Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.


« Archives, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172


Ban draftifying articles more than 30 days old

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

Pretty much the title. The community has discussed this before, but draftification is not meant to be a backdoor to deletion. We've had discussions on this before where we've made it clear as a community old articles shouldn't be draftified without discussion.[1] However, the spirit of this consensus has been completely ignored in practice. Recently, I undid the draftification of Dancing satyr, an article created in 2004 that was "draftified" by a patroller and received practically no work on it. This is inappropriate. Here two created in 2005 including one that went through the original AfC process in 2005: [2] [3] Here's some more made in 2006: [4] [5] [6] I could link dozens of extremely old articles being draftified with practically no discussion whatsoever, simply by searching Special:NewPagesFeed, switching to the Draft namespace, and sorting by "oldest" unsubmitted.
For the reason that we have really old articles being draftified by many different reviewers, I think we need to make our expectations clearer about what "new articles" means in the context of draftification. I like to propose that anything over a month old should be ineligible for draftification without consensus at AfD. Reviewers do not appear to be interpreting the intent correctly and we need a firm rule on the matter. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 22:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Chinese Wikipedia CSD O7:
O7: Abandoned Draft.
Any drafts that is being idle for 6 months
  • The "Draft" means:
    1. All pages in the Draft namespace; or
    2. Userpages with the ((AFC submission)) template.
  • When determining the last edit time of the draft, maintenance and bot edits should be ignored.
  Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki Talk~~ 11:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that different from English Wikipedia's CSD G13? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 15:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to ban draftifying articles more than 90 days old without consensus

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

Since most of the people opposing have supported a longer period, I'd like to propose that anything over 90 days old should be ineligible for draftification without consensus at AfD. I'm putting this in a separate section so we can get more clarity on what the consensus is. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 04:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently learned of draftifying. It was honestly disturbing. My fear is that Draftifying is disruptive to large projects with small active staffs. Stubs could disapear from projects without notification; and even if the project notices, it must shift priorities to sustain the structure.
"Draftifying is not backdoor deletion" In the case of long-running stubs, I am concerned that it is de facto deletion without notification, the page silently disappears, its only evidence of passing is red links that can easily go unnoticed. I am now looking at some inexplicable red links as possible stub moves to draft followed by traceless deletion.
If a stub is clearly in a project, I think the reviewer should notify the project's discussion of any thought of draftifying or deletion.
I used to think that "Wikipedia is patient" was an actual Policy, but I can't find the section ....
IveGoneAway (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 03:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, stumbled on it at 4AM: WP:NORUSH == WP:PATIENT?
IveGoneAway (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what? Draftifying is permitted without consensus? I would think that might be a surprise to some editors not familiar with NPP.
IveGoneAway (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also occurred to me that "backdoor deletion" is not neutral, suggesting intent to evade effort or concensus. Well-intentioned editors can draftify, and well-intentioned editors can delete drafts. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Side question re: Draftification

When an article gets draftified, do we require that it have a “sponsor” (ie an editor who agrees to at least attempt to improve it). If not, should we? Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We currently don't. It is assumed that the creator will continue to work on it, but in practice this assumption is regularly incorrect, and indeed the older an article is the less likely the creator is still around to work on it. This is one reason why draftification is delayed deletion in many cases and the problem the main proposal is attempting to solve. As for whether we should require a "sponsor", I'm not sure. We would need to be explicit that a sponsor is not an owner nor could we compel them to be responsible for the actions of others (e.g. no sponsor should be penalised because someone else moved a draft they sponsored to mainspace before it was ready). It's an idea that merits more thought though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't require it, and in the vast majority of cases there isn't one. I fully support the idea that there should be a sponsor before draftification, because if there isn't one then it is pointless. Further, the sponsor should be named in the draft template and it should be obligatory to contact the sponsor (perhaps by bot message) before the page can be deleted just to make sure that they don't want to continue working on it. SpinningSpark 09:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the sponsor be the creator? The creator of every draft (including those moved from mainspace) receives a bot-delivered notice to their talkpage when there is one month before G13. Most editors who tag the draft with G13 using Twinkle also take advantage of auto noticing the creator's talkpage (though in practice there is rarely enough time between tagging and actual deletion for this second one to have any effect). So creators are being notified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that the creator is still an active editor. Sometimes we're draftifying articles for an editor who is blocked or who has stopped editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When people ask me to give them the content of a deleted page for further work, I usually put the article in their userspace a) so that it doesn't get auto-deleted [U1 doesn't apply to pages moved to userspace from elsewhere] and b) because if you ask for the content of a deleted page, I expect you to take some responsibility for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These pages in userspace will still be G13 deleted after six months of inactivity if there is an AfC tag on the page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking about an existing sub-par article that is being draftified from main space into userspace, there shouldn’t be an AFC tag. It’s not an “article for creation” it’s a “rejected article” (that might be reconsidered if worked on further). Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar If that's policy, it's not consistently applied. I see mainspace articles be moved to draftspace (instead of userspace) and given AfC tags all the time. Here's an example: [7]. That editor might be acting against policy or guidelines (I have no idea), but if so I would assume they don't know what the policy is rather than that they're deliberately contravening it - they're certainly not doing something abnormal. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends... I could certainly see a situation where a relatively new article might be sent back to draftspace for additional work... in which case, I think an AfC tag is appropriate. My point was about those that are sent to an editor's userspace... where the AfC tag is not really appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I make sure never to do that with mine and I advise everyone else to never do it, including new editors. Since side deletion through G13 without even a proper AfD discussion for notability is absolute BS nonsense. And so people should actively prevent it from being applicable whenever possible. SilverserenC 00:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "You break it, You own it" applies in this sense, anyone working to save the Draftified page has fair expectation that the mover should be engaged in helping them; but I don't know if that is commonly the case.
IveGoneAway (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternative solution: Change G13 eligibility

One of the main reasons why people object to unilateral draftification seems to be the (real) danger of bypassing deletion processes by draftifying pages that are then deleted under G13 with little checks. Instead of restricting draftification as proposed here, how about we change G13 to exempt such pages from eligibility unless another criterion also applies? So pages could still be draftified without consensus but they can no longer be deleted without consensus, thus removing the main problem of "backdoor deletion".

The text could read something like this:

G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an ((AFC submission)) template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion.

This does not apply to:

  1. Redirects
  2. Pages that were moved from mainspace without the creator's consent or consensus at a deletion discussion unless they would also meet another speedy deletion criterion if they were still in mainspace.
    In this case, please also add a tag for that speedy deletion criterion. Administrators are advised to include both criteria in their deletion reason.

Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

This way, any page that would have been eligible for speedy deletion in mainspace (A7, G11 etc.) can still be deleted under G13 since the move to draftspace was meant to give the creator the chance to improve the article instead of outright deletion. On the other hand, pages that would not have been eligible for speedy deletion back in mainspace will not be eligible for speedy deletion just because they were moved to draftspace or userspace, making backdoor deletions impossible. Any such drafts would either have to be moved back to mainspace or the editor who wishes to delete them has to present a case why the subject is not eligible for inclusion at all (since WP:IMPERFECT as a policy tells us that we should not delete stuff just because it's not written well (the policy literally says "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome")). Regards SoWhy 09:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the upcoming vote on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) enforcement guidelines

Folks, the UCoC is badly written and voting in favour of the enforcement guidelines in the upcoming vote (starting March 7) now reduces the chances of the UCoC ever getting fixed. So I advocate voting "No".

Also note that hundreds of Wikimedia staff (WMF and affiliates) are encouraged to participate in the vote (even if they have never edited any of the wiki projects), and that the threshold to approve the guidelines is just 50% rather than the customary two-thirds majority. To my mind, this means vote is stacked in favour of approval from the beginning.

To give some examples of the problems with the UCoC, take the definition of harassment.

Per the UCoC, this includes: "Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity outside the projects."

As written, this literally means that Wikimedians will not be allowed to share "information concerning [other contributors'] Wikimedia activity outside the projects". This may not be the intended meaning, but it is the literal meaning – like Fight Club: "The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club."

What about "place of employment"? There are pages on Wikipedia, in project space and article space, that discuss contributors' place of employment (including by implication, in some cases, the address of that workplace) without their consent. Examples:

Wikipedia editors and arbitrators have in the past commented on such cases to the media ... take this seminal article for example, which was directly responsible for the changes to the WMF Terms of Use outlawing undisclosed paid editing:

What Wikipedians like User:Doctree, User:Dennis Brown and others told that publication about Wiki-PR editors' activity falls foul of the letter of UCoC as presently written, does it not?

Then there are cases like the ones listed below. From the perspective of the UCoC, as written, all the protagonists in these cases ("David r from Meth Productions", "Qworty", "Wifione") were victims rather than perpetrators:

What about the UCoC's definition of "psychological manipulation"? "Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want."

What if someone genuinely and honestly subscribes to fringe beliefs, or is just not competent (think Scots Wikipedia)? They will encounter plenty of volunteers who will try to "cause them to doubt their own perceptions, sense, or understanding with the objective to win an argument" ... and "force" them to stop inserting said fringe beliefs into articles!

As written, the UCoC passage about psychological manipulation can be read to criminalise ordinary debate ... but debate is how the Wikipedia sausage is made.

This UCoC passage, if approved, will multiply accusations of "gate-keeping" lobbed against volunteers. There are enough such accusations already, often unjustified; there's no need to provide extra encouragement.

It can also be used arbitrarily against anyone who has ever advocated a point of view, or tried to change another editor's mind, because what is "malicious" is entirely subjective. Think of Russian Wikipedia in the present circumstances ... this passage, as written, could be used to wiki-criminalise anyone who "maliciously causes others to doubt their own perceptions, senses or understanding" (which they gained from watching Russian state TV).

That's before we get to other issues like having a right to be heard ...

So, to my mind there's no choice but to vote no. The UCoC is not fit for purpose. First you fix WHAT you want to enforce, then you vote to enforce it. We haven't done the first thing yet; voting for enforcement now is putting the cart before the horse. --Andreas JN466 14:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^THIS. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the UCOC enforcement guidelines, I will begin to zealously enforce the UCOC on Wiki when it is passed. The first step will be the MfD of Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and User:JzG/charlatans per their use of an insult based on mental illness (the word "lunatic") and implying that the people POV pushing are unable to comprehend reality. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 18:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the possibility should enter into discussions of Wikipedia firing WMF and replacing them with somebody who has a better understanding of what they should be doing. Keeping the servers running and handling the bare minimum administrative and legal items to keep Wikipedia running.....not trying to write rules for or govern us. Even the mere discussion of such might bring some perspective. The WMF structure is currently flawed and prone to going awry. They get to (re)write the "constitution" any way that they want, and have the board members pick the board members. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who owns the domain and runs the servers will have Terms of Service and a Code of Conduct. There is a reason that all websites have these: they're more or less a legal requirement. The only reasonable question is what it should say. The idea of someone keeping the servers running and not regulating how they're used is total fantasy, because the people who run the servers are required to regulate them (in accordance with the law). Levivich 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the legal requirements are about 1/20th of what WMF is seeking for themselves.North8000 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think on the basis of UCoC's definition of "psychological manipulation" I would vote against the enforcement guidelines. Just about any conversation could be construed or twisted to show there was intent causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want. The long and possibly largely private (protecting the victim) ensuing battle will probably hinge on if there was "clear" maliciousness. Would not almost every argument, debate, or discussion revolve around an objective to win an argument? If enforcement is written so broad to include all aspects of the realm under which the WMF ultimately governs, without regard to those that are largely self-governed, then there is an issue. If left unresolved it will only hurt some platforms such as this one. Of course, there are those that are experts at gaming and when proven should be dealt with. There will likely be real cases, possibly some emergencies, and some legal aspects that needs the WMF to step in, but they already have that authority and should use it only when needed. The WMF does not need to create wording so vague that just about anyone will be guilty from the start. Even the essay WP:GOAD has the actual title Don't take the bait -- Otr500 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should good articles be nominated for deletion?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

--Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My answer was to the implicit question "should deletion be prohibited for GA's?". In practice, deletion of a GA would rarely be a suitable action. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, and, in an ideal world, no article that should be deleted would get anywhere near being a GA. Unfortunately this is not an ideal world, so "rarely" is not the same as "never", Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022

Hello, the vote mentioned above is now live. Those ready to cast their ballots can jump to votewiki locally via Special:SecurePoll/vote/802. For more details, see below or Voting page on Meta-wiki. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocproject(_AT_)wikimedia.org

Sincerely,

Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation


Let me know if you have questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote (as of 18 March)

Hi all,

With a little under 4 days left in the poll, I can share that there are 1518 voters as of 17 March 21:00 UTC.

There were 564 voters with a home wiki registration of enwiki. By homewiki, enwiki represents 34% of the electorate.

Keeping in mind that homewiki isn't always indicative of where an editor is active, here are some of the other votership numbers:

Day 11
enwiki: 564 (37.3%)dewiki: 168 (11.1%)frwiki: 90 (6.0%)eswiki: 69 (4.6%)ruwiki: 71 (4.7%)plwiki: 65 (4.3%)metawiki: 50 (3.3%)zhwiki: 46 (3.0%)jawiki: 44 (2.9%)itwiki: 45 (3.0%)commons: 29 (1.9%)arwiki: 20 (1.3%)cswiki: 19 (1.3%)ptwiki: 18 (1.2%)nlwiki: 17 (1.1%)kowiki: 17 (1.1%)trwiki: 15 (1.0%)cawiki: 11 (0.7%)idwiki: 10 (0.7%)78 others: 144 (9.5%)Circle frame.svg
  •   enwiki: 564 (37.3%)
  •   dewiki: 168 (11.1%)
  •   frwiki: 90 (6.0%)
  •   eswiki: 69 (4.6%)
  •   ruwiki: 71 (4.7%)
  •   plwiki: 65 (4.3%)
  •   metawiki: 50 (3.3%)
  •   zhwiki: 46 (3.0%)
  •   jawiki: 44 (2.9%)
  •   itwiki: 45 (3.0%)
  •   commons: 29 (1.9%)
  •   arwiki: 20 (1.3%)
  •   cswiki: 19 (1.3%)
  •   ptwiki: 18 (1.2%)
  •   nlwiki: 17 (1.1%)
  •   kowiki: 17 (1.1%)
  •   trwiki: 15 (1.0%)
  •   cawiki: 11 (0.7%)
  •   idwiki: 10 (0.7%)
  •   78 others: 144 (9.5%)

The poll can be accessed locally here: Special:SecurePoll/vote/802.

Let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh… missed that. Ok, but I still find the low turnout disturbing. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Donald Albury 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar/xaosflux/Donald Albury: Please feel free to advertise the vote further! We've seen more than 100 new votes since last writing (40 coming from enwiki homewiki registrants): total 1623 for this data set, with another 6 projects represented. While it's not a perfect comparison, at the same time the MCDC Election vote, there were 855 votes - that election ended with 1018 voters. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Zuz was planning to notify every Wikiproject, after a small trial run. I am not certain what is happening with that, though. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: I realised that the Wikiprojects are only on English Wikipedia. But we want to encourage voting from all projects. Hence, I decided to post on other projects instead of only the English Wikiprojects.Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Day 12
enwiki: 604 (37.2%)dewiki: 173 (10.7%)frwiki: 92 (5.7%)eswiki: 72 (4.4%)ruwiki: 71 (4.4%)plwiki: 69 (4.3%)metawiki: 50 (3.1%)zhwiki: 48 (3.0%)jawiki: 49 (3.0%)itwiki: 47 (2.9%)commons: 34 (2.1%)arwiki: 21 (1.3%)cswiki: 21 (1.3%)ptwiki: 20 (1.2%)nlwiki: 18 (1.1%)kowiki: 17 (1.0%)trwiki: 16 (1.0%)cawiki: 11 (0.7%)idwiki: 23 (1.4%)84 more: 167 (10.3%)Circle frame.svg
  •   enwiki: 604 (37.2%)
  •   dewiki: 173 (10.7%)
  •   frwiki: 92 (5.7%)
  •   eswiki: 72 (4.4%)
  •   ruwiki: 71 (4.4%)
  •   plwiki: 69 (4.3%)
  •   metawiki: 50 (3.1%)
  •   zhwiki: 48 (3.0%)
  •   jawiki: 49 (3.0%)
  •   itwiki: 47 (2.9%)
  •   commons: 34 (2.1%)
  •   arwiki: 21 (1.3%)
  •   cswiki: 21 (1.3%)
  •   ptwiki: 20 (1.2%)
  •   nlwiki: 18 (1.1%)
  •   kowiki: 17 (1.0%)
  •   trwiki: 16 (1.0%)
  •   cawiki: 11 (0.7%)
  •   idwiki: 23 (1.4%)
  •   84 more: 167 (10.3%)

A few numbers were mismatched; fixed. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote (as of 19 March)

Just a reminder that the home wiki (or "Domain" in the voter list) value used for these charts is set at the time of registration and does not always reflect where a user is active.

To explore this further: looking at March 18 data when the voter count was 1586, there were 130 enwiki registrants with most edited at other projects: wikidata (31); commons (25); and the rest between at least 37 other projects. at the same time, enwiki represented the "most edited" wiki for 32 non-enwiki registrant voters (6 from commons+wikidata, and the rest from another 15 projects). (I realize that "most edited wiki" may still not represent where a user is most active, so stay tuned...)

The chart below is from 20:00 UTC on 19 March; there were 1803 votes (+180) with 660 registered at enwiki (+56) and there were 108 projects with voters. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Day 13
enwiki: 660 (36.6%)dewiki: 187 (10.4%)frwiki: 107 (5.9%)ruwiki: 86 (4.8%)eswiki: 74 (4.1%)plwiki: 73 (4.0%)zhwiki: 60 (3.3%)jawiki: 57 (3.2%)itwiki: 54 (3.0%)metawiki: 52 (2.9%)commons: 38 (2.1%)cswiki: 23 (1.3%)idwiki: 23 (1.3%)arwiki: 23 (1.3%)ptwiki: 22 (1.2%)nlwiki: 18 (1.0%)kowiki: 18 (1.0%)trwiki: 16 (0.9%)hewiki: 14 (0.8%)cawiki: 12 (0.7%)fawiki: 9 (0.5%)87 more: 177 (9.8%)Circle frame.svg
  •   enwiki: 660 (36.6%)
  •   dewiki: 187 (10.4%)
  •   frwiki: 107 (5.9%)
  •   ruwiki: 86 (4.8%)
  •   eswiki: 74 (4.1%)
  •   plwiki: 73 (4.0%)
  •   zhwiki: 60 (3.3%)
  •   jawiki: 57 (3.2%)
  •   itwiki: 54 (3.0%)
  •   metawiki: 52 (2.9%)
  •   commons: 38 (2.1%)
  •   cswiki: 23 (1.3%)
  •   idwiki: 23 (1.3%)
  •   arwiki: 23 (1.3%)
  •   ptwiki: 22 (1.2%)
  •   nlwiki: 18 (1.0%)
  •   kowiki: 18 (1.0%)
  •   trwiki: 16 (0.9%)
  •   hewiki: 14 (0.8%)
  •   cawiki: 12 (0.7%)
  •   fawiki: 9 (0.5%)
  •   87 more: 177 (9.8%)

Please share the information links with interested users: Project OverviewUniversal Code of ConductEnforcement guidelines (proposed) • VotingVoter information

The poll can be accessed locally via the jump page: Special:SecurePoll/vote/802 and closes 23:59:59 UTC on 21 March 2022. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno (WMF) Any idea how WMF staff fit into the pie chart? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 15:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahect: 42 of 2017 voters had "(WMF)" or "-WMF" in their username as of right now. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Staff accounts have been created on Meta-Wiki for the last ~10 years, so those will be recorded with Meta-Wiki as the home wiki. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote (as of 20 March)

There are just about 23 hours left in the voting period which ends at 23:59:59 UTC 21 March. As the time of this post, 2099 votes had been cast.

As of 16:00 on 20 March 2022 there were an additional 219 votes raising the votes cast to 2022 (!). English Wikipedia home wiki registrants have contributed 734 votes (+74 since last), representing 36.3% of the votership - close to its eligible voter representation of 34%. Another 8 wikis had registered voters for a total of 115 projects represented. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Day 14
enwiki: 734 (36.3%)dewiki: 210 (10.4%)frwiki: 121 (6.0%)ruwiki: 96 (4.7%)plwiki: 83 (4.1%)eswiki: 80 (4.0%)jawiki: 73 (3.6%)zhwiki: 73 (3.6%)itwiki: 59 (2.9%)metawiki: 54 (2.7%)commons: 42 (2.1%)idwiki: 26 (1.3%)ptwiki: 25 (1.2%)cswiki: 24 (1.2%)arwiki: 24 (1.2%)nlwiki: 21 (1.0%)kowiki: 20 (1.0%)trwiki: 18 (0.9%)cawiki: 15 (0.7%)hewiki: 14 (0.7%)fawiki: 11 (0.5%)94 more: 199 (9.8%)Circle frame.svg
  •   enwiki: 734 (36.3%)
  •   dewiki: 210 (10.4%)
  •   frwiki: 121 (6.0%)
  •   ruwiki: 96 (4.7%)
  •   plwiki: 83 (4.1%)
  •   eswiki: 80 (4.0%)
  •   jawiki: 73 (3.6%)
  •   zhwiki: 73 (3.6%)
  •   itwiki: 59 (2.9%)
  •   metawiki: 54 (2.7%)
  •   commons: 42 (2.1%)
  •   idwiki: 26 (1.3%)
  •   ptwiki: 25 (1.2%)
  •   cswiki: 24 (1.2%)
  •   arwiki: 24 (1.2%)
  •   nlwiki: 21 (1.0%)
  •   kowiki: 20 (1.0%)
  •   trwiki: 18 (0.9%)
  •   cawiki: 15 (0.7%)
  •   hewiki: 14 (0.7%)
  •   fawiki: 11 (0.5%)
  •   94 more: 199 (9.8%)

Please share the information links with interested users: Project OverviewUniversal Code of ConductEnforcement guidelines (proposed) • VotingVoter information

The poll can be accessed locally via the jump page: Special:SecurePoll/vote/802. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno (WMF): "the voting period which ends at 23:59:59 UTC 21 March" - well it's 01:04 UTC 21 Mar 2022 and I followed the link you gave and got the message "This election has finished, you can no longer vote" so either you were wrong about when the poll closes, or the poll has been closed early. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: Apparently the local link is broken. m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391 works, though. --Yair rand (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DuncanHill, there was a mismatch between the local jump poll and the votewiki poll. It is working again. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Yair rand: As Xeno says, it is working again. DuncanHill (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as well Yair rand. I'm attempting to handle "real life" at the moment, but this unfinished miasm of the UCOC, does need to be looked into, before we even begin to think about enforcement, in my not so humble opinion... (Please see my comments here for just the tip of the iceberg.) - jc37 08:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the !ping waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. I am however not eligible to vote in this poll. It is a sad irony that those of us who no longer feel comfortable contributing as a result of WMF actions, including in forcing through the UCoC, are disenfranchised from opposing it. Needless to say, it does nothing to encourage me to return to participating more actively... WJBscribe (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the same set of 2022 voters: the named projects in the chart above represent 84.1% of the electorate; this chart shows turnout from the 199 voters in the "94 more". Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Day 14 - 94 more projects
svwiki: 9 (7.7%)wikidatawiki: 8 (6.8%)huwiki: 8 (6.8%)ukwiki: 7 (6.0%)viwiki: 7 (6.0%)enwiktionary: 7 (6.0%)fiwiki: 6 (5.1%)thwiki: 6 (5.1%)bnwiki: 6 (5.1%)hrwiki: 6 (5.1%)frwikisource: 6 (5.1%)mediawiki: 5 (4.3%)srwiki: 5 (4.3%)nowiki: 4 (3.4%)elwiki: 4 (3.4%)incubator: 4 (3.4%)nlwikimedia: 4 (3.4%)etwiki: 3 (2.6%)skwiki: 3 (2.6%)plwikisource: 3 (2.6%)eswikinews: 3 (2.6%)12 projects: 2 (1.7%)61 projects: 1 (0.9%)Circle frame.svg
  •   svwiki: 9 (7.7%)
  •   wikidatawiki: 8 (6.8%)
  •   huwiki: 8 (6.8%)
  •   ukwiki: 7 (6.0%)
  •   viwiki: 7 (6.0%)
  •   enwiktionary: 7 (6.0%)
  •   fiwiki: 6 (5.1%)
  •   thwiki: 6 (5.1%)
  •   bnwiki: 6 (5.1%)
  •   hrwiki: 6 (5.1%)
  •   frwikisource: 6 (5.1%)
  •   mediawiki: 5 (4.3%)
  •   srwiki: 5 (4.3%)
  •   nowiki: 4 (3.4%)
  •   elwiki: 4 (3.4%)
  •   incubator: 4 (3.4%)
  •   nlwikimedia: 4 (3.4%)
  •   etwiki: 3 (2.6%)
  •   skwiki: 3 (2.6%)
  •   plwikisource: 3 (2.6%)
  •   eswikinews: 3 (2.6%)
  •   12 projects: 2 (1.7%)
  •   61 projects: 1 (0.9%)

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote as of 21 March 10:30 UTC - poll closes 21 March 2022 23:59 UTC

There is under 7 hours left in the poll, which will close at 23:59:59 UTC 21 March 2022.

Here are the votership numbers when 2174 votes (+152) were cast: 124 projects (+9) with votes; 799 from enwiki home wiki registrants (+65). Please take note of the data caveats in the section above. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Day 15
enwiki: 799 (36.8%)dewiki: 220 (10.1%)frwiki: 125 (5.7%)ruwiki: 103 (4.7%)plwiki: 97 (4.5%)eswiki: 82 (3.8%)zhwiki: 80 (3.7%)jawiki: 79 (3.6%)itwiki: 64 (2.9%)metawiki: 54 (2.5%)commons: 45 (2.1%)idwiki: 28 (1.3%)ptwiki: 26 (1.2%)arwiki: 26 (1.2%)cswiki: 24 (1.1%)nlwiki: 21 (1.0%)kowiki: 21 (1.0%)trwiki: 20 (0.9%)cawiki: 17 (0.8%)hewiki: 15 (0.7%)fawiki: 13 (0.6%)103 more: 215 (9.9%)Circle frame.svg
  •   enwiki: 799 (36.8%)
  •   dewiki: 220 (10.1%)
  •   frwiki: 125 (5.7%)
  •   ruwiki: 103 (4.7%)
  •   plwiki: 97 (4.5%)
  •   eswiki: 82 (3.8%)
  •   zhwiki: 80 (3.7%)
  •   jawiki: 79 (3.6%)
  •   itwiki: 64 (2.9%)
  •   metawiki: 54 (2.5%)
  •   commons: 45 (2.1%)
  •   idwiki: 28 (1.3%)
  •   ptwiki: 26 (1.2%)
  •   arwiki: 26 (1.2%)
  •   cswiki: 24 (1.1%)
  •   nlwiki: 21 (1.0%)
  •   kowiki: 21 (1.0%)
  •   trwiki: 20 (0.9%)
  •   cawiki: 17 (0.8%)
  •   hewiki: 15 (0.7%)
  •   fawiki: 13 (0.6%)
  •   103 more: 215 (9.9%)
A breakdown of the additional 103 projects (percentages not to scale) -
svwiki: 10 (8.2%)huwiki: 8 (6.6%)wikidatawiki: 8 (6.6%)enwiktionary: 8 (6.6%)viwiki: 7 (5.7%)ukwiki: 7 (5.7%)bnwiki: 6 (4.9%)hrwiki: 6 (4.9%)fiwiki: 6 (4.9%)frwikisource: 6 (4.9%)thwiki: 6 (4.9%)srwiki: 5 (4.1%)mediawiki: 5 (4.1%)elwiki: 4 (3.3%)nlwikimedia: 4 (3.3%)nowiki: 4 (3.3%)incubator: 4 (3.3%)etwiki: 3 (2.5%)plwikisource: 3 (2.5%)eswikinews: 3 (2.5%)skwiki: 3 (2.5%)orwiki: 3 (2.5%)15 projects: 2 (1.6%)65 projects: 1 (0.8%)Circle frame.svg
  •   svwiki: 10 (8.2%)
  •   huwiki: 8 (6.6%)
  •   wikidatawiki: 8 (6.6%)
  •   enwiktionary: 8 (6.6%)
  •   viwiki: 7 (5.7%)
  •   ukwiki: 7 (5.7%)
  •   bnwiki: 6 (4.9%)
  •   hrwiki: 6 (4.9%)
  •   fiwiki: 6 (4.9%)
  •   frwikisource: 6 (4.9%)
  •   thwiki: 6 (4.9%)
  •   srwiki: 5 (4.1%)
  •   mediawiki: 5 (4.1%)
  •   elwiki: 4 (3.3%)
  •   nlwikimedia: 4 (3.3%)
  •   nowiki: 4 (3.3%)
  •   incubator: 4 (3.3%)
  •   etwiki: 3 (2.5%)
  •   plwikisource: 3 (2.5%)
  •   eswikinews: 3 (2.5%)
  •   skwiki: 3 (2.5%)
  •   orwiki: 3 (2.5%)
  •   15 projects: 2 (1.6%)
  •   65 projects: 1 (0.8%)

Please share the information links with interested users: Project OverviewUniversal Code of ConductEnforcement guidelines (proposed) • VotingVoter information

The poll is accepting votes via m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/391 until 23:59:59 UTC 21 March 2022. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote now closed - distribution breakdown

Voting closed with 2352 votes across 128 home wiki projects. The final results from the voting process will be announced here on Meta-wiki, along with the relevant statistics and a summary of comments as soon as they are available.

67 additional local votes were cast bringing the total number of enwiki registrants voting to 866 (36.82% of all voters). By comparison, enwiki registrants represent 33.95% of the electorate.

As mentioned above, the 'home wiki' value used in these charts does not necessarily represent where a user was active during the eligibility period.

These figures should also be considered preliminary.

enwiki: 866 (36.8%)dewiki: 233 (9.9%)frwiki: 134 (5.7%)ruwiki: 119 (5.1%)plwiki: 109 (4.6%)eswiki: 87 (3.7%)jawiki: 81 (3.4%)zhwiki: 81 (3.4%)itwiki: 69 (2.9%)metawiki: 57 (2.4%)commons: 51 (2.2%)idwiki: 31 (1.3%)ptwiki: 27 (1.1%)arwiki: 26 (1.1%)cswiki: 26 (1.1%)nlwiki: 24 (1.0%)kowiki: 21 (0.9%)trwiki: 21 (0.9%)cawiki: 20 (0.9%)hewiki: 17 (0.7%)fawiki: 13 (0.6%)107 addl: 238 (10.1%)Circle frame.svg
  •   enwiki: 866 (36.8%)
  •   dewiki: 233 (9.9%)
  •   frwiki: 134 (5.7%)
  •   ruwiki: 119 (5.1%)
  •   plwiki: 109 (4.6%)
  •   eswiki: 87 (3.7%)
  •   jawiki: 81 (3.4%)
  •   zhwiki: 81 (3.4%)
  •   itwiki: 69 (2.9%)
  •   metawiki: 57 (2.4%)
  •   commons: 51 (2.2%)
  •   idwiki: 31 (1.3%)
  •   ptwiki: 27 (1.1%)
  •   arwiki: 26 (1.1%)
  •   cswiki: 26 (1.1%)
  •   nlwiki: 24 (1.0%)
  •   kowiki: 21 (0.9%)
  •   trwiki: 21 (0.9%)
  •   cawiki: 20 (0.9%)
  •   hewiki: 17 (0.7%)
  •   fawiki: 13 (0.6%)
  •   107 addl: 238 (10.1%)

Here is a breakdown of the 139 votes from 24 further projects with between 10 and 3 voters:

enwikt: 10 (7.2%)svwiki: 10 (7.2%)huwiki: 9 (6.5%)wikidata: 9 (6.5%)ukwiki: 9 (6.5%)bnwiki: 8 (5.8%)viwiki: 7 (5.0%)hrwiki: 7 (5.0%)mediawiki: 7 (5.0%)fiwiki: 6 (4.3%)frwikisource: 6 (4.3%)thwiki: 6 (4.3%)skwiki: 6 (4.3%)srwiki: 5 (3.6%)elwiki: 4 (2.9%)nlwikimedia: 4 (2.9%)nowiki: 4 (2.9%)incubator: 4 (2.9%)etwiki: 3 (2.2%)plwikisource: 3 (2.2%)eswikinews: 3 (2.2%)rowiki: 3 (2.2%)bawiki: 3 (2.2%)pawiki: 3 (2.2%)Circle frame.svg
  •   enwikt: 10 (7.2%)
  •   svwiki: 10 (7.2%)
  •   huwiki: 9 (6.5%)
  •   wikidata: 9 (6.5%)
  •   ukwiki: 9 (6.5%)
  •   bnwiki: 8 (5.8%)
  •   viwiki: 7 (5.0%)
  •   hrwiki: 7 (5.0%)
  •   mediawiki: 7 (5.0%)
  •   fiwiki: 6 (4.3%)
  •   frwikisource: 6 (4.3%)
  •   thwiki: 6 (4.3%)
  •   skwiki: 6 (4.3%)
  •   srwiki: 5 (3.6%)
  •   elwiki: 4 (2.9%)
  •   nlwikimedia: 4 (2.9%)
  •   nowiki: 4 (2.9%)
  •   incubator: 4 (2.9%)
  •   etwiki: 3 (2.2%)
  •   plwikisource: 3 (2.2%)
  •   eswikinews: 3 (2.2%)
  •   rowiki: 3 (2.2%)
  •   bawiki: 3 (2.2%)
  •   pawiki: 3 (2.2%)

The remaining 99 votes are from projects with between 1 and 2 voters. Some single voters could be grouped into a larger language code. 38 other wikis had a single voter not grouped with this chart.


en: 12 (19.7%)de: 7 (11.5%)pl: 4 (6.6%)zh+: 4 (6.6%)ha: 3 (4.9%)ru: 3 (4.9%)eowiki: 2 (3.3%)glwiki: 2 (3.3%)igwiki: 2 (3.3%)kawiki: 2 (3.3%)mkwiki: 2 (3.3%)newiki: 2 (3.3%)orwiki: 2 (3.3%)sqwiki: 2 (3.3%)urwiki: 2 (3.3%)es: 2 (3.3%)fr: 2 (3.3%)it: 2 (3.3%)oc: 2 (3.3%)sv: 2 (3.3%)Circle frame.svg
  •   en: 12 (19.7%)
  •   de: 7 (11.5%)
  •   pl: 4 (6.6%)
  •   zh+: 4 (6.6%)
  •   ha: 3 (4.9%)
  •   ru: 3 (4.9%)
  •   eowiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   glwiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   igwiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   kawiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   mkwiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   newiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   orwiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   sqwiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   urwiki: 2 (3.3%)
  •   es: 2 (3.3%)
  •   fr: 2 (3.3%)
  •   it: 2 (3.3%)
  •   oc: 2 (3.3%)
  •   sv: 2 (3.3%)

See more statistics here.

Thank you for your input in this process. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a view of WMF employees participation, independent of which wiki is their home? I see 46 usernames with (WMF) in it, in various projects. The participation levels seem really low in general, but relatively high for the WMF. 46 is more than the number of participants from Portuguese and Indonesian Wikipedias. There are 232 Million people who speak Portuguese and 42 Million people who speak Indonesian, but only 550 WMF employees. I would support discounting those votes, if they were required to affirm and support the UCoC as employees. Vexations (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations: What statistics are you interested to see? 48 voters had (WMF) or -WMF in their username which represented about 2% of the 2352 votes cast. (P.S. There is a parallel discussion at WP:VPM where I linked statistics which show where voting users were active, i.e. at least 20 edits during the eligibility period - ptwiki had 60, Indonesian languages also had more representation than shown by the home wiki distribution.) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example, I'd like to see for each wiki how many people were eligible to vote, how many people actually voted and what percentage of eligible votes that represents. Something like Turnout by wiki in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voting/Stats
Assuming that 48 of 550 eligible WMF employees voted, that is approximately 8.7%, a much higher percentage than the large wikis.
A ratio of % of electorate/% of total voters would be interesting as to see as well. For enwiki, that ratio is almost 1.1, but it's 2.5 for the WMF employees. Vexations (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect higher participation from a group of people for whom Wikipedia is their livelihood, vs people who just happen to speak the language. How many of those 232 million Portuguese speakers spend a significant amount of time editing Wikipedia every day? Frankly, 8% participation from WMF employees sounds really low -- in my company when employees are asked to participate in a voluntary survey we usually get closer to 40% participation. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 14:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we allow votes from people who can only vote one way? Vexations (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that they could only vote one way? Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked a bit more closely at the WMF staff who voted and noted that 11 of them hadn't made any contributions in 2022, and some made as few as 3 edit in their entire edit history. The weight that we assign to those votes is extraordinary. I think that deserves more scrutiny. Vexations (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that edit counts are a very unreliable way to measure engagement, some of those staff may have made contributions with non-staff accounts, or contributed in other ways (e.g. maintaining the software, processing donations, etc, etc) Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Engagement" was not an eligibility criterion. I won't single out individual voters, but I did check for alternative accounts. To address your point about "contributing in other ways": they're employees, so yes, they contribute in some way. As do all kinds of other people who were not allowed to vote because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. But those criteria do not apply to the WMF. Vexations (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rough time frame for when the results will be published? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cross-post below; tl;dr: scrutineers are still reviewing, and hopefully about 2 weeks from close of voting. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote - closing message

cross-posted from WP:VPM#Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification - extended voting statistics

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Greetings,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) came to a close on 21 March 2022. Over 2300 Wikimedians voted across different regions of our movement. Thank you to everyone who participated in this process! The scrutinizing group is now reviewing the vote for accuracy, so please allow up to two weeks from the close of voting for them to finish their work.

The final results from the voting process will be announced here, along with the relevant statistics and a summary of comments as soon as they are available. Please check out the voter information page to learn about the next steps. You can comment on the project talk page on Meta-wiki in any language. You may also contact the UCoC project team by email: ucocproject(_AT_)wikimedia.org

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance


Some additional statistics are available and discussed at WP:VPM#Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification - extended voting statistics. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL

Seeing as the sports discussion is now closed, I think it's time we examine another notability policy: WP:NPOL, which applies to judges and politicians. NPOL reads in full, minus the explanatory footnotes:

The following are presumed to be notable:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

I have two main quibbles with this that I think should be reconsidered. Firstly, in my experience officials at the state/province level, concerning both leaders of executive departments and legislators, do not tend to necessarily get the requisite SIGCOV in RS necessary to write even a basic article by virtue of simply holding such offices. I've written articles concerning officials/politics at the state/province level in both the United States and the (1960s) Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is really hard to find SIGCOV of some these people. Most provincial assemblymen in the Congo during the 1960s, and most of the provincial ministers as well are not covered in RS, or at best are named in sources and maybe tied to a public comment or two but nothing beyond. Even some of the Royal Museum for Central Africa's monographs on provincial history don't say much about the ministers beyond when they held certain jobs. If you disagree, I welcome you to try and write some of those yourself. As for the American state legislators, standard government bios and newspaper coverage in the recent years has been helpful, but I'd wager to estimate that for the pre-1900 era, many/most of these legislators are only known by their name and the constituency they were elected to, nothing more. Those that are known and have decent Wikipedia articles seem to more likely than not have held more important offices later in life or had distinguished military and business careers. In short, I think automatic presumption of notability for simply holding some sort of subnational provincial/state office is a bad idea. I do not think this status serves as a genuine predictor for good SIGCOV being locatable.

Secondly, the Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage seems like a bowdlerized way of suggesting that GNG is the standard...why not simplify it to that? Of course, I personally think GNG should just be the only standard for almost everything, but that's my personal preference. Anyways, I think these points are worthy of community consideration. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with Phil Bridger. Simplicity is key. There will always be edge cases but having stubs about members of the Arunachal Pradesh state legislature in 1975 is preferable to having long debates about whether we should have such stubs. NPOL is pretty straightforward as it stands. Mccapra (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I do believe in clarity for editors, I am working on a draft of guidance of political candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enos, in response to your comment: As a community, we decided that individuals serving in government with law-making powers have both real-world importance and are likely to have biographical information in reliable sources. Two things, first of all, WP:Notability says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity [my emphasis on importance]. Secondly, I am directly challenging the notion that by virtue of holding legislative power that these lower officials are likely to have biographical information in reliable sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read "importance" in this sentence as meaning "high rank or status," similar to "fame" or "popularity," rather than being consequential or significant. But again, the purpose of an SNG is to help clarify that real-world notability, to help new editors think about who is eligible for an article, and minimize debate at AFD. I do think that nearly all people who hold federal or state/province-wide elected positions do have biographical information found in reliable sources and the current version of NPOL is quite clear (except for political candidates). Enos733 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not the case. I've held off on writing some articles on provincial governors in the Congo for lack of better info. Many members of their national parliament from the 1960s don't even have basic biographical info (and I once consulted book which was solely devoted to discussing that parliament from that time period). What about Preston Brooks Callison, member of the South Carolina House of Reps and father of Tolliver Cleveland Callison Sr.? What about all of those listed here and here, for example? I sincerely doubt one could find enough info in RS to write basic articles on the hundreds of past assembly members stretching back to the late 1700s. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that it is always easy to create a biography on each elected official, especially in a pre-internet era. But, it is often doable. For Preston Brooks Callison, we can verify that he did serve two terms in the South Carolina House of Representatives, representing Greenwood County. (see https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/113638548/preston-brooks-callison). With these bits of information we can narrow our search to find information and search the archives. We should be able to find articles about Callison's campaign, the bills he sponsored, the committees he served on, and probably some information about his life before or after the legislature. Enos733 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the points raised about NSPORT in the recent RFCs (and the many before it) apply equally to NPOL and all the other SNGs. Mainly: you need to meet GNG to be able to write a policy-compliant article; SNGs should be accurate predictors of GNG; many (most?) current SNGs are not accurate predictors of GNG (including NPOL), and should thus be revised to be accurate predictors of GNG. Levivich 17:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are going to be some articles that might have one super-duper in-depth source, and a bunch of sources that don't on their on quite meet sigcov, and that there still could be a policy-compliant article. Named natural features come to mind. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, are animal and in vitro studies acceptable sources to support toxicology statements?

WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDINVITRO generally discourage the use of animal and in vitro studies to support statements regarding human health effects. This is because these studies do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. However, in toxicology assessment, in vitro methods are preferred as screens over lab animal testing, and certainly over the typical process of human clinical research. Obviously, potentially poisoning humans to determine toxicity of a substance is frowned upon, so it may be hard to find studies that meet our high standards of medical evidence.

Generally speaking, should statements of toxicity status be subject to the same WP:MEDRS standards as all other medical statements, or should an exception be made to allow for in vitro and animal studies?

Secondly, should statements that a substance is toxic be subject to lower standards of evidence than statements that a substance is not toxic?

If the answer is "yes" to any of these questions, I propose we draft a revision to MEDRS to codify this exception. MarshallKe (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallKe, this is kind of a technical subject, and you might have better luck with this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably belongs at WT:MED (or even better, WT:TOX). Pretty much everything is "toxic" at some dose, even water. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on appropriate venue, any substance approved for use in humans is first subject to in vitro and animal toxicology studies. It stands to reason that these are therefore suitable for mention on Wikipedia, so long as they're presented in context. MastCell Talk 18:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a reasonable line to draw. Rather than wikivoicing "this substance is toxic in humans", mention if something didn't pass Phase 1 trials or otherwise has a recommendation against human use/consumption from a major public health body. In both of those latter cases, we'd still be using the WP:MEDRS standards: it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the recommended pages. MarshallKe (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official names and primary sources

I think I am detecting a shift of practice towards favouring official names regardless of common names.

The most recent instance is Talk:Amanat (political party)#Requested move 1 March 2022. It seems that neither nom, three experienced editors, nor the closer saw any problem with moving the article on the rationale Official party name change. There was no other discussion.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The redirect remains.

And I think this trend is also reflected in the use of primary sources (which of course tend to use the official name) as evidence supporting an article name change. Previously these were ignored, but not so much recently.

Other views? Andrewa (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at recent news results, I see a strong indication that it is now the WP:COMMONNAME. There should have been a discussion on that basis, but I believe the lack of objections is due to that, rather than any emerging preference for the official name. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAMECHANGES is the relevant policy. I also assume COMMONNAME was met, as it was not raised as an objection.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but neither of these was raised. And NAMECHANGES just says we prefer recent sources, not that we disregard them.
The question of the common name was not even raised. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not raised could very well mean "not an issue", not that it doesn't matter or should be removed from the policy.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also #On name changes and article names. above. Same issue, different perspective. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WP:COMMONNAME was not an issue. Regardless, the more common name, evidenced by reliable sources, would be hard to overturn as it has been hashed over many times all over Wikipedia. The result has been to use the more common name, but there are exceptions. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usernames and article content

When both the username and real name of a Wikipedia editor are widely reported by reliable sources, to what extent should Wikipedia blanketly prohibit articles in the mainspace from stating that such a person edits under that account name (except when that person has voluntarily posted their own real name, or links to information containing their real name, on Wikipedia)? — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (updated: 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion: Wikipedia usernames and article content

Notability of lists

Ever since the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) clusterfuck, I've been trying to figure out exactly when notability guidelines apply to list articles. According to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, it seems the answer is "always"? To be clear, I am referring to the need to prove notability of the general concept of the list, as its own topic, in reliable sources in order to create/keep a list article, and that mere notability of the items in the list does not justify the creation of a listicle. Am I correct in my analysis? Is there *any* situation where we can publish lists without establishing notability of the general theme of the list? MarshallKe (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guideline is WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of a list is based upon whether there exists significant coverage of the topic, as a whole. Per WP:NLIST, the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. There’s also WP:IAR; some lists may be split between multiple pages based on an arbitrary index (such as year) for the purpose of not having an absolutely giant page that negatively impacts usability, even when the specific year cutoffs aren’t something discussed directly in sources. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good callout on Ignore All Rules, I think, because I've seen some lists that probably don't meet notability requirements but still they are good articles that improve the encyclopedia, and I'm not going to waste time nominating them for deletion. This situation is a good application for inclusionism (I am both an inclusionist and a deletionist depending on circumstance). Though, I would never attempt to use Ignore All Rules unironically in an edit debate, because if it comes to that, you don't really have a leg to stand on and it's essentially just polling at that point. MarshallKe (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, there's definitely an IAR aspect here, but I generally see lists either notable as the list as a whole is notable (such as the list of periodic table elements, us presidents, etc), that the list extends from a topic that is clearly notable as to give documented examples of that topic, list as list of those that broke the 4-minute mile or list of biz office bombs. Or in the final case, the list is a "natural" grouping of how atopic is usually discussed and dissected in RSes even if the list itself is not specifically called out, such as our many lists of characters in fictional series, or lists of countries sorted by population or GNP or inflation, etc. Anything else starts getting into synthesis of topic which is OR and likely a notability problem, which the OP list feels on the edge of being. Particularly since it requires each entry to be clearly sourced to demonstrate inclusion. --Masem (t) 13:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source vs non-primary source

Primary source after event happened (official artist website or social media - after so it's confirmation event actually happened) or non-primary source before event happened (The Guardian or other reliable source - before so there is no confirmation it actually happened)? Or we assume if there is no next article about event cancelation it actually happened? Eurohunter (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not something policy can determine, absent of specifics, though as a matter of principle Wikipedia shouldn't generally be assuming things happen just because someone said they were going to. So unless you are proposing a specific change of policy, I'd suggest you take any queries regarding actual disputed content to WP:RSN, providing the necessary details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump: I will ask at RfC or is there any better place to ask? Eurohunter (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you meant "independent vs non-independent" here. Most of the newspaper is filled with independent primary sources. See also Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Yes but here is also question "independent (before event occured) vs non-independent (after event occured)". For me in this case we still have no independent (after event occured) source. Right? Eurohunter (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Pre-event announcements are technically reliable for a statement that the event was "planned" or "announced", and not that it "happened". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where independent reliable sources exist to say that the event was planned to happen, it is sometimes reasonable to presume that it did happen when there are non-independent sources saying it did and sources that are equally or more reliable contradicting that. Especially if the sort of reliable sources that would be expected to cover the event have not been published yet, e.g. a festival on the first Saturday of the month may have lots of reliable coverage leading up to the event, non-independent coverage from the organisers during and immediately after the event but the only independent reliable sources covering it are weekly or monthly publications that come out on a/the last Friday. In the interim saying "it happened" based on the non-independent sources is, in most cases, going to be fine as long as carefully worded (e.g. "the organisers described it as a great success") and reliable sources are added when available.
As Jayron says below though, it really depends on the specific circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversion of banned edits

I just reverted an edit that removed legitimate content. Why was that legitimate content removed? Because it was added by a sockpuppet. You can find it in my most recent contributions. Had I not reverted that edit, users may never know the UAE's stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is not the first time this has happened. I can understand if a sockpuppet made a vandal edit, but an edit should not be reverted just on the basis that the user was banned. The same goes for WP:G5, which indicates that any page that is created by a blocked/banned user in violation of a block or ban should be deleted, which leads to the potential deletion of legitimate content. User quarrels should not be carried over into the main namespace. Any legitimate edit or page should not be reverted or deleted on the basis of who made the page. I am not encouraging ban evasion. I am simply saying that more specifically, users should focus on the content of the edit or page rather than the user who made it. Removing legitimate content is detrimental to Wikipedia's mission to provide the sum of all human knowledge, regardless of whose knowledge it is. The policy should be changed so to remove things saying that banned users should have their edits reverted or pages deleted. Only if the edit would be reverted or the page would be deleted anyway due to other criteria. So we get rid of WP:G5 and WP:BANREVERT. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that sock edits can and probably ought to be reverted to prevent their gaining by their actions. If the revert is on a hot topic, then someone like yourself will notice and can restore it if thought desirable (as well as taking responsibility for it at the same time). Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the edit. If the edit is clearly helpful then it should remain. In a nutshell, it boils down to focusing on the content of the edit or page rather than the user who created it. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different banned editors behave in different ways. Some of them lie, and make a large number of edits. Editors who revert edits by banned editors should feel free to regard the edits as lies, and revert them, unless it is stunningly obvious that the edits are helpful, correct, that any sources cited actually exist, are reliable, and support the added information. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"prevent their gaining by their actions"
And this sort of shallow and pointless vindictiveness by all the people who think like you is just as harmful to Wikipedia as any number of vandals we have on the site. At least the latter are almost always reverted by bots. SilverserenC 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem there of course, is that (outside the realm of typo fixing or copyediting) editors may have a different view on what defines a "good" edit. In the end, if you see an edit that has been removed and you believe that it is genuinely positive, there is no problem with you taking responsibility for it yourself and restoring it. Though I would suggest not doing this with anything remotely contentious, and it's always good to leave an edit summary explaining what you are doing. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-fixing typos and obvious errors (like things that get flagged as errors in the error cats) is a waste of time. The banned-edit reverter should look at the nature of the edit to determine if it is genuinely negative or otherwise contentious. MB 20:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have further language along the lines that, while considerations of expediency might make individual attention to every edit at times difficult, editors have a general responsibility for ensuring that their own reverts are not often of good edits. In any case, this is a situation where IAR may be applicable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup… annoying… but that’s all it is - an annoyance. Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no one catches it, then it is more than an annoyance. Typos and grammatical errors and the like make the encyclopedia look bad to readers. We should not be self-sabotaging our professionalism. BD2412 T 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about protecting the community of readers from bad content? Twenty-plus years into the project, any proper statistical sample of articles may indicate the sorry state of affairs (and I am not referring to proofing errors and related edits). Shouldn't administration be subservient to good content, not the other way around? What has a greater impact on Wikipedia's reputation? The untold number of below-par articles, or the actions of relatively few bad actors? I think these questions should be considered. 68.173.76.118 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but allowing a "small number of bad actors" to edit won't magically fix our millions of terrible articles. If the ban decision was correct, allowing their edits to stand is not likely to be an overall improvement. —Kusma (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that sort of reversion is just a blatant piece of blanking vandalism. If I didn't AGF, I would think that the sockpuppet investigation edit summary claim was just a cover for an edit attempting to make that sort of major change. SilverserenC 23:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, we are more or less instructed that - but you've changed the text of IAR. It's "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If "readers first" were a suicide pact, we'd neve