Looking over the current list of people applying to serve on the Movement Drafting Committee, I see that there isn't anyone yet whose home wiki is English Wikipedia applying. There's still plenty of time to apply - the deadline is September 1. In my opinion this work is one of the most important things that has ever happened in the Wikimedia movement. We don't just need good people, we need fantastic people serving on this committee because I think it's going to pretty substantially change how individual projects work and how projects interact with the Foundation. So this is my plea for the many fantastic people we have on this project to put their names forward. Wikipedia and Wikimedia needs you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does this stuff mean? Maybe it's just me but a lot of the pages read really opaque. Is there a TLDR (Simple English-wiki style and no marketing speak) of the whole Movement Charter / Global Council / Drafting Groups / Interim Committees / Movement Strategy / etc stuff? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: this is an excellent point and one I have raised, several times, with the foundation. There is so much going on confusion is bound to happen. Let me try to do my simple explanation in the collapsed box below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Barkeep49, this is helpful. I know it's not written yet, but as an example what kinds of things will be in this Magna Carta (separate from the enforcement portion of the UCoC)? At least to the extent that it will affect English Wikipedia. The meta page makes gives me ideas on how it might affect affiliates etc, but not much about what it would mean for this project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very open at this point. In any case, the charter must be drafted before the Global Council elections because it will specify what the authority of the Global Council is. It is difficult to predict how this is going to affect the individual project, UCoC may be or may not be part of it (my guess is that probably not), and I do not think it can specify anything which communities typically decide now on the global level (certainly not policies etc).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin touches on some of how this could impact English Wikipedia below but I suspect we'll be told that we need to go through the global council for things like editors using the apps being unable to get notifications. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. It sounds quite important then. Certainly I'd like to see the problems experienced by editors have more representation in technical decision-making and resource prioritisation beyond the current "make a phab request" and/or "use the annual community wishlist". Ditto for grant-making. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is that the requirements might be somewhat troublesome for some people who are thinking of applying. " Not be under active sanctions by any Wikimedia project or the Wikimedia Foundation, including events ban. "If that wording is taken literally, it would disqualify anyone under any sort of restriction, including interaction bans.( I have no clue what events ban means) Candidates also have to submit proof of real life identity. I hope that at least one non-admin community member and at least one well respected admin and/or functionary applies, so that ENWP gets representation on the committee. ( Note that if there are 20 or more applicants, there will be a popular election for 7 spots with no more than two members elected from each project.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before the recent disaster, I considered applying (especially since I invested quite some time and effort to get this happened), but figured out that one of the requirements was being active in the governance of some sort of non-profit organization, and I decided not to bother.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter (and others) the only requirements are listed here. I think you're referencing the Candidate Profile which has a "no one can be all of these things" statement. I can say from my application to the UCoC enforcement committee there was a similar statement, I didn't meet all the profile statements and still got chosen. I would not let the non-profit governance statement deter you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I will not apply anyway, I have not yet fully recovered from the medical emergency. May be by the end of August I will be feeling better.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to +1 this – we absolutely need the best possible people we can find for this role. The Movement Charter probably has the most long-term importance out of all the strategy work that is happening now and is expected to do most or all of the following:

1. define community-WMF relations, and what the Wikimedia movement is (who it comprises)
2. decide how a Global Council should be composed and selected: e.g. election, appointment by WMF, affiliate selection, etc.
3. define the powers of the Global Council, which could likely include global policymaking authority, ability to represent the community to the WMF, some substantial budget (for staffing the Council and/or for grantmaking), appointment or advisory power over other committees or community bodies, and similar "community representative" functions.

Given that WMF is requiring the global community to adopt a Movement Charter, we really need to get it right. If you're reading this and thinking "ugh, I'd be good at that but I wish someone else does this instead", I hate to break it to you – you are exactly the kind of person we need on this committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone believes that the WMF will really take into consideration whatever this committee decides that could be disagreeing with what the WMF actually wants, then by all means apply. Judging from recent events (from the branding fiasco, passing by what they did with the input about the UCOC, to the current situation with the utter disrespect given to the community questions at the elections (first the community input was completely disregarded, then after much protest the community questions were appended to the bottom of the documentation, far removed from the WMF-approved questions), not to mention things like the IP masking situation), the presence of community members will only be used to claim that whatever they decide is "community-proposed" or "community-supported" and that no further discussion will be possible. Fram (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the election committee is responsible for that question debacle and that's a group of volunteers. And the UCoC text was written by a committee largely composed of volunteers. And I share your concern about how the global council could be used. Which is one reason I think it so important to get right. If the best people sit it out based on some sense of fatalism it definitely won't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least the move to the bottom of documentation was done by a WMF staffer, not by a volunteer. To be precise, the "Movement Strategy & Governance Facilitator", who I guess will be involved with the Movement Charter draft. Fram (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting is always done by the WMF staff, just because it can not be done by volunteers. (For example, it has to be approved by the legal). However, in the drafting I participated in we (volunteers) provided original ideas and then commented on the draft. The result was typically good. I guess Barkeep49 has more experience with the UCoC, but their experience are probably similar to mine. This is in a stark difference with the example the rebranding where volunteers were not asked to give input in any way (either as a selected organized team, or as a community), and this is why rebranding was such a disaster.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In some previous rounds of the Movement Strategy discussions the drafting genuinely was done by committee members. But otherwise I agree with Ymblanter, the situation with the strategy process (and I believe the UCoC, though I wasn't involved in that myself) is very different to that with e.g. the branding debacle. (Disclaimer: I am now a candidate for the charter drafting group). The Land (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a full picture to say the Election Committee is a group of volunteers. I mean it's true, and they're likely excellent volunteers, but it's an appointed body. Apologies for the slightly disrespectful analogy, but it's a bit like a dictator inhabiting the White House claiming to represent the American people because he's also an American... If a person isn't selected by the community, then he doesn't represent the community and isn't accountable to it. Compare the WMF ElectCom fiasco with English Wikipedia's Election Committee who are elected - I'd be very surprised if any of them ignored a serious question for seven weeks (and it appears the WMF ElectCom do not intend to answer it at all). Indeed, I remember our ElectCom being highly responsive in 2020, eg with this mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a big deal of a discussion between many parties leading to this decision. I personally supported an concept of an appointed body, just because it will produce the charter faster, probably of the same quality, and the diversity can be adjusted. The only purpose of the body is to draft the chapter, not to make any decisions, and I do not think it has to be elected. There are different opinions of course, quite of few of us participated in the discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Firstly, disclosure: I am a MCDC candidate] - As Ymblanter says, there was a significant disagreement on the makeup of the MCDC. Because framing is important, despite as aggressive a ratification method as I can get (whether in the MCDC or not), I was one of those on the opposite side of the "pure appointed" route - I wrote the most elected-heavy proposal for the drafting committee. Pharos wrote a more compromise one, and Quim (WMF) wrote the appointed one. He also wrote, the compromise solution that is very similar to the final form, and then a few tweaks were incorporated from feedback from others with an interest. I felt it was a good compromise - it was a huge shift from the WMF's original form, and so I backed it. I am also appalled with ElectCom's complete disregard to communicate - they need to be both elected, and there needs to be a community method to bring them to task for woeful and ongoing failures to communicate. As you say, en-wiki ARBCOM election commission is a less crucial, temporary, body, and is still more responsive. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Can you please elaborate on "passing by what they did with the input about the UCOC"? I'm having trouble parsing it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I mean "ignoring", "not even mentioning" what they did. Probably some idiom I translated into English but which doesn't work in that language :-) "Don't get me started on what they did with..." would have been better I suppose. Fram (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with participating in drafting a Movement Charter is that one has to believe that there should be a Movement Charter and that this is a "movement." I'm one of those editors who is here to "build an encyclopedia," not to participate in a "free knowledge movement" or any other kind of "movement." Further, I think calling what we do a "movement," or calling any organized activity of people a "movement," equates it with real movements like the civil rights movement or women's rights movement, which is highly inappropriate (and frankly the kind of thing only a very white, very male group of people would do). So I hope anyone representing us on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee would raise the issue of "stop calling it a movement," but I think I'm in the minority when it comes to this viewpoint. Levivich 16:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much as it may pain me to utter these words, I must say that I am in full agreement with Levivich here. This is an encyclopedia whose content is owned by its writers, not a "movement" owned by the WMF, which only exists to support the projects that have chosen to be hosted by it. This is just one more example of how Foundation employees seem to think that they own the encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not entirely sure what the Charter is going to govern. Will it have an impact on editorial decisions? Sourcing guidelines? Will it govern the creation of new projects? Is it going to advise the WMF on how best to grow the project in regions and languages where the encyclopedia is lacking in content? We already have a separate new "code of conduct" group, so I assume it's not doing that. And it certainly is not going to be filled with lawyers who would be wanting to comment on WMF legal recommendations. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The charter is supposed to describe relations between different groups, such as the WMF, the affiliates, and the projects. It is not going to impact things like sourcing guidelines.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this charter is a "who we are, why we are here and what we are doing" document, I wish I could be part of the discussion, but it sounds like this is for foundation people?

Also, does Global Council = over-arching arbcom for all of wikimedia? - jc37 18:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is not a policy making body. The Global Council will (almost certainly) be a policy making body, though more at the level Ymblanter describes above in response to power. A global ArbCom is a possible outcome of the UCoC enforcement work. There will soon be a chance to give feedback on that very idea and if you have thoughts on whether there should or shouldn't be a global ArbCom I hope you participate in that process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm one of those darned meta people, but to me this legitimately looks like an attempt by the WMF to involve the community more in issues of global governance. They could full well just continue to handle movement-wide issues on their end or with affiliates, but instead they're taking a committee of (elected) volunteer community members to write up a charter to handle global community issues. And, at the very least, the WMF has lately given a significant degree of freedom to the volunteers involved in these sort of committees. I don't really see sufficient reason for the end-of-the-world type ideas expressed in this section, and though the worst case scenario can definitely be quite bad for community independence, that seems quite unlikely considering the current documentation available on Meta-Wiki. Though perhaps I am too quick to assume good faith with the WMF. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contingency plans

• I've been thinking this for a while, and maybe it's time to stick my head over the parapet and say it: We need an exit strategy. I mean, of course we all hope that the WMF's (many) new directions and initiatives are going to be inspiring and brilliant, but historically they haven't always been, and some of the more controlling aspects of their behaviour are starting to worry me (and others). I think it's only prudent for our community to have a backup plan. Which, to my poorly-IT-literate brain, probably means a fork?—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For reasons I discuss at my essay, Death of Wikipedia, I think a fork, even a really organized one that gets a lot of us that are most active, is doomed to fail. This new fork would have to operate for quite some time before it might start regularly appearing above Wikipedia in Google results or AI assisted searches. It would take a while for our readers to figure out that Wikipedia's quality has diminished. And, if I'm being particularly cynical or maybe just realistic, it's possible some of the readers would never figure out that the information they're getting isn't what it once was. I suspect that if there was a foundation based schism some people would just stop volunteering their time for encyclopedic work, while most of the people who kept volunteering their time would end up returning to Wikipedia. We need Wikipedia more than Wikipedia needs us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Even from the early aughts, WikiTheorists recognized that forking Wikipedia would be a non-trivial and likely futile task compared to other wikis and FOSS projects. See the discussion at meatball:WikiPediaIsNotTypical from around 2003 (dated by references to the rename of Phase III to MediaWiki which occurred in 2003) — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The exit strategy isn't "fork," it's "revolution." Vote in the trustee elections for trustees who share your views. The community needs to maintain control over whomever owns the servers. If we find new server-operators to replace the WMF, we'll still need to control them, so there's not much point in doing it. Just exercise the control we already have (by voting for trustees who share our views). Levivich 17:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have that control over the WMF and never will. If the WMF serves us up a shit sandwich, our choices are to eat it and smile, to abandon encyclopaedia writing, or to fork.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you reconcile that conclusion with the fact that we elect a majority of trustees? If the WMF serves up a shit sandwich, one choice we have is to put in different trustees who will serve us a better tasting sandwich. Levivich 17:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The rebranding was an example of a shit sandwich, and I do not think we have eaten it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If they served up a particularly bad sandwich, we could just choose not to eat it and play chicken (game) with the WMF. Yes, they have the servers, but I image we've got the technical ability in the community to attempt some work-arounds with the software. Will WMF sink their flagship? I'm not so sure ... Hog Farm _Talk 18:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  North8000 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) That's putting it mildly. Wikipedia is more than WMF's flagship, it's the sole ship which supports them, their ivory tower, and all of their other hobbies.North8000 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this in theory. In reality the recent questions debacle shows the difficulties of even being able to figure out which trustees share views on issues we consider dealbreakers when it comes to voting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ...which, I say, is our fault and not the WMF's. It's a bit of an indictment of the health of community governance that the candidates themselves can't communicate their own positions to us effectively. Or that we don't have enough candidates who can. Fundamentally, we're not communicating well with our own representatives. There's very little participation in the process. But we have a deep well of potential trustee candidates, in my opinion. I would vote for literally every single editor in this thread to be trustee if they ran. But almost no one wants to run (including me). That's the fundamental problem. More heresy from Levivich: We should pay trustees; that will increase the candidate pool. Levivich 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm concerned that only 5 (out of a total of 20) candidates decided to answer at least one community question. I have two possible explanations: 1) they either didn't know about them; or 2) they decided it wasn't important. Both, to me as a voter, indicate a serious communication concern incompatible with the position of community-elected trustee. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed some of the candidates addressed concerns raised in the community questions in their answers to the WMF-selected questions. Levivich 19:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich isn't wrong about this. There is a figure for which I'd do that job, but it is not zero.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A strategy for Wikipedia to fire WMF might make WMF improve. Including changing the ridiculous by-laws which make the elections a "talk to the hand" situation. Imagine if the US Senate had supreme power over the US. And with a 51% vote they could rewrite the US constitution any way that they wanted. And they already decided that a big portion of the Senate is self-appointed by them, and they decide the election rules for joining their club. And with a 51% vote that coudl expell any Senator that they didn't like. Believe it or not, that is the fundamentally flawed structure of the WMF bylaws.North8000 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

I look at this bureaucracy-building at the WMF level, and I'm trying to step back and see "why".

I could presume all sorts of wheel spinning, wool gathering, and people just doing "something" for "feel-good" reasons, or even just to say that they did "something".

But I think that this could possible be more than that. I think the universal CoC is the key to figuring this out.

I am not a lawyer, but I think, if we look undermeath, this may well be about fear of types of liability, legal or even really merely just perceived.

Things like the 230 debates, or that certain social media companies are adding commitees to review content and/or user interaction, in order to buffer against corporate liability, and so on.

But if so, in my opinion we already have oversighters and ombudsmen. Do we really need all this?

We are an encyclopedia project. It's starting to feel like someone out there thinks that we need to become the Federation of Planets. Jimbo Wales is not Hari Seldon, and we are not Terminus, starting the next Galactic Empire.

So what's going on? And is this what we want, much less need? I know I am just one small voice out in the wilderness, but where are we really going from here? - jc37 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what is going on is that many people employed by the WMF think that they own a social media site, and are acting accordingly, rather than realise the reality that their job is to provide support to an encyclopedia that is owned by its writers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They do own a social media site. They're hosts for user-submitted content so they're subject to the same legal pressures as facebook et al.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are employees, not owners. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns what is a really key point in all this. I will probably expand on this later but we lose sight of who owns the platform (the WMF), who owns the content (everyone), and who owns the distribution system that delivers the content from the platform to the readers (Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.). Each is a separate and distinct role in the knowledge ecosystem (now I sound like I work for the WMF). Levivich 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I distrust any organization that raises the banner: a global structure that responds to the needs of our Movement rather than, say, the users or the needers—or peoples. – Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 15:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least in terms of the UCOC, the staffers involved are very much well aware of their role, especially given that many were volunteers prior to becoming employees. Vermont (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking at the Movement Charter and Global Council and wondering 'what is the point of these', allow me to summarise - as one of the people who wrote the recommendations that led to these.

Basically, the relationships between all different parts of Wikimedia are something of a mess. The WMF and project communities, including ours, have very different expectations about who is supposed to do what. Even where there is a shared understanding, it's rarely written down anywhere and is easily forgotten on one side or another. These conflicting expectations cause friction, arguments, and lack of trust. There are also not that many channels of communication between different parts of the movement. If the English Wikipedia and the WMF need to have a conversation, how does that conversation happen? Not very effectively at the moment. And this is just the English Wikipedia and the WMF! When you add the hundreds of other projects and dozens of other Wikimedia organisations, the levels of confusion, unclarity and mistrust grow even higher.

Hence the idea of a Movement Charter to document the constitution of the Wikimedia movement (so to speak), and a Global Council to provide a forum for structured discussions and accountability all round. I hope that helps... The Land (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia heirarchy differentiation

I believe Wikipedia will eventually surpass The Bible as the most-copied English-language text, both in frequency and duration. (4021 CE: Scholars confirm Levivich was right.) In thinking about how to preserve and sustain Wikipedia in the long term, it's important to understand the difference between the content, the platform, and the distribution. Like Wikipedia, the content of the Bible was written by many different people, copied onto many different platforms (papyrus, parchment, paper, hard drives), and distributed by different organizations and people (book stores, churches). With Wikipedia:

• The content of Wikipedia is the text that the reader reads, and it is what is copied by Wikipedia mirrors.
• The platform is MediaWiki, hosted on web servers controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. In our case, MediaWiki is essentially the same platform that stores the "official copy" (the Wikipedia database), that we use to edit that official copy (editing user interfaces like Visual Editor), that we use to communicate with each other about changes to the official copy (talk pages), and that readers use to read the content (the website user interfaces). All of our wikitext, templates, modules, scripts, style sheets, etc., are part of the platform, not the content.
• The distribution – how readers access the content – is mostly via other entities such as Google, Apple (Siri), Amazon (Amazon Alexa), and other tech companies. (A minority of readers access the content via the platform directly, e.g. by visiting the main page at en.wikipedia.org and searching from there.)
• The content community of people who write the content is a self-governing, leaderless, autonomous collective that operates by consensus. This is the part that no one thought would actually work, but somehow it does.
• The content community puts the development, operation, and maintenance of the platform into the hands to the WMF, with results that many (most?) in the community are not satisfied with. The WMF also regulates how the content can be distributed from the platform by distributors like tech companies (e.g., m:Wikimedia Enterprise).
• When the WMF tries to govern the community, the community objects, because the community believes the WMF should serve the community, and that the community governs itself.

"Forking" means finding a new platform for the official copy of the content. And the key to that isn't the WMF or the trademark Wikipedia or the domain wikipedia.org or the servers or MediaWiki software, it's the distribution. The fork needs to work with Google, etc., in order for readers to be able to access the fork content. That is, the distributors need to know that the fork is the "official" copy. If Google switches from using wikipedia.org to using wikipedia-fork.org, then the fork will succeed. If not, then a fork will fail. One thing I think we should do for our long-term success is to split up the following, so it's not all under one organization's (the WMF) control: (1) control of donations, (2) control of the database that holds the official copy and regulates access to that official copy (e.g., dealing with distributors), (3) development and maintenance of user interfaces for reading/editing/communication, and (4) representing/supporting/growing the content community. Levivich 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're largely right. But I also see no big incentive for Google to swap. I suppose Google would swap over to a fork if it turned out en.wikipedia.org had reliability issues to the point of making all those "This information is fetched from Wikipedia" boxes filled with inaccuracies, and if the vandal/legitimate edits ratio became > 1. There's also the widespread branding of the "Wikipedia" trademark, which itself draws contributions, and that would be hard to replace.

It's not exactly the same thing but see Wikitravel vis-a-vis Wikivoyage. It seems it takes a lot of time and energy to sink a ship even when the operator decides to run it into a rock. (that is, dissatisfaction related to long-standing discontent at poor hosting, poor site updates, and excessive monetization and advertising, and eventually, interference by Internet Brands in the community's activities in breach of prior agreements and understandings.) With Wikitravel, I believe the community migrated to Wikivoyage 9 years ago (not before some contributors were sued for "civil conspiracy") and now it's about even in Alexa pagerank. Wikitravel still has better ranking for keywords, especially for the more competitive ones.

Realistically, for a sustainable community-based fork to appear, the WMF would need to do a series of catastrophic failures in every department that led to a situation so awful that the silent majority of the community had no choice but to migrate. And then there would be a test of how long that energy (on a fork) can be retained. At any point a minor concession by the WMF would be likely to draw editors back. Still, the most realistic idea for a fork I saw was at User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_43#How_to_kill_a_wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LibreOffice managed this transition successfully when it forked off OpenOffice. The tech journalists reported the fork, because it was a big deal and it mattered, and the users soon cottoned on and adapted to the new name. And we have the tools to inform our readers of the switch.—S Marshall T/C 22:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I still know it as OpenOffice, I'd search for OpenOffice and I'd head to https://www.openoffice.org and use OpenOffice. The Audacity fork on the other hand.. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative arrangement might be to have a "Wikipedia Trust" that receives, maintains (invests), and spends donations, under legally-enforceable restrictions spelled out in its trust instrument. For example, the first XXX dollars might be earmarked for web hosting (cf. m:Wikimedia Endowment), and any surplus funds spent only by direction of a separate Editors Union that represents the interests of the content-creating community. The Union can have Working Groups that prepare Resolutions and present them for a vote of the Union membership. For example, Resolutions might authorize the Trust to spend money on short-term projects (like hosting a Wikimania) or long-term projects (establishment of a "Wikipedia Labs" that develops software). Under this structure, money would be spent on discrete projects with clear and finite budgets, and only after the community (via the Editors Union) approves it. Levivich 02:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of curiosity, Levivich, how does your suggested "Editors Union" differ from the proposed Global Council? And do you really think that there's any real chance that a union membership of somewhere around 100,000 people is really an efficient or effective way of distributing funds? Will not the largest blocs of editors (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian projects) not wind up showing a degree of self-interest that pretty much replicates the inequities of the current process? Do you think that the vast majority of editors cares about most of this stuff? I mean...we have a hard enough time finding sufficient good candidates for Arbcom amongst 30,000 regular editors on this project, do you think we're going to be getting a lot of people "voting" on whether or not to invest in (for example) editor development in Kenya, or purchasing licenses to upgrade the Mailman system, or outreach to GLAM institutions in Southern India? Risker (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why it matters if the Union is exactly like the Council or not at all similar or something in between. I doubt the Union would reach 100k voting members (we've never had that many people vote on anything), but there are international unions with 100 million members and they still function so I think we'll be able to manage enrollment. I don't think the vast majority of editors care to get involved in the details of this stuff, and I don't see the majority doing any of the specific things you list, but I do see ~10 editors who would want to join Working Groups that draft Resolutions to have the Trust fund a Kenya Project, a Mailman Project, and a GLAM Project, and I see ~1,000 editors who would want to vote on whether to ratify those Resolutions. Levivich 06:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So a bit like a Cooperative? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Another aspect of forking is of course that there is a good reason why WMF exist. Even if the project gets forked, none of the users want to go to jail or be exposed to huge legal expenses, and this is why one needs legal. And then one figures out that legal costs money, and one suddenly needs a financial department and a funding department, and then soon we have the WMF 2.0. Even assuming most people who want to fork only want to fork the English Wikipedia, if we can not really built reasonable relations with the WMF 1.0 at the times which were favorable for creation of non-profits, why does anybody think the forked project will build thye WMF 2.0 more successfully? I have seen indeed some ideas how it could be done, but I do not think any of those I have seen was in any way realistic.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents:

1. It's natural for organizations to want to grow and expand based on whatever platforms they have, and that often leads them in unexpected directions. There are well known examples in both the OSS and the commercial worlds (Eclipse, Apache, Mozilla; and Nokia, AT&T and Samsung, respectively). Whether they turn into a bureaucracy or not depends mostly on how lean they keep their administration; indeed, a common metric for the efficiency of NGOs is how much they spend on administration and fundraising vs. on services and donations.
2. I may not relate to this expansion myself - I'd rather the WMF spent some time modernizing MW instead - but I do think it needs its mandate a redefined, given how "spread out" it has become and the potential conflicts it might have because of it.
3. Forking is not a viable option at the foreseeable future. Several initiatives have gone this route, and none is even close to replacing Wikipedia. The main hurdles are upkeep and traffic, and both translate to a huge initial investment (probably in the tens of millions of USD, but I'm no expert). Perhaps it would be a viable option in the future, but at the moment it isn't.
4. If you want to affect change in the WMF you indeed need to organized: contact the leadership of other wikipedias, define a common set of values and goals, then put people on the board (or committee, or whatever) that can affect it. You want those people to have managerial experience; being accomplished wikipedians is all swell, but lawyers, accountants, and experts in public administration are the ones who'll know how to turn your ideas into something actionable.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions About Movement Charter Drafting Committee

I came in a few days late because I am not always following this noticeboard, and am more interested in keeping the maintenance of the encyclopedia orderly than in something that calls itself a movement. (The International Olympic Committee is the organization that coordinates the Olympic Movement. We have varying opinions about the IOC and the games that are designated by the year when they were not played.) I have a few comments and questions that I hope are not considered stupid questions. They may have already been answered, but I have been trying to review drafts and mediate content disputes. I see that User:ProcrastinatingReader has also asked for a plain-language overview, so I am not alone.

First, User:Barkeep49 says that: "We don't just need good people; we need fantastic people serving on this committee". I hope that Barkeep49 can explain what they want in a realistic way, because one definition of fantastic people is people in fantasy literature, such as superheroes, and we won't get the people. So what will this committee do in the real world that does not require superpowers or the pretense of superpowers? Will the committee actually change the business processes of building the encyclopedias (in multiple languages) including the English encyclopedia, as opposed to rubber-stamping the grandiose plans of the WMF, or giving wise advice to the WMF that is ignored? (The latter would be better than nothing, but hardly seems to call for superheroes.)

Second, perhaps this question is a distraction, but there is mention of a rebranding debacle or rebranding scandal. I may have been too busy trying to mediate a content dispute or reviewing drafts, so I wasn't reading the newspaper, and don't know what this failure was. Who tried to rebrand what? Is this documented somewhere that I can read?

Third, the committee will only affect the English Wikipedia to the extent that it will change the relationship between the WMF and the encyclopedia. That relationship has mostly been one of providing and administering an infrastructure of servers and software, watching and sharing in credit, with behind-the-scenes almost-invisible dirty work of banning rogues, and occasional stupid forays into the arbitrary exercise of power such as the User:Fram episode. The underlying legal basis is that the WMF owns the servers, and the encyclopedia has a copyleft, and any community that has access to servers is able to host the encyclopedia. What evidence is there that the WMF actually wants to evolve?

Fourth, what is or will be the purpose of this movement?

I think those are my late questions for now. Why do we think that an advisory committee may have or use superpowers? What exactly will the advisory committee do that doesn't involve superpowers? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I was using the "excellent, superlative" definition of the word fantastic. In terms of your other questions, a lot of of it has been covered above but will highlight Kevin's reply from 23:20, 5 August 2021 and my reply from 13:43, 6 August 2021 as possible starting points. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still Confused

Well, I knew what User:Barkeep49 meant, but I still am not sure what the function of the committee is, because I am still not sure what the movement is for which a charter is being drafted. Therefore I can't be sure whether the advisory committee really will have any role other than to rubber-stamp the grandiose plans of the WMF, or to give wise advice to the WMF that will be ignored. The advice to look at an exchange between you and User:L235 did not help.

I still don't know why we need a Movement Charter. I also still don't know whether the Movement Charter Drafting Committee will have any real role beyond giving wise advice to the WMF that will be ignored. If there is a Meta page that explains what this is, maybe that would help.

There was a reference to a rebranding debacle. I am not sure what that was.

My reference to the need for superpowers by the committee members was partly one of frustration at what really looks like a lot of marketing buzzspeak. When I read something in article space or draft space that consists of marketing buzzspeak, I can tag it for G11. So I really wonder if the applicants for the committee need to have the superpower of telepathy to understand what the WMF wants.

I'm sorry, but I really don't have a clue as to what this charter is supposed to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even convinced that a 'movement' in any real sense actually exists, except as a vague buzzword thrown around by people trying to make themselves seem important. The many projects on WMF servers have all sorts of people involved, for all sorts of reasons. Claiming they all constitute a 'movement', and thereby suggesting they all have a common objective, is stretching the word way too far in my opinion. People who use Twitter aren't a 'movement', so why should people on the many WMF projects be? Or even on a single project for that matter? And much the same applies to the word 'community', as used on this project. It really doesn't accord with what actually goes on here. A little less doublespeak and a little more honesty might make communication with the WMF (and each other) easier. Even if the WMF apparently wants to pretend that they are running some sort of world-wide organisation for all-thinking-the-same-nice-thoughts, we don't have to play along... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing more and more complaints at ANI involving editors who are editing strictly via mobile and have never edited a talk page including their own. I suspect most of these editors don't know talk pages exist. These people look like they're simply ignoring warnings on their user talk and refusing to discuss, but most of them may be very well-intentioned and just have so far had zero opportunity to learn policy because they don't even know it's there. Notifying them of a discussion about them at ANI is pretty useless when they haven't even realized they've got a user talk.

But I'm thinking we need to come up with strategies for trying to get their attention when they're brought to AN/I.

• Obviously if they've got email enabled, consider emailing them a link to their user talk/the ANI section if you feel comfortable doing that.
• If they're using edit summaries, recommend the complainant open a discussion section at article talk and put a link to it in the edit summary when reverting a mobile editor.
• Try p-blocking from article space? I've been doing this when it's a mobile-only editor who has never edited a talk or their own user talk. No idea if it's been at all effective in helping them discover talk pages, I should start keeping track.

I just feel like this is an issue that is only going to increase in frequency. —valereee (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this recently; apparently mobile users don't get a notification saying they have a talk page message. A few years ago there was a discussion about introducing a 'soft block' forcing an editor to review their talk page; another option would be more technical, changing the code so that mobile editors receive the same 'you have a new message' notification as those on desktop. GiantSnowman 12:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, a soft block helps them discover their talk? Or do you mean the same way a p-block from article space would -- by encouraging them to try to find help somewhere? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me clarify - IIRC there was a proposal a few years ago to introduce a new type of block/blocking mechanism which basically forced editors to review their talk page before they were unblocked. Does that make sense? GiantSnowman 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense -- but it doesn't actually help them find it if they don't even know it exists? —valereee (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach). Nthep (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nthep, I'll just collapse the extraneous stuff here, probably shouldn't have even brought it up. I really just more wanted to discuss what we should do here at ANI when these come up. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone know if a blocked mobile editor will see the block log message? That could be a way to communicate: we create something like {{Blocked proxy}} that tells them about talk pages. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, mentioning the talk page in the edit summary is the most efficient way to deal with the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  Joe Roe, for the mobile site, yes. Can't speak for the app. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I wrote an edit filter to communicate with iOS app users. See 1139. It 'exploits' a bug in the iOS app that allows edit filter disallow message pagenames to be visible to the end user. I believe a similar approach with Android app users is now possible but I haven't gotten around to testing it yet (mainly because I've lost my Android device I used for testing). Articlespace blocks do not help, because the editors cannot see the block log messages (they will see "You have been blocked from editing" if on iOS; or "You have been blocked for vandalism ..." on Android, regardless of the block reason). As of the time I wrote the edit filter, that was the only possible way to deliver a message to the app users onwiki; that may have changed since, as I believe the WMF is working on some of the WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU bugs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me try putting it a bit less technical... The effect of the filter is that, to a named editor, they will see this whenever they try to edit outside user talk. If there's a willing Android user we can test whether this concept works on Android, too. In theory a similar approach should since phab:T276139 is resolved. If both these work, admins should have an interim solution to communicate with app editors while the WMF works on proper fixes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader: lets follow up at WP:EFN - but 1139 has bad ideas for production use. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ProcrastinatingReader, "They will see ... "You have been blocked for vandalism ..." on Android, regardless of the block reason" - WTF? Obviously an app can't violate policy (in this case, calling good faith edits vandalism without evidence is a personal attack) but that's completely unacceptable. I have already commented at the WMF village pump, and fully endorse Cullen328's view that the standard desktop site is perfectly usable on a smartphone or tablet and there is no requirement for these broken apps to exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is possible there's been a fix recently (phab:T276139 and phab:T276147 are now marked as "Resolved") but I'm not sure if the version has been deployed to the Play Store yet. But the Wikipedia app has been in the iOS app store for 3 years now, and in the Android one for much longer. So probably this has went on undetected for years. God knows why the app team thought these were good assumptions to make, and it is one example of where better communication between development teams and community members would've led to better results. Perhaps these Movement Charter initiatives will be a step in that direction? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ugh, I've been using article space blocks, hoping it would at least make them more likely to investigate. Damn. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  

  

  ProcrastinatingReader, the mobile site isn't much better in this regard. You have to press "see more" to even see the block reason. The "take me to another page" suggestion that just points to Special:Random is borderline trolling. (task filed: phab:T289416) Yes, I want to edit some random page, that's a proper substitute.. Never mind that Special:Random will never take you to a talk page, so it's futile if you've been blocked from article space.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have & always will be hardcore when it comes to editors not having or refusing to create an account. As for mobile editors? IMHO they should be barred from editing Wikipedia, until the create an account. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay: this is not about unregistered editors; it's about registered editors using the mobile app, not getting notifications for new talk page messages. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I say if technically possible that we block clients that don't get talk page notifications from editing with an apology(Sorry your client is not supported for editing on Wikipedia, you are welcome to edit using a browser). Talk page usage is mandatory. The devs of these clients need a wake up call that this is core and mandatory functionality, not an optional feature. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This idea makes a lot of sense - if it can be done. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an edit filter to tag edits as "mobile", and edit filters can block editing. So I think it is possible to have edit filters react to useragents. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a tradeoff to automatically blocking in anticipation that they might cause problems that need a talk page. Potentially productive editors, e.g. gnomes, won't get to edit. However, we pre-emptively avoid good-faith but problematic editors having a bad experience. Pick your poison. I don't think we have user data to objectively know which is worse.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Something similar to what GiantSnowman mentioned above already exists for AWB bots. Whenever the talk page of an actively running AWB bot is edited, it automatically shutsdown the bot. The operator then has to login from the bot account and visit the talk page, only then can the bot be run again. This does not add anything to the block log. Perhaps something similar can be done for mobile users? Like whenever there is a new message in their talk page, an edit filter prevents them from making any edits until they have seen it. The table at WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU shows custom edit filter message is the better communication medium available for now. Users can then be directed to the desktop site to view messages and continue editing. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If technically feasible then that would be a superior solution to my idea. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had issues with/warned (multiple times) a user with this exact ongoing problem- AFAIK, nothing concrete was decided, other than that the user wouldn't be blocked as they don't receive any warnings/messages. Seems a bit dumb to me personally, as the use is still continuing with their minor edits and is persistently adding unsourced content/information. But basically, due to this issue, it seems like they won't be sanctioned/blocked from their disruptive minor edits/unsourced edits.

Either way, I'm mainly mentioning this because one of the threads regarding this user, this particular discussion from February/March 2021, might have some useful information regarding the issue. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#Editor refuses to communicate, adds unverifiable information, falsely marks all edits as minor. Magitroopa (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the benefits in a technical solution but we do need to be careful not to dissuade good faith edits as far as possible; in many parts of the world mobile access is the only way that people can and do access the internet, you risk breaking 'anyone can edit Wikipedia' if you try to 'pro-actively' solve this problem by restricting edits from one particular type of device, and soft-blocking when they have an unread template could be abused to block an editor from the site without due process. I would also explicitly exclude at least Extended Confirmed users from any restrictions on editing, possibly autoconfirmed too, depending on how draconian the restrictions are. But surely the rule against editing disruptively applies regardless of whether they see the notifications? One could be blocked without warning anyway, then this seems like a strange excuse not to block someone JeffUK (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably not the best example. Skimming the case, it seems the OP (since blocked for socking) was complaining that a user was not providing citations, but another user vouched that the edits were verifiable and correct, even if not cited. It would be a different case if the user was adding incorrect statements that also were not cited. Per WP:BLOCK: Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Unfortunately, given the bug/feature involving talk notifications for some mobile users, the community needs to decide in the interim when a block is needed to protect the project, even if it might be a good-faith editor who didn't know any better.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheezypeaz keeps removing large portions of the page Welsh Not, claiming that the contents are 'conspiracy theories', Iv'e asked the person to stop, but I hope someone may aid with the issue.

All the contents of the page is thoroughly researched, using credible sources, no part of the page has been manipulated nor distorted and there is no cause to mislead the readers.

The topic is a sore subject for Welsh culture so it may be targeted for multiple reasons, they may deny that such actions happened, they may have a political bias to hide that Westminster was involved, trolling or they have a personal vendetta.. either way, this needs to be looked at and addressed.

Preferably, it would be good if the page was given protection to curb future wrongful edits from occurring again..

Thank you for your time!. Hogyncymru (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the above section because it was archived by the bot the instant it was added - seems there might be a bot bug that needs addressing? How does the bot handle edit conflicts? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Cheezypeaz has a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, thus a content dispute. There is discussion at the talk page, which Cheezypeaz has participated in. If the disruption continues then a PBLOCK may be in order, but hopefully it won't come to that. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted 2 entries one is clearly factually incorrect the other is original research and Hogyncymru has clearly admitted it to be. I documented my reasons for the deletion on the talk page. I haven’t participated in any discussion. I’m surprised at the reply by Mjroots Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheezypeaz - you started talk:Welsh Not#Church of Wales conspiracy theory, that counts as participating. Suggest you see what WP:CONSENSUS develops there. I'm hopeful that no further action will need to be taken. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Mjroots is quick to disparage fellow editors without bothering to understand what the issues are. I too am hopeful no further action will be needed. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make comments like that, you'll very quickly find yourself blocked from editing. Consider this an only warning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps The Blade of the Northern Lights could review my edits and provide critical feedback? Or any other admin? Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is most assuredly not WP:VANDALISM: they removed dubious content, while leaving an explanatory note on the article's talk page. I think that Cheezypeaz could have taken a slightly different tone in their comments here, but their concerns over the content question appear to be well-founded. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheezypeaz was.. at first compliant in keeping his opinions in the talk page.. but he couldn't help himself, he just deleted large portions of the site once again... this user must be restricted from vandalising any more pages!Hogyncymru (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hogyncymru Keeps complaining on this page and the result is that the admins instinctively assume that Hogyncymru is telling the truth and threaten me. Drmies this time. There is a consensus for the old changes I have re-made the new changes are backed up by actual historians rather than random edits (vandalism) made since 2018 with no sources. Look at the talk page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 18:35, August 16, 2021 (UTC)

Drmies please reverse your revertCheezypeaz (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a block on Cymrogogoch & Hogyncymru for posting unsourced & very crude Welsh nationalist propaganda on the page Welsh Not (examine the edit history from the start of 2018). I thought you would recognise it! I have to say I'm disappointed at the threats from some of the admins.Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather enjoying the "fools rush in" aspect of this :)Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Hows it going? :) You've reverted a number of lies back into the article against the consensus. What's that about? Perhaps you can tell me why I am wrong and Hogyncymruwith his fake sources is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I've reverted you revert. Have to say that I'm surprised at the quality of admins on Wikipedia. You should investigate before reverting or threatening editors. Why revert my edits rather than Hogyncymru? The assumption here is that the original complainant is correct. Very little investigation done before threatening to block people who are trying to improve the encyclopaedia. I'm appalled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut it out, both of you. Hogyncymru, stop accusing Cheezypeaz of vandalism, that is a personal attack. Cheezypeaz, stop describing content added by another user as lies, that is also a personal attack. Discuss concerns on talk in a civil manner, and if you can't come to agreement then use WP:DR channels. Blocks will likely be forthcoming if the insults and edit warring don't stop now. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be happy to stop, I don't want to be pulled into this issue over and over, I want talk to be the 1st option and removal of some parts later (after there has been a resolution), having someone come along and use pages as a playground is ridiculous, and the claims of conspiracies need to stop.. this'll be my last edition here, if there are any further issues, I hope they are addressed within the page's talk page, not here.. and I hope it remains civil. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheezypeaz: You have; claimed there's a 'conspiracy theory going on, deleted almost half of the page (repeatedly without the other editors agreeing to anything), you've alluded to the idea that other users are 'in on it' together, you've continuously gone against warnings (even though they have been lenient on you) and then you have the gall to request others to place a block on them from editing when they are following wiki rules and who are not going into edit wars (whereas you have), I'm glad you see the enjoyment in this charade with your I'm rather enjoying the "fools rush in" aspect of this comment.. but others try and run this site to help others by learning about facts rather than one person's vendetta against any criticism of the church and state, I'd be very careful how you proceed.. as others may not find your actions as helpful, but a hindrance. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No he isn't. He's removing poorly sourced material that violates WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE all at the same time. This is not vandalism. Even if the whole Church of Wales section is true, and verifiable, it has barely anything at all to do with the Welsh Not. @Cheezypeaz: described the content as 'Conspiracy Theory' he did not, as far as I can see, disparage other editors or call them conspiracy theorists, claiming he did is uncivil and should be retracted. JeffUK (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stefan2 has tagged probably ~200 files just today for CSD F5 (orphaned) or CSD F6 (no fair use rationale). Many taggings seem correct, but especially among the CSD F6 tagged files it's often just a matter of not having the de facto default fair use template as an album cover for an article about said album is generally accepted to fall within the scope of fair use on Wikipedia.

Because of the sheer number it's difficult to check everything here. Some of the images tagged CSD F5 might be caused by a broken template, typo or vandal. The CSD F6 images that could be fixed by adding a fair use template should just be fixed, not deleted, but the volume and deadline are a problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that the bot which tags files for F5 deletion for some reason didn't tag files with redirects. I happened to have some free time today, so I tagged those. If some of the files weren't supposed to be orphaned, then presumably the uploader sees this and adds it back to the article. The earlier the file is tagged, the earlier someone is likely to spot the error. I think that orphaned files usually are orphaned because they are supposed to be orphaned. The bot seems to tag maybe 500 files per week so an extra 100 or so manually tagged files probably doesn't make a big difference.

Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 August 2021 only contains 32 files and there is a week left. If it is such a big burden to check 32 files in a week, then I don't mind if someone edits the template to extend the deadline by a week or two. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, if the uploader isn't around anymore, on vacation or just not checking their watchlist regularly they won't notice. When the bot tags something it's usually immediately after some change, so somewhat more likely to be noticed. I'll try to fix some of the descriptions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to make a couple of comments on this.

1. Non-free content use and fair use aren't really the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia as explained in WP:NFC#Background and it's probably best to avoid mixing up the two terms when discussing the this type of image use on Wikipedia; in other words, there isn't really a scope of fair use on Wikipedia since pretty much any image could be used without any real restrictions on Wikipedia if relevant policy was identical to fair use.
2. There are also really no "de-facto" types of non-free content use when in comes to Wikipedia. There are types of uses that are generally considered acceptable per WP:NFCI, but even these aren't necessarily automatically considered WP:NFCC compliant. A non-free file needs to meet all ten of the WP:NFCCP and failing even one means the file can be removed. One of the requirements (or, more specifically, one part of one of the requirements) is WP:NFCC#10c which states that a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of a non-free file. So, if a file is missing such a rationale, then the particular use isn't policy compliant.
3. It's the responsibility of the editor adding a non-free file to an article to add a corresponding non-free use rationale for said use to the file's page as explained in WP:NFCCE. For sure, lots of well-meaning editors just add non-free files without rationales to articles for whatever reason (many probably just assume all images are the same and aren't aware of the NFCC), but the responsibility is still theirs. If another editor comes across such a file and notices it's missing a non-free use rationale, then they can for sure add the rationale if they feel the use is justified. They can, however, also tag the file with {{nrd}} or {{di-missing article links}} to give someone else the opportunity to do so if they're not so sure, or they can simply remove the file if they feel the particular use is pretty much impossible to justify. Each human editor is different and some may spend more time looking a particular file than others, but bots (unlike humans) are pretty much all the same and are just going to tag and remove files and then leave only a boilerplate notification template on the uploader's user talk page when they do. Since files can only be deleted by administrators, one can hope that the reviewing administrator will take more than a casual look at the file before deleting it and prehaps catch any obvious mistakes. Once again though, it's not the administrator's responsibility to provide a missing rationale; so, if the reviewing administrator feels the use can't be justified, then they will delete the file. FWIW, both F5 and F6 deletion have a seven-day window from when a file is tagged to when it's eligible for deletion and both should end up with the uploader being notified on their user talk page. If, however, the uploader is not around for some reason and they don't see the notification, then Wikipedia isn't going to stop and wait for them.
4. WP:F5 and WP:F6 deletions are pretty common and mostly considered non-controversial WP:SOFTDELETEs. In most cases, files deleted for such reasons can be quickly restored without much fuss via WP:REFUND or by contacting the deleting admininistrator. So, if the uploader or another editor wants a file deleted for F5 of F6 reasons restored, all they bascially need to do is ask and address the reason for deletion. It's still, however, the responsibility of that person to justify the non-free use and provide the required rationale (if missing) for that use.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a file is tagged with WP:F5 and no one notices, then no one will add it back to an article (if it was supposed to be added back). However, no one would notice if it wasn't tagged, so it's not going to be added back faster if it's not tagged. If someone discovers that the image is missing from an article in a month or a year, this person could either go to WP:REFUND or re-upload the image. That said, most images are probably unused because they are supposed to be unused.

If a file is deleted for having no fair use rationale but the file satisfies the other criteria, then anyone could write a FUR and request undeletion at WP:REFUND or re-upload the file. However, the file should not be used in the article while the FUR is missing as that's not compatible with policy.

Both F5 and F6 give people a week to fix any problems which can be fixed, so files aren't instantly deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like Stefan2 is tagging things that need tagging. That said, it is usually a really good idea to limit the rate of doing so to a reasonable pace so if a handful of people would like to fix/audit/whatever your work they can successfully do so. For something like this, it would probably be ideal to spread these 200 into groups of 20 or so a day. It looks like a lot of these have been around for a long time--being around for an extra week isn't the end of the world. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the problem is that files are tagged when someone has the time to tag files, which often means that files are tagged in large batches at the same time. That said, I don't think that the number of files was big. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stefan2 has just done the same thing with eight NFC images (each with fair use rationale) in the U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps article, with orphan tags for images that were not orphans to begin with. These questionable edits need to be discussed first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) It's not really the same thing at all Gwillhickers, at least not in my opinion. Stefan2 seems to have removed those files because he felt they didn't comply with WP:NFCC; this was a WP:BOLD edit that you subsequently WP:REVERTed. Just having a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use compliant as explained here and an editor may boldly remove such a file if they feel it clearly violates policy. If another disagrees and re-adds the file, then that is when some type of discussion is expected to take place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Am quite aware of why the images were removed, and hence orphaned. As pointed out, the policy allowed for "exceptions", per gallery use, and in this case, is warranted, as their is no other images here at WP of a complete block of eight of the eight separate images in question. Being bold usually refers to making an edit or two. It doesn't justify a mass tagging crusade. In any case, I am not seeking to have any disciplinary measures resorted to here, but only that this activity be checked more carefully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Stefan2 removed the files, but he didn't tag them for speedy deletion; they were tagged by B-bot. Boldly removing a file is not really any different from boldly adding a file in that prior discussion isn't automatically necessary. What's appears to be being discussed above is Stefan2's tagging of files either lacking non-free use rationales (WP:F6) or which are orphaned non-free use (WP:F5), neither of which seems related to the eight files you've mentioned above and which both are clear violations of WP:NFCCP. In the case of the orphaned non-free use files, it doesn't appear that Stefan2 was mass removing files and then immediately mass tagging them for F5 deletion, which is something that would certainly be cause for concern; it appears that he was only adding F5 CSD tags to files which were already orphaned for some reason (perhaps being removed or replaced by another editor). These files most likely would've end up being tagged for F5 deletion by a bot in most cases (like what happened with the eight you found), but maybe Stefan2 was only tagging ones that he believed that the bots had missed. As to whether the non-free use of the eight stamp files is justified per WP:NFG, such a thing is more of a discussion suitable for WP:FFD than here; however, at least one other editor raised similar concerns at Talk:US space exploration history on US stamps#NFC issue back in 2016 that nobody seems to have addressed. I've got no idea as to whether Stefan2 was aware of that post, but that's probably a good place to continue discussing these files for those who want to now that you've re-added them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Achievement Issue, the problem is that there is a blatant violation of WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3, which says that you should use as little non-free content as possible. Since you brought up rationales, note that WP:NFCC#10c requires a rationale which is relevant to the use of the image. The rationales for these stamps are not relevant to their use in the article. For the purposes of WP:NFCC#10c compliance, having a rationale which is not relevant to the use is the same as not having a rationale at all. Please keep further discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 19#U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Achievement Issue. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFC policy compliance is not something that should be metered slowly, given it is one of our legal-based policies like BLP. We do want to make sure the initial tagging is being done with human review (as to avoid the BetaCommand issue) and Stefan's rate seems well within that, but we need to make sure non-free meet our policy as per the WMF's resolution on this matter. --Masem (t) 01:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. If it's been there for years, letting the process take an extra week to get them all isn't unreasonable. I mean we have a week process built in on that philosophy when doing a single one. Not unreasonable to ask people to keep to a pace a person could reasonable check in an hour/day. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As was explained to Stefan twice, there is no "blatant" violation of NFC, which acknowledges and allows for "exceptions", per gallery display of the NFC images in question. There is also no violation of NFCCP #3: "Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (emphasis added) Again, there is no "one item", or single image, here at WP that displays all eight stamps in block form, that I know of. Regarding NFCC #10 c, and NFC rationale regarding relevancy to the article -- this really should be obvious. The article is about space themes on US stamps, and the stamps in question, quite simply, display this theme. But let's maintain focus. This forum is about whether the mass tagging effort going on, usually without prior or any discussion, is at issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining something to someone (even twice) doesn't make the explanation automatically correct; it could just as easily mean the explanation is faulty in some way. Anyway, the non-free uses of those particular eight files will be resolved through consensus at FFD; so, there's not really any value in discussing them here any further. As for the "mass tagging", whether there's an issue with the pace of the tagging seems to be open to discussion, but nobody (at least so far) seems to be stating that any files were incorrectly tagged by Stefan2. If that's what you're claiming, then perhaps you can provide some examples of specific files in which you feel Stefan seems to have been trying to game the system in some way and tagging files incorrectly per WP:F5 or WP:F6. Just for reference, F5 and F6 deletions are reviewed by an administrator before any files end up deleted. If a file is tagged for either and the relevant issue is subsequently resolved; an administrator almost certainly isn't going to delete the file. I also believe (but am not totally sure) there are bots which go around checking F5 tags and they remove the tag if they can see the file is no longer orphaned. So, there are seemingly checks in place to catch any mistakes are made. "Mass tagging" doesn't really require pre-discussion per se, and there is probably lots of project-wide mass tagging going on each and every day by bots and other editors simply doing clean up or other things; it's only when the mass tagging is reckless and incorrect that problems develop like say WP:MEATBOT. So, if your concerns expressed above are related to any files other than the eight now being discussed at FFD, then please clarify which ones to allow further assessment. I'm assuming that you looked at some of the other files before commenting here and didn't show up because you saw User talk:Stefan2#Notice of noticeboard discussion as an opportunity to start a discussion about eight unrelated files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that someone may well be able to fix the underlying issue given time. But taking the time to figure out what can and should be fixed takes much longer than it takes to tag things. As such, it's generally a good idea to let these things run at "human speed" so that the "relevant issues" can be addressed before it gets to an admin. That's my only point. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the end I managed to check everything just before the deadline, but I had to uncomfortably push myself to get it done before the deadline. Various other editors appear to have reviewed files as well, that helped. Managed to save various files, e.g. some were PD-textlogo and some were replaced in articles by copyvios on Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A previous complaint was opened by Oshwah in January 2021.

The discussion was archived without being closed or resolved. Unfortunately, WatanWatan2020 continues to add unreferenced content (and to remove referenced content), for instance in Levantine Arabic.

As Oshwah wrote in January: "I feel like a discussion should be started regarding the issues relating to WatanWatan2020's edits to these articles, as well as this user's overall conduct. Are this user's edits to these articles substandard as pointed out many times on his/her user talk page? Is this user becoming disruptive to the point where actions or sanctions are necessary?" A455bcd9 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the matter here. Here, we will show exactly what I have inputted which is universally known information, whether sourced or unsourced. Along with this, it will also be shown per the recorded edits you made that show you intentionally have been putting false information in such as listing Israel as an Arab country and removing the fact that Levantine Arabic is the native language of the Arab people in the Levant. This sort of information is well known, although you have continued to make it otherwise. I am referring to A455bcd9.All records are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WatanWatan2020 Please understand that universally known is not a valid criteria for adding material to Wikipedia. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable spources. This is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Please read the essay at Wikipedia:Common knowledge for a discussion why relying on "common knowledge", or in your words, what is "universally known", is a bad idea, and not compatible with editing Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 18:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donald Albury, you exactly identified the problem. It seems that WatanWatan2020 does not understand the importance of reliable sources. I've already had this discussion with WatanWatan2020 on my talk page. But when I mentioned "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" and asked the user to "please provide reliable sources for every single sentence you want to add.", WatanWatan2020 answered:

• "This is common logic that does not require a source, as the information itself is a source."
• "everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced. this is because the information is universally known as well. For you to say "add a source for every sentence you want to add" that would mean Wikipedia articles would have a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. this has never happened and frankly seems it will never happen. It is not viable."

This is the first time I file such a complaint, what are the next steps? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9, I just looked at WatanWatan2020's contributions, and saw that the two of you engaged in a edit war yesterday in the article Levantine Arabic, in which the two of you reverted each other nine times in less than 24 hours. I almost decided to block both of you for edit warring, but decided instead, since neither of you had edited the article since yesterday, and neither had been recently warned about edit warring, to issue warnings to both of you. Note that if you revert one of WatanWatan2020's edits again, you may be blocked from editing without further warning.

As for your question, you need to separate any content dispute you have with WatanWatan2020 from any cases where you believe the user is systematically violating policies and quidelines. Be very careful about labeling edits as vandalism. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism. You may open a complaint about another editor's conduct (but not about the content of their editing) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but be sure to include links to page differences that clearly show how their conduct violates policy and quidelines, or is otherwise detrimental to Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 15:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I answered your message here (mentioning this for other potential readers of this complaint).

Separating this content dispute from potential systematic violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines isn't obvious to me. Indeed, if Wikipedia:Vandalism is "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content [...] without any regard to our core content policies of [...] verifiability [...] is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." then a systematic additions of unreferenced content and removals of referenced content is vandalism (which is the reason why a previous complaint was opened in January, and why I opened this complaint), even though a single occurrence of such an edit may be done in good faith and therefore, not considered vandalism. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally wrong. Removal of sourced content can occur for multiple reasons, and addition of unsourced content may be an error or just a misunderstanding of our rules. They are not automatically vandalism.

In this case, WatanWatan's behavior is disruptive and displays a lack of care for our rules, but that still does not make it vandalism under Wikipedia's rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HandThatFeeds,

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry, I think my previous message wasn't clear. I didn't want to mean or imply that removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced content were automatically vandalism.

To provide more context: I reverted this edit from WatanWatan2020 where this user removed sourced content + added unsourced content + added a phone number link ("tel:") in a table. I asked WatanWatan2020 to discuss in the talk page. We discussed on my own talk page and I pointed WatanWatan2020 to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I asked them to provide reliable sources to back their claims. WatanWatan2020 instead reverted my revert and answered that "This is common logic that does not require a source, as the information itself is a source." and "everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced". I also noticed several warnings on their user page and a previous complaint related to similar disruptive behavior, without any regard to our rule of verifiability. That's why, given all the warnings they had previously received regarding the importance of providing sources and based on my own discussion with WatanWatan2020 and their answers (see also: "a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. this has never happened and frankly seems it will never happen. It is not viable.") I then considered that their behavior was vandalism based on the definition given in Wikipedia:Vandalism ("The malicious removal of encyclopedic content [...] without any regard to our core content policies of [...] verifiability").

This situation is quite unpleasant to me and, if I made any mistake, I want to avoid repeating it in the future. So, was my reasoning was fundamentally wrong? If so, what should I have done instead? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, WatanWatan's actions don't qualify as vandalism per our rules. They do qualify as disruptive editing, so just stick with that term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what A455bcd9 is doing is making himself to be the victim. I explained even above what he has been doing which is lying in articles and listing the most obviously wrong information that anyone can notice within seconds. For example again, he listed Israel as an Arab state and when i changed it, he took issue with it and reverted it back. He also removes that Levantine Arabic is spoken natively by the Arabs in the Levant. He claimed Modern Standard Arabic is the main language alongside Hebrew in Israel when only one official language is spoken there, Hebrew. I organized the the template under the “written script form” under Levantine Arabic without changing a single piece.. he took issue with it out of spite and undid my edit to it. If you look at the history, he has been undoing other peoples edits also. He has been controlling such a page for quite some time now.. and one wonders how many other pages he is controlling. He has filled up such article with thousands of letters of information, but the most important problem is he inputs the most false information. It damages the integrity of the truthfulness of these articles. This should dictate a huge penalty for doing such kinds of inputting. Also, check where he is pulling sources from. He is cherrypicking sources to fit a biased narrative. I asked him many times what is his intention for putting in this kind of mis information? What he is trying to achieve here? Why delete that Levantine Arabic is spoken natively by the Arab population within the Levant? Why try to make Israel out to be an Arab state? why claim MSA is the main language of Israel alongside Hebrew? And why delete the edits of other users? I only did edits that is the most obvious most accurate, and also to add cannot be refuted. While you publish misinformation continuously that could be challenged in seconds proven to be wrong. A455bcd9 is the one disruptive editing with continued false information and it is a matter of archived record within the edit history of such pages that he has been doing such. One can check easily what he has been publishing. Now he is attempting to circle back to such page and possibly again publish such wrong information or tilt it that way. Administrators should watch him closely to see things he publishes also. Thanks ~~ WatanWatan2020

There are currently 150 old CfD discussions awaiting closure or relisting. The oldest 10 are as follows:

1. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists
2. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_6#Category:Flemish_geographers
3. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_10#Category:Political_party_colour_templates (this one is double-counted in {{XFD backlog}})
4. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_10#Category:German_former_Hindus
5. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:Victims_of_the_2012_Aurora_shooting
6. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:NaCl_structure
7. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:Zincblende_crystal_structure
8. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:DYK/Pages/Soft_redirects
9. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:Islamic_studies_scholars_by_nationality
10. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_13#Category:LGBT_Roman_Catholic_bishops

Some of these have already been relisted at least once before. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is urgent now: The CfD backlog has increased to 165. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sysops. I need your help: please tell me whether I've got this wrong.

On 2nd August, I closed this rather technical discussion as "no consensus". It attracted more participation post-closure, and I asked the community for advice about how to deal with that here; when all was said and done, I still couldn't see a consensus. It's common ground between all the participants that there was no consensus in the discussion and the status quo ante should be restored.

However, a fresh dispute now exists about what the status quo ante actually is. My understanding is that we should read "no consensus" as meaning that no change should be made to the template; but other users feel that "no consensus" means that the template should be edited to bring it into compliance with a wider consensus (at WP:HIDDENCAT) which, they feel, applies. They're expressing some frustration and disappointment in me. There's extended discussion about this at Template talk:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler#How to interpret closure?

I'm very conscious that I'm not infallible, so I've opened this close review on my own motion. I would welcome your wisdom.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gonnym has posted on my talk page objecting to my framing of the issue. He feels that it isn't a matter of consensus vs guideline, but of guideline vs guideline. His position is that WP:SUBTOPICCAT and WP:LISTRCAT support his view.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, you've done a great job with this. The initial closure looks to be correct, and while it's fine for discussion to continue after that closure, that doesn't mean the original RfC has to be formally reopened. Regarding which version of the template remains following a no-consensus closure - again my view is you're correct, that no change should be made to the template. No consensus means no change.

As others have pointed out, that doesn't mean that a consensus cannot be achieved in the continuing discussion - and if it is, and a change is subsequently agreed upon, then that's all good. But that is independent of the RfC and your closure, and I see no justification for criticising your judgement on that closure - it doesn't help to move the following discussion on. WaggersTALK 15:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realise your queries keep being directed to sysops, but sysops do not have super authority on RfC closure reviews. Anyway, I largely agree with Waggers, but I would add two points for you to consider. Firstly, I think it it would have been better to specifically point out that discussion can continue in the closure statement. What is vexing about this is that the wider consensus cited by one on other templates is disputed by another in the case of this template. In other words, my second point is that your closure is missing is whether you found there is an applicable wider consensus (to hide redirect categories) or if you did not find such wider consensus applies as alleged. A wider consensus might be reflected in a policy, guideline or discussion. Presuming you cannot find a wider consensus, the last sentence of your closure remains correct. If you found there is a wider consensus for hiding redirect categories, then even so, your closure might stand because exceptions might exist for a wider consensus too, or it might not apply to this template for some other reason - though in the absence of a reason or exception, the 'no consensus' outcome might actually mean categories should be hidden. While a closure review does provide an opportunity for us to opine on whether we would find that a wider consensus exists or not, or if it is applicable or not, I personally haven't had a chance to look into that - and frankly, think that is something that would fall on you as a closer to reflect on first, unless for example you are unable to decide and can outline why you are torn as such. I hope this is helpful in any event. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in. I do keep saying "sysops", but that's purely because I'm posting on the administrator's noticeboard -- which, per procedure, is the place where RfC closes are reviewed. I certainly welcome input from experienced non-sysops too.

When you say, whether you found there is an applicable wider consensus (to hide redirect categories) or if you did not find such wider consensus applies, I think discussion closers aren't allowed to make "findings" about that at all. WP:NHC says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy... If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. In other words, I think that our closing rules specifically say I can't do what you're suggesting. But I think that you, as a close reviewer, are allowed to do it, and that kind of decision is what's needed here.

If I take my closer hat off and give you my view as an editor, I'd say that it's established custom and practice that this kind of category is hidden by default. But that can't be my close. Wikipedians have a word for a close like that, and it's supervote.—S Marshall T/C 22:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closer must make a finding, not as a supervote (which as you rightly point out would be entirely inappropriate), but as a matter of what the consensus is. Per NHC, The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy.... The key reason you find yourself asking for this review of your own closure is not because of the fact that there was no consensus at that discussion - rather, it is because (1) the last sentence on your close makes a finding on what the status quo is (not hiding categories); (2) one of the participants believes that a wider consensus exists for hiding categories and therefore the last sentence was incorrect. Does the status quo you have found flatly contradict an established wider consensus that is reflected in a policy, guideline or widely-participated discussion? A mere custom or practice will not cut it (and as you say, that would be a supervote). Conversely, does the alternative status quo queried by the editor flatly contradict a wider consensus? If the answer to both of these questions is consistent, or if the answer to the converse question is affirmative, the last sentence in your closure is correct. In any case, I endorse Hobit's suggestion below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see much of a consensus there either. Apart from Paine Ellsworth and Gonnym, who obviously care a lot about this, everybody else either didn't understand what was being discussed or didn't care. Perhaps the best way forward is to start a new RfC with a clear description of the question and limit Paine Ellsworth and Gonnym to one comment each. Hut 8.5 17:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and suggest a new RfC where examples are given. Let one write the "pro" side, the other the "con" side and limit them each to some reasonable number of words displayed. Maybe limit their contributions after that too, but not sure in exactly what way. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looks like a bit of non-stick-dropping on the part of Gonnym here, as there's clearly no way the discussion could have been closed with a consensus to allow the hidden category on the redirect - only Gonnym had expressed a firm preference for that, while Paine was against and Jc37 was leaning against too. SMcC was on the fence. Anecdotally I would probably lean towards having them as hidden myself, because it seems fairly clear this is a maintenance category. Certainly as a reader I would not be able to make sense of the category "Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler", and indeed several editors have also failed to grasp it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe administrative eyes are required on Afghanistan related articles, for the forth coming days, until the dust settles. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, there is an absolute mess going on at Panjshir conflict and Panjshir resistance, where there have been some 8 or so moves in the past few hours, two move requests, one of which is actually an RfC, two separate deletion requests, two merge requests that cover the same topic, and a declined A10. Zoozaz1 talk 03:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe four of those 16 actions were taken by you. There does seem to be some indications of light WP:GAMING from you, such as WP:COPYWITHIN content from Panjshir conflict to Panjshir resistance [11] and then immediately slapping Panjshir conflict with an A10 nomination [12]. While it's no doubt a creative way to try to circumvent XfD, it is also a little disruptive. Chetsford (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those actions were mine, a move, merge request and the A10 (you might be referring to me adding tags to some discussions that I didn't start). Note that A10 is "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic;" my copying of relevant information did not change the topic of the article, only the content (which, I would say, my copying improved). Zoozaz1 talk 18:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you copy/pasted 60% of the text from one article into a second article, and then - less than 60 seconds later - nominated the first article for speedy deletion on the grounds that it duplicated content from the second article. In other words, you made substantial, specific, and intentional edits to an article to ensure it would meet the A10 criteria and then nominated it for A10. By my reading that's gaming the system in spirit, if not in letter. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In other words, you made substantial, specific, and intentional edits to an article to ensure it would meet the A10 criteria and then nominated it for A10"

Please don't ascribe motivations to other editors. I noticed the two articles had an extremely similar topic, and because of that both I nominated the article for A10 and added information (which remains on the article) that, because of the similar topics, would significantly improve the article. I assure you my motivation for adding the content (which, again, did not change the topic) was not to make it meet the A10 criteria. Zoozaz1 talk 18:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't ascribe motivations to other editors." I think, in this case, I'm describing motivations rather than ascribing them. There's a certain threshold of believability when it comes to protestations of naivete that the above edit sequence, taken in combination with other of your questionable edits, crosses. The corollary to AGF is WP:DGF. Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of gaming, it's inappropriate for revision-attribution reasons to request deletion of a page which has revision information copied within the wiki. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The area is under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan Discretionary Sanctions. That said, I haven't seen any editor acting so badly that an AE filing is needed. There are certainly issues with unreliable sources (both Russian and Indian) but regular editing seems to be dealing with that. There is also the massive dispute regarding the title of the article(s) regarding organized military resistance to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan after August 15, 2021; I'm not sure there is consensus for any close on that matter yet. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you might know I have been serving on a committee that has been writing how the Universal Code will be enforced There is now a draft of the enforcement guidelines. While a lot of work has been done, there is a lot of work to be done, and crucial questions remain open. I am hoping that we can get a wide range of English Wikipedians contributing feedback and offering answers to the open questions from the committee. Notably many of the details around what can/will be enforced on a local basis and what can/will be enforced by a global body remain undecided. This has historically been something many on English Wikipedia have strong opinions about, from many perspectives, and I hope that those many perspectives are represented in the feedback process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I haven't followed this in any detail, but I've spent a couple of hours this morning reading it and trying to catch up. To me, this all looks very worthy and well intentioned, and also hard to do in practice (possibly to the point of unworkability). I also think it means fundamental changes to the character of our community which I personally would not welcome. I see difficulties both with the text of the UCOC and with the practicalities of enforcing it.
  On the text of the UCOC, I understand the pressures that require us to adopt a Universal Code of Conduct, and agree that we need one. But to my eye, the text of this UCOC is a gift to griefers. I have absolutely no idea why we as a community have ratified it, what the holy heck were we thinking? Please could someone link to the discussion where we did?
  On the practicalities of enforcing it, I note with no small amount of horror the imposition of a new class of duly trained Code Enforcement Officers with their own set of elevated permissions and their own governance body. I'm afraid that on first reading, I immediately suspected that the reason why we can't use our elected sysops to enforce the code is because the WMF can't force those sysops to sign up to the UCOC retrospectively.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the request for feedback, and suggest you do too, I think I get to the same conclusion as you from the exact opposite direction. The spirit of the 'UCOC' seems to be covered in it's entirety by WP:Civility , which is already enforced on Wikipedia pretty well in my opinion, so whilst codifying the UCOC may have some merits, I don't think we have a problem that some new enforcement process would solve. JeffUK (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall the community did not ratify the UCoC. The Board of Trustees did. There is an argument to be made that this was voted on by community representatives, because a majority of the board are chosen by the community or affiliates, but that seems less than sufficient for something like the UCoC. I want there to be an actual ratification process for the enforcement of the UCoC and I want the community to be able to give feedback on that process before it's put into motion. We'll see.

As for the comments about the training and the like I hope you make those on the draft page (if you haven't already). I am short on time at the moment owing to off-wiki and on-wiki responsibilities but if you do I can promise to continue the conversation there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to give feedback on meta at this stage. I think would prefer for us as an en.wiki community to have a discussion, here, reason it through, and then give feedback after we've collectively refined our views through discussion. I'm appalled to learn that community ratification has been overlooked. I feel that's atrocious.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Serious? A Wikimedia project laying down a Universal Code of Conduct on Wikipedians? Of course anything like this should be discussed on Wikipedia itself, not off-site. I haven't read it, would distrust anything at this point in human history labeled "Universal Code of Conduct", and from the early comments here something seems off. But off site comments? I don't work on Wikimedia, and only comment off site when someone at Commons tries to pull a quality image. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Wikipedia administration,

I am writing this after receiving a complaint this morning. When processing complaints on defamatory content, we first contact the administration of the website in question.

A user named Nihil novi, named after a nationalist document revered by Polish nobility, uploaded defamatory content to your website: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jedwabne_pogrom&diff=1039308902&oldid=1039278482

This upload places a screed by Ewa Kurek in a famous Polish massacre of Jews. Ewa Kurek is a well known Holocaust denier who has recently advanced antisemitic conspiracy theories about COVID: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/polish-historian-ewa-kurek-coronavirus-is-jewfication-of-europe-629877

We are requesting that you remove this upload at once, and that you take action to prevent future uploads of antisemitic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALevy at MOTJ (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it's nice that someone from the Ministry of Textiles and Jute is taking at interest in Wikipedia, please first familiarize yourself with WP:BLP and WP:AGF (before making claims about our volunteers or biographical subjects). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see - [13] -GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference (and to ping the editors involved) User:Volunteer Marek has reverted the edits by User:Nihil novi entirely, but this should be discussed on the article talk page. Volunteer Marek has create a section to do so. JeffUK (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legal requests go to legal@wikimedia.org. Attempts to build consensus to change content start at the talk page, which would be Talk:Jedwabne pogrom. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other options, if that doesn't work out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OP indeffed. Icewhiz, if it's you, as I've said before, the damage you've done to your own camp cannot be understated. So, if this is you, this is kind of a dumb volley (form -wise, at least). OP, if somehow you're not Icewhiz (which, who can tell?), you've gone about this the wrong way. Legal remedies are pursued at the Foundation level, not by volunteers at the project itself. Thanks, VM, for reverting that "Historian Ewa Kurek" nonsense. Something of that nature makes me question Nihil novi's fitness to edit WP:ARBEE/WP:APL. I'll give them a refresher DS alert and feel free to report any further issues about them concerning this topic area (broadly construed) to me, personally. El_C 20:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, eh? They should get an Order of the White Eagle and a lifetime pension. But to be honest El_C, I believe there is more than one player involved. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, more than half of these throwaway sockpuppet accounts have been run by team Poland in order build up sympathy, get pages protected, and drive away uninvolved editors. Couldn't be more transparent. 118.43.239.183 (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waaaaaiiiitttttaaaaminute! How do we know YOU, 118.43.blah.blah.blah, aren’t “Team Poland”, trying to triple cross everyone here? Hmmmmmmmm?????? Volunteer Marek 13:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.. you just can’t stop, eh? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year, the Arbitration Committee dismissed a case involving Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after receiving a credible report that that editor had passed away. Members of the community expressed condolences and Flyer22 was added to the "Deceased Wikipedians" page [14].

The Arbitration Committee subsequently received off-wiki correspondence alleging that Flyer22 had not actually died and explaining the senders' basis for reaching that conclusion. The Committee takes this issue seriously and looked into it as thoroughly as we could within the bounds of appropriateness.

We must ask editors to bear in mind that while the Arbitration Committee can be privy to some evidence that cannot be shared on-wiki, such as checkuser findings, the scope of our responsibilities and authority is still limited. We are a committee of volunteers who are elected to help solve disputes arising on a website. Our authority and responsibilities do not include conducting forensic investigations off of the site. For example, in connection with the current allegations, someone sent us documentation purporting to reveal the identity of Flyer22, and suggested that we investigate, perhaps even reaching out to that person and members of their family to determine whether and when the identified person had passed away. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee or anyone else to do these things, and we have not and will not do so.

It is, however, possible to take action with regard to the SPI relating to accounts that have edited in recent months. The following have been blocked following traditional SPI investigations:

• ApproximateLand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bio Flex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daner's Creek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Film Bio Legacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gender Roamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kaseey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LearnerB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raining Parade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RandoBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RazTazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ReaperRoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ren Ten10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editing by these accounts is improper independent of the circumstances concerning Flyer22. Accordingly, these accounts have been blocked. The person or persons behind these accounts is required to cease editing. Any concerns about further accounts may be posted to an as-yet-to-be created SPI page that the committee should have posted shortly, or e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee.

This is a difficult situation for many Wikipedians. Some key facts still are not known, and behind every username there is a real person. We ask that everyone please treat it with sensitivity, proportionality, and decorum.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding changes to our unblocking policies. It can be found at this section here — Ched (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a proposal to fundamentally change WP:WHEEL. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Wheel deals with reinstating an admin action after being reverted. This is about reversing an initial action which does no rise to the level of wheel warring, not in fact and not in consequence. It is more closely related to the rule about discussing with the blocking admin before unblocking, or the recommendation to bring a block to WP:AN if there is no agreement, neither of which carry the "you will probably lose your mop" consequence if broken. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Yeah I am a little confused by what you are saying here as well. Could you please explain how it fundamentally changes wheel warring? PackMecEng (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it has the effect of turning the tables. Right now action's are not sacred and once reversed there is a strong prohibition from changing it again without consensus. With this change for the first 24 hours that prohibition would be reversed. But our policy already required discussion with the blocking admin and recommends(softer wording) going to WP:AN if disputed. The big difference is that unlike WHEEL there is no strong likelihood of quickly losing your bit. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it changes the second-mover advantage to a first-mover advantage, meaning that all an admin has to do is just go away and the account will remain blocked for a day. It's fairly basic stuff here that consensus takes at least that long to become clear, so all blocks, good or bad, would have a defacto minimum duration of 24 hours if the blocking admin wants it that way. I don't believe the intent is to enable abusive admins, but I do believe that would be the effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying I support or oppose - I just thought something of this magnitude should have a wider viewership than just VP. (see: Shooting the messenger - and I'm not saying anyone is shooting said messenger.) I understand both viewpoints, so I doubt I'll !vote either way. — Ched (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...pretty please look over Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Problem_editing_pattern_by_Kevin_McE:_part_2 and see if you think you can close it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies: This shouldn't be closed yet, as there are still unanswered questions.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody take a look at WP:VPT#How do I free up my sandbox?. The gist is that Anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and especially Eosinophilic myocarditis now have bizarre histories, weaving together the histories of several different pages which passed through User:Joflaher/sandbox. At this point, I'm not sure what's the best thing to do. I suspect just leave the histories as is and leave a note on the respective talk pages pointing to the VPT thread by way of explanation is the best way forward. I'm a little out of my depth on this, so seeking backup from somebody who's a real wizard at histmerges and the like. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there with my thoughts. Graham87 07:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such user has done a WP:POINTY page move closure of War in Afghanistan (2001–present) with a very misleading edit summary "snow close",[15] even though it is clear to everyone that at least 30% of the participants opposed the page move and provided good arguments against the page move.

A message was already posted on their talk page to which they have responded by rejecting the fact that they misrepresent "WP:SNOW".[16]

I expect a speedy reversion of this page move. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing WP:POINTY here, I closed hundreds of move requests, some late and some early like this one. It is sort-of urgent, with this article being among the most-viewed at the moment. In the same batch, I also WP:SNOW closed Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)#Requested move 16 August 2021 against the move, as well as the disruptive Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)#Request move 19 August 2021 (before a single vote was cast).
To quote WP:SNOW, The snowball clause states: If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. I understand the emotions and hopes are high, but IMO that discussion with over 100 !votes (did not count nor intend to) was deep into snow territory. Even if there were some doubts on 15 august when the RM was opened, there is now consensus among both sources and editors that the war is (practically) over. No such user (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...And, for posterity, this is the correct diff of my close, where I did not reference "snow" either in summary or in text. The spirit of WP:SNOW, however, still applies. No such user (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the war is (practically) over" - This is clear-as-day an improper close rationale due to WP:CRYSTAL, the giveaway being the use of the word "practically" which basically means it is not yet over. The discussion was in no sense in WP:SNOW territory even based purely on a head-count (which is not how this should be assessed), and the discussion was very much still ongoing with !votes still being cast. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling that you are justified with an inappropriate close just because you have closed a few page move requests before? To say that "war is (practically) over" is clearly ambiguous and does not establish a clear-cut case. That was precisely the argument made by many opposing comments. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm telling that to clarify that it was not a single discussion that I closed out of the blue, but one among many on this week. You continue to assume bad faith, and this is frankly becoming tiring. No such user (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of Order No such user is not an admin, and did not note their RM close as a non-admin close. That said, I endorse the close; I personally feel that when there are this many concurrent proposals time is of the essence in closing those where consensus is clear. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

力 - I think you're right that WP:MR is the right forum for this. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I didn't explicitly say that, but yes. The close was reasonable enough that immediate admin action is not necessary; if you feel the close is incorrect WP:MR is the place to overturn a close of a move discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But why do we have to wait for a week over MR outcome when this immediate problem needs to be fixed right here? There was no case of WP:SNOW that the controversial page move request was closed way too early. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that time Wiki declared that Catalonia was an independent country? We ended up just merging the article about an independent Catalonia back into the article on the declaration of independence and the worst we got for it was a few articles in the Spanish press mocking Wiki for it. It seems the world is already used to Wiki making odd statements about present-day events that it eventually withdraws from. If the war in Afghanistan clearly continues (as is entirely possible at this point) then this decision should be easily overturned. FOARP (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decision of the close, but I feel confident a MR would overturn because WP:RMNAC wasn't followed. "Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)." We might make exceptions for SNOW closes, but No such user has made it clear that was not the rationale. If the goal is to get this over with as soon as possible, I think a self-revert from NSU followed by 3 or so more days of discussion is the way to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an MR here. Of course, if No such user self-reverts that would solve the issue and it can be withdrawn. FOARP (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, I never declare NAC in my closes. Admin status is not required to close most discussions, including RMs, and my page mover userright suffices for most technical aspects. I've been around for 10 years and do not intend to seek admin status. The close should stand on its own for its merits, not because of the closer's badge. I fully stand by my decision to close the discussion (RM is chronically backlogged with discussions open for a month) and to close it early (precisely because it's a highly visible article), because no other outcome was plausible. No such user (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "highly visible" is a reason to close early. I don't think "there's a chronic backlog" is a reason to close early. I don't know if any other outcomes were plausible, but I do feel SNOW was written to think through exactly that scenario. I agree with you on admin status and RM closure. I would support removing the NAC declaration from RMNAC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The close was fine. Per WP:NOTBURO, there's no need to re-open a close over minor technical matters. There is no way the close was going any way different than it did, most of the objections have nothing to do with the fact that the closure would have gone any other way. There's no need to demand a self-refert, there's no need to undo it. If an admin would have close this in a less snarky tone, it would still have gone the same way. --Jayron32 16:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an admin comment for these moves in the future, PLEASE leave redirects for controversial moves, do not uncheck the box that says leave a redirect. This page move left dozens and dozens of broken redirects which were deleted. It's better to leave redirects after a move and let the bots change the target of existing redirects because those actions can easily be undone should a move decision be reversed. Once the redirects are deleted, it's a lot more work to reconstruct them should they be wanted later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, Liz – I always check and fix primary redirects, as I did this time as well [17], as well as links from templates. Double redirects are fixed by bots such as EmausBot within hours, and they did the job this time as well [18]. So I'm not sure which broken redirects you're talking about? No such user (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who voted against the move, I do agree with No such user's close, here. They're right when they say the move is sort-of urgent, and it's clear that consensus was in favour of the move. I think they could perhaps have better labeled it as a NAC, but I also don't think it's that big a deal. I certainly don't think he did anything that I would call WP:POINTy. I can also understand (and sympathise with) the disagreement with the WP:SNOW label -- but again, I think given the direction of the discussion, No such user made the right choice. I'm endorsing the closure. — Czello 07:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, I tried to start a discussion thread on a new proposal to deal with the wide variety of page split/move proposals. Over the course of 14 hours, this was re-factored into a WP:RM proposal, speedy-closed, and archived.

I feel this is inappropriate.

I feel the way to resolve this is to have more admins (or experienced non-admins) clerking the talk pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will stop clerking at those pages. (Have grown tired of doing so anyway because of the constant squabbling.) But, it would be helpful to have only one discussion open at one time since having multiple discussions simply paralyzes the pages. Maybe an admin should do something about that. Muhibm0307 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you identified the pages where these discussions are happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Of course! Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Taliban are the pages where the conflicting discussions are occurring. Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhibm0307: Could you please revert your no consensus close? It's not particularly helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, MJL! Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And altruists everywhere send thoughts and prayers to the people of Afghanistan. Keep up the great work, Twatter! El_C 16:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twatter to Taliban: Welcome! We so tolerant. *Hugs* But don't Trump it up! https://www.timesofisrael.com/banned-by-facebook-but-not-twitter-taliban-maneuver-in-a-social-media-dilemma/ El_C 02:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to attach the RFC link... Because expressly affirming being, and I quote: "racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semtic [etc.]" is allowed. Twatter, you've done it again! 👍 El_C 02:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My Wikipedia display's display font size has suddenly changed. Please how can I change it back? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl-0 in windows.©Geni (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Geni: That had no effect; (I have Firefox.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Geni: When I am not in Wikipedia, my screen looks like before. There seems to be a font size setting that applies only in Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll likely get a quicker and more robust response at WP:VPT.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done the classic hold down CTRL and scrolled with your mouse wheel by mistake? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a WP:ITSTHURSDAY situation. My mobile browser does not like a lot of the new software things they roll out, so maybe that's the case. Hog Farm _Talk 17:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--Jayron32 11:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know there's a whole noticeboard for these, but this discussion needs a little more prompt attention, the discussion at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Requested_move_12_August_2021 is getting a bit chippy, and it's been open the requisite seven days, so it can be closed promptly. It's certainly attracted enough commentary as well for an admin to close at this point, there's little to be gained from leaving it open longer, and we want to avoid this getting into the "more heat than light" territory, which these discussions have been known to do. I'd have closed it myself, but I voted in the discussion, and it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Thanks in advance. --Jayron32 17:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader has NAC-closed it and the page has been moved by GorillaWarfare. Isabelle ^🔔 02:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both for helping out. --Jayron32 11:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since discussion about WikiMedia writing and polishing their Universal Code of Conduct has reached our shores, I'd just like to point out that here, at most, this code might qualify as a unendorsed essay about the fourth of Wikipedia's WP:PILLARS, civility. These five pillars, and the policy and guideline system, have worked well as W.'s codes since 2001, and contain nothing about an overlapping code of conduct from off-site. As a self-governing website with established editor-endorsed sets of rules and regs, an official-sounding attempt to alter these should be seen as both a good faith overreach and, perhaps, an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikimedia owns the website, including En:Wiki, and has stated that the UCOC will be compulsory and that Sysops and the like (presumably including admins) will be required to sign up to it.It represents a lot more than an essay. Pretending or doesn't exist or that en:wiki can just ignore it is not a sensible option.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that this would qualify as a guideline about civility, maybe even policy itself. Reading what the current state of the UCOC is, it seems fairly reasonable. There are ongoing draft review discussions if there's something that anyone takes issue with. I don't see the point of people "signing up to it" as that seems very inefficent, I'd imagine it'd just be something that people in general are expected to adhere to. Clovermoss (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has a code of conduct, the five pillars. Those, along with its policies, guidelines, ongoing liquid consensus, and then the essays and such, have kept the place running for 20 years. Doesn't make a difference what an administrator signs as a private editor, they can individually use the essay as reasoning but can't correctly call it a Wikipedia code of conduct, policy, or even a guideline, so other considerations would probably have to enter into any Wikipedia decision based on it until a consensus is reached in an RfC as to what to call it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quote "The UCoC applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces. The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will respect and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct:...Users with enhanced rights such as, but not limited to: sysop, bureaucrat, steward, interface admin, checkuser".Nigel Ish (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're talking about the UCOC, then I would like to share a link to review the current proposed enforcement guidelines: Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I have to know what happens when an unstoppable Code Enforcement Officer meets an immovable Cow (Man) trapped in the turnbuckle! El_C 09:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Code Enforcement Officer? Yeah, that'll go over like a lead balloon. --Jayron32 14:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not be popular with many here, UCOC almost certainly will happen here sooner or later (although much of it only codifies things we already claim to do). En:Wiki will need to get its act together if we don't want to see a lot of interaction with enforcement officials from outside our community (as a minimum, we will need to make sure that we cover all of the requirements of UCOC, and we will have to make sure that we can work properly with the mysterious "centralized reporting and processing tool for UCoC violations" that is being developed by the Wikimedia Foundation.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've been informed that due to mocking the WMF, they have suspended all payments to me. And since they pay me in hugs and kisses, now I'm sad. El_C 15:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*hugs* ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: As a WMF insider, I've pulled some strings to get your pay restored. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entire problem with WP:FRAM, and one that The Foundation appears to have not learned by, as they are doubling down on the mistakes they made at WP:FRAM, is that foundation people, is that double secret probation is not a system that engenders trust and faith in the community they are supporting. The idea that arbitrary sanctions can be enforced by people from outside the community with no accountability to that community is the issue. There are ways the Foundation could help with problems of civility and harassment at Wikipedia, but having a nebulous "Code Enforcement Officer" empowered to act on random complaints sounds like a system rife with possibilities for abuse by the harassers themselves, with little chance of actually strengthening the community. --Jayron32 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preach it, brother! I'd like to see a Lulz Enforcement Officer figure out, say, the harassment/LTA indef block (with TPA disabled) that I've just handed to KonsTomasz a few minutes ago. But I guess there's money to spend, so maybe they'll figure it out super-fast and super-correctly! Anyway, what do I know? I only joined the project in 2004, became an admin in 2005, and been unrelentingly spamming ever since. //Cow Man out! El_C 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the members of this committee are meant to be community members (hopefully elected ones). Enforcement Officer is unclearly defined, but it sounds like it just means local sysops with training, but I could be completely wrong, since the definition and scope of these officers is very poorly defined, and the defined term ("Code Enforcement Officer") is not even used again in the document except to say this group has to "affirm" their respect for the UCOC. This part is lousy drafting IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, level-up XP for being a sysop with a WMF Lulz Enforcement Officer (LEO) rank! Sorry, but I am wiki-LEO, so stand down, I have a license to lulz. Community? What community? It's busy, it doesn't want any! El_C 17:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like neither the Wikimedia code enforcement officers ("Show me your edits!") or involuntary signing of promises to enforce (don't even know what that means, Wikipedians are free to sign or not sign anything they want) will make it very far here as a top-down dictate, too much free thought through my random and limited knowledge of the community. I haven't read the code as yet, have come late to the discussion, but am guessing it will be larger than the ideal of printing it on one side of a piece of paper. And hopefully it is formatted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline so it could be RfC'ed for consensus and adoption as a policy or guideline. If Wikipedia is to stay Wikipedia, with a community of editors who've developed the machine and kept it running for 20 years, this code of conduct, and such things as code enforcement officers, would probably have to enter it through a vigorous on-site discussion and consensus (if I'm correctly estimating the independent spirit of Wikipedians). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, though, I don't understand the utility of adding these LEOs, here, to the English Wikipedia project when WP:T&S already exists. What is this extra layer of bureaucracy even for? BTW, I've dealt with T&S (as well as WP:EMERGENCY) on many occasions and they were always professional and prompt. If it ain't broken (etc.)... El_C 17:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of extra layers of bureaucracy is, as always, to provide employment to bureaucrats, and to make the top-layer boss-bureaucrats seem more important. As for fixing things that aren't broken, when it isn't pure make-work it is generally a displacement activity taken on to avoid trying to fix things that are, since doing so could lead to awkward questions about who is in charge of the 'fixing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something must be done about incivility. This is something, therefore it must be done. - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how it'll work on projects like enwiki. I mean there are incidents that the community apparently doesn't deal well with (c.f. the ongoing RfC apparently inspired by Wikipedia:Unblockables), but we already have a method for resolving conduct issues by fiat (the Arbitration Committee). For those cases that even ArbCom don't want to touch, I guess a useful question to first answer is 'why not?'. It's not like they're restricted by policy; much of the UCOC was already either enwiki policy as-written or as-applied. If ArbCom can't fix those problems, why would another fiat body be able to?

I guess there is a slight difference in scope (ArbCom's is "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve", and U4C's is "Systematic failure[s] to follow the UCoC" / "cross-wiki UCoC violations"). The U4C's scope seems to include all of ArbCom's first scope. So, are all single-user conduct issues that the community can't fix now going to fall into the remit of the U4C Committee? If so, how will this committee interact with ArbComs on overlapping scopes? The enforcement draft seems to omit touching on that (rather important) detail. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The UCOC is not aimed specifically at English Wikipedia, on the contrary. There are 300 language Wikipedias and countless other Wiki projects, who are significantly under-resourced/have far more issues of conduct enforcement/baseline standards. I'll admit I don't fully understand what will be different for an existing and highly engaged community like enwp; but I am not too worried about it either. The issues of nationalist editing/holocaust revisionism are documented on Croation and Japanese Wikipedia for example.^[1] Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded also of the case Meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel who was a sysop and bureaucrat until an extreme example of homophobia lead to it being removed followed by that global ban then a WMF ban. In small projects I imagine it's easy for one or two admins to ride roughshod over the community. We often get reports of alleged administrative abuse in other projects. Most of these are probably nonsense, but I always fear some may not be. But there's also the question over what is 'abuse', which the alleged problems with the Japanese and Croatian wikipedias may touch on. But coming back to the Codex Sinaiticus/Til Eulenspiegel case, it was never clear to me that it was a case of one administrator riding roughshod over the community, or whether the community that existed even if whatever blocks hadn't happened, would have been supportive of the kind of actions Codex Sinaiticus took. I acknowledge it's impossible to know anyway. Even if you go through all the blocks and work out which ones were dodgy, for anyone who was blocked we can't know much they would have contributed and even without being blocked, editors may never join or just leave when they see the blocks and other behaviour is the norm. Also for those who weren't banned, it's hard to know how they truly feel. Anything before Codex Sinaiticus was banned may be affected by fear of what Codex Sinaiticus would do. Anything after and well having seen what happened to Codex Sinaiticus they may have feared the same thing or at least that it would be useless. But my ultimate point is that while I have no idea if it was the case in the Amharic wikipedia, since it's hard to deny that views on what sort of conduct is okay varies quite significantly throughout the world there is always going to be the chance that in on some wikimedia project, what they allow and enforce is going to be something we find wrong or even disgusting and vice versa. And although Codex Sinaiticus's problems extended beyond the Amharic wikipedia, I assume as IMO was shown in the global ban discussion, that most English Wikipedians are perfectly fine with enforcing certain universal values no matter whether they conflict with whatever local norms and values may exist. So it seems to me more a question of what those values should be and how far we should go in enforcing them and how that should interact with what the local Wiki is doing. The UCoC seems to be pushing for there to be greater enforcement of such universal values so situations less than the extremes of the Codex Sinaiticus are dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Speaking only for myself and no other member of the UCoC enforcement drafting committee, I think the feedback around the name Code Enforcement Officer has been valuable. It's not something I spent a lot of time talking about in committee work and so appreciate all criticism of that term. I will say that that a core idea is getting a little lost (i.e. looking at Andy's and El C's comments above) but the idea with these people was that most UCoC enforcement would not be some new bureaucratic layer. Enforcement, to the extent it's necessary, would instead be entrusted to projects and the people on projects already tasked by those projects. So for us that would be some combination of admin, CUOS, and arbitrators. In extreme circumstances it would be T&S. This is because most violations of the UCoC will not be the sort of thorny harassment/incivility issues that many are thinking about when they hear UCoC. Most violations of the UCoC will be vandalism or the more routine kinds of harassment that we have sophisticated policies and procedures to handle, but which many small projects do not.

What is undecided is where local enforcement needs to stop in favor of some global enforcement. There is some good discussion going on in this thread about that topic. And if people weigh in here on enwiki that's fine. That feedback will be sent along to the committee - in what form I don't know because I haven't seen it yet but I know it will be read and passed along. But what I fear is that feedback which is only left here on enwiki will get lumped together and be 1 data point even if say 50 editors participate and say the same thing. And then we'll also get 1 data point in a conversation where 4 editors participate in some other language and that will also be 1 data point. Then those two data points are considered in equal weight moving forward. Where as if the feedback is left on meta it is more likely to be seen by members of the committee and so even if the summary again makes it a single data point, the fact that 50 editors are saying it will be felt in a different way. Even here I expect that the feedback among our editor base to be diverse and not always agree. That's great too. BUt there will be a lot we do agree on and it's incredibly important that both those places we agree and those places we don't are heard and thought about by the drafting committee. And so my fear is that if we stay in our enwiki safe space, then we will have a situation where we get to ratification (and meaningful ratification is a hill I am ready to die on, especially because it didn't happen with the UCoC text itself) and it fails because the objections and the intensity those objections were held in didn't translate up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'd like to join El C in praising T&S and EMERGENCY. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, in fairness, DFO, this is how it usually goes. Me to T&S: I gots an urgent call-the-FBIs case! T&S: Sigh. Forwarding to EMERGENCY. Me to EMERGENCY: I gots an complex international stalking case, call the lawlyers, stat! EMERGENCY: Sigh. Forwarding to T&S. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 20:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What if you get Wing Attack Plan R? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then they send you a survival kit with which a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas. Deor (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says it all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, WMF, if you read this: Japanese_Wikipedia#Criticism seems to only be scratching the surface. Maybe some money$ should go toward not making the 2nd largest -language Wikipedia an embarrassment and a stain on the movement...? Just sayin'. El_C 20:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When filling out the edit description while archiving a post, I accidentally linked the wrong page ([19]). Is it possible for an admin to add a redirect for me? Apparently, the page I posted in error is blacklisted.

WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiIsKnowledge: that is not necessary, it is fine if your edit summary is broken there. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaosflux, okay. Thanks! WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiIsKnowledge: It's not possible for an admin to change either. It's your own talk page also, so likely nobody else would see it either. In other situations, however, you could make a dummy edit and put a followup edit summary, if you thought something was confusing enough to correct.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why I am not seeing a drop down list of uses of the {{AIV}} templated messages at the top of the page when I edit Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? It's always been there before. JBW (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the "AIV notation templates" collapsible? I still see it there, and I don't see any recent changes to {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism}}. What do you see when you go directly to that editnotice page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now found that the problem occurs only if I am editing on my phone, not on a computer, and only if I am in MonoBook, not if I switch to Vector. Presumably, therefore, it is all part of a very irritating change which happened a while ago, which again applies only in MonoBook on a phone. The normal interface has been replaced by a very different one, with silly little icons at the top of the page instead of the normal links, both those which belong at the top and those that belong at the left hand side of the screen. It is a nuisance, partly because some things are more awkward to do in the changed interface, and in a few cases as far as I can see impossible, and partly because even when things aren't any more awkward, they are just different, and I don't want to have to fiddle around finding how to do them, instead of just continuing in the way that I already know. Does anyone know if there's any way I can return to the proper MonoBook interface, and turn off these annoying changes that someone has decided to impose on me without giving me the option? I can avoid the problem by switching to Vector, but I don't see why I should: I was happier with MonoBook. (Perhaps I should say that I use the so-called "desktop" setting on my phone, not the stupid "Mobile" version.) If anyone can offer any help I shall be grateful. JBW (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's of any interest to anyone, I've now found the answer. I just had to untick the "Enable responsive mode" option in my preferences. The description given is "Adapt skin to available viewport area", which explains why the problem occurred only on my phone. The change did actually make some things a little easier on a small screen, but unfortunately it made some other things significantly more difficult, and some actually impossible (such as viewing the collapsible AIV template list). At the most 3/10 for the implementers of the feature, I'm afraid. JBW (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Monarchy of Pakistan was moved by an admin in 2016 to Dominion of Pakistan, without a consensus or any proper discussion. The reason they gave was that the monarchy article was "an unsourced duplicate" of the dominion article, and thus they moved the page.

I have now gathered sourced content regarding the same, enough for a stand-alone article. Please tell me what to do. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 15:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) The merge was not made using administrative powers, so it's just an editorial matter. If you go to this version of the page you can click the edit button as normal and overwrite the redirect with your new fully sourced article. If you've written the article in draft space or your user space and anybody else other than you has edited it as well, you'll need to move the draft to the old title (to preserve the edit history). An administrator can help you with that - see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ◦ Trey Maturin 15:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've written it all by myself. Do I need to move it then? Peter Ormond 💬 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the draft of this? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Peter Ormond/P. Peter Ormond 💬 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have no fear. I've completed the task, for you. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I owe it all to cut, copy & paste :) GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: You forgot to provide proper attribution when copying & pasting, but Peter Ormond took care of that in their edit summary here. Just sayin'. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it. He built the ship (draft page), I launched it (cut & past, replacing re-direct) & now it's a float, for anyone to (edit) sail :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please suppress recent edits by 2600:1700:de80:d40:79d2:467d:4e80:45a8 on Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done them all, please check. I also semi-protected the article for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The page is getting vandalised by IPs although the first result of the fight was overturned and I brought sources. I request 30 days of protection! Thank you .karellian-24 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.karellian-24, this isn't what this noticeboard is for. These requests should be submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Anyway, I protected for a day, with a recommendation for the IP to use the article talk page (currently a blank page). El_C 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Secret for people that know/knew him who want to pass on best wishes, prayers or support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to request revision delete at List of flags of Vietnam, as 27.68.139.221's edit summary contains nothing but pure personal attack. Thanks in advance. UnnamedUser 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the edit summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edits to User talk:Lệ Xuân by the IP, a block and further revdel are probably appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've solicited assistance from WT:WikiProject Vietnam. I don't trust Google Translate on this kind of stuff. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mxn: Can you help with an opinion on whether revision deletion is warranted? Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that @KosomPolskii: is a sock of recently blocked IP 59.92.227.87. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week due to clear behavioral evidence of block evasion. Warned that further evasion will result in an indefinite block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]