikipedians" and specifically AN, NPOVN, and BLPN), and only a cursory mention of WP:Fringe, but the bulk of the paper talks about core policies, with NPOV being central -- this may be a methodological choice.
    • Matsakis 2018 Wired is about Gerbic's Guerilla Skepticism, which has come under ANI scrutiny in recent years. I'm not sure if anyone should go down this rabbithole of stupid internet drama, but here is one dumb blog link. The article also makes no mention of FTN or WP:Fringe, or of any noticeboard or P&G (i.e. the role that noticeboards and policies play in general -- it's essentially praising the administrative supereffectiveness of an off-wiki cabal). My main point is that I'm not going to put much consideration into a puff piece about an off-wiki coordinating group compared to a more objective reading from the previous paper.
    • Cooke 2020 Wired talks neither about WP:Fringe nor FTN nor any noticeboards.
    I'll expand on this in a little bit. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    To continue on FTN, a snapshot of the noticeboard front page: I make the following measurement of its behavior as a content-conflict resolution noticeboard, versus a WP:Canvassing board as OP suggests in the title. Currently, I count 6 threads in which editors on all sides of the dispute were notified of the FTN posting/discussion in a timely manner, versus 4 threads in which they were not, and 4 additional threads which could not be evaluated in this manner. You can check my work on my sandbox. Additionally, in my opinion, on threads in which all participants were not notified and were not present, there was insufficient (i.e. nonexistent) encouragement by other editors on FTN on threads to ping them.
    While this is a very small manual survey (slow as I have to check the discussion pages on the individual articles), I believe it reflects poorly on FTN compared to other noticeboards, and lends some support to OP's accusation that FTN is being used a great deal, but not exclusively, for canvassing. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Like many noticeboards (e.g. BLPN, NORN), FTN does not have a requirement for notification in all cases, though editors are required to notify others if they mention them specifically. If there's appetite for strengthening the requirement, we should probably discuss at WT:FTN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    The problem is, I think, that people are far less emotionally invested in BLPN, NORM, etc. A lot of skeptic editing comes from people who, understandably, view themselves as skeptics in their everyday life. That’s to say it can be a part of someone’s identity in a way that we see with other POV editing but don’t tend to see with more policy-centric noticeboards. This can especially bleed into religion articles as a lot of self-identified skeptics are a little militant in their dislike of religion. I think this is why there’s so much pushback to the notion that a: WP:FRINGE cannot be applied in an openly hostile way to religion (not just religious content being added to articles, which obviously axe) and b: this sort of head-in-the-sand WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT if it turns out some long-held anti-fringe stance is actually more nuanced than originally thought.
    Basically FTN isn’t acting like a noticeboard for policy issues, but a wikiproject for people with strong skeptic stances. Therefore I don’t see how strengthening the notification requirement solves the issue of what can beer into POV editing, because I suspect that notifying would just result in business as usual, plus notifications. People can seem to be unmoved by evidence and are quick to throw out accusations of WP:PROFRINGE (see above) for dissent. It’s better off merged into NPOVN, imo. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    @SamuelRiv, when you looked down the page, did you get a sense for the proportion of topics that were:
    • Move the dispute to the noticeboard to be settled there (typical for, e.g., RSN),
    • Requests that page watchers go to the talk page (typical for most WikiProjects), or
    • Questions more in the "background information" range (typical for a village pump post)?
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I can tell looking now, none are about relocating or centralizing discussion, except the UAPDA thread is interesting where the editor challenged with WP:fringe goes themselves to FTN for advice on how to address it; a lot of the comments there seemed counterproductive until people finally got to the point (it had zero to do with any fringe policies from what I can tell). There are a couple that seemed to try to want to fork a discussion onto FTN, rather than redirect it.
    It appears the majority of threats are requesting people comment on existing article discussions (in two cases, the condition of an entire article or AfD).
    In 2 other cases, some general background questions not directly related to an article dispute were being asked. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject: a centralized page to seek help from people who are knowledgeable about the subject matter. That's not inherently bad; it's good for editors to bring their health-related article disputes to WT:MED and their stats/math questions to WT:MATH. I'm not sure that I'd recommend merging that to a more traditional noticeboard, though, as it's quite a different style of interaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    It sounds like it's working more like a WikiProject
    I agree, but I think a wikiproject behaving like FTN would likely be censured on WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL grounds. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    Realistically, we usually object to such groups only when they're visibly successful. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron has been the target of similar complaints in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
    I am less convinced than they are that Wikipedia's handling of fringe topics is working appropriately. I see at least two issues:
    1. On issues FTN (one could argue, the greater skeptic movement) doesn't see as its targets, it doesn't do anything, and as a result there's lots of articles on minor religious topics that have wild supernatural claims in them. For instance, see Oven of Akhnai, which repeats a story from the Talmud verbatim in Wikivoice that basically treats rabbis as wizards. Or the recently fixed poor state of Tukdam was also due to this.
    2. On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support. The recent arguments over Tukdam are also a clear case of this, as an example of what happens when FTN suddenly discovers something it believes to be woo-y. My other example is EMDR, which claims a therapy that has been recommended by a huge list of WP:MEDORGs remains controversial within the psychological community per an article from 25 years ago and an article that specifically claims there is no controversy that it does work, because it's on the list of skeptic targets, because when it was initially formulated many psychologists were very skeptical of it to the point of calling it pseudoscience.
    In a lot of ways FTN operates as Wikipedia's immune system, and in this capacity Wikipedia clearly has an autoimmune disorder. It doesn't react to most things it should, and when it does react it way overreacts. The mere fact that most of the things skeptics look out for are not present on Wikipedia is not by itself sufficient evidence that it's actually working as desired. Loki (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    +1 PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    On issues FTN (again, one could argue the greater skeptic movement) does see as its targets, it is extremely aggressive about maintaining a "skeptical" POV, often way past what the actual sources can support
    This is the biggest issue I can see. It feels like people view themselves as WP:SMEs in “fringe” when that’s not exactly a thing, and sometimes editors assume their own read on complex topics is arrived at from a place of perfect understanding. Panspermia (discussed above) is still the most galling example of this to me, where source after source after source after source was met with “nuh uh” and the way it’s set up on Wikipedia is still potentially actively misreading to readers.
    Merge it with NPOVN and coming down on hallucinated policy interpretations would remedy a lot of this. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    +1 to Samuel, Loki, and Warren's analyses. "Skepticism" can become as much a crusade on Wikipedia as fringe POV pushing. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • It seems like there's been enough back-and-forth with a bit of analysis in there to boot. I plan to start an RfC in a few hours, maybe attract a wider community input, and just let's close out this discussion for the year or so. The questions I intend to put forward: Close (and move) FTN (to where is at discretion of regulars), and close (and move or downgrade) WP:Fringe (with suboptions by vote). Venue will be here for maximum participation and referral back to this thread, unless people think it is more appropriate instead to be at Wikipedia Talk:FRINGE. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    I’d like an option to just change it to a wikiproject instead of a noticeboard, as well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    I figure that community consensus is not necessary to decide, should FTN be closed, whether its function be placed into a wikiproject or merged into another noticeboard. I think such a thing can just be done. Although perhaps, to avoid having to do a separate straw poll (should closure be the result of the RfC), they'd want people to give their opinions in !votes here. (Maybe if FTN is decided to be closed but WP:Fringe remains, they'd want policies within WP:Fringe to get handled mostly at a NPOVN rather than at NORN, and that's worth saying, I dunno.) SamuelRiv (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think getting rid of WP:FRINGE would be a mistake, especially considering how much fringe stuff makes its way here. I do think FTN’s remit already falls under NPOVN, and given that there seems to be a sort of consensus on FTN to (sometimes) creatively interpret the policies of Wikipedia in a way that we really should be able to rely on each other as experienced editors to prevent. I’m happy enough to vote, though. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think that getting rid of FRINGE is so unlikely as to not be worth asking the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 02:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    Eh, I think it's worth asking just because it's up here, and it closes it out. A RfC can ask two questions. I'll post it in a few minutes. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
    It would be a waste of time suggestive of WP:NOTHERE. But it's done. Bon courage (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Aside: @Warrenmck: please stop doing weird extra indentation to partially quote people. It's going to be an accessibilty problem for various users (they may be used to our talk pages formatted unhelpfully as description/association/definition lists, but your behavior is signaling to them that some unknown party has injected a comment before yours, between whoever you are replying to and you), and it's visually confusing for everyone else. No one – literally no one, ever – writes the way you want to on Wikipedia, so please just format your comments intelligibly like everyone else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    Not my intent to cause accessibility issues, so I’ll stop, but I’ll die on the hill that indenting quotes generally improves legibility. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • On the main topic here: After plowing through a lot of this, I find myself generally in agreement with those that do not find there to be a policy or practices issue at stake here. Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism, skepticism, fact-checking, or even basic neutrality with regard to their beliefs is an affront, a wrong, an evil, yet we have to do it anyway. Hand-waving with emotive references to reddit and atheism groups does not demonstrate any kind of actual bias problem on Wikipedia or any bad-acting by anyone in particular, and this is not the venue for that anyway. I see a lot of repetitive complaint and vague accusation or "the sky is falling" stuff from a particular party (who others indicate has been beating this drum for a long time across multiple venues), but there is no concrete problem to solve. Bon)scourage near the top of this over-long thread has it right: when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world ... then WP:FRINGE can certainly apply.

    I spend a considerable amount of time in "religion" articles broadly speaking, from ancient mythology and folklore to modern Christian denominations and their organizational history, and there simply isn't a problem of WP leaping onto and bashing theological claims. However, there is a common problem of proselytizers of particular faiths, especially but not exclusively new relgious movements [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism], making claims that amount to some element of their dogma being verifiable fact when it is not, or various purported miracles or powers being demonstrably true when they are not, or extremely dubious mytho-history found in scriptures being verifiable history when it is not, or a particular figure or group being the "one true [whatever]" when others in other denominations make competing claims, and so on. All of this sort of stuff is clearly subject to WP:FRINGE. The fact of whether or not a particular Christian denomination treats veneration of saints as idolatry or not and what arguments their "divines" have put forth pro or con such a viewpoint, is not a FRINGE matter, but simply a matter of reliable sourcing. What we don't have any kind of problem with is WP articles on religious matters being written something like "According to the Church of Utter Salvation, the one true path to enlightenment is through omphaloskepsis, but this idea is wrong because [whatever]." In NRM-related articles with too few watchlisters, we do often have a countervailing problem of cult leaders being claimed to have worked miracles, but this stuff does not last long in our content.

    This thread has the same feel as all those perennial complaints along the lines "Wikipedia is doing it all wrong because it won't let me promote [insert outlandish viewpoint here]". The fact is that verifiable reality leans heavily in certain directions (e.g. against "climate change is a hoax", against racial supremacy of any sort, against claims of miracles ever being verifiable, etc.). Wikipedia is not doing it all wrong, and is not broken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    [note to Warrenmck: that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism
    Ah, yes, the old promontionalism of “arguing that we should keep in academic sources discrediting a religious belief”. Of course. How silly of me.
    Seriously, it feels like half this entire discussion descended into some kind of wild strawmanning where I was arguing to keep WP:PROFRINGE content in instead of objecting to the removal of anti-fringe content. I’ve been accused of everything from being butthurt to summarily described as a WP:PROFRINGE religious believer objecting to the removal of fringe content when that’s clearly not what happened, and I’m very low on faith from a lot of these accusations that many people have actually taken time to read the core arguments and discussions. The status quo of the Tukdam article, which met the satisfaction of many editors I was butting heads with elsewhere, was written in large part by me, and if you look through the article’s history and when it was first brought up at FTN I was quick to remove in-universe language and call out a cited Buddhist magazine as a bad source there. Your accusations are uncalled for.
    The fact that this game of telephone has transformed from me objecting to applying religious tests to credible academics publishing utterly mundane anti-fringe findings into me objecting to the removal of fringe content is exactly why I raised this topic here in the first place: an utter lack of ability to assume good faith (in the typical sense, not specific wikiparlance WP:AGF) and nuance around these topics.
    My capitalization of NRM, which I typically do so that I can switch to using the initialism further down for people unfamiliar with the term, isn’t evidence of some kind of nefarious pro-fringe stance. If you want to accuse me of promotional/POV editing I suggest you bring receipts. A fundamental issue with how many on FTN engage with religious topics doesn’t mean I’m a bad actor here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish, can we talk about this a bit more? I'm seeing phrases like Religious believers pretty much always feel that any criticism...is an affront and when claims from a religion obtrude into the real world and thinking the first is an anti-religious stereotype and the second expresses an anti-religious sentiment.
    • To claim that "religious believers pretty much always" anything is a stereotype. 85% of the world subscribes to some sort of religion. If 85% of humans are "pretty much always" like that, then that's normal human behavior. I doubt that if you chatted up your religious neighbors, you'd find that they're "pretty much always" affronted by criticism. My Catholic neighbors have quite a lot of criticism about their church, and they don't seem the least bit offended if people disagree with their religion. OTOH I have seen a couple atheists who were terribly upset about people not sharing their views – but I've only seen this in university students, and I assume they grow out of it.
    • Who says that religion is forcing itself onto the real world? Religion is a human behavior. 85% of humans engage in this set of behaviors. Religion is part of the real world. Religion should not be treated as some sort of minority or deviant behavior, nor as something separate from the human world. Spirits/angels/ghosts/whatever are not part of the physical world, but religion seems to me to be a human institution. (Believers are cheerfully invited to disagree with me, in whatever ways happen to align with your own beliefs, or to add a caveat like "at least to a significant extent", but I will point out that a List of oldest continuously operated bureaucracies would include the Roman Catholic Church.)
    I think we can do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    that phrase is not a proper name and does not take capitals as "New Religious Movements", and your use of that overcapitalization, like much of your general approach here, hints at promotionalism: Uh, what? I know it's not universally capitalized, but you say that as if doing so is unheard of in academic circles. I'd hardly consider taking cues from books like New York University Press's New Religious Movements: A Documentary Reader or the Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements (Routledge) or Religion and Academia Reframed: Connecting Religion, Science, and Society in the Long Sixties (Brill), or from peer-reviewed journals like Mental Health, Religion & Culture, all of which capitalize the term as "New Religious Movement" in the linked examples, as 'promotionalism' rather than 'doing what some academics do'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    So phrase it more senstively, but the central point remains sound. Our articles about, or intersecting with, religious subjects see continual attempts to promote religious dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faith is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof. Observing this set of problems and being critical with regard to it is not "anti-relgion", it's simply encyclopedist realism/practicality. What percentage of the world believes in a particular category of something isn't really pertinent. A much higher percentage than the religious faithful are those who believe in one urban legend or another (probably more like 99.9%), but this doesn't have any implications for how WP should approach writing about that category of subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's true. For example, Santa Claus intersects with religious subjects, and it isn't subject to continual attempts to promote religious dogmas and stories as established fact.
    But I think we could write the same sentence about other subjects, e.g.:
    • Our articles about, or intersecting with, religious right-wing political subjects see continual attempts to promote religious right-wing political dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faith right-wing politics is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
    • Our articles about, or intersecting with, religious cryptocurrency subjects see continual attempts to promote religious cryptocurrency dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faith financial bubbles is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
    • Our articles about, or intersecting with, religious geopolitical subjects see continual attempts to promote religious geopolitical dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faith geopolitical disputes is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
    • Our articles about, or intersecting with, religious gender and sexuality subjects see continual attempts to promote religious gender and sexuality dogmas and stories as established fact. The very nature of faith gender and sexuality viewpoints is to conflate undemonstrable "truths" derived from assertion and tradition with facts establishable with evidence, to promote the former over the latter, and to invert the burden of proof.
    You can pretty much go down the list of Wikipedia:Contentious topics and say the same thing, with justice, about at least some editors and the sources they are relying on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    Taking these points in order: No one (least of all me) said that every fringe, religious, or related topic attracted pro-fringe PoV-pushing equally. Your Santa Claus bit is what's called reductio ad absurdum, admixed with some appeal to ridicule and straw man. Your point about right-wing politics is entirely correct, but has no implications for this discussion. A large segment of the far-right overlaps with a large segment of religious extremists, and a great deal of what the far-right promotes as "truth" is fringe nonsense. That doesn't somehow translate into a permissive attitude (actual or desirable) at WP toward far-right claims and publishers. If anything, we need an elevated level of alterness with regard to it. But it is largely also covered by WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN, as are religio-spiritual claims being advanced as if proven facts, and this is not "broken". Much of that also applies to cryptocurrency, and outlandish claims in that area are aready addressed by FRINGE/FTN. I don't know what you mean in this context by "geopolitical" (a vague term), and it seems to fail as an analogy; there don't appear to be any such things as "geopolitical dogmas". G/S: those areas are very, very well-studied so it also analogically fails. The assertion-and-tradition and burden-inversion involved appear to come from – surprise! – far-right religious quarters; claims from the opposite side usually have a stockpile of reliable research sources behind them, so this is again another area where FRINGE/FTN is doing its job. Really, you're kind of making my point for me: when religion/spirituality veer into making claims that purport to be factual but are not verifiable, then it is in FRINGE/FTN's scope, and is not distinct from any other topic in that regard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

About this discussion

Until a few minutes ago, this page was above 600K in size, which is about three or four times the maximum size that seems to work for people on mobile devices. I split off an RFC a few minutes ago, which shrank the page by a third, but this discussion is almost as big. There also seem to only be a few of us still active in it. I'd like to suggest either:

If you want the first, then please say so. If you want the second, then no response is necessary (actually, no response would be critically important). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have run its course, but considering how weirdly comfortable people have been in accusing me of being a POV fringe-pushing religious editor I would like to note, in bold, for anyone referencing this thread in the future that much of the meat of this thread was me disagreeing with the removal of an anti-fringe source on the grounds of religious tests for the author despite their being academics at a secular institution and finding utterly unremarkable, anti-fringe results. A few editors (most recently @SMcCandlish, directly above) definitely owe striking some of their comments which contain some pretty baseless accusations, and the voting thread was a mess of people misrepresenting the entire discussion as somehow raised by a religious POV pusher for, again, adding anti-fringe material back into an article. People are of course free to feel however they like about the issue at hand, but people aren’t entitled to construct narratives about other editors and abandon civility in their quest to hunt the perfect strawman.
The aspersions cast here feel pretty significant and I don’t want to be batting off a reputation as a pro-fringe editor for anti-fringe edits. How I (and to a lesser extent @Hydrangeans and @SamuelRiv [seriously, a WP:NOTHERE accusation for a well known and established editor?]) were treated here for dissent feels like a black mark on Wikipedia’s handling of contentious topics with civility.
And now for a wikibreak. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
In the WP:SNOW-opposed RfC growing out of this trainwreck, Warrenmck also urged disbanding WP:FTN. One does not get to (in this thread) support actions that would release a flood of fringe nonsense on WP by demonizing fringe-watching editors as a pack of bigots and undercutting the guidelines and processes they rely on, and (in the RfC thread) try to nuke the venue by which the community handles this, yet then claim that one is really an anti-fringe editor simply because there's a diff somewhere of one supporting removal of a fringe thing. Not all fringe material is created equal, and it's common to scoff at various fringe things while believing or being undecided about others. E.g., I can't count the number of people I know who think anti-vaxxers are nuts but who also believe in astrology, or who think that the idea of space aliens abducting people is nonsense but who believe climate-change is fake and that the 2020 US election was stolen. If one is taking a position that would harm our ability to police the encyclopedia for fringe claims, then one is, as a practical matter, a pro-fringe editor whether or not one is engaging in self-denial about it. It doesn't matter in the least whether one disbelieves in a particular bit of fringe material under discussion in a particular thread, or pays lipservice to WP not promoting fringe material. Actions matter more than words.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I don’t see how any of this relates to accusing me of WP:PROMOTIONAL, which you did above, and it’s wildly disingenuous to accuse me of wanting to get rid of Wikipedia’s anti-fringe immune system when what I proposed was a merger with NPOVN and I actively opposed the dilution of WP:FRINGE. You’re free to not like that, but this rhetoric that it somehow turns me into a WP:PROFRINGE crusader is absurd and I expect better from a seasoned editor. This complete inability to recognize that we’re discussing a policy difference and not fundamental ideological enemies is sort of speaking to the exact problem I’ve been concerned with in the first place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 03:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I've also been treated poorly at times by a small minority of the regulars at FTN... But jumping from there to throwing the baby out with the bathwater is another thing (I also doubt that simply changing the venue the discussions take place in will decrease the historical conflict between the small s skeptics and the large s Skeptics who frequent it, they're/we're at almost all at the alternative venues as well) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Recall

Latest comment: 25 days ago87 comments46 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion forms part of a debate on adopting a community-based process for the involuntary removal of administrator rights, administrator recall. This topic was most recently addressed at the 2024 Requests for adminship review; more background information may be found in a section below. The question of this request for comments was whether the result reached during that discussion immediately assumes force of policy, or whether it requires further ratification.

Due to the unusual nature of an RfC to clarify the outcome of a previous RfC, participants at times addressed somewhat different matters in their comments, and some cast bolded support or oppose votes on slightly varying questions. In this closure, I shall focus on the key question as identified above, that is, whether we in principle now have a policy on administrator recall, or not.

On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes; that is, there is no specific process that must be followed. The relevant policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Content changes only specifies that "Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements may be appropriate." This, to me, means that this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment; there is no unequivocal policy argument to either adopt the Phase II result as policy or not. The RfA review was also publicized through several standard channels used for important discussions, fulfilling that requirement.

Proceeding to the discussion at hand, it appears at first sight that the bold yes votes significantly outnumber the noes. However, as mentioned above, in this discussion, bold words can deceive. Furthermore, some editors commented on the contents of the Phase II result rather than on whether it carries the force of policy. I have deemed such arguments irrelevant to this discussion. While weighing this is not entirely quantifiable, and I will therefore not state exact numbers, I consider those in favour of the procedure already being adopted to have a clear numerical superiority.

Some of those who opposed pointed out certain discrepancies in the information provided in the RfC statement, in the Phase II closures, and at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. As of the time of closing, many of these concerns have been resolved, see for example the note at the end of this closing statement. Some things remain undecided; in particular, how the 30 day limit should apply when an administrator elects to re-request through administrator elections. While some editors stated that unresolved questions impede the adoption as policy, most thought that any outstanding issues may be resolved through normal editing. Some editors also opined that, while there may be consensus for the individual conclusions of the review, the policy page written on the basis of these will need to be the subject of a separate RfC to adopt or not. Again, I see a majority of editors being of the opinion that the conclusions may be accepted as policy now, with any further issues resolved by normal editing.

In summary, this RfC has resulted in consensus to adopt administrator recall, according to the Phase II result, as policy. Now, the following should happen.

  1. It shall be ensured that Wikipedia:Administrator recall exactly documents the closures of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall.
  2. Wikipedia:Administrator recall shall be marked as a policy, and references to it inserted at Wikipedia:Administrators and other relevant pages.
  3. Any further issues regarding the administrator recall policy will be resolved through normal editing.
Please note the following discrepancies between the present RfC statement and the result of the Phase II RfC. The consensus at Phase II was that reconfirmation via administrator elections shall be subject to a fixed 55% threshold. The 25 editors supporting a recall petition must be extended-confirmed users. The result of this discussion concerns the existing consensus as documented at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall, not the summary in the RfC statement. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The consensus reached there established recall with the following process:

Petition
  • Cannot be launched until 12 months have passed since the user has successfully requested adminship or bureaucratship, re-requested adminship, or become an arbitrator.
  • Open for up to 1 month.
  • Notification is posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
  • 25 editors must support the petition to trigger the re-request for adminship process.
  • The format allows for discussion and reasoning to be explained.
  • To support a petition, you must meet the criteria to participate in a request for adminship. You must not support more than 5 open petitions. There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition.
  • If a petition for a given admin fails to gain the required support, another petition for that admin cannot be launched for six months.
  • Support statements can be stricken based on the same criteria as for requests for adminship.
Re-request process
  • A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
  • The re-request can also take the form of participating in an admin election. (Not clear what the consensus is regarding the need for the election to fall within the 30-day window).
  • For either a re-request or an election, the following thresholds apply:
    • below 50%: fail
    • 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus
    • 60% and above: pass

Background

During phase 1 of WP:RFA2024 Joe Roe closed two proposals for recall with the following close (in part with emphasis in the original):

Considering § Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs, § Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki, § Proposal 16d: Community recall process initiated by consensus (withdrawn), in parallel, there is a rough consensus that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRFA) in order to retain their administrator rights. However, there is also a consensus that the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented. Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. The dewiki-inspired process suggested in Proposal 16c was well-supported and should be a starting point for these discussions.

When the second phase began the process was, after 3 days, structured in a way that took Proposal 16c and offered alternative options for certain criteria. This was done in good faith by Soni who had originally proposed 16c. Some editors objected to this structuring at the time and/or suggested that a 3rd RfC would be needed to confirm consensus; Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. Post-close discussion among editors has failed to achieve any kind of consensus (including whether there needs to be an RfC like this). As an editor uninvolved in the current discussions about Admin recall until now, it seemed to me that the clearest way to figure out if this recall process has consensus or not is to ask the community here rather than have this discussion in parallel with an attempt to recall someone. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (administrator recall)

  • (involved) The question here is simple: did a two-phase discussion that reached consensus in both phases also achieve an overall consensus to implement? The answer is equally simple: yes, it did. The current strongest argument against this idea seems to be that Phase II's formatting didn't give enough leeway for someone to propose a recall system distinct from the dewiki process (while still using that as a starting point). But there was an open discussion, and I don't recall seeing a different idea gain any significant amount of traction. If we really need to go through an entirely new RfC to double-confirm a proposal we've already accepted in principle and fine-tuned, fine, let's do it, but it seems like a waste of community time to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    The open discussion section was closed after three days though. – Joe (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Despite this, people added additional proposals, and additional options to existing proposals, and nobody complained about the open discussion section being closed, for months thereafter. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (uninvolved) Yes consensus was reached. Naturally new tweaks/discussions will come along. Let's have specific RfCs on those. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes there is a consensus (uninvolved). A legitimate objection is that the process of managing the second RfC may have stymied other possible outcomes beyond a de wiki style process, and this may have been the case. However, RfCs with perceived flaws tend to generate lots of comments pointing this out (as we can already see below) and I'm just not seeing that that in the 2nd phase RfC. The 1st phase confirmed that the community wanted a recall process, the 2nd phase asked for proposals to be developed for implementation and there was a consensus found within that discussion for a specific variant. In the interest of not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, I believe there is sufficient support for the admin policy to be updated based in this outcome, with further adjustments being made as required (or indeed removing it entirely should a subsequent consensus determine that it should). Scribolt (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Strangely-worded question. No, there isn't currently a consensus for this proposal; but yes, I think we should reach consensus for it at this RfC.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • A key challenge in trying to reach agreement by consensus is that interest tends to wane as discussion moves from higher-level concepts to more fine details. One way to address this is to get consensus for a general initiative, obtain consensus for key aspects to incorporate, then work on implementation details. For this specific situation, I think the phase 2 discussion did a sufficient job at taking the support shown during phase 1 and working out agreement on the broad-stroke steps for a recall process. As always, because it's hard to get people to pay enough attention to reconcile specific wording, part of working out the implementation means finding a working procedure that is the central object illuminated from different directions by people's statements. I feel the phase 2 results reveals enough scaffolding to proceed with implementation. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (involved) Yes. There is consensus per my comments in the post-close discussion, as well as per leeky and Scribolt above. Those editors raising objections to the idea of admin recall or the proposals that gained consensus, but who did not participate in the earlier RfCs, should have participated; phases I and II were both widely advertised (I remember them being posted at T:CENT, VPP, AN, AN/I, etc.). I worry that a third RfC will fatigue the community and disproportionately draw the most vocal opponents to the process, resulting in a small group of people overriding a consensus already twice-determined by the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (I closed some of the proposals) I don't know why we need an RfC to say "yes, this RfC was correct", but yes. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I participated in both Phase I and Phase II. I believe the results of Phase II achieved consensus and should be implemented. I do not see how this contradicts the results of Phase I. As others have pointed out, an actual policy page is still being drafted and might have to go through yet another RfC. Having an RfC on the validity of each step seems like a waste of time. Toadspike [Talk] 07:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I think your question answers itself. "Was there consensus for the consensus"? The answer is obviously yes. Now, if you want to ask a different question, open a different RFC. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • No, there isn't consensus for the recall process proposed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. I'll reiterate a comment I made on the Phase II talk page: taking the mini-consensuses from that phase, then using them to cobble together a process, doesn't translate into a solid policy with broad community consensus. The fact that various aspects of the proposal, even now, are up in the air disproves the notion that "the consensus already exists". Those who are advocating for Wikipedia:Administrator recall need to finalise that page, then present it for a simple yes/no RfC, so that the consensus (or lack thereof) on the policy as a whole is beyond question. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • No, there is no consensus for this, and I've explained why on the pages where the proposal is being developed. But I think it's unfair to ask this question now, because the editors who support the proposal are still working on it. I therefore think this RfC should be closed as premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    • I had hoped that this RfC would be withdrawn, but it appears that it won't, so I feel the need to say why this RfC cannot establish consensus for the policy change.
      • First, Barkeep49 gets the facts wrong in the statement of this RfC. He says: Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. In fact, he said more than that: I'm really sorry to say this, but reading it all through now, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has trainwrecked... I just cannot see how a genuine consensus can be said to come from a process like this... The only way I can see of salvaging this is to take whatever precise version of 16C got the most support and present it as a straight support/oppose RfC. [23]. Barkeep49 goes on to quote Voorts as having determined that phase 2 established consensus: Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. But in fact, Voorts drew a clear distinction between his close of individual sections, as an uninvolved closer, and his personal opinions about overall consensus, which were separate from the close: [24], [25].
      • And the bullet-list summary differs in some substantive ways from what appears to be the proposed policy. 25 editors must support the petition. Isn't it 25 extended confirmed editors? Who closes the petition? In fact, this is still being discussed: [26].
      • Since when are policy pages simply a bullet-list? Are we being asked to establish the bullet-list as a policy page, or are we being asked about Wikipedia:Administrator recall? The latter is beyond any question a work-in-progress. So if it needs to be changed as the editing process there continues, are we establishing consensus for the current version, or for some indeterminate version that will emerge in the future? And if the real purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus against, is that a fair process?
      • Phase 1 established consensus for some form of process. Phase 2 established consensus for some particular forms of the process, but did not establish whether those forms are actually to be implemented as policy, or whether those forms are the best version to be submitted as a policy proposal. This RfC muddles two different questions: whether the process so far has already established consensus, or whether the proposal summarized in bullet points should now be adopted as policy. And some editors here have been answering the first question, whereas others have been answering the second.
      • No one has answered the question of what is inadequate with the status quo, with ArbCom handling desysop requests.
      • The bullet-list proposal would be a disaster for Wikipedia if enacted here. It can't even be launched within the first year after the successful RfA? What happens if an admin does objectional things before then? More importantly, we are in a time when many members of the community are deeply concerned that we do not have enough new admins emerging from RfA, and that we are starting to see backlogs. Many members of the community regard RfA as being unattractive to well-qualified candidates, too stressful, not worth the aggravation. So if any random group of 25 users can force a recall, and just a few can start the petition process, how will that affect administrator morale? Will even more qualified RfA candidates decide against applying? Will current admins become too fearful of angering 25 disruptive editors, and hold back from dealing with contentious tasks, such as AE?
    • At least we should have a fully-developed proposal for the community to evaluate. Given that there are editors who are working on just that, it seems foolish to demand an up-or-down RfC now, before they have finished, on the theory that this would save them the trouble of working on something that will fail. Plenty of editors want the proposal to succeed, so they are not being imposed upon by giving them the time to finish. And the proposal here isn't ready for prime time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes (uninvolved) - There is a super clear consensus to have an administrator recall. Still work to be done om the actual policy page. But to the question of this RFC, Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during the last review? Yes clearly, otherwise the right next step would be to challenge that close. This is not the place to relitigate the RFC or how the policy page is being created. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • No IMO the question is unclear but I think interpreted as "was it decided that the deWiki version be adopted?". In shorthand, the main close was a general consensus that there should be a recall process, with the related verbiage in essence implicitly saying that it needed to be developed and then approved. The close on adopting the deWiki version was that there was insufficient participation (in this context) to consider it to be a decision either way. So the next step is to develop a proposal that can get wide support and get it approved. While keeping in mind that the first close says that it's already decided that "we want something like this" and so that question should not be revisited, and "There should not be any such recall process" is not a valid argument at this point. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    That next step is what Phase II was. Levivich (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. If this discussion is "Should Wikipedia:Administrator recall be implemented?", my answer is yes. That is effectively what the list of points above effectively are. If this question is "Is there consensus already to implement Wikipedia:Administrator recall?" then my answer is also Yes. I think there was consensus via Phase II to do this. If people believe there isn't, then I strongly prefer resolving the first question right now instead of bunting this entire thing to a second RFC further down the line.
    I also personally would have preferred a week while editors already discussing the matter at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall could resolve this. But the cat's out of the bag, and nobody seems to actually close this as premature. So I would prefer going through with this RFC instead of alternatives that draw this out for everyone. Soni (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Regarding Soni's first question, my answer is unreservedly Yes. Regarding Soni's second question, my answer is a Very Weak Yes. Also, this RfC is a premature mess. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. We do not need an RfC to answer the question "Did the previous discussion, with a consensus close, actually close with a consensus?" Just get it done. Details will, as usual, be refined as we go along. If the entire thing turns out, after post-implementation experience, to be a bad idea, then it can be undone later. PS: If there is doubt whether a close of an RfC or other discussion actually reached the consensus claimed by the closer, the place to hash that out is WP:AN (unless it's subject to a more specific review process like WP:MRV for move disputes, and WP:DRV for deletion ones).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Involved yes there is consensus, yes this should be implemented, per those above and in particular leeky. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • No. The partial trainwreck of the discussion that happened at the Phase II RfC meant that consensus for several critical aspects of the recall proposal did not gain sufficient consensus to enact such a significant change to a core policy (WP:ADMIN). And for my own part I failed to see a consensus on some matters at all, though I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on the matter. JavaHurricane 10:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes per S Marshall. The process should continue with the understanding that there is a consensus for recall on this basis though details remain to be finalized. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't think the question here is whether there is consensus for some future version, in which the details will have been finalized. It's whether there is consensus for what it says at the top of this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
      • Right. And my position is that there is (or at least it should be established here) consensus for the form of recall described in the 14 bullet points listed above. Some people in this discussion have queried the precise interpretation of some of the points, so another round of workshopping precise language would not be amiss, but the proposal should continue to move forward on this basis without "going back to the drawing board" because of concerns about a previous RFC. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is consensus to adopt an administrator recall process that includes the characteristics that achieved consensus in RFA2024 Phase II. To my eye, the proposal here successfully reflects that consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • "25 editors" is much too vague. Could be 25 IPs? Only logged in editors with some experience should be allowed, and the simplest way is to require EC. Zerotalk 02:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
    Already done. The suffrage requirements for recall petitions are "same as RFA". That was one of the Phase 2 consensuses (consensi?). Phase 1 consensus set RFA suffrage to EC. Levivich (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, confirm consensus. The weight of community involvement and the clear consensus close are sufficient to grant this process the effect of policy immediately. I will say this: I am absolutely shocked that the second phase of the discussion was not better advertised; given the long-anticipated nature of this process and the importance to community functions moving forward, it should have been better attended. And yet, the dozens of editors that did participate came to reasonable and clear consensus conclusions on various facets of the process. Beyond that, we are years deep into repeated derailing of the creation of this function, despite clear community support for some sort of process. There is absolutely no reason why further discussion to clarify, alter, or amend any provision of the process cannot take place after the process is codified in its namespace. But the time has come for the process to exist, and there is nothing egregiously problematic in what was decided upon in the foregoing discussion. With the caveat that, no matter what the community decided upon for the initial procedure, there are bound to be things we can only think to address and adjust after the first community RRfA discussions take place. SnowRise let's rap 10:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding notifications about the second phase of discussion: a watchlist message was posted, the centralized discussion notice box was updated, and a link was posted to the Administrators' noticeboard (there was also a link present in the announcement of the closure of phase 1). A mass message was sent to what I believe is a list of participants in phase 1. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well, fair enough, if it was posted on CD, which is arguably the single best thing you can do to promote an issue. But I do think spaces like VP are a vastly more reasonable place for posting a notice intended to draw in general community input about the recall of admins, compared to AN, with it's limited traffic mostly constrained to admin activity (or at least as much constrained as any open space on the project). In fact, some may argue (though I'm certain it was lack of forethought rather than intent) that the only noticeboard to receive a notice of the discussion being the one noticeboard with the highest admin-to-non-admin activity ratio is maybe the least optimal way to advertise a discussion that would seek to create the community's first direct means for recalling admins. The CD link seems to have been the only notice well-calculated to reach an average community member: the mass mailer, the discussion link in the closure of phase I, and the watchlist notice, all of those were only ever going to reach those who participated in Phase I. Which is good, but again, probably a lot less than this discussion warranted. SnowRise let's rap 17:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    Watchlist notices get pushed to everyone with an account, no? Also, CD is posted at the top of VPP. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes (involved), but I agree with everyone who is saying that this is pre-mature fanfanboy (block) 18:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes there appears to be community consensus to implement an Administrator Recall process as described. I think some of the concerns raised are genuine, especially the potential for abuse... But I doubt the community would look kindly on editors who chose to WP:GAME this new system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes (involved). The existence of the pre-voting "open discussion" section, as well as the widespread "find a consensus" sentiment was enough for the consensus found to be valid. Mach61 14:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes (involved). From the get-go, the purpose of WP:RFA2024 was to reach consensus -- not to workshop a proposal for later ratification, but to workshop proposals and approve/deny them in the same RFA2024 process. In Phase I, Proposals 16 and 16c, the overall proposal for a community-based recall system (#16) reached consensus. On the numbers, 65 editors voted, and it was 43-22. On the proposal for a specific dewiki-like system (#16c), 34 editors voted, it was a 25-9 majority, but this was determined to not be consensus because of the (relatively) lower participation.

    We went on to Phase II, where specific proposals for details of the recall system were made. The purpose of Phase II was, clearly, to iron the details from Phase I #16c, not to draft a proposal for submission to the community, but to decide the details, in Phase II. This is evidenced by the many "find a consensus" votes in Phase II (the phrase appears 27 times on the page, in addition to which there are various variations on the theme), which were editors expressly saying they'd rather have a recall system in place with any of the proposed details, than have the proposal for recall fail due to disagreement about some of its details. It was clear that the participants wanted Phase II to end with a consensus for an actual system, not a proposal for a third round of RFC. 93 editors participated in Phase II [27], which is even more than in Phase I.

    Both Phase I and II were widely advertised, tagged with the RFC template, advertised on watchlists, and posted on WP:CENT -- they more than complied with WP:PGCHANGE. They had broad participation, and the fact that Phase II ended with a system very similar to dewiki only confirms the budding consensus from Phase I. The fact that the "open discussion" section of Phase II was closed after a few days does not undermine the consensus-forming process in my view; discussion continued, new proposals continued to be made, and some voted against the entire idea of recall. Nevertheless, consensus was formed on various proposals, leading to the system that is now well-documented at WP:RECALL.

    So, yes, this months-long process confirmed what we all already knew was global consensus (to have a community-decided involuntary recall system, and to have it be modeled on dewiki's successful system); this RFC will be the third time in a single year that this global consensus will be confirmed. When this RFC is closed as "yes," as I believe it will be, we should put the policy template on WP:RECALL and that should dispel any and all doubts as to whether WP:RECALL has consensus. 100+ editors in 3 rounds of voting is more than enough to establish global consensus. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes and No. It appears that Wikipedia:Administrator recall is still being developed and that these dot points are the basis for that development. There is a consensus for a recall policy according to these dot points but as has been pointed out above these dot points are not a policy in and of themselves so cannot be adopted immediately. When there is consensus for a barebones policy (the dot points) it is then developed into an actual policy page before a final RfC to adopt it. That's the normal process and should be followed here. So, yes there is a consensus to have a recall process along the lines of the dot points and that is correctly being developed into a policy before final adoption so, no, there is not yet a consensus to turn the wordy version at Wikipedia:Administrator recall into policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    The current version is less than 500 words and it's been stable for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds like it's ready for an RfC for formal adoption as a policy then? I don't think it's appropriate to merge this RfC into that given that the proposal here is a series of dot points that is different to what's at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. For example, I wouldn't support 25 editors as listed in this proposal but would support 25 extended confirmed editors. Other questions have been raised above (for example what if there's a concurrent ArbCom case) and I would encourage editors who have raised those concerns here to take them to Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall for a further discussion and whether or not they should be incorporated into that proposal before it is put forward for adoption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    25 extended-confirmed editors is already a requirement. A fourth RFC seems excessive. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    +1 Yet another reason why this should have been workshopped first: this proposal is missing a crucial part of the previous stage. Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 01:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    While I have expressed agreement with this sentiment before, I am also a firm believer of not putting everyone through additional WP:BURO after this. So I'd rather User: Barkeep49 or someone else add a link to WP:Administrator recall to the topic above instead of trying to wrangle a 4th RFC. I'd phrased my !vote above to answer the question I think we should be asking anyway. Soni (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed: Callanecc and Dilettante's points are accurate and well taken, but this really does come down to a more direct call on community will and BURO. I think the obvious emerging consensus here is that if a version of the policy language has already been rendered which includes all of the consensus elements agreed to for the process, without any glaring contraventions or other issues, then as soon as this discussion closes with a consensus in the affirmative, that version of the guideline becomes policy immediately. Repeating the process yet again for purely pro forma reasons is not necessary, appropriate, or a reasonable use of community time. Let's remember that any version validated can thereafter be reasonably expected to be subject to discussion and further tweaking, particularly in its first months.
    EDIT: Though I do think one reasonable thing that could be done thereafter would be to advertise every major disputed discussion on the guideline talk page at VPP for the next six months (and having a tendency to do so thereafter, really). It is, after all, a new process that has non-trivial consequence to our administrative operations, so continuing to have heavy community input in its initial evolution here can only be regarded as a good thing. SnowRise let's rap 03:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Adding on to the pile that says that we've already gone through so much bureaucracy at this point that any more after this would be really out of the norm. If there's consensus here, mark it as policy and work out fine details as they are brought up. If there's not consensus, let's find out right now, and not after more formal RFC cycles. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes on principle, but some points still need to be workshopped. How does 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus work for an election? Is it split in the middle? This kind of details should've been made clear before putting the proposal up to a vote. (Edit: looking at the comments below, this appears to have already been discussed) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah it's 55%, which was added to WP:RECALL a few weeks ago (following that discussion below). Levivich (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, a consensus was clearly reached. But I recomend another RfC after this just to make sure. SerialNumber54129 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Serial Number 54129 This is that confirming RfC Mach61 18:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

General discussion (Administrator Recall)

  • Close as the proposal is still being developed. A draft of a full proposal is being discussed at WP:Administrator recall that refines and adds clarification to the closes at WP:RFA2024. All editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. I do anticipate that this proposal will come back for community discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    As noted when this was raised on my talk page, the work there appears procedural. There is no agreement even there about whether or not this is already policy or not. Having editors spend time developing something in detail when the core policy doesn't have consensus is a poor use of time in my opinion. If it does have consensus the details can be worked out and will be made to happen. We have seen that happen with Admin elections coming out of the RFA2024 process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    I understand where you are coming from, but the detailed efforts identified a couple challenges with how to implement the close, and I wouldn't suggest that the policy described above is the exact proposal coming from those efforts (although it is in harmony with the closes in WP:RFA2024). While every policy could be further refined, I am of the belief that our community is best served by bringing forward a more complete proposal for community discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    This should be closed. For most people, whether they support admin recall depends very much on the details of the proposed mechanism. For a sensible RfC, the mechanism has to be spelled out (as above) but must not change for 30 days. That does not match reality at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Johnuniq genuine question: what details do people need beyond which there is already RfC consensus for? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    Barkeep49, I oppose the proposal, but I think you should withdraw this RfC for now. What people still need (or at least should be entitled to) is to see a full proposal, a proposed policy page, not the bullet list summary you posted here, and to see a rationale for adopting the proposal, prepared by its supporters. And editors are working on those things now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I long ago tuned this out as a TL;DR waste of my time. But curious, is there a consensus that the current Arbitration Committee-led "recall procedure" is not up to the task, and should be discontinued? Or, rather, is there a consensus that both procedures may be used. Can an admin be subject to both an Arbcom case *and* a "community recall procedure" at the same time? Is there a consensus for that? To be clear, I oppose the possibility of simultaneous, competing recall procedures. wbm1058 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Wbm1058 Nothing in this above would prevent someone from becoming a party to an arbcom case, or from arbcom issuing any remedy. How would you like a blocking condition to work? Perhaps a prohibition on community recall rrfa launching while the admin is a party to an arbcom case? — xaosflux Talk 10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    If stripping the Arbitration Committee of the power to desysop isn't part of the package, this whole "recall procedure" strikes me as highly problematic. Imagine an Admin suffering through a month-long Arbitration Commmittee proceeding, ending with an "admonishment" to the administrator, followed hours later by the opening of a "community recall procedure". – wbm1058 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Bureaucrats evaluate consensus for 50-60% is invalid for the election option, that is strictly a vote - so needs a specific value. — xaosflux Talk 10:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    There has been consensus for 60% threshold for Admin elections. The same has been summarised in Wikipedia:Administrator recall as well (which was intended as a summary of Phase II) but I don't see a link to it in the main proposal here Soni (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    So perhaps the description above just needs to be clarified. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    Should be consensus for 55%. Option C stated the midpoint of whatever passed in the other discussion. Option C won there, which was 50-60%, so the midpoint is 55% which is explicitly called out in the first discussion. Pinging @Voorts: in case I'm completely misreading something here. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    55% is correct. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux, @Soni, and @Tazerdadog: I've fixed the close to state that it's 55% without 'crat discretion; I think I added that bit by accident because that's nowhere in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside everything else, this part is confusing: A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats. Is this implying that if the admin requests a delay then the admin is responsible for creating it? Why not have the 'crat create it after the delay, same as they would for no-delay? Anomie⚔ 14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't like that part at all. I'd rather see the admin start their own RRFA within some short deadline (7 days - with possibly the option for asking for the 30 day extension) -- and if they don't start it anyone can ask at BN to process the desysop. Crats never have to edit, so requiring the crats to create a pageto move the process forward gives them a pocket veto. — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with this RFC's summary of that part of the proposal. As I read it, an admin chooses whether to start an RFA (or stand for election), which must be done within 30 days, and if it's not done within 30 days, crats desysop with discretion ("discretion" such as taking into account whether the petition was entirely signed by obvious sock puppets or had the requisite number of qualified signatories, or to extend the period to 32 or 33 days instead of 30 due to the admin's RL schedule, things of that nature). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    Option E there is where it says the 'crat should open create the discussion. The other options had the admin being required to say "come attack me" within a certain period of time. The combination of E+A is where we got the confusion here, since E didn't explicitly say what should happen if a delay is requested. Anomie⚔ 15:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think the closer got it wrong by finding consensus for E. Only 6 people (out of 30+) voted for E. It's A, not E. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    OTOH, looks like only 9 of those 30+ voted after E was added. That part, at least, seems like it could use further discussion by people who care. Anomie⚔ 15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    I just asked the closer to reconsider it. Levivich (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    This point is one of the pieces that has been ironed out at WP:Administrator recall. As I said above, and others have pointed out, this proposal is not completely ripe. - Enos733 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah I guess the current language at WP:RRFA handles it just fine. @Anomie and Xaosflux: take a look at WP:RRFA, I think that addresses your concerns on this point? Levivich (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    🤷 Looks to me like they changed it from E+A to just A. That does resolve the confusion. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think it would ever happen, but in theory the crats could just wait 30 days and then decide to revoke privileges without any community input, which seems like a flaw, that part should be reworded to clarify who is responsible for starting the process in each situation. ASUKITE 17:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Close as premature. The page is a mess right now, as several people have posted above. It isn't anywhere near finalized so of course there will be holes and parts where it doesn't judge consensus. When I said "What we need is an RFC to decide whether or not we need another RFC", I didn't expect anyone to actually do it. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused as to what is being asked here: is this a request for approval of a process? Or are we judging whether consensus was previously formed for it? The latter does not seem to me a good question to ask, as it is sending us further into the weeds of a proposal that has already gotten out of hand with respect to creation and approval procedure. But that's how I read my colleagues' !votes above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Do we really need another bureaucratic mess that is another RfC? I think the last one had enough consensus. Ping me if there's anything in particular we're trying to work out and I'm not getting the point of this. I'm trying to take a step back from the more complicated aspects of the project right now but this is important. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Close as a confusing, duplicative mess. The specific question in this RFC, as far as I can make out, is asking whether the previous discussion had consensus to implement something following discussion, or whether the outcome of that further discussion needs to be subject to an RFC. I don't think it's sensible to even ask that until that further discussion is complete and we can see the differences between it and the consensus outcome. However, above there appears to be discussion of things other than that question, and no clear agreement about what the consensus of the last RFC was (with the consensus as determined by the closer having changed at least once since the initial close) - other than more discussion of the details was needed (which seems to be happening in two places). I don't think it's possible for this discussion to be useful in any way so it should be closed before it creates even more confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: I think there might be some confusion about what this discussion is for – it would definitely be silly if it was trying to ask people to assess the consensus of the post-close discussion on talk. This RfC asks the same question the post-close discussion has been focused on: did the Phase I and Phase II RfCs result in a consensus to implement? That, I think, is worth discussing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  • The "25 editors" figure in the initial proposal was qualified as being extended confirmed. Definitely not supporting a process whereby any 25 editors, over the course of a full month, can start this process. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a consensus ... but whether there is or isn't, "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition." needs to be clarified. You can't support more than five open petitions, but then the next sentence says you can initiate a petition without limit. Those two statements need to be harmonized. --B (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition" is entirely accurate. There are limitations on how often someone can initiate a petition (there are cooling off periods, plus the 5-petitions-at-once limit), limitations that were decided in Phase II and are specified at WP:Administrator recall § Petition. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Re:Close as premature comments, I said my piece above and on my talk page about why I thought (and think) it appropriate. I also don't think I hold any particular status other than being UNINVOLVED in this process. So if some other UNINVOLVED editor wants to close this as premature, I'm certainly not going to push back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • For further background, see wp:Administrators_open_to_recall and the associated categories and pages. (including pages related to some actual recalls) When we came up with this back in the Jurassic Era, we intended it to be voluntary. It's interesting to see that there appears to be consensus that some kind of mandatory process be implemented. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 9 October 2024 (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.
Latest comment: 24 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I'm collaborating with another user on a sandbox draft, and I want to show my thoughts of what an article might look like. I was tempted to upload a fair use image to help facilitate the discussion, but of course, that's verboten here. A question just occurred to me; now I need to find the answer.

Is there any legal reason we can't use fair use images in collaborative drafts before the article goes in Article Space? Or is this some sort of self-imposed superstitious villager taboo we do to ourselves, unnecesarily, as a sacrifice to imagined gods of US copyright law in the hopes our rite will appease them? Is the project actually at ANY legal exposure if we allow fair use in collaborative drafts under active development? Feoffer (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no legal reason we can't use fair use (outside of fair use allowances), the stipulation stems from the WMF's resolution on non-free content, which stresses the need to keep non-free use minimal. On that end, en.wiki has adapted the standard that the only allowable space for non-free content is within mainspace article content, as we have seen non-free used on user-page drafts without ever being converted to mainspace, which violates the need for minimal use.
If you are trying to prepare a draft that will use non-free, and want to make sure that the article looks decent with the images in place, its recommended this to be a last step just prior to moving from a draft to mainspace,so that the necessary non-free can be uploaded and queued for inclusion. Or you can use placeholder free images while the draft is in development. — Masem (t) 06:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
If the image is available elsewhere online then you can link to that on the talk page so that other editors know what image is being discussed and offer critique, etc. on it. If it doesn't exist elsewhere (e.g. it's something you've scanned) then it is far from impossible that your uploading it to a third party image host for the purposes of said discussion will be compatible with fair use (but do check the image host's terms of use). Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
We have File:Placeholder.svg (and also in other formats) that's often used in mock-ups and examples, such as Template:Infobox school athletics/doc#Example (as an example of an example:). DMacks (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble locating AfD deletion discussion

Latest comment: 23 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How do I find the discussion concerning deletion of Effie Awards? I attempted to search the tool in Articles for Deletion section, but it doesn't yield the relevant result.

Most relevant discussion I found is here. Marcos [Tupungato] (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Effie Award was speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#A7 in September 2018 for not credibly asserting significance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Yep, note that it was Effie Award that was the article - Effie Awards was a redirect to it, and was deleted under CSD#G8. The article was only sourced to the Effie website, which at the time didn't work either. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Digital storage time by law

Latest comment: 22 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Is there a legal time frame that WMF is forced to store IP addresses of users? It seems the WMF has given them out before and has said to an Indian court that they are going to again. If there is no legal reason then they should be purged after a certain time frame. This would make it difficult for checkusers and sockpuppet admin. We could easily store them in an area that only those groups would have access to. Then the WMF could say that the court would have to subpoena someone from those groups. Thoughts?Music Air BB (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Foundation:Privacy policy#How Long Do We Keep Your Data? states Once we receive Personal Information from you, we keep it for the shortest possible time that is consistent with the maintenance, understanding, and improvement of the Wikimedia Sites, and our obligations under applicable law. In most instances, Personal Information is deleted, aggregated or de-identified after 90 days. and further links to Foundation:Legal:Data retention guidelines, which states that IP addresses will be kept for "at most 90 days" and then "deleted, aggregated or deintentified".
The Sharing section of the privacy policy details when, why and with whom your data may be shared by the Foundation. The "For legal reasons" subsection begins We will access, use, preserve, and/or disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to satisfy a valid and legally enforceable warrant, subpoena, court order, law or regulation, or other judicial or administrative order. However, if we believe that a particular request for disclosure of a user's information is legally invalid or an abuse of the legal system and the affected user does not intend to oppose the disclosure themselves, we will try our best to fight it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
We should knock that 90 days down to 7 days but leave in a limited access area for 90. Only sockpuppet and checkusers would have access to it. What about email addresses? I thought no human had access to those? Music Air BB (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
The IP information (for accounts) is already limited access - only checkusers (with good reason), stewards (sometimes), some techies and some staff can access it. It gets automatically removed from the database after 90 days. That seems a reasonable timescale to me - it's mostly used to reduce abuse of the site, which can be chronic. As for email, if it's in a database and can be displayed to a human, then a human can access it. The people operating a database (in this case the WMF) can access pretty much anything that's in there, with enough effort. They surely have policies and checks in place to prevent willy-nilly access, but it can't really be stopped on a technical level. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
The WMF's privacy policy is not something that the en.wp community has any control over. If you want to suggest changes to them you need to do so elsewhere. I don't know where that place is, but the people who watch meta:Wikimedia Forum are likely to. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a shedload of fora I could have posted to including Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) where there seems to be some drama about the WMF take down of an article and doxing because of a court order in India. The article contents are still in a sub-section of a parent article so I don't know why the grand uproar. Just expand that section like a WP:COAT. I doubt many people have Wictionary:Village Pump (WMF) on a watchlist nor the main WMF ones. This page probably has the best input. Music Air BB (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps somewhat ironically, the OP is the sock of a user who has already been subject to multiple blocks. The 90 day limited access was enough to confirm this without any doubt. Girth Summit (blether) 16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Paying someone else to write your edits

Latest comment: 22 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I have encountered many kinds of COI editors, autobiographers and paid editors (disclosed and undisclosed) in my time but I've just stumbled upon something that I've never seen before; a page where the text strongly suggested the user had paid someone else to write text for them that they were then posting on Wikipedia. The telling part was that when copying the text they had left in part of the correspondence they'd been having, not unlike when users forget to remove the "Sure, here is a draft Wikipedia page" text from a chatbot.

The page has already been tagged for speedy deletion by @FifthFive because it was in any event autobiographical, promotional and NOTAWEBHOST, but out of mere academic curiosity: is there any area of policy that deals with this kind of thing? AntiDionysius (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyright is the first thing that comes to mind. AIUI, unless it is a work for hire or you explicitly assign the copyright to me (or release it under a Wikipedia-compatible free license), you own the copyright and my posting it here would be a violation of your copyright. Other than that I don't think there is any need for policy here - if I wrote it and it would be deleted (NOTWEBHOST, spam, etc) then delete it for that reason, if it isn't a copyright violation and it wouldn't be deleted if it was self written then I don't see any benefit to deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Re copyright, really depends on jurisdiction, the communications between the parties and (as mentioned) an absence of any express licence, but if it was clear between the parties the text was going to be used for Wikipedia, it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that an implied licence exists compliant with Wikipedia's requirements. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
In this particular case, it seemed like it was very clear that the writer was aware their work was for Wikipedia (not that this stopped them from writing promotionally, but anyway) but yeah I can see how those contextual questions would be important. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
For sure, yeah - it strikes me as likely to end up being promotional most of the time (why else would you pay someone if not to promote something?) but I'm not suggesting we need a policy to ban the practice as such. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
If it's promotional enough that deletion is better than rewriting, then it should be deleted for being promotional regardless of who wrote it. If it's not that promotional then it shouldn't be deleted, regardless of who wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, that was what I was trying to express. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
In my limited dealings with COI's, a thought occurred to me that, in working with them, I risk subjecting myself to suspicion of being a COI editor myself (Wikilawyering intensifies). Cheers. DN (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking for guideline, forgot where it is

Latest comment: 19 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I recall a while ago, I found and/or was pointed to a guideline that basically stated cosmetic changes to links or templates should not be done if there is no change in functionality or where the page links (such as replacing a link to an redirect with the link to the target page). Can anyone point me into the direction of that guideline? Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Could it be WP:NOTBROKEN? (I also thought of WP:COSMETICBOT which is technically just part of the bot guidelines but my sense is in general people like human editors to at least be aware and minimize such edits.) Skynxnex (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@Skynxnex: I'll look into it further, but that definitely gives me direction on what to look at. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
No such guideline exists. Gonnym (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not a guideline, but it's common sense. WP:BOTDICT#cosmetic edit (see the bit about "edit warring on presentation"), WP:BOTDICT#editor-hostile wikitext, and the general concept of threshold of usefulness will have good general advice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
COSMETICBOT is a policy for bots, which includes tools that assist manual editing, and it identifies itself as a general guideline for other "bot-like" purely manual editing. So it might apply with different strength depending on how many such edits someone is doing, how they are doing them, and if/how-much disruption it's creating for other editors working on certain pages. DMacks (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Another RfC regarding the admin recall process

Latest comment: 16 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cut the petitions to being just signatures, or not? It is here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion? Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily this morning. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Shorten the recall petition period?

Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

To anyone unfamiliar with this, admin recall is a new process that is exactly what it sounds like. Currently, there is a 30 day petition period: if 25 people sign it, the admin then needs to pass a new RfA within 30 days to keep the tools. Should we change the petition period?

  • Option A: Keep the petition period the same (30 days)
  • Option B: Change the petition period to 7 days
  • Option C: Some other time period (like 14 or 15 days?) that's longer than a week but shorter than a month.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2024 (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.

WP:PAID if owner of company

Latest comment: 14 days ago27 comments14 people in discussion

Drm310 and I have a polite disagreement on the interpretation of WP:PAID, and I may very well be mistaken. What is very clear is if an editor is an employee of a company, they are a paid editor. What's not clear is what happens if the editor is the owner of a company. Sure, there's a conflict of interest, but are they a paid editor? I'll quote Drm310, as he says it better than me. "They said that they were a company owner and not an employee. You said that makes them a paid editor. I always interpreted the policy as: if a person is receiving (or expecting) compensation as part of their job, then they're a paid editor. But if they have an ownership stake in the company/organization, then they fall outside the definition of employee. Are we now interpreting it so that owners are paid editors too, because they are drawing an income from their business?" My position is that an owner of a company counts as a paid editor by virtue of the ownership (they don't even need to be drawing an income). Is that position correct, or is it a step too far wrt WP:PAID? --Yamla (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would read it as you do, @Yamla:; they have a vested interest in the company being successful, which, in my book, ultimately means getting "something" out of it (which in most cases will mean an income of sorts). Reading it differently smacks slightly of (wiki-)lawyering. Lectonar (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, Lectonar, it has always seemed to me that the line "you stand to gain from your editing, so it's effectively paid, even if you aren't actually paid for the editing" is wikilawyering, so evidently that's a matter of point of view.
I have always taken it that paid editing does not include editing about one's own business, in line with what Drm310 says, but my experience is that many, perhaps most, administrators take it the way that Yamla and Lectonar do. In a way it doesn't make much difference, as in either case the conflict of interest issue applies, but there are ways in which it may make a difference. In my opinion the most important way it may make a difference is the purely practical consideration that most owners of businesses writing about their own businesses don't recognise "paid editing" as a description of what they are doing, so it is, in my opinion, more helpful to use other wording which they will be more likely to understand than insisting "yes it is paid editing". (There's already enough of a problem with: "No, I'm not paid to edit Wikipedia, it's just part of my job" ... "Yes, but if it's part of a job that you are paid for then it's paid work" ... "Yes, but..." without adding another layer of room for misunderstanding.) I therefore think it's more helpful to treat the expression "paid editing" as not applying to editing about one's own business.
Theoretically it isn't up to us to decide what the expression means, because it's part of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, over which we have no jurisdiction. However, those terms of use refer to "each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation" and as far as I can see there is no definition or clarification of the word "affiliation", so that doesn't really help. JBW (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I think an owner is "intended beneficiary", ownership being a beneficial interest in what is owned, even if one can't parse "affiliation". Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that PAID applies to owners, but the wording of WP:PAID is ambiguous enough that a reasonable person might very well disagree with that opinion, and I think that should be clarified on that page. An owner of a company can still be an employee of that company (e.g. if the company is set up as a C corporation they can be considered an employee for tax and insurance purposes). I don't think the applicability of the paid-contribution disclosure should change depending on how you structure your company if the role in the company is similarly situated. If you are compensated by working at a company as an owner or otherwise, that needs to be disclosed. Even situations where an owner does not receive direct financial payments or dividends from their ownership of the company (like with a smaller startup company) they would still need to disclose that under WP:PAID, as money is not the only form of compensation. Even in a sole proprietorship they are directly paid for their work at the company, the same as if they were an employee. Owning the company should not be a loophole precluding the need for disclosure. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Has anyone suggested that it should preclude the need for disclosure? If they have, I haven't seen where tgey have done so. I assumed it was obvious that there is a need for disclosure of one's position because it is a conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@JBW: I'm sure I've seen it come up but I can't recall where. Someone with a COI reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest might reasonably assume that if they are not considered a paid editor, then they are not required to disclose anything. The difference between the PAID verbiage (required...requirement..you must disclose...you must not use administrative tools for any paid-editing activity) contrasts with the less strict wording of non-PAID COI (expected to disclose...should disclose...COI editing is strongly discouraged). The section Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Disclosure also makes this distinction. I'm not saying I don't think COIs should be disclosed, but someone with a COI who is going to split hairs about whether an owner of a company make one a paid editor would be likely to split hairs there as well. - Aoidh (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Jessintime I do not intend to tell you that your opinion on this as "absurd"; I prefer to just say that I respectfully disagree. You may like to consider which of those two approaches is more constructive. JBW (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not mean to be disrespectful, but my use of the word "absurd" here was in reference to the doctrine of absurdity. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Jessintime OK, thanks for clarifying that. However, having looked at the article that you have linked, I am wondering what the absurd result you think would ensue. What is it that an owner of a company would be allowed to do which an employee wouldn't? Certainly not editing without disclosure of conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I think Buster's response below (Starlink's unpaid interns would count as paid editors, but not Elon) illustrates the problem. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
From the policy page: Interns are considered employees for this purpose. So unpaid interns count as paid editors when editing the Starlink Wikipedia article for their employer. But edits by Elon Musk would not count as paid editing. That sounds like an absurd result to me. Do I misunderstand the policy? BusterD (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Someone who has a few shares in a large company is one of its "owners" in law, but likely doesn't have a big enough financial stake in it to amount to a COI in Wikipedia terms. Someone who has most of the shares in a small company, on the other hand, has a COI.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    If I may extend your example, if I were in the business of stocks or futures, I might actually have a stake (direct or otherwise) sufficient to put me in direct conflict, no matter which company is the subject. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)


  • I have just seen a message on Yamla's talk page, where I think he makes a point that I have tried to make, but he has expressed it perhaps more clearly than I have. He said: "In the end, whichever way the consensus goes, I think the combination of WP:PAID and WP:COI means the end result (though not the communication) ends up the same." Many of the comments above appear to be based on the assumption that not interpreting "paid editing" as including owner-editing would mean letting owners edit without disclosure, but it wouldn't. JBW (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for copying my comment here, JBW. In my initial post, I meant "Sure, there's a conflict of interest" to cover this point, but failed to be clear. I do think the communication around paid editing is important, even if the end result (user has to declare a conflict) is the same. This is frequently a challenging concept to communicate to new editors. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think there may be a more fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PAID here than you think. Paid editing is about people being paid to edit. Let's take What is very clear is if an editor is an employee of a company, they are a paid editor to the point of absurdity: a burger flipper at a 40,000-location chain fast-food restaurant who edits the article about the chain is in no way being paid to make that edit. Their job is to flip burgers, not to do corporate PR. They do have a COI (positive or negative) due to the employment relationship, but unless the CEO or PR department or whoever is telling employees that editing Wikipedia is now part of their job it's not WP:PAID.
    But like many other things around here, since WP:PAID has stricter requirements and penalties than WP:COI, people tend to try to stretch the definitions as far as they possibly can to use the stricter requirements and penalties to combat editing they don't like. I won't be surprised if people in that space take objection to my paragraph above on the basis that restricting WP:PAID to the clear definitions would hamper their efforts to combat the spammer scourge.
    As for the business owner, if the business is making paid edits on behalf of clients then the company as a whole, including the owner, is being WP:PAID to edit on behalf of the company's clients. And the required disclosure includes those clients, not just their general ownership of the paid-editing company. On the other hand, if the business is making widgets then I'd say the owner's editing is a very major COI but it's not specifically WP:PAID. Anomie⚔ 00:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with that interpretation of WP:PAID. The policy says: "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." I think it's completely reasonable to hold the belief that "publicity" is almost always part of the job of a company owner and other senior officers e.g., C-suite occupants, governing board members. ElKevbo (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and even more than that, the owner, officers and board members are fiduciaries of the company, and "compensated" and "incentivized" by ownership and/or other compensation (money, goods or services -- possession of the company is a good) to work in the company's best interest, whether in editing Wikipedia, or elsewhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly the sole or majority owner of the company has an actual or risk of COI (depending on which definition of COI you use), But "Paid" implies more that that.....that somebody is paying them and telling them what to do. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO WP:PAID should be split into its main two interpretations: "instructed (even if implicit, e.g. hired for publicity in general) to edit Wikipedia for compensation" and "direct financial interest in a subject". JoelleJay (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:COI, not WP:PAID. When you're PAID to edit, the owner (or someone acting on behalf on the owner) tells you 'your job is to do this for me'. If you don't, you lose your job/don't get paid, so that's where your incentive comes from. WP:PAID exists, among other reasons, because there are firms trying to sell these services to companies/owners, and companies/owners paying people to edit on their behalf so they can go 'we hired professionals, if they're an issue blame them!'. It's a special type of COI-editting that's common enough to have a special policy for that special type of COI editing.

When the owner themselves are doing the editing, all the special concerns of PAID disappears, save for the remaining one: COI-editting. But that's covered by WP:COI. There is nothing special about the owner of Mary Sue, owner of Certified Reiki Thetan-Level 3 Shop editing an article on her business, than Rocker Boy Joe writing about his band Rocket Bobs, or Jensen Huang vandalizing AMD articles through an account named User:AMDTROLL4V3R. They don't lose their jobs, they still have their income, and they don't get in trouble if they fail to deliver. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If your job includes promoting a business and you come to Wikipedia to promote that business, that is PAID editing, owner or otherwise. That someone would be fired for refusing is not the criteria, an owner is highly incentivized to promote their business and can expect to be compensated for that effort through business growth and profit, and it is the compensation element that makes an editor a paid editor. - Aoidh (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Which is just a regular WP:COI. There is no compensation exchanged, nor any power dynamic at play when/if they "fail to deliver". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no part of WP:PAID that suggests that a power dynamic or consequence for a failure to deliver is a determining factor, and owners are indeed compensated for their work. This is especially true when taking into account that compensation is not limited to remuneration. - Aoidh (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation" is very much concerned with who the editing is being done for. — HTGS (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_197&oldid=1257976463"